The Tories' new poster: myth and reality

Attack ad falsely claims that Labour is planning to introduce a "death tax".

You might have thought that the disastrous reception the Tories' last poster received would have encouraged the party to take a little more care this time round, but evidently that's not the case.

The Tories' new attack ad takes aim at a proposed £20,000 "death tax" (a phrase annexed from the US right) to pay for the new national care service.

1_fullsize

But there's one hitch: the tax isn't actually a Labour policy. Ministers may or may not adopt the proposal but it's fradulent to claim they already have. As the Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, quite reasonably pointed out:

I'm not currently considering that as a lead option for reform.That figure was used in the green paper last year but I do not believe that a flat levy of that kind would be the right way to go. I can say to you very categorically today that that is not what I am considering.

In the meantime, the Tories should be asked: "How would you fund the expansion of social care?" And here, via Labour Matters, is the inevitable first parody of the poster, reminding you (if you needed to be) of the Tories' regressive plan to slash inheritance tax for the richest 3,000 estates.

94b3e471-d7fb-4a47-97dd-0c440e766184.Full

Labour also released a new attack ad last night, questioning David Cameron's claim that the Tories are "the party of the NHS".

6a00d83451b31c69e20120a87c2208970b

Labour is right to challenge Cameron over his phoneyness rather than his class. Voters are rarely troubled by a politician's background or education (after all, they elected an Old Etonian as Mayor of London), but they despise insincerity.

When focus groups are asked to describe the Tory leader they always mention the car that followed him with his shoes and briefcase as he cycled to work. This early revelation led to the suspicion, never quite abandoned, that Cameron is the sort of politician who will say one thing but do another.

After the 2005 campaign I didn't have high hopes for Labour's posters (remember Michael Howard as Fagin?) but so far I'm pleasantly surprised.

Update: The right don't like the new Tory poster, either. Daniel Finkelstein says it was a "bad idea" and over at Coffee House, Peter Hoskin describes the poster as "disingenuous".

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.