Douglas Carswell with Nigel Farage at the press conference announcing his defection to Ukip. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Ukip 44 points ahead of the Tories in Clacton by-election poll

Douglas Carswell set for landslide victory after his defection to Ukip from the Tories. 

Even before the date of the Clacton by-election has been announced, the contest is all but over. A Survation poll for the Mail on Sunday gives Ukip a remarkable 44-point lead in Douglas Carswell's seat following his defection to the party from the Tories on Friday. Ukip, which did not field a candidate in 2010, is on 64 per cent, with the Conservatives on 20 per cent (down 33 points since the general election), Labour on 13 per cent (down 12) and the Lib Dems on 2 per cent (down 11), putting them on course to lose their deposit for the tenth time in this parliament. 

Clacton was previously estimated by Revolt on the Right authors Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford to be the most Ukip-friendly seat in the country (economically deprived, elderly, white, anti-immigrant) and tonight's poll vindicates that judgement. While Carswell's strong personal following has helped, 57 per cent of Ukip supporters say they are voting that way because they "like Ukip", compared to 34 per cent who say they "like Carswell" and 9 per cent who say they are casting a protest vote. Expect these figures to be cited by those who argue that the former Tory MP has cynically jumped ship in order to avoid defeat next year. Immigration is by far the main concern for Ukip voters (57 per cent), followed by the EU (13 per cent) and the cost of living (6 per cent). 

Based on the poll, there appears to be nothing the Conservatives can say or do to hold the seat. Even were they to install Boris Johnson as the candidate, as some commentators have suggested, Ukip's lead would fall by just 11 points to 33 per cent (60-27). Perhaps most worryingly of all for the Tories, Ukip supporters are almost entirely unmoved by the warning that voting for the party risks making Ed Miliband prime minister. Just 15 per cent say they would be less likely to vote Ukip, while 16 per cent say they would be more likely and 69 per cent say it would make no difference. 

The question for the Conservatives is whether they still run a full-blown by-election campaign, risking a humiliating defeat, or instead go easy on Carswell. Those in the party who were already arguing that they should give the defector a free run will cite the poll as further justification for doing so. 

It is now a near-certainty that Ukip will win its first elected MP, with all the dangers that entails for the Tories. Victory for Carswell will ensure Ukip even greater publicity and make it far harder for its opponents to dismiss it as a party of protest. If Ukip wins one MP, why can't it win more? For the Tory leadership, the fear is that others may be persuaded to cross the floor ahead of May 2015, not least if they believe this would give them a better chance of holding their seats. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.