The controversial campaign literature. Photo: Twitter/@guardian
Show Hide image

"It's sad they've sunk to such depths": Tories use Ukip candidate's Turkish name on a leaflet

The Conservatives in Thurrock have been accused of "cheap" tactics by putting Ukip candidate Tim Aker's little-used full Turkish name on a campaign leaflet.

The constituency of Thurrock is going to be a tough battle in the build up to May. It has become a three-way marginal, with Ukip polling top and Labour scrabbling to beat it to unseating the Conservative MP, Jackie Doyle-Price, who has a majority of just 92 votes.

Perhaps in this messy political tangle, dirty campaigning is only to be expected. And indeed, the Conservatives in Thurrock have been accused of "incredibly cheap" tactics, by sending round a leaflet calling the Ukip candidate in the seat, Tim Aker, by his little-used full Turkish name, "Timür Aker". This is thought to be an incendiary move, considering the sensitive immigration concerns pervading the constituency.

"We feel it pretty sad that they've sunk to such depths," a Ukip source close to Aker tells me.

The Guardian has tweeted a picture of the leaflet, which also includes pictures of the radical clerics Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza:

Tim Aker, who is also an MEP for the southeast and Ukip's Policy Unit chief, is quoted in the Guardian giving his reaction to the leaflet:

I think they are just getting desperate. They will find anything. It is incredibly cheap of them. But freedom of speech is what it is and the public will judge them on it.

I am not calling on them to stop using the leaflet. They can carry on doing what they do. I am not going to try and stifle their rights to freedom of speech. But they have got to bear the responsibility for it.

Aker, whose father is Turkish, began to shorten his name to "Tim" when he was at school. His name is very rarely written in full, which is why it is thought to be a pointed move by the Tories on their campaign literature. However, Doyle-Price told the Telegraph that she does not consider this a "big deal". Although she admitted it was "childish", she said:

Frankly, I don't consider this a big deal at all . . .

If I'm honest with you I think by referring to his Turkish heritage we've actually given him credibility because frankly having roots from overseas is nothing to be ashamed of. Actually they are something to be proud of.

What we've done is actually broadcast the fact that Tim is just as much a citizen with diverse roots as anybody else in this country. It's probably going to do him a favour.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.