Yes, that is Nigel Farage on top of an armoured car. Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

Are Ukip the victims of a media vendetta?

Ukip's supporters feel that they are done over by an hostile press. The reality is more complicated.

For the supporters of Ukip, there is such thing as bad publicity: the national media is out-to-get their party. That’s what Nigel Farage insists, the members of Ukip argue, and even what most of the population believe, according to the most recent YouGov survey. 

It may well be that this bias does exist, given the scale of media coverage surrounding Ukip and how Ofcom – the broadcast regulator – is now investigating Channel 4 after over 1000 complaints flooded in for their mockumentary Ukip: The First 100 Days.

But for professor of political science William Jennings, it's not clear that this media prejudice exists. “A lot of the attention to the party is arguably because Ukip is a new political force, so the media is trying to understand them, and explore what they mean for British politics.”

There is, he says, a perception among Ukip supporters that the media is against them, and more generally that the political class and media will do anything to stop the Ukip charge. “But this is an inherent feature of populist parties, that the rules are stacked against them.”

One grass roots supporter, Thomas Evans, does not believe it is just a perception: “There is a complete lack of even-handedness expressed to all parties. There are numerous examples of councillors from other parties who have made outrageous statements, only for that story not to have been reported the national media, as it would have been if Ukip.”

His, and many of his colleagues, main concern is that mainstream media are trying to portray Ukip as a party inundated with questionable individuals, “when in reality other representatives of other parties are making in many cases more serious comments and actions and these issues are going completely unreported in the mainstream media or reflected on in the same way as they would have been had it been Ukip.”

He isn’t completely wrong. In 2014, Labour councillor Gurpal Virdi was taken to court for indecently assaulting a young boy, which was only picked up by the local media and The Mirror. Later in 2014, a Liberal Democrat councillor for Skye, by the name of Drew Millar, resigned after being accused of sharing material from the far-right group Britain First on Facebook. The BBC and local northern press were the only media to report on this.

In January this year, Norwich City Labour councillor Deborah Gihawi quit her party after a race row. This was only reported up the Norfolk press. In Hampshire, a Conservative councillor and deputy mayor Michael Thierry compared flood prevention action to a ‘n***** in a woodpile’ at a council meeting. He is still serving, and the Daily Mail was the only national press to cover this.

This stands in contrast to the coverage of racist comments made by ex-Ukip councillor Roxanne Duncan, only two weeks later. Nonetheless, comments like these or those made by a Ukip councillor about how gay marriage legislation led to flooding, are different, says Professor Stephen Fielding, Director of the Centre for British Politics: “While comments made by all parties should be evenly scrutinised, I don’t think there is a media bias; I think if Labour or Conservative candidates councillors or whoever were saying some of the things that some of these Ukip candidates have been saying, they would be called out too.”
It, therefore, is not that the media is trying to undermine Ukip, but that the party is vulnerable because it is open in its views. Members have political opinions we are not used to being expressed in the mainstream, so when they are expressed they are picked up, says Professor Fielding.

The media is clearly fascinated with Ukip, and maybe gives them undue attention. “Arguably this has not done the party any harm. However, they are also very ill-disciplined and do not have the kind of resources that the major parties do to check who their candidates and supporters are, and what they are posting on social media,” says Dr. Nick Anstead, who specialises in political communication at the London School of Economics.

Of course, Ukip politicians have not been politically schooled. Professor Fielding believes this is one reason why they are focussed on. “They haven’t been educated as part of a party culture. I’m sure there’s a lot of people in the Labour, Conservative, Liberal party that have got slightly bizarre or eccentric views but they know not to express them in those public domains.”

This lack of education in their candidates and how they are selected could be the cause of a heavy press spotlight. “It may be the case that Ukip has endured more controversies about candidates because as a party organisation it has grown rapidly due to its success in a short space of time,” says Professor Jennings, “and as such doesn't have the same procedures in place for vetting candidates that much more established parties do.”

In any case, Ukip seem reasonably impervious to scandals and negative stories, says Dr. Anstead. This is probably because they can spin these types of events as fitting into a wider pattern to the “political establishment - major parties and media - trying to rubbish them and attack them.” 

Maybe Ukip should not be complaining about this either way. As Professor Jennings says, “Ukip benefited from this curiosity early on, so it's a bit inconsistent to now call it bias.” At this time last year there were plenty of people saying Ukip was getting more than its fair share of positive representation, with people in the Labour party and on the left complaining about the amount of time Nigel Farage and Ukip were getting for stories about them.

So “it cuts both ways,” says Professor Fielding, “Ukip was an outsider, a new party tapping in to support that hadn’t been articulated in the same way, and doing quite well - uniquely well in elections. It was getting disproportionate coverage for that reason. So you have to take the rough with the smooth.” 

Getty
Show Hide image

This is Theresa May's last chance to rescue the child abuse inquiry

A seventh lawyer has quit the investigation. 

When is a crisis not a crisis? After the departure of seven senior lawyers, three chairs, several survivors’ groups, £15m of public money, two years and little progress to show for it, Theresa May and her Home secretary are increasingly lone voices in their insistence that all is well on the child abuse inquiry that May, as Home secretary, rightly established in the wake of distressing revelations about Jimmy Savile.

It was always a daunting and complex task to shine a spotlight into institutions characterised by secrecy and cover up, where abusers were able to operate in plain sight without challenge or consequence. The inquiry spans decades, covers hundreds of institutions and relies on the accounts of many survivors who have struggled on for years without support. Now they must face the prospect of detailing abuse at the hands of the powerful, to the powerful. How to find a chair with the legal expertise and commitment to command the confidence of survivors, the public and the inquiry staff, a person with vast experience but without personal connections to the accused?

And yet it has been done. In Australia, a Royal Commission has begun to uncover the truth since it was set up in 2013. By contrast, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has been dogged by problems since the outset, losing its first two chairs within months because of connections to the accused, before being re-established on a statutory footing. The appointment of its third chair, Dame Lowell Goddard, was so rushed and confused that the Home Affairs Committee took the unusual step of releasing a report criticising May for potentially bringing “the whole process into disrepute”.

More worryingly, MPs said she was “not displaying the openness and transparency we would expect from the Home Secretary”. From the start it was unclear how appointments were made and how much key officials were paid. Over a year later when staff came forward to accuse Lowell Goddard of racism, bullying and non-attendance - claims she strongly denies – it became apparent that neither she, nor anyone else, will appear before Parliament to answer questions about it.

It has left a yawning gap in accountability, filled not by her, nor apparently by the fourth chair, Alexis Jay, who has asked the Home Affairs Committee to “consider carefully” before calling her to give evidence on the inquiry’s important work. Who will be held accountable for the ongoing dysfunction that left key members of the panel struggling to work with the chair, for significant sums of public money spent on salary, expenses and payoffs and for the apparent failure to investigate alleged disclosures of sexual harassment?

Not the Home secretary, nor the Prime Minister, apparently, who set up and have presided over this chaos but repeatedly refuse to discuss the inquiry, stressing its independence. The Home secretary must not interfere with the Inquiry’s investigation, but she is the only person with the power to hire and fire the chair and her department is responsible for its budget and staffing and supplies a fifth of its staff. The Permanent secretary meets with the Inquiry secretary regularly but says he only “formally” read about these serious, longstanding problems from a report in the newspapers. Meanwhile the Home secretary and Prime Minister appeared to suggest they had no knowledge of the problems that had emerged, only later to confirm that they did. For child abuse survivors this is too familiar a story. Independence cannot become a smokescreen or as we have seen, history repeats itself.

In the past week there have been calls by survivors’ groups for Professor Jay to resign. A seventh senior lawyer has quit amid reported concerns about leadership. The Home secretary has the legal right and a moral duty to investigate. Without delay she must establish whether the Chair and panel have the expertise, skills, willingness to challenge power and working relationships for the inquiry to succeed. But most of all she should learn from the mistakes of the last two years. The problems with this inquiry did not begin with the appointment of Jay and even if she leaves, they will not end. We need a detailed plan for how the inquiry will focus its resources and begin to make progress. This includes a commitment to transparency, including honesty about mistakes made in the past and a clear, published whistle-blower policy that guarantees concerns will be heard and acted upon. This may be uncomfortable for the Prime Minister but it is simply asking her to put survivors’ and the public interests before her own, and that is in itself a test of leadership.

Meanwhile as she stalls, those who have willed the inquiry to fail gather conviction. And as the clock ticks, many survivors wonder if they will live to see the truth emerge. This feels like Theresa May’s last chance to rescue the inquiry she set up. Will she?

Lisa Nandy is the MP for Wigan. She was formerly Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.