David Cameron making a speech about NHS reforms at University College Hospital in June 7, 2011 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why the Tories have stopped talking about the NHS

Election strategist Lynton Crosby has warned them that it helps Labour, which has a double-digit lead on the issue.

In his first speech to the Conservative conference as leader, David Cameron declared that while it took Tony Blair three words to sum up his priorities ("Education, education, education"), he could do it in three letters: "N-H-S". But there was no mention of the health service in the Queen's Speech. Indeed, the Tories have had little to say on the subject at all recently. 

I'm told that there is a precise reason for this: Lynton Crosby has ordered them not to. Recent polling by the Conservative election strategist has shown that the Tories continue to trail Labour by a double-digit margin on the issue, despite a concerted effort to pin the blame for the Mid-Staffs scandal on the opposition and shadow health secretary Andy Burnham. The Tories' fateful decision to break their promise to end the "top-down reorganisation" of the NHS means that they have lost the ground they gained in opposition, when they polled level with Labour. Such is the damage that the mere mention of the health service is now regarded as aiding Ed Miliband. 

In his speech at last year's Conservative conference, Cameron said: "Some people said the NHS wasn't safe in our hands. Well - we knew otherwise. Who protected spending on the NHS? Not Labour - us. Who started the Cancer Drugs Fund? Not Labour - us. And by the way - who presided over Mid Staffs? Patients left for so long without water, they were drinking out of dirty vases...people's grandparents lying filthy and unwashed for days. Who allowed that to happen? Yes, it was Labour...and don't you dare lecture anyone on the NHS again." 

But don't expect to see a similar passage in this year's pre-election address. One of Crosby's most consistent pieces of advice to the Tories is "not to play on Labour's side of the pitch". This means talking about issues on which the party is strong, such as the economy, immigration and welfare, and avoiding those on which it is weak, such as the NHS, child poverty and the environment. Cameron's decision to obey Crosby's edict marks the final abandonment of Conservative modernisation, under which the party sought to capture ground traditionally colonised by Labour. 

Miliband now has even more reason than before to ensure the NHS is one of the defining election issues. Recent polling by Lord Ashcroft has shown that the health service ranks level with immigration as the second most important policy area for voters after the economy. A radical offer on the NHS and social care, most likely to be unveiled at this year's Labour conference, will be crucial to the party's chances of victory. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Cambridge Analytica and the digital war in Africa

Across the continent, UK expertise is being deployed online to sway elections and target dissidents.

Cambridge Analytica, the British political consultancy caught up in a huge scandal over its use of Facebook data, has boasted that they ran the successful campaigns of President Uhuru Kenyatta in the 2013 and 2017 Kenyan elections. In a secretly filmed video, Mark Turnbull, a managing director for Cambridge Analytica and sister company SCL Elections, told a Channel 4 News’ undercover investigative reporting team that his firm secretly stage-managed Kenyatta’s hotly contested campaigns.

“We have rebranded the entire party twice, written the manifesto, done research, analysis, messaging. I think we wrote all the speeches and we staged the whole thing – so just about every element of this candidate,” Turnbull said of his firm’s work for Kenyatta’s party.

Cambridge Analytica boasts of manipulating voters’ deepest fears and worries. Last year’s Kenyan election was dogged by vicious online propaganda targeting opposition leader Raila Odinga, with images and films playing on people’s concerns about everything from terrorism to spiralling disease. No-one knows who produced the material. Cambridge Analytica denies involvement with these toxic videos – a claim that is hard to square with the company’s boast that they “staged the whole thing.” 

In any event, Kenyatta came to power in 2013 and won a second and final term last August, defeating Odinga by 1.4 million votes.

The work of this British company is only the tip of the iceberg. Another company, the public relations firm, Bell Pottinger, has apologised for stirring up racial hostility in South Africa on behalf of former President Jacob Zuma’s alleged financiers – the Gupta family. Bell Pottinger has since gone out of business.

Some electoral manipulation has been home grown. During the 2016 South African municipal elections the African National Congress established its own media manipulations operation.

Called the “war room” it was the ANC’s own “black ops” centre. The operation ranged from producing fake posters, apparently on behalf of opposition parties, to establishing 200 fake social media “influencers”. The team launched a news site, The New South African, which claimed to be a “platform for new voices offering a different perspective of South Africa”. The propaganda branded opposition parties as vehicles for the rich and not caring for the poor.

While the ANC denied any involvement, the matter became public when the public relations consultant hired by the party went to court for the non-payment of her bill. Among the court papers was an agreement between the claimant and the ANC general manager, Ignatius Jacobs. According to the email, the war room “will require input from the GM [ANC general manager Jacobs] and Cde Nkadimeng [an ANC linked businessman] on a daily basis. The ANC must appoint a political champion who has access to approval, as this is one of the key objectives of the war room.”

Such home-grown digital dirty wars appear to be the exception, rather than the rule, in the rest of Africa. Most activities are run by foreign firms.

Ethiopia, which is now in a political ferment, has turned to an Israeli software company to attack opponents of the government. A Canadian research group, Citizens Lab, reported that Ethiopian dissidents in the US, UK, and other countries were targeted with emails containing sophisticated commercial spyware posing as Adobe Flash updates and PDF plugins.

Citizens Lab says it identified the spyware as a product known as “PC Surveillance System (PSS)”. This is a described as a “commercial spyware product offered by Cyberbit —  an Israel-based cyber security company— and marketed to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.”

This is not the first time Ethiopia has been accused of turning to foreign companies for its cyber-operations. According to Human Rights Watch, this is at least the third spyware vendor that Ethiopia has used to target dissidents, journalists and activists since 2013.

Much of the early surveillance work was reportedly carried out by the Chinese telecom giant, ZTE. More recently it has turned for more advanced surveillance technology from British, German and Italian companies. “Ethiopia appears to have acquired and used United Kingdom and Germany-based Gamma International’s FinFisher and Italy-based Hacking Team’s Remote Control System,” wrote Human Rights Watch in 2014.

Britain’s international development ministry – DFID – boasts that it not only supports good governance but provides funding to back it up. In 2017 the good governance programme had £20 million at its disposal, with an aim is to “help countries as they carry out political and economic reforms.” Perhaps the government should direct some of this funding to investigate just what British companies are up to in Africa, and the wider developing world.

Martin Plaut is a fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London. He is the author of Understanding Eritrea and, with Paul Holden, the author of Who Rules South Africa?