Show Hide image

“A case study in racist signalling”: What the Havering leaflet reveals about the Tories

Conservative dog-whistle tactics in elections are nothing new. But has the party learned its lesson?

As the local election campaigns kicked off last week, a Conservative campaign leaflet was distributed in Havering, an east London borough bordering Essex.

It warned residents that this end of suburbia risked becoming like an “inner-city area”, and a Labour win would result in, “Havering resembling boroughs like Hackney, Newham, Camden and Barking, rather than traditional parts of Essex” – and “our cherished union jack flag being taken down”.

The rather glaring message between the lines? Race. Or at least according to both Labour and Tory politicians, who accused the local Conservative party last Friday of racially charged “dog-whistle” politics.

“You don’t have to be a genius to realise this leaflet is one long dog whistle about race and the diversity that the vast majority of Londoners are so proud of,” the Labour MP for Tottenham David Lammy told the Guardian. And other London Labour MPs including Wes Streeting and Chuka Umunna also condemned the leaflet.

Havering’s Tory MP Andrew Rosindell insisted the leaflet isn’t about race, as it doesn’t mention it – and is actually about high-density housing, but his Conservative colleagues disagreed, and it has been withdrawn today.

The leaflet was produced by the Romford Conservatives local association.

“I don’t like that advert one bit,” tweeted a Conservative Essex councillor Stephen Canning. “Just because you’re on one side, doesn’t mean you can’t call out things it does wrong.”

The Tory peer and pollster Andrew Cooper accused the leaflet of “racist signalling”, commenting: “That is a truly hateful Tory leaflet – a case study in racist signalling. I couldn’t vote for anyone who put their name to that & CCHQ should condemn it.”

Also addressing CCHQ, the Tory MP for Grantham and Stamford and former minister Nick Boles called the leaflet “disgraceful” on Twitter. “The individuals responsible should apologise, and withdraw it, or face disciplinary action,” he wrote. “We cannot attack Corbyn for indulging anti-semitism in Labour and allow messages like this to go unchallenged. [Tory party chairman] @BrandonLewis over to you.”

A Tory spokesperson comments:

“Romford Conservatives intended to highlight local concerns about  housing pressures, high-density urbanisation and badly-run Labour councils in inner London. They have apologised for any offence caused and the leaflet has been withdrawn.”

The leaflets had already been delivered, which is how they made their way onto social media and into the national public eye.

But following the apology and “withdrawal”, the Evening Standard’s political editor Joe Murphy reported that one of the councillors featured on the leaflet said it had been approved by the central party, and he hadn’t been contacted by them about it.

So what’s going on here? I have asked both CCHQ and the Romford Conservatives local association if the leaflet was approved centrally. Neither of them have answered this question.

Why does this matter? It’s a cock-up either way – either CCHQ didn’t get a look at it, but took a while to discipline the local association and didn’t contact them before condemning it, or approved it in the first place.

And either way, it matters, because this debacle shows the party has learned nothing after the former Tory candidate for London mayor Zac Goldsmith’s nasty dog-whistle campaign in 2016.

His literature used similar signalling to that observed in the Havering example, drawing attention to Sadiq Khan’s Muslim and Pakistani background to try and exploit (or invent) racial divisions in certain parts of the capital.

Reporting on the campaign at the time, I discovered its degree of resonance within certain communities was far outweighed by outrage and dismay at the racial overtones and cynical divisiveness of his leaflets.

It also damaged the party’s reputation, with many Tory figures coming outafter the campaign, mind – to condemn its tactics. (The Conservative group leader on the Greater London Assembly Andrew Boff said it had “done real damage” and “blown up bridges” between his party and the Muslim community).

The Tory peer Sayeeda Warsi warned me last year that Theresa May is “writing off British Muslims”, and it seems to be getting worse. The Havering leaflet was swiftly followed by the Tory MP Bob Blackman sharing an Islamophobic post on his Facebook page, entitled “Muslim Somali sex gang say raping white British children ‘part of their culture’ ” (he later took it down, calling it an “error”).

The party may have made calculations in the past that it doesn’t need to court Muslim voters (as Warsi accuses it of doing in her book, The Enemy Within), but this complacency is inexcusable with Islamophobic hate crimes having increased fivefold last June, when there was also a terrorist attack on Finsbury Park mosque in north London.

During the race for the London mayoralty two years ago, no senior Tories spoke out before the result, preferring to side with Goldsmith and attack Khan with similar language. With the Havering leaflet, more Tories – local and national – have been willing to criticise it, but the central party was slow to catch up.

This shows two things: the party’s still not taking its unpopularity among socially liberal, economically aspirational voters seriously, and it’s damaging its reputation among ethnic minority voters, who it once looked towards to form its future base.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

The overlooked aspect of patient care: why NHS catering needs a revolution

The NHS performs so many miracles every day – in comparison, feeding the sick should be a doddle. 

A friend recently sent me a photo from her hospital bed – not of her newborn baby, sadly, but her dinner. “Pls come and revolutionise the NHS” the accompanying text read, along with a plaintive image of some praying hands. A second arrived the next morning: “Breakfast: cereal, toast or porridge. I asked for porridge. She said porridge would be ‘later’. Never arrived. (sad face).”

Contrast this with the glee with which another friend showed me his menu at a Marie Curie hospice a few weeks later. He seemed to have ticked every box on it, and had written underneath his order for syrup sponge and custard: “extra custard please”. It wasn’t fancy, but freshly cooked, comforting food that residents looked forward to – “like school dinners”, he sighed, “but nice”.

To be fair, though budgets vary significantly between hospital trusts, a reliable estimate suggests £3.45 per patient per day as an average – only slightly more than in Her Majesty’s prisons, though unlike in prisons or schools, there is no legally enforceable set of minimum standards for hospital catering. As Prue Leith writes in the foreword to a 2017 report by the Campaign for Better Hospital Food, “this means hospital food is uniquely vulnerable to a race to the bottom in terms of food quality, and patient care”.

Plate after plate of disappointment is not only demoralising for people who may already be at a low ebb, but overlooks the part food has to play in the recovery process. Balanced, appetising meals are vital to help weaker patients build up strength during their stay, especially as figures released in February suggest the number of hospital deaths from malnutrition is on the rise. According to Department of Health findings last year, 48 per cent of English hospitals failed to comply with food standards intended to be legally binding, with only half screening every admission for malnutrition.

The Campaign for Better Hospital Food’s report, meanwhile, revealed that only 42 per cent of the London hospitals that responded to its survey cooked fresh food for children – even though the largest single cause of admissions in five-to-nine-year-olds is tooth extraction. Less than a third of respondents cooked fresh food for adults.

Once the means to produce fresh meals are in place, they can save trusts money by allowing kitchens to buy ingredients seasonally, when they are cheaper. Michelin-starred chef Phil Howard, recently tasked by the Love British Food organisation to cook their annual lunch on an NHS budget, explained that this, along with using cheaper cuts and pushing vegetables centre stage, allowed him to produce three courses rather than the two he’d been asked for. Delicious they were, too.

Andy Jones, a chef and former chair of the Hospital Caterers Association, who was there championing British food in the NHS, told me the same principles applied in real healthcare environments: Nottingham City Hospital, which prepares meals from scratch, saves £6m annually by buying fresh local ingredients – “I know with more doing, and voices like my small one shouting out, we will see real sea change.”

Unusually, it’s less a question of money than approach. Serving great hospital food takes a kitchen, skilled cooks and quality ingredients. But getting every hospital to this point requires universal legal quality standards, like those already in place in schools, that are independently monitored.

Nutrition should be taken as seriously as any other aspect of care. The NHS performs so many miracles every day – in comparison, feeding the sick should be a doddle. 

Felicity Cloake is the New Statesman’s food columnist. Her latest book is The A-Z of Eating: a Flavour Map for Adventurous Cooks.

This article first appeared in the 18 April 2018 issue of the New Statesman, Enoch Powell’s revenge