Michael White writes:
Why is the simmering batch of election fraud accusations
against the Conservatives 2015 campaign team not making more of an impact in
the mainstream media?
It’s a good question and conspiracy theorists everywhere
have already come up with their default answer. It’s a plot.
With an eye-catching fresh allegation around on Wednesday – it’s untested but has caught my
attention – all this may be about to change.
No, I don’t mean the coroner’s suicide verdict on the young Tory activist Elliott Johnson, though that would be
a wholesome development too.
Part of my theory as to why coverage has been low-key is
that when one media outlet is making much of the running – Channel 4 News and
Mike Crick this time, plus the Mirror – other mainstream media are reluctant
to take up a rival’s campaign or seek to rubbish it.
We’ve seen that at the
Guardian over issues such as phone
hacking and Edward Snowden’s revelations about data mining
surveillance.
It’s common enough, as journalists know.
At least the Tory election story has been picked up by the system, as
Private Eye’s paedophile stories were not in the 90s.
There’s another obvious explanation this spring.
There’s
been a lot of news about and even sophisticated and well-funded newspapers,
radio and TV companies (they’re all under the financial cosh) can only handle
one or two big stories at a time.
Tax fraud, terrorist attacks, immigration and people
smuggling, the rise of Trump, and of course Britain’s own Brexit debate, it’s been pretty lively.
Here’s C4’s latest update from its website. Here’s a very
fair Guardian summary of the story so far and why media treat it warily: fear of
libel. Plus a recent update.
As you can see (and may already have known), the
allegations – now being investigated by dozens of overstretched police forces – centre around that boring but
important discipline, accountancy.
Should those battlebuses full of eager party “volunteers”
sent to key marginal seats the Tories needed to win for that slender 5 May
majority have been charged (their hotel bills too) to the constituency’s election expenses tally rather than to the national campaign, as they were in 2015?
That’s pretty serious. Investigations could lead to
prosecutions and possibly byelections. The Tories could lose their majority.
What a turn-up in a turbulent world.
Tory HQ insists that the volunteers’ expenses were part
of the wider national campaign so all is well, though David Cameron is – too
late – starting to send out uneasy vibes, see his Robert Peston interview on ITV.
I
stress that the police, who have been given extra time by the Electoral
Commission, are only at the investigation stage with no charges laid, let alone
proved.
What’s at issue here is known as “push polling,” the US
Republican-pioneered technique whereby you seek to influence the result of a
poll by the way you frame the question.
“Do you favour Britain leaving the EU
to become a proud, sovereign state again instead of a puny province of Europe
run by crooks and toadies?” would be one example of the genre.
I emphasise that I can’t vouch for what Canary’s
whistleblower is saying here – he’s said to be a man who worked on the highly
targeted polling and says it breached guidelines – but it looks a solid piece
of work, worthy of examination and explanation.
Whether or not the cost of the disputed work was all
declared on the party’s overall election expenses is a further sub-plot which
just may be above a young whistleblower’s pay grade.
But what his bosses told
him to say probably isn’t.
The Canary investigation has dug
into assorted expense claims and activities in several such seats crucial to
Cameron’s success.
It’s worth noting in passing that polling firms linked to
Jim Messina, the American political consultant who worked for Obama but was
hired by Cameron, are in the frame here.
That too may or may not prove
significant.
His former colleague, the more idealistic David Axelrod, who did a bit of work for Ed Miliband, calls Messina a hired gun.
His former colleague, the more idealistic David Axelrod, who did a bit of work for Ed Miliband, calls Messina a hired gun.
On the radio silence dimension, the New Statesman set out a reasonable explanation here as to why this has not been bigger
news.
It has been reported and the Daily Mail is periodically on the case in its savage way.
It doesn’t like Lord Feldman, Dave’s Oxford and tennis pal who is also party chairman. Nor does the Mirror.
It doesn’t like Lord Feldman, Dave’s Oxford and tennis pal who is also party chairman. Nor does the Mirror.
I would add two modest further points of explanation.
One
is that political parties nowadays are run from the centre as permanent
campaigns, poll-driven and slick.
Most of those in charge are young and
relative newcomers, not the old sweats of legend in all parties who knew the
rules inside out, what you could get away with or not.
So Cameron’s crew may be calculating rascals. They may
also prove to be more hapless innocents.
We’ll find out, though no sensible
police force will rush to overturn an election result. Playing politics has
already cost the Police Federation, the coppers’ union, much
grief.
There’s another possible explanation. Jeremy Corbyn is
famously not keen to play the man rather than the ball.
This is admirable and
evident at PMQs where Flashman Dave plays both at once when he kicks Labour’s man
in the balls.
So if Corbyn doesn’t make a fuss and leaves
it to the SNP, Mike Crick and Russia Today, who will take up the charge?
Ed Miliband perhaps, it was his election defeat after all
so it should be personal.
It might even provide a welcome respite from Brexit
madness.
No comments:
Post a Comment