Following the ‘leak’ of information pertaining to the private dinner held between Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker last week – the Prime Minister Theresa May has accused people in and around the EU political machine in Brussels of trying to interfere in the United Kingdom general election.
Jean-Claude Junker is reputed to have said that the Prime Minister is under several illusions and is “…living on a different galaxy” when referring to her approach to the Brexit negotiations. The Prime Minster responded (eventually) by saying “In the last few days, we have seen just how tough these talks are likely to be…” adding that “Britain’s negotiating position in Europe has been misrepresented in the continental press.” Theresa May continued stating that “The European commission’s negotiating stance has hardened. Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials. All of these acts have been deliberately timed to affect the result of the general election which will take place on 8 June.”
It is interesting that Theresa May should raise the question of people or bodies having an effect on the British political process. It is possible that she thinks that such influence is not acceptable? Or perhaps she simply means that such non-British influence is acceptable? Or simply non-British in terms of not being eligible to vote in the election?
Perhaps, in the light of complaints in the US that Russia ‘influenced’ the Presidential election, and recent comments in France that Russia too sought to influence that Presidential election it should seem only reasonable that the Prime Minister should be wary of ‘undue’ influence from others; yet in relation to the British political process it seems a little late in the day to be worrying about this sort of thing… There is a major difference between the influence which was allegedly wielded during the presidential elections for both the US and France and any that may be said to exist in British politics: the public nature of such influence. The secretive hacking of sensitive data and anonymous publishing tactics used in the US and France were designed to hide the person seeking to influence the votes; yet in the United Kingdom the press frequently and publicly take sides, declaring allegiances during elections. Since this UK practice is ‘accepted’, are we to assume that public influence is OK and that ‘hidden’ influence is not? I would agree that the tactics used by the press in the United Kingdom is certainly public, but I would not agree that it is OK. British newspapers do not only openly declare an allegiance to a particular party or policy, not only do they conflate news and opinion, but they also attack the opposition parties or policies with what seems to be impunity.
In 1992 the Sun newspaper conducted a concerted (personal) attack on the Labour Party Leader Neil Kinnock. The headline before going to the polls stated “If Kinnock wins today, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights?”. This headline has been followed by several equally overt statements of support for one party or attacks on others, some examples are:
1997 (The Sun)
“The Sun Backs Blair”
2010: (The Sun)
“Cameron – Our Only Hope”
2015: (The Daily Mail)
“For sanity’s sake, don’t let a class-war zealot and the SNP destroy our economy and our very nation (How you can vote tactically to keep out Red Ed)”
2015: (The Mirror)
“Five More Damned Years?”
2015: (The Daily Star)
“Red Ed and Brand Talk Total Ballots”
The top two newspapers in the United Kingdom are (if we combine the circulation figures for both the daily and the Sunday versions of the papers) The Sun and The Daily Mail. There are only eight newspapers which have a circulation of more than 400K readers per day, and of these, The Sun and The Daily Mail together total 49% of the total readership. Both of these papers have firmly declared affiliations, and both currently support the Conservative Party, and both frequently attack the opposition parties and both use a combination of news and editorials as headlines.
How can anyone hope that there will ever be ‘Fair’ elections in a country therefore where ‘reputable’ news agencies such as this are permitted to conduct personal campaigns against politicians because of party politics? How can anyone possibly expect that none can have any undue influence over a general election for as long as such partisanship is tolerated?
The knock-on effect of newspapers having such a broad influence is of course, that those who control the editorial direction of a newspaper then have a broad influence over the politicians of the day – The Sun newspaper has not backed a losing side in a general election since 1979, and yet is has not remained loyal to one party; as has The Daily Mail… is this a case of the paper pandering to public opinion, or the paper shaping public opinion? Can any politician afford to take that risk?
It is not however by any means only the press which have an effect on the British general election; as we have seen in the case this year; with an utter disregard for the Fixed Parliament Act, Theresa May has called a general election specifically at a time when the Conservative Party has a substantial lead in the opinion polls over the rival parties. If politicians then are allowed to pick and choose when they fight their elections, how can they complain when other seek to have an effect by other means?
If the Prime Minister is truly concerned by people have an effect on the United Kingdom’s general election, then perhaps she should look a little closer to home first, rather than pointing the finger at Europe.