Earlier this month, Sadiq Khan won the London mayoral election, achieving an unprecedented third term in City Hall. Despite much speculation much that the mayoral election’s move to a first past the post voting system might benefit Conservative candidate Susan Hall, Labour politician Khan won 43.9 per cent of the vote to Ms Hall’s 32.7 per cent.
So how did he do it? Writing for The Critic, ‘A Tory Insider’ says that one “particularly base and well-worn campaigning trick was the smearing of [Hall] as racist”.
During one particularly heated LBC radio debate between the two candidates, Kahn was asked by host Tom Swarbrick whether he would “feel safe in a London run by” Ms Hall, to which he replied: “I’ve thought long and hard about this. I’ve fought three council elections. I’ve fought three parliamentary elections. This is my third mayoral election. The Tory candidate is the most dangerous candidate I’ve fought against.”
Khan went on to ask Hall whether she regretted “supporting Donald Trump who is a racist, sexist and homophobe” and “liking [a post on X praising] Enoch Powell”, adding: “Do you promise to be a mayor, if you win, that unites communities, rather than your record of dividing them?”
For Kahn, this strategy had two advantages, the Tory insider says: “[F]irst of all, it wards off the danger of people voting in their own self-interest rather than along communitarian lines. Secondly, after Brexit nothing motivates London’s strong Remainer caucus more than proving their credentials as citizens of anywhere. It’s quite enough to show a well-beaten dog a whip.”
The Tory insider continues:
These smears were based on the research of Hope not Hate. According to a webpage celebrating their roll in Hall’s downfall, “HNH researchers painstakingly pieced together a dossier on Susan Hall”, which consisted mostly of tweets she’d liked, to build the narrative that she had “supported Donald Trump, shared anti-Muslim statements about Sadiq Khan and expressed anti-Black racism”. This became a central plank to Khan’s campaign.
But Hope not Hate’s role didn’t end there. They then mounted what looks suspiciously like a conventional political campaign to prevent Hall becoming Mayor of London, including a petition to request the Conservative Party deselect her as a candidate, social media posts, polling and over “100 volunteers” helping to hand out “20,000 leaflets across London”.
It’s also worth pointing out that days after Hall received Rishi Sunak’s backing as the Conservative candidate for mayor of London last October, a poll commissioned by Hope not Hate found that three-quarters of Londoners surveyed did not believe that a London mayoral candidate who likes racist and Islamophobic social media comments can fairly represent all Londoners if elected. Speaking to the Guardian about the poll’s findings, Georgie Laming, director of campaigns at Hope Not Hate, said: “It’s clear that Londoners think that Hall is not fit to represent London. The Conservative party must suspend Susan Hall immediately and she must be removed as a candidate.”
In the build-up to voting day, Wes Streeting, Labour’s usually open-minded and reasonable shadow health minister, took Hope not Hate’s research as his cue to put out an X post describing a win for Susan Hall and the Conservatives as “a win for racists, white supremacists and Islamophobes the world over”.
“So far, then, just another radical-chic charity,” the Tory insider continues. But all is not as it first seems:
Hope not Hate constitutes two organisations – a charitable trust and a Ltd Company. As a registered charity, Hope Not Hate is subject to strict regulations regarding political campaigning and must adhere to the election guidance outlined by the Charity Commission, which is rather clear; “Charities must not support or oppose a political party or candidate.”
Hope not Hate’s anti-Hall activism clearly contravenes these guidelines. But they were conducted not by Hope not Hate the charity, but Hope not Hate Limited (Reg. No. 08188502).
The distinction between the two is legally important, but in practice irrelevant. Hope not Hate Charitable Trust doesn’t even have its own website; rather, a sub-section on the Hope not Hate website. In fact, Hope not Hate Charitable Trust has no staff whatsoever. According to their last report, Hope not Hate Ltd is the only beneficiary of Hope not Hate Charitable Trust, who provide 80 per cent of their running costs, alongside “the costs of a full-time fundraiser and associated fundraising costs, the cost of servicing the charity and its finances.” Their immense generosity also includes support for their Research Team, who produced the initial report on Susan Hall.
Hope not Hate Charitable Trust is little more than a brass plaque, a work-around intended to comply with the letter, but not the spirit, of Charity Commision guidelines. Given the interconnectedness between the two, it is possible to argue that Hope not Hate Ltd is an agent acting for and on behalf of Hope not Hate Charitable Trust; as such, Hope not Hate Ltd ‘s actions are Hope not Hate Charitable Trust’s actions.
Charlotte Gill has already researched Hope not Hate Charitable Trust’s funding, which includes many of the trusts behind many of the most prominent radical chic charities. And, of course, the Home Office; no tale of The Blob is complete without evidence that the government is wasting taxpayer’s money to fight its stated objectives. Gill notes that, given the Paul Hamlyn Trust has also given over half a million pounds in funding, “the taxpayer under a ‘Conservative’ government, is a joint-funder with a Foundation that supports open borders.”
Flushed with success, Hope not Hate Ltd are now planning to roll out this model at the next General Election, promising to “against any candidates who cross our Red Lines”. These Red Lines include; Direct and persistent comments intended to stigmatise entire groups, comments that stigmatise an individual based on their identity, comments that are part of a pattern or coded but offensive comments that stigmatise groups using visual, spoken or written subtext. That these are entirely subjective and incredibly broad will, I’m sure, cause absolutely no problems whatsoever.
Hope not Hate Ltd inform us that these “will apply to candidates regardless of party or their role within it.” They also inform us they have already “identified 10 top target MPs from the Radical Right of the Conservative Party… standing in marginal constituencies where we have a real opportunity to get them out.” I’m sure their failure to select even a single MP from any other party was a simple oversight.
It will be poetic justice if my party colleagues are turfed out by an organisation they allow to receive taxpayer’s money. It will be a fitting metaphor for a party that, despite being offered vast amounts of evidence, has failed to show the willingness or intellectual capacity necessary to grasp the problem of the political influence of the Blob. Hope not Hate could be stopped tomorrow, with a letter to the Charity Commission or a discreet word with the Home Secretary.
Worth reading in full.
