Best for Britain

Best for Britain is a political advocacy group founded in 2017 that campaigned on issues arising from the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and the subsequent Brexit negotiations. It engaged in strategic campaigning, legal actions, and media advocacy to influence parliamentary processes and public debate during the premierships of Theresa May and Boris Johnson. The organisation attracted attention from parliamentarians across Parliament of the United Kingdom parties, civil society groups such as Open Britain and European Movement UK, and commentators in outlets like The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph.

History

The group was established in the aftermath of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum by a cohort of activists, donors, and public figures linked to networks around Roland Rudd, Tom Hacker, and other business and political actors associated with Liberal Democrats, Labour moderates, and pro-European members of the Conservatives. Early activities overlapped with campaigns mounted by Best for Britain’s contemporaries including Open Britain, Britain Stronger in Europe, and the European Movement UK during high-profile parliamentary contests such as the Meaningful vote episodes in the House of Commons. The group adapted through key events including the 2017 and 2019 UK general elections and the passage of legislation like the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Organisation and Leadership

Leadership featured public figures and senior consultants drawn from corporate communications and political strategy circles comparable to names associated with firms linked to Portland Communications and networks including Nuclear Industry Association advisers. Senior staff included campaign directors with backgrounds similar to those found in the offices of Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, and David Cameron allies, and legal teams that worked alongside litigators experienced with cases in the High Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The organisation liaised with MPs and peers from the House of Commons and House of Lords such as Anna Soubry, Hilary Benn, Dominic Grieve, Yvette Cooper, and Chuka Umunna. It collaborated tactically with grassroots networks resembling More United and with civic institutions like Mumsnet during referendum-related mobilisations.

Campaigns and Activities

Best for Britain pursued strategic interventions in elections, parliamentary battles, and judicial reviews. Electoral tactics mirrored approaches used by groups such as The Independent Group for Change and Change UK in by-elections and target seats, while legal actions referenced precedents from cases involving Gina Miller and the Miller II litigation over prorogation. Public-facing campaigns placed adverts in outlets competing with BBC News, ITV, Channel 4, and national newspapers like The Times and The Sun. It organised events featuring speakers from institutions such as University of Oxford, London School of Economics, Cambridge University, and policy bodies like the Institute for Government and the Royal Society. The group also produced polling, research, and briefings drawing on analysts similar to those at YouGov, Ipsos MORI, and the British Social Attitudes survey teams.

Funding and Finances

Funding streams included donations from private individuals, corporate donors, and networked benefactors whose profiles resembled those on registers alongside organisations like Open Britain and European Movement UK. Financial reporting and transparency debates invoked comparisons with regulated entities under Electoral Commission rules and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Expenditure on media buys and consultancy mirrored patterns seen in campaigns involving agencies such as Cambridge Analytica-adjacent controversies and mainstream firms like WPP subsidiaries. Audits and annual returns were scrutinised in media outlets such as The Guardian, Financial Times, and The Independent.

Controversies and Criticism

The organisation faced criticism over its role in tactical electoral interventions, perceived alignment with metropolitan donors, and messaging strategies similar to those criticised in controversies around groups such as Cambridge Analytica and Leave.EU. Opponents from factions of the Conservatives and Brexit Party argued that its activities mirrored those of partisan campaign groups accused of undue influence, while some MPs raised concerns about compliance with Electoral Commission rules and the distinctions between campaigning and party political activity referenced in cases like the Electoral Commission v. Leave.EU disputes. Media scrutiny compared its funding model to other high-profile advocacy organisations linked to cross-party initiatives such as Best for Britain’s peers and elicited debates in forums including BBC Question Time and parliamentary select committees like the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

Category:Political advocacy groups in the United Kingdom