Downfall
Hat Tip: Guy News
Sphere: Related ContentWhy Labour Won’t Ditch Gordon
The least worst leader Labour has.
Another by-election defeat, another round of leadership intrigue. If that doesn’t explain part of my cynicism about the leadership plotting, then I’m not sure what will. This is, after all, the silly season, so we can expect that any story that could fit the narrative of Labour heavyweights plotting against Gordon Brown will be given a greater significance than it maybe deserves.
This is not to suggest that there is no leadership plotting against Brown. To think that would be utterly naive. There is however a significant reason why the chances of Gordon Brown being replaced as leader of the Labour Party are lower than people are being led to believe.
As the Spectator pointed out months ago, the problem Labour faces is one not of leadership, but policy. Labour’s failing after the replacement of Tony Blair was not the appointment of an individual with little empathy to the top job, but the total failure to address the direction in which the Party, and therefore the Government, was heading. The hopes pinned on Brown offering a credible alternative to Blairism, or at least a change in style of government, were dashed. Instead of a welcome change in the political climate, the British public were instead faced with a man attempting to perform the conjuring tricks that Tony Blair was so good at, but without the same level of ability.
By the time Brown took over, the Labour Party had become significantly divided. Tensions between Old and New Labour that had been suppressed for the sake of electoral success had begun to surface again, particularly as the party faced a drop in public opinion in the aftermath of the Iraq war. Under Gordon Brown’s premiership these tensions were further suppressed in the hope by both factions that he would embody their vision: to Blairites Brown would be the continuation of the policies of the government he had served in for so long, while to Old Labour Brown was the rival and counterweight to Blair who would now curb his worst excesses. Brown imagined that he could capitalise on these tensions and be all things to all people. As a result he has presided over a government that has done little but spun much to try and please everyone. The dithering tendency arises because he feels insufficiently secure to be able to throw his lot in with either tendency, or to forge a base of support independent of faction. He is both New Labour and Old, and feels he cannot risk ditching one without terminally weakening himself.
Brown however has some strengths that his rivals do not: Longevity, the top job, and a loyal cadre. His long-term position in the top ranks of the Labour Party outrank any of those who wish to challenge him for the leadership. As a result he still commands a significant amount of respect that allows him to squash the internal debates, albeit not to the extent that Blair was able to.
In the event of a leadership contest however these debates would be unavoidable. No candidate would have the mandate, the ability or the experience to do so. They could be as divisive as the dispute over Europe was for the Conservatives. With only two years left until a General Election, the chances of it being resolved in time for a winning strategy to be adopted are slim, while the risk of a Labour implosion provoking further ire from the electorate is high. In the face of further Labour paralysis the Conservatives would surge ahead in the battle of ideas and command of the popular imagination.
If Labour believe they can win the next election, then they will probably hold on to Brown until they do so. Afterwards however they will ditch him and hold these debates vital to their future. If they decide however that they are not going to win, then the money is on Jack Straw taking the mantle as a caretaker to minimise the defeat.
Sphere: Related ContentFraming the Candidates
After Obama’s lashing out at the media’s portrayal of him in the New Yorker, John McCain seems to be keen to jump on the bandwagon. Painfully aware that he is being upstaged in the US and global media by Senator Obama, a problem exacerbated by his foreign policy tour, he has created an attack advert. What makes this attack different however is that it is aimed not at his opponent, but instead at the mainstream media itself.
Set to the tune of Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You, it criticises media pundits for taking an uncritical view of the Obama campaign that borders on the sycophantic. Correspondents talking of getting a thrill running up their leg at the very thought of him make for unsettling viewing. Although it would be impossible to believe that individual correspondents could be totally objective, the level of subjectivity and fawning praise is cause for concern. The job of journalists is to criticise and ask difficult questions, not heap praise on someone for being a smooth talker.
Nonetheless, this may be a move John McCain comes to regret. The problem is in the way his point is framed. In journalistic theory framing theory is the idea that the way in which we make our points affects our perception of the point itself.
As an example look at the Iraq war. To put forwards a pro-war argument you can use two different statements:
1. “The war is not about oil, it is about weaponds of mass destruction”;
2. “The war is about weapons of mass destruction”.
Both statements make the same point, but the weakness of statement 1 is that it draws attention to the oil issue. It framed the argument by reminding people of the criticism. Hence when Obama, rightly or wrongly, complained about the front cover of the New Yorker it backfired by propagating the image beyond the circa one million readers of the magazine, and appearing in nearly every newspaper in the world. Likewise his strong denial of the rumours and innuendo which spawned that cover may actually have made them more persistent.
Likewise this advert by the McCain campaign could end up being an own-goal. It criticises the media for paying attention to one of Obama’s strengths: his charisma. In so doing it reminds the audience of McCain’s own weaknesses in this regard and undermines the overall message. The sight of journalists so effusive about Obama’s personal qualities may not be so concerning for a swing voter but rather a demonstration of his “Presidential” qualities. McCain may regret providing his opponent with such a backhanded compliment.
The footage has a feeling of a message to the Republican Party rather than swing voters. It is also a sign of frustration. Rather than complain about the lack of media coverage from the sidelines however, the Republicans should be rising to the challenge and finding other ways to get their message across.
Sphere: Related ContentTravel Diary Cancelled and a Clarification
See HERE. I’ll still be writing for this blog while I’m away, but supported by the guest bloggers (hopefully).
And also:
CLARIFICATION
In my post “The SNP Must Not Gain Glasgow East”, I referred to that constituency as Labour’s third-safest seat. Notwithstanding it no longer being a safe seat, at the time of writing it was in fact Labour’s 25th-safest seat.
Sphere: Related ContentTravel, Glasgow East and Open Thread
I’m spending most of tomorrow travelling, so please use the comments section below to discuss the Glasgow East by-election, its results and implications. Feel free to bring up anything else worth discussing.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m going away to Japan for three weeks. I’ll still be posting on this blog, aided by a cohort of guest posters, but I will also be writing a travel diary, which can be found HERE. If you look on the right of this page you’ll see its RSS feed.
Sphere: Related ContentGet Updates on Your Phone
I’ve set up another twitter account that converts my article headlines into messages. It can be found at:
http://www.twitter.com/bengrayfeed
Register an account, and you can get notified of all my posts on your phone. It also includes updates from my Travel Diary.
Sphere: Related ContentThe SNP Must Not Gain Glasgow East
The Glasgow East by-election on Thursday has been considered by some commentators to be the point of no return for Gordon Brown’s premiership. Depending on which poll you believe, Labour are set to either hold the seat with a vastly reduced majority, or lose it in a dramatic swing towards the Scottish Nationalist Party.
That Labour’s third-safest seat (their equivalent of Kensington & Chelsea) is so threatened speaks volumes about the disillusionment of traditional Labour voters with the government. Far from the promise of being lifted out of deprivation, they have been taken for granted and left to flounder in their own misery.
Notwithstanding some miraculous transformation of fortune the Conservatives are not going to win this seat: the party is polling at 7%. In such a context, one has to look at the outcome of the by-election not in terms of victory, but the least-worst option. Short-term tactical victories have to be balanced against long-term interests. Which is better: a Labour hold, or an SNP gain?
Much though many would enjoy seeing another humiliation visited upon Brown’s government, it is not worth an SNP victory. Labour holding what ought to be a very safe seat is not likely to affect their fortunes: the battering they will receive with their slashed majority will see to that.
Their winning would be portrayed as a vote of confidence in a largely wasted first year in the Scottish Executive that has consisted of stirring up resentment between England and Scotland. Sending the petty, divisive hardliner John Mason to Westminster will be spun as a sign of approval for the exclusive and narrow nationalism that the SNP represents. For short-term advantage it risks the long-term goal of preserving the union.
Moreover, an SNP victory risks solidifying their status as the anti-Labour party north of the border. Efforts being made by the Scottish Conservatives to re-establish themselves as a leading force in the nation are undermined every time a disaffected Labour vote goes to the Scottish Nationalists.
Although a surprise Conservative gain would be the ideal outcome on Thursday, a Labour loss to the SNP could only be considered a pyrrhic victory.
Sphere: Related ContentVote for Your Favourite Political Blogs
A cut-and-paste job from Iain Dale, but he did ask for it:
Sphere: Related ContentIn early September TOTAL POLITICS, in association with APCO WORLDWIDE will publish the 2008-9 Guide to Political Blogging in the UK. It will contain articles on blogging by some of Britain’s leading bloggers, together with a directory of UK political blogs, and a series of Top 20s and Top 10s. The book will be available at the Green Party, TUC, Labour, LibDem and Tory Conferences, where TOTAL POLITICS will have exhibition stands.
We’re asking for your votes to decide the Top 100 UK Political Blogs. Simply email your Top Ten (ranked from 1 to 10) to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com. If you have a blog, please encourage your readers to do the same. I’ll then compile the Top 100 from those that you send in. Just order them from 1 to 10. Your top blog gets 10 points and your tenth gets 1 point.
The deadline for submitting your Top 10 is Friday August 15th. Please type Top 10 in the subject line. Or you can of course leave your Top 10 in the Comments on this post.
Once all the entries are in a lucky dip draw will take place and the winner will be sent £100 worth of political books!
The rules are simple:1. Please only vote once
2. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents are eligible or based on UK politics are eligible
3. Votes must be cast before Friday 15 August
4. Blogs chosen must be listed in the Total Politics Blog Directory.
5. You must send a list of TEN blogs, ranked. Any entry containing fewer than ten blogs will not count.
6. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a nameSo, once again, the email address to send your TOP TEN BLOGS to is…
toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
Orwellian Government
Insecure beneath the prying eyes
The adjective “Orwellian” is prevalent in contemporary politics. Any government scheme that has a whiff of authoritarianism about it will inevitably be decried as such by its detractors. Its continued use, almost sixty years after George Orwell died, reflects both the insight of George Orwell and the continued relevance of his writings.
When used, the adjective tends to refer to Nineteen Eighty-Four. CCTV, Identity Cards, the creeping intrusion of the state into the everyday life of the private citizen. Posters such as the much-lampooned “secure beneath the watching eyes” poster campaign are but the most visible manifestations of the tendency of the present government to choose to restrict freedom wherever the possibility arises.
I would like to argue however that the work of Orwell that best depicts this government is not Nineteen Eighty-Four but Animal Farm. The cover stories of the Times over the past two days have assured this. From Stalin to Mr. Bean to Heathcliff, Gordon Brown’s latest incarnation is in the form of the manipulative and deceitful pigs of Manor Farm.
The first sign of Brown’s Orwellian was on the steps of Number 10. He left us with a mangling of his school’s motto: “I will try my utmost”. The immediate comparison is with that of Boxer, whose ‘answer to every problem, every setback, was “I will work harder”‘. Similarities extended to his workaholic attitude, rising unnecessarily early to ensure that he worked harder than anyone else. Ultimately, when he runs out of steam, the pigs cart him off to the knacker’s yard. The continual plotting over Brown’s future invites similar comparisons.
This, however is where the sympathetic characterisation ends. Bullying, paranoid and intolerant of dissent, Gordon Brown shares far more personal qualities with Napoleon, the reclusive dictator of the Farm. He plotted and ousted the charismatic and popular Snowball to assume his own place in government. He was sold to the British public as what the pigs refer to as a ‘brainworker’; the prudent elder statesman who calmly, patiently and intelligently guided the UK economy for ten years, for the benefit of the adoring masses. When things went well, he took the credit; when they went badly, it was the fault of someone else. Napoleon is Always Right.
This attitude coloured the pigs’ method of dealing with doubt. When faced with a problem, they would resort to rolling out statistics to support their argument in the hope that their vassals would be too stupid to see through them.
On Sunday mornings Squealer, holding down a long strip of paper with his trotter, would read out to them lists of figures proving that the production of every class of foodstuff had increased by two hundred per cent, three hundred per cent, or five hundred per cent, as the case might be… All the same, there were days when they felt that they would sooner have had less figures and more food.
Thus yesterday the government sought to allay concerns about knife crime by insisting that it is not a problem by using flawed statistics. The response, fortunately, was a mass cry for less figures and more food. When faced with internal power struggles, Napoleon releases his attack dogs to deal with dissenters. Likewise the Brownites are credited with being some of the most ruthless and loyal fighters in the Labour Party.
When questioned about its policies the government, like Squealer, retreats to the line that however bad things are, they would have been worse under the old order. Surely, asks Squealer, almost pleadingly, “there is none among you who wants Jones back?” If things are bad, they would have been worse under the Conservatives, and surely nobody wants to go back to them? For years this was the perfect cover, used repeatedly to duck the difficult question and wrong-foot opponents. Surely there is none among you who wants John Major back?
But when the Conservatives managed to shed their unpopular image with David Cameron’s “brand decontamination” strategy, the government changed its tune. It appropriated their ideas with gusto, and insisted that they were theirs all along. The pigs of Animal Farm likewise explain away Napoleon’s U-turn over a windmill project, which he had made much political capital opposing:
Squealer explained privately to the other animals that Napoleon had never in reality been opposed to the windmill. On the contrary, it was he who had advocated it in the beginning, and the plan which Snowball had drawn on the floor of the incubator shed had actually been stolen from among Napoleon’s papers
And the analogy gained further credibility when it was reported that the government intended to rewrite its fiscal rules on borrowing. This is portrayed as a decision that was always going to be made, rather than a response to their own failings. The rewriting of history is a recurring theme in Orwell’s works: it is the job of Winston Smith, the anti-hero of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Guido found this to be more than just a fictional affair when he caught the government editing potentially embarrassing speeches. In Animal Farm Squealer continually changes the immutable rules of the farm in order to suit the pigs’ agenda, while simultaneously denying any such change.
At the foot of the end wall of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written, there lay a ladder broken in two pieces. Squealer, temporarily stunned, was sprawling beside it, and near at hand there lay a lantern, a paint-brush, and an overturned pot of white paint.
…
[A] few days later Muriel, reading over the Seven Commandments to herself, noticed that there was yet another of them which the animals had remembered wrong. They had thought the Fifth Commandment was “No animal shall drink alcohol,” but there were two words that they had forgotten. Actually the Commandment read: “No animal shall drink alcohol TO EXCESS.”
The next time someone describes the government as “Orwellian”, think not of the obvious references to Airstrip One, but instead of the new masters of Manor Farm.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Ostrich Politics
This morning the government, in response to concerns about knife crime, has unveiled its latest strategy.
Denial.
It’s an appealing piece of logic for this government. Point to some flawed statistics, insist that everything is rosy, and accuse your opponents of making political capital out of private grief. The public will swallow the statistics, the media will find another story, and the Old Etonians won’t dare to challenge this new orthodoxy for fear of being seen as condescending opportunists.
So it was that this morning the Times ran with the cover story that the government is to insist that knife crime is falling. They point to British Crime Survey statistics, and plan to spend almost half a million pounds hammering the point home.
These statistics however are deeply flawed; the British Crime Survey does not interview under-16s. Given that knife crime is primarily a youth phenomenon that does not observe the arbitrary cut-off age of 16, this means that a swathe of knife crimes are not recorded. Factor in the code of silence surrounding gang crime, the BCS’s under-representation of ethnic minorities, and its biases against reporting low-level crime, and serious problems emerge.
The use of such dodgy statistics to claim that crime is falling suggests that the government has, despite all the headline-grabbing initiatives, no idea how to confront the problems presented by crime, and is now hoping that if it ignores the problem, it will go away.
After all the initiatives and gimmicks, Brown’s government have effectively admitted that they don’t have an answer.
Sphere: Related Content
