Wednesday 28 April 2010

Whoosh! What Was That?


That was your job, mate.
Yesterday's slightly surreal events made me feel almost nostalgic for the days when senior Labour figures simply resorted to using their fists with the voters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_GLHsq_8KU
Yesterday’s coverage of Brown’s terrible faux pas with Mrs Duffy in Rochdale, appeared to have been scripted by Armando Ianucci for an election special recording of the ‘Thick of It.’

Gordon could have done with Malcolm Tucker yesterday. But he could not spin his way back, there was no squaring the circle. And he was totally wrong about it being a “disastrous” encounter. He did very well to bring her back on board as a Labour voter before then privately insulting her. The point Mrs Duffy made about immigration showed some frustration and narrow-mindedness but that does not add up to bigotry.

The worst point of the car-crash coverage was immediately after Mrs Duffy eye-popping amazement about what had been said about her. She wandered restlessly, bewildered , talking herself “Voted Labour all my life…” choking with anger.

As far as electoral impact goes, I wouldn’t expect a collapse in Labour support just yet. However neither is there much prospect of a 3-4 point bounce. The height of Labour’s ambitions should now be just 30% which means they are certainly odds against (again) to be the largest party.

I heard someone say, the “papers will have a field day.” Clearly they haven’t read as many papers as me, but then again few people do. The triumvirate of hate, the Mail, Telegraph and Sun were unable to ratchet up their coverage, as they had long since reached a ‘10’ on the hysterical scale and had nowhere left to go.

The Mail tried by Stepehen Glover’s column ‘If this woman’s a bigot, then I’m happy, no honoured, to be a bigot too, and so all of us should.’ Well a nation of bigots would only buy the Mail surely?

So for tonight’s debates, God knows how he’ll be handling this one. Presumably Cameron will declare with great dignity to call it irrelevant and then make several snide references to it.

For Brown, it will be a relief to stop apologising for an hour or two. But the credibility he has earned in the campaign for tenacity and doggedness has been blown.
It’s very hard to work through any scenario which places Gordy as PM in ten day’s time.

Vote For Ben


Politics can be a grubby business. During the expenses scandal, Lembit Opik MP blamed the death of his brother (six months prior) on claiming for a council tax summons.

Cameron in his own nauseating manner was plumbing similar depths yesterday. He gave a speech on the evils of the 'Broken Society' and spiced it the intro with a catalogue of horrific knifings. He rolled out Eastenders actress, Brooke Kinsella, whose brother, Ben, was murdered two years ago and gave her a gratuitous “ambassadorial” role on knife crime.

Leaving to one side the fact that violent crime has fallen by over 40% since 1997, this was really shameful stuff. He used the televisual qualities of the pretty Brooke to stimulate media interest and then started again on his drivel about a ‘Big Society’. In response to the annihilated lives of poverty, despair and addiction he offered these insulting platitudes.

“A society where we see social responsibility, not state control, as the principal driving force for social progress. A society where we come together, and work together, to solve problems. A society where we remember every day that we're all in this together.”

There didn’t appear to be anything tangible to report on how the Tories will tackle knife crime. Tough sentencing has, predictably, already had no impact. Even his key section named bathetically, ‘Common Sense and Rigour’ was neither sensible nor rigourous on this point.

All parties accept an enhanced police presence can help prevent violent incidents, particularly in established scenarios like city centres on Saturday nights. However, Conservatives plan to devolve responsibility of Police Community Support Officers to Chief Constables which will lead to a cut in their numbers. Several hundred PCSOs were inspired to write a protest letter to the Guardian today.

Nevertheless Cameron’s campaign national newsletter, known more commonly as the Sun, sought to exploit the naive Brooke Kinsella to the full, by imploring voting Tory was a ‘Vote For Ben.’ Yuck.
Cameron could call the Sun editor to cool it but he must think this odious, gutless line will win votes with the Yout’. Dave struggles to master sincerity. But he’s certainly trying his best.
________________________________________________
In response to the Conservatives barrel-scraping over knife crime, Labour shoved acid-burn victim, Katie Piper up to the lecturn of their daily press conference. Home Sec, Alan Johnson said, “Women like Katie and others would be in greater danger on our streets if we reduce the level of CCTV."
The insinuation that the Lib-Dems and Tories alleged plans to cut CCTV cameras will lead to more such attacks "Women like Katie will be in greater danger..." was just as disgraceful as what Cameron said on Tuesday.

Tuesday 27 April 2010

Woo Who?


Small wonder Lord ‘Nige’ Lawson failed to receive an invitation to the Conservative’s press conference on the environment yesterday.
Nigel ‘Biscuit Barrel” Lawson is such a huge denier of global warming he makes Dick Cheney look like Jonathan Porritt.

Naturally, the Cons glossed over the deep schism in their party over green taxes and blithely barked out obnoxious slogans like ‘Vote Blue, Get Green not Brown'. Pitiful stuff which would not get much of a mark at GCSE Politics.

Dave’s strategy grid obviously includes a box saying, “Spend at least one morning wooing the Liberals, or whatever they’re called.” He began his press conference in a familiar patronising tone, forcing himself to overcome, “the vague whiff of nut cutlet,” as historian Peter Hennessy put it.

“Today, I want to speak to people who have progressive ideals hard-wired into their DNA,” he implored. In his mechanical ‘reaching-out’ exercise, on Osborne’s orders, Cams seems to have forgotten his party has been haemorrhaging support to Clegg and Co. since the first TV debate. The fact that even more Labour supporters are going that way is far from compensation.

The polls seem stuck on 33/30/28 (C/LD/L) which would mean Cons not even the largest party and worst of all unmoved from 2005. Labour has had Iraq, a deep recession and near civil war but five years of Dave’s charm offensive and Ashcroft's millions has got the Tories precisely nowhere.

Any remote aspiration Cameron had to recruit at least one Lib-Dem voter to his side was dashed when he made a fierce attack on proportional representation. He might as well have insulted their mothers. Saying a hung Parliament would cost each family £1,000 is patent nonsense.

He was not persuasive, not remotely. Marina Hyde of the Guardian called it, “marginally more charming than Rohypnol.” He was probably as successful as the borderline bigot Ross Perot’s very uncomfortable address to the NAACP in the 1992 Presidential election when he kept pointing at the crowd saying, “you people.”

Dave and George appear to have similar electoral philosophy – stay arrogant and the little people will soon fall into line. No sign of it working yet.

Sunday 25 April 2010

Break the Cycle of Addiction


It's a numbers game, of course, nothing else. Now the Conservatives really have no hope of getting the 40 percent minimum they need to form a majority Government. They are contemplating what to do with the 35 percent they are likley to be left with. It is still quite possible they could even trail Labour in numbers of seats on that mark so they have to at least appear to be considering a constructive approach to the Lib-Dems.

But there lies the core problem for the Cons. Whatever they do is a calculation, seemingly masking their true instincts. They appear to be simply demanding power 'now' or preferably 'yesterday'. Cameron tried to appear concilatory about electoral reform in his Observer interview, "we would behave in a responsible way," he oozed - posturing, posing and preening.
Let's be clear they don't mean it. the Cons are hooked to the decrepit old voting system like an old soak clinging to his Special Brew. The current structure leaves them at least 5% worse off but they cannot contemplate any reform which would threaten their chances of acting like elected dictators. Their behaviour, far from being responsible, shows they crave power and would never deign to share the spoils.

The Conservatives' Parliamentary reforms are but a fig leaf. Reducing Ministerial pay is nothing more than a gimic and cutting the number of MPs by 10 percent will only add a tenth more workload of constituency work to the over-worked remainder.
Hague has been trumpeting his party's dismal 'reform' policies and described ripping up the voting system as only "tinkering round the edges." Cameron's latest on-the-hoof policy is to legislate for an election six months after a change of Prime Minister, whatever the circumstances. As Peter Mandelson said contemptuously, "So the Tories would have insisted on an election in 1940. This just isn't serious politics."

Peter Hain (above) is one of the few senior Labour figures to admit, a huge wave of tactical voting is required to slam the door on the Tories. Holding a referendum on voting reform would then keep them locked out. "I think it is time for everyone to behave intelligently in their own constituencies...if we can beat the Tories this time we can change British politics forever."

The Tories aversion to a proportional system is not entirely irrational although it is undemocratic. The fact remains, most people don't want them in power.

Friday 23 April 2010

To Thine Own Party be True


The traditions of newpaper journalism are long established in Britain. The first newspaper, the Daily Courant, first appeared in 1702 - one of its first scoops was to announce the death of King William of Orange.

Any newspaper journalist is judged on two main criteria; their contacts and their integrity - even more important than an ability to write well.

Of course, journos have their own political opinions and they are bound to show through. But it should not prevent them reporting news even if it is unhelpful to their party of allegiance. Nor should it mean writing stories which are simply biased beyond any semblance of reality, aimed at simply inflicting political damage. Then they would cease to be a journalist and become simply a party propagandist.

Well, back to the real world. The Daily Mail has escalated its news war on Nick Clegg helped enthusiastically by the Telegraph and the Sun. The Mail's editor, Paul Dacre, whose photo appears above, is most probably a face you would not have recognised. The profile of the media commanders is usually inversely related to their power.

The reporting of the second TV debate was so biased it was breathtaking. The lead Mail article seemingly canvassing various views included only prominent quotes from William Hague, Eric Pickles and George Osborne. Surely the British public is not falling for this? Yesterday's Mail had seven articles and an editorial slating Clegg.

The Sun's editors now feel able to filter any news they deem unhelpfully truthful. It even extends to opionion polls they have commissioned, the YouGov finding which showed 49% would like a Lib-Dem Government, was omitted.

There remains a very strong suspicion these stories are deriving from Andy Coulson at Tory HQ. BBC Political Editor, Nick Robinson said on Thursday, "I now learn that political reporters from the Tory-backing papers were called in one by one to discuss how Team Cameron would deal with "Cleggmania" and to be offered Tory HQ's favourite titbits about the Lib Dems."

Simultaneous to the launch of these visceral attacks is a dual counter attack by Tory front benchers and Sun editors about Labour "lies". These are simply diversionary tactics trying raising the 'rough and tumble' of local leaflet campaigns into something orchestrated by the PM himself.

Proving the link between conspirators of politics and press will be hard, one hopes the public work out the connection, or at least tire of being instructed who to vote for.

The Conservatives may no longer be the nasty party but the way they are playing the media is still quite despicable. The 'journalists' who write this dross may as well trade in their NUJ cards for Tory Party membership.

_________________________________________________

Reading the Sunday Express was recently described by (The Thick Of It) actor, Chris Addison as, "an exercise in futility."

Never more apt than this front-pager this week, which reads like a good spoof rather than anything related to serious journalism.

"DOUBTS over Nick Clegg’s commitment to British interests in the EU intensified last night after it emerged he once led a campaign to return the historic Elgin Marbles to his friends in Greece."

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/171276/General-election-2010-EU-zealot-Nick-Clegg-s-bid-to-return-Elgin-Marbles

Wednesday 21 April 2010

So What's the Big Idea?


Say what you like about Norman Tebbit (and many do) but he knew his way around the Tory party. His electoral salesmanship, as Party Chairman, of the benefits of industrial privatisation and the sale of Council houses landed Margaret Thatcher her third win in 1987 and was the high point of her premiership.

The idea of former Council tenants entering the property market was simple, affirming and emphasised a commitment to social mobility. But Cameron's 'Big Society', an obvious attempt to devise a 21st Century equivalent, is complex, daunting and feels just theoretical.
When parents are less than satsfied about results at their children's school, it hardly their first reaction to cast around for others to help set up their own. We expect the neccesary improvements to be made, not to wrest responsibility from the professionals.
Most of us have lives crammed with activity, with barely enough time to watch the news. I don't know anyone who has so much spare time, they actively considered establishing their own job centre co-operative.

There is also considerable unease about putting so many local public services on a commercial basis. Here is Fry and Laurie's fine critique of privatisation. Dated as well as being very topical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4

The selling of the 'Big Society' on doorsteps has been greeted by the public with sparse enthusiasm. One shadow minister conceded to the Guardian, "it needed to be put into more practical voter language". Another called the Big Society 'bollocks'. Le mot juste.

Like many senior Tories, old Tebbit still has plenty of contempt and bile. But fortunately most of it these days is directed at his own party.

He Who Shouts Loudest


...often wins elections in the US. But surely not in little old Britain?

The newspapers have played an influential role in previous elections. The Sun's headline on the eve of 1992 election,"If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights" re-enforced plenty of views about the man in a fairly tight contest.

Just prior to an election almost all the papers declare which party's policies most closely match their views (the editors' that is, not the hapless readership.) But the tenor and content of the coverage this election feels like it has crossed another boundary this time. Some papers have become little more than campaign sheets for the Conservative Party. All pretence and subtlety has been dumped, the sub-plot revealed.

The Sun's editorial today, sandwiched between character attacks on Clegg and Brown, unashamedly repeated Cameron's slogan of 'Vote Clegg, Get Brown', adding, "only by voting Tory can you be sure of driving a stake through Labour's heart."

The Daily Mail newsroom must be equally panicked in thinking they have backed a loser in Dave, judging by today's ultra-shrill Comment page. The general tone was admonishing the public for being so thick in falling for Nick Clegg ("Time for voters to wake up and get real").

Who the hell are they to tell us? Or even more succinctly, who the hell are they?

The full page lecture contain a laughable defence of first-past-the-post even though it may deliver Labour as the largest party on less than 30% of the vote. Even the claim FPTP has given Britain "such stability over centuries," is not even true. It was adopted in the latter Victorian era.

Just shouting at people for "sleep-walking... into a Government as corrupt and inept as Berlusconi's Italy," seems destined to fail in persuading middle England from wishing for a new system of power-sharing. These dreadfully biased tabloids only use the deranged political language which the country appears to be rejecting in its rather mild-mannered way.

It is far from clear what is stirring across the country but it feels hugely uplifting and re-affirming in democracy and the independent spirit of British people.

Aged charmer, Dr David Owen, alluded to this mysterious shift in allegiances which is scaring the life out of the traditional power bases, when he told the Guardian. "I think things are happening deep down which probably none of us understand....the great British public out there in their strange, almost instinctive way are groping towards a solution."

Tuesday 20 April 2010

Do they Mean Us?


David Cameron has been compelled to rapidly ditch his Brown-centric message and turn his fire, in rather non-specific terms on Nick Clegg. But he still making the fundamental error of forever talking nationally rather than seeing the sense of speaking to the voter. On Sunday and Monday Dave implored the electorate not to vote in a way which would result in a hung Parliament.

How is Mr Average Voter meant to respond to this message? Is he expected to pause at the ballot box working out how to best achieve a "decisive Government"rather than just chosing one of the names before him?

Dave and his Campaign Director Osborne appears to be addressing us collectively. It reminds me of those announcements on the London Underground in the rush hour, "Please use all available doors." To which we think to ourselves, "But I can only use one door."

When asked about his vehement opposition to a hung Parliament Cams replied with an ironic smirk," can you really expect politicians to work so well together?"
I thought, firstly "You are a politician so it's no good trying to distance yourself from 'them'. Second, the rest of Europe seems to manage OK. And third why should we respect politicians inability to work co-operatively under difficult circumstances when that is exactly what millions of people do in the working lives all the time?

Monday 19 April 2010

You Got the Mo'


Naturally, I watched the debate on Thursday evening expecting my hand to reach for the remote in about ten minutes. But it was surprisingly vital and I stuck it out.

Although I recognised Nick Clegg had edged it with superior handling of the event, I really did not expect the huge impact it would have on the polls.

The obvious inference must be, many of the British people are getting to know Clegg for the first time. Such is the pitiful lack of engagement in politics in 2010 Britain. Certainly he is refreshing and speaks with candour on a more human level. Quite a lot of his party's policies seem quite attractive, raising thresholds to £10K and taxing the banks.

His opponents fine tuned their presentational skills pretty well but their ‘performances’ did not resonate with the public at all. When offered the usual choice of chips or mash, the public have shouted "we've had enough of spuds." Clegg would therefore constitute a rather lovely risotto.

The 10 point bounce to the Lib-Dems amounts to the biggest sudden change in the fate of British politics since the death of John Smith in 1994. The enthusiasm for the third party may dwindle a little when people look at their local options. But the emergence of ‘Cleggmania’ is so close to the election the other parties look about as manoeuvrable as a pair of oil tankers.

All they have left is the familiar smear and spin operations which we can discern wins precious little votes and risks back-firing. Michael Gove has already hinted they intend to attack Lib- Dems on "eccentric" policies such as defence. Clegg already stated his position clearly without any hint of apology at the last debate – Trident should be cancelled. Although the voters naturally prefer a robust support of armed services, they may fail to see the sense in prioritising spending £100Bn on a weapons system which will never be used not least because its strategic purpose is to protect us from 'threat' from the Kremlin.

The press, now thoroughly divided down party lines, has attempted a rather tired campaign to attack Senor Clegg. The Sun opted for the rather graceless 'Don't trust Dems'. The worst adjective the Mail could deploy on our Nick was, "multi-lingual" and the Telegraph journos giggled at his fluent Dutch like sad sap schoolboys.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7603945/Nick-Clegg-defends-Liberal-Democrat-stance-on-Europe.html

This desperate political grasping is aimed at preserving the Conservatives' standing at 40% - that prospect looks certainly lost. Labour now has about an evens chance of being the largest party. A Lib-Dem showing in the upper 20s percent would allow Clegg and Cable to expect a place in Cabinet. More importantly the coalition would only have to last long enough for a referendum on electoral reform due by Labour's manifesto for the autumn.

Of course, the Tories' goose would be thoroughly 'bien cuit' by then. It would be fascinating to see the exchanges at Tory HQ now as both Cameron and Osborn experience a decline in their fortunes for the first time in their careers.

Clegg himself summaried it best when he said of the Tory high command, " The overriding sense you get from them is one of entitlement to govern rather than why they want to govern. They dramtically underestimate the British people."

Monday 12 April 2010

A Phoney's War


The General Election campaign has been pretty lacklustre so far. Plenty of bickering about the economic impact of raising National Insurance contributions by just 1p, is hardly likely to dazzle the electorate.

The main message from the Government seems to be ‘solidity, tenacity, assuredness’. That stance is unlikely to lift them above 35% but yet may prove just enough to cling to power.

The Opposition’s cri-de-guerre seems to be "vote for a change…er…for change’s sake". Tory HQ must have a big map of all the demographics in the country alongside a few words of strategy citing which media to use to target their vote. The Cons are apparently trying to woo the population of undecideds but their words are often more self-conscious than a spotty teenager in his first suit.
As Eric Morecombe used to say, "you can see the join."

For example, David Cameron’s article in the Guardian last Friday, was pitiful in its attempt to persuade liberal voters over to his side. “Our solution is to use the state to remake society – to make the Big Society, enabling people to come together to drive progress.” Eh?

His dismal attempt to highlight public sector pay as the most iniquitous, did not stand any scrutiny. He even had the brass neck to call on the Guardianistas to turn Tory, “ To Guardian readers everywhere, I say: overcome any prejudices you may have…”

The readership, once they had stopped laughing, may have pointed to the unashamed “prejudices” of the bigoted parties the Tories are allied to, in the European Parliament.

The Conservatives, while acknowledging severe cuts and drastic choices need to be made, would first give back all £12Bn of the NI increase. This cashback deal will be funded entirely on “efficiency savings” which haven’t yet been made and on areas already identified by Labour but previously dismissed by George Osborne (pictured) as illusory.

Wee Georgie announced last week with a fanfare, Brown and Darling’s case for economic prudence was “destroyed” by the endorsement of the Tory position on NICs by 20 or 30 prominent business leaders. Not economists, you understand, but CEOs.

Lib Dem Chancellor, Vince Cable, may appear to be a rather tetchy, suburban headteacher but has proved himself, over a sustained period, to have a very firm grasp of the critical economic detail. His description of the political statements by these highly partial men of commerce as “utterly nauseating” captured the sentiment of the electorate much more closely than any buttery words about the 'Big Society' from Cameron.

In 1979, Margaret Thatcher swept into power with a clear vision of what she wanted to achieve. It was, at times, brutal, devisive and had a revolutionary impact on the country's political landscape. Whatever the merits of Thatcherism, no-one doubted her clarity and single-mindedness.

I still can't find Cameron's.

Friday 9 April 2010

What it Comes Down To...


"All politics is local," said 'Tip' O'Neill (left) former U.S. House Speaker.
This famous aphorism captures the need for candidates and parties to address the local, at times seemingly trivial, issues affecting voters' daily lives before talking expansively about the national picture.
This simple truism appears to have eluded the hierarchy of the Conservative Party strategists.
Camborne, near Falmouth, is a classic three-way battle. The Conservative candidate, George Eustice was asked by BBC Five Live why the people of Cornwall should elect him and oust Lib-Dem Julia Goldsworthy.

"We need to focus people's minds on the fact that this is a national election, and if they want to change the government, if they really don't want five more years of Gordon Brown, then this is a seat that the Conservatives simply have to win. If we don't win seats like this, we won't get a majority and Gordon Brown will cling to power." Note the absence of any promise to properly represent his constituents' interests.
At the Cons election launch on Tuesday, David Cameron said, "what it comes down to is this...do you want another five years of Gordon Brown?" There was no word about having best candidates and policies, clearly the Tories see their best chance of overall victory as a referendum on Brown.
If it were a Presidential election then Cameron would be the likely winner. But it's not. Elections in UK are about winning seats. The BBC's election calculator is a rather useful toy (work on 'Others' being 8-10%)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm
The clear lesson from tinkering with various scenarios is the Tories have a huge way to go to win an overall majority of one. They really need to hit 40%. Their strategy of focussing on a simple Gordon v. Dave boxing match is not likely to yield a huge surge to them, Brown is unpopular but not irredeemably so. He is considered a bit accident-prone and aggressive but he is not hated in the same way Thatcher or Blair were.
Consequently the Cons are pinning a lot on the TV debates. The format would appear to favour, perhaps, a former PR man turned politician. But that does not mean the voters will warm to Dave and vote accordingly.
The clever dicks at school who won the debating contests would be filled with pride at the audience's applause. But after the clamour died away, they soon rememebered they had no mates.