Saturday, May 10, 2008
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Why has it all gone wrong for Gordon?
Politaholic thinks there are 5 key reasons:
1 “It’s the economy, stupid”. Following on the Northern Rock fiasco, the credit crunch, and stalling/falling house prices, Middle England is feeling the pinch. It could be argued that it is a tad unfair to blame the government for all of this (Gordon is hardly to blame for the “US sub-prime market”), but then again, uncontrolled borrowing and runaway house price inflation (the latter the God-given right of the middle-classes to get something for nothing) have been as much a feature of the UK as the US economy (this did not begin when Gordon became PM but he was, after all, Chancellor). What’s more, Gordon seems to have bottomless pockets when it comes to bailing out Northern Crock executives (whose belief in market forces seems to have evaporated) and that hardly sits well with hitting the lowest paid by removing the 10p tax band. In any case, what has fairness to do with politics? When the economy goes arse-over-tit it is the government that (usually) gets the blame (unless they can convince the voters to “hold onto nurse for fear of something worse”). The Tories are benefiting from this even although it is obvious they have no magic solution.
2. Gordon himself:
(i) He is a Scot (and the English don’t like it: the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula play well in the suburbs and send the Tory Bloggers into paroxysms of rage, poor dears).
(ii) He simply does not have Blair’s communication skills and the middle-class English just don’t like him. For all that we hear he is warm and humorous in private, put him in front of a camera and he comes across as if he has just landed from another planet. He is at his worst when he tries to appear ordinary: talking about his “young children” and his “love of sport”. In an age of celebocracy, he just can’t cut it. A sad comment on our times, really.
(iii) His style of leadership: government by cabal, intolerance – indeed, incomprehension - of any criticism, a lack of ease: all of which leaks out and tends to repel voters. There he is: powerful, at the top of the greasy pole, a hugely successful politician (Chancellor for 10 years and now PM) and the overwhelming impression one gets is of a lack of self-confidence disguised by a blustering style.
3. “Too clever by half”: Brown seems addicted to seemingly clever political positioning which routinely backfires: inheritance tax (looked opportunist), election-that-never-was (looked indecisive, opportunist, and duplicitous); removing 10p tax band to fund 1p tax cut (looked like a blatant attempt to bribe Middle England); 42 days (pathetic attempt to look tough); Northern Rock (delayed nationalisation to avoid looking like Old Labour, then eventually bailed them out); did-and-didn’t go to the launch of the European Reform Treaty (looked ridiculous) and on and on. Even the “Government of all the talents” which worked well in the press was a gimmick. The “Not Flash, Just Gordon” was a sound PR strategy – it could have worked – but it requires an appearance of straight dealing, and Brown has blown it with his inability to avoid short-term gimmickry. All tactics, no strategy.
4: “Time for a change”. Every government runs out of steam, becomes tired, loses direction, begins to look jaded. Voters think it is time to “give the others a chance”. Brown’s task was always going to be more difficult than Blair’s: winning a fourth term. When a government has been in office for ten years or so it cannot plausibly blame its predecessor when things go wrong. Brown – as Chancellor for 10 years – cannot claim to be a “fresh face”. At the same time he faces a Conservative Party which has been given a new coat of paint (still the same thing underneath of course but looking different, with a crowd-pleasing PR man at the helm).
5: No sense of direction. Blair at least knew what he wanted to do: placate Middle England, privatise everything in sight, triangulate to avoid ever being outflanked on the right by the Tories, cold shoulder trades unions and Labour core voters. Brown can’t make up his mind: does he think “Best when we are Labour” or is it “New Labour Redux”? He can’t decide: it is neither one thing nor the other, neither this nor that, no theme, no “narrative”, no bloody idea of what he wants to do. As several commentators have observed, here is a guy who spent decades plotting to become PM who hasn’t a clue what to do now he is PM.
What can be done?
Nothing probably. I can’t see a change of Leader happening. If Gordon were Tory Leader they would cut his throat and throw him in the nearest canal alongside the rotting carcass of Iain Duncan-Smith, but Labour lacks such ruthlessness (it is too deferential). In any case, changing Leader will not suddenly reverse Labour’s fortunes. It might make things worse: it would certainly look panicky. And who would take his place? David-the-Geek? Postman-Alan? Is either really going to sweep all before him? No, it’s Gordon until the next election, for better or worse.
What will happen?
Well, a week is a long time in politics. But the tide is running against Labour and it looks bad. Tony must be smirking; and Cherie must be in seventh heaven.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
"The Jackal" Triumphs
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Jack and Ed: "Rumble in the Jungle"?
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Prezza: 27 Pork Pies every day


Saturday, April 05, 2008
Former PM may be interested in EU Presidency
No, not Tony. Bertie Ahern has just resigned as Taoiseach and will be succeeded by his Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) and Minister for Finance, Brian Cowen. Asked about the Presidency of the Council Ahern said he would "certainly like to be considered for a position like that" but he would "have to think about it". Has he a chance? Hard to say. The circumstances of his resignation - the Mahon Tribunal revelations vis-a-vis his rather irregular personal finances - are not perhaps very helpful.
Cleggover
Sunday, March 30, 2008
In praise of...the NHS

Saturday, March 29, 2008
Apathy? Who Cares?
- Only 13% say they are "very interested" in politics; 19% say they are "not at all" interested. Just 51% say they are "interested".
- Only 53% say they are certain to vote at the next election.
- Only 41% say they have discussed politics with friends or family in the last two years.
- Only 31% believe that "when people like me get involved in politics, they really can change the way the country is run".
- Young people are less likley to be interested in politics; so are those in social class DE, readers of tabloid "newspapers", people who belong to an ethnic-minority and - for some reason - the Welsh (!).
- 12% say they know "nothing at all" about politics and 45% "not very much".
- Only 23% of 18-24 year-olds say that they will vote.
Polly Toynbee in the Guardian argues that "what makes people vote is having something worth voting for - and something to vote against". There is something in this: turnout in last year's French Presidential election (where voters were presented with a clear choice) was fairly high (over 80%). The old refrain that politicians are "all the same" is, Toynbee argues, "not wrong in these strange political times". There are many reasons why people don't vote. Those who favour a "cyclical" explanation argue that, if an election is closely contested, turnout will go up. On the other hand, turnout at the next election would have to rise by an astonishing 17.6% to match the 1950-66 average and by 10% to match the turnout in 1997. That seems to me unlikely. Toynbee advocates electoral reform - she argues AV (a "small change") could be introduced in time for the next election. The trouble is, if AV were introducted, this change would probably block what might be called "proper" electoral reform: the introduction of a PR system. In any case, it is hardly a remedy for the deeper malaise Toynbee identifies: the feeling - that many people have - that it doesn't really matter who wins, it will be "business as usual" for the corporate fat cats, that political engagement is simply futile. I can't see that changing any time soon. Prediction? turnout will go up next time; but will fall far short of 70%.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Is Brown Butch or Sundance? Neither.

Bling Wars

Monday, March 24, 2008
Obama's Pastor Plays the Race Card
The Clinton's have been getting a pasting in the media for allegedly playing the race card. The evidence? Hillary apparenly denigrated Martin Luther King (by pointing out that it was Lyndon Johnson who pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress) and Bill pointed out that Jesse Jackson won primaries in the south in the 1980's. Pretty tame stuff, really. The ringing phone ad was apparently racist also, although I can't see it. Well, here is the race card played for real by Obama's pastor (Obama has attended his church for 20 years yet says he never heard Pastor Wright say anything like this before). It isn't that there isn't some truth in what the Pastor says (about poor black folk and rich white folk). It is, rather, the whole tone and manner of it. Hillary Clinton may be many things but she doesn't really deserve this. One of the pleasing things about this video is that, if you look closely, the audience seems divided and some appear to be trying to remonstrate with Pastor Wright, although we can't hear what they say because he has the microphone. Not everyone is applauding. There were some - black people - even in the Church, who appear to think he was, as they say, "out of order". It is, of course, damaging Obama (this morning's Guardian reports white votes ebbing away) and, should he win the Democratic nomination, this - and Pastor Wright's "God damn America" together with Michelle's embarassing gaffe - will be used relentlessly by the Republicans. They are both already all over YouTube and the blogosphere.
