Was Labour’s poster - a “gaffe” or a “£5m publicity coup”?
February 1st, 2005
-
Who’ll come out best in the Milburn-Crosby show?
We’ll have to wait until the early hours of May 6th when the results from seats with large Jewish populations like Finchley and Golders Green are declared before we can completely put the lid on the Labour poster affair.
If the party’s performance is disproportionately worse in these seats then no doubt some erudite commentator will be recalling the little row that’s been going on since Friday and which has now led to the party withdrawing the posters, which only ever appeared on the internet.
There are differing views on the immediate impact - Radio 4’s “Today Programme” called it a “gaffe” while a story in the Times quotes a PR “expert” saying the party had secured £5m of free publicity. The paper’s leader page was much more hostile saying “Apart from the anti-Semitic overtones, such images are evidence of a campaign that treats the electorate with contempt, their choice at the polls as child’s play. Labour will get the election it deserves. But to coin one of Mr Blair’s own campaign slogans, Britain deserves better than this.”
-
The real message from the affair is that Labour’s campaign, headed by Alan Milburn, is going to pull no punches in its attacks on the Tories in general and Michael Howard in particular.
But is this the right way to keep Lib Dem leaning Labour supporters within the fold? This is the group that could have a huge impact on the overall result.
With the man described as the “Australian Karl Rove”, Lytton Crosby, heading the Tory campaign we are going to see a tough campaign from both main parties. The effectiveness of negative tactics in November’s US election has set the scene for the UK.
What are the betting implications? If like last time there are markets on turn-out then bet low.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Interesting debate Mike. I do not buy the idea that this was a deliberate idea to get publicity. As a Govt, Labour does not need any publicity at all cost. I would have thought that the row about the content has greatly overshadowed the “message” in the posters. Many liberal minded people I speak to think that Labour has shot itself in the foot with this poster campaign and it has left a bad taste in the mouth that I think will last until polling day.
Other than Finchley where are the constituencies with a large Jewish community?
Leeds North East which has a retiring MP whoes majority is 5236
I dont think any party being accused of anti-semitism so close to Holocaust Memorial day will welcome the publicity. The posters aren’t particularly striking or memorable and I doubt will stay in the public mind (how many of these posters ever do, I can only think of Labour isn’t working and the ‘Demon Eyes’ poster).
In Scotland the only seat with a significant Jewish population is East Renfrewshire where the MP is a member of Labour friends of Israel.
The posters will be remembered where it will affect Labour. I suspect “Lord” Levy may have some problems extracting money. It should be noted taht this is item 3 - the McCartney remark and O’Brien’s article in the Muslim press!
As for the constituencies they main ones are:
Hendon (contains Edgware, largest Synagogue building in the UK)
Ilford North (Ilford has largest Synagogue congregation, but not building)
Finchley and Golders Green
Hertsmere
There are also sizeable numbers of Jewish voters in Harrow East, Epping and Enfield Southgate.
Brent North retains 4 Synagogues (Wembley, Kenton, Kingsbury and Wembley Liberal), but all have declining congregations.
Outside of London Bury South and the Stockport constituencies have sizeable Jewish communities. Hove has about 6,000 Jewish voters and northern Leeds probalbly about 10,000 - spread of several wards and constituencies.
In most cases they votes will only be effective in very close run contests.
Peter, thanks, I found that interesting. I was once told that Manchester had the largest Jewish community in Europe in the 1950’s - perhaps one of the Manchester seats might be affected as well?
Manchester Withington, an outside Lib Dem target, has very large Jewish communities in Didsbury and West Didsbury and could be included.
Bournemouth East (a Tory/Lib Dem marginal with substantial Lab vote) also has a high Jewish population
Salford (evidently not marginal, but wouldn’t you just love Hazel Blears to lose?) and Bury South (kind of marginal) both have notable (if not huge) Jewish communities.
Whilst the Labour posters on the site have sought to play this incident down I do think the media are going to be much more on their guard for dirty Labour type stories which can only hurt. What will poor old Watson and Kemp do with themselves now?
Manchester doesn’t have a sizeable Jewish population (within its current city limits) these days - only about 1% overall.
Hendon, and Finchley & Golders Green, each have a Jewish population of about one fifth of the total (but probably a rather higher proportion of those who voted in 2001).
When Margaret Thatcher was first elected in Finchley, she was caused considerable embarassment by the local golf club (which some Tories belonged to) which had a policy of not admitting Jews - something she vociferously condemned. It was an issue which enabled the Liberals to make a breakthrough in Finchley, where they won control of the local council, and won about 30% of the vote in the 1964 general election.
Sean, thanks for the information, and the great story!
I thought you guys on this website were meant to be the intelligentsia of political thought and communications!
What the Tories have done, aided and abetted by their friends at the Daily Mail, is a classic case of ’shoot the messenger’. Tory high command don’t really think Labour’s posters are anti-semitic. This trumped up charge is simply a means of avoiding talking about the substance of labour’s posters - that the Tory economic sums simply don’t add up. Divert the media attention away from their own problems with their economic policies and make sure that Labour’s ability to expose the Tories for it is hampered. And the media fall for it every time!
The interesting question for me is who has won from it all. Have the sub-conscious minds of the public understood that the Tories are playing fast and loose with their future economic offer, or has Labour suffered from the Tory slurs?
Jan, regardless of political leaning, I don’t think many people would accuse the media of having given the Tories a particularly easy time of it over the past few years.
Nor do I think that people like Nick Temko or Jonathan Romain are part of some Tory plot.
I think it’s much broader than the Daily Mail Jan. There was a very strong piece by Nick Cohen in the Standard last night and nobody could accuse him of being a Tory. Looking at Guido’s Order-Order.com site and see the juxtaposition of the Fagin poster with one from Nazi Germany and the effect is quite shocking.
Alan Milburn is a loose cannon and should not be running Labour’s election campaign.
I’m not Jewish but some of my family are and this has left a bad taste in the mouth that will be remembered.
I see so it’s all a Tory plot… Robin Cook, Louise Ellman, Harry Cohen etc. must be well paid for their double-agent services. I think you’ll have to try a lot harder to get the intelligentsia to swallow that one.
Sean, maybe those two are not part of a ‘tory plot’ but that doesn’t detract from the fact that this whole affair started with a Tory plan to shoot the messenger. If you were a Tory strategist, what would you rather talk about - the possibility of Labour’s posters being a bit dodgy or the actual charge at the heart of those posters. Remember, the Tories got slayed by their mismanagement of the economy in 1997, with Labour hitting them with 22 Tory tax increases and the fact that Major lied on tax when he was elected in 1992.
I’m merely suggesting that all you readers and posters on this website get a little cuter. If you just take the Tory attacks at face value then you’re falling into their trap. Have a little think about what they need to achieve over the next few weeks and months
But Jan - what about Nick Cohen’s and Robin Cooke’s attacks on the posters? This is broader than just the Tories whose big mistake was to get involved at all. They should have kept out of it. This campaign was a stupid mistake by Milburn who isn’t half as clever as he thinks he is and is going to get Blair into even deeper messes.
Re 1 Bury south ex tory marginal now the seat of Ivan Lewis a minister
DR at 17
If the Tories hadn’t got this story up and running in the first place, neither Robin Cook nor Nick Cohen would have been involved in it. They must be rubbing their hands with glee at CCO about Labour people getting involved now. What a coup for them - it’s working better than their wildest dreams.
Labour had come up with a nice little scam - putting four ads on their website for a vote and getting, they hoped, knock on publicity for nothing - no need to fork out for a single billboard.
Trouble for them was that the Tories worked out how to urinate on their fire. Perhaps this Crosby bloke at CCO is getting the Tories act together. It could be an interesting election after all
I’ve just had a look at the Labour Party website - they’ve got 4 more posters up there for their members to vote on.
Who’s got any ideas as to how the Tories could shoot the messenger with this lot?
Dead Ringer @ 24. What interested me about Nick Cohen’s article is that he went on to say “It’s like portraying Robert Mugabe as a monkey or Ariel Sharon as an eater of Palestinian babies. However deeply they despised them, no decent person who knew the histories of imperialism and fascism would dream of doing either.”
I couldn’t tell if Nick had forgotten that the Independent did print a cartoon of Ariel Sharon eating Palestian babies in 2003, or if it was a subtle dig at it.
19 Jan - I think you are forgetting Labour’s “form” which is what gave this story “legs”. Ian McCartney’s comparison of Letwin with Fagin and Mike O’Brien’s disgraceful anti-semitic allusions in his piece for the Moslem newspaper added to the impression that there is some underlying nastiness in Labour’s campaign!
Re Mike’s point at the top - how does this type of campaign stop Lib Dem leaning Labour supporters from deserting the party? That’s the real threat to Labour and that’s how the party could lose power. Already this group has been alienated by the war, ID cards and repressive law and order measures and Milbrun’s campaiging seems to be ignoring them.
Chants of “Are you Ben in disguise?”!
Cardiff Central has a significant Jewish population in Cyncoed and Penylan wards where all 6 Cllrs have been Lib Dem for two decades with huge majorities. As it’s a straight fight between Lab MP and Lib Dems for Parliament, some Tory supporters might be more resolved to vote tactically to remove the Lab MP.
Rik - I think what really gave this story legs was the Labour reaction to it, which has been beautifully illustrated on this site. If they had said “It was an honest mistake we never thought of the connotations and we won’t use them.” everyone would have forgotten. What they actually said was “We’re right and you can all sod off.” until saner voices prevailed, which reinforced an impression of Labour that the media have anyway. What’s been said today has convinced me to sell more Labour seats anyway so thank you all for that.
Good comment, Rik (26).
I tend to agree that the real reason for all this was that Labour staff / ad agency simply didn’t realise the connotations of their poster (the pig one - I’m less convinced by the fagin accusations). And I think that Labour then handled it badly.
But FWIW beware selling too much. Howard has plenty of problems to cope with. One battle does not make a war.
Sorry Jon - I meant your comment was good (but of course I don’t mean to imply that Rik’s wasn’t!!!) Oh dear - apologies all, I’m a bit of a novice at this so please bear with me. I am fascinated by the discussions on this site - one of the best things I’ve come across on the web - and it’s taken me a bit of time to pluck up courage to join in with you all
There is a myth about the size of teh Jewish community, one that spreads everywhere, apparently a sizeable proportion of Poles still believe that there are millions of Jews in Poland!
certainly theer was a substantial community in Manchester in the Didsbury/Longsight/Cheetham Hill area, but that has gone with the Jews of Whitechapel.
In 1920 theer were 9 Synagogues on Cannon Street Road Whitechapel alone, there is only one left in all of Tower Hamlets.
In Cardiff the Synagogue (in Cathedral Road) has become a business centre, and whreas there is some Jewish community remaining in the City, whether it is large enough to be a voting block is very debateable.
Jews in the UK (like the US) have been affected by assimilation and even people with Jewish names (such as David Aaronovitch) are not in legal Jewish terms Jewish.
I can assure Mr Kowalski that the poster did not need the Mail or Conservative HQ to kick up a storm.
Lord Levy’s phone line would have been burning well before it became a “public issue”
I will be interested in the Jewish Chronicle this weekend.
The whole point of anti-semitism, and one of the reasons why it is so enduring is that it is rarely done intentionally. When people say that there is something about Michael Howard that “they just don’t trust”, at least part of this is down to anti-semitism, just people don’t realise. He looks like he does in great part because of his Jewish ancestry. Thus it may not be deliberate, but anytime any poster is displayed with Michael Howard on it, it is in some small part playing on an institutionalised anti-semitism within the human psyche. But because it is much more nuanced than, anti-black racism, it is not noticed or cannot easily be complained about, anyway it is rarely the ‘point’ of the poster in the first place.
Labour know that everytime Howard appears on television he costs himself votes, and so the logical extension is to put him on every poster they can. They claim that it is due to ‘memories re-emerging of the past Tory government’. It is undoubtedly more than that.
#31 - Have any facts to back that up?
Facts to back what up? I’m not saying Labour is exploiting anti-semitism deliberately, just it is a consequence featuring him prominently in their poster campaigns.
Peter at 29 - it’s Mrs Kowalski. See how easy it is to make inadvertent, honest mistakes
Alex
I think it was more your snide comment “Labour know that everytime Howard appears on television he costs himself votes”. It is nonsense and I doubt you can justify it.
It was interesting that this weekend I had to do some RAF reservist trg and was chatting to colleagues in the Officers Mess. They are not political and in the past would have been natural Tories but in recent years are a mix of views. They were generally impressed with Howard, in agreement with his immigration campaign and unimpressed with Labour’s dirty tricks. As reservists they come from all walks of life and all round the country and are not all natural Tories by any means.
So my straw poll suggests that your comments are baseless.
#35 - exactly.
Dear RIk Re 35
I must agree as an ex reservist naval officer the reservist do come from all walks of life but us officers have always been tories and so have most of our men and women. Good lord I’ve just been told i’m the tory candidate for a county council seat in Northampton
Well if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. It wasn’t meant to be snide. Would it have been better if I had written “(some in)Labour think that every time Howard appears on television he loses votes”? This is not a partisan point - it was much implied in political debate in the aftermath of Howard’s election victory.
So Labour have lots of pictures of Howard, the Tories have lots of pictures of Blair, and the Lib Dems have lots of pictures of both (and of Bush too).
This is not anti-semitic - they are just unpleasant people and the public need to be reminded about them.
I think the implications are to buy Lib Dems.
Good luck Stuart!
Thank you Iain looks like i’ll need it
alex at #30 - re something about Michael Howard people “just don’t trust”. I’m not convinced this is always due to anti-semitism. I find something about MH to be “off” somehow, but I don’t get the same feeling about Letwin. Maybe it’s a lawyer thing? Perhaps he is too articulate for his own good.
I didn’t find the posters anti-Semitic and my opinion is just as valid as Nick Cohen’s or Louise Ellmans. The Jewish Chronicle speaks even less for British Jews than does the Board of Deputies. And ex President Lord Granville Janner the Labour Peer calls the anti-Semitism story ridiculous.
It is well known that fifty Jews will give you fifty different opinions. Rather like the rest of the population actually. And Jews do not vote as a block. So all those posters who have named Golders Green and Withington etc as Jewish areas should consider their own anti-Semitism. Steriotyping is after all at the heart of all racism.
From reading the posts above it is clear that those who either support the Tories or hate Labour will find the posters offensive. Those who don’t probably won’t whether Jew or gentile. My straw polls havent produced one person who thinks they are anti-Semitic. But they have had a lot to say about Melanie Phillips!
Going back to the original point of this thread. I think that this whole thing has got a little bit exagerated. There is no doubt that a number of prominent Jewish people have been offended by the Labour posters, and if it is offensive to them then it is offensive. However, I really do think that it was all a bit over the top. i.e. the comparison with the Nazi poster noted at point 14. The Nazi poster had the words ‘Der Jude’ (the Jew) and ‘Der ewige Jude’ (the wandering Jew - I think this was a particular kick of the Nazis, that the Jews had no country which therefore made them sinister) over pictures of overly sinister charicatures of jewish people, their faces contorted, hellfires and shadows etc. The Labour poster meanwhile says ‘I can spend the same money twice’ - ‘The Tories sums don’t add up’, with a black and white picture of a vaguely smiling MH trying to be a hypnotist. It is not quite in the same league is it?
The first (pigs) poster is less obvoiusly anti-semetic to those who are not used to seeing jews described as pigs.
In the Arab / Islamic worlds Jews are often referred to as descendants of Pigs and Monkeys - see
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR01102) and
http://www.antisemitismus.net/europa/sicsa-1.htm
Forget about losing the Jewish vote, what about winning the Moslem vote?
Re 43: I quite agree that it is nonsense to talk about “the Jewish vote” as if all Jewish voters are the same or will vote primarily AS Jews and it is slightly racist to entertain the idea. Nevertheless, I cannot exonerate the producers of these posters completely. The flying pigs one strikes me as just a bit of rubbish, but the Howard poster with the watch I do object to. The expression of the photo chosen, the angle, the position of the hands - it even looks like they’ve photoshopped the position of his head to look like he’s hunching his shoulders - all speaks to stereotypical images; very subtly, but it does. So maybe they didn’t think of that? Well, maybe, but they bloody well should have.
Of course that doesn’t mean they want to be thought of as anti-Semitic or even that they are. But it’s just like Howard’s own reference to non-white immigrants - you raise it, people object and it’s dropped and forgotten - except by those people for whom the hint of racism struck a chord. It’s just enough to curry favour with racists while still being able to say you’re innocent yourself.
Are Labour trying to do the same thing? Well, in which community have they seen the biggest drop in support since the start of the Iraq war and in (limited parts of) which community would a suggestion of anti-Jewish racism curry most favour? Surely that’s just the kind of dog-whistle politics Mike was talking about.
Personally, I can’t stand Michael Howard, but I certainly don’t believe the Labour party machine is above using his background against him like this quite intentionally. Whatever else they are, they aren’t naive.
Graham, can you imagine Labour superimposing the faces of prominent Muslim politicians onto the bodies of pigs? Why should it be considered OK if the individuals are Jewish? The idea that no one inside Labour thought that these could be construed as anti-semitic just isn’t credible.
‘Based on Koranic Verses, Interpretations, and Traditions, Muslim Clerics State: The Jews Are the Descendants of Apes, Pigs, And Other Animals’
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR01102
Re Alex at 31 - It’s great to see that Labour are fighting such a morally uplifting and high-minded campaign, isn’t it? Where do the policies and programmes for a future term come in? I think the sanctimoniousness of St Tony will be particularly inappropriate at this particular election! If Labour thinks that they can trash the other two parties and maintain Blair’s halo, then they are just plain wrong. A fish rots from the head down…..
This is great. the other day I was defending the Lib Dems against a Labour politician. Today I am defending the Labour Party posters. It is out there now, so whether intentional or not, the posters are seen as anti-semitic. It is very hard to prove whether they were meant that way or not. I just think the criticism is far beyond the crime, whereas MH seemed to get away scot free with saying the Bradford riots were about immigration - which they weren’t
Graham @ 50 - I await with bated breath the day you defend a Tory…
Graham - they’ll be charging you with asphyxiating a Conservative PPC next!
Look, the first poster is a popular expression - the second one is a play on some horror movie about hypnotism. Lets remember it was a Conservative candidate who started this whole row, not anyone else. Also remember that it was a Conservative MP (Anne Widdecombe) who started the ’something of the night’ business anyway in 1997 (to do with the fact that MH was draconian and iliberal by even her standards - eg shackling pregnant prisoners). Also, remember it was the Tories who started the ‘Prince of Darkness’ thing about Peter Mandelson (who has Jewish roots). Politicans have always exploited a lack of Charisma in their opponents ‘eg Kennedy vs Nixon 1960 - would you buy a used car from this man’. Indeed you could draw a few parallels between Nixon and Howard: Nixon was an isolationist and Howard is anti-war, both shot to prominance using scare tactics (Nixon with ‘Reds’ , Howard with immigrants) and both were involved in scandals and dody dealings (Derek Lewis scandal vs Watergate). Lets also remember that this ad was not ever shown on one billboard or put in one newspaper.
Re: 53. A small point, but - “Howard is anti-war”?? I must have been living in a parallel universe for the past three years, because I wasn’t actually aware of that!
Indeed Matthew, and let’s not forgot the demon eyes. At the time Tony Blair was sensible enough to laugh that off. He could have claimed it was deeply offensive to him as a committed Christian.
Matthew at 53 - ever seen the cartoons page in an Egyption or Syrian newspaper? The pigs poster has a meaning that, thankfully, you do not comprehend. It is ANTI-SEMETIC.
THAT TWO POSTERS HAVE ANTI-SEMETIC OVERTONES IS TOO MUCH OF A COINCIDENCE TO BE ACCIDENTAL.
Has anyone seen the tories new ‘unbelievable’ poster? Its a good example of how do do personalised campaignig without being personally insulting. Its not as hard as labour seem to be making out.
Monty, the fact that none of us comprehend that is exactly the point. I don’t read Egyptian or Syrian newspapers and neither, I’m willing to bet, does whoever designed the posters.
There’s effective negative campaigning, and there’s inept negative campaigning. These posters fall into the latter category.
Re 58: Ian - so just look at Al-Quds Al-Arabi (published in London) from April 4, 2002.
1.6 million of the British poulation is Moslem; 267,000 is Jewish.
‘jew=pig / monkey’ is well understood, just like ‘america is the great satan’ etc
To 24 - am I “Ben is disguise?”. Who is Ben?
53 - The person who started this was Alan Milbrun - the so-called Labour campaign manager under whose remit these posters were created and published. The sooner Blair comes to his senses and brings back Brown into the campaign organisation the better. The only beneficiary from all of this are the Lib Dems. When’s Labour going to start dealing with them?
re: 61.
Yes, there would be a strong argument for labour attacking the libdems rather than the tories. Each vote that Labour lose to the Libdems means very little to them compared to each vote that goes from Labour to the tories, as there are only a few places that the Libdems are in a position to challenge Labour, but more where a shift from Labour to the Tories could do damage.
Foccussing attacks on the Tories serves to give them credability, just as not attackign the libdems restricts their credability.
Re 62 - Labour needs to be much more sophisticated with the Lib Dems than just attacking them. They’ve got to develop positive messages that will keep Lib Dem leaning Labour supporters within the fold. That’s why the party needs Gordon Brown back at the centre of this campaign. His developing world debt relief initiative could play very well this group of voters.
Re: 61 & 62. I don’t want to sound snide or trite, but is there a Lib Dem campaign for Labour to attack yet? They seem to be holding their fire, and enjoying the rise in the opinion polls, and letting the other two make the running. Perhaps if Labour turned their firepower on the Lib Dems now, it would give them too much credibility, and bring them in to the fight rather than allowing/hoping for them to go away.
JUDENSAU (German for “Jewish swine”) is a derogatory and dehumanizing imagery of the Jews that appeared around the 13th century in Germany and some other European countries. Its popularity lasted for over 600 years and was revived by the Nazis.
This is an example of anti-Semitic propaganda used by the authorities to ostracize the Jewish minority and justify its persecution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judensau
The holocaust did not start with a brick through a window for the author of the poem below - it started with something like a Labour campaign:
For me the Holocaust started in 33 in a small village.
by Lyn Lifshin
I was in a class
and the teacher said I
hear we have a Jew
pig in the class
I shook he said I’m
going to show this
Jew pig how much
pain a Jew can survive
he took a stick out
of the desk and
hit and hit I don’t
remember the pain
she said but only
the kids who’d been
my friends once
laughing and laughing
Well this has got out of hand.
Totally agree with #66. The strength of this site is the ethos of self restraint of language and respect for our fellow posters.
re: 63. you are right about the international development angle. Labour Students are focussing in their campaigns almost entirely (from what i’ve seen) upon this. Its pretty much the only student-friendly policy they have right now.
re: 64 The libdems would need an awful lot of credability in order to dent the labour majority. Surely better to ignore the tories and sacrifice a few to the libdems?
I agree. Much as I dislike this government, I wouldn’t claim they’re about to conduct a pogrom.
69 I agree with you - apologies for any offence.
My point is simply that I, personally, find it implausible that in the design and research process that these posters go through that no-one involved thought that they might be construed as anti-semetic.
That said, no further posts from me.
I think, Re: the Posters, that there are two choices, conspiracy or cock-up. Either Labout wanted subliminally to remind certain voters that Messrs Howard and Letwin have Jewish origins, or some copywriter did not know or notice that portraying them as pigs was offensive.
In this instance I am tempted to give Labour the benefit of the doubt. Firstly I would agree with several of the posters- there are people with jewish backgrounds in all the Parties: Greville Janner and Gerald Kaufman amongst many others in Labour, Clement Freud amongst many others in the Liberal Democrats and Michael Howard not least amongst the Conservatives. It is streching credulity surely that the party of Manny Shinwell amongst many distinguished Jewish Leaders would ever deliberately set out to be anti semitic?
A cock-up I can understand- some 12 year old copywriter really could be that ignorant. Are but, I hear a few correspondants cry, the whole thing is a put up job to attract cheap controversy without spending money… devious, but I am afraid I don’t think that even that seems credible- it is not just people of Jewish origin who find anti-semitism pretty disgusting, and the risks would surely be considered too high even after the third line in the “creatives meeting”.
So probably something of a storm in a teacup and I do not think that it will materiallly change the spreads- it just reflects the increasingly hysterical pre-election atmosphere. Mind you if the campaign is all yar-boo then bet a) on a very low turnout and b) on the Lib Dems pick up a little during the campaign (which does historically happen)- I think that the second is in the price though.
If it’s a choice between Conspiracy and Cock-up, I go with the latter on this one. As for the consequences, I haven’t got a clue.
Can we all be a bit more restrained? Inevitably this is an emotional subject and people feel very strongly but can we just lower the noise level on all sides.
Many thanks.
Mike
I think Monty should really start to consider what he is both saying and implying about Muslims let alone to the integrity of Labour’s campaign managers. The ad campaign was devised by Kevin Beattie of TBWA famous for the “FCUK” and “Come on boys” Wonderbra campaigns. He is the ad industry’s answer to a shock jock and if he keeps the business under normal circumstances he would have been delighted to have caused all this controversy. Having said that there is not the slightest chance that he considered the posters anti-Semitic when he submitted them. He isn’t that type of creative. And the idea that someone at Labour HQ saw something that the creatives had missed just doesn’t add up. If the picture was doctored to look more Faginish Beattie would have had to have done it and I repeat there is no chance whatever that he would have done so.
RE 53: Neither Howard or Nixon are/were particularly sleazy politicians. They were both very controversial but not particularly sleazy or corrupt. Watergate, was as much as storm in the teacup amongst anything, with the media and the Dems determined to bring Nixon down. If you want to see some real sleaze, look at how the 1960 was rigged in favour of the Dems in both Texas and Illinois with LBJ and Mayor Daley.
The reason the image though has stuck them is because of there strong rightwing views which repels a lot of the media and riles the left. The sleaze attached to the two of them is completely out of proportion to whatever occurred.
Mike,
Let me try to take the heat down a bit, since I think its fair to say I did stoke this issue up a bit.
On Friday I noticed the pigs advert and blogged about it, I then got an email from a source attaching the Shylock-Howard advert from a campaign email from Fraser Kemp. I thought, like the source, it looked much more dodgy. I searched through a holocaust evidence website to find similar Nazi images. Cropped the images, wrote a blog piece inviting readers to compare and contrast. Thought to myself, hmmm, thats got legs. So I emailed major newsdesks the images and blog-story.
The Standard ran the pig poster story but only when the Shylock-Howard poster pictures hit the papers did it go crazy. As Fraser Kemp protests - nobody in the mainstream media noticed for two weeks - until I emailed them.
I was not put up to it by Tory HQ or anyone else. I did it out of pure mischeviousness. I knew juxtaposing the nazi imagery and the poster would set off controversy - but I didn’t think it would be this big a story.
What do I think? I think its possible that some young idiot at the advertising agency just did not realise the associations. But Alan Milburn has really given Brown ammunition - he signed off on the posters - and should have known better.
Re 75- Come on Andrew! Mentioning Michael Howard and Richard Nixon together is simply ridiculous. Richard Nixon was not brought down by some “vast left-wing conspiracy”. He was brought down because as President he broke the law and betrayed the US Constitution. Even if you argue that the “Democrats were worse” that does not make Nixon any less of a criminal. He was finally brought down because his own side recognised what he had done and found it unacceptable- if he had not resigned, he would have been removed from office. If President Ford had not pardonned him, he would have surely been convicted and jailed for his actions, but the new administration felt that the United States could not cope with the trial.
Michael Howard is certainly a controversial politician, but there is absolutely no suggestion that he has ever broken the law. Even though I do not consider that he was a very good minister (and continue to be amused by his portrayal in various cartoons as Dracula- the Lord of “Something of the Night”). I would be extremely surprised, even stunned, if any illegally untoward activity was ever suggested about him. I oppose Michael Howard because I think he is mistaken, not because I think is a criminal, still less evil!
The democrats were definetly the sleazy party and Nixon did peanuts compared to the huge behind the scenes schemes they were involved in. Like opposing the end of segregation for one thing.
76 - Interesting Guido! I think your judgement on the matter is spot on. Whatever Labour may say now, they have enough people with experience who should have seen the possibilities of it going wrong. I cannot believe that no-one spotted the connotations and I would imagine that some in the party may have thought it a bonus if people read more of Howard’s Jewishness into the posters than the original design intended. After all they are trying to shore up their Moslem vote!
It is no use saying “no one would have thought of this” etc etc. Unless Fraser Kemp, Alan Milburn or James Beattie come on and say we had no idea this would have happened.
Let us be clear in one thing it was item number 3. McCartney with his original remark, followed by O’Brien with his singling out Howard and Evan Harris for the benefit of the Muslim press and then this advert.
What should have happened is someone, somewhere should have said no.
They did not and the Labour campaign team have tehmselves to blame for it blowing up.
The best thing is to think clearly for the future.
One point, if this is an example of the Neattie view on politics then by 5 May the election issue will be Labour posters. A classic example of “events, dear boy, events”
I apologise to Mrs Kowalski, but Jan Kowalski is a (very) common male name in Poland. It is roughly John Smith!
James O, To be fair to Andrew, the bracketing of MH and Nixon orginated with Matthew @53 in a notably er, contentious posting. However, I agree with your critique of the circumstances of Nixon’s fall which was entirely due to the cover-up of what was originally not a particularly heinous ‘crime’ by US standards. And thus Andrew was mistaken to fall for Matthew’s bait by accepting the similarities between Howard and Nixon.
Maddy @ 78, With the greatest respect, your assertion that the Dems opposed desegregation is at best misleading. Yes, of course, the boll-weevil Southern Democrats were implacible opponents of civil rights, but the pivotal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other pillars of the “Great Society” were Lyndon Johnson’s and the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress finest acts in contemporary American history
Some of us with long memories will remember that Nixon was a crook in the late 1950′S. The “used car” jibe was used by the Democrats because of his fund raising “initiatives” in Detroit. Does anyone else remember his (now legendary) “Checkers” speech? Checkers was the dog given to his daughter by some financier or another - he claimed it was the only thing close to a bribe he had accepted during his Vice Presidency. A little econonical with the actualité, methinks.
Though I should think that in the 1960 campaign, for the Democrats to imply that Nixon was a crook really was a case of pots and kettles.
RE 83: As a student doing a dissertation on Nixon, he was not the cleanest politician, but was far less corrupt than others at the time. The Chequers scandal was ridiculous as Nixon was completely clean on it, compared to Stevenson (Dem Pres candidate) whose own fund was not properly accounted for and paid for personal gifts that had little to do with politics.
Nixon suffered in his political career from the desire of the Democrats and large sections of the media to bring him down at every opportunity even when they did not exist. As I said earlier he was pretty clean for an American politician at the time. Things only really changed with his re-election campaign in 72, when he lost control.
Am I the only one to remember that people charged that Anne Widdicombe’s ’something of the night’ comments had anti-semitic undertones?
No, your not. To be fair to Widdie though, I think her loathing of Howard was due to her time as a home office minister under him. I get the feeling the two did not get on.
It makes me laugh to have the ‘Mail’ criticise these posters as if their guardians of race relations! As for the posters I really can’t see them changing anyones minds either way, those against the government are likely to see them in an unfavourable light and vice versa for Labour voters.
87, that wasn’t really my point though Andrew. Obviously she didn’t get on, and the ’something of the night’ was cannily accurate (!) and tied in well with his Romanian ancestry; but people were prepared to see anti-semitism in it because they wanted to.
Apologies if others have already covered, but one amusing (well for us Tories at least) feature of ‘poster-gate’ is the unashamed schadenfreude of Gordon Brown’s acolytes at Milburn’s discomfiture, with its barely concealed, ‘well this wouldn’t have happened if the Big Man was still running the show’. A taste of things ahead…let’s hope so!
As a Conservative, I admire Widdecombe for her integrity - but as a recruiting sergeant for a progressive and modern political party - she would have been a disaster! Keep her with her books and reality TV programmes. Like that other gigantic ego Portillo - she’s showbusiness now…..
Re: I would suggest that things like Alger Hiss demonstrates that Nixon actually was a far less principled guy than you are making out Andrew. He was deeply psychologically flawed- and while “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that people arn’t out to get you” I would suggest that Nixon’s mania on this issue really was pathological. What we know now does not make a pretty picture- a very interesting and complicated one however. In any event not in the same frame as Howard (let’s hope)
Alger Hiss, was a communist crook despite all his protestations. He tried to get a presidential pardon but never succeeded in doing so. What Nixon did in exposing Hiss was sterling work under the most immense pressure from the liberal establishment and the media. Let us not forget Hiss was found guilty in a court of law. Frankly It always irks me that people seem to think that communism/communists are okay and fascists are evil. Frankly they are both as evil as each other in the way they have been practised. The world will be a far better place when fascist dictators like Mugabe, and communist one’s like Kim and Castro are kicked out of power.
Alger Hiss was indeed a traitor, and Nixon was right to expose him. You’re right that many liberal Democrats never forgave him for that.
That said, Nixon did a lot wrong as President (and not just the Watergate cover-up).
I agree, Sean. Recently released KGB files show that Hiss was, indeed, a traitor. The green light given to Yaya Khan for his war against Bangladesh (when Nixon and Kissinger relied on him as a conduit for re-establishing diplomatic relations with China), the sabotaging of the 1968 peace plan, and the complicity in the plot to assassinate the head of the Chilean armed forces, Renee Schneider (the main obstacle to a military coup against Allende) being but three. I don’t agree with the portrayal of Allende as a noble Jacobo Arbenz type social reformer common among the left, but it should have been left to the Chilean electorate to give him the boot (as I’m sure they would - he only won originally with just over a third of the vote, sneaking in through the middle thanks to the right-wing parties running candidates against each other).
Then again, Iran-Contra (arming a terrorist state, ie Iran, which, according to even Reagan’s official biographer, just encouraged the terror groups sponsored by Iran to take even more hostages) was a far worse crime than Watergate (getting the CIA to lean on the FBI over some third-rate burglary).
If the Democrats are going to be attacked for misdeeds, it should be the manner of LBJ’s election to the Senate in 1848, and his bugging of Barry Goldwater’s plane during the 1964 campaign. As another poster (John O, I believe) pointed out, LBJ deserves credit for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which the supposedly ‘kinder and gentler’ George HW Bush opposed when he was a Texas Congressman) and the 1965 Voting Rights Act despite realising it would cost the Democrats the South for a generation.
Reading all those obits of Nixon’s secretary, Rosemary Woods, reminded me that the smirk on her face as she re-enacted the supposed accident which wiped 18 minutes from the tape shows that she realised her story was cock-and-bull.
Personally, I think what Nixon referred to as the ‘whole Bay of Pigs’ thing was the involvement of the Mafia in assassination plots against Castro, which also explains the deaths of Giancana and Rosselli before they could testify to the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations. At risk of sparking a whole new thread, I personally believe that Kennedy’s death was far more cock-up than conspiracy, and that lax security (including Secret Service men hung-over) allowed Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot Kennedy. Secret Service men being hung over while protecting the President was nothing new - one Secret Service man was so ill that he vomited next to the car during Ike’s visit to Mexico City. Gerald Posner makes the case in ‘Case Closed’ far better than I ever could.
One book I’d recommend to Andrew Milne, meanwhile, is David Greenberg’s ‘Nixon’s Shadow’, an excellent thematic biography in which Greenberg explores what Nixon meant to various groups (including liberals and academics during the Reagan years, when he was suddenly remembered with nostalgia as a relative liberal).
Quote: ” If the Democrats are going to be attacked for misdeeds, it should be the manner of LBJ’s election to the Senate in 1848, and …”
I knew LBJ was quite old, compared to JFK, but that’s taking the biscuit!
Slight clanger in the last post - Johnson was elected to the Senate in 1948 (not 1848). For more on the misdeeds, see Caro’s Means of Ascent, in which the author alleges (convincingly) that 206 of the 87 votes by which Johnson won the Democrat primary in Texas were invalid.
Looks like Andy beat me to it….
Sorry to lower the tone, but here are three trivial points for you to (not) consider:-
1. Even if Nixon was a bad President, he was the inspiration for “Nixon In China”, a really great opera by John Adams.
2. If Kennedy had lived, conspiracy theorists would have said that he had been killed and replaced by a doppelganger, and
3. If the Russian leader had been assasinated, not the US President, it is very unlikely that Aristotle Onassis would have married Mrs Kruschev.
Without wishing to digress too much onto JFK, I just couldn’t help posing this question to Richard: if Nixon wasn’t actually referring to JFK’s assassination when he talked about ‘the Bay of Pigs thing’, what did he mean by his comments that the Warren Commission (which investigated JFK’s assassination) was ‘the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated’? Or was it simply that he was completely unstable by 1972?
Stuart & Rik (35 & 37) - ther is no direct correlation between being in the Armed Forces and being a Conservative. I believe the next MP for Folkestone & Hythe served in the RAF. And then there was one Jeremy (Paddy) Ashdown Esq whose military career could hardly be described as low-key.
Stuart & Rik (35 & 37) - ther is no direct correlation between being in the Armed Forces and being a Conservative. I believe the next MP for Folkestone & Hythe served in the RAF. And then there was one Jeremy (Paddy) Ashdown Esq whose military career could hardly be described as low-key.
“206 of the 87 votes” ???
101-102 Exactly - that is precisely the point I was making!
Rik - admirably restrained re my F&H troll
To be fair, that was the point you made, but Stuart didn’t.
105 - well I dont bite every time!
Fair question at 100 - I think he thought either that:
a) the attempts on Castro’s life (in which the Mafia were implicated) led to Castro wanting to get his own back
b) The Mafia killed Kennedy out of annoyance at RFK’s activities against them
c) Cuban exiles killed Kennedy after being enraged by JFK’s failure to give air cover for the Bay of Pigs invasion, his guarantee to Kruschev that Cuba would not be invaded (in exchange for pulling out the missiles), or believing that Kennedy had a plan to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba.
I hadn’t heard about Nixon’s scathing comments re. the Warren Commission. He was, however, as Kissinger says, under so much mental strain just before he resigned that having a conversation took all his effort.
If it wasn’t a product of his instability, well, you’d think Nixon would know where the bodies were buried. Having read, though, at least two or three of the conspiracy theory books compared with Gerald Posner’s Case Closed (plus having compared Oliver Stone’s JFK with the BBC retrospective in November 2003), I’m still inclined to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.
107. I’d go for (c) Richard, just for the record. Nixon made the Warren comments in 72 though, a long way before resignation. As for Kissinger, as Mao said, he is “a stinking scholar”. One should treat HAK’s assessments of Nixon with a large degree of skepticism…
Right, what I was trying to say was that there are some parallels between Nixon and Howard. Nixon, in the late 1940s, opposed military aid to Western Europe. Had his (and isolationists like him) been sucessful in blocking Truman this would have given Stalin a marching permit through the roads of Europe. At the same time Nixon (and McCarthy) took part in a ‘reds under the bed’ smear campaign against everyone and anyone to win votes. Similarly, Michael Howard, as a member of the Major government which appeased Saddam and Milosevic, and as a leader of a party which would (he tells us) not have gone to war, now seeks to make some electoral capital by stirring up some anti-immigrant hysteria. Throw in the Derek Lewis scandal and the fact MH was an minister of state at the DTI during the time when the Tories were acting as Saddam’s arms dealer - the parallels with RN don’t seem that far fetched.
I think this says it all:
From Professor Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, QC, FBA
Sir, Many members of the Labour Party will feel that merely to abandon or withdraw the offensive posters (report, February 1) is not enough.
It would be appropriate if our party gave a guarantee that no official, employee or other person who was concerned in producing or approving these offensive documents will play any further part in the election campaign.
Yours faithfully,
BILL WEDDERBURN,
House of Lords.
February 1.
Re: 93. -sigh- I am not defending Alger Hiss! I have spent all my adult life fighting Communism. My track record includes supporting the Baltic Countries, Solidarity, Charter 77 and SZDESZ from 1979 onwards. I am still very active in Central and Eastern Europe and view an ex-KGB officer very much as I would view an ex-Gestapo officer. I am an active supporter of the opposition parties in Moldova and Belarus. That is NOT the point. Nixon, as you very well know used Alger Hiss for his own personal political advantage- that was all to do with Richard Milhous Nixon and his very warped ego, and very little to do with Principle. In any event, I am beginning to think that you are right- Maybe MH is like RMN, in which case the Tories are all DOOMED
Re. 109, I thought it rum that the Major government armed Suharto, but would not arm (or allow anyone other country) to arm the legitimate government of Bosnia-Herzegovina so that it could defend itself against ethnic secessionists.
On the other hand, it’s only fair to point out that many Conservatives (including journalists Noel Malcolm and Michael Gove, MPs such as Sir Patrick Cormack and Iain Duncan-Smith) criticised the Major government’s appeasement policy towards Milosevic.
I don’t know as much about US politics as some here. But I think, while there was a strong isolationist wing of the Republicans, most of them recognised the need to support anti-Communist governments in Western Europe. It is fascinating though to see how a progressive cause (anti-communism) comes to be viewed as reactionary simply because of the nature of the people who are espousing it.
I think that to characterise the last Conservative goverment as “appeasing” Saddam Hussein would be an odd judgement. After all, the UK played a big role in driving Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991, and maintained sanctions subsequently. Usually, they were being castigated for killing millions of Iraqi babies.
I think there is a stronger criticism over Milosevic. It was certainly unfair to maintain a one-sided arms embargo, but it was not unreasonable to be wary about the rights and wrongs of taking sides in the Balkans; most factions behaved horribly in that part of the world.
RE: Richard Nixon. I am doing my dissertation on Nixon’s work on the 52 campaign with Eisenhower. No doubt Nixon’s FP record was extremely mixed. But in that he joins a long and distinguished line of American Presidents. As for Hiss, undoubtedely there was an element of personal ego, involved but I still believe he was right to pursue the case and to expose if not the complicity, the certain sympathy with communism in the high ranks of American government. An interesting example for those wishing to know more are the American divisions over China in the 1940s, with the Chinese Communists having a good rep amongst the Americans and being seen as agragrian democrats.
As for the assisination of Allende, don’t forget that JFK ordered the killing of Diem in South Vietnam. However admittedely the latter was more justifiable than the former.
As for MH and Major’s FP, I think it is difficult to criticise him about it. With no biographies of MH, it is difficult what position he would have taken on these matters. He could hardly have resigned over them without triggering Tory CW even if he did have problems over it. Do not forget as well in the cases of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Rwanda the difficulties of getting the Americans on side and agreeing to a plan of action.
As for comparing MH and RN, I don’t think you can really compare them on a political level neccassirly but they are similar characters in many ways. Both came from working class backgrounds and made there way up in the world. Both felt the stigma of prejudice at a young age, Nixon due to his poor background and MH due to his Jewish background (He was unable to get a safe seat till 83). Both also are meant to be very nice and decent people in person, but both also adopted a much tougher and more aggressive line in the public arena. When an unquoted source said Howard had only two expressions, scorn and anger, you could be referring to RN in the same light.
As for criticsing Nixon over his FP stances in the 40s, he was not an isolationist. This was the only significant way he differed from the Republican right but differ he did. He voted for the Marshall Plan unlike others.
Re the possible electoral effect here are the 2001 census percentages for “those describing themselves as Jewish” (sic) by local authority area (England and Wales only).
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/rank/ewjewish.asp
As it happens, I don’t think that removing Allende democratically was an option. He chose to defy the ruling of the Chilean Supreme Court about the illegality of various of his government’s action. The overthrow of his government was welcomed by most Chilean politicians (which is not to justify the murders carried out by his opponents)
The census figure probably understate the Jewish population (c.280,000). 9% of the total population refused to anwer the religion question, and Jews have good reason to be wary of answering questions about religion.
That said, the total is probably c.320,000, down from c.450,000 30 years ago. The main reason for the decline is marrying out, and being absorbed into the general population.
A bit sad that I am posting at this time, but Her Ladyship is watching a film… Re: 113- Actually Sean, I think that it was worse. Douglad Hurd was the guy who insisted on barring weapons- a policy that benefitted only the Serbs, so that his decison to join NatWest Markets -who three months later got the contract to privatise Telekom Serbija- was, at best, very badly timed. I do not accept that they were all as bad as each other- I was there. I can not forget. As a British citizen I hang my head in shame. I saw Hurd on Bishopsgate a few months later. It was with superhuman effort that I resisted the urge to punch him for selling our country’s honour for what ever gold NatWest paid him. Mindful of Mike’s prescriptions on libel, I had better stop. Safe to say I do not think Hurd very big or very clever.
114: Kennedy didn’t actually order the killing of Diem in ‘63. He did give the green light to the coup though, but was actually quite shocked when Diem and his brother Nhu were murdered.
Re. 114, the Americans had difficult in getting Britain on the side of action against Milosevic (lifting the arms embargo, and launching air strikes), not the other way round. As Tadeuz Mazowiecki said after resigning as UN Human Rights Rappoteur in disgust at British obstructionism, every time action was proposed against the Bosnian Serbs (and Milosevic), Hurd blocked it. Only when the Major government faced total isolation in NATO (when the newly elected Chirac backed the US) did it agree to the NATO action which followed the Sarajevo marketplace massacre in August 95 (and shortly after the Srebrenica massacre). For more, see Brendan Simms, ‘Unfinest Hour: Britain and the destruction of Bosnia’.
Re 105 dear Tabman Steve
I apologise for the broad brush stroke but my point is that bar a few most officer are tories and that gos for a lot of the lower ranks, the rest a usually liberal with a tiny amount of socialist. That was my experience when I was a naval officer and I served on numerous ships and bases including army and RAF ones
Re. 119, James O, quite right. The atrocities and ethnic cleansing were systematic on the Serb side. In Serb held areas, every single mosque was razed. The policy of raping Muslim women, and killing Musim men, was deliberate. What’s also forgotten is that it wasn’t just a civil war - in the early stages, for example, JNA mortars in Serbia were used to attack towns on the Drina river.
The profits from the sale of Telekom Serbija helped not only to fund Milosevic’s cronies, but also to fund later atrocities in Kosovo.
What’s even more disgusting is the way in which Hurd sneaks his arguments for his Balkan policy into his novels. In one, for example, that old canard about the victims bombing their own side in an attempt to invite Western intervention, is trotted out. I don’t think it’s libellous to say that the guy has no shame.
I say the Serb side - I should, of course, say on the part of the Bosnian Serb Army and the JNA (the mortars of which were, for example, used from inside Serbia during the bombardment of towns in the Drina river in 1992). There were, of course, some Serbs who fought on the side of the Bosnian government (and, as Noel Malcolm notes, one of the first casualties of the conflict was a Bosian Serb teenager shot by a Bosnian Serb sniper during a march to protest against Karadzic’s plans for secession).
Why do you think Hurd was so pro-Serb?
As Brendan Simms says in ‘Unfinest Hour’, Hurd’s actions (which benefitted the Bosnian Serbs greatly) seem to have been inspired less by any pro-Serb sentiments than the bleak doctrine known as conservative realism, in which intervention would be no use (except the intervention which stopped the Bosnian Muslims defending themselves) and would only make things worse.
Hurd, to be fair, was no worse than Malcolm Rikfind, who had the cheek to say to Bob Dole (who was seriously injured in World War Two) and John McCain (who was tortured as a POW) that (I paraphrase), ‘You Americans know nothing about conflict’. This is, of course, the same Malcolm Rikfind who said that Lady Thatcher’s (well-founded) prediction that not helping the Bosnian Muslims would lead to genocide was ‘emotional nonsense’.
RE the poster controversy and whether Labour should target the Tories or the Liberals.
1. Labour IS vulnerable in its heartlands. E.g. Birmingham: In the 2002 local elections it amazed the professional commentariat by going from solidly Labour (since the dark days of Maggie) to NOC with the Tories as the largest party (now leading a coalition with the Liberals).
2. Whilst there are few Lab/Lib marginals, there are many more Lab/Con ones in which it would not take a huge number of votes to go from Lab to Lib to return a Tory MP. Private polling by the main parties suggests that this is exactly what might happen and this may partly explain why Labour is fighting like a cornered aninimal rather than Mr Cool 10 percent up in the national polls.
3. All the commentators so far seem to have missed the fact that any deliberate anti-semitic message is not aimed at indiginous English or even Jews. E.g. Mike O’Brians comments were in a Muslim paper. The aim appears to be to surreptitiously, or at least deniably, remind 1.6m Muslims (who since the Iraq war have become swing voters in many of these constituencies) that the Tories are led by Jewish swine, in the hope, apparently, that the racists amongst them will vote Labour.