This morning’s press targets: Luntz and Brown
December 10th, 2006-
..why is a Murdoch paper gunning for Gordon?
The main highlights from this morning papers are an attack on the US pollster, Frank Luntz, by Nick Cohen in the Observer and a series of critical stories about Gordon Brown in the Sunday Times that, taken together, look as though the paper is turning against him.
The Cohen piece under the heading “How a celebrity pollster created Cameron” covers the impact on the Tory leadership contest last year of the famous Newsnight piece on the focus group by Frank Luntz.
-
Cohen’s piece is probably overstated. What people often do not recall is that on the morning that this was broadcast the Guardian published details of an online ICM focus group which came to broadly the same conclusions.
The Sunday Times, part of the Murdoch media empire, won’t make good reading for the Chancellor this morning, particularly as it comes after what should have been his big week - his “final” pre-budget report.
For the paper has article after article all linked to Brown’s big Commons statement and all covering it in a critical manner. It devotes its entire leader to the speech under the headline “The Artful Dodger” which concludes “..So we have had a good look at the next prime minister. He spins and he twists. He gives us, if not dodgy dossiers, then flaky figures. He appears to suck up to business and ordinary families while making life harder for them. If this is a vision for Britain’s future, its inspiration is Dickens’ Artful Dodger, not Blake’s Jerusalem.”
If that was not enough there’s a report under the heading “Brown’s spin doctor tried to fix budget TV coverage” which describes efforts by an aide of the Chancellor to get Sky News, also Murdoch-owned, to prevent the former minister, Stephen Byers, from being asked to provide a commentary. An email to the channels is reproduced suggesting that the choice was “.. a bit like having Shaun Woodward on to speak for the Tories, or Norman Scott’s dog for the Liberals.”
The content of the statement is analysed in a big Focus feature under the heading “Why Gordon’s figures don’t add up”.
Finally, the paper’s regular political commentator, the former Tory minister Michael Portillo, speculates on whether “Is boom-time Brown about to turn into Crash Gordon?” No surprise there given Portillo’s background but it is the totality of the paper’s coverage that should be worrying for the likely next PM.
MessageSpace Advertising
Portillo concludes Cameron should not aim to win the next general election in order that he can win the one after that, in seven or eight years time. Is Portillo really a great political strategist?
It is less clear what Murdoch is up to. This looks like a shot across Gordon’s bows, so presumably Murdoch is after a quid pro quo of some sort, but what? Have we overlooked some threat to News International in the PBR?
My guess is that nice Mr Murdoch (peace and blessings be upon him) is looking to manufacture a contest for both the next Labour liedership and the next General Election. He has stated in at least one media interview that he doesn’t want a cut-’n'-run election after Gordon presumably takes over (”to see what he’s made of” - as if taxpayers didn’t already know). It also appears that David Cameron isn’t spending enough time licking his boots for his liking and wants to give the Tory leader another chance.
I wouldn’t conclude anything about Murdoch until the NOTW switches too.
Murdoch papers these days simply decide who’s going to win and then back that person. They do not really attempt to influence who will win. They want to retain their perceived influence, therefore they back a winner.
David Cameron will pursue his own course regardless.
What I cannot understand is why GB has left himself open by financing so much of the increase in public spending via council tax which hits those just above the benefits level disproportionally. These people (White Van Man etc.) who voted tory under Thatcher, bought their council house and returned to new labour in 1997 are the key to winning countless marginal seats and council tax is now high enough to hurt them, not just pensioners.
Then there is also the rather strange allocation in central grant that means that certain infamous inner london and other boroughs can charge lower than average council tax. Here in Bedfordshire the central govt grant allocation means that luton gets £75M next year whereas Bedfordshire cc gets £61M despite having three times the population. Shurely Shome Mishtake?
Council tax is now peoples 2nd biggest bill after mortgages (and for an increasing number of people is more than the mortgage) and this issue will become an increasing hot potato for Mr Murdochs Sun readers. I think GB has strategically blundered.
Labour has been without a credible opposition for so long that it feels it can do anything it wants and still win. Even with the rise of Cameron, old habits die hard. And who knows? If the Tories have to get ten percent more of the vote simply to win control of the Commons, it might not matter anyway.
The Sunday Times has always been the most critical of Labour of the Murdoch press, just as the Times has always been the most positive. The editors have a degree of latitude to suit their tastes or perceived readership preference, though Murdoch makes it plain that he decides on the line when it comes to elections. Even then, the editors hint at more or less entuhsiasm. The Sun is currently mostly sarcastic about the Tories, but from time to time has a pro-Tory or anti-Labour day to balance things a bit. Either way, it’s a great pity that the intentions of a handful of proprietors are so significant in forming public attitudes, though the power of the print media is in gentle decline.
An interesting nettle that no Government has grasped wouuld be to give political parties the right to appeal to a genuinely independent PCC (as opposed to the bunch of press insiders that currently dominate it) and get a right of reply with equal space if major distortions had appeared. The press would absolutely hate it (at present only individuals, not parties, can complain, and complainants are pressured to settle for an obscure minor correction), but it would IMO do more to give all parties a fairer hearing and cheer up British politics than any other reform. Imagine if the Mirror had to be accurate about the Tories, the Express about Labour, the Sun about the LibDems…
“No surprise there given Portillo’s background but it is the totality of the paper’s coverage that should be worrying for the likely next PM”
Din’t the Sunday Times back the tories even in 3005 GE?
6… A very good idea I think. Not just political parties though but other institutions too, charities, companies etc. etc.
That bastard Murdoch should piss off and stop interfering in British politics. It is high time we stopped buying his shit, and reading the real news on sites like this instead.
A Lib Dems spokesman about Holyrood elections: “All the evidence shows that the Lib Dems can be the largest party after May’s election and that is what we’re focused on”
erm, what is this evidence? I must have missed it, because I can’t recall a poll showing the Libdems leading….
7 Oh God I hope we’ve moved on from the current political parties by 3005.
The Sunday Times have always shown a visceral hatred of Labour both ‘New’ and ‘Old’. And Michael Portillo-half of Labour’s ad campaign ‘Mr Boom and Mr Bust’-is surely being ironic?
I read yesterday someone describe the most cringe-making speech to any party conference ever being Portillo’s ‘Who Dares Wins’. It reminded me how quickly things are forgotten in politics. His rehabillitation was so complete that I had quite forgotton that apart from Michael Howard he was probably the single biggest reason for the dancing in the streets in 1997
Someone’s done a Murdoch deal. We should find out who within 7 days.
6 Sorry Nick but the point of a free press is it can mislead, be opinionated, spin and misquote. Individuals can be harmed and deservedly should have a right to appeal but organisations, whether political parties, religions or charities, are in the game too. Perhaps if we have a PPC set up as you want we can also have a HoC Committee to stop Chancelors cherrypicking statistics, re-announcing initiatives and spending plans, making false claims as to their achievements and so on.
I’m not surprised by the response to the public spending review as it was a re-statement of much of the last budget, a bit of tax raising to cover a gap in receipts and otherwise lacking in substance or vision.
The editorial line of the Sunday Times is irrelevant because its readers are presumed to be able to think for themselves.
Obviously I tend to agree on Luntz, as I said so at the time. Chrisco provided an expert analysis of the influence Luntz has on cameron several months ago.
http://www.liberalreview.com/node/214/track
My unfashionable view is that the tories would now be doing better under the leadership of Davis. It may still be the case that the will do better in the next GE under Cameron than they would have done under Davis - but probably the “brought up on a council estate” story would run better than “spent my youth in a school near Slough” version.
8: Certainly - anyone who could point out a clear distortion would be entitled to complain.
14: I disagree, Ted - the point of a free press is surely *not* that it can mislead and misquote. The point is that it has freedom of opinion: if it represents the situation accurately and then has a biased and unfair editorial, that’s not a problem, but we all know that that’s not how it’s done. Britain’s press is IMO by a large margin the most destructive in Western Europe (I scan most of the Continental press intermittently), and it undermines all parties and the entire political process.
I’m also in favour of an independent body to comment proactively on Government statistics, good idea (we almost have it, but not quite). Channel 4 (whse news coverage I generally dislike for similar reasons) has a useful Factcheck service which tries to weigh up the facts on controversies. I don’t always agree with their conclusions but I think they make an honest attempt.
So early yet so many messages from that LibDem parallel universe.
IMO Cameron has done a fantastic job for the Tories, the idea that DD could be doing better is really weird. I just don’t get it. I speak from a Labour perspective, with Cameron let’s give respect where respect is definitely due.
Is it the case that (some parts of) the LD/Tories are now institutionalized as opposition parties they just have to criticise people- no matter what. I remember that Labour used to be a bit like that in the early nineties.
[6][17] I’m sorry, but I really do think less of Nick Palmer for those two posts. Why should political parties have a right to complain that he wishes to deny to non-party lobbies and pressure groups inside parties? One consequence of that would be to inhibit the press, for example, from reporting favourably on any group of MPs who were thinking about bolting from their Party to form a new one. And as for what the BNP would do with such a law…
As for the European press, well in France at least they’re notorious for colluding with corruption …
19 I said it was unfashionable. Davis does not sound like he is spinning - but I can see the other side of the argument.
What do people think of the Labour tax dodge story?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2062490.ece
It is true that from a Labour point of view Cameron couldn’t be better. He seems to be everything a Labour voter could wish for. Whether this will bring the nirvana we all hope for-two parallel Labour Parties-is not yet certain. Despite many of Labours fine achievements over the last ten years not everyones convinced. Cameron obviously is but can he drag his party with him?
Just to-day I read that one of his front bench wants to start slapping ‘Hoodies’. Very confusing for the poor Hoodies!
22 No Roger only confusing for the Labour spinners that create the ‘Hug a Hoodie’ smear. What do they do now? Reid fails to meet his targets, Blair admits his party policy if multiculturalism is dangerous, the Iron Chancellor is found guilty of ‘Flakey figures’ and plod is at the door. The HRA bites them in the backside daily and the European Court is about to award about 10 billion to UK business increasing the already mangled PSBR.
No help from the Smirker either with her arithmetically challenged letters, is there?
17 - Nick, facts may be objective but the subjective use of them is opinion and often misleading. I don’t agree with your conclusion that we need a Commission for Truth. There are lots of sources out there - Channel Four’s factchecker. Polly Toynbee and Factchecking Pollyanna, Google, Wikipedia etc. I get annoyed by spin like Hug a Hoodie or today Melissa Kite’s deliberate skewing of an interview with IDS but these are a result of lack of clarity, forethought or preparation by the poiticians. The media are not and should never be a vehicle for politicians but should be effective and sceptical, journalists should be opinionated though I agree reporters should be factual. The European press is too often supine - where are the French versions of The Guardian or Sunday Times investigating France’s murky dealings in Rwanda or Saddams Iraq?
What if Sunny Jim had returned from Barbados and said he was concerned about the situation and going back to number 10 to address these problems rather than “I don’t think other people in the world would share the view that there is mounting chaos” then we wouldn’t have seen the headline “Crisis, what Crisis?” - either a a fair take on what he said or a deliberate distortion - you decide.
[24] Exactly, Ted.
I’m sure if Nick Palmer thought our press was more biassed than it was in the heyday of Lord Beaverbrook and the Daily Herald he’d've said so.
Latest William Hill Deputy odds
H Benn 7/2
J Cruddas 9/2
P Hain 6/1
A Johnson 6/1
H Harman 7/1
H Blears 8/1
D Milliband 8/1
J Straw 14/1
T Jowell 14/1
J Reid 20/1
Y Cooper 25/1
A Milburn 33/1
P Hewitt 50/1
M Beckett 50/1
A Darling 50/1
G Brown 66/1
E Balls 66/1
D Blunkett 66/1
C Clarke 66/
Labour in Scotland believe it would be better as a minority govt rather than a coalition with LDs. Could have implications with Brown?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2496853,00.html
… and these were the post Conference odds (Hills) just 10 weeks ago
Johnson 2/1
Hain 7/2
Straw 5/1
Harman 8/1
Cruddas 8/1
Benn 10/1
The difficulty with starting a soap opera is that it soon takes on a life of it’s own. Whether we should hug ‘Hoodies’ or slap them is just an illustration of the confusion this type of politics produces. You can’t start a hare like this running and expext to know where it’ll take you.
where’s that van full of money for Cruddas, I need to book a 6 month cruise…
depite having put money on him I can’t see Cruddas having a dogs chance. It’s got to be Benn or Harman
27 - And he illustrates clearly the dishonesty of coalition government, and why I firmly believe it leads to secretive and compromised governing.
“An advantage of minority government is that we would not have to decide policies behind closed doors within a coalition but we could win votes on the strength of the arguments. If it’s a good idea other parties could vote it down but they would have to account for their actions to the voters.”
And you can see that the Lib Dems are at least true to form, and a Focus-leaflet writ large:
“Relations deteriorated to new depths when Nicol Stephen took over as Lib Dem leader last year. Labour MSPs have accused Stephen of taking credit for popular policies and of ducking the blame when things have gone wrong”
Priceless.
Thanks for the article Mike. Interesting. Also the Murdoch press were critical of the government in general last week, over things like defence. Perhaps Murdoch is moving away from labour.
Mean while I wonder why the call for no deputy leader election. doe somme one want Gordon to be coronated on the grounds of cost? See?
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
29 - Mein Gott Roger I agree with one of your posts!
Re donations from the unions
I see that Chris Huhne has proposed that “Donations from trade unions or companies ought to be split according to the votes of the trade union members or shareholders, rather than being given as a block as currently. Block funding is no more defensible than block voting.”
uhm, how is it practicable? Does he want a “who should get the money?” ballot everytime?
And anyway if union members are unhappy to see their unions to give money to Labour, they can always leave the union or propose to severe the links with Labour
32 - “An advantage of minority government is that we would not have to decide policies behind closed doors within a coalition but we could win votes on the strength of the arguments. If it’s a good idea other parties could vote it down but they would have to account for their actions to the voters.”
Fine in principle. The problem is when a government needs to implement correct, but unpopular policies. Which is why majority government through FPTP is a better bet.
26
That’s an overround of 140% :
Why people should be surprised at Murdoch appearing to change sides is beyond me. Murdoch has ALWAYS gone with the majority view, even when it went against his own political beliefs. In essence, the current pollster view is that it could be a hung parliament. Logically, Murdoch HAS to have a foot in each camp. Going further, Brown’s performance was such utter tripe that if the Times, as a serious newspaper, had not pointed out the glaring fudges, it’s own standing might be jeered at by others. To cap it all, Brown has mismanged a golden scenario so badly that Britain will be in hock for decades with underperfoming schools, hospitals and police.
32 Robin. “Priceless” ….but true !!
……………….
Lovely day at Cheltenham yesterday ….. failed to spot “peter the punter” among the 25,000 present …. might have been the odd chap with red trousers ranting at a rails bookmaker !!
36 - Alex, I agree totally. FPTP is the best that we have, PR leads to the weaknesses in coalition government (some of which are highlighted in HF’s link above).
I think that Jack McDonnell was alluding to the fact that minority government is preferable (infinitely so in my opinion) to coalition government with the Lib Dems.
1. Portillo may have a point. Cameron has, with regard to the A list, the London mayoralty and leaving the EPP, shown himself to be a very poor negotiator. In a hung parliament, he would be caught in the crossfire between the Lib Dems challenging him to live up to his liberal rhetoric and his own backbenchers.
3. Quite the ST is possibly the least important paper in News Intl and has usually provided a crumb of comfort to the Tories even when the rest was solidly behind New Labour. The Sun is the most important naturally and for that reason will be the last to switch. YOu are probably right that the real straw in the wind is the NOTW.
Link in 16 (above) should be
http://www.liberalreview.com/blogs/apollo/vote_blue_go_green_is_luntz_on_c
Tabman has a new post on the subject.
6 - Why not use the current recourse you have to the courts? (Political parties don’t, admittedly, but individuals do, and how many stories really don’t refer to individuals).
Answer - it’s embarrassing for politicians to be seen trying to intervene in this way. And when you propose an “independent PCC”, my worry is that you mean a quiet, politician-dominated little quango which will let you pull the strings out of the light of day.
38.Made me laugh! First few lines souded thoughtful and then suddenly a gasket blew!
Murdoch cares about money and making it. The British consumer is tightening up as Brown mnakes our economy high tax. Murdoch loses money. He wants the next Blair without a Brown attached. Straw? I backed him at 33/1 a few months ago. I like money too.
For someone like myself, brought up in an era where newspapers were clearly divided on party political lines, the present situation is fascinating. Murdoch is obviously using his papers to back both sides, taking out a little insurance in case Cameron wins. The Mail this morning is even more interesting, running anti-Cameron stories, £50,000 bung to meet the dear leader, a piece on a spat between Cameron and Davis. The Mail, Sunday or Daily being critical of a Tory leader, I still can’t get my head around it!
Re 47, Coldstone, it is so hard to believe that it can’t be true, but maybe the papers are now calling it on a case by case basis as they see it rather than slavishly following a particular line?
I know it can’t be true, but it would be nice if it was.
Does anyone remember the name of the PFI firm in a tax haven that owns the treasury buildings?
42. This is drivel, sorry. I’m no cheerleader for Murdoch, but the Sunday Times is one of the most influential papers in the country - not least because its got relatively massive sales for a broadsheet (it must be one of the biggest selling serious Sunday newspapers in the world).
Editorially it also dominates, for good or ill. From its Books pages (highly important) to its Business section (much admired) to its Travel supplement (a massive brand name) it has almost certainly got more collective clout than any other Sunday paper in Europe.
Sometimes the paper is too-aware of its importance, and comes over all pompous and smug. But that’s a different issue.
49. I said least influential in News Intl, that is not the same as saying that is the least influential in the country. PLease acknowledge the difference. You are correct it does play a very strong agenda setting role. But in terms of importance for endorsement in the Murdoch press it ranks third behind the Sun, the key prize, and NOTW.
BTW O/T Paul Linford speculates Bolsover going the way of Chesterfield when the Beast steps down. Is this possible at all.
O/T Don’t Labour supporters cringe when they see gimmicks like this morning’s on the CSA, advertised as major planks of policy?
Re 47 coldstone “The Mail, Sunday or Daily being critical of a Tory leader, I still can’t get my head around it!”
Simple, Paul Dacre is a friend of Gordon Brown.
50.”BTW O/T Paul Linford speculates Bolsover going the way of Chesterfield when the Beast steps down. Is this possible at all”
Very unlikely in the short term, I would say. Chesterfield was a 11% majority, Bolsover is a 40%+ majority. The Libdems had a decent local base in Chesterfield (19 councillors in 1999 elections), they don’t even have councillors in Bolsover (I think)
50. Sorry, again wrong. The Sunday Times is Murdoch’s UK news flagship (it is also enormously profitable). For instance: Steltzer, Murdoch’s guru and supposed friend of Brown, writes in the paper every week.
If the Sunday Times is turning against Brown then that is of considerable importance - because it might signal a change in overall Murdoch approach to Brown. Where the flagship leads, the Sun and the NoTW will probably follow, and perhaps the Times, too.
Moreover, the Sunday Times - which on some days outsells the Observer, Independent on Sunday, and Sunday Telegraph COMBINED - has a very hefty influence on the UK chattering classes.
I suppose it is arguable that the Sun has an equal importance coz it affects more voters, albeit less voluble ones, but this is only arguable. The idea that the News of the World is more important than the Sunday Times in any way is frankly laughable. Does anyone pick up the News of The World and think - my God, Jordan is having an affair with Emma Bunton’s vicar, I must vote Lib Dem?
Titter.
54.”If the Sunday Times is turning against Brown then that is of considerable importance - because it might signal a change in overall Murdoch approach to Brown. Where the flagship leads, the Sun and the NoTW will probably follow, and perhaps the Times, too.”
The Sunday Times backed the tories also in 2005 GE.
54. So Stelzer writes in the Times and acros the Empire. You seem to be drawing a false line. The ST is of great importance, but not as much as the Tabloids in terms of importance of endorsement. If you are talking long term opinion forming/agenda setting etc you have a case. But in terms of short term hit for floating voters between Lab and Con rather more despite your tittering are likely to be found reading the NOTW than the ST.
52
I’m not sure ‘friendship’ is relevant, after all Beaverbrook was a great friend of Michael Foot. The Murdoch debate is an interesting one, Tory posters laud Cameron for not getting into bed with him, then when his papers are critical of Labour, start getting excited he might be coming ‘onside’
55 - mere details, Andrea. Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant
50. PS. In fact I would go so far to say that the Sunday Times is the most important newspaper in the country, in terms of political influence - because of its combination of massive sales, intellectual heftiness, and general neutrality - its a bellwether.
What I mean is: Other papers are intellectually important - e.g. The Guardian, the Sunday Telegraph - but you know where they are coming from, they are never going to shift from one party to another, ergo they lack cruciality. Other papers have a demotic power in terms of sheer sales - Daily Mail, the Mirror, the Sun - but they do not influence the intellectual debate. Some papers like the Express, the Star and the Independent are completely ignored, poor things.
So I’d put the Sunday Times pretty near the top of the tree in overall and combined importance. Maybe the Times and the Guardian close behind.
If the sunday times is as effective as you suggest it just shows that newspapers aren’t very influential. The ST has been anti- Labour in all it’s guises for as long as I can remember yet their fortunes have ebbed and flowed regardless. Andrew Neil as editor hated Labour with a passion.
My own feeling is that newspapers reflect their readership rather than influence it. If a newspaper regularly spews out politics that readers don’t like they are more likely to change their paper than their party.
Is it not interesting how much tax avoidence is involved in government an Labour circles? (more details on my blog
)
53 - can believe that once the ‘Beast’ has retired, the majority will drop quite a bit, but would be amazed if Bolsover ever approached marginality given the mining traditions of the seat
The Cohen article is based on a completely false premise, as such it’s pretty worthless journalism (as worthless as Luntz’ ‘infotainment’ if not less so).
I’m always amazed at how easily people go along with what they are told that they remember, I, however, easily recall that Cameron was already in pole position well before this. The truth (as opposed to the subsequent spin) is that Cameron left it late to make a splash, allowing the other candidates to hare off and them when he did so, launched his campaign with a much better organised and effective way. All of this before the tory conference.
Luntz only affects to have power and all that people like Cohen do is build him up unnecessarily for their own ends.
60. Well yes, actually, I’d kind of agree with that - I’m not sure newspapers of any kind have any direct influence any more: i.e. if they say Vote for Tufton Bufton do readers really take their cue from that? Hm. I’m not sure.
But where papers do have a political influence is in setting a tenor, deciding a theme, campaigning on certain subjects, and of course this influence largely depends on how many members of the chattering classes they reach. The Sunday Times sells 1.4m copies every weekend, it’s a must-read for people who care about politics, even if they hate the paper and Murdoch.
On other levels it matters hugely, too. If you are a writer the Sunday Times Books pages are probably the most important of all: the lead review is a prize beyond compare.
Anyhoo. I’m hoping John Witherow is reading my paeans of praise for his paper and will now give me a column.
53. The Lib Dems didn’t even stand a single candidate in Bolsover in 2003.
This all follows on from the Anatole Kaletsky article in The Times on the PBR which was very critical of Brown.
Kaletsky has in the past always been pretty pro Brown.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1061-2491297.html
65. Many thanks. To be honest, I had just looked at the 2003 seats breakdown, so I wasn’t aware that they didn’t even stand candidates.
I see that there were 10 wards (out of 20) where Lab was returned unopposed in 2003. The only not lab seats are indipendents (and a resident association). The tories stood in 2 wards (and they weren’t very far to get a seat in one). BNP and Socialist Alliance stood a candidate in the whole borough.
Do parties have intentions to fill more candidates next year?
65. Many thanks. To be honest, I had just looked at the 2003 seats breakdown, so I wasn’t aware that they didn’t even stand candidates.
I see that there were 10 wards (out of 20) where Lab was returned unopposed in 2003. The only not lab seats are indipendents (and a resident association). The tories stood in 2 wards (and they weren’t very far to get a seat in one). BNP and Soc*alist Alliance stood a candidate in the whole borough.
Do parties have intentions to fill more candidates next year?
Some odd posts on PR. FPTP makes it hard to implement (mainly long term) policies which are unpopular, because shedding a few % leads to a parliamentary slaughter.
The Sunday Times coverage is no surprise. It was the Times and Sunday Times who spent the best part of three months trying to push the idea that Alan Johnson was up to being prime minister with day after day of uncritical puff piece. They’ve never wanted Brown to be PM and the thought is making them a little desperate.
Labour should only worry if this spreads to the Sun. (The Times and Sunday Times have a low readership - they couldn’t swing things for Johnson, and they are probably speaking now to people who are already anti-Gordon).
68 - And there lies the problem with democracy, it is geared to short termist thinking. Rather than extol the wonders of our current version of democracy it’d be good to know that politicians were at least thinking about how its inherent problems could be negated. The ‘tyranny of the majority’ is the other real challenge that faces any democracy and it hasn’t been successfully addressed yet.
69. “The Sunday Times has a low readership”.
???
Snowflake, pet, haven’t you been reading my screeds? The Sunday Times sells about 1.3million copies every Sunday, and another 150,000 in Ireland. On some days it outsells the Observer, Sunday Telegraph and Independent on Sunday COMBINED.
It is probably the biggest selling serious Sunday newspaper in Europe.
“Low readership”?? Duh. Next thing you’ll be telling us that Gordon Brown is a great chancellor.
re 63. The betting prices during last year’s Tory conference are a good guide to changing perceptions. On the Monday during the day the Cameron price tightened from 10/1 to about 9/1. In the aftermath of the Newsnight Luntz piece it moved to about 4/1.
Even after Cameron’s big speech you could still get 3.6/1. What really changed perceptions and the betting was DD’s speech.
Luntz played a part certainly - but not as critical part as DD’s lacklustre address.
The truth is that the “Iron Chancellor” has long shown a cavalier attitude towards fiscal management. Year after year, his borrowing has turned out to be much higher than his forecasts. Last week’s PBR - less an economic statement than the latest staging post in a remorseless political campaign - was a classic Brown performance. Drunk on ambition, he did nothing to acknowledge the true scale of his liabilities, or the fact that his fiscal rules lie in tatters. Yet the man who presents himself as our next prime minister is living in a never-never land of debt.
QUOTE
In his budget five years ago, the Chancellor said he would borrow a total of £28bn between 2001 and 2006. He has, so far, taken on debts of £129bn during that period. His prediction was a jaw-dropping £100bn astray.
QUOTE
Last week we learnt that the Chancellor intends to borrow another £182bn on our behalf between now and 2012. So he will be taking on extra debts annually, amounting to one and a half times the UK’s total council tax receipts. And, on past form, even this vast amount could be an underestimate.
QUOTE
This borrowing binge has shattered the Chancellor’s much-vaunted “golden” rule, which requires government spending to be balanced over the course of the economic cycle. But Brown keeps moving the goalposts in an absurd bid to convince us it remains intact.
In each of the past four Budgets he has raised his borrowing estimate while pushing forward the expected date when his accounts would move back into surplus. Last week he also shifted the end-date of the economic cycle - for the third time in as many years. By defying expert opinion, and unilaterally deciding that the cycle has now ended, Brown can assert that a new cycle has begun.
That allows him to borrow anew over the next three years - as the general election approaches - while claiming that he can exercise restraint before this new cycle ends some time around 2012 (when the election will be past). This arcane accounting trick gives Brown the fiscal wriggle-room to amass an election war-chest - at our expense - while arguing that his “golden rule” remains intact.
Such behaviour insults our intelligence and undermines this country’s hard-won reputation for fiscal probity. If this is how Brown treats statistical concepts in public, imagine the liberties he is taking behind the scenes. Little wonder the “golden” rule is now derided. “The cycle is lengthening and shortening like a yo-yo,” says the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Item Club says the rule is now “simply a farce”.
Brown’s bull-headed refusal to recognise that his own code has been broken - and to take appropriate action - speaks volumes. Clearly, his blind political ambition now far outweighs any vestige of fiscal responsibility.
QUOTE
It seems to me his legacy is one of high and rising taxes and unreformed public services. Thanks to his borrowing binge, we face more than a decade of high government deficits. Even his central boast, that the UK is “a uniquely high-growth economy”, is nonsense. We have just fallen to 22nd out of 25 in the EU growth league - hardly world-class.
As with so many other home truths, the Chancellor failed to mention this during last week’s PBR. He was too busy dreaming about life in No 10.
Well the facts are there for all to see. Though I do not possess any political affiliations, I still can’t help despising this guy with a vengeance.
Brown’s ego will cost this country dearly and our grandchildren will come to hate him every bit as much as I do.
WOT A FOOKING LIBERTY!!!
Nick Cohen has fallen, hook, line and sinker, for a line spun by someone. Cui bono? I’ll come back to that.
Frank Luntz certainly leans to the right but he makes no secret of his Republican connections and his bias would be unlikely to affect his ability to conduct fair opinion research about internal party elections, Labour or Tory.
The scientific rigour of the Newsnight focus group was compromised by the tv-friendly methodology used but not undermined by it. The idea that Luntz led his naive and suggestible charges by the nose towards Cameron is implausible to those who understand focus groups. It’s also not how it appeared in the film.
If Cameron’s momentum came from a dodgy focus group conducted by Luntz, how does Nick Cohen explain the results of an ICM survey that appeared in the Guardian BEFORE the Luntz/Newsnight initiative?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1583315,00.html
The truth is that Luntz’s work picked up on a genuine, if unexpected, phenomenom - Cameron’s appeal to non-aligned voters. A detailed analysis of the media at the time reveals that the boy David’s bandwagon began to roll after he gave a performance at his campaign launch that impressed the journalists present. Then came ICM. Then Luntz. And, finally, that Conference speech. A star was born.
Having established the junk journalism status of the ‘Luntz created Cameron’ claim let’s now turn to the question of why it is being advanced - to trash Frank Luntz’s cred.
Recently Luntz conducted a similar focus group exercise for Newsnight about the Labour leadership contest. It was interesting for several reasons. Alan Johnson appears to have less ‘man in the street’ appeal than was imagined to be the case. David Milliband is not taken seriously. But the biggest news by far is that John Reid would be much more likely to beat Cameron than Gordon Brown.
We can’t have that, said the Great Clunking Fist. So into battle went his agents and devotees. How many people know about Brown’s pollster, Debbie Mattinson?
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2006/12/08/will-deborah-advise-gordon-to-go-for-an-immediate-election/
Ms Mattinson could teach Luntz a thing or two about pretending to be a neutral commentator. She certainly wasn’t advertising her status when she appeared in the Times to tell us how popular Gordon is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2416848.html
Her disingenuous knocking copy on Luntz appears to form the basis of Nick Cohen’s critique today. I doubt Nick is part of the Brown army but, boy, he’s been a useful idiot.
Another example of how immigration is giving our economy a huge boost…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nimm10.xml
69 - Sunday Times readership is about 3.5million (readership not circulation) - beaten by Sunday Mirror (4m), Mail on Sunday (6m) then NotW (8m). It’s far and away the most read quality Sunday paper.
Fact is Gordon gave a poor performance, recycling announcements and putting in a straight tax rise under pretence of being green. The press plaudits the next day went more to Osborne than Brown. I think the press are judging him now as PM and recognising his weaknesses in that sort of role after 10 years in forefront of government. He may well be different when he is PM but the augries aren’t that good.
I happen to think Gordon is probably right to prefer international action as a response to global warming rather than unilateral UK tax changes but he set up the Sterne Commission, supported the press launch/fanfare, sent the guy off on a world tour then ignored the report ( Sterne’s departure showing what real value Gordon put on report).
Good spot Ibicenco. Follow the link to Deborah Mattinson’s Times article trashing Luntz. Then read Cohen’s piece - he’s lifted the whole thing!
How can Ms Mattinson get away with pretending to be an unbiased expert on political opinion research? She writes about Brown’s popularity as if she’s Nick Sparrow or Andrew Cooper yet SHE’S BROWN’S OWN POLLSTER!
God the media are so dopey sometimes.
Good to see that the Sunday Times is finally realising that the meme that Brown has been a wonderful chancellor ’so you can’t attack his record’ is a myth.
They didn’t really go into pensions or tax credits, both of which have real and lasting problems connected with them, but it’s a start. The real situation is that Brown has kept things floating in electorally sensitive areas but at what price?
Another interesting article from Anthony Wells is on his site by the way, I don’t think anyone has commented on it but his point that Brown’s personality is a greater electoral problem than many imagine is most convincing.
Given that so many have spread the other meme (that Brown will get an electoral bounce) I can’t wait to see what happens over the next twelve months. Go on, elect Brown leader, please…..
Well put 73
The complete irony of the constant media scare stories, which the Blair Brown Cronies (BBC) churn out, ranging from Bird Flu, to Terrorism to Global Warming to Immigration, is that in every event the ‘news’ is used to further impoverish and subjugate the ordinary person.
The real threat to this country is not from any of the above, but is already happening under the Blair /Brown state, perpetrated by the very people the tabloid reading masses believe actually work for them. Even the Orwellian Trolls seemed to have more of an idea of the real world than today’s Sun-reading sheeple.
Brown and Blair have done more to render this country morally and financially bankrupt than any government in History. That the nation simply sits on its hands and waits for the next election - if it even happens - means we will get what we deserve.
‘How can Ms Mattinson get away with pretending to be an unbiased expert on political opinion research’
Bob Worcester has managed it for years.
What I find very depressing about Gay Gordon and the mess he has made of the economy is the complete silence from the BBC. This is not a rant, just an observation. When is Paxman or the BBC news going to challenge Brown?
I could’nt give a stuff about dancing celebrities or Albert Square. When will the BBC recognise their independence and once again become a public service broadcaster? I want to know how a Chancellor who has an obvious behavioural defect, who lectures Parliament like an old Russian premier talking about tractor production in the Ukraine whilst ignoring his starving countrymen, who refuses point blank to answer a question honestly and manipulates the figures, is going to be parachuted in as our next Prime Minister?
The ignorance and apathy of our fellow citizens incredible. When is this country going to wake up to what New Labour are all about?
Nick Cohen is a lazy sod who’s been caught with his pants down. I suspect he was spoon fed the anti-Luntz stuff by some Brownite and was too thick to realise he was being used.
Reid could beat Brown - but only if Labour members realise he’s much more likely to keep them in power that the Great Clunking Loser. Luntz revealed that so he must be ex-ter-min-ated.
54 Sean T.
There are FAR more ’swing voters’ read the NoW than the ST, which largely plays to its readers’ confirmed conservative prejudices. The NoW plays far more to ‘right wing’ prejudices, which are not at all always the same thing.
81 “When is this country going to wake up to what New Labour are all about?”
By and large they quite like this unprincipled pseudo-Toryism. Which is, of course, what the Cameron crew are banking on. Trouble is, there will be a competition with Gordon B for this, with the latter also getting the ‘Old Labour’ sheep vote too.
O/T US Presisential Race - Barak Obama
I have been away for a couple of days and return to find that Obama’s price for the democratic nomination has shortened considerably - now in to 5.8 from 8 on Betfair.
Anybody know of any reason for this?
59, 64, Sean T where do you get this strange perspective on the Sunday Times? And what relevence has ‘the intellectual debate’ to influence in General Elections? The Mail on Sunday has far more of the latter than does the Chicago Sun(day) Times.
As for: “The Sunday Times. . (is). . .a must-read for people who care about politics”, I would reflect that a number of the rather more conservative members of my family gave up buying it as soon as their last cat died - it having lost it’s only useful function in their household (very thick and absorbent).
37 Martyn
The overround is not surprising or, I think, unreasonable in the circumstances. It’s a ‘novelty’ market, illiquid, and vulnerable to inside information. Also, Hills took a lot of bets on Cruddas at big prices and must have a very lopsided book.
But wouldn’t it be helpful if Betfair opened a market!
I think ‘Tory politican criticises Brown’ is on a par with ‘dog bites man’ for novelty value. Do you seriously expect Portillo, who has always been critical of Brown, not to attack him? Personally, I prefer Reid, but the Tories (and the Lib Dems) on this site must be really scraping the barrel if you’re trying to use Portillo’s article of evidence of a general anti-Brown feeling among the public at large.
88. Mike Smithson never claimed the Portillo article, etc, was evidence for a swing against Brown in the public at large. What he did say - quite rightly in my opinion - is that the Sunday Times today is full, to an almost bizarre extent, of anti Brown spin - several major articles all gunning for Gordon.
This is a spectacular broadside from a very important newspaper, a a paper that normally aims for a modicum of balance in its coverage (outside of its Leader columns).
It may well augur a sea-change in the Murdoch stable, against Brown, certainly it is hard to imagine the Sunday Times launching this remarkable attack without The Master’s permission.
Whether it is sustained is the crucial question. If it is, Brown has mucho problemo.
O/T but Just read the article on Anthony Wells site - and tried to think dispassionately about what drives dislikes/likes of politicians. Our HR people have just produced a briefing on career evelopment in which they address the dark side of so called strengths. So self confident can mean egomania, self congratulation, disbelief in your own failure. I’ve always disliked Ken Clarke because for all his blokeishness he comes across to me as an egosistical self congratulatory b******d - overweight, lack of dress sense and disdain for his opposition comes across to me as someone so up his own **** I cannot like him and wouldn’t trust him. Other people though seem to take a shine to the very qualities that turn me off. Gordon comes across to me as much the same but without the humour. I find myself wanting a pin to pop the vanity with. I love it when Osborne gets a rise out of him - not only on political grounds but because I think he deserves it.
Despite all Blair’s manifest failings at base I can’t really dislike him - he’s untrustworthy, money grasping, has led this country into a disastrous war, should be banged up for various crimes but you know, at heart he’s a regular kinda guy with odd in laws etc. Doesn’t mean I’d vote for him but I can understand why people do.
It’s all surface & subjective but in the end power depends on all those subjective judgements and I agree with Anthony Wells that Gordon has been already been judged and found wanting which is why he loses out to DC in the polls.
I can just see the headline now, ‘It was the Sunday Times wo’t won it’ Me-thinks that some of the Tory posters are wandering into ‘Nesta Webster Land’ What on earth they’ll be saying if the Tories lose a fourth GE, who’ll get the blame for that. Stand by the usual suspects: BBC,Guardian,Liberal Left bias in the media….
Re 74 Ibicenco, an excellent piece on “Brown’s pollster, Debbie Mattinson”
71. Yet, despite this, after all their huffing and puffing they only managed to get Johnson’s recognition factor to about 5%! So much for the Sunday Times’ influence. Not to mention that most of their readership is Tory already, so they are hardly going to swing any votes. I really don’t think that the broadsheets have much influence on elections anymore.
Meanwhile the dark shadow of Assistant Commander Yates hangs over everything. Will he be knocking at the door today as is being suggested? Go Yates - nail this bast**d.
The Anthony Wells article is very good on the Brown factor.
“The results have been very consistent. Labour would do badly. Since David Cameron became Conservative leader in December no hypothetical poll of how people would vote with Brown as Labour leader has shown a Labour lead. In the vast majority of cases, it has shown the Conservatives performing better against Brown than they are at present. But does this actually mean anything?
My personal prediction is that, when Gordon Brown actually becomes Prime Minister Labour will experience a strong boost in the polls. Obviously it depends where they are starting from, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they regaining a healthy lead.”
http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/
So watch out for an early GE by June 2008. It just depends how long GB thinks his honeymoon will be.
85. PtP. Don’t know if this helps but after seeing him mentioned as one of the two leading contenders along side Hilary Clinton on one of the American news channels, also heard somewhere that the biggest reason he “might” not run was because his wife was not keen. Heard a story that she had now changed her mind and was onside. Don’t know how accurate that is but it might explain the shift and made his chances of running more likely.
Barack Obama has about as good a chance of becoming POTUS as I do.
re 85 & 96. I think that it is in response to the latest polls.
http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc
96 Thanks Chris D
5-1 is a mighty tight price for somebody who isn’t certain to run. Makes you wonder what it would be if he formally declared.
Why is this column topped with photos of Frankie Howard and Dale Winton?
97 So, AHM, what odds are you offering on yourself and Obama?
101 - Nil.
102 LOL!
Thought so!
Thank you 73. Would that I were a good enough economist and writer to have put it so succinctly.
98 Thanks Mike. Some very interesting poll results.
It is striking that Obama is pooling well despite the fact that 30% of the sample had ‘never heard of him’. Maybe 5-1 isn’t such a tight price.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2496632,00.html
Blears warns over ‘explosive’ immigration
Isabel Oakeshott, Deputy Political Editor
THE chairman of the Labour party, Hazel Blears, has warned that immigration is set to explode as an issue before the next general election in a way “unseen before in UK politics
Innocent at 20: er, you seem to have completely misread my second post at 17. I say
“Anyone who could point out a clear distortion would be entitled to complain.”
and you reply
“a right to complain that he wishes to deny to non-party lobbies and pressure groups inside parties”
Eh?
Ted, you write:
“The media are not and should never be a vehicle for politicians but should be effective and sceptical, journalists should be opinionated though I agree reporters should be factual.”
I’d agree with all of that. But the current position is that if the Mail falsely claims that you are a paedophile, you can complain to the PCC and force a correction (and sue), but if they falsely claim in an apparently factual report that (say) the LibDems have proposed to legalise paedophilia, the LibDems can’t complain to the PCC (not an individual), nor can they sue, because no individual is named. Why is this restriction necessary to preserve freedom?
My proposal is simply that there should be a recourse if there is a blatantly false report about any group, and not merely about any individual. And yes, the BNP are entitled to protection against *false* reports too - God knows there is enough true material to bash them about.
This just takes the biscuit
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2062490.ece
WE are the government so we hadto do it this way
The Blear article contains these words:
“We must get the message out on every estate and on every street that we are enforcing firm but fair immigration controls.”
This phrase is about as accurate as the statement that ‘nobody cares about immigration’. The words ‘celebration’ ‘arrange’ ‘couldn’t’ and ‘brewery’ come to mind. The only people really affected by Labour’s immigration policies are decent genuine folk, honest visitors and people trying to get married. The front door is impenetrable, the back door is wide open.
While I accept the Blears analysis (or, rather, the analysis someone has fed to her), I cannot think there is any sense in the ’spin’ of this article. She might as well go out and say:
“vote BNP - they’re a credible force”.
107. Nick P if your proposal was put into law it would lead to an avalanche of court cases against the political parties and put those in charge of judging the said cases in an impossible position - how could they avoid being accused of making partisan decisions?
[107] Fair enough - I misread what you wrote. But I’m still far from convinced that political parties, or even the R.S.P.C.A or the Flat Earth Society need the kind of protection you propose.
107. “if they falsely claim in an apparently factual report that (say) the LibDems have proposed to legalise paedophilia, the LibDems can’t complain to the PCC (not an individual), nor can they sue, because no individual is named.”
Nick, I do not think you are a Libel lawyer. Any senior Lib Dem could sue in these circumstances if they could show that other decent folk would think worse of them if they were genuinely afected by the published malicious untruth. The trouble is that most of these types of statements have an (often highly-warped) thread of truth hidden away somewhere, so that the parties concerned do not want the ground trailed over again 18 months later in court. Consequently, most people thus libelled do not sue very often. Mr Galloway, of course is a most notable exception.
110 - Sigh, doesn’t anyone read what I say before disagreeing with it? I’m not talking about court cases or judges, simply about a PCC-like body with the power to require corrections for groups as the PCC already can for individuals. It shouldn’t be any more or less difficult than it is now.
O/T I think this is going to do far more to damage cheap airlines and foreign air travel than a few ‘green taxes’ ever will.
Why the surprise. Brown has always been an incompetent jerk, kept in place purely because he made even Blair look half useful. With Blair going, why would Labour keep Brown on for heaven’s sake. Look at him. He’s completely wrecked after grubbing out his position for ten years against all other pretenders to Blair’s favour. He’s the top courtier sure, but that’ all he ever was - a courtier - and a pretty nasty one too.
113. Sorry, but even if you want to do it that way, the same problem will arise. How can whoever sits on the said body avoid being accused of making partisan political judgements? who will appoint the body? How could it be constituted such that it would not appear to favour certain parties and/or not split along party lines? You haven’t thought this through.
116 - “You haven’t thought this through” - hard to work out why Nick hasn’t risen further in this government
115.
Cherie, why do you call yourself ‘Tapestry’? is it because in your house Carol’s still really king?
97. I tend to agree with A H Matlock re Obama’s chances.
Sorry Ptp at 99. but your own observation is correct. 5/1 is ridiculous about a prospective but uncertain runner for POTUS.
However AHM can have 1,000,000/1 with me re his own prospects,
provided I don’t have to match the bet!
119 I was surprised, StJohn, but Mike’s link to the US polls put it in context.
AHM for POTUS? Can I have 10p on that with you?
120. You can have 1p but you will have to trust me with the bank.
118. I was at Oxford with her but am not her. BTW I’m male, so don;t get too excited.
Nick
I agree that in your example its unfair but I’m to a large extent opposed to the great and good making quasi-judicial decisions - the Lib Dems could protest and make a fuss, and most probably in any of these cases there would somewhere be a named individual able to go to court. Censorship should be open & recognisable - blank columns or “censored” or an open declaration (as in case of the two princes a statement that the press wouldn’t impinge on their privacy while they were minors or in education - upfront declaration of self censorship). I’m biased in favour of due process and against administrative shortcuts.
Nick Palmer The reaction to your post on the press tells you something significant about how trusted the Labour party has become, don’t you think?
Nick Palmer The reaction to your post on the press tells you something significant about how trusted the Labour party has become, don’t you think?
121 You know, StJohn, nothing pi**es me of more than a bookie turning a bet back. I’ll have 10p or nothing. How the hell am I supposed to lay off 1p?!
120 - I will accept the nomination only long enough to turn stewardship of the Colonies over to HM the Queen, where it belongs, and thus commence the reunification and rise of the Second British Empire.
124/125 Is there an echo in here, or, heaven forbid, are there two The Masters?
123 - I agree: on separation of powers grounds this kind of redress ought to be a judicial, rather than the quasi-executive agency that Nick is proposing. (Willing to be corrected if I’m misinterpreting the nature of the body he wants.)
127 Sounds a pretty plausible manifesto to me, AHM. Wait till I get my bet on and we can start to discuss fund-raising.
O/T Ptp. Do you think (Portsmouth No.9) KANU’s odds at 33/1 are good to be top goal scorer in the premiership.
106 Thank you a fascinating article, I am surprised ConHome missed it in the newslinks today.
On the press, sick as I am of distortions, I think you let the free market decide.
131 StJohn
33/1?!! That’