Is the “Gordon’s a weirdo” tag a deliberate strategy?
January 24th, 2008
Could such an approach backfire on Cameron?
Yesterday’s characterisation by David Cameron of the Prime Minster as being “that strange man in Downing Street” has prompted a number of Labour-leaning bloggers, including Paul Linford, to suggest that this is part of a Tory plan.
This is what Linford wrote:“it’s clear….that portraying his opponent as somehow not one of us is a key part of the Tory leader’s political strategy..Mr Cameron clearly wants to portray himself as This Charming Man, and Brown as (to quote) This Strange Man, but if the public has any sense it will backfire. What on earth gives Cameron the right to describe another man as “strange” and by what measure of “normality” does he seek to judge the Prime Minister?”
In a comment on another website Linford suggested that there’s “..a deadly serious attempt by the right to fix the idea of Gordon as a “weirdo” in the public mind.”.
Certainly there have been one or two recent instances of such descriptions being linked to the Tories and rightward-leaning blogs but is this all planned or is it just a coincidence? Are they seeing conspiracy, which implies people getting together to agree a particular course, when that does not exist?
Looking at the context of Cameron’s description it is hard to judge either way. It came up when he was pressed on the Tory plan to stick to Labour spending plans and replied - “I am being very careful because if you say anything else that strange man in Downing Street will cook up an enormous package of Tory spending cuts. It is complete and utter fiction. I have seen it done before and I have learnt a thing or two in the last few years.”
I think that this all started in an interview two years ago that the leading novelist and close colleague of a number at the top of the NuLab project, Robert Harris, gave to the Sunday Times. In it he compared Gordon with Richard Nixon and said: “Brown, like Nixon, suffers from a kind of political Asperger’s syndrome. Intellectually brilliant, he sometimes seems socially barely functional: a little bit . . . odd.”
Is there a Tory plot or are Brown’s defenders being a bit precious? I don’t know but the character of a party leader is a key part of a general election battle - hence the efforts by some Labour people to characterise Cameron as “a public school toff” or the “Bullingdon bully”. And, of course, look at what both the Tories and Labour did to Ming Campbell - not pretty but effective.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Test
No doubt it is deliberate and probably it will backfire. For a start, most people have not met and will never meet the Prime Minister so there will be no prior view to reinforce. Secondly, what is the charge? That Brown is brilliant but obsessed by party politics? Well, the latter is unsurprising in a Prime Minister or any leading politician and the former will generally be seen as a good thing.
But there may be an element of chickens coming home to roost. It is not the toff stuff aimed at Cameron but the flip-flop charge.
And what a stupid idea that was. Nicked wholesale from President Bush’s campaign, it just hasn’t worked. It doesn’t resonate with the public, and even if it did, is changing your mind a bad thing? Brown should get rid of whichever apparatchik stole this idea with no attempt to adapt or assess it in the UK market.
It’s a thin line between criticising the PM for lacking the skills required for the job, perfectly valid, and personal criticism.
Brown does lack social skills, especially when rattled. Whether “strange” is a fair description is a moot point. Better to focus on the role of the PM and whether he has the qualities required for the job than the man himself.
Another extract from Cameron’s interview with the Times:
“Mr Cameron tried to give himself a little more leeway to hold a referendum on the EU reform treaty if he should come to power. He again stopped short of promising a vote even if the new treaty were ratified across Europe, the so-called post-ratification referendum that many believe would signal the beginning of the end of British membership.”
Watch as the Seans in his party try and force him onto their clear anti Europe ground. They wont be pleased if he has backed away from holding a referendum.
If the Conservatives think that attending Davos means that they are a Government in waiting they are in for a sad shock. Their Policy Forums have failed to create an image of a party with a Big Idea. 40% is not enough - the public may be surprised if their ,say, 6% lead over Labour means they will still lose the next election, but the insiders know that it spells another 4 years in opposition - no jobs, no plums for their supporters.
Low level character attacks are synonymous with modern politics, Kinnock was saddled as a Welsh Windbag, Major was the Grey Man etc. I don’t know whether it is a strategy to paint Brown as odd or merely Cameron echoing the public sentiment that there is just something about Brown that is ‘not quite right’. If it is deliberate then it will probably be more effective than the reverse attempt in that the Brown character attack is narrow wheras the character lobs in the other direction are not focussed enough and vary from ‘Cameron believes nothing’ to ‘Cameron believes everything’. The truth is that nothing gains much traction on Cameron because the Conservatives are in the ascendant and Labour in the descendant.
Certainly Cameron has stopped being ‘Mr Nice Guy’. It’s impossible to switch the radio on without hearing a stream of personal invective-over rehearsed-coming from his mouth.
I doubt it’s a strategy though as it would be self defeating. Far more people are likely to nauseated by these personal attacks from Cameron than change their opinions of Brown.
OT USA NH recounts switch from Democrats (the money ran out!) to Republicans today.
The state’s web site: http://www.sos.nh.gov/
OT. I just heard a Labour think-tank has recommended the government increase income tax to 50p in the pound for those earning over £200.000 thus being able to cut council tax by £200 per household. That’s the sort of policy Brown should run with. It’s about as irrelevant as Osbornes IHT but it will be extremely popular and show a welcome change of direction.
4.”Watch as the Seans in his party try and force him onto their clear anti Europe ground. They wont be pleased if he has backed away from holding a referendum.”
If you mean me (not Sean Fear?), then 1. I’m not in his party, and 2. I’m not anti-European, just anti the EU as it is, and 3. anyway, I wouldn’t advise him to hold a post-ratification referendum - because it would be pointlessly provocative and legally nightmarish.
Apart from that, your point is good.
If I were advising Cammo (hey, maybe he reads his blog!), I would tell him to pick a different fight with Europe, over some stupid pettifogging directive (let’s face it, there are plenty).
Europe will then say No, then Cameron can have his blazing row and we can then semi-detach ourselves from the EU as a solution, leaving us in the freetrade zone, but outwith all the antidemocratic bollox.
We don’t even need a referendum to fundamentally change our relationship with Europe, Labour have shown us that. Thanks chaps.
Indeed I think something like this will happen, when the Tories get back into power. It’s now inevitable, thanks to Labour forcing the country too far towards eurofederalism, without popular consent.
On-thread: Brown IS a strange man, and the Tories are wholly justified in saying it. The charge will hurt Brown. But it will only hurt Brown terminally if he is shown as incompetent. The people don’t ming being governed by weirdoes - Thatcher was pretty eccentric in her own way - just as long as they are good politicians as well.
Unfortunately for Brown, his reputation for economic competence is crumbling. That’s his major problem.
I’m surprised the Tories haven’t wheeled out the old Jilted John single with it’s catchy refrain:
“Gordon is a Mo-o-ron……Gordon is a Mo-o-oron…..!” (:-)
Strange and weird are not the same thing. Not quite.
As its only been said once assuming it’s a major strategy is a massive leap in logic for everyone, apart from roger for whom logic is something that he waves goodbye to whenever he posts. If it had been used a number of times by different members of the tory party then yes, I would say it was a concerted attack. But as it stands assuming it’s a concerted strategy is just people trying to make up another reason to attack Cameron and predict his downfall (again).
9 I agree. According to Matthew d’Ancona, the strategy would be along those lines.
This sort of attack is not what we expect from a potential pm.
Strange could of course be code for “Scottish”
It’s a bit rich the pained cry from Labour posters of “playing the man not the ball” - I thought that was THEIR raison d’etre.
This from the party which characterised Major and his underpants, Howard as an evil shylock, Hague as a “weird” foetus, Margaret Thatcher as inherently wicked. What hypocrisy.
The British public do not like Brown. If it sugars the pill, replace “strange” with “unlikeable”. Get over it!
15. Of course different people find different things strange
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/14/noxford14.xml
re 14. Jonathan - ~How would you describe the ten years of de-stabilisation that your Mr Brown inflicted on Tony Blair?
16….and I always thought the Tory Party had a certain elegance.
15. simon9999 - “Strange could of course be code for “Scottish””
Indeed! Cameron is making it crystal clear for his potential electorate (who are overwhelmingly English) that Mr Brown is “not one of us”. But he really needn’t bother: they are already all too aware of the fact, despite Brown’s achingly painful ‘Britishness’ escapades.
Cameron needs to stay away from stupid name-calling and get stuck into Brown’s policy weaknesses. The public don’t want to see childish insults being traded, they want to see a real alternative to the Government’s numerous failures.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Stewart Jackson. I wouldn’t defend any of those characterisations and they are all worse than calling someone strange.
Used correctly and fairly there is nothing wrong with describing someone’s behaviour as strange. As an MP posting on a public blog I find the tone and manner of your posts on here strange. They certainly don’t leave a favourable impression. Whether one agrees with him or not, Nick Palmer is nearly always couteous and tempered in his posts which reflects well on both him and the party he represents.
Strange you don’t seem to recognise that.
9 - and if I were David Cameron, one directive I would be watching very closely is the draft Solvency 2 Directive.
This directive deals with the funding of pension schemes. Despite the fact that only three countries in the EU have substantial funded final salary style occupational pension scheme benefits (Britain, Ireland and the Netherlands), the EU has sought to regulate their funding. Its first attempt at this, IORP, has brought much pain on pension schemes in this country. Its second attempt, the draft Solvency 2 Directive, would see the infrastructure of UK final salary pension schemes disintegrate under the weight of heavy regulation unless it is substantially amended.
Of course Cameron may have just been referring to the strange way Brown manages to get his figures about Tories slashing spending. In any case who was it who started all the talk about Brown being mentally unstable. Wasn’t it those within the Labour Party. I certainly don’t think it was the Tories who have plenty of reason to seeing as Brown refused to talk to his shadow in his last years as Chancellor. We’re also talking about a man who wouldn’t tell his boss the Prime Minister what was in the budget. If that’s not strange behavior, i don’t know what is.
And can Labour posters stop this false outrage about the use of the word ’strange’. Think back to some of your election posters over the past few years, the way you call Cameron names based on his background and the way Blair bullied Major with ‘weak weak weak’. Strange is fair game and going by recent years, pretty mild.
Doubt it’s yet a strategy though it may become one if it chimes with public opinion. It builds on the similar Blairite spin about Brown and on some characteristics Brown has displayed.
If it were an effective strategy then Cameron should learn from Hilary Clinton - she doesn’t lead the character attacks on Obama (that’s Bill and others in her campaign), she merely re-inforces them. I personally dislike such personalisation but Brown has personalised his leadership around himself. The conference speech and PPBs on his “story”, his moral compass, his claims to depth and intellectualism, over how well he responded to fire, flood and plague (with a nod towards the “British people” after he’s claimed the credit.
Cameron has done the same in associating changing the Conservative Party with himself. Thus there is a campaign based on associating bullying, acting, being a PR man that Roger’s post at 6 exemplifies - “stream of personal invective-over rehearsed”.
Not sure which radio stations you listens to Roger (Tory Radio?) , all I heard this morning was an intellectually incoherent attempt to defend 42 days from Ms Smith, which also claimed London’s streets have never been safer. Never been safer ? Tell that to all the kids killed or wounded by gun or knife, to the people who are terrified in their homes. Never been safer? 35 years ago when I lived in London I used to walk home after last tube from Brixton station through streets few would venture on today in the dark, walked to BSM for driving lessons in Peckham through estates that are now places of fear.
22. Very elegantly put St John. I was taken aback by Stewart’s post as I suspect will many Tory posters be.
When have we ever had a “normal” prime minister? Normal people neither aspire to the job nor have the determination to seize the prize. The closest in modern times was Major.
Most of the others were highly abnormal personalities…
Brown’s problem is comparison with his slick predecessor - probably the only truly pathological liar to occupy Number 10. Brown has nether the glamour nor the super-confidence that only a practised confidence-trickster like Blair can possess. But he was a willing accomplice in the NuLab fraud, and Cameron was the Tories’ inevitable response….
Those in his own party have described him as psychologically flawed. He certainly seems to have some political blind spots (”I didn’t take any notice of the opinion polls” and grinning like a Cheshire cat when Darling announced they were sort-of stealing the Tory IHT policy).
I think the strange tag is a strategy. Recall a few PMQs ago (I forget what the subject matter was) Cameron said “Won’t people think it bizarre/think it weird etc etc”. It’s being played a little softly compared to the glaringly obvious “You ditherer!” strategy.
And why not? Labour has no problems trying to engage in class warfare (where did that nice Mr Blair go to school?) which is far less relevant than someone’s personality.
25. Ted. Radio 4. They played three consecutive sound-bites from Cameron at yesterdays PMQ’s the last one being an extended alliteration that didn’t quite work after which the presenter groaned!
That Brown is brilliant but obsessed by party politics? Well, the latter is unsurprising in a Prime Minister or any leading politician and the former will generally be seen as a good thing.
In a certain limited way, he is undoubtedly intelligent, but brilliant is not the first word that springs to mind. Obsessive, overbearing and rather limited in his ability to logically think actions through to their conclusion would better describe him. All of the ideas that have his personal prints on them has ended in chaos (tax credits being the best example).
As for attacking GB’s character as a strategy, I doubt it is something that David Cameron would go in for very much, as it undermines his own image building exercise. I think the comment was an unguarded slip of the tongue, revealing DC’s real feelings for his opponent.
Whether he can outsource nastiness to colleagues, the media and blogs is a difference matter.
30. “Whether he can outsource nastiness to colleagues”
Maybe that’s the answer to the bizarre post 16!
No doom and gloom posts this morning on the economy from Conservatives . I guess the end is not nigh and share prices are on the way up .
31, you might generally dislike the notion of personal attacks, but you can’t limit your dislike according to which party someone belongs to.
Well, you can, but it’s morally inconsistent.
[27]
You’ve written my post for me.
[22] I doubt Stewart Jackson MP can evidence one case of a Labour front-bencher mocking “John Major and his underpants” - that was Steve Bell whom-God-preserve, who treats all politicians alike (and has yet to get one wrong IMHO)
32 - The fact that share prices are going up doesn’t mean that we are in a boom. I would suspect that it is largely profit taking and reaction to the Fed interest rate move, give the boys the weekend to worry about it and shares may be shooting back down again come Monday! Also one can over emphasise the link between markets and the wider economy, the wiggle room as the problems mount is decidedly limited.
There doesn’t have to be a plan. all this is is people reacting to the reality of the situation
Brown is a bit odd and any viewer of “have I got news for you” over the last 9 months will thinks he’s wierd every time he tries to smile - are they part of the conspiracy as well?
If Brown is weird, where in the spectrum does that place, Michael (Mickey Fab) Farbricant?
I’d be the last one to mock anyones appearance, (no honestly) but I used to wonder how John Major managed to grow a moustache (look at the photos) on the inside of his lip!
34. Obama perhaps?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/archive/0,,1284265,00.html
Which side was the biggest critic of Ming Campbell’s age? Labour or the Tories?
Anyone seen this?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/threelinewhip/jan08/ukpoliticsbycolours.htm
Quite cool
39, Liberal Democrats, surely?
His age wasn’t really the issue, he was only in his 60s. The issue was that he acted like a guy in his 90s.
Is there a Tory plot or are Brown’s defenders being a bit precious?
Of course they are - you only have to see the affect of being the teensiest bit critical of the government on here when you get leapt on from all the usual suspects.
Incidentally perhpas Gabble or Roger could explain where the money is coming from to fund Darling’s U-turn capital gains tax cut - it is, is it not, an uncosted promise?
32- Yes the panic is all over. Its double digit growth for Britain from now on!
This is just another example of Brown and his cohorts trying to snuff out criticism. Brown is weird in that he is unable to take flak from anyone.
The British public already know what GB is like after the last 10 years.Cameron is just reinforcing the truth.
We had a thread here a couple of months ago where we discussed whether the Conservatives were giving priority to attacking GB personally, and the argument wasn’t about whether it was happening but whether it was a good idea - most Tory posters made no attempt to suggest otherwise.
As various posts here have said, Labour MPs have attacked Tory leaders nastily before and continue to do so - Dennis Skinner does it routinely, Tony Banks made fun of Hague’s appearance, and there are lots of other examples, some of them pretty unpleasant.
What is unusual is to have the leadership doing it. Both Cameron and Osborne have gone in for it - only yesterday with the Del-Boy stuff. There is a distinction between attacking people for how they lead their parties (e.g. the attempt to push the ‘dithering’ line is IMO not effective but perfectly normal politics, as was the ‘weak’ line about Major) and real or imagined personal attributes. People are aware of the distinction even if they don’t work it out, and outside partisan ranks they don’t like it or think it suitable behaviour for aspiring leaders.
And as for the ‘no more Punch and Judy’ line, that was definitively for the birds, wasn’t it?
O/T - I now wish I had backed Tsonga after he beat Andy Murray. Grr!
re 40 yes there was much discussion yesterday about how it doesn’t work because they’ve got Lab and the LibDems mixed up.
40 Unfortunately, Jon C, unless the Telegraph IT Depatment have done a bit of work overnight it doesn’t work very well - at least, it wasn’t yesterday afternoon. The slightest changes gave the Lib Dems an improbable number of gains.
42 The classic neoCon argument would be that the money to fund the tax cut would be self generating , the Cameron argument a la IHT cuts would be that it is only a few billion anyway so noone should worry whether it is costed or not .
45, the Del Boy line was average, but nothing compared to Cable’s excellent Mr Bean jibe.
Also, I don’t think you can separate someone’s personality from their leadership style. An obsessive will obviously micromanage more than a relaxed individual, for example.
Yeah, no more Punch and Judy is about as true as Brown’s promise to put Parliament first. Who would’ve thought that politicians lie to win favour?:p
49, you seem confused. The IHT proposal was funded by taxing non-doms, yet was attacked as uncosted by Darling, who has yet to say (I think) where he’s going to make up the £200m lost through his rather messy u-turn.
What a poor thread. Rarely have I read so much whining, huffing and puffing and pompous humbug.
31 Roger- I think Cameron does take this kind of personal attack to a new level, one week calling him weird, the next strange, backed up by Osborne calling him autistic.
The difference is that unlike previous personal attacks that creep through various spin operations, or party affiliates the leading cheerleaders here are the 2 head honchos for the Tories, a couple of smarmy, public schoolboys.
“Let’s give that weird one eyed bozo Brown a good debagging”.
Again why Cameron should not be allowed to be a PM. His judgment is rubbish- it just keeps coming out time and time again. A party leader should not be seen as even close to this kind of nasty politics. I just do not think Cameron can help himself mind.
45 - Punch and Judy was always as far as I understood it, unwarranted attack politics, attacking the government simply because they are the government despite what they are doing. In that sense Cameron is keeping his word. Obviously his opponents were always going to interpret it as ‘I am never going to say anything against the government’ which is palpably not the case. Anyway the idea that the public don’t like attack politics is risible, I have lost count of the number of floating voters I speak to who think the Conservatives don’t put the boot in enough.
30. There is nothing bizzare about pointing out the complete and utter hypocrisy of the left when it comes to personal attacks. Its been at the core of Nu-labour for the last 14 years and now its on the other foot, look how the brown nosers squeal.
That said, as much as its often nonsensical spin, there is a measured and appropriate tone to Nick’s posts that does seem to be missing from 16.
45- Nick Palmer- sorry you beat me to it- I am just slow at typing whilst looking at work emails.
Very good point, and very well made.
48. ‘The slightest changes gave the Lib Dems an improbable number of gains.’
Mark Senior wrote the software !!!
22. Nick Palmer comes on here and trots out spin, during the working day, on his government salary, which we pay.
He has never been known to post a remark which is not in some way informed by his desire to do down the Tories and big up the Labour party. He then complains about other people who come on here to spin, and calls them “creatures”.
He has insinuated that his critics are like the BNP, he has tried to get other posters banned, he has dissembled continuously about Europe, he has tried to deny statements on his own website, and he has been evasive to the point of untruth on many other matters - e.g. immigration.
Stewart Jackson is brusque, direct and sometimes rather punchy.
Which is worse? Who knows.
Don’t get me wrong - I have a soft spot for Nick and always read his posts even if they infuriate me, because they are eloquent and sometimes even insightful. But enough of the beatification - he is no worse or better than anyone else on here - including Stewart J.
As for Labourites bleating about the accusation that Brown is “strange”. This from the party whose ex leader Mister Kinnock thinks all Tories are “bastards”, who should be ground into the dust? And how many Laburites have confessed they will hold parties when Margaret Thatcher dies?
Ugh.
How the Daily Mash sees the governments anti-obesity camapaign
http://tinyurl.com/37yeec
If the government is serious about its anti-obesity campaign it should start with the police. Watching that march, I’ve never seen so many fat people together at one time I’m surprised they managed to complete the walk, no wonder they can’t catch muggers!!
58. Yes. I prefer Stewart’s rough and ready - but honest - approach to Nick Palmer’s sniping and innuendo every time, however stylishly written the latter may be.
51 No I am not confused , there were many Conservative posterss on here at the time who when pointed out that the sums on taxing nondoms did not add up said that a few billion is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things .
And how will any of these effect the betting? It won’t. Because the public are preoccupied with their costs rising quicker than their income. Yet the keep being told that inflation is only 2%.
The Government should really stop lying, because that is what is doing it untold damage short and long term.
Nick Palmer has a cheek to talk about treating people with respect when he describes anyone as a creature who has the temerity to disagree with him.
61, the reason the Conservatives didn’t have the figures on non-doms was because Ed “soon to be shot into space” Balls told the Commons no figures were kept on non-doms.
Magically they discovered they actually did keep figures after the Tory proposals were announced.
Perhaps if Comrade Ballsov actually told the truth the Tories could make more accurate estimates?
61 - Conservative posters on here saying whatever doesn’t somehow translate into the ‘Cameron argument’.
60. Well there’s a surprise.
Why do they keep Ed Balls around as a minister? He has zero charisma, no public speaking ability, keeps messing up and comes across and someone who’s wandered into being an MP as a hobby.
” I just heard a Labour think-tank has recommended the government increase income tax to 50p in the pound for those earning over £200.000 thus being able to cut council tax by £200 per household. ”
ahhh… politics of envy is back comrades…
When all is said and done, does it really matter? The attacks on Margaret Thatcher (Attila the Hen, Milk Snatcher, eyes of Caligula - even Iron Lady) did her no real harm - she never lost an election!
66-But he makes a lovely souffle
cuddles- how dare you compare Balls to people with no charisma. An insult to people without charisma.
[21] - Cameron needs to stay away from it, as someone who wants to appear to be the PM-in-waiting, it would benefit him to have an air of rising above the fray, but I would think it is the sort of thing they would be encouraging his lieutenants and proxies to push as a message - didn’t Osbourne describe Brown as “Autistic”?
It seems the nasty party is back. T May’s pleas seem to be falling on deaf ears in the Dave camp.
70. this is true, he is the anti-charisma, like anti-matter. If he’d have ever met Winston Churchill the explosion would have destroyed a large chunk of the country.
I can see that Gordon Brown is “strange”, a weirdo even.
I don’t need Cameron to tell me that.
71- Timothy- I do not think Cameron can stop himself, because at heart he is that smarmy Eton playground bully joining up with his likeminded cronies to try and humiliate people whom he doesn’t like.
But as I said before Cameron’s judgment is rubbish, time and time and time again.
re 58 We’ll be paying rather more of it soon as well!
re 67 politics of envy? Don’t talk rot it seems an entirely sensible proposal to me.
75. And your whining about personal attacks.
73 - I actually have some sympathy for Ed Balls on a personal level as he is clearly a reasonably clever chap but I think he just doesn’t realise that he is never going to make the topflight politician that he craves to be. I always think it is sad when someone will never be able to acheive their ambition and don’t even realise it.
48. I had a word with them, and it appears to be working correctly now. However, it’s pretty simplistic and inflexible, in that you can’t do three-way swings or model the Nats. They appear to have assigned others to a 10% share of the vote. Probably realistic, but that would surely include a Nats rise….
Of interest, the R&T data which it’s based on produces very similar results to Wells. However, assuming it’s not another bug, there appears to be an interesting modest pro-Tory bonus around the 4.5% swing mark, compared to Wells. I stress it’s a bit opaque at the moment. I would have to see the raw data, which R&T have promised on their website, but so far not produced. As soon as I have something definite, I’ll report it here.
Re. 9, as a Labour Eurosceptic, I agree entirely with Sean T in disputing the anti-Europe description. Like him, I’d also prefer EEA membership to EU membership with the so-called Reform Treaty.
EEA membership is what we’d probably have now had we not joined the EEC in the early 70s. It’s a fairly plausible counterfactual, arrived at by de Gaulle having resigned or died a few years later, Labour winning in 1970, or Reginald Maudling winning the 1965 Tory leadership contest.
The key question is not whether it is nice or not but whether it will work. I think not. Politics is showbiz for ugly people, and both are full of monsterous freaks and weirdos.
Brown is a pretty odd, gloomy obsessive for sure, but is it really obvious that he is any odder than Cameron? Dave no doubt looks at himself in the mirror and sees a statesman on a par with Disraeli, but most people see a strange, moon-faced toff. It might not stop them electing him in due course, but he should be a bit careful about getting into a “who’s the biggest weirdo” contest.
Let’s not stop at Brown. What about Dougie Alexander, Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, Yvette Cooper (though she’s not one of the inner coterie being the wrong sort of gender orientation)
Flaming weirdos the lot of ‘em!
82. most people see him as a moon faced toff? Any evidence to back that up, or just your own personal opinion.
67. It’s just progressive taxation. Even Tories don’t baulk at the idea that those who earn most should pay the most tax do they? This would be just a slight redrawing of the line which is warranted by the larger disparity between rich and poor and also the increasing numbers earning over £200,000 a year.
75. Tyson, I often agree with your emotional insights, but I really don’t see this “bullying” aspect of Cameron.
The gaylording ponceyboots can appear arrogant, at times, and maybe smarmy - but a true bully is someone simultaneously cruel, and lacking in self-esteem - who takes out his inadequacies on the weak.
Etonians are seldom lacking in self-esteem, and Cameron just doesn’t come across as cruel.
Nor do I think he comes across to the rest of the public that way. Sorry. If anything Cammo seems a little fey and poncey.
The reason Cameron appears as a bully to you, and other Labourites, I suspect - is because Brown ACTS LIKE HE IS BEING BULLED IN PMQs.
Brown visibly cowers, he shrinks and he bellows, his voice quivers, his chin wobbles, then he lashes out ineffectually - like the picked-on runt in the schoolyard.
So the problem is Brown not Cameron.
Are there any true bullies in politics? On the Labour side I think Livingstone strikes me as someone who might be more of a bully, if push came to shove. Someone whose inner demons force him to go too far, someone whose pugilism has an edge of nastiness.
On the Tory side… without speaking ill of the dead, Alan Clarke perhaps had some of the Flashman about him.
82 - You ask will it work, and say no. I think it will because it resonates with peoples instinctive reaction to Brown. Most people looking at Cameron do not see a moon-faced toff, they see a fairly regular guy. It may have escaped your notice but most people are not class obsessed any more and if anything when you look at the most popular celebs around and musicians etc a lot of them are from what would be defined as ‘upper reaches’.
SeanT [9] yes I did mean you - and you may not be in the Conservative party but many in there support your views on the EU. You say:
“If I were advising Cammo (hey, maybe he reads this blog!), I would tell him to pick a different fight with Europe, over some stupid pettifogging directive (let’s face it, there are plenty).
Europe will then say No, then Cameron can have his blazing row and we can then semi-detach ourselves from the EU as a solution, leaving us in the freetrade zone, but outwith all the antidemocratic bollox.”
Are you or have you ever been married? Sounds just the sort of tiff married couples go in for. At some point you decide that if you do love each other, these sort of disputes are pointless!
45 Nick Palmer spins “What is unusual is to have the leadership doing it.”
So the infamous Blair PMQ rant to Major of “weak, weak, weak…” never happened? or “I lead my party he follows his”.
Honestly Nick, portraying your party’s Leaders as saints on this subject is a futile attempt to re-write history in the manner of Orwell’s 1984.
Please reconsider writing such foolishness.
82 I don’t care if Cameron’s a bit posh. He can’t help his wealthy background any more than I can help being dragged up in the slums of Ardwick. What matters is that he now comes across as a normal bloke, a bit posh yes, but not stuck-up or snooty and if that’s the way an ordinary chap like me sees him then so do millions of others including Labour voters as I was for many years.
Now Brown on the other side certainly does not come across as a normal bloke. He is an odd-bod, a weirdo. False, shifty, creepy even. Apparently he is extremely unpleasant to women including the typists in his office and you can see women are wary of him (look at the body language next time you see him near Yvette Cooper, Glenys Kinock, or even his own wife
I was a lifelong Labour voter but I wouldn’t trust Brown and his gang of creeps as far as I could boot them.
As for Browns “son of the manse”, “ever so ‘umble” background, his dad was the local headmaster aswell as the vicar, his parents owned a business and apparently were one of the largest local employers so they clearly weren’t short of a bob or two. From what I’ve heard they were the local bigwigs and local people had to watch their step with them, or else.
18 Mike. Blair would have been untouchable if he hadn’t have supported the Iraq war or Israel’s bombing of Lebanon. He destablised himself.
If Cameron continues this tendancy to put down others as pm, he could get into trouble. Can you imagine the fallout from him publicly calling Putin or the Chinese premier strange.
World’s biggest financial fraud uncovered in France’s Societe General bank. £3.6 billion lost on equity/derivatives in the last few days….
88 - Bad analogy really, better would be neighbours in a street. We all want to get along iwth our neighbours but would we accept it lying down if they told us we could only have begonias in our garden and that we had to paint our front door green and have brown framed double-glazing etc.
82. “Dave no doubt looks at himself in the mirror and sees a statesman on a par with Disraeli, but most people see a strange, moon-faced toff”
Surely not?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/martinrowson/0,,1885530,00.html
88. Well, if Britain is married to Europe, I would say we are one of those couples that got on quite well as casual girlfriend and boyfriend: living in different flats. F**kbuddies. You know the scene.
But ever since we moved in together its been downhill all the way - we haven’t had sex in ten years, we snipe at each other during dinner parties, we can’t wait to get home to throw some crockery, and everyone else is just bored of our endless bickering and hopes one of us will see sense and move out, before one us is stabbed by the other after yet another domestic.
Or would you say we are desperately in love?
92. Yes - a fine example of how France has avoided the capitalist excesses of uncivilised places like the US and UK, through proper government regulation.
Gun crime up 4% Drug crime up 21%
“The European Commission has slammed Britain in its annual report card on public finances, warning that the budget deficit has deteriorated badly over the last year and may soon breach the legal requirements of the Maastricht Treaty.
The Brussels watchdog said the Government had stretched fiscal policy to the limits and would soon have to “constrain expenditure” to avoid falling foul of the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact, a polite way of saying it may have to slash spending during an economic downturn - making matters worse.
The UK’s insatiable appetite for imports is responsible for its sizeable current account deficit………
The report highlighted a “significant deterioration” in the budget deficit, with “a very substantial risk of breaching the 3pc of GDP deficit reference value in the near term.”
The numbers the story quotes make me queasy.
All another set of Tories talking disaster, I suppose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NX1CMCPVOSE4FQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/money/2008/01/24/cnbudget124.xml
O/T Did anyone else hear Ken Livingstone on Today - he got the top post 8am news slot - and advanced the intriguing argument that the only check or balance on his exercise of power was the Electorate - claiming that he had opposed this system when proposed by Tony Blair, but now saw its merits in terms of getting things done. Overall I thought a polished and assured performance from Ken - not that I am persuaded by his argument - London truly does have an elected dictator, who now approves of his job description. Would any of the other candidates change that?
re 85 Roger you and I both agree that a 50% tax rate on those earning over £200k is sensible. We also know that there’s absolutely no hope of such a sensible policy being introduced by this administration. We also know that when such a policy was LibDem policy it was being rubbished by all the Labour cheerleaders and attack dogs.
90.
“I don’t care if Cameron’s a bit posh. He can’t help his wealthy background any more than I can help being dragged up in the slums of Ardwick. What matters is that he now comes across as a normal bloke, a bit posh yes, but not stuck-up or snooty and if that’s the way an ordinary chap like me sees him then so do millions”
Sounds like a scene from ‘Brief Encounter’!
101 I guess you’re a bit of a posh boy aren’t you Roger? I bet you could teach Cameron a few things about being snooty.
78- gosh cuddles- I do not mind the personal attack of politicians here; I just don’t think it looks good for people aspiring to PM should put themselves on par with a partisan pbCOMer; hence my remarks about Cameron’s poor judgment. He should leave that side of business to his attack dogs. There are many, many undesirable qualities of Brown for them to go for- and I have made many of them myself here. Cameron should stay out of the fray, and go for the policies.
86- seanT- point taken- you are right Cameron is too effete, and brimming with self esteem to be a bully. Brown on the other hand possesses many of the underpinning qualities of a bully.
90. Yes indeed. Moreover, the stats prove this - Cameron is seen by the public as much more likeable and charming than Brown; this is shown in poll after poll.
So what do Labourites make of that? If Cameron is seen as much more likeable than Brown, yet Cameron is a “bullying moonfaced toff” then what does that make Brown???
85
‘It’s just progressive taxation. Even Tories don’t baulk at the idea that those who earn most should pay the most tax do they? This would be just a slight redrawing of the line which is warranted by the larger disparity between rich and poor and also the increasing numbers earning over £200,000 a year.’
Roger time for you to put your money where your mouth is and show us how it should be done,how about donating one of your many properties to a homeless family?
A french bank with big problems: “Société Générale, France’s second-biggest bank, has revealed that one of its traders in Paris had committed a 5bn euros (£3.7bn) fraud.” They also need to write down another 2 billion in addition because of “credit market turbulence”.
A problem in Portugal with the biggest commercial bank there, too.
ConHome reports that safe seat Tonbridge and Malling can be vacant soon.
And Italian government should fall today at the Senate after failing to win a vote of confidence
106. Expect a good deal more of this over the next few weeks. It’s what Merv King and the Fed were hinting at earlier this week.
102. Cameron strikes me as an anachronism as does the character you paint from Ardwick which I’m sure isn’t you unless you are fifty years older than I imagine you to be.
O/T - just seen this comment from John Kerry who is criticising the Clintons for ’swiftboating’. He says “This is personal for me, and for a whole lot of Americans who lived through the 2004 election.”
I mean it was an election not World War III. Perspective!
Brown comes across as someone for whom any kind of criticism is a personal affront, as shown by PMQ’s. He permenantly wears the look of someone being dragged along broken glass, and every question or jibe is an attack that must be rebutted completely. Cameron see’s PMQ’s as a forum for him to take a few pot shots at Brown, make his point, then sit down. The two different approaches lead to Brown looking bullied to some people, when in fact he’s just taking it that way. Cameron is in fact being less vicious and nasty than Blair ever was to Major, something I’m assuming he was fully behind at the time.
90. “Now Brown on the other side certainly does not come across as a normal bloke. He is an odd-bod, a weirdo. False, shifty, creepy even.”
And Cameron came across to me as an arrogant, full of himself, nasty, out of control of his emotions in hated debates, someone who would sell his mother to achieve what he wants and false.
Overall, a better picture than Osborne though.
99 - I heard the Livingston interview and for me it was quite an eye-opener. Being up in Scotland, I don’t follow London politics and so don’t have a grasp of the nuances. I’ve previously thought that some of the things said about Livingstone in the past should be taken with a pinch of salt and part of the usual political rough and tumble. But I thought Livingstone came across today as genuinely creepy.
I also realized that London, like Scotland, probably has an imperfect constitutional settlement which will have future repercussions.
Having such an over-powerful system must appeal to any successful candidate - but only if they believe they will be in permanent power. Surely one of the best self-interested arguments against such an arrangement has to be the thought that that power has the potential to fall into the hands of your enemies and enable them to act in a much more powerful way than they would normally have been able to.
And this is ignoring the sheer cost of having to replace a politicized ‘civil service’ whenever the ruling party changes.
112. This ding-dong exchange of prejudices is really pretty pointless, isn’t it? time for a new thread, surely.
Bravo Andrea! ! couldn’t have put it better myself and you can’t be accused of bias!!
47,48: Oh
thanks for the info
Rallings and Thrasher (in fact all those things, Baxter etc.) seem quite simplistic.
Anyway the map itself looks quite good, with equally sized constituencies, and hexagons works IMHO. Maybe there will be a verion 2 which is good…?
114. I thought they were the common level of every thread
I have certainly gone out of my way in leaflets and on my blog to highlight the fact that Gordon Brown is not in any way a ‘normal bloke’ - for one thing being incarcerated in the hallowed halls of Westminster since 1983 is a prime disqualification from normality, to say nothing of having been top dog at the Treasury since 1997.
I do this because it is palpably true, not as part of some mysterious plot.
In fact I tend to agree with Paul Linford, this could become a serious problem and backfire against us if it got out of hand.
So I shall be more careful in future.
114. Exchange of bias has become quite regular around here.
Re Ming the most devastating things done to Ming were the cartoonists particularly the left leaning Steve Bell in the Guardian.
112. Same point to you, though, Andrea: you may have this impression of Cameron - but it is not shared by the British people. Polls consistently show that Cameron is regarded as much more personable and likeable than Brown.
The only alternative explanation for the poll data is that Cameron is widely despised, for the reasons you say, but that Brown, even so, is regarded as significantly more unpleasant!
I’m not sure either explanation gives Labour much comfort.
46 - I am really wishing I had backed Tsonga now, he is crucifying Nadal! Grr missed opportunity!
121. A lot of people havent fully registered Cameron yet. my sense is that the more the public get to know him the less regard they have for him. There was a time during Webcameron where he seemed a nice person. That’s long gone but hasn’t yet registered with an apathetic public. If you had a poll on who was the weirdest I’m sure it would be a toss up.
Just to end this argument once and for all.
From one of the most recent polls (Dec 07) to compare the personal characteristics of the two leaders, we get this data:
“Mr Cameron is also regarded as the most likeable by 51 per cent, compared to 31 per cent for Mr Brown.”
That’s a 20% lead.
So Labour supporters have to make their minds up. You have two choices. Either Cameron is simply more likeable than Brown, and by a wide margin at that. Or Cameron is a horrible arrogant nasty smarmy bully, yet he is STILL seen as vastly preferable to Gordon Brown.
Ahem.
123. So, in conclusion, your saying that people don’t share your opinion of Cameron yet because they don’t know enough about him. Sounds like your basing your stance on your own opinion of how people should think about him.
Well, what an interesting thread so far, notable in no small way for the viciousness of the attacks on Cameron by the Labour supporters, while simultaneously bemoaning the unfairness of personal abuse.
A few points. Firstly, I shouldn’t be, but I am constantly amazed at how much store Labour supporters keep putting in Cameron’s background as an election winning argument. Like Blair didn’t go to a posh private school. Big deal. It’s how he deals with people now that matters - and how Brown (and Clegg) do in comparison.
Secondly, whether the charges are just depends on whether there is any merit in them, not which party is making them about the other. Rather than making the ‘wierdo’ tag stick directly, all the Tories need to do is point out the evidence and let people come to that conclusion for themselves. The bunker mentality, the disappearing act whenever there’s trouble, the obsessive desire to control, the refusal to allow other ministers to take the limelight (could you imagine Blair turning up at a press conference on Northern Rock had he still been at No10 and had Gordon still been Chancellor?), the fluffed media stunts, the ever more authoritarian and prescriptive government, often coming direct from No10 - all these might be used as pointers.
There seems to be an attitude among some on the left that any criticism of them is by definition unfair - as if that criticism, no matter how fair, is somehow a slight on the underprivilaged or vulnerable. Well it’s not, and if they can’t see that, then they won’t see an election defeat coming either. Unless anyone can accept criticism and deal with the salient points, they won’t put right what needs putting right - and for governments, that will spell electoral failure.
117- Andrea- my wife from Firenze dislikes Cameron for pretty much the same reasons, smug, self satisfied, unprincipled, unscrupulous, irritable.
Anyway- can you give me a quick low down on Italy. Will there be new elections? Will Prodi continue to lead the Olive Tree alliance, and Burlusconi the other one.
What are your own personal feelings on the situation?
123. We could do with cutting out some of the more absurd self-delusions as well.
“Exchange of bias has become quite regular around here”
Brown’s character, rightly or wrongly, has been trashed by (some) Tory posters here for months if not longer.
After 150 comments on it, one makes a deliberately exagereted and provocative comment on Cameron on the same line of those often made on Brown…and naturally he gets the “bais and prejudice” tag.
One can wonder where those pure souls were when the rest was making the same with Brown…..
116. it may be a browser problem. Firefox seems to work OK, and refreshing IE may work too. I’ve tipped them off again about the problems….
126 - I think the viciousness is heightened by the fact that they can see the writing on the wall viz the next election. Look at the desperate attacks unleashed on Blair prior to the 97 election.
127. Tyson, did she like Hewitt too, right?
What will happen is still unclear. New elections may be a solution..there’s the problem of the Electoral law which some would like to see changed before the vote.
My feeling? Well, it should have happened sooner or later…it won’t have lasted 5 years…if it was not today, it could have been in a month or so
129. Most left leaning people here have been slagging off Cameron as an eton toff from the get go, and over the years the labour party has quite happily laid into tory leaders personality and history at every available opportunity.
123 - your point of view is not borne out by polling evidence to date, which has to date indicated that the more prominent Cameron has been, the stronger the Conservative polling.
For myself, I rather like the personalities of both Gordon Brown and David Cameron in different ways. David Cameron seems genuinely affable, while Gordon Brown seems dedicated. Of course, Margaret Thatcher never made the mistake of wanting to be liked, and was by far the most successful Prime Minister of my lifetime. Likeability or even normality are not measures that sway my vote.
I can’t help feeling that, in accordance with the Peter Principle, Gordon Brown has been promoted one step beyond his competence. I have my doubts whether David Cameron would be any good as a Prime Minister either, but he is at least a good leader of the Opposition.
122 - Nadal out, grr!
Didn’t A.Campbell describe Brown as psychologically flawed? It has long been said in some quarters that Brown will be the first PM to be removed from Downing Street by men in white coats. And the general perception of Brown is, as has been pointed out here, that he is weird. Strategy or not, Cameron is just picking up on that public perception, not inventing it.
WRT Livingstone, if you want a laugh, go and read the comments on Comment is Free, in response to articles about the London Mayoralty. Livingstone’s supporters are really working themselves into a frenzy of anger about Johnson. According to them, it would seem that if he’s elected, he’ll conduct a pogrom against London’s black and asian populations and introduce apartheid in the Capital. The best comment came from one person who reckoned Johnson’s election would be as bad as “20 7/7 bombings” (ie equivalent to the murder of 1,040 people).
129. “Brown’s character, rightly or wrongly, has been trashed by (some) Tory posters here for months if not longer”. But surely that question’s the key point: was the ‘trashing’ (which was really the identification of his character as being not up to the job, because good blog though pbc is, the comments made on here haven’t changed Brown’s character or how the public have seen it), an accurate assessment of the man? And similarly, is the ‘trashing’ of Cameron by Roger, Jonathan, Tyson, Coldstone and co similarly accurate; are their views shared by the public, or will they shortly be. That is the judgement call that will be important to those looking to the betting markets and to election strategy.
126- David Herdson, pbCOM’s Tory voice of reason- the personal abuse on Brown is a given on this site, day in day out. I even put the boot in myself. Much much more than is leveled at Cameron here.
Cameron’s background will be a feature in northern, Welsh, Scottish marginals. People there do not connect with Toffs, especially smarmy, arrogant, irritable, and not particularly attractive ones. Cameron does not have Boris or Zak’s (or Cleggs) charm, good looks, softer nature, good hair.
Cameron may well pile up the votes in the south, but his background will be an electoral factor elsewhere. However, his personality and poor judgment will be bigger factors I think.
126. Well said David - very eloquently put.
And of course, re the endless “posh school” barbs, was it not the Lib Dems who recently had a leadership election between.. one rich ex-Westminster public schoolboy who went to Oxbridge and became an MEP, and, er, another rich ex Westminster public schoolboy who went to Oxbridge and became an MEP?
Talk about social exclusion. The Lib Dems are so exclusive they limit their leadership candidates to affluent upper middle class boys with identical CVs.
85: People who earn more do pay more tax
In fact they pay disproportionately more tax, as the tax rate goes up to 40% at a threshold of ~38K. Perhaps I beter explain as you are obviously a bear of little brain.
Someone on £10K pays £1310.90 (13.19% in tax and NI)*
Someone on average (approx) wage of £23K pays £5600.90 (24.35%)
Someone on £30K pays £7910.90 (26.37%)
Someone on £50K pays £14826.40 (29.65%)
Even someone like you can surely see that not only is £14826.40 a bigger number than £1310.90, but that it is also FAR bigger as a fraction of the whole.
‘Progressive’ enough already IMHO.
Engage brain before typing next time?
(* Next year, thanks to Brown, the £10K earner will be WORSE OFF thanks to the 10% rate’s abolition. 3 cheers for Gordon.)
http://www.listentotaxman.com/
137 - Just a tad over the top. Weren’t they dismissing Johnson as a clown until recently. Now he is the greatest threat to peace and concord since the dawn of time.
133. “Most left leaning people ”
the 3 or 4 present…as the site is not exactly dominated by left wing people.
My original comment was made on purpose…if people can trash Brown according their personal opinion on him, the same should be made of Cameron if someone has a different opinion
Now anyway I will return in my recent not posting status…
127. Tyson. A very special place Firenze. I have quite a few friends from there and I’m always surprised how they could have dragged themselves away to live here or in the States which all the ones I know have done.
132- Andrea- will Prodi and old Burlers continue to be the alliance leaders?
My wife liked nanny Patty- must be an Italian thing, because I couldn’t stand her myself.
139. Tyson, where abouts in the country do you live? Do you have any first hand experience of these northern, Welsh and Scottish marginals? I just ask as someone’s who’s an activist in one of the most marginal Tory seats in the North of England.
141.”In fact they pay disproportionately more tax, as the tax rate goes up to 40% at a threshold of ~38K. Perhaps I beter explain as you are obviously a bear of little brain”
Pompous oaf!
141. One group doesn’t fit your pattern though - super wealthy non domiciled Labour donors.
142. To be effective, negative campaigning has to have some basis in reality. Portraying Johnson as an essentially frivolous candidate might have legs. Portraying him as some sort of racist fanatic is just ridiculous.
But the thing is, Gordon IS a weirdo. Not just a bit weird, but REALLY weird.
Hand up who’d go for a pint with him?
147. More high quality posting from Roger.
Today Guido drew attention to Brown’s use of a comparatively old photograph for the New anti obesity campaign. Check it out on the third page of the document.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_082378
What are Brown’s hobbies or interests outside politics? How does he relax or take time off? He appears to be devoted to politics but in many ways he is an unknown PM, and has concealed his private persoona for a long time.
.
143- Andrea- can you please answer 145 before departing (for only a short term hopefully).
144-Roger- it is why we live in Oxford. We used to live in Maidstone, and I realised that I just couldn’t let a gal from Firenze suffer the south east white flight ugliness of England.
Sad about Heath Ledger. I remember watching Ned Kelly, and making the point that “Gangs of New York” would have been a far different film if Ledger had been cast in the DeCaprio role. Ledger’s transformation for Brokeback was incredible.
re 141 no-one’s doubting that income tax is regressive - the question is whether it is regressive enough. I think not and a top limit of 50% is both prudent and sensible.
Apre the Ferdinands, Ronaldos etc of this world going to move to Barcelona because they’re being asked to live on £564k per year rather than £664k?
145. Why do so many ex politicians - like Patricia Hewitt - seem faintly like a bad dream when you hear their names, after a period of obscurity?
Just think about it. Just say the words “Michael Meacher”. Was he really part of our government? Or was it just a nightmare I have dimly recalled? Same goes for “Bryan Gould”. Or “Frank Dobson”. And what about “Chris Smith”? Did he really exist, or was he just some freak from a horror film I saw when I was ten?
One shudders to remember, either way.
The same goes for Tories too, of course. “Cecil Parkinson”. “Norman Fowler”. “Mark Carlisle”. “Francis Pym”.
Gag me with a spoon!
I have never thought that a 50p tax rate over £100,000 would bother most people who earn over that amount and certainly only the greediest of those earning over £200.000 would object?
143. People should not trash either way, however roger, tyson etc act like trashing Cameron as a toff is fine whereas calling Brown ’strange’ is a deeply cutting insult and will cost Cameron votes.
139. If your using your own opinion as fact then of course the results will be skewed. Your saying Cameron is an unlikeable toff with poor judgement, whether or not this is true I don’t know, however the polls show him well ahead of Brown in the personality stakes and nearly everything else too. It’s quite hard to take anything you say serious when your start off everything with ‘that eton toff cameron and his bad judgement’.
I doubt if either Stewart Jackson or I want to get into a popularity contest here so I’ll skip the posts about us, except to pick up one point. seanT has a few times now suggested that when I post here it’s at taxpayers’ expense, and he’s now extended it to saying I’m on a government salary. I don’t get paid anything by the government (being a PPS is unpaid and being an MP is not a government job), but obviously I do get paid by the taxpayer, in the same way as he gets paid by Harper Collins or whoever it is.
Constituents could reasonably object to my writing here if it distracted from my work, in the same way that sean’s publishers would grumble if he was late with a book and said he was too busy telling us about Europe. However, I work around 70 hours a week at my MP’s job, often out of normal working hours, as I’m sure Stewart does. Contributing to pb.com is something we do (as do other MPs under aliases) on top of that for enjoyment and interest, where we might be having a coffee or taking a break to read a book by seanT. It’s a misunderstanding to suggest that we’re being paid to contribute here, and it would obviously discourage MPs of any party if it persisted, so I thought it was worth a post to clear it up - sorry about the length.
150 - Who’s paying?
Of course I would go for a pint with Brown as I would with Cameron or Clegg. These are all successful people (relative to most of us) and it would be interesting having a chat. More to the point, who wouldn’t?
O/T from prev thread
213 So the UK needs the help of the EU to make sure we are not vote rigging - what a joke Britain is now!!!
Good Morning.
Sadly a very depressing thread.
On a lighter note I wonder why we haven’t heard from Chris of Paris recently!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7206270.stm
Image is important in politics, but any effort to characterise an opponent has to have a basis in reality. There are many examples:
Livingstone has more success branding Johnson a buffoon than a racist because voters have sympathy with the former characterisation and simply do not believe the latter.
Cameron will have success branding Brown as ’strange’ because that is how many see him. Clearly, if he tried to brand him as lazy or stupid it would fail.
Brown failed with his chameleon attacks because that’s not how the British voter sees a leader of the opposition. They accept that oppositions have to oppose, but that it is only a government that can act, so it sticks to criticising flip-flop actions rather than flip-flop words. Brownites watch too much West Wing; voters react differently in the US to flip flop charges.
‘Demon Eyes’ failed to leave a mark on Blair because it had no basis in truth.
‘Something of the night’ stuck with Howard because it suited him.
‘Two Jags’ Prescott - on the button.
‘He follows his party, I lead mine’ - because when Blair said it to Major it had the ring of truth. If IDS had tried that one on Blair, he would have been laughed out of the chamber.
‘He practices his lines in front of the mirror’ was a self-inflicted blow by Brown because it was clearly more true for him than Cameron.
This is the stuff of politics. Personality matters.
146- David- answered the question in 153. I live in that great northern battlefield Oxford north, not.
I did some hands on lefty activism in Lancaster and South Ribble in the 92, and 97 elections if that counts, am a born and bred Lancashire lad, and still have family in the north.
As a northern activist you must know that Cameron cannot connect to northern folk. That mummy is a magistrate, and daddy a stockbroker, and I went to a fab school crap doesn’t hold much truck with northerners. Nearly made me puke myself, and I have a bit more tolerance for toffs.
156: I’d object
151. I don’t like posting like that but did you read the patronizing post I was replying to?
156 - It’s not about whether they “object” in the sense of taking to the streets, Roger. People respond to incentives and increasing tax rates has an impact on competition for top jobs, inclination to work abroad and pay tax there rather than here and so on. It is also their money in the same sense that all income is, and the fact they are rich doesn’t make that less true. Finally, many high earners in any given year have highly variable incomes, and there is an issue around discouraging people from taking jobs with highly variable incomes, since these are attractive in a broader economic sense as they tend to be entrepreneurial and incentive-based.
165. But you do it all the time, then complain about others doing it. Of course you like it - it’s the main reason you post here, as any fule know.
158. NickP, just to clear the point up at my end. I have never said you should stop posting - indeed I have several times said the opposite.
I hope you continue to post not least cause I enjoy our debates, believe it or not.
What I do sometimes object to is your lofty characterisation of others as spinmerchants when you are so clearly the same - the only difference is that you are a lot brighter than most, so you do your spin in a clever and sometimes serpentine manner.
I cannot remember a single post of yours which has not, in some often subtle way, been supportive of Labour and/or critical of the Tories. You are so predictable in your spin I once predicted almost to the word, and the second, when and what you would say after one PMQs. Remember?
So when I claim you are doing this on the taxpayer’s coin what I mean is this: you obviously see it as part of your job to come out and support and explain your party’s position on here, otherwise you wouldn’t do it so assiduously.
And fair enough. That’s your choice. And you are entitled to spend your working day as you please. Indeed I think you are justified in coming on here - I think it is a service to others who are interested in politics that you do so. So if we are paying you to do this, I’m not worried.
However because we are paying you to do this, as we pay any MP or government minister to do what they do, you must expect us to be blunt and honest when we challenge you.
There! See how nice I am. Pax.
163 - Are there no magistrates or public schools in the North of England now? I agree there is more of an issue with Cameron’s connection with people in some parts of the country but wouldn’t overplay it.
148: One group doesn’t fit your pattern though - super wealthy non domiciled Labour donors.
Non-domiciled donors of ANY political party. And Lord Ashcroft’s domicile is…….?
This particularly ‘tactic’ is also incredibly offensive to people with Aspergers Syndrome, such as myself.
The French scandal is very strange. From the BBC:
‘Gilles Glicenstein, BNP Paribas chief executive, suggested that “there is still some information missing to understand what happened” at Societe Generale.
“Because the scale of the fraud is so large, there must be a complex explanation… For Societe Generale, it’s an unprecedented event,” he added.’
And elsewhere:
‘”I am sorry but I have a hard time buying the fact that a trader was able to set up a ’secret trade’ of 4.9 billion without anybody finding out,” said Ion-Marc Valhi at Amas Bank.’
Incroyable.
Is it possible French banks are also in trouble, but they are trying to prevent a Northern Rock-like run, by blaming their instability on fraud?
Hmm.
145. Tyson. Silvio, I think so…Prodi, not sure, Veltroni may be the new leader as he’s the new PD leader
157. Cluddles, my comment at 112 was deliberately biased as it was a personal opinion expressed in exaggerated terms (I don’t think he will sell his mother)..I should have probably concluded that “for what it’s worth and it’s not much as it’s a personal opinion as personal opinions of others in the opposite sense are not much worthy either”.
As David H said earlier, it’s not the personal opinion that counts but if it matches the public opinion..so it’s the public opinion not the personal opinion of pb.com posters.
My objection was probably in the language used by some…and I replied using the same language on the opposite person to give the taste of the same medicine and to see what it would have generated.
(not a mature debate..but if a is accepted, b must too).
Naturally if I like X, I am more sensible in what it is said about him/her and if I don’t like Y, I am less sensible…so it’s “double standards” from me too: I may not be brothered by others describing Cameron as a toff like Tories may be affected by bad description of Cameron and coudln’t care less of negative words on Brown.
When writing 112, I thought it would have been better not to do it..but my current not good moon probably tipped the decision to do it anyway
(that comment is already too long..and I think I’ve got lost in it and probably it’s not clear either)
169. ‘course not. It’s all satanic mills manned by cloth-capped, working class, salt-of-the earth characters gleefully awaiting the arrival of a socialist New Jerusalem.
Or at least it is the fevered, fantasising minds of a few middle class armchair revolutionaries.
163. No, I disagree there. One of the first signs for me that Cameron might get a lot closer to Downing Street than Hague or Howard was when I was delivering leaflets on a council estate in early 2006 in a ward where I was standing, but which the Conservatives hadn’t previously worked in years, and where Labour had scored shares of 70%+ in the mid-90s. I met a relatively elderly man out in his garden and he volunteered to me that he was going to vote Conservative next time because “this new chap looks to have a bit more about him”.
I can’t speak for foreign places like Lanacashire, but certainly round here, people are judged on what they’ve done and what it looks likely that they’ll be able to do. Their social background is really not an issue. So Cameron really won’t lose anything because his parents are rich, and Labour will be making a big mistake if they try to make something of it - which to be fair, they haven’t recently.
It would be more true to say that the bigger danger he faces would be one of political distance, rather than geographical or social detatchment. While the environment is of importance to some, I don’t think there will be anywhere near as many votes swung in the north on that issue than on things like crime, the economy, immigration, competance and waste, and tax - harder-edged issues. If CCHQ has much sense, they’ll run parallel campaigns in terms of personnel, keeping Cameron mainly in the south (which will be helpful for the London-based media), Hague and Davis in the north (near their constituencies), and let Wales and Scotland do their own thing as well.
166. That has not been my experience but perhaps those in advertising are not typical.
172 - What is utterly bizarre is that the markets are so far up, with the evidence of a fraud, plus details of a bigger soc gen sub-prime (there will be more elsewhere too)writedown and a writedown to cover monoline fallout (and the potential that the monolines will blow up big time) the markets shouldn’t really be quite so buoyant.
because we are paying you to do this
I don’t think we are, even if Nick were to consider posting on pb.com a politically important thing to do. Unless he’s being directly ordered to do this, this is a leisure activity, in the same way as him volunteering for Labour campaigning would be. His parliamentary and constituency duties are unequivocally of public interest. This isn’t. I suppose overtly party political activity of the type all MPs are expected to undertake is a grey area.
(IMO, if you read Nick’s posts carefully, he does disagree with the government’s direction occasionally - but keeps his criticism carefully veiled. Anything here can be used against him).
175. People’s social background is probably only a real factor for those who woudl never vote Tory anyway because they are engaged in some bollocks class war nonsense, usually from a very nice house and in a very nice job.
If you look at the average joe on a council estate most of them may occasionally have an issue in a moment of rant but most of them actually want to be as socially advantaged /and or wealthy as those they rant against.
The comfortable can always afford to rant about bringing people down, those less comfortable simply want to be up.
147: A bit OTT, sorry. But to say that people earning more don’t pay more tax was simply incorrect.
It is seductive to simply tax the rich more, but unfair.
175. Again true.
One thing Cameron should note, and note quickly, is that if we are facing a global recession, or worse, then pretty soon all this Green, save-the-glaciers, windmill-on-the-roof eco-politics, is gonna look very redundant.
People really won’t care how recyclable their lightbulbs are - if they are facing unemployment, negative equity, and penury.
I was reminded of this point when I watched Hugh Fearnley Wittering-On’s programme about battery chickens. He seems a nice guy, but all this preaching to the poor about the cruelty of their chicken-eating habits, from someone who can afford to eat free range swans, rather stuck in the throat.
Cammo should beware.
180 - It would also be an effective aspiration cap.
It’s very unlikely that Cameron’s background will affect him at the moment - possibly, it might be a bit of an issue if, sometime in the future, he’s leading an unpopular government, but that depends on a lot. Most voters assume that Conservatives come from relatively privileged backgrounds - and it’s highly unlikely that most people grousing about “toffs” (and Cameron isn’t that much of a toff by most standards) would suddenly vote for a Davis-led or a Fox-led party. Brown is much more vulnerable because it’s much easier to tie in negative perceptions to a government which is doing badly. While an Opposition is naturally going to be seen, in making a personal attack, as “telling it as it is”, a Government is simply seen as sinking lower into the mire.
Vaguely apropos the subject, our small (two-person) company has just had its Corporation Tax bill through, replete with promises of future rises.
Cheers, Gordon.
You’re either destroying small business through your total ignorance (bad), or you’re doing it on purpose (worse).
Either way, give it a rest, there’s a good chap.
Apropos of nothing, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is a very distant connexion of Cameron’s by marriage, according to the reference books.
I’ve always thought the most effective negative attack I’ve seen in British GEs was Labour’s 1997 “Land of Hope and Glory” broadcast.
184. As someone paying income tax at 40%, why should I be sympathetic to someone getting their tax rate raised from 10% to 18%?
177 Because stockmarkets are barometers of sentiment, not thermometers. They indicate what is going to happen in the future, not what is happening now.
Loved the clip in the HFW show where a pub full of fatties smoking and drinking were moaning about how their poor family couldn’t afford anything by economy chicken - summed up NuLab britain in 30 seconds.
186. Quite right. There is no reason capital gains should be taxed at a different rate to any other form of income. It’s simply a distortion - as is the ridiculous non-dom system. Let’s have low and consistent taxes across the board, and an end to this kind of pointless micro-management.
…oops I meant corporate income, but the same point goes for capital gains as well.
187 - Hence the bits in brackets that what is showing up at SocGen less the fraud is likely to be lurking elsewhere. That should peg the market back, albeit the Fed move should give impetus to the market and I would have expected the market to be moderately up not staggeringly up. This is looking to me like an unreality spike.
178. Take yr point - not sure I totally agree.
I’d be surprised, actually, if MPs hadn’t been tacitly encouraged to come on blogs like this and present the party’s case. I’m sure no one has ordered them to do it, but as the blogosphere grows in importance, especially websites like this, so does the necessity for politicians to go online and strut their funky stuff. No?
But anyway, my point was: I think Nick Palmer is justified in doing that. I’m glad he does it. I relish (obviously!) the chance to tackle a senior-ish MP from the government party. Indeed I wish more MPs had his guts and would do the same - in their own names.
I also appreciate that as a government PPS he can hardly come out and say “Brown is an idiot”. What I do take exception to, and I’ll say this for the last time, is his accusations of spinning and astroturfing levelled at other posters, when that is really all he does. Albeit in a more euphonious and well-informed way.
But this argument is now boring even me. I have relaxed after my hard day’s thriller writing, and I must go to soi 7 to buy some mangoes.
Sawadee kap!
I don’t see whats wrong with the Tories pointing out that Brown is strange/weird. People know it and can see it for themselves. The guy is completely unsuited to a public role like PM. The fact he has taken the job and Lbaour have given him the job, isn’t a reason why the Tories shouldn’t point out that he’s strange.
If Tony Blair can call Gordon Brown psychologically flawed, then so can David Cameron.
Yes, but something has definitely changed in the Conservative party in its choice of Cameron as leader, a reversal of a 40-year conscious pattern. They had better know what they are doing….
“Heath, the son of a carpenter and sometime railway porter, was in due course succeeded as leader of the party of the establishment by the daughter of a grocer, the son of a garden gnome manufacturer, the son of a fizzy drinks maker, the son of a middle-ranking RAF officer, and the son of an immigrant Rumanian shopkeeper, For the forty years until the election of David Cameron, when the wheel turned once more, every Conservative leader was from a relatively humble background…”
from an excellent lecture on Ted Heath by Professor John Ramsden
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=108&EventId=458
187 Warren Buffett (iirc) observed that while long term stock markets are weighing machines, short term they are voting machines…..
Sky: Electoral Commission refers Hain matter to Met Police….
195 Brilliant!! Thanks for that, Carlotta!
109 Are you calling me a liar, Roger?
Scotland Yard to investigate Hain….
196/199 - Hain is toast then surely?
192 - It’s part of the problem of posting here. Once we get into the realm of debating the issues, rather than the debate, then both sides will seek to win, and to claim the moral high ground. Nick’s not as innocent as he sometimes paints himself, but the temptation is understandable.
194 - The Tories are suffering from the decline in state-educated entitlement in the post-1960s era. For the future, an increasing number of politicians on all sides of the political mainstream are going to be privately educated, if not necessarily products of the ancient universities.
Two local by-elections this evening, one in Basingstoke and one in Sandwell:
http://www.vote-2007.co.uk/index.php?topic=1871.0
Met launch “criminal investigation”….
200. In the short term only if there is substance.
In the long term, the boy’s an embarassment and will be moved out.
He’s resigned already.
Radio 5 - Hain resigns !
Who will be the replacement(s) ?
207- Nick Palmer!
Hain to resign BBC. I’m quids in.
The problem for Labour now is “is there anyone available who is not tainted in the same way?”
209 - Me too! More importantly where does that leave Wendy and Harriet?
Christ..well he went quietly. Not like him.
Must be substance then and he knew it.
Will Milburn come back I wonder?
Heh. So Brown took all that political damage - and for what? Hain resigned anyway.
Tut tut. YET another tactical cock-up. This really is like Major’s government.
209- Yes its all over the airwaves. Now the question is, are the Tories damaged by this? They have been bullying poor Peter so much hes been forced to resign to escape their evil taunts.
Hain has resigned to ‘clear his name’. Hmm. Usually ends in tears doesn’t it!
Chris Bryant for Welsh Secretary, anyone?
215 lol
New thread on Hain resignation.
216. I’m afraid it does.
168: seanT - thanks. I don’t think I do criticise people for being spinmerchants, you know - correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t remember ever doing so. I criticise them for being pointlessly abusive, or for rants without arguments.
As for my posts, if I weren’t an MP I’d post here and on other blogs more, not less - it’s lack of time that gets in the way because I do need to give my job priority. I’ve been a Labour Party activist for 40 years, and I think it’s a noble cause despite the mistakes that every movement makes at times. I don’t do it for the money - I was paid a lot more for working in a non-political job than I am now.
Spin? Sure. My posts do put a Labour viewpoint, rather more when there’s a lot of one-sided Tory stuff on the thread and rather less when there isn’t. I’m constrained by being aware that what I say can be quoted against me or the party, but I try to be rational and friendly unless really provoked. Ultimately all of us here have more in common with each other than with people who don’t give a toss about anything.
Says he is resigning to clear his name, just like Jonathan Aitken did. I hope he brings his, ” simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of fair play. ” I wonder if he will end up in the same place?
What price “incompetence” now? Maybe Brown meant he was “incompetent” simply because he got caught.
And where was Brown’s moral compass when he wasn’t sacking Hain?
“Whiter than white, purer than pure….”
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh F**k it lol!!!!!
The fact is Brown is odd - that’s how he comes across and it’s what people spontaneously think. It would backfire if the Conservatives had cynically manufactured this image. But they haven’t. They are simply emphasising an accurate perception. No other politician gets this “morally outraged” censure of ridicule. The real problem is the Great Leader has a very fragile ego - he can’t take the knockabout every other prominent politican is subjected to and has no resources to shrug it off or land a blow in return. Two things Tony Blair was a master of.
More name calling in the HoC today, this time Biscuit-boy (Osborne) having a go at Brown/Darling. Has this silly little schoolboy not progressed beyons the Remove? In fact if he got stuffed with a few dozen of Nigella’s cakes, he’d make a pretty good Bunter. Need some NHS specs though. Damn! Tories got rid of NHS eye services for adults!
137 Is that “Comment Is Free”, as in “War is Peace” and “Freedom is Slavery”?
227. and F%%%%%% for chastity.
He is of course a bit unusual. He cannot help it but he looks wierd. The funny eye (Blair had one of them) and the “gurning” intake of breath are just odd and completely beyond his control. They just add to the appearance of wierdness. My wife said if found by a playground Brown would make her call the police and I can see what she means.
His manner of speaking he can help. Who told him that phrases such as “fiscal arithmetic” and “an incompetence” resonate with Basildon man (whom he must woo)? Tone would have said “the sums don’t add up” and ” a mistake” in a blokey sort of way and we would know what he meant and regard him as one of us. Brown is too professorial and for heavens’ sake tell him to stop smiling he’s frightening my children.
Cameron’s real problem is that Brown is dull.
To have a good tussle you need some response and some life in an opponent, to create some drama.
Cameron could re-use Dennis Healy’s description of Geoffrey Howe - ‘it was like fighting with a dead sheep.’ The problem for Cameron is that Brown would make a dead sheep seem quite interesting.
Blair called him ‘The Great Clunking Fist’ but Blair, as usual was exaggerating. Brown is not Great. He Clunks occasionally. But shows no Fist.
Brown is strange. As to whether calling him that makes Brown any less dull, I doubt.
John Major was coloured in by Labour as The Grey Man. I guess ‘Strange’ is as exciting as Gordon Brown will ever be.
‘Strange’ will have to do.