Ed Milibands Labour

As Ed Miliband just about squeaked past his brother to become Labour leader and gave his first ever leaders speech he seems to have made the break with New Labour, if we take his words at face value New Labour has gone, and a more traditional social democratic, union friendly one headed by him has taken its place. Instead of laying down a middle ground and staying there, he seems to be re-establishing a more traditional Labour manifesto. There was the admission that Iraq was a mistake, that tuition fees are bad, that a rampantly free market City was also no longer flavour of the month either. He offered the hand of friendship to the unions, but warned against militancy for militancy's sake as not to be tolerated. In short it was a most tacit embrace of social democracy that has been seen by the party since the nineties and the Labour traditionalists seemed to like what they heard. Gone are the days when it seemed like Tony Blair was only half comfortable with his party and almost disliked the older elements of the labour movement and tried to distance himself from them. When it seemed that New Labour was almost ashamed to admit any association with social democracy. Gordon Brown may have been more tribal at heart, but the financial crisis derailed everything, and the plain fact of a government having spent over a decade in power meant that he had really run out of steam in reasserting this sort of thing. But it seems today that this is the way forward for the party.

But is it risky? In one sense no. The party probably lost most of its floating support through the credit crunch and apathy after 13 years in office. But equally the Labour core vote was frittered away quite liberally with what they saw as an abandonment of them for the more middle class, swing voters. It may have been a necessary shift in values 13 years ago, but it put a lot of people out. I'm sure there was more than one red rose wearing MP candidate trudging dejectedly through a former northern mill town, at the less than enthusiastic response from once core voter bases this last election. I'm sure this is some ways an attempt at rapprochement with the disenfranchised arms of the party and voters, to shore up the core vote again. But what of getting votes further afield? In some ways Labour leaders were sort of keen to distance themselves from the kind of policies above because they thought that they lost votes. there was a strong feeling that in '87 and '92 that the Thatcher loving parts of the press had pilloried them for their policies, and the public had got swept up with this. But it is a little different now. The unfettered free market is seen as a major villain in causing the credit crisis in the publics eyes. The Coalition is hardly all that popular, and talk of the "big society" are a telling euphemism of this. Is Ed Miliband planning on greater public sentiment for social democracy in the face of ConDem spending cuts, and the cold winds that they potentially may bring with them? That they can poach worried public sector workers and disgruntled Lib Dems sidelined by the coalition compromises that as the junior partner; they bear the brunt of?

It is an interesting dichotomy building up. On the one hand the coalition wants spending cuts to bridge the deficit. It is of course - partly ideological. The Tory front benchers are stuffed with instinctive small government believers, steeped in hard Thatcherism. Considerable swathes of the public sector are seen in their eyes as an obstacle to hard core monetarist prosperity, and a socialist affront to got rid of. Ostensibly purging them in the name of spending cuts is a plum opportunity to do so, and I think a lot of the electorate have twigged onto this. By positioning themselves as a counterweight to a government looking downwards to cut their way to economic strength, as a government willing to shore from the bottom up, against the worst excesses of the free market, stabilising the economy from the ground up, and hopefully catch some Lib Dems who may want to fall off the spending cuts boat. Positioning Labour as an ideological counterweight to who has the most apt economic recovery plan.

Interesting times ahead whatever happens, and perhaps a move away from the centre ground seeking.

Who will the Mail Hate Now?

The Daily Mails proprietor once summarised his job as "giving his readers a daily dose of hate.", and under a succession of editors like David English and Paul Dacre, he has had willing accomplices. Now I don't think with a new PM, we are suddenly going to see the Mail drop all the same old hate campaigns against immigrants, "feckless welfare junkies", public sector jobsworths, and the liberal elite. It just wont happen, it's as much a part of the papers fabric as the mafia are to the Godfather films. However their number one target is out of the picture now, the Labour party are out of Downing street, so this shifts the focus of the Mails ire somewhat. So how is this going to affect their editorials?

I don't claim to be clairvoyant, but we can assume that the Mail (and Express/Sun) will be glad that their beloved Tories are in. But there is that elephant in the room, the coalition with the Lib Dems, which they may (and will) perceive as a threat to their alliance with Cameron, and these guys absolutely hate to lose! The fact that the inheritance tax threshold [Tories wanted it to increase] will not go up is a concession to Nick Clegg as well as the post of deputy prime minister, and the likelihood he will take up the reigns during Camerons planned paternity leave won't allay those fears. The commentary in the rightwards press does seem to single out Cleggs perceived venality, and that the cabinet level Lib Dems as a bunch of sandal wearing strident protesters out for trouble. I can imagine Clegg will receive a lot of flack for being the man who came third, and got second in command. (in the mold of "unelected Brown" There seems to be an inference that they [Lib Dems] should be reined in, and reigned in as soon as possible. It may be interesting to see how more traditionalist Tories react in comparison to the press coverage. Normon Tebbit said they should have ditched any alliance and gone it alone. Will they accuse Cameron of pandering to his new allies, and straying even further from what they see as "core conservative values", and they think he has been straying too much even before the coalition took power. How much of a stir will this cause? I also think the presence of such a high profile europhile like Clegg in this government of which the majority party is bitterly divided, and increasingly hostile to the EU, just seems to be a big cloud on the horizon, as it always has been for the Tories. Again it doesn't help that Cameron was seen as making promises he couldn't fulfill in regards to the Lisbon treaty. Not to mention divisions on how to deal with the deficit.

Interesting times.

Blimey Gordon

Gordon Brown seems; PR wise, in this past year, to the election run up, to have had the media equivalent of being stripped naked and walloped with planks that have large, protruding rusty nails sticking out of them. All whilst wearing a comedy dunces cap. It's been pretty much wall to wall bad press. He's been pulling faces on youtube. He's (allegedly) walloped staff. He spelt the surname of the mother of a dead soldier wrong. (Incidentally so did the Sun paper that hauled him over the coals for the very thing they ended up doing.) He's trailed behind in these televised debates. And he sounded off against a granny in Rochdale, whilst a Labour party member called him the worst prime minister ever. Not entirely a vote winning strategy. I honestly thought that he couldn't have done worse for himself if his glass eye had accidentally fell out and landed on the "emergency nuclear red button" which then triggered an accidental nuclear strike on Finland. Yes Gordons been hauled over the coals the past year. But then we see this speech given to Citizens UK and you think, where is this inspirational, energised guy who looks like Brown, been brought in from? Not the tired, run down Brown, we usually see, who can barely scrape second place, if polls are to be believed (which they have a shaky record.) It is just so much in contrast to the general portrayal we get of the PM. Shame for them it was 2 days before polling day.

Not Being the Suns Mouthpiece.

The fallout from the increasingly preposterous "Duffygate" affair on Wednesday has been taken up by the press, to increased levels of bizarre after Gordon Brown went round to her house in Rochdale to apologise in person for the "bigot" comments that were unwittingly broadcast for the benefit of everyone who cared to listen. We have had the rather unedifying spectacle of 50 eager reporters, cameramen, the odd PR man all decamping on the front door of a working class widow in her late sixties, waiting for her to deliver a few tasty morsels about the PM who was caught ragging her behind her back. Now it isn't really a surprise the press would do this, and I can't really say that I'd really blame her if she, as a women of limited means wanted to make a few bob by talking to the press. Apart from a PR man from Bell Pottinger (more on them later.), she had refused to say anything. But what was unusual, and was picked up on by the other reporters was the absence of any Sun reporters in the scrum. Surely a newspaper so visibly supporting David Cameron would relish a story that would damage the opposition? Where could they be? Then they all realised like any other object composed in 3 dimensions, a house has a rear that is obstructed to those seeing it from the front, and they scarpered to the back where 2 guys from the Sun were apparently taking photographs in her kitchen (they'd snuck in through hedges at the back. I doubt a flipping big camera being shoved in the foliage does wonders for the Leylandi.) and were seen coming out of her house looking remarkably dejected. According to Fleet Street gossip, Richard Moriarty - a Sun reporter, had good reason to look glum. He had offered her (reportedly) between £20 000 to £70 ooo to spill the beans. But he had also asked could she really lay into Brown, and would she mind endorsing David Cameron as well. As a Labour voter she stuck to principle and told him to get lost. It's certainly a strange affair when PM's and high ranking journalists are more afraid of standing up to Rupert Murdochs empire, rather than a paunchy pensioner from a provincial Northern town. Now normally I would stop the article here, as a charming tale of one - nil for "normal folk" putting the political / media elite to shame. But it produced further twists, and accusations of foul play, that wedged it all out of proportion for a while.

Bell Pottinger had set alarms ringing (see what I did there.) to those who knew about that PR company, and thought something iffy was afoot. The founder of it; Tim bell, was a big advertising guru for Maggie Thatcher in the 70's, and the currant chairman is a Tory activist who had gloated about Browns misfortune on his blog. Did the Bell Pettinger guy visiting Mrs Duffy also want her to shovel some shit at Brown? Astonishingly this wasn't the end of the suspicions that the whole thing was a bit dodgy. There was a counterclaim leveled against the firm that another Labour supporting director (who was Tony Blairs director of communication, after Alastair Campbell.) had stepped in before the hostile [to Labour] press to negotiate some form of damage limitation exercise with her! And that's not even getting into the role that the firm played in faking the moon landings (I made that last one up.). the actual reason the Bell Pottinger guy was there was that Mrs. Duffy had panicked about the press intrusion, rang her daughter to see what to do. The daughter just happened to work for a solicitors that used the services of a PR firm called... Bell Pottinger, who she asked to help her mum out. No greater conspiracy after all.

The twists and turns of this strange affair highlight the shady world of media PR pretty well. What they don't highlight is a sense of proportion and priority in media coverage of this election.

A Nasty Gaffe Gord.

Well the Brown stuff has certainly hit the fan for the PM today. After being confronted by 65 year old widow, Gillian Duffy on an estate in Rochdale, Greater Manchester. Her conversation (CLICK HERE TO SEE IT ALL.)with the PM revolved around the fact that she pays tax on her dead husbands pension after it was tagged on to hers. How he planned to clear the national debt, and the bit that has caused the controversy, why are there so many Eastern Europeans (in her opinion) "coming over here" (actually the number is dropping.) She says the following:

"You can't say anything about the immigrants! Because you're [Brown?] saying that .... your a." (mumbles something, might be about to say racist but cuts off.)

"But all those Eastern Europeans what're coming in. Where they flocking from?"

Eastern Europe would be a good bet!!

Brown retorts to her that it [immigration in the EU] swings both ways, vis a vis Brits going over there, them coming over here to work etc.

She then asks about why there are tuition fees, and possibly implies that foreign students (it's hard to know if that what she means, so she might not mean that.) are causing financial strain for others.

It is not what she said that has caused the outcry about the story it is comments unwittingly recorded, of which Brown made to his advisers after their talk had ended that have caused the controversy. (Listen to them here.)

Brown is heard angrily muttering that the talk was a "disaster" and "ridiculous" and that she was "sort of bigoted women."

Ooops.

Now Mrs. Duffy's conversation with Brown was rather ranty, and some of her "evidence" seemed to owe more to tabloid headlines than to a general grasp of affairs. Her comments about the Eastern Europeans may not be pleasant to many (though there are quite a few who think the same as her.), and were; like most of what the rest of what she said, a mix of half truths, and stuff she had read in the paper. The comments struck me more born out of taking too much of what you uncritically read about immigration, than pure bigotry. Mix that in with a general dissatisfaction that many working class people have with a political system, and country that seems to cater (in their opinion, and to some extent mine.) to middle classes, and Middle England.

The worst thing to come out of this, and my hunch is that it may bite back at Brown this next week. Is that the press and the BNP will seize on this as yet more proof that the main parties don't want to discuss immigration, and that anyone who does is called a racist. The problem is that the three parties have allowed the press and the more right wing parties to set the debate. We hear the "sponging asylum seeker" and "immigrants ate my granny, and her swans" tales, and not the actual state of immigration. The whole thing has been derailed, and the parties seem timid in trying to recapture the debate. In actual fact they seem to actively pander (well the Lib Dems don't.) to the more lurid anti-immigration tracts. It can be no surprise that anti immigrant sentiment is high if this is the case, and people are only getting that side. This has unwittingly played into the wrong hands, and has almost said "yeah what we say about the parties being out of touch is true." It's a real shame, as Brown (in the video before the "comments") is able to refute some of the more fanciful comments she made, so much so that she seems to falter under how he dissects her points, and they end it on amicable terms. She seems genuinely confused and upset from the unintentionally broadcast reaction. Now more than ever these guys seeking power, need to re engage with disillusioned working people. This gaffe has done precisely the opposite.