Friday, September 28, 2007

A Wee Fib

Brown lies is large ways we know but also in small ways . His silly book "Ordinary Heros" is presented as conversations he had with when in fact it was all gatherered by a pet "Charity " and ghosted into a misleading shape.He met almost none of them. His speech was cobbled together form Al Gore`s and I didn`t really notice at the time but Mathew Parris brilliantly nails him for trying to imlicate David cameron in the ERM debacle which stemmed from policy descisions Brown himself supported.He should have stuck more rigidly to the Big Lie theory ,these slips tell us what sort of man he is

............. I’ll start with the smaller: a sneaky little fib and hardly worth rebutting, but revealing of character because it was something Gordon Brown certainly knew to be untrue, didn’t need to say, but said anyway just to purchase some minuscule and momentary advantage for himself. In words cut from the text distributed to the media, but which I heard him deliver, he said this: “The current Conservative leader was the principal economic adviser to the Chancellor of Black Wednesday and he stood alongside Norman Lamont...” David Cameron was not, of course, the principal economic adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wasn’t an economic adviser at all. He was a special adviser; there were scores of them; still are. They don’t count for diddly-squat, many are barely out of university, their opinions on big economic decisions are neither relied upon nor, in most cases, even sought, and Mr Cameron, as it happens, was 26, an age at which the young Gordon Brown was still railing against Margaret Thatcher’s legacy. Nice, however, to see him paying homage to her on Thursday. Anyway, just make a note and file it away: an illustration of how carelessly Mr Brown twists when it doesn’t matter..."


Liam Murray said...

There's an air of mania to your rants against Brown - not dissimilar to the way the left ranted against Thatcher. Labour only won office when it learned to rail this back and present a positive and non-personal image - your constant vollies against Brown are emlematic of the problem we Tories face, why we're 11pts behind in the polls and potentially cruising towards a 4th election defeat. Brown's incompetence must speak for itself - we can't shout the electorate down into disliking him.

A small challenge for you NM - all next week while conference is on in Blackpool why not see if you can keep your posts purely on positive policy propositions from Cameron, what a Tory-led UK would be like, what would change etc.? Make the hard but worthwhile positve case, not the easy and cynical negative one.

Newmania said...

NO Cass I have supported David Cameron and I have gone further and tried to "Be the change" (eeoo) by listening to Liberal ideas ,I find much to apprive of . This is not exactly the time for that sort of thing though.The country expects the opposition to attack the govenrnment and with all the ammunition there is it smacks of limp wristed ineffectualism not to do so .

Yes you need both sides and I would like to see more emerging from The IDS work and more on deolving power to local levels .
Thats what I see as the front line. Big central government versus light touch devolved enabling government.

Don`t get so sophisticated to mention that Brown is a fucking liar though because he is.

Anonymous said...

It's the last day of the week so I'm going to have to stop teasing you for a wee while N. Actually I wasn't blind to Broons obvious blather and spin but I guess you knew that. The cheek of the man got me, as if the public isn't going to remember he/they were part of the last 10yrs of government. I suppose what I'd like is a precis, an interpretation and just that (that's what the BBC were supposed to be for) What I mean is...

cameron is saying they will do X,Y and Z.

Wossname is minister for thingy who will implement X by doing 1,2 and 3.

Soandso is minister for stuff who will implement Y by doing this, that and tother.


Comment: Altogether these things mean these changes. Also, this MP said this which means that/nothing. In practice it would have these consequences. We can/cannot believe this/these promises because of this history/response when challenged.

(what we will get is a Cameron subordinate with a mortgage and school fees to pay being asked how they feel about that and what is meant by it. They invariably end up saying 'I dunno, ask him')

What we end up doing, those that can be bothered, is sifting through news bulletins, conference coverage, current affairs programmes, blogs, professional political comment (yes, I thought Parris was ace), rather than just buying one newspaper and finding the news in it. The important political, business/financial and social/home affairs news. We find a whole page given over to peddling some stupid stereotypes (which may raise a laugh on the net but which should have no place in a NEWSpaper) we find navel gazing and negative attitudes encouraged by publishing survey after survey, the results of which are wholly dependant on the questions and their order, which are rarely published. We are bombarded with sensationalist reporting which neither informs nor enriches society. we buy a newspaper and get little more than a po-faced comic.

Yes, I bought the Daily Mail today.

It's crap.

Anonymous said...

That's why I read your blog BTW - excellent!

Liam Murray said...

Tell me a single successful election campaing in the last 100 years that has been largely built on attacking the incumbent government?

There hasn't been one because you can mould and shape public mood - only capture and respond to it. Labour portrayed Thatcher as positively evil for years and the electorate were deaf to it. If we don't learn that lesson we deserve enternal opposition...

Newmania said...

Oddly enough Roy Hattersley wrote quite a good article about this very subject. I might look it out P

Newmania said...

Tell me a single successful election campaing in the last 100 years that has been largely built on attacking the incumbent government?

Well All of them to some extent Wilsons was esoecially vitriolic and Thctachers of course. I would say the recieved wisdom was that governments lose elections .Oppositions help them ,their new exciting ideas are secondary.

C I do take you point but its unbalanced alone .The point of votes is to kick the bastards out , not to go starry eyed about the next lot. That is why I detest PR which is based on the illusion that its the other way round. We will get the same cabal maundering on about " articulating new messages " when now we can say "Good. Hope you get it right on your way to the job centre "

Old BE said...

Tell me a single successful election campaing in the last 100 years that has been largely built on attacking the incumbent government?


Anonymous said...

Ed - excellent!

Liam Murray said...

Both NM and Ed seem to have misread my comment - of course criticism of the incumbents is a feature of any campaign but the point is how much of a feature and where does the balance lie.

Ed mentions 1997 - eh? It's a matter of record in many places (most recently Campbell's book) that campaigning candidates were all but banned from mentioning Major or the Tories. Of course there's the odd comment but the thrust wasn't the other lots mistakes but our virtues.

And NM - you're right about the received wisdom but seem to misunderstand it. Governments lose elections because THEY MAKE THEMSELVES UNPOPULAR - the opposition (with whom by definition they're unpopular anyway) can make them so in the eyes of the public.

Anonymous said...

ell if it's in Campbells' book it must be true.

Things can only get better..

Anonymous said...

I'm so sorry my 'W' at the start of the last post flatly refused to appear. I think that wanton little hussy has run away to play with the other letters on the fridge door.

I saw a collection of magnetic poetry words for the fridge door the other day N and thought of you. Thing is, who'd want to spend time sorting for the words you want when you can just write them down or publish your love for your honey to the world on yer blog!

sorry, I digress.

Old BE said...

OK so we can just ignore Blair's attack on absolutely everything wrong with Britain as being a direct result of "18 years of Tory rule" shall we?

My my we do have short memories don't we. Perhaps this is why the Tory party is so far up sh1t creek.

Blair was on telly every night calling for an election and telling us how cr*p things were. Where is DC pointing out the relative fairness of £200 for pregnant women to eat more veg (taken from general taxation) and £140 for the boys we sent to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan (taken from their bullet-proof jacket budget)?

This country is French Connectioned .

Liam Murray said...


I'm trying (with no luck) to source it online just now but I was on the phone to a friend last night who attended Labour's conference in 1996, 8/9 months before they took office and we were talking about Blair's speech.

Our recollection is that he mentioned Major once only and Thatcher not once. Yes he mentioned 18 years of tory rule but the thrust of the speech was about what he offered not what the other lot didn't.

That's the point I'm making - we can't build success on the hope of making everyone dislike Gordon Brownmore than they're naturally predisposed to do.

Old BE said...

That's fine, when if someone going to suggest to DC that he appears on our screens?

If he waits till Monday he might find that we are in the middle of an election campaign.

Newmania said...

Cas you are a spoilsport that was such a great jab from Ed. Well Campbell is a professional bullshitter obviously ,I`ve met him by the way his children are at my brothers school. My recollection was that the thrust of 1997 was not so much 'Labour virtues' as the lack or any taint of Callaghan and the faults of the opposition. The promises were

1 Open and honest government ( The sleaze campaign was important and when you think of the triviality of cash for questions compared to the millions of cash for honours )
2 No tax increases ....gasp
3 Education education. health its our passion ,...our mission ...etc..,..the usual crapola
4 No Clause 4 socialism

In fact there kept their programme a secret didn’t they because they have done exactly what they said they would not and become a centralising tax and spend government . ERM and the EU won it for them so its all a cocktail but in it the least important ingredient is the staple guff about caring about skoolz ospitalz and kidz. The labour Party were restrained from attacking Major overtly so as not to look like old Labour and this has been exactly why Cameron has tried to look for “ areas of agreement “ . So he does not look “Old Conservative “ a phrase that could do with some currency , but he has gone too far and he has not allowed the space for others to carry the fight at a different level . There has been too much Cameron and understandable mistake that given time would have been adjusted

So I’m afraid you are using a swingo-meter to describe a game of three dimensional chess. Ones encouragement of the electorate to be cross with the incumbent is the primary component and second is a posture designed to deflect existing disquiet about yourselves . Least important is what you might say was the third way however you define it . The vision of social care through Conservative ideas on family and green polices derived from conservation and responsibility , the commitment to the NHS but importing Conservative ideas about low level decision taking . It has a place and you cannot do without it but people are exceedingly sceptical and neglecting to fight the good fight is like doing the icing before you bake the cake.

In my humble ( but invariably correct ) opinion.

Liam Murray said...

Sorry NM but that's almost comically misguided - let me get this right - first priority is:

"...encouragement of the electorate to be cross with the incumbent...second is a posture designed to deflect existing disquiet about yourselves. Least important is what you might say was the third way however you define it"

So first up we keep banging on & on about Brown and just hope that the electorate change their minds, next we make sure we cover up any of our own failings and only as a last thought do we offer an alternative vision of the country?

Any party that campaigns like that doesn't deserve office.

Newmania said...

Any party that campaigns like that doesn't deserve office.

As Clint said in the last great Western The Unforgiven "Deservin` aint got nuthin` to do with it " Then he executes Little Bill.

To be fair to your view in a position such as now , when the economic conditions are clement and there is relative peace it is possible that the positive model assume greater importance. To be fair to me " second ,is a posture designed to deflect existing disquiet about yourselves." includes explaining how you have changed and what you have to offerand I have allowed a space for the vision thing .

Perhaps you are right , perhaps we live in a new political world , I have my doubts as I have just posted.

Anonymous said...

ed 12:56 - excellent comment again sweetie. Perhaps Blair was just supposed to blow the bloody doors off?

Newmania said...

Jim Morrison gag ?

Mulligan said...

Given that the public seem to hate everything Cameron says why doesn't he just take a leaf out of Brown's book of playing it straight and just tell everyone to vote Labour ?

Newmania said...

Yes well you see I seem to be the rare person who likes what David Cameron says ..I `m afraid i `m not as radical as you TB

Blog Archive