The Official One-Eyed Campaign Update
Hurrah. At last we're into the campaign proper. The starting-gun, to use a popular metaphor, has been fired and the three main parties are out of the blocks.
Polling information that coincided with Tuesday's announcement shows that the two main parties are closer than they have been in years. One poll - the only one that polled only those who said they were certain to vote - even had the Tories ahead of Labour.
It was a pretty miserable day yesterday, and it's been unpredictable today, in contrast to Tuesday's bright sunshine. For all the predictions about when the election was going to be called, the weather beat the commentators and the feel-good factor reigned.
There was even talk that Blair would wait until after the burial of the Pope and the royal wedding to announce the election. With hindsight, we can see that the Labour press strategy bows to no man, be it the spiritual leader of the world's biggest religion or the heir to the throne of Great Britain and her Commonwealth, the spin wins.
So, an exciting week - let's get cracking with the campaign update.
New Labour
We awoke on Tuesday to excited chatter on the TV news channels that Blair was set to announce the date of the election. Sure enough, the Prime Minister went to see the Queen and by eleven (time to get a couple of press engagements in before the lunchtime news) he arrived back in Downing Street, stopping his Jag at the end of the road and striding statesman-like down the Downing Street cobbles to the awaiting press conference.
This year it was short and sweet: "As you know, I've been to the Palace to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament in order that we may have a general election. She has kindly assented to do this and the Election will be on the fifth of May." What? No stained glass window? No hall of adulating school girls with our glorious leader delivering the sermon from the pulpit afore the shining light of the Lord? Those commentators that had predicted the need for more sick-bags with another hefty lump of New Labour cheese were proved very wrong.
The BBC's Andrew Marr read our minds, and, leaping to his beloved Blair's defence gave a bizarre recollection of how the girls at the school that Blair graced in 2001 to make his famous fatuous election edict were now all mature floating voters who have a deep respect for politics and politicians. Thanks Andy, but no-one asked. Clearly Marr was a bit over-sensitive to the pre-briefing from the Labour press handlers, desperate to get it across that 'this was not a cheesy announcement but anyway neither was it last time…'
Still, it would be wrong to determine that Andrew Marr's news report was the only stage of the announcement that was choreographed by Number Ten's spin wunderkind. As Blair walked confidently down the road from his car to the press, you could almost see him counting his steps to the pre-arranged stopping point. Indeed, you could actually see the prearranged stopping point because of the taped cross on the cobble stones in front of the cameras. The surprising and honourable brevity of Blair's statement was also ruined as the PM, ever the professional, feigned to go, then, as if in response to some specific question from the assorted press representatives, launched into his first speech of official campaign, deriding the Tories and claiming that Labour hold the key to improving public services.
This is where it gets tricky for the incumbents in an election campaign, particularly those who have been in power for more than one term. Blair, in seeking his third term from the electorate wants to promise them that things will improve if he is elected, just as the opposition will do. Promised improvement, though, indicates that the current situation is not as good as it could be, and thus reflects the government's record badly. Incumbent governments have to fight on two fronts - defending their record, yet promising a better future to appear to be in tune with people's natural aspirations. Labour got around this in 2001, by re-hashing the '97 campaign with the inference being that things are improving but the Tories left us such a mess that they're not quite perfect yet. Indeed, this has been the theme Blair has returned to in countless defensive answers at the commons despatch box. This year, one of the new election slogans is "Labour is working, don't let the Tories ruin it". As well as being a frighteningly transparent statement of election strategy, this slogan also takes a petulant swipe at the highly praised (and highly successful) Saatchi and Saatchi 1979 slogan "Labour isn't working". One for the brothers.
Labour's two key election slogans together represent the embodiment of the modern political paradigm, that the brazen hypocrite will vanquish the timid and the considered. "Forward, not back" is being spun as a positive, progressive and dynamic slogan, indicating New Labour's desire to embrace the future and lead Britain to prosperity. In fact, it is negative psychology with the subtlety of a fart at a funeral. The choice is clear: in fact it is made for you. It doesn't take a genius to understand that 'back' might be referring to the previous government, and that the as the opposite of the previous government, the current administration is hence progressive, being 'forward' and the Conservative government was regressive, being 'back'. "Forward, not back" was spun by shameless Labour communications experts as representing an end to negative campaigning and a bold new path for British politics. This is overtly countered by the other slogan, "Labour is working, don't let the Tories ruin it", no such psychological tricks here, this is just another example of the bold new path for British politics.
The creation of New Labour marked the political awakening of the left. The engagement of focus groups and PR, advertising, marketing and branding specialists with their blue-sky-thinking and emotional attachment profiles riled some of those on the old-school left. But the Mandelson/Campbell/Blair revolution transformed the Labour Party into the political force that it is today. How they did this in a country that was previously so naturally conservative was a stroke of genius. The idea was that only votes for matter, therefore, like a great church organ, all the valves were closed and only the ones required to play the right tune were opened. Willie Whitelaw once quipped that "Harold Wilson is going around the country stirring up apathy", for the New Labour strategists, 1997 apathy was gold-dust. It allowed them to level the playing field and keep people who had naturally voted Conservative away from the polls, whilst relying on the support of their socialist base-vote and their newly developed New Labour converts. A landslide was inevitable.
Now that the landslide has diminished and the polls are indicating a Tory lead in those that intend to vote, apathy has become the enemy of Blair and co. A dangerous strategy is now underway with the aim being to hit the tricky ground of talking up the Tories prospects enough to persuade the disaffected labour supporters to get out and vote, but not enough to give a whiff of victory that could re-ignite those natural conservative voters who were so effectively silenced in '97. New Labour's stakeholder engagement strategy is now doing more jobs than Boris Johnson.
Blair's dangerous game is being dubbed his 'masochism strategy' by his aides and the BBC (sorry, that 'and' shouldn't be there). According to the spin, the Prime Minister is set to invite confrontation from 'ordinary people' so that he can explain himself to his doubters. This builds on the positive spin that the New Labour machine put on him being hand-bagged by Sharon Storer outside Birmingham Hospital in 2001. Immediately after the event, the spin was that he was 'in touch with the people' and 'listening to their concerns'. At the time, he looked like there was nowhere he could want to be less as he was lectured about his hollow words and inaction by some angry prole. He even tried to walk away from her a couple of times, but she blocked his path. It seems that in building on this PR triumph New Labour have, CIA-like, fallen for their own propaganda.
This strategy tells us two things. The first is that Blair is desperate to lose the 'arrogant' tag and connect with 'real people'; the second is that he must be desperate. The stakes are high in this game, because if Blair argues with us ordinary folk too convincingly, he'll cross the line between being 'in-touch' and go back to 'arrogant' again. Ideally, for this to be successful, he could do with taking some (metaphorical) body blows - but is our man that humble?
Winston Churchill once proclaimed that "Anyone can rat but it takes a real expert to rat twice!" The rat in question, is of course, Paul Marsden. Marsden left the Labour Party in 2001 in opposition to the Afghan war joining the anti-war LibDems. At the time, Marsden said:
"…I have lost confidence in the Labour government.
I've had enough of their obsession with control freakery and spin...
Labour's let people down but there is an effective alternative...
Tony Blair is behaving in an increasingly arrogant and presidential manner.
His party believes in threats and intimidation to crush internal dissent.
I have also been increasingly concerned that Labour has failed to deliver on its promises to the British people about improving schools, hospitals, pensions and the transport system.
I have found it harder and harder to look constituents in the eye and tell them that I think the government will improve our public services...
I am tired of the culture of spin. I find it increasingly hard to convince my constituents that public services are improving when they are not."
But now he's back, from outer space, with that smile upon his face and the Labour party must be wishing they'd changed that stupid lock and thrown away the key as his re-defection can only look like the LibDems have got rid of a bad apple and that Labour are so desperate they'll take back even those that have inflicted such damage on them. And so, to use another of Mr Churchill's phrases, this could be a case of the rat fleeing to the sinking ship.
Yesterday Blair seized the opportunity again to go big on the economy with a joint press conference with Glum Gord. New Labour's analysis has clearly shown that one of the few patches of strong ground for them to bat off is the economy. So, clearly with hesitation, Blair brought the sulking Scot back in from the cold. Although last week Blair managed to turn the tables on this ground with the kicking administered to the Tories over Howard Flight, it is still a risky strategy. Risky because it leaves his relationship with Brown open to penetration and risky too because their relationship is now at such a low, he simply doesn't know what Brown is going to do or say. Downing Street officials have not had sight of the Chancellors plans, statements and movements for the last eight or so months. It is said that the Budget statement to the House was the first time that the PM knew the full content of the budget. Brown is becoming unpredictable, and Blair is having to take steps to deal with that, such as announcing his heart surgery and intention to stay on after the election whilst Brown was mid-air to the US, or arranging the monthly press conference to clash with Brown's speech on aid for the tsunami victims this January.
At yesterday's big press conference, the day two of the campaign 'show how united Blair and Brown are' stuff nearly backfired spectacularly. It seems that someone in the communications team forgot to tell the journos that weren’t from the BBC, the Guardian or the New Statesman that they weren’t allowed to ask questions. ITN's political editor Nick Robinson started the ball rolling following on from a cheeky question to the Prime Minister at the earlier PMQs from Labour MP John Grogan who had commented on the Chancellor's "excellent job prospects". Blair tried to knock it away with the tired 'not this again' routine, but Robison persisted and addressed the same question to Brown. Blair interrupted and asked for the next question, which was also about their relationship. The next was about the 'deal' and Brown, clearly still fuming about being interrupted on his own question, butted in to give a long and laborious account of his economic successes. The issue doesn't seem to want to go away by it's self.
Blair's fuse was shorter than usual at that press conference because of the mauling he had just received in the House. Howard had asked how many labour candidates were putting the PM's picture on their election literature - only half a dozen hands went up and the Tories and LibDems loved it. Howard finished each of his questions by paraphrasing the chancellor: "How can we ever trust him again?" It was a tactic used to similar success by Charles Kennedy.
That's not to say that the day hadn't gone well for Blair. The New Labour strategy seems to be to discard the official and traditional message delivery channels, and concente more on the opportunities extended at the chav end of the spectrum. Blair had endured another hard-hitting grilling on the GMTV sofa that morning.
Conservatives
At the risk of seeming 'nasty' again, Michael Howard jumped the starting gun on Tuesday and fired his own starting tommy-gun. Whilst Blair was en-route to the Palace, and Charlie was faffing around with a 'policy launch' with no new policies, Howard summoned the press to deliver a personalised attack on Blair and a hefty rebuke for New Labour's eight years in power. In his attack on Blair, Howard revealed a new prong in Tory strategy of turning the election into a referendum on Blair. He spoke of the choice people had to either "reward Blair" for his years in office or choose the Tories who had "made a stand" on issues that concern the voters. Solid talking, yet not without danger.
It seemed to work though, as the New Labour strategists were determined to stick to their plan for the day and not get de-railed into the Tory agenda. This could of course have been a clever trap by Howard, speaking of the Tories "making a stand" leaves them wide open for a broadside on their chicanery following the Iraq war. Blair does not want to go there- there are no political points to be won on the war for him. So expect more "making a stand" comments from the Tories in the future to try to goad off-guard New Labour grandees into opening up that particular can of worms. It'd seem a bit low for the Tories to go in guns blazing on Iraq, but if New Labour were to bring it up that's another story.
Howard kept to his base on Tuesday, concentrating on crime and social issues on Tuesday, and laying the smack down with a broad ranging attack in the house yesterday. Today's focus is health, with Matron back as the Tories favourite answer to the NHS's woes. It seems that since momentum has been lost following last weeks Howard Flight incident, the Tories have reverted back to their underlying themes, with the primary offensive layer being switched to personal attacks on Blair. This is surprising, given that Blair is electorally not a great asset for New Labour, however it's probably in response to the shift in New Labour tactics towards mobilising the anti-Tory vote. Lynton Crosby is probably gambling that the anti-Tony vote is bigger than the anti-Tory vote.
Mobilising the anti-Tony vote is another risky strategy, the risk of course is that as New Labour is now positioned politically so closely to the traditional Tory right-of-centre ground, that the anti-Tony bunch will not see this as a choice and opt for the 'none of the above' selection. In effect, protest voting for the LibDems. When Crosby arrived at CCO, so too did VoterVault, a bells and whistles marketing database from the US, where elections have long been seriously professional. VoterVault replaces the arcane yet loved BlueChip system, accessible to all Conservative Associations in the country. It's a mega demographic number cruncher, feeding every conceivable piece of information into it in order to output possible voting profiles and trend predictions. Its recent machinations could also be another reason why those in CCO have seemed so chipper in the last few weeks, as the pre-Flight optimism seems to have returned. What this expensive and complicated piece of kit must be telling the Victoria Street policy wonks is that the anti-Tony vote won't be upsetting that many Tory seats, but it'll certainly hit New Labour. The Tories must be calculating that there will be more of a shift in seats from Labour to LibDem than from Tory to LibDem, allied to this, they must be confident that the increased LibDem representation in parliament is no threat to them.
Thoughts must be on the last Conservative government, where Tony's phoney deal with Paddy effectively made the Government the opposition needing to win over New Labour or the hapless LibDem MPs to get anything through parliament past its own rebels. This raises the question, is the Tory strategy to win the election or to win power? If the CCO bright young things think that only the former is possible, then some navel gazing must be done in respect of whether this election really is a good one to win for the Tories. With hindsight, the 1992 election would have been a good one to lose for the Tories, but at what cost to the country? - The Labour Party had not yet full gestated into New Labour and the madness of King Kinnock was still rife.
Talk of a Tory election victory may seem far-fetched. The Government's majority at the last election was 167, which looks pretty unassailable, but Labour polled a majority of 146 in 1945, this landslide dwindled to a majority of only five in 1950, which was no mandate upon which to run a country and was overturned the following year by the Tories with a majority of 17. The Tories stayed in power until 1964, increasing their majority to 54 in 1955 and 100 in 1959. That's a swing of 246 seats in 14 years. New Labour have been in power eight years, so the Tory stat-boys are beaming, and talking excitedly about 'underlying political currents'
The BBC have re-launched their overt campaign against the Tories by seeking to reignite the Howard Flight affair just a day after the former Arundel and South Downs candidate confirmed that he would not be standing against his former party as an independent. His replacement, Nick Herbert, the director of the think-tank Reform, is seen as a clear sign that the Tories really do have a secret cutting agenda. The basis for this claim is an article that Herbert wrote for the Spectator three years ago. The BBC quoted the politically impartial Alan Milburn's account of the article:
"In November 2002, Nick Herbert wrote in the Spectator: 'The whisper is that there is a top secret, extremely clever strategy afoot: go along with spending rises now, but return to a tax cutting agenda when - if - the party is re-elected.' "
Busted again it would seem. However, knowing about Herbert's preoccupations of a low tax economy and competitive markets and yet still selecting him as candidate for Arundel and South Downs is this another example of the Tories dropping a heavy hint at their post election intentions? Tax cutting is the truth that right wing politicians dare not speak, yet some of the Tories rawest supporters are openly discussing the need for major changes to the taxation system. A visit to www.adamsmith.org takes you directly to a thesis headlined "Flat tax for the UK - a practical reality". The agenda is shifting, and unlike the leadership evolutions that preceded the Howard era, this Tory party doesn't seem inclined to take any of the short term flak associated with setting an agenda that is counter to the contemporary political culture.
Most natural Tories do have ambitions for a round of tax cutting and bureaucratic downsizing, but, just as Oliver Letwin's 'fat government' slogan has been quietly sidelined, so too has open talk of cuts and chopping the size of the state. It was working too, only New Labour and the press knew it. The bugging of Howard Flight was an opportunity to expose this Tory strategy, and it was maximised both by the Labour Party faithful and the state broadcaster. Landing hits on Herbert is not likely to damage to Tories any more than they already have been, indeed, the Flight incident may not have lost any votes - it may even have gained them some - the damage came in the loss of the campaigning initiative. In seeking to keep this non-fatal wound open, the BBC only stands to expose itself as the Blairite darling it has become, despite the teenageresque row over the dead scientist. In constantly hinting at the Tories secret tax cutting agenda, the BBC could actually be solidifying the Conservative base, getting the vote out in marginal constituencies.
This campaign builds upon the hard work done by Cherie Blair in 1997 and 2001. Cherie was seen as a great asset for Blair and New Labour and heroically appeared by Blair's side with both grinning visages full of teeth. The Tories know that Michael Howard has never quite shaken off that "something of the night about him" jibe from Ann Widdecombe in 1997. To soften his media profile, a lot of hard work has been put into Howard the family man. Cameras were invited to his home last month; and he was filmed playing ping pong with his model Tory wife, Sandra. To say that she's a model Tory wife is an understatement. A former Vogue model, Sandra has political connections, notably dining with President Kennedy on the eve of the Cuban missile crisis. A former close friend of Frank Sinatra, Sandra is seen as the Tory's Cherie, she adds a touch of glamour to their stuffy image and adds a human side to the spookiness of their leader.
Expect more of the same from the Tories in the weeks to come. After a flying start, the work now is to consolidate the ground that they have made, and chip away at Blair on the trust issue. Don't expect a concerted and overt effort to kick Brown. He may be the biggest threat to the Tories at the moment, but he's also one of the biggest to Blair. If the opportunity arises, the Tories will almost certainly develop a two pronged attack hitting Brown and Blair for different things, but at the moment, Brown's Teflon remains. There is much ground to be made with the fact that if the economy is as rosy as Brown says it is, and has been for the last few years, why does Britain still have a surplus? Like a compulsive gambler, Brown has been back to the table when he should have been cashing in his chips to pay of his debt. There's ground there for the taking, and if situation allows, the Tories should be in there like a rat up a drainpipe. Who knows, we may even see Oliver Letwin on TV.
The Liberal Democrats
The LibDems enjoyed the sunny weather on Tuesday, and the whole of the campaign campsite was up and out of the shower blocks early, beaming with the news that another dissatisfied camper had come to join the party. Bovril all round.
Their star turn was defector Stephen Wilkinson, who last week was the Labour candidate in the unwinnable seat of Ribble Valley, held by the Conservatives with a majority of over 11,000. Wilkinson made a pre-emptive bid for political obscurity by joining the LibDems. In fact, you'd probably forgotten his name already. The LibDems already have a campsite in that constituency, so he's not going to be a candidate for them. Thus, he's an unheard of former election candidate a full month before all the other LibDems.
It was defection week at the LibDems, someone ought to check the coco they're sharing by the campfire, as their prized defector from 2001, Paul Marsden, took his swingball back to the Labour Party. A clearly baffled LibDem spokesman (sorry, spokesperson - apologies sisters) said "I don't really understand it, but I suppose that makes it one-all"
This week the LibDems policy re-hash theme was education. It was announced that they would scrap A' levels. This gives further indication as to the secret key LibDem demographic: 'shoplifting mum' becomes 'thick shoplifting mum'. The LibDem opposition to tuition fees was also re-announced. The undertone to this was almost 'see - told you we had policies'. Stay tuned, the one-a-week LibDem policy programme is sure to continue.
Charles Kennedy is ginger.
Polling information that coincided with Tuesday's announcement shows that the two main parties are closer than they have been in years. One poll - the only one that polled only those who said they were certain to vote - even had the Tories ahead of Labour.
It was a pretty miserable day yesterday, and it's been unpredictable today, in contrast to Tuesday's bright sunshine. For all the predictions about when the election was going to be called, the weather beat the commentators and the feel-good factor reigned.
There was even talk that Blair would wait until after the burial of the Pope and the royal wedding to announce the election. With hindsight, we can see that the Labour press strategy bows to no man, be it the spiritual leader of the world's biggest religion or the heir to the throne of Great Britain and her Commonwealth, the spin wins.
So, an exciting week - let's get cracking with the campaign update.
New Labour
We awoke on Tuesday to excited chatter on the TV news channels that Blair was set to announce the date of the election. Sure enough, the Prime Minister went to see the Queen and by eleven (time to get a couple of press engagements in before the lunchtime news) he arrived back in Downing Street, stopping his Jag at the end of the road and striding statesman-like down the Downing Street cobbles to the awaiting press conference.
This year it was short and sweet: "As you know, I've been to the Palace to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament in order that we may have a general election. She has kindly assented to do this and the Election will be on the fifth of May." What? No stained glass window? No hall of adulating school girls with our glorious leader delivering the sermon from the pulpit afore the shining light of the Lord? Those commentators that had predicted the need for more sick-bags with another hefty lump of New Labour cheese were proved very wrong.
The BBC's Andrew Marr read our minds, and, leaping to his beloved Blair's defence gave a bizarre recollection of how the girls at the school that Blair graced in 2001 to make his famous fatuous election edict were now all mature floating voters who have a deep respect for politics and politicians. Thanks Andy, but no-one asked. Clearly Marr was a bit over-sensitive to the pre-briefing from the Labour press handlers, desperate to get it across that 'this was not a cheesy announcement but anyway neither was it last time…'
Still, it would be wrong to determine that Andrew Marr's news report was the only stage of the announcement that was choreographed by Number Ten's spin wunderkind. As Blair walked confidently down the road from his car to the press, you could almost see him counting his steps to the pre-arranged stopping point. Indeed, you could actually see the prearranged stopping point because of the taped cross on the cobble stones in front of the cameras. The surprising and honourable brevity of Blair's statement was also ruined as the PM, ever the professional, feigned to go, then, as if in response to some specific question from the assorted press representatives, launched into his first speech of official campaign, deriding the Tories and claiming that Labour hold the key to improving public services.
This is where it gets tricky for the incumbents in an election campaign, particularly those who have been in power for more than one term. Blair, in seeking his third term from the electorate wants to promise them that things will improve if he is elected, just as the opposition will do. Promised improvement, though, indicates that the current situation is not as good as it could be, and thus reflects the government's record badly. Incumbent governments have to fight on two fronts - defending their record, yet promising a better future to appear to be in tune with people's natural aspirations. Labour got around this in 2001, by re-hashing the '97 campaign with the inference being that things are improving but the Tories left us such a mess that they're not quite perfect yet. Indeed, this has been the theme Blair has returned to in countless defensive answers at the commons despatch box. This year, one of the new election slogans is "Labour is working, don't let the Tories ruin it". As well as being a frighteningly transparent statement of election strategy, this slogan also takes a petulant swipe at the highly praised (and highly successful) Saatchi and Saatchi 1979 slogan "Labour isn't working". One for the brothers.
Labour's two key election slogans together represent the embodiment of the modern political paradigm, that the brazen hypocrite will vanquish the timid and the considered. "Forward, not back" is being spun as a positive, progressive and dynamic slogan, indicating New Labour's desire to embrace the future and lead Britain to prosperity. In fact, it is negative psychology with the subtlety of a fart at a funeral. The choice is clear: in fact it is made for you. It doesn't take a genius to understand that 'back' might be referring to the previous government, and that the as the opposite of the previous government, the current administration is hence progressive, being 'forward' and the Conservative government was regressive, being 'back'. "Forward, not back" was spun by shameless Labour communications experts as representing an end to negative campaigning and a bold new path for British politics. This is overtly countered by the other slogan, "Labour is working, don't let the Tories ruin it", no such psychological tricks here, this is just another example of the bold new path for British politics.
The creation of New Labour marked the political awakening of the left. The engagement of focus groups and PR, advertising, marketing and branding specialists with their blue-sky-thinking and emotional attachment profiles riled some of those on the old-school left. But the Mandelson/Campbell/Blair revolution transformed the Labour Party into the political force that it is today. How they did this in a country that was previously so naturally conservative was a stroke of genius. The idea was that only votes for matter, therefore, like a great church organ, all the valves were closed and only the ones required to play the right tune were opened. Willie Whitelaw once quipped that "Harold Wilson is going around the country stirring up apathy", for the New Labour strategists, 1997 apathy was gold-dust. It allowed them to level the playing field and keep people who had naturally voted Conservative away from the polls, whilst relying on the support of their socialist base-vote and their newly developed New Labour converts. A landslide was inevitable.
Now that the landslide has diminished and the polls are indicating a Tory lead in those that intend to vote, apathy has become the enemy of Blair and co. A dangerous strategy is now underway with the aim being to hit the tricky ground of talking up the Tories prospects enough to persuade the disaffected labour supporters to get out and vote, but not enough to give a whiff of victory that could re-ignite those natural conservative voters who were so effectively silenced in '97. New Labour's stakeholder engagement strategy is now doing more jobs than Boris Johnson.
Blair's dangerous game is being dubbed his 'masochism strategy' by his aides and the BBC (sorry, that 'and' shouldn't be there). According to the spin, the Prime Minister is set to invite confrontation from 'ordinary people' so that he can explain himself to his doubters. This builds on the positive spin that the New Labour machine put on him being hand-bagged by Sharon Storer outside Birmingham Hospital in 2001. Immediately after the event, the spin was that he was 'in touch with the people' and 'listening to their concerns'. At the time, he looked like there was nowhere he could want to be less as he was lectured about his hollow words and inaction by some angry prole. He even tried to walk away from her a couple of times, but she blocked his path. It seems that in building on this PR triumph New Labour have, CIA-like, fallen for their own propaganda.
This strategy tells us two things. The first is that Blair is desperate to lose the 'arrogant' tag and connect with 'real people'; the second is that he must be desperate. The stakes are high in this game, because if Blair argues with us ordinary folk too convincingly, he'll cross the line between being 'in-touch' and go back to 'arrogant' again. Ideally, for this to be successful, he could do with taking some (metaphorical) body blows - but is our man that humble?
Winston Churchill once proclaimed that "Anyone can rat but it takes a real expert to rat twice!" The rat in question, is of course, Paul Marsden. Marsden left the Labour Party in 2001 in opposition to the Afghan war joining the anti-war LibDems. At the time, Marsden said:
"…I have lost confidence in the Labour government.
I've had enough of their obsession with control freakery and spin...
Labour's let people down but there is an effective alternative...
Tony Blair is behaving in an increasingly arrogant and presidential manner.
His party believes in threats and intimidation to crush internal dissent.
I have also been increasingly concerned that Labour has failed to deliver on its promises to the British people about improving schools, hospitals, pensions and the transport system.
I have found it harder and harder to look constituents in the eye and tell them that I think the government will improve our public services...
I am tired of the culture of spin. I find it increasingly hard to convince my constituents that public services are improving when they are not."
But now he's back, from outer space, with that smile upon his face and the Labour party must be wishing they'd changed that stupid lock and thrown away the key as his re-defection can only look like the LibDems have got rid of a bad apple and that Labour are so desperate they'll take back even those that have inflicted such damage on them. And so, to use another of Mr Churchill's phrases, this could be a case of the rat fleeing to the sinking ship.
Yesterday Blair seized the opportunity again to go big on the economy with a joint press conference with Glum Gord. New Labour's analysis has clearly shown that one of the few patches of strong ground for them to bat off is the economy. So, clearly with hesitation, Blair brought the sulking Scot back in from the cold. Although last week Blair managed to turn the tables on this ground with the kicking administered to the Tories over Howard Flight, it is still a risky strategy. Risky because it leaves his relationship with Brown open to penetration and risky too because their relationship is now at such a low, he simply doesn't know what Brown is going to do or say. Downing Street officials have not had sight of the Chancellors plans, statements and movements for the last eight or so months. It is said that the Budget statement to the House was the first time that the PM knew the full content of the budget. Brown is becoming unpredictable, and Blair is having to take steps to deal with that, such as announcing his heart surgery and intention to stay on after the election whilst Brown was mid-air to the US, or arranging the monthly press conference to clash with Brown's speech on aid for the tsunami victims this January.
At yesterday's big press conference, the day two of the campaign 'show how united Blair and Brown are' stuff nearly backfired spectacularly. It seems that someone in the communications team forgot to tell the journos that weren’t from the BBC, the Guardian or the New Statesman that they weren’t allowed to ask questions. ITN's political editor Nick Robinson started the ball rolling following on from a cheeky question to the Prime Minister at the earlier PMQs from Labour MP John Grogan who had commented on the Chancellor's "excellent job prospects". Blair tried to knock it away with the tired 'not this again' routine, but Robison persisted and addressed the same question to Brown. Blair interrupted and asked for the next question, which was also about their relationship. The next was about the 'deal' and Brown, clearly still fuming about being interrupted on his own question, butted in to give a long and laborious account of his economic successes. The issue doesn't seem to want to go away by it's self.
Blair's fuse was shorter than usual at that press conference because of the mauling he had just received in the House. Howard had asked how many labour candidates were putting the PM's picture on their election literature - only half a dozen hands went up and the Tories and LibDems loved it. Howard finished each of his questions by paraphrasing the chancellor: "How can we ever trust him again?" It was a tactic used to similar success by Charles Kennedy.
That's not to say that the day hadn't gone well for Blair. The New Labour strategy seems to be to discard the official and traditional message delivery channels, and concente more on the opportunities extended at the chav end of the spectrum. Blair had endured another hard-hitting grilling on the GMTV sofa that morning.
Conservatives
At the risk of seeming 'nasty' again, Michael Howard jumped the starting gun on Tuesday and fired his own starting tommy-gun. Whilst Blair was en-route to the Palace, and Charlie was faffing around with a 'policy launch' with no new policies, Howard summoned the press to deliver a personalised attack on Blair and a hefty rebuke for New Labour's eight years in power. In his attack on Blair, Howard revealed a new prong in Tory strategy of turning the election into a referendum on Blair. He spoke of the choice people had to either "reward Blair" for his years in office or choose the Tories who had "made a stand" on issues that concern the voters. Solid talking, yet not without danger.
It seemed to work though, as the New Labour strategists were determined to stick to their plan for the day and not get de-railed into the Tory agenda. This could of course have been a clever trap by Howard, speaking of the Tories "making a stand" leaves them wide open for a broadside on their chicanery following the Iraq war. Blair does not want to go there- there are no political points to be won on the war for him. So expect more "making a stand" comments from the Tories in the future to try to goad off-guard New Labour grandees into opening up that particular can of worms. It'd seem a bit low for the Tories to go in guns blazing on Iraq, but if New Labour were to bring it up that's another story.
Howard kept to his base on Tuesday, concentrating on crime and social issues on Tuesday, and laying the smack down with a broad ranging attack in the house yesterday. Today's focus is health, with Matron back as the Tories favourite answer to the NHS's woes. It seems that since momentum has been lost following last weeks Howard Flight incident, the Tories have reverted back to their underlying themes, with the primary offensive layer being switched to personal attacks on Blair. This is surprising, given that Blair is electorally not a great asset for New Labour, however it's probably in response to the shift in New Labour tactics towards mobilising the anti-Tory vote. Lynton Crosby is probably gambling that the anti-Tony vote is bigger than the anti-Tory vote.
Mobilising the anti-Tony vote is another risky strategy, the risk of course is that as New Labour is now positioned politically so closely to the traditional Tory right-of-centre ground, that the anti-Tony bunch will not see this as a choice and opt for the 'none of the above' selection. In effect, protest voting for the LibDems. When Crosby arrived at CCO, so too did VoterVault, a bells and whistles marketing database from the US, where elections have long been seriously professional. VoterVault replaces the arcane yet loved BlueChip system, accessible to all Conservative Associations in the country. It's a mega demographic number cruncher, feeding every conceivable piece of information into it in order to output possible voting profiles and trend predictions. Its recent machinations could also be another reason why those in CCO have seemed so chipper in the last few weeks, as the pre-Flight optimism seems to have returned. What this expensive and complicated piece of kit must be telling the Victoria Street policy wonks is that the anti-Tony vote won't be upsetting that many Tory seats, but it'll certainly hit New Labour. The Tories must be calculating that there will be more of a shift in seats from Labour to LibDem than from Tory to LibDem, allied to this, they must be confident that the increased LibDem representation in parliament is no threat to them.
Thoughts must be on the last Conservative government, where Tony's phoney deal with Paddy effectively made the Government the opposition needing to win over New Labour or the hapless LibDem MPs to get anything through parliament past its own rebels. This raises the question, is the Tory strategy to win the election or to win power? If the CCO bright young things think that only the former is possible, then some navel gazing must be done in respect of whether this election really is a good one to win for the Tories. With hindsight, the 1992 election would have been a good one to lose for the Tories, but at what cost to the country? - The Labour Party had not yet full gestated into New Labour and the madness of King Kinnock was still rife.
Talk of a Tory election victory may seem far-fetched. The Government's majority at the last election was 167, which looks pretty unassailable, but Labour polled a majority of 146 in 1945, this landslide dwindled to a majority of only five in 1950, which was no mandate upon which to run a country and was overturned the following year by the Tories with a majority of 17. The Tories stayed in power until 1964, increasing their majority to 54 in 1955 and 100 in 1959. That's a swing of 246 seats in 14 years. New Labour have been in power eight years, so the Tory stat-boys are beaming, and talking excitedly about 'underlying political currents'
The BBC have re-launched their overt campaign against the Tories by seeking to reignite the Howard Flight affair just a day after the former Arundel and South Downs candidate confirmed that he would not be standing against his former party as an independent. His replacement, Nick Herbert, the director of the think-tank Reform, is seen as a clear sign that the Tories really do have a secret cutting agenda. The basis for this claim is an article that Herbert wrote for the Spectator three years ago. The BBC quoted the politically impartial Alan Milburn's account of the article:
"In November 2002, Nick Herbert wrote in the Spectator: 'The whisper is that there is a top secret, extremely clever strategy afoot: go along with spending rises now, but return to a tax cutting agenda when - if - the party is re-elected.' "
Busted again it would seem. However, knowing about Herbert's preoccupations of a low tax economy and competitive markets and yet still selecting him as candidate for Arundel and South Downs is this another example of the Tories dropping a heavy hint at their post election intentions? Tax cutting is the truth that right wing politicians dare not speak, yet some of the Tories rawest supporters are openly discussing the need for major changes to the taxation system. A visit to www.adamsmith.org takes you directly to a thesis headlined "Flat tax for the UK - a practical reality". The agenda is shifting, and unlike the leadership evolutions that preceded the Howard era, this Tory party doesn't seem inclined to take any of the short term flak associated with setting an agenda that is counter to the contemporary political culture.
Most natural Tories do have ambitions for a round of tax cutting and bureaucratic downsizing, but, just as Oliver Letwin's 'fat government' slogan has been quietly sidelined, so too has open talk of cuts and chopping the size of the state. It was working too, only New Labour and the press knew it. The bugging of Howard Flight was an opportunity to expose this Tory strategy, and it was maximised both by the Labour Party faithful and the state broadcaster. Landing hits on Herbert is not likely to damage to Tories any more than they already have been, indeed, the Flight incident may not have lost any votes - it may even have gained them some - the damage came in the loss of the campaigning initiative. In seeking to keep this non-fatal wound open, the BBC only stands to expose itself as the Blairite darling it has become, despite the teenageresque row over the dead scientist. In constantly hinting at the Tories secret tax cutting agenda, the BBC could actually be solidifying the Conservative base, getting the vote out in marginal constituencies.
This campaign builds upon the hard work done by Cherie Blair in 1997 and 2001. Cherie was seen as a great asset for Blair and New Labour and heroically appeared by Blair's side with both grinning visages full of teeth. The Tories know that Michael Howard has never quite shaken off that "something of the night about him" jibe from Ann Widdecombe in 1997. To soften his media profile, a lot of hard work has been put into Howard the family man. Cameras were invited to his home last month; and he was filmed playing ping pong with his model Tory wife, Sandra. To say that she's a model Tory wife is an understatement. A former Vogue model, Sandra has political connections, notably dining with President Kennedy on the eve of the Cuban missile crisis. A former close friend of Frank Sinatra, Sandra is seen as the Tory's Cherie, she adds a touch of glamour to their stuffy image and adds a human side to the spookiness of their leader.
Expect more of the same from the Tories in the weeks to come. After a flying start, the work now is to consolidate the ground that they have made, and chip away at Blair on the trust issue. Don't expect a concerted and overt effort to kick Brown. He may be the biggest threat to the Tories at the moment, but he's also one of the biggest to Blair. If the opportunity arises, the Tories will almost certainly develop a two pronged attack hitting Brown and Blair for different things, but at the moment, Brown's Teflon remains. There is much ground to be made with the fact that if the economy is as rosy as Brown says it is, and has been for the last few years, why does Britain still have a surplus? Like a compulsive gambler, Brown has been back to the table when he should have been cashing in his chips to pay of his debt. There's ground there for the taking, and if situation allows, the Tories should be in there like a rat up a drainpipe. Who knows, we may even see Oliver Letwin on TV.
The Liberal Democrats
The LibDems enjoyed the sunny weather on Tuesday, and the whole of the campaign campsite was up and out of the shower blocks early, beaming with the news that another dissatisfied camper had come to join the party. Bovril all round.
Their star turn was defector Stephen Wilkinson, who last week was the Labour candidate in the unwinnable seat of Ribble Valley, held by the Conservatives with a majority of over 11,000. Wilkinson made a pre-emptive bid for political obscurity by joining the LibDems. In fact, you'd probably forgotten his name already. The LibDems already have a campsite in that constituency, so he's not going to be a candidate for them. Thus, he's an unheard of former election candidate a full month before all the other LibDems.
It was defection week at the LibDems, someone ought to check the coco they're sharing by the campfire, as their prized defector from 2001, Paul Marsden, took his swingball back to the Labour Party. A clearly baffled LibDem spokesman (sorry, spokesperson - apologies sisters) said "I don't really understand it, but I suppose that makes it one-all"
This week the LibDems policy re-hash theme was education. It was announced that they would scrap A' levels. This gives further indication as to the secret key LibDem demographic: 'shoplifting mum' becomes 'thick shoplifting mum'. The LibDem opposition to tuition fees was also re-announced. The undertone to this was almost 'see - told you we had policies'. Stay tuned, the one-a-week LibDem policy programme is sure to continue.
Charles Kennedy is ginger.
