General UK Politics Thread

[Zoë Sumra]

And the Daily Mail follows up on the Jacqui Smith's husband issue in its April Fool article by [url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166326/So-did-fall-April-Fool---present-tartan-sheep-mammoth-national-anthem-flying-hotel.html"]showing a photoshopped picture of the Home Secretary coming out of Ann Summers[/url]. It was inevitable, I suppose...

[VarysTheSpider]

Is anyone following the rapidly developing wonderful [url="http://www.order-order.com/2009/04/mcbride-spinning-for-his-career/"]Smeargate story[/url]?

If in 24 hours time McBride has resigned and Draper disappeared back into the political wilderness this will have been the best Easter Sunday ever. I may even break the habit of a lifetime and buy a paper tomorrow morning...

[Blue Roses]

McBride has gone.

I expect GB will say he knew nothing about it as he was busy saving the world and being Obama's new best buddy.

[VarysTheSpider]

Happy days!

Am loving what Draper said on Sky News earlier - 'private emails should stay private.' Oh really? Best tell that to your chums at the top of the Labour party, because [url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882600.ece"]they can spy on any email we send and want to have access to them all[/url]. Stupid bastard.

ETA: Great headline on the BBC at the moment on Gordoom's latest idea - "Plan for Compulsory Volunteers" [i]Compulsory [/i] volunteers?! :rofl: Ah to be through the looking glass...

[Usotsuki]

I'm extremely disappointed by the quality of the smears. Whilst it's true that I don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about whether David Cameron may have had sex during his college years this is hardly in the same league as John McCain is insane and Barack Obama wants to form a new caliphate.

Our nation has been shamed.

[Derfel Cadarn]

I've not really been keeping up with this, what's the big hoo-hah about? Since when did politicians wanting to smear other politicians become a big scandal? Is it that smear is fine if it's 'ad-libbed' but frowned upon if it's premeditated? Or is it that it's considered unclean to actually talk about it? Like masturbation, everyone does it but it's frowned upon to actually talk about it?


[quote name='Usotsuki' post='1754312' date='Apr 14 2009, 07.42']I'm extremely disappointed by the quality of the smears. Whilst it's true that I don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about whether David Cameron may have had sex during his college years this is hardly in the same league as John McCain is insane and Barack Obama wants to form a new caliphate.

Our nation has been shamed.[/quote]

In fairness, I'm not sure David Cameron provides the same smear potential as McCain or Obama. After GB's dull dour-faced mumbling, Cameron being insane might not be viewed as much of a negative. Particularly if the Tories could spin it as 'mad genius'. As for the 'Obama' route, if Cameron's middlename was Napolean then maybe Labour could snicker darkly that he's "French" and insinuate that he's pro-Europe.

[Hereward]

[quote name='Derfel Cadarn' post='1754510' date='Apr 14 2009, 16.32']I've not really been keeping up with this, what's the big hoo-hah about? Since when did politicians wanting to smear other politicians become a big scandal? Is it that smear is fine if it's 'ad-libbed' but frowned upon if it's premeditated? Or is it that it's considered unclean to actually talk about it? Like masturbation, everyone does it but it's frowned upon to actually talk about it?[/quote]

Surprisingly, smearing of other politicians doesn't happen that often, and to relatives of politicians almost never at all. The opposite side will often bend the truth about you said and why, or the extent to which you were connected or not to a particular policy or policy disaster. But when it comes to activities undertaken late at night, under the influence of subsidised alcohol and far from home, it's suddenly like the mafia. After all, let he who is without sin, etc, etc. Same with whatever someone got up to before they entered politics.

It's not a concern with ethics, more like MAD.

[mormont]

[quote name='Hereward' post='1754517' date='Apr 14 2009, 16.39']Surprisingly, smearing of other politicians doesn't happen that often[/quote]

Well, apart from the constant briefings about Brown being 'mentally flawed' and the suggestions (pre-marriage) that he was gay. And the stories about what various hotel maids allegedly found in Peter Mandelson's hotel room. And the rumours about Major having an affair with a caterer. And the constant insinuation that Charles Kennedy was an alcoholic. And the stuff about Ken Livingstone having three illegitimate children. And the rest.

Of course, some of those things turned out to be true and others were reasonably well-founded (as is the case, to be fair, some of the current crop). But the common thread is that they all started off as whispers and nudges by enemies within or without the parties of those they concerned: they were most definitely intended as smears and they were most definitely exactly comparable with the stuff Draper et al were intending to publish.

The idea that 'smearing doesn't happen in UK politics' is just not true. It's usually done very carefully and in a totally deniable way, but the only real difference here is that someone got caught red-handed. The consequent public pretence by various politicians to having fits of the vapours at the very [i]idea[/i] that someone would publish such scurrilous and salacious stuff is hilarious. :P

[Hereward]

[quote name='mormont' post='1754544' date='Apr 14 2009, 17.00']Well, apart from the constant briefings about Brown being 'mentally flawed' and the suggestions (pre-marriage) that he was gay. And the stories about what various hotel maids allegedly found in Peter Mandelson's hotel room. And the rumours about Major having an affair with a caterer. And the constant insinuation that Charles Kennedy was an alcoholic. And the stuff about Ken Livingstone having three illegitimate children. And the rest.

Of course, some of those things turned out to be true and others were reasonably well-founded (as is the case, to be fair, some of the current crop). But the common thread is that they all started off as whispers and nudges by enemies within or without the parties of those they concerned: they were most definitely intended as smears and they were most definitely exactly comparable with the stuff Draper et al were intending to publish.

The idea that 'smearing doesn't happen in UK politics' is just not true. It's usually done very carefully and in a totally deniable way, but the only real difference here is that someone got caught red-handed. The consequent public pretence by various politicians to having fits of the vapours at the very [i]idea[/i] that someone would publish such scurrilous and salacious stuff is hilarious. :P[/quote]

I didn't say "smearing doesn't happen in UK politics". I said it happens surprisingly infrequently. Something I don't think is disproved by your examples, most of which are from a different millennium. One of the reasons for that rarity, of course, is that when you get caught it's worse for the side doing the smearing than those smeared.

Now, gossip amongst political insiders is another matter, and with the advent of the blogosphere it was inevitable that the circle of insiders would get very much wider. But even where there have leaks or rumour-mongering, including some of the examples you mentioned above, they tend to be the result of personal animosities, frequently within the same party. Parties can't afford to get caught doing it, as I've said. I realise that you'll probably say that they don't generally get caught, but that can't really be proved, can it?

[mormont]

[quote name='Hereward' post='1754561' date='Apr 14 2009, 17.13']I didn't say "smearing doesn't happen in UK politics". I said it happens surprisingly infrequently.[/quote]

Sorry, the bit about 'doesn't happen' wasn't a reference to your post but to the general tone of the coverage, which has been (in certain quarters) pitched as if this sort of thing was absolutely unheard of. :)

[VarysTheSpider]

[quote name='Derfel Cadarn' post='1754510' date='Apr 14 2009, 16.32']I've not really been keeping up with this, what's the big hoo-hah about? Since when did politicians wanting to smear other politicians become a big scandal?[/quote]
McBride wasn't a politician. He was a Special Adviser, and subject to a code of conduct that he broke. Specifically, [url="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/propriety_and_ethics/special_advisers/code/code.aspx"]this part[/url]

[quote]5. Special advisers should conduct themselves with integrity and honesty. They should not deceive or knowingly mislead Parliament or the public.[/quote]

This is the same code Brown now wants the Cabinet Sec to tighten up, as if it never existed in the first place. I'm not really sure how McBride was able to resign. This must be grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct.

Other, more boring, hoohahs include

* The total discrediting of Labour's attempt to answer the right-wing's dominance of the blogosphere with Draper's blog
* The image that this - like getting into bed with the Ulster Unionists last summer - shows a government in terminal decline
* The Prime Minister's own attitude to smear tactics. If he didn't personally approve the disasterous class-war campaign during the Crewe by election or his cabinet members' snide remarks about Boris' education during the Mayoral election he did nothing to stop it, and now he keeps this man as his attack dog for years, and has the temerity to lecture [i]us [/i]about his moral compass and his family values.
* How cozy the Telegraph is with the Labour party, in publishing a pre-emptive defence of the emails (that reads like it came straight from number 10's press office... probably did, in fairness) several days before they were due to be published, allegedly breaking a signed non-disclosure agreement.

[Daeric]

There were a couple of fairly large articles and opinion pieces about this in the Indepent today, one of the opinion pieces seemed to think the only problem wasn't the smear but that when McBride did it you could always tell it was him.

[HT Reddy]

Old Brits of the board (I'm looking at you Hereward and Mormont) - did politics used to be more edifying than it is now, or has it always been like this?

[Hereward]

To a certain extent, but that's partially because we rarely heard about the seamier side in the press, not because it didn't exist. It's certainly true that there used to be more open policy discussions and disagreements, even within the same party, which minimised the need for spin and briefing against.

PS Mormont is going to be really narked about being placed in the same age category as me!

[mormont]

[quote name='VarysTheSpider' post='1754640' date='Apr 14 2009, 18.28']This must be grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct.[/quote]

Breaking a code of conduct for your job is by definition misconduct, of course, but not necessarily gross misconduct or an automatically sackable offence. Gordon Brown is suggesting that it should become so for special advisers, I understand: so he is actually tightening up the rules.

Not that it really matters very much. It's not as if any prospective employer won't know exactly why Mr McBride left his last job, is it? ;)

[quote name='Hereward' post='1755558' date='Apr 15 2009, 08.11']PS Mormont is going to be really narked about being placed in the same age category as me![/quote]

Quite. My mind insists that I am still 23. My knees disagree. :P

HT, my earlier post was in fact trying to suggest that this sort of thing always went on (as far back as I can remember, at least, which is the '80s) but that previously it was all about whispers going around in person (or occasionally printed on small-press scandal sheets) rather than on blogs. There's now a wider circulation for smears on the internet, in the same way as there is for any communication. I would expect the next election to be very dirty in that respect.

[Usotsuki]

[quote name='mormont' post='1755572' date='Apr 15 2009, 09.04']I would expect the next election to be very dirty in that respect.[/quote]

I'm not entirely sure that I buy this, the next election is going to be a textbook pocketbook contest, there doesn't seem to me to be a huge incentive to engage in smears, the polling impact won't even rise to the level of statistical noise.

That said I suppose the spin-doctors have to do something during the campaign, and gossip will percolate but I'd expect it to be inadvertently dirty rather than deliberately foul.

[Hereward]

And yet we have seen the depths to which Gordon is willing to stoop when the loss of power looks likely. I imagine that, as the opinion polls look ominous and polling day gets closer, he'll be willing to try just about anything, assuming he's still in post. I suppose the only real brake on his conduct is how much the Labour Party is willing to let him get away with if the tactic, as is usual with Gordon, backfires.

[Usotsuki]

It's possible I suppose but I foresee something more akin to the circular firing squad as the angry hand of the electorate starts to inscribe "Mene, mene tekel upharsim"on the Downing Street walls. I know I'd be far busier plotting against my colleagues than the opposition if I were in the Cabinet right now.

[Hereward]

I'm not sure anyone in the Cabinet, with the obvious exception of Harriet Harman, is insane enough to want to lead the party into the next election. I suppose they might pick a sacrificial lamb if they think the fallout from the ousting will be outweighed by the narrowing of the defeat, but the defeat will not be too narrow to allow [s]Harman [/s]the sacrificial lamb to hang on afterwards. :unsure:

[Usotsuki]

:lol:

The point of the plotting would be to replace the Dearly Beloved leader after the next election, not before it, that would be like trying to usurp the role of Captain Smith after the iceberg.