Words about words

Is the Clegg/Cameron friendship cooling off before it even got going? Well, certainly a neat analysis (from Millward Brown) of the language employed during the last leaders debate would seem to suggest that it might be.  Clegg and Cameron had the smallest pool of common words by some way- just 13, compared to 27 shared between DC and GB, and 20 between NC and GB (see chart).  Considering that almost a quarter of their shared terminology was unlikely to be complimentary (“Gordon”, “Brown” and “Labour”), and the only meaningful phrases they shared was “council” and city” (both issues upon which they disagree) they appeared to have very little in common to say at all.

I’m afraid it’s a little hard to make out, but hopefully you’ll get the picture!

  

Of course, this is hardly a litmus test for co-operation but is does provide some interesting insights. Take a look at their top twelve words used list: 

Brown                                        Cameron                        Clegg 

people  62                                   people  61                         people  53    

tax     56                                     government      37            tax     49    

cut     45                                     tax     33                            money   26    

bank    32                                   year    31                           work    26    

country 32                                work    28                           pay     25    

David   31                                  bank    25                           bank    24    

credit  29                                   country 23                        Cameron 16    

job     25                                     economy 22                      David   16    

Conservative    24                   business        17                 income  16    

year    23                                  cut     16                             Brown   14    

economy 21                             money   16                         Gordon  14    

work    21                                 waste   14                          problem 14    

 

Neither Cameron nor Gordon made reference to “Nick” or “Clegg” enough to make the list. Fence sitting before a hung parliament, perhaps? And while tax and people topped all the polls, work was a strangely low priority in GB’s vocab- possibly starting to regret that tax on jobs he’s stoutly defended for so long?

One final observation from the shared words chart: Clegg was the only man to breathe the word “Chancellor”. In 90mins of debate in which the economy was the focal point, neither Cameron nor Brown dared to mention what we’ve all been thinking. No-one wants another term of Darling after the mess we’ve been put through and Osborne looks green and unsure. During times of financial uncertainty the minister behind the finances need experience and nous- Vince has both in abundance. Increasingly he looks like the only man well suited to steering our economy and Brown and Cameron both know it. Funny that Brown didn’t remind us of his (oh so successful) tenure as Chancellor isn’t it?!

Tags: Chancellor, David Cameron, Election, Election Debate, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg

Old New Labour unravels on a word

It was bad luck for Gordon Brown that an open-microphone gave the public an opportunity to hear what he actually thought of a voter. He isn’t the first politician to make this error, and he won’t be last, although the most famous example is fictional Tory Peter Mannion from In the Thick It who says:

“Peter Mannion: This is the trouble with the public, they’re fucking horrible!
Emma Messinger: Peter, you can’t say the public are fucking horrible.
Peter Mannion: Yes I can, I’ve met them.”

In one sense this story is a 48 hour wonder.

In another more serious sense it’s a painful insight into psychology of New Labour and why their time has gone.

New Labour in one sense is just the SDP just over a decade late. The political platforms of the SDP and New Labour were not very different and many of New Labour’s more successful policies were taken wholesale from the Liberal Democrats of the 1990s. Socialism as a credible political philosophy died in Britain the 1970s after successive decades of government waste and state control of industry proved unequal to the challenges of the oil crisis and global competition, ending in an IMF bail-out. It took Labour 20 years and four election defeats to accept defeat. It’s taking some European socialist parties a little longer.

In another sense New Labour was a political attitude, one born in shame of losing again in 1992. The election where Neil Kinnock “snatched defeat from the jaws of victory”. Labour campaigners I have spoken to about 1992 describe it as “the moment we realised the public were stupid”, “from then we knew we’d have to lie to win”, “we’d need to talk right to act left”.

What followed 1992, and the untimely death of John Smith in 1994, went beyond the militant-tendency purges of the late 1980s. It was a wholesale realignment of the party around a platform sold as economically liberal, but in substance corporatist, and one that reverted quickly to old-style socialist spending on the national credit card part-funded by stealth taxes. It was combined with some genuine socially liberal reform, undermined equally rapidly by an ever-expanding raft of authoritarian control measures designed to appeal to exactly the kind of voter Gordon Brown just called a “some kind of bigot”.

New Labour in that regard is a rag-bag of contradictions. Economically it is genuinely left-wing. Tax and spending has risen massively after 13 years of Brown. It was sold as “prudent” and “conservative” so well, that many disgruntled socialists genuinely believe they were sold out, whilst David Cameron circa-2006 felt he had no choice but to commit to Labour’s spending plans in order to restore his own party’s economic credibility. Gordon Brown’s confidence tricks should have Respect and their fellow travellers in the Green party cheering him to the rafters - he has even undermined the credibility of the City of London.

Socially it is an authoritarian agenda delivered by people who used to run Liberty, campaigned against apartheid, and hate the Daily Mail. It is a party that has opened the door to unprecedented levels of immigration whilst speaking the language of the BNP. It is a party elected to clean up politics that will be leaving office mired in a swamp of sleaze exposed by their own reforms. It is the party based on a philosophy that values equality over liberty, that has delivered reductions in both.

The Janus-faces of New Labour were bearable to a significant minority of the electorate when masked by Tony Blair, a man who could believe six impossible things before breakfast, sell four to the Chinese, and go to war on the other two. With the Incredible Sulk in charge however the polish fell off. Suddenly it wasn’t New Labour anymore; just Labour, and you always had the feeling that; support them or not, they didn’t like you very much.

Now Gordon Brown, in one off-hand remark, has confirmed it.

His reactions were awful at every level. He appeared fake when meeting Mrs. Duffy. His response to her uncomfortable immigration analysis was to blame his aides. When exposed on radio he didn’t fess up straight-away but make a conditional apology “if I’d said that”. He even said it again after he’d heard his own voice on tape. His announcement that his apology had been accepted, after half an hour of face time, is unconfirmed, and premised on an unconvincing analysis  that he didn’t mean what he said and had misunderstood her.

It was like watching an unstoppable lie collide with an immovable truth.

That is why, today, there is every possibility that a century of Labour’s membership of the political premiership is about to come to an end.

This is a party that believes in something but can’t talk about it for fear of causing offence. A party that wants human progress, but doesn’t believe humans are progressed enough to choose progressive opportunities for themselves. A party that has caused an economic meltdown and is led by a man whose leadership was only tolerated on the basis of his apparent economic genius. A party with no answers to any major question facing the electorate beyond their fear of change.

This is New Labour, and this is why the Party is over.

Tags: BigotGate, Gordon Brown, New Labour, Spin

Gordo the Saviour! Dave the Cowering! And more…

I have some sympathy for Nick Robinson (bear with me now…)  He does, on some occasions, have to form his analysis of political events extremely quickly, and then promptly figure out how to articulate it in a snappy way to an audience with the collective attention span of a hairdresser’s goldfish.  I reckon I’d fail miserably at such a task, so just as well that I have the luxury of getting my points across on a blog, several days after the event.

Nonetheless, I am going to add another knife to those already inserted in his back, following his incorrect verdict that last week’s TV debate was encapsulated by “I disagree with Nick”. Statistics from the show, you see, reveal that Call Me Dave was, in fact, the most attacked leader (not Nick). Interestingly, Call Me Dave was also the meekest, perhaps in nervous, cowering mode, given the sudden possibility of him entering future history books and DVDs as the failed Tory leader who was forced into electoral reform.

The graph below shows how belligerent each of the leaders were:

Some more interesting findings come from examining the number of words uttered by each leader.  Clearly looking to appeal to the more nationalist element of the electorate, Gordo and Call Me Dave both had “country” in their top two words, with “Britain” being Gordo’s fifth most used word.  Notably, “country” only just scraped into Nick’s top 10 words, and neither he nor Call Me Dave had “Britain” in their top 10.

Gordo’s reputation as a self-styled wannabe global saviour is further enhanced by the analysis.  Out of the three leaders, he used the most language relating to international affairs, with the following words all appearing in his top 10: “Britain”, “country”, “world”, “Europe”, “European”.

The top 10 lists of words are below, with a couple of other graphics to keep you amused. This research, I must confess, was not done by myself, but rather done entirely by Millward Brown. Which is nice of ‘em.

Shared Words: [sorry, can't get this to be more visible. If you want a copy, e-mail admin *-AT-* liberal-vision.org]

All three leaders’ top words combined, by frequency:

Tags: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Leaders Debate, Nick Clegg, tv debate

Aid spending targets are simply wrong

Politicians generally disagree. Don’t be fooled by Brown’s recent nauseating sycophantism towards Clegg - in reality cross party consensus is very difficult to achieve. Banker-bashing aside, there are very few things that all three parties actually agree on and even fewer that they’d be prepared to admit.

But, there is one idea on which all three parties do agree on, and unfortunately it’s a shocker. All three parties have agreed in their manifestoes (Cons, Lab, Lib) to make it a legal obligation to spend 0.7% of national income upon foreign aid by 2013. This will cost an extra £2bn a year, according to the latest figures, and so nearly slipped under the election radar. However, thanks to The Times who picked up on report released today by International Policy Network, the stupidity of this proposal has now been exposed.

Now, before all the “pro-aiders” choke on their organic soup and reach for their recycled tissues, please wait. This isn’t an anti-aid rant. In fact the report doesn’t offer any recommendation on how much should be spent, but instead focuses on the stupidity of fixing aid spending to a specific target- any target.

It makes no sense whatsoever: Using input targets to determine spending is backwards. If a funding shortfall is the issue, it would be logical to look at how much money is needed rather than how much the UK can afford to give. As the The Times notes, “the oddity of deciding how much a poor country needs from the size of a rich one on the other side of the planet.”

What’s more, as the report comprehensively explains, the 0.7% target itself  was formulated as a lobbying tool almost half a century ago using now discredited methodology. The same method with today’s figures shows a capital “need” far below current UK spending on aid. And this highlights another problem with using targets- the developing world is always changing. Since this target was first proposed India and China have pulled half a billion people out of poverty, the economic landscape of the ex-Soviet republics has changed beyond recognition and Geldof has had at least one hair cut. Fixing aid spending denies the reality that people can, and do, pull themselves out of poverty and away from aid dependence.

Unfortunately it looks as though all three parties have neglected to scrutinise this particular lobbying tool, touted by that bellwether of bad ideas- Bono, and have blindly agreed to fix to an arbitrary target. At least one of them should know better.

Tags: Aid, Bono, David Cameron, development, Gordon Brown, Leadership debate, Nick Clegg, targets

Cameron gets it wrong again

I read on the BBC website this morning that David Cameron is stating that “a vote for Nick Clegg could leave Britain “stuck” with Labour”.

Some one needs to take David Cameron to one side and give him a sharp talking to. Because he is just plain wrong.Wrong on sentiment.Wrong on tactics.

First and foremost the current poll of polls puts the Tories on 33% with Labour and Liberal Democrats on 29% each (and who knows where this will end). Yes, on the “just for fun” BBC Election Seat Calculator this gives the Labour 280+ seats and the Tories about 240+ seats. 

It’s a rough and ready estimate….But its clearly in the right ball park …at least for now…. And yes it looks like it would have to be coalition with the Liberals- no other group looks to have enough.

Now on the face of it, as things stand, this puts Labour looking pretty. But (and it is a big “but”) the Liberals are SERIOUS about political reform - and a change to the first past the post system….I don’t see how they CAN opt for coalition with the Labour Party with more seats (won through the defunct old system)- over the Tories with more votes. Surely we have been saying for years that it’s the votes that count? We are the party that has the demand for a fair, proportional voting system at the heart of its manifesto.

So, currently, and assuming Mr Cameron can get his act together, in hung parliament land, its gotta be the votes that count - and therefore highly probable that the Liberals would indeed be talking to the Tories about coalition.

But herein lies the problem. Mr Cameron shows no sign of getting his act together. Not on his own campaign - not on his relationship with the liberals.

At the moment the Tories seem all at sea. Private recriminations internally about why Cameron did so poorly on the TV debate last week; unleashing their pet newspapers on Nick and the Liberals (which will incidentally only drive more voters to the Libs - the more you knock us the more the public will flock to us - cheers guys!); and of course, yet more talk of the disaster of a hung parliament, despite the fact that it’s clear the majority of voters WANT a hung parliament (recent Times poll says 53% are FOR a hung parliament with only 37% against). Come on Mr Cameron - you can’t keep saying that you (and the city) know best and the common voters are stupid (which seems to be your message right now).

“We know best” just isn’t a very smart political line in an anti-political age.

 

And what of the Tory campaign? Throughout this election, indeed throughout Cameron’s leadership we have seen the Tories lurch back and forth in all directions.  From the “hug a hoodie” party to the “bang ‘em up” party with seemingly no pause for breath. They claimed to be the party of harsh realistic spending cuts that needed to be implemented NOW,  a few weeks later they were handing out tax giveaways like Father Christmas on speed. “The Big Society” was their self-confessed big idea for the general election (even if many of us really don’t get what that really means). Yet in the TV debate, David Cameron did not mention it once. Nor did he mention the flagship education policy for “free schools”, (which will allow parents or other providers to set up their own schools) during the education part of the debate. And the lack of any numbers in their manifesto had everyone scratching their heads. You just don’t seem to be able to get a real fix on them.

And for a party of optimism and change all we seem to get are threats…first it was that a hung parliament will cause financial meltdown in the city and now a hung parliament will let Labour back in.. Did talk of a hung parliament cause the volcanic ash cloud too?

The Iraq war, the excesses of the political elite and their rich mates, the constant lecturing tone..they have dripped into our psyche. We have had enough. For most, Cameron looked like the only option to rid us of the dreadful Labour party- but Tory arguments have drifted all over the place. The electorate are not that stupid. Yes they wanted a change. But they wanted authenticity too. And that just never emerged with the Tories. And in marketing terms..

 

“Authenticity is the benchmark against which all brands are now judged”

 

In spite of this Cameron was the main man when there was no real competition. But competition has arrived. When millions saw Nick on TV on the leaders debate (for all his faults and the party’s faults), they saw something that is authentic and different. People get that.  Cameron really IS “Clegg-lite”.

So in the time that’s remaining, someone needs to tell Mr Cameron to “stick to the knitting”.  At the very least talk about policies and ideas and stop trying to badger and terrify us into voting Blue. It’s just not going to work.

As for Mr Cameron’s relationship with the liberals. What makes anyone think we would be willing to work with the Tories right now, even if they were first choice coalition partners?

 

All the Tory talk over recent weeks has been wholly anti-coalition and very definately against the kind of political reform that the Liberals are proposing. Any suggestion of change to the current voting system has been met with obstinate refusal. If David Cameron wants to be on the Government benches next month he may well need to rethink this, big time. Otherwise he might find himself spending a few short months on the opposition benches before the old Tory guard get their knives out.

Tags: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, hung Parliament, Nick Clegg

Confirmed. The yellows really are the best way of stopping the reds.

Pinching myself hard, I find myself writing that, according to politicalbetting.com,  the Liberals top the opinion polls in the latest results to be published (BPIX/YouGov survey for the Mail on Sunday). Ok we may want to take one poll (and especially this poll) with a dose of salts - but a pattern certainly does seem to be emerging… the entire country agrees with Nick!

 

Tags: BPIX/YouGov, David Cameron, general election 2010, Gordon Brown, Mail On Sunday, Nick Clegg, opinion polls, tv debate

NEW POLL - LIB DEMS ON 35 PER CENT!

Word breaks that a new ComRes poll is showing the following voting intention:

• Dave Nu Lite Conservatives - 36%

• Super Clegg’s Lib Dems - 35%

• Gordo’s OldNuLab - 24%

Before you start running off to your constituencies and preparing for government, note that the poll was taken, I believe, only from people who watched the TV debate.

I’ll update and add links as and when they become available.

ConsHome are reporting it here.

Guido is reporting it here.

Update:

David Cowling, editor of the BBC’s Political Research Unit, has been examining that ITV/ComRes poll. He says: “This was not a voting intention poll but a panel of people who watched the debate and then gave their voting intentions afterwards. This is not a national random sample of the population - some 46 million people - but a sample of the nine million who watched the debate and we have no certainty that the sample even speak representatively for them.”

Also, Sky News report that the poll numbers are “still being finalised”.

Tags: comres, David Cameron, general election 2010, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg, opinion polls, tv debate

Sarah Brown for PM?

Watching News at Ten tonight. Wonder if we are ever likely to see him “out and about” without his permanent minder - Sarah Brown - constantly at his side ? Surprised that they allowed Gordon to do the interview with Tom Bradby….

Surely this can’t work? Please, please , just NO! I

On the other hand , if the great British public are taken with this nonsense then they deserve everything they get…

Tags: Gordon Brown, News at ten, Sarah Brown

ITV’s inevitable cave-in to Tory pressure

aka “When Trev Met Dave”

Following on from the lucicrous Piers Morgan “interview” with Gordon Brown, Andy Coulson’s badgering of ITV (pre and post interview) has paid off.

This Sunday we get to see “ITV Fuck Up - Part II”, as Sir Trevor McDonald does his ITV duty and provides the Tories with a reciprocal “soft touch” mockumentary about Tory leader David Cameron.Word has it, its all Samantha telling us why Dave’s her man, and various lovies concurring that ”Dave’s the man”….with lots of “exclusive access” words all over it. Er yeah right.

Hmm….You see what happens when the Light Entertainment boys are let off their leash ? The rest of ITV are left picking up the pieces.Still, I bet Mr Coulson’s laughing. Gordon gets sleazy Morgan, Dave gets SIR Trev no less. Nice one.

So the only question remaining…… How effective were the media guys and gals at the Lib Dems at extracting their pound of media flesh? Who is the man at Cowley street beating down the door of Peter Fincham demanding their hour loved-upness  from ITV? Nick Clegg - multi-tasking, parent extraordinaire (in 5 languages no less) must be on its way, surely….

Tags: Andy Coulson, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, ITV, Nick Clegg, Piers Morgan, Sir Tevor McDonald

Coalition or chaos - it’s your call, Nick

So now its a real fight. Who do we choose? On my left I give you the bullying, bullshitting, bad tempered - bad man of politics - GORDON BROWN. He who wants to be judged on his moral compass yet surrounds himself with unpleasant characters who intimidate and smear his political opponents, from whatever party, at every turn. He who talked up “Prudence” whilst on the biggest spending binge ever, who raided pension funds, sold our gold at its lowest level for years and who invested more of his time and effort undermining the then Prime Minister, than he did keeping watch on the finances of this country. Hmmm.

On my right I give you the smiling snake oil salesman -the suave, the slick - DAVID CAMERON.Yes the one with the airbrushed photos and dyed hair who beams benignly and promises his party has changed but who cannot be pinned down on anything of any substance. Who talks about being liberal and wanting government with ” a lighter touch” but then brings the full force of his party heavyweights down on his own party regional offices if they dare defy him. The man who has talked such a lot - delivered polished speeches to perfection…and yet said so very little. A man who surrounds himself with friends in Notting Hill kitchens (Coulson, Ashcroft, Osborne and co) no matter how dubious their actions, history or levels of competence best that can be said of him is that he is not Brown - the worst that he is another Tony Blair. Been there done that.

Added to this we have seen what happens when one party wields total power - with a huge majority. The party whips rule; minsters all powerful; bright intelligent MPs sidelined because they challenge the leadership; loyal and dimwitted MPs more likely to end up in the cabinet; debate stifled; decisions taken behind closed doors with little or no scrutiny; laws rammed through.

Why would you want either of those leaders in power? Why would you want either party to win a landslide election when we have felt the pain that they bring, one too many times ? No wonder people are confused. No wonder the polls are erractic.  No wonder, people are talking …correction.. welcoming… the prospect of a hung parliament. None of the other checks and balances have worked. Maybe this one will.

BUT!  The prospect of a hung parliament - without a clear view about what that will mean for the finances of the country - is going to send the markets into tail spin. Why? Because they assume that we will end up with a fudged government with no power to make the cuts necessary, fighting day to day to get each tiny bit of legislation through, and almost certainly resulting in another election within twelve months. What the markets want is certainty and that is not what it looks like.

Of course at the moment we don’t have a single party willing to be honest with us about the economy - the severity of cuts necessary. We all know we are being lied to. And every day our debt gets bigger. So it could be argued that it is not clear that any party will do what is needed.

So we are standing on the brink of disaster. Nick, its time to bring some honesty and forthrightness to the debate. Specifically on (1) the economy and (2) what you will actually do if there is a hung parliament.

1. THE ECONOMY : Be honest about the level of the cuts necessary. Vince Cable is the most trusted politician there is on financial matters. He was the lone voice of caution in the boom years. Yes he was derided by both Tories and Labour (and the media) when he told us bust was waiting round the corner. But he was also proven right. So where is he now? We seem to be arguing about the small stuff . Is it green enough, are we too reliant on banks. Maybe, maybe. But can talk about that when we have an economy worth squabbling about? Where is that beacon of light - that honesty now when we need it ? Show us the real Vince. Show us the real plan - not the sanitised one.  

2. HUNG PARLIAMENT: If we were in “the boom years” Nick, you could fudge what the Liberals would do in the event of a hung parliament. If Britain had cash sloshing around in our coffers, if we had a strong £, if we had shrinking unemployment, if we had financial institutions that were lining up to invest in Britain, if our AAA rating was not hanging in the balance yes then Nick, you could get away with it. And it would probably be the right strategy. The dangers of speaking out are immense and caution might be wise.

But country is not in that position. This country is in dire financial straits. The £ is stuttering at the news of the possibility of a hung parliament. Don’t play politics with our lives and livelihoods.

This country needs a strong Lib Dem party to tell us where it stands. Not a sit on the fence - play it safe - we haven’t planned for hypothetical situations - Lib Dem party. (What ? you only make your plans AFTER the event?). We need a bold and brave - forget the past - lets start a new period of politics- tell it how it is - get the country out of this mess  Lib Dem party. 

At the moment no one is at all clear what “working with” the party with a “mandate from the voters” means. Not me. Not the voters. Not the markets. Stop talking Westminster speak and tell us what you mean. Coalition or not?  The Guardian says you are planning to rule out coalition “because aides and senior MPs argue it would be highly dangerous for the Liberal Democrats to become minority partners in a coalition government”.

That would seem to suggest that , in the event that no party gets an outright majority, you allow either party to pass a Queen’s speech if it makes some concessions to your four prioirities (fair tax, investment in education, a rebalanced economy, political reform).

But whispering tit bits to the Guardian is not the same as telling it straight. OK you’ve let the Queen’s speech go through… Will you abstain or vote through the budget ? Shove in loads of amendments to make it more to your liking? How will you vote the next week or the week after that? Will a weak minority Government lurch from one deal to another as you stand by mildly and meekly watching sterling plummet, and the stock market nosedive? Is Vince Cable destined to spend the next 12 months commentating on the news or making the news?

The country goes to the wall because some of your aides and MPs care more about their political careers than the state of the nation? Maybe they just dont like the idea of actually being in power.

Or perhaps it’s that you can’t go into coalition. With all the will in the world you dont have the power to make that decision? The BBC reports that you “would have to get a formal coalition deal past (your) members” . If true then change the rules at next week’s conference. Tell them you can’t run a party on that basis right now. 

Cowardly or castrated. Which is it ?

The madness is, from what I have seen, you are neither. You started slowly (not a bad thing) but it looks for all the world that you are just hitting your stride. Perfect timing. You have the honesty, integrity and personal belief to make a difference. To change politics. So what’s stoppping you?

You will be dogged by these questions and many others of a similar vein over the coming weeks. Constant reference to a 4 point plan is not going to cut it with the voters, with the media or with the markets. Come on Nick. Step up to plate. The Liberals have to piss or get off the pot. If we are not prepared to take up coalition - to take up the reins of power when the country needs it most (now) then we don’t deserve to be the third party. 

I think I am right in saying that both you and Vince have said publicly that the country’s plight is more important than petty party politics. Prove that you mean that. Give us some honesty. Show us your mettle. I think if you will do that, you will win the hearts and minds of this country. Hell, maybe even save it.

Tags: coalition, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, hung Parliament, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable