This, as the robot bomb in Dark Star said to the astronaut who was trying to persuade him not to explode, is fun. I think that things are now developing on the Gordon Brown front very fast.
As I have already commented today (I’ve recycled my comments earlier today here, and have added relevant links) on an earlier posting, I think that one of the key moments in this was when this got said, two days ago now:
The spokesman added that nobody in Downing Street knew of the e-mails and that it was Mr Brown’s view that there was “no place in politics for the dissemination or publication of material of this kind”.
If Downing Street had left it at “nobody in Downing Street knew of the e-mails”, all might have been well. I say “well”, for these things are relative. Well as in Brown might have been able to stagger on for another year. But, I think fatally, they continued to the effect that it is Mr Brown’s view that there was “no place in politics for the dissemination or publication of material of this kind”. This is a flat lie, and we all know it to be a lie. The spokesman knows it. Brown knows it. We all know it.
Worse, from the purely tactical point of view, this lie turns the story from one of merely a few particular and, approximately speaking, deniable emails, into one where anything nasty presided over by Gordon Brown, and the longer ago the better, becomes relevant, because it proves that the Prime Minister not only does now believe in dirty tricks, but always has done. Suddenly, every newspaper hack in Britain knows what to ask, of anyone he can find with anything remotely like an answer. You were at school with Brown, were you? What was he like? Ran the University paper with him, did you? So, how did that work? Tell me about Scotland back in the eighties, the nineties, the noughts. Hm, sounds nasty. What’s that you say? Wales as well, well well. What exactly did he say about Blair? How exactly was Blair toppled? … The whole miserable litany of nastiness going back about three decades suddenly roars back into the centre of British politics, right now. The Prime Minister, with his fatuously excessive denial, has made this happen. (As always with these things, it is not the thing itself that does the fatal damage, it is the denials. See the prediction to that effect in this, although I had no idea then how quickly the fatal denial would come.)
For all the surreal daftness of the Daily Telegraph printing Guido stories after he’s blogged them, but mentioning him only to call his a “Tory blog”, Janet Daley does have a point when she says that this story only really got seriously going when the clunky old dead tree media got around to printing it. But now, printing it they are. The dog pack has now assembled and is baying for blood.
Even Brown’s demise will not quieten them, for as soon as he is gone, which I now think could happen very soon, the next cry will be: general election, general election, general election. Not only might the country soon be slightly less disastrously governed, it might be less disastrously governed before this week is finished. Because if a general election campaign does start in a week’s time, there is at least the faint hope that the politicians will – and call me a mad dreamer but I just cannot help saying this – stop doing things.
Well, maybe. We shall see. What I do definitely know is that when The Sun starts saying that Brown must go, that must count for something. The story is adorned with a picture of one of the mere Brown creatures (an MP and Minister called Watson), but pretty soon it is clear who is the main target:
The Prime Minister HIMSELF needs to be taken away by the men in white coats.
Men in white coats? How Guido, who has been blogging for month after month about the Prime Mentalist, must be loving that. The Prime Minister is not just disastrous. He is mad.
Every Labour politician in the country must now be in despair. Will this despair finally cause them to make the decision they should have made about Brown (“Oi! Brown! No-o-o-o-o!”) decades ago? Maybe, maybe. I really think that this time, they might. If you doubt this, do what these people are now doing. Consider the alternative.
UPDATE (see the update here): Watson is about to resign. He will spend the rest of his life being the ex-Minister for Digital Engagement, which according to a commenter on this was his actual, no really, title. CLANG! “Isn’t going to resign.” The wish was father to the thought. Sorry. He just didn’t know about the emails. Blogs eh? No quality control. Apart, that is, from the fear of looking like a prat, being told one is a prat, etc. etc. Here‘s the story.
Watson is the “Digital Engagement Minister”, which is one of those titles (like “Community Organiser” for that matter) that makes me respond with “You have to be fucking kidding” just from the title.
Beats “Community Organiser” hands down though, at least title wise. I just googled it, in the vain hope that you were pulling our leg.
Heh.
Tom Watson, MP, has a blog which has gone all quiet of late.
But one of his last posts was entitled
“25 Books I’ve read in the last two years that have interested, influenced or amused’
and right there at number 15 is
‘Mudslingers: The Twenty-five Dirtiest Political Campaigns of All Time, Kerwin Swint’
It looks as though Tommy was doing his homework . . . .
llater,.
llamas
Yes, I nearly added that Digital Engagement Minister title to the original post. But at the last moment I wasn’t sure if it was a real title, or just something Guido Fawkes, or someone, had made up.
This reminds me of something I once read about how the noted newspaper humourist of yesteryear, Beachcomber, once had a job with something called MI17B, or something pretty much like that, “an organisation which sounded as if he had invented it”.
He’s engaged now, isn’t he?
But not for long, it would appear.
My ex-missus was in favour of digital engagment. I always found it a bit of a waste of time and effort.
Probably why she’s the ex-missus.
Brian, Tom Watson, the Labour junior minister and blogger who was mentioned in the emails, has issued a statement via his solicitors denying any involvement. This may end up in a libel trial. Guido has it.(Link)
Imagine this man having to call the likes of Draper, or even Brown, in his defence.
What a total bozo. He’s fucked.
What is to stop the current government just staying in power until their time is up and they have to have an election in 2010? It seems inevitable that Nulab are going to lose the next election big time so what have they got to lose by hanging on?
I feel that the days when polititions felt that they needed to do the honorable thing and resign on principle has gone. After all Jaqui Smith was caught red handed rifling through the public purse stuffing her coat pockets with banknotes and she is still in her job.
I really hope that I’m wrong.
I do recall that one French government had a “Minister for Solidarity between the Generations”. If I recall correctly, the job didn’t survive its first reshuffle.
Guido (and those who commented on what he had to say) is correct about the Daily Telegraph.
I stopped my subscription to it years ago now – the errors of fact (university leftism replacing the truth) had just become too numerous to carry on paying for the newspaper.
It is not the impact of the internet – it is the replacement of one sort of journalist with another sort.
Nor is this anything to do with economic class background – for example Frank Johnson had a working class background and Charles Moore does not, but both were/are good writers with a respect for facts.
When I look at the Daily Telegraph now (and I sometimes still do – although I do not pay for it) many of the articles are full of what I refer to above as university leftism.
The opinions are clearly on the left (but never openly stated – instead their is an artificial pretense of being objective) and a disregard for facts.
The American coverage last year was demented – for example I was told that Fox News was broadcasting various things I could see it was not broadcasting (as I watch Fox News) because the Daily Telegraph correspondents (who were in the United States) could not be bothered to actually turn on a televison set – and were just copying stuff off far left smear sites like “Media Matters” instead.
I suppose that is what t the new Daily Telegraph people think adapting to the internet age means.
No checking of facts and sources (as real journalists like Christopher Booker still do) – just start with half rememberd (and wrong) historical, political and economic background you were taught in univeristy, then read press handouts from government and allied sources, and then flesh the thing out with bits of stuff from leftist internet sites.
If I wanted that I would go to the leftist internet sites direct.
There may be a place for newspapers in the future (just as there has proved to be a place for cinemas even with television), but not the way the modern version of the Daily Telegraph does things.
Indeed their efforts to “modernize” have made them less fit for the world.
Still as long as their journalists can get on socially with Labour party high ups all is well.
That last paragraph seems to be the attitude of those in de facto control of the Daily Telegraph.
Almost, but not quite, needless to say – the rot in the Daily Telegraph started with the cultural coverage.
With stuff such as film reviews.
Chris H
You could be right, of course. My point is that the Prime Minister has just told a whopper, which the journos will be able to make indefinite hay with. Many journos will be talking to Labour politicians, asking them about how Brown has screwed with them, and asking if Brown should resign. This will surely now be continuous. As more break ranks, settle old scores, or merely stay mum and fail to defend their alleged leader, things will get worse and worse for him.
Things can also go on getting worse and worse for Labour as a whole. As I keep on saying, it doesn’t end when Brown goes. There are more dominoes after that. What have Labour now got to lose? Their longer term future. Much more than the next election. If the Labour Party as a whole allows this walking disaster of a PM another whole (ever more) disastrous year, that could turn into total doom, as opposed to a mere sound thrashing that is recoverable from. It’s getting to the point where Brown getting the boot, a new leader being picked (quickly – no time for a complicated election), and then calling an immediate general election is the only set of circumstances that can save Labour from melt-down.
But I do agree, they may now be all in such a state of funk that they just sit on their hands and watch the car crash happen in slow motion. But even as I say this, I’m thinking that Brown’s survival as PM depends on near unanimity among a big group of betrayed and angry people, on almost all of them not saying anything bad about Brown. And I just can’t see that happening now.
But, what do I know? We shall see.
The thing about the “lie direct”, at least if cleverly done, is that almost all decent people fail to refute it, because they are unable to prove its falsity (beyond reasonable doubt, or on the balance of probabilities).
Therein lies (pun!) its very strength.
However, time is and always has been on the side of truth.
Best regards
I’m afraid not. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
My scenario is that Smeargate will keep on going,the budget will just show how much has gone wrong(so much for the best placed economy etc),stock market will fall,more high job loses,house prices still fall,repossessions keep on going,then Labour meltdown in the June Euro/Council elections…………..then all it will takr is a motion of no confidence in Parliament……..and Labour are in even deeper trouble.
If they win,the public will see them for the inept noses in the trough,thinking only for themselves party…and will be even more against them or they lose and there is a General Election….either way they lose…….thoughts please
Alisa- sorry you’re wrong, I’ve never been at war with Eastasia
More generally: Mr. Brown knows he’s right (his moral compass tells him so) hence don’t expect an election soon.
Paul Marks:
As long as there are puppies to be housetrained and fish to be brought home, I suspect you’re right.
Pat:
It was a literary reference, and a very, very good point I thought.
I dunno – I think one of the misunderstood points of that literary work is just how difficult it is to keep the truth from coming out. The Party was unable to keep the truth from Winston, and ended up having to torture him into submission instead at (it is implied) great expense, and that despite their near-total dominance of society. And Winston wasn’t even a troublemaker type. If what Alisa meant by the reference was that Brown et al will hold on to power to the end of the term just to show there’s nothing anyone can do about it, however, she’s chosen the right reference.
Alisa, them yellow-peril Eastasians are now our very bestest friends! It’s those Oceanians, also called Westerners, who are the enemies of decency and goodness everywhere. Got it?
I realise that you are using the 1984 edition of Newspeak. You should upgrade doubleplusquick!
Nuke, what is it with you and the upgrade-spree lately?:-)
I think Pat did get the reference (duh), and he does have a point, meaning that it’s ultimately up to individuals to decide what is the truth. Problem is, as we are seeing with the presentation of various events in even recent history in the education system and the mass media, is that what the majority of other people thinks is the truth (if they even care) has tremendous influence on our present and future (case in point: The Great Depression). This is especially true in democracies.
Joshua: I wasn’t making any point about Brown at all. I was simply replying to Nigel’s point that time is on the side of the truth. I think that unfortunately experience shows us otherwise, and what that means is that truth needs to be spoken often and loudly, and what is no less important, it needs to be recorded for posterity, in ways that make it as difficult as possible to be distorted in the future. And no, I have no idea how to do that:-
Brown out by the end of this week?
Brian, I think you need to go and lie down in a dark room until the feeling has passed, really I do.
Alisa responds to my point on truth with:
It’s a long time since I read “1984”, so I’d better be careful. Two points:
The book is a cautionary tale for adults, and I’m sure that most readers here, including me, do take very seriously its big message.
However the book is also fiction, and the detailed point made by Alisa should be read in that light.
To be a cautionary tale, quite properly, the book cannot end on a good note. I’d be more impressed by real-world examples of truth not coming out in the end: though of course, if the truth has not come out, we will not know about them as suitable examples. On the other side, I would point out the truth was known eventually of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the economic failure of Soviet communism, the questionable wonderfulness of Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’, etc.
The issue on which I think my point can be validly criticised is that of how long ‘eventually’ takes to turn up. It seems to me that, in these sorts of political circumstances, it is only after the ‘leader’ or ‘leaders’ have died or otherwise lost their grip that the truth does come out, or become widely known (especially in their previous domain). There is also clearly a domino effect in many cases.
In the particular case of ‘Sleazegate’, I personally do wonder whether this is only a Brown thing, or whether it is a Blair thing, a Blair/Brown thing or a New Labour thing. Certainly I cannot remember a previous period in UK politics in which truth had so little place, though the Wilson years (a serious stretch of the memory) did have some vituperative goings-on (but only within the Labour Party and satellites as far as I remember).
It was Blair who introduced spin as a major part of government, Blair who actively supported mis-statements over Iraqi WMD, Blair who curtailed civil liberties, Blair who introduced vast swathes of surveillance into our lives, and Blair who castrated Parliament (through ‘reform’ of the House of Lords).
Brown has continued, amplified and speeded up these adverse changes: disemboweling Parliament from one end while rewarding with protection the snouts in the trough at the other. The sooner he goes, the better. His crass charge forward has, if anything, been something of a help in bringing forward realisation of the truth of this disastrous period of government.
Personally, I find it both worrying and heartwarming that the end strides much closer not through government incompetence leading to economic disaster, civil oppression and political bribery: but through what I can most easily label as ‘ungentlemanly behaviour’.
But we should not forget, in the sudden spreading realisation of the awfulness of Brown, the dangerous sickly creep over the 10 preceding years of Blair/Brown: in which Parliament, the press and the electorate were credulous collaborators.
Best regards
Nigel, good point about 1984 and time-frame.
“I’d be more impressed by real-world examples of truth not coming out in the end”
New York Times has still not given back the Pulitzer prize its reporter was awarded for failing to note that Stalin was starving millions of Ukranians to death.
The truth is out there — but 50 years later, it is still not acted upon. Alisa’s point stands.
Alisa, I’m like any convert to a cause! Once I upgraded from Nick (nice-guy) Gray to Nuke Gray!, everything improved, and I started winning small prizes from Lotto, and Kevin Rudd is going to give me some of my own money back (an Oz ‘Stimulus’ package for all wage-earners.)
If I can just get ten people to change their names, my good luck will continue indefinitely!