Archive for the ‘spin’ Category

New Labour Spin Twins: currently out-lying each other

Hardly surprising, I know, but since they have not been entirely well-received by his own party it was necessary for Mandelson to spin his memoirs for all he was worth upon their publication today in the face of what I predict will be pretty poor sales – and some reasonably tough questioning from Evan Davies this morning.

Even so, to hear Mandelson actually trying to spin his own, printed words from his own, conceited book – to hear him attempt the epistemologically impossible and wriggle and squirm as he did so – was a source of some pleasure for me as I battled my way into work through sheets and sheets of West Wales rain.

Doesn’t he realise we stopped believing anything he says long ago? Davies made the point quite well: something like, don’t you think the public will find it quite annoying that only three months ago you were telling them to vote for what you now call a ‘dysfunctional’ prime minister and party. Mandelson had no convincing answer to that, at least, not convincing enough for any potential readership, I would say.

But is this a case of one spin operation too far for the Prince of Spain (sic)? I suppose it’s inevitable, actually, that spinners end up spectacularly but stubbornly contradicting themselves. After all, ‘spin’ is merely a euphemism for ‘lie’. And Mandelson, after Alistair Campbell, is the biggest spinner of them all.

The only important thing about this book of Mandy’s is that it represents the first shot in Labour’s latest civil war, a war which, with enough luck, should keep them away from office – and us – for a generation.

So well done he. Sort of.

Read Full Post »

Been reading a few hand-wringing blogposts around and about reinforcing the idea that after that truly appalling rant at the weird, “Citizen UK” rally, Brown had somehow found his voice at the eleventh hour. Of course, it’s in the nature of the media that these things become self-reinforcing narratives leading, usually at breakneck speed, to some sort of settled view or consensus, however totally detached from the truth – or reality – it might be. In fact, you could argue that the general election battle is a battle not just for a vote, but to influence that mercurial, flowing media narrative and try to alter, if you like, the course of the discourse – so to speak.

So in one sense – this sense – one could say that Brown sort of succeeded. He has shifted the narrative slightly – maybe – with the BBC on this morning’s Today programme being willing accomplices, typically, or even the initiators of this latest little change of tack. But we know that the whole narrative, whichever way it is leaning, is generally nonsense anyway; that the reality is rather different, regardless of whether it influences people’s minds or not.
The reality is that Brown, with his back against the wall and his campaign leaders pulling in three different directions, telling their own voters to vote for other parties (David Blackburn was pretty amusing on this in the morning), has decided unsurprisingly to get all atavistic on our butts; to go back to the old irrational, deceitful, Tory-hating, prehistoric Balls-Brown fake dividing line that Mandelson and Darling worked so hard to move away from and onto less toxic, less risky ground. They tried to decontaminate brand Brown. It seems they failed.
But they at least could see the bigger picture that concerns the whole future of Labour. I figure they calculated that if they allowed Brown to lie about phantom Tory cuts/ equally phantom Labour spending, won the election and then proceeded to cut everything in sight having been ordered to by the IMF, they would lose the next election (which would probably come soon afterwards anyway) by a country mile, be truly obliterated this time by a livid electorate, and secure 25 years of Tory government into the bargain without David Cameron even having to break sweat.
So, the upshot is that, despite the direction in which the media narrative is currently veering, apparently and irrelevantly, the fact is that Brown has got it disastrously wrong. He’s not only reverted to type (who could have doubted that he wouldn’t – that’s all he is, after all), but he’s actually going to lose the election on the back of it too, so we can skip the brief period of the total turmoil of a Labour government winning on a lie and collapsing within months as the economy tears itself apart and move straight onto the Tories.
All in all, the couple of more rational members of the former Labour cabinet must be tearing their collective hair out (that doesn’t include Liam Byrne, naturally) gnashing their teeth and generally wailing a lot. Thanks to Gordon Brown, the whole, elegantly triangulated (and exquisitely dishonest rather than brutally deceitful) Mandelsonian election campaign strategy has now totally imploded and will suck the party down with it.
As I’ve said before, they only have themselves to blame. They could have removed Brown a long time ago. Hell, they never should have taken the piss out of the electorate by giving the auld wrecker a coronation in the first place. But that’s all history now, and so is Labour. The one silver lining is that if there is any justice left in this world, or, indeed, sense left in this country, then even if Labour aren’t kicked into third place and kicked into touch for a generation – even if they manage by some miracle to keep Cameron down to a minority government – Brown will be gone.
Even I, ever the optimist who still firmly believes in the clear Tory triumph – if by some horrible, perverted twist of fate I’m wrong, even I would happily settle just for the end of Brown if I can’t have anything else. That outcome would be by no means satisfying, or even satisfactory, but it’d be one hell of a relief.

Read Full Post »

I nearly missed this funny Marten Morland cartoon summary of Labour’s and Brown’s whole campaign strategy from the Sunday Times. Never a truer word, as they say.

At least the Tories are committed to some genuine policies, which will be life-changing (if not life-saving) to thousands of people as they right Labour’s wrongs.

Brown plans to “create a million skilled jobs” if the country’s stupid enough to give him a mandate, or so he told us this morning. I think that comes under the “raise fuzziness” category. Or is it “build haziness”? It’s so difficult to tell with Brown what he or his party really mean.

And there you have the problem in a nutshell. Because they’ll say anything to try to woo voters, they end up saying nothing. And we’re all left wishing they’d just keep their noiseholes shut, especially the prime movers – you know, dissembling thugs like Whelan and Balls, strangers to the truth both and entirely.

“A future vague for all”. Indeed!

Read Full Post »

Joanna Lumley, so the Telegraph, among other sources, is reporting, has forced the maniac Labourist smear-monkey who durst sully her angelic countenance with his slimeball innuendoes, Kevan Jones, to “apologise unreservedly” for his crimes. Reading her withering statement, it never ceases to amaze me that these Labourist twits keep on trying to have a go at her, just because she was right all along about the Gurkhas, and proved them embarrassingly wrong. But they never learn:

Speaking after his apology, Ms Lumley rounded on Mr Jones and accused him of smearing her.

“We have come here with a sense of regret that we have had to come to this, which is really to clear our names in public,” she said at a news conference in London.

She said that over the past month or so, articles have appeared “which must have put doubts in the hearts of” supporters of the Gurkhas campaign.

She went on: “Today we want to call on the Prime Minister to confirm that the policy is one that he completely supports, that the Ministry of Defence is behind everything they said they would be behind.

“I want to say to the people of this country, what you did was to back a just cause and we have not stopped working solidly for the Gurkhas in the quiet, as we promised the Prime Minister we would. “It has been suggested that I somehow was parachuted in, took the headlines and ran. I feel that is a smear.
“It has been suggested that I somehow spread falsehoods amongst the Gurkha communities both here and in Nepal about what they could expect. That is a lie and therefore a smear. The people who made those accusations must know them to be untrue.”

Peter Carroll, of the Gurkha Justice Campaign, said that since their victory in winning settlement rights last year, there had been “a steady drip of negativity – almost like a dripping toxin – being put into this story by what we presume to be vested interests at the MoD”.

I don’t know about that, but I do reckon that these Labour clowns must be winding up Lumley for some reason. Perhaps they just can’t get enough of the lash of her sophisticated, elegant, finishing school tongue.

Whatever, the fact remains that this particular one has made a total fool of himself in trying to play politics with someone who is, quite simply, above it all – and she’s far too intelligent not to be able to wipe the floor with a low-grade Labourist bullyboy nonentity like him with one, sharp smack of her class.

It’s Politics One-Oh-One, Labour hoons: never mess with a Lumley. Especially when she’s backed by some super-tough, mean little soldier dudes – and 90% of the country.


==Lumley Latest==
David Blackburn on his Spectator blog has just made these first class comments about Gurkhagate:

Then, with her airy cut-glass voice, Lumley added: “Gordon Brown is man of integrity who has kept his word.” It was a subtle but clear challenge to Brown’s moral integrity.
Brown came off a bloodied second against the Gurkhas. The memory of that defeat should
press him into acquiescence because Brown cannot afford to dither now. It’s as much a question of instinct as it is one of integrity.

Spot on. And Brown. Oh dear, him again. I’d missed that (uncharacteristically, you might say, given the pretty narrow scope of this blog). He’s like a sort of Rome, only after it was sacked in 410AD by Aleric the Headcase, or something. Rome was ruined and abandoned and smelt faintly of dung, but all roads still led there. Brown is like that insofar as if roads were immense (and immensely stupid) political cock-ups, you could trace them all back to him.

Read Full Post »

…Being the conclusion of Minette Marrin’s superb analysis in her eponymous Sunday Times column. To me, one of the best quotes, among many others, is this:

The kind of bullying of which Brown is suspected is entirely different. It is the uncontrolled raging of a desperate man, driven in his frustration and misery to lash out randomly at anyone nearby.

If that doesn’t perfectly illustrate Gordon Brown’s deeply flawed, even dangerous, character, then I’m a socialist.

So please have a glance at the article, when you have a moment. It’s wonderfully incisive, and serves further to nourish truth rather than smokescreen spin, and burn away Labour’s increasingly delusional, insulting, deviant mythologising about the worst prime minister ever inflicted on our country.

Just for good measure (though, I trust, not to oversell the appeal), here’s another little gem of Marrin’s insider wisdom:

…the prime minister is without a doubt the strangest, most emotionally dysfunctional person I have met. We were together at a dinner once and I felt that his inability to behave remotely normally was almost pitiful.

Five more years, remember. If you don’t vote intelligently, then you get five more years of this damaged oddball. As Hamlet and a fair few Yorkshiremen would say: think on’t.

Frailty, thy name is Brown!

Read Full Post »

They seem to think the sensitive-side relaunch went really well. It didn’t.

So speculation about what these two idiots actually said to each other here is most welcome.

Hat tip – and link to a superb, far more incisive, blog post on this matter: John Ward.

Read Full Post »

James Delingpole, citing Bishop Hill, is as gobsmacked as the latter by a professional analysis of the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report (you know, the one with all the “Gates” in it) by a scientist named Andrew Lacis, a colleague of arch warmist James Hansen at GISS, and someone who in no way whatsoever could be branded a “sceptic.” Here’s an astonishing bit:

There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.

The entire thing, naturally, was buried by the IPCC thus:

Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.

It is quite difficult to frame in one’s mind the kind of mentalities and egos at work here. Suffice to say, their levels of by now well-documented obscene corruption, which has already led to the starvation of millions (thanks mainly to the cultivation of subsidised biofuel crops on good agricultural land instead of food), means that we can safely conclude that they will stoop to anything to keep their hideous misanthropic ideology alive – and their own pathetic ‘careers’ – for as long as they possibly can. This is going to be one hell of a battle – but it is one that common sense, reason and good science cannot afford to lose.

Remember, also, that this Labour government has been, and remains, one of the major villains of this piece. We can start to correct the world’s current rational imbalance by ejecting it when we are finally given the opportunity. But once the Tories are in power, if they don’t immediately reassess their ridiculous commitment to this unhinged – and now unravelling – politically-motivated (it’s mainly inspired by anti-capitalist people-haters) dogma, then they should be next. Better they correct their policies now, then, in a timely and honest fashion.

But first things first. First, we must deal with Labour. I’m utterly confident that the British people will do just that, and good on them for it.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »