Cameron, News International and Moral Authority

One of the more extraordinary claims I've heard since it was alleged that the News of the World have been hacking the phones of a missing schoolgirl and dead soldiers is that the ongoing scandal in some way robs Cameron of his moral authority. But seriously, folks, what moral authority? Cameron has always had all the moral authority of a slimline soft drink - he's not as bad for you as some of his rivals, but still not good in his own right. He was, and remains, an exercise in political triangulation - the last roll of the dice over half a decade ago by an increasingly desperate Tory party shell-shocked by three successive election defeats.

But if this scandal does destroy Cameron's moral authority, it does equal damage to the already tarnished reputations of his two immediate predecessors in Number 10. Blair and Brown courted Murdoch like the most desperate teenage boy at a teenage disco; they are key to propagating the myth that the backing of Murdoch means the difference between a win and a loss in a General Election. That hasn't, of course, stopped the perennially vengeful Brown sticking the boot in to the Murdoch empire as it continues to struggle. But that's the nature of the Brown and, since he has thankfully been relegated to where he belongs to the dustbin of history, rather tangential to the point. It is difficult to see any of the recent incumbents of No. 10 having any moral authority. And please don't tell me that Miliband Minor wouldn't have dropped his pants at the very first whiff of attention from the Murdoch empire prior to this scandal escalating.

The best way in which Cameron can be differentiated from the others who have sought or inhabited his current address is not down to moral authority but rather his judgement in employing Coulson. Both Brown and Blair employed repellent individuals to do their dirty work on the media for them, but both of those figures were only really discredited during their bosses' tenure at the top. Coulson was clearly damaged goods when Cameron hired him before Call Me Dave ever crossed the threshold at the No. 10. Why hire such a person? Why take the risk of it all blowing up in your face like it has done for young HugAHusky?

But those who believe that this is a resigning issue for Cameron are a mix of hopelessly optimistic and hopelessly naive. Cameron has been in office for just over a year and this is the first real shit that has any hope of sticking to him. This is the equivalent of the Ecclestone affair for one Anthony Blair. Cameron will take a (deserved) kicking for this but when the dust has settled I think it will make fuck all difference. Cameron will go on and this whole affair will probably end up no more than a couple of pages in his no doubt tedious and self-indulgent memoirs (which I very much look forward to not reading).

Cameron leaves this debacle with no moral authority - in other words, much the same way as he was when he went into it. He made a bad and naive judgement call when it came to Andy Coulson - something he definitely won't hang for. I mean, the last PM bankrupted the country so he could look like a jowly, greying version of Superman, and the PM before that dragged us into an unwinnable war just so he could posture next to George W Bush. And this is a classic example of the bar being set so low for Cameron that it is next to impossible for him to do something so comprehensively wrong that he has to resign for it. The sad reality is that this sort of thing is now par for the course for a modern PM, not something out of the ordinary. Even sadder, the man now in Number 10 never had moral authority to lose. This is modern Britain - and modern politics.

Phone Hacking... *Yawns*

Try as I might, I can't get too excited about this 'phone hacking scandal. Yeah, it seems to be seedy, shameful and distasteful. And as such, exactly in keeping with the News of the World. Besides, the 'phone tapping is against the law. So no doubt the police and the CPS will act, if there is grounds to do so. As the UK goes to hell in a handcart, I struggle to get too worked up on behalf of some politicians and celebrities who have had the New of the Screws invading their privacy. 

I'm also not that worried about Andy Coulson. I don't necessarily think he should resign - for what it is worth. These sins were committed before he became Cameron's media manager, unlike, say, the sins of one *Mister* McBride. But really, I don't care that much about who is Cameron's spin doctor. If Coulson has to seek alternative employment... well, it isn't going to make any real difference to me. 

Finally we have Prescott belly-aching about how he might have had his phone hacked. This is John Prescott - the man who was Deputy Prime Minister in one of the governments that worked so hard to erode the civil liberties of almost everyone in this country - and he has had his privacy invaded. Well, boo-fucking-hoo. Listen closely, Prezza. That is the world's smallest violin. And you can guess who it is playing for. 

Draper has finally gone and McBride has gone AWOL - to such an extent that even the government can't find him. It probably makes me a bad person, but I can't help but smile at the misfortunes of others in this case. 

There is a lesson to be taken from all this - namely that if you have a government as corrupt, inept, deceitful and odious as Brown's administration then the turds will certainly float to the top of the pile until their behaviour becomes so outrageous that they just have to go. But, of course, this oafish culture will only really change when the person at the top goes. Which means the sooner Gordon Brown is gone, the better. 

Which is a truism, if ever there was one...

Malcolm Tucker v. Damian McBride

Tomorrow - from broadsheets to wank rags - I want pages one, two and three to be a profile of Tom looking like a fucking political colossus, you know - Tom meeting the Pope, Tom in a NHS hospital chatting to little, baldie kiddies. I want pages four and five to be a timeline of British politics with ME at the center, looking fucking indispensable and fucking benign, and I want page six to be fucking Israel or some bullshit, not a fucking DoSAC deepshit legacy-distracting COCKUP.

Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It

Much has been made of the more than passing resemblance of the adorable, sweary Malcolm Tucker to one Alastair Campbell. And it is easy to see why; there are definite points of connection. Yet, as well as reflecting previous amoral bullies in 10 Downing Street, much of The Thick of It also predicted what has happened recently with that e-mail scandal. And whilst Malcolm Tucker is far better looking - in that he isn't a sweaty, pink faced pig of a man - you can also see a lot of him in Damian McBride. In fact, part of me wonders whether McBride saw The Thick of It and designed it wasn't so much a comedy as an educational video, teaching him how to do his job.

And then compare The Thick of It reflecting/predicting the outrageous behaviour of British political attack dogs with The West Wing apparently predicting the future of US politics. Because Barack Obama's journey to the White House does closely reflect that of Matt Santos. Political drama in the US shows an aspirational story of someone who was written off achieving high office. British political comedy in the UK reflects the appalling behaviour of those who protect our leaders. As well as coming up with new and inventive ways to insult and swear at people.

They'll be some that claim that this is down to cultural differences. That is, of course, horseshit. What it does reflect is a mix of TV producers consciously trying to reflect reality, and also where those countries are in their political cycles. In the US, the media jumped on the chance to point out the similarities between Santos and Obama, because both are seen to represent hope. And regardless of what you think of Obama's politics, he was elected on a sea of goodwill and a real hope that he might be able to do things differently. However, here in the UK, we've got another year of a failed Prime Minister desperately trying to spin his way into another term (or even just keeping his job until the election). Of course we're going to look at the dark as pitch The Thick of It, and note how that reflects reality. 

Tucker was a representation of Campbell, and now we can look at how neatly the programme he was in predicted the godawful, sleazy events of the McBride scandal*. It is symptomatic of a wider problem in British politics at the moment - namely it is an ideologically redundant place where the pursuit of power by any means possible is the be all and end all. And The Thick of It will continue to accurately show what British politics is like until we stop voting in the shower of shits currently in government in this country. 

*There is even an episode about the sending of a controversial e-mail...

The Fictional Truth about George Osborne

Via Henry North London, I give you this gem of a story (that I really wish I'd written myself) mocking the attempts by Damian McBride and his fellow evil goblins to make up random shit about the Tories:

George Osborne is concealing a terrible secret.

In 1998, ten prostitutes were found murdered and mutilated in Oxford. Horrific crimes that shocked even the hardened lead detective on the case - the hard-drinking, twice-divorced, reckless but loveable maverick Jack Riley.

When Riley interviewed the helpful, blandly smiling clean-cut student George Osbourne to take a routine witness statement, a distant alarm bell started ringing in the back of his mind. There was no evidence tying this handsome and well connected young man to the horrific murders, but....

There's something about him, thought Riley starkly. I can't put my finger on it. Something wrong.

He started investigating Osbourne's movements and alibis for the nights of the murders, and told his sergeant. The next day, Riley was summoned to a private meeting with his sergeant. He was formally told he was being removed from the investigation.

'We're replacing you with Detective Muppet,' his sergeant told him awkwardly. 'You're being transferred to the Makework case.'

Riley stared at him in disbelief.

'You can't be serious. Muppet's never solved a case in twenty years.'

His sergeant didn't quite meet his eyes.

'I'm sorry, Jack. This comes from higher up. I'm just following orders.'

Yet, haunted by his suspicions concerning Osborne, Riley continued digging in secret. God damn it, he needed to know the truth. The more he learned, the more chillingly certain he became that Osborne's charming facade concealed a deadly psychopath. He learned of the woman who'd been found killed in the exact same way near Eton five years ago. Another identical case near the village where Osborne had grown up. Jesus, Osbourne had been doing this all his life. And now he was out of control.

Then quite unexpectedly, Riley was summoned for a meeting with the Chief Commissioner. The urbane and silver-haired older man greeted him warmly, and ushered him into his book-lined inner sanctum.

'Care for a glass of scotch, dear boy? Forty years old. I have cigars too, if you'd care to indulge.'

They stood together before a roaring fire. Riley felt as tense as strung elastic. The Chief Commissioner patted Riley's arm. The gesture was avuncular, yet somehow sinister.

'You are a young man. You have a promising career before you. I will do everything in my power to help that career progress. But first, you must let these ridiculous suspicions drop.'

Riley stared at the Chief Commissioner. He could feel the blood draining out of his face.

'W-what do you mean?'

There was a new and steely note to the Chief Commissioner's voice.

'You know exactly what I mean, Detective Riley.'

Riley hadn't told anyone he was still investigating Osbourne. He was sure of it. Jesus Christ, was he being followed?

As soon as he got back home that night, Riley went straight to his computer and started searching for answers. The luminous white light from the screen illuminated Riley's disbelieving face, as the final piece of the puzzle fell into place - and he found himself looking at a family photograph from an old news article that said it all.

Oh my God, Riley thought starkly. The Chief Commissioner is Osborne's uncle.

He grabbed up his mobile and rang a trusted friend - a newspaper journalist. He had to share what he knew with the world, before it was too late. His friend's voice answered on the sixth ring, sleepy and irritated.

'Jesus. Riley. Do you know what fucking time it is?'

'I've got something to tell you,' Riley said urgently. 'This is front page shit, Greg. I can't talk over the phone. It might be bugged.'

'So come on over,' his journalist friend grumbled. 'But this had better be good, motherfucker.'

Riley raced out of his flat, down the dark and silent stairs and out into the freezing, moonlit night. The world was deadly silent. Nobody around. He got into his car, his heart hammering away inside him. He slammed the door behind him, and turned the key in the ignition.

The car exploded in a ball of flame. Riley died instantly. His knowledge intact.

His death was blamed on a terrorist ring he'd helped to lock up five years ago.

To this day, the ten prostitutes' murders have never been solved.

Okay, it's not even remotely true, but it would make a fantastic story.

And there can be few better summaries of just where exactly McBride went so wrong: "Okay, it's not even remotely true, but it would make a fantastic story."

How Gordon Brown isn't like Richard Nixon

The McBride scandal - or Smeargate if you really insist - is starting to lead to a resurgence in that old comparison between Brown and Nixon. It is a compelling comparison - one I've made on this blog before now. And on many levels it works.

Both figures are deeply flawed. Both figures are brooding misanthropes; paranoid, socially awkward and with very, very nasty sides. They both have that odd misconception that they were in some way deserving of the power they achieved, and that no-one else could offer what they could. And with that in mind, any tactic, any smear was fair game to keep the Right One in power.

There is even a physical similarity between Nixon and Brown. Go look at some photos of them both and compare. Both are dark, grey figures. There is something ghost like about the pair of them; as if the weight of simply being presses down on them and damages them. Their physical appearance reflects their personalities - grey, grim and ghoulish. And both went from being what some might describe as handsome young men, and turned into twisted, jowly versions of what they once were.

But there, it stops. Because whilst Nixon was a warmonger who promised peace, a man who was apparently drunk at times of international crisis and a man driven by terrifying demons, he also achieved a great deal in his life. He did bring peace to Vietnam, although his means was a torturous as it was murderous. More impressively, Nixon - the once virulent anti-Communist - was the President who strengthened relations with the Russia and re-opened relations with China. The ending of the Cold War under Thatcher and Reagan was made possible by the giant leaps forward under President Nixon.

Compare this to the achievements of Gordon Brown. At best, at best, you can point to the G20 as a triumph for Gordon. He managed to persuade world leaders to spend over a trillion dollars of money they don't have on nebulous and non-existent programmes without requiring those leaders to ask the poor sods they represent for their opinion. Even if you do regard that as an achievement rather than a massive con, it doesn't quite compare with helping to end the Cold War, now, does it?

And then there is the reason why Nixon was so into his smears - he was a fighter. A proper, arrogant, nasty political fighter. He had no issue with fighting for power, and fighting elections. He ran for the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Vice-Presidency (twice) and the Presidency three times. He won, in 1972, one of the most stunning victories in recent US electoral histories. His conduct in elections may not have been outstanding, but at least he had the backbone to put his neck on the line and fight. Compare this to Gordon; a man who has ducked every election he possibly can, and who appears pathologically afraid of putting his neck on the line and actually going out the the voters.

Nixon will always be a deeply divisive figure who is hated by some; and I can really understand why. But he did achieve things in his lifetime - things that he was justly proud of. Whereas Brown hasn't managed to achieve anything.

The sad truth for Gordon Brown is - even against the deeply flawed figure of Richard Nixon - he comes across as a failure.

"-gate"

The McBride fiasco has highlighted one of the things that really does my head in about modern journalism and so much of the commentary on modern politics: the sticking of the suffix of "-gate" at the end of anything even whiffing slightly of political scandal. As if by linking it to Watergate will make it more important and more scandalous.

So, we now have "Smeargate".

As embarrassing as the antics of Damian McBride et al have been for the Labour government, it is a bit much to link them to Watergate. Two Labour party drones swapping smutty lies about Tory politicians like two schoolboys swapping notes about teacher is hardly the same as an illegal cover-up of a break-in that stretched right up to the highest point of the US government and cost a President his job. Maybe the McBridge scandal will get worse before it gets better; certainly, some of those involved seemed determined to keep it going. But I doubt "Smeargate" will have the same impact as Watergate.

Secondly, the reason why the Watergate Scandal was called Watergate is because of the Watergate hotel; where the scandal began. With that in mind, Smeargate makes no sense. What does it actually mean? That the smears took place on a gate? That the gate itself was smeared? What does a gate have to do with anything anyway? What is this gate, and why has it been dragged into the McBride scandal? Hell, if Watergate happened today, it would probably be known as Watergategate.

I know it is shorthand, and I know that I'll probably use Smeargate in the future when I can't be arsed to write out a long version of the title of this scandal. But Smeargate is just a stupid name; this is the McBride Scandal, or the McBride/Draper Scandal*.

*I appreciate it can't be know as just the Draper scandal, lest people confuse it with Draper's earlier scandal. That is known by some as Lobbygate. *Sighs*