Keeping Promises, Managing Expectations

Here’s an interesting article about Obama and his current woes. It stresses that he has actually achieved a lot of his agenda, but is struggling in the polls regardless. And the article hints at the reason for this – when he was elected, he promised the earth and now it comes to delivering, what he has to offer isn’t quite the change people believed in. He failed to manage expectations, and is suffering as a result.

This has always been the charge leveled against populist politicians – they offer a better tomorrow, but when they are elected and tomorrow become today, there’s something lacking in the reality they create. So what has happened recently is politicians have become vague on what they promise. Gone are the concrete policies, presumably in the hope that the electorate won’t be disappointed when either the policies don’t appear, or when those policies do appear and actually turn out to be a bit shit. Instead, politicians try to get our votes through spouting platitudes.

It isn’t just Obama and his claims to represent “Change” and “Hope” – although Lord knows those concepts should have been interrogated more thoroughly before he was handed the keys to the White House. It is also seen in Cameron’s call for change – a meaningless concept without extrapolation. And it was in the rhetoric that dragged Blair into Downing Street – just what does “education, education, education” actually mean? That it was his priority – but his priority to do what? Fuck up first? Fuck up the most? Likewise, “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” is meaningless without the “how” – how are you going to be tough on crime and its causes? Furthermore, whenever a politician talks about a big concept like, say, fairness, it is apparently without any inkling that such a concept is relative, and how it will be defined will vary from community to community and, indeed, from individual to individual.

So these empty strap lines and meaningless assertions are meant to make you want to vote for a politician without them actually having to tell you what they will do. But rather than managing the expectations of the electorate, it heightens them. Obama represents change – which the vast majority of people would probably interpret as change for the better. When he delivers the American status quo with just a little bit more state tinkering in some areas (like health care), people are disappointed. Very disappointed. Because that isn’t change. Likewise, Blair’s crime pledge – it sounds like he is going to sort out crime once and for all. When it becomes clear that what he actually plans to do is give various malcontents a meaningless trophy like an ASBO, of course people are fucked off. Particularly when they become the victims of crime themselves.

Saying nothing beyond empty buzzwords is not enough to stop the massive disappointment in politicians when they fail to deliver anything more than the same politics with different personalities presiding over it. The only way in which politicians can effectively manage the expectations of the electorate is to be more honest about what they can, and can’t, do. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: the most honest politician – the sort of one that you should trust and consider voting for – will be the one who says “nope, sorry, can’t help you with that”. But whenever a politician waddles on to the political stage spouting meaningless platitudes about hope and change, you should be very suspicious about what they mean by those phrases – if, indeed, they actually mean anything at all.

Quote of the Day

"Spin is... the burnishing of an irrelevancy until it appears to be genuine, the redirection of a truth until it appears to be 'the' truth... the creation of pseudo attitudes, the momentary feelings that are produced in response to artificially assembled information and images."

Randall Rothenberg

BBC News:

Gordon Brown has called a summit in London to discuss radicalisation in Yemen, after the alleged failed bomb attack on a US plane over Detroit.

The actual story:

Gordon Brown has called a summit in London to try to hide the fact that time is running out for him, and the remainder of his tenure in office will soon be counted in weeks rather than months or years.

If 2010 brings nothing else, at least it should bring the end of Gordon Brown's so-called leadership of this country.

Spinning Spending

Witness The Guardian rushing to the aid of Gordon, when the nasty Tories call him a liar over spending cuts:

Again, the Karl Rove down-and-dirty playbook has proved handy. Seeking to rubbish Treasury statistics, the Tories have gone for Brown's character and reputation, with accusations of dishonesty, lying and untruths happily bandied around. This week's try-on by the Tory frontbench about being denied access to government figures was all part of the same pitch. And, what is more, they are helped by a well-oiled and well-mobilised blogosphere who quickly wade in behind the Conservative line to take. The loyalists at ConservativeHome; the bright young Turks at the Spectator "Coffee House" site; the cloyingly sanctimonious Iain Dale; the masterful Guido Fawkes – not quite the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but nonetheless a dedicated cadre of Conservatives dominating the new media and immediately following the central office talking-point. And their most resonant line of attack is to accuse various members of the government of lying. It is nasty, negative and yet surprisingly effective in taking attention away from Tory party policy and setting the agenda for the mainstream media. By the middle of the week, the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson was asking Brown whether he was a liar!

Now, the eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed the problem with this paragraph. The problem is that, when Gordon and his drones talk about increasing spending when the government coffers have been spent on propping up failed banks, they are lying. On this issue, Gordon is a liar. Of course Nick Robinson is asking him about it - it is a valid question!

Which may also account for the paranoid alliance detailed above. I doubt that there is any effective union between Dale, Gudio, the Spectator and ConservativeHome - the fact that they are all reporting on the same story in the same way is a result of the story itself. When Gordon claims he won't cut spending, he is lying. Of course people who aren't slavishly and insanely loyal to Gordon are going to comment on that. 

Perhaps the charge that could stick against the Tories is that they have finally worked out how to spin things effectively. Lansley puts foot in mouth, the Labour party rubs their hands in glee, only to to find moments later that they are the ones in trouble with the media. Yet Labour getting the hump about someone else being good at spinning really is the pot calling the kettle black, given their behaviour under both Blair and Brown. And besides, what is this Guardian article if not spin - on behalf of the Labour party rather than the Tories? I mean, it even invokes Karl Rove - the master of the political dark arts who helped Bush Junior into the White House on two occasions. And referencing him (when there are other examples from the Labour camp like... ooo, I don't know, Peter Mandelson) is simply a piece of emotive, cynical spin. A bit like calling Gordon Brown a liar...

All we have here is an indignant yelp as Labour lovers everywhere realise that the Tories have suddenly got better at playing politics than them. And all this article represents is yet another distraction from what should be the key political question of today. Not whether spending cuts are coming, but rather where the spending cuts are going to fall. Yep, Gordon Brown is a liar if her claims that he won't have to make cuts - he's a deceitful, delusional lunatic if he refuses to now start talking about where the Labour party will make those cuts. 

Government of all the Talents: Sir Alan Sugar.

No, really. You read that title correctly. 

I missed this one yesterday, but it is with a grim, hollow laugh of contempt that I note Sir Alan "Prickly Lefty Twat" Sugar has joined the government as enterprise Tsar (whatever the ruddy fuck that might be). 

I'm sure that Sugar is more than capable of taking a made-up government post. After all, he is responsible for the Amstrad e-m@iler, a big old hunk of crap that has rightly joined so many other needless innovations on the scrap heap of history. And of course, it is vital to have the star of a ripped-off, second hand US show in government. In no way is this a gimmick, of course. In no way whatsoever. That would be beneath a politician as morally upstanding and anti-spin as Gordon Brown. 

I do wonder whether Sugar would have been given this post had The Apprentice not been in mid series. But ultimately, this is just the start of the Labour party's shameless promotion of Sugar as some sort of political leader. Watch this space, people. I can see him running for London Mayor in three years. And if he wins, then with his commercial savvy and quiet competence we should see a new age for London. And for new age read the complete collapse of London as a boorish twerp who mistakes a stern look for gravitas and charisma drives the capital's economy into the ground just as surely as the boorish twerp in Number 10 has managed to do for the national economy.

Translating political speak

There are some detailed posts to come about Gordon Brown's insanity (and whether it matters) and about why we should be nicer to bankers. But this morning my brain is a little like stew and both posts require more thought before I belch them forth onto the interweb. So whilst they ferment away, like mould in an unwashed coffee cup, I give you the Nameless Libertarian's guide to translating the phrases that spew from the malformed gobs of modern politicians:

I have complete confidence in the minister: Either he resigns, or I sack him.

I can categorically deny all wrong-doing: I cannot believe you caught me!

Change you can believe in: Policies to follow. Maybe. But the phrase sounds nice, doesn't it? So vote for me anyway.

We've decontaminated the brand: Any policies or ideological backbone of this party are dead and gone.

I'm a pretty straight kind of guy: Ha ha, I'm fucking lying and you know it.

Economic stimulus package: If we throw money at it, maybe the recession will just vanish.

We are going to do all we can for those who have lost their jobs: We're really hoping that a meaningless platitude will make you feel better, because it is all we've got.

These measures are vital for national security: It is always easier to rob you of your civil liberties if we scare you a bit first.

The committee completely exonerated me of all wrong-doing: The committee effectively called me a cunt but I'm going to hone in on the smallest of small loopholes in their verdict to try to disguise the fact that I am utterly, utterly corrupt.

That's it from me - if you can think of any others, stick them in the comments section...

The Prime Minister's New Clothes

There has been a lot of talk recently about the death of Nu Labour and, given the tax ‘n’ spend nature of the pre-budget report, a return to the ways and policies of Old Labour. There is certainly some truth in the assertion that the policies of Brown and Darling are more typical of the pre-Blair Labour party. And there will be those older Labour MPs who will be rubbing their hands with relish that their party seems to be drifting back to the socialism of old. However, I’m not so sure that Brown has gone Old Labour on us. In fact, I’m not so sure that Brown has a plan or any ideological commitments whatsoever. Brown’s priorities aren’t ideological; they are simply based around him clinging on to power for as long as is possible.

Because we can talk about Brown representing a return to Old Labour, but who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the Nu Labourite Tony Blair? Ah, that would be Gordon Brown then. Who was one of the key architects of Nu Labour? That would be Gordon Brown as well. And who argued that John Smith’s economic policies were not centrist enough? That would be Gordon Brown, the man who is currently the apple of the eye of the Old Labour lefties. Even if you do think Gordon is the saviour of socialism in this country, then you have to concede that he is a very recent convert to that movement.

Of course, you could argue that Brown was just waiting until the capitalist pig dog Blair was out of the way before he reverted to promoting the true, pure course of socialism. So, let’s cast our minds back to when Gordon became PM. What was his initial pitch for the role? Was it a full throated, bellowing call for a return to the socialist Labour past? Or was it a half-baked spin campaign to project an ersatz image of Brown as a refreshingly un Blairite, down to earth, anti-spin politician? Isn’t it funny how Brown only really started nationalising, taxing and spending when his popularity was so low that even safe seats in Scotland were heading in the direction of the SNP - when his own core supporters seemed to be turning their backs on the Labour party he leads.

Just look at Gordon’s record in power. Now championing himself as a class warrior frantically working to save the economy, this is the same Gordon Brown as the man who wanted to shaft the poor with the 10p tax debacle. This is the same Gordon Brown who championed the very bankers he now shrilly denounces. This is the same Gordon Brown who was going to put VAT up before he decided to reduce it. There is nothing behind Brown’s policies other than a desire to find something – to find anything – that gets a decent headline in the media and a couple of plaudits for his party.

Gordon Brown and his army of Labour thugs love whacking the Tories with the stick of ideological vacuity. They argue that the Tories have no real policies, no real ideology, and no real ideas for the future. And with this, I would be inclined to agree with the Labour party – I cannot see what the Tories have to offer. But likewise, there are no indicators of what Gordon Brown actually stands for either. His government is twisting and turning like a worn through, paper thin flag in a hurricane. They are not waving, but drowning, and desperately clutching at whatever straws float across their horizons. There is no plan, no blue-print for the future. Just poorly thought-out ongoing knee jerk reactions to whatever crisis is in the papers on any given morning.

This isn’t Gordon the socialist; this is Gordon the would-be populist. He can try to pitch himself as a man of gravitas and substance as much as he likes; the truth is very different. He is a paper politician, blowing in the breeze. He stands for nothing other than the prolonging of his time in Number 10. And as such, the only real difference between Brown and Blair is that the latter had a much more effective spin machine.

It is only a matter of time before Brown is exposed across the country as a vacuous man pretending to be so much more than he actually is. And for the sake of this country, I hope his vacuity is comprehensively and indisputably unveiled to all sooner rather than later.

Barack Obama: A Politician For Our Times

Whilst he has my grudging support, I can’t claim that Barack Obama – despite the relentless, exhausting hype surrounding him – is an inspiring choice for US President. In fact, the only reason why he has my support is because he isn’t running with that self-styled pitbull in lipstick or, as I prefer to think of Sarah Palin, the fundamentalist in borrowed clothing. Barack Obama is the least worst option; and as such, he is very much the politician of our times.

Despite the media spotlight shining on him, Obama has still managed to fail to explain what he stands for. We’ve got a pretty good idea of what he doesn’t stand for – he isn’t like George W Bush, he isn’t like Hillary Clinton, he doesn’t like the Iraq War and he thinks that the current economic crisis is a bummer. However, there is precious little from that candidate on what he does stand for, other than the audacity of hope. Which sounds great, but when you really break it down, it is not unlike a Miss World candidate wishing for world peace. It is a great aspiration, but it would be nice to know how the ruddy fuck we get there.

Obama represents the new breed of politicians - he stands as perhaps the most shining (certainly the newest) example of the dubious line of publicity hungry politicos that includes Blair, Clinton and Cameron. Those politicians who don't rely on ideology or policy details to get them into power. Instead they focus on looking good for the cameras, and grinning in the right company. They remind me a little of used car salesmen - except they actually have nothing to offer, and even the best possible used car salesman needs a product to sell before they can fleece you for your money.

It is often said that politicians will do pretty much anything to get elected. Obama et al stand as a rebuke to this truism. Don't get me wrong, they'll do pretty much anything to get elected but they stop short of doing just two things. They won't tell you what they believe in, or what they plan to do when they actually get into power. That's the audacity of hope, see. You have to be audacious enough to hope that Obama will be good when he gets into power. All he is actually willing to commit to is being less awful than his opponent.

Brown-Bashing: Decent? Ha ha ha.

Alan Johnson on his evil overlord… sorry! Sorry! My bad... Alan Johnson on Gordon Brown:

"He's not interested in that dimension of politics which people like me kind of like: showing off a bit to the camera. That's not Gordon. But you've got decency, you've got intelligence, and you've got dedication, and I really think those are the important qualities in a prime minister - not some kind of PR exercise on legs."

Which pretty much sums up exactly where Gordon Brown is going wrong. He is not intelligent – at least not in a practical sense – he is not a decent man, and he is not dedicated – at least not to anything other than the furtherance of Gordon Brown. And, more than anything else, he is a PR exercise on legs – he is just shit at it.

Witness the debacle of the election that never was. Brown and his minions flirted with the media over a supposed election last year, only to bottle it when the opinion polls suggested victory might not be 100% certain. It was all PR – just bad PR for the Prime Minister. Or witness the PM on American Idol – he looked like a stilted fool. Or the whole fucking debacle with the Olympic torch… oh, I could go on. And on. But everyone knows it. Brown is shit at PR. When he tries to take the initiative or court the media, it all blows up in his ashen, jowly face. But that doesn’t stop the fella. Relaunch after relaunch after relaunch; each and every one of them undermined by the fact that there is an imbecile at the heart of the project.

There is an image of Brown – not doubt propagated by the monocular git himself – that he is in someway above the fray, and that whilst he may be a bit awkward, at least he isn’t like that Blair. At least he is good and decent hearted. At least he means well. Of course, that idea could best be defined as total fucking shite. Brown is just as nakedly self-serving and PR driven as Blair. The big difference between the two is that Brown lacks Blair’s skill with the media, and every time he tries his hand at spin, it all goes hideously wrong.

Brown is obsessed by the media, by spin, by polls. He is a PR exercise on legs; and he shows the limits of what PR can achieve. No matter what spin Brown demands and what spin he gets, he will be forever undermined by the age old maxim:

“You can’t polish a turd.”

Early Morning Paranoia

If I was feeling paranoid I would point out this represents a nice distraction for Nu Labour from this and this.

Fortunately I am not feeling paranoid so I won't.

The Sins of Spin

Leo Tolstoy once noted "To sin is a human business, to justify sins is a devilish business."

Lord alone knows what he could make of the modern spin doctor, but I think you can see the devil's influence on the likes of Alastair Campbell and Jo Moore.