Lost in the spin cycle
Labour should have had me as their spin doctor. On the basis of my extrapolation from the national opinion polls, the party would have won a 20 per cent share of the vote in yesterday's local elections. So the 24 per cent projected by the BBC shows how resilient the party's support is.
And, on the strength of their national opinion-poll rating, the Conservatives should have won 45-46 per cent. Instead, it looks as if they have fallen short of their record 45 per cent level set in 1992 (when Labour voters, disgusted by the result of the general election a few weeks earlier, stayed at home in droves). Or something.
Instead, Labour's spin was so bad that some commentators were congratulating the Prime Minister's people on setting expectations so low that they were bound to be exceeded. One wrote on the day before polling:
There is one battle Gordon Brown has already won. In the contest to set the lowest possible expectations for tomorrow's local elections, the prime minister is the clear winner.
Oh no he isn't. Gordon was doing his "no spin is the new spin" thing and allowed the press to set expectations too high: that matching the party's previous lowest vote share of 26 per cent would be some kind of victory for grim determination.
Not that, as a spin doctor, I would have had an answer to the point made by Andy Grice in his excellent front-page report today. Getting rid of Tony Blair was supposed to make Labour more popular. Even I accept that, had Blair carried on until November this year as I wanted him to (longer-serving prime minister than Margaret Thatcher and all that), Labour would have won even fewer votes yesterday. But only because the party and the heir apparent failed to give him the support he (and, as we see today, they) needed.
Good leadership requires having the courage to risk allowing those who are to be led to show their opposition, typically by allowing them to vote in a democracy.
Brown lacks this courage.
1. When he and Blair went for the leadership of the Labour Party, he prefered to do a deal where he would be given the Leadership after Blair rather than stand against Blair and risk losing the election.
2. When he did replace Blair, after years of back-stabbing, it was clear to all that any serious Labour contender who stood against him would never be forgiven and would have no place in his cabinet.
3. When he had an chance to get the electoral approval for his leadership, he was preparing for an election until it appeared that he would have a real fight on him hands, leading to him backing down, even though he was still likely to win.
The insult of "Bottler Brown" unfortunately appears more and more apt and the electorate can both see that, and I suspect are becoming more and more ashamed that such a man is the Prime Minister of Britain.
Posted by: A Williams | Friday, 02 May 2008 at 11:32 AM
A Williams
You say the PM lacks courage. How would you like it if you lost an eye at the age of 16, and still managed to get a double first at university one year ahead of schedule Oh but poor tory boy once cut his finger ona paper clip so he knows real bravery. LOL.
The PM should bring back the 10p tax
Posted by: dirty european socialist | Friday, 02 May 2008 at 05:18 PM
DES,
speaking as someone who's parent lost an eye I have to point out that unless Brown actually removed his own eye it does not show courage. Nor does completing university a year early. It merely shows you have a rather desperate hero worship on for Brown.
Posted by: A Williams | Friday, 02 May 2008 at 10:04 PM
A Williams
So it shows no courage then. Rubbish. It does show mental courage to come through that.
Posted by: dirty european socialist | Friday, 02 May 2008 at 10:49 PM
It would show mental courage if he had an alturnative to coping with losing an eye, but like my parent he had no choice but to deal with it, showing neither courage or cowardice.
Posted by: A Williams | Saturday, 03 May 2008 at 09:24 AM