'Golden Brown' & 'Brown and out' - The policies and perceptions of Gordon Brown

At the risk of fisking Steve Richards’ article, Richards is generous in his description of the Brown government’s achievements and underplays the influence of the economy on public opinion. Nonetheless, it is recommended reading as it highlights that the media and electorate are preoccupied by personality and that the portrayal of Cameron as substantive and progressive is maddeningly deceptive. Richards warns that the problem for the Brown government is that despite some heartening policies, “Policies are easily lost if they do not fuel the prevailing narrative”.

Tony Blair had a genius for making the incremental seem exciting. Between 1994 and 1999, if Blair had announced he was going for a short walk around the garden of No 10, the world would have hailed a revolution in transport policy. So, imagine the excitement if Blair had declared in 1997 that a Labour government would take over greedy train operators, high earners would pay more tax, the free market in energy was over and that we must all plan to pay for care for the elderly, with the well-off paying more.

The present government has announced policies along these lines in recent months and quite a few more, too. Yet it is loathed by voters from left and right. It has no support in the media and is accused of lacking purpose. [...]

The disparity is striking. When Blair was cautiously dumping the referendums on electoral reform and the euro, ruling out any tax rises, keeping to the previous Tory government's spending plans and refusing to touch the privatised railways, he and Labour were hailed for their energetic crusade. Now, by comparison, Brown looks pale and miserable and some of his ministers hide away in a state of indifference - yet they display erratic boldness.

[... In response to increasing taxes for high earners] The papers screamed their disapproval, but polls suggest the move was by far the most popular the government had made for some time. [... The policies] announced in recent months hint at a coherent outlook that would certainly enhance the quality of most voters' lives. [… Yet] voters see only the obvious flaws. Brown is a hopeless communicator who when questioned looks irritated at best and at worst miserable. In public, he is incapable of using humour, a powerful weapon in the political artist's armoury. [...]

The comparison between the adulatory response in 1997 to a timid government and the contempt shown towards one that dares to be bolder shows the limited relevance of policy in shaping perceptions. To reinforce the point, a Conservative Party that has returned to its comfort zone of sweeping spending cuts and Euroscepticism is hailed for its modernisation and seen widely as an agent of change.

A few links & a video

I intended to link articles by Tabloid Watch and Enemies of Reason; however, Angry Mob not only beat me to the punch but also did so with style. I make no apology for this blog-post loop as Angry Mob’s post includes the links and adds substantial value. The topic itself is the media’s lacklustre response to anti-Muslim protests – “rather than being roundly condemned on the front page of every tabloid they are left to small articles and are treated somewhat sympathetically in them.” In response to the, at least, 1451 people who voted in favour of the views of a “fucking moron”, who believed that the violence was “due to Politcal [sic] Correctness”, Angry Mob writes:

Sadly this is the mindset of some people who think that political correctness is somehow stripping people of fundamental rights - and in some ways I guess it is.

For example, if you are the kind of un-evolved, ignorant, shit-kicker that attends this kind of protest then you have been stripped of the right to call a black person a 'nigger' or an Asian person a 'fucking Paki'. You can no longer beat up a person for being a different colour or for being gay. You have lost these rights because we live in a world that is on the whole becoming more tolerant - whatever you or the Daily Mail may think you are merely a noisy minority.

Also by way of Angry Mob, indirectly this time, an illustration by Procrastinationathon.

The video below is an animated music video interpreting the war on terror from the point of view of Leo Blair. Although it is a couple of years old, it still affects. If you can forgive the relatively obscure and pretentious reference, it is like something from Nancy Spero’s War Series in the internet age.



The video came via bloggerheads.

“In relation to Iraq I tried every other option [to invasion] there was”. It was Blair's classic lie, which passed unchallenged.

John Pilger on Blair’s current role – ‘Fake faith and epic crimes’.

In a separate indictment, former Judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court E.W. Thomas wrote: “My pre-disposition was to believe that Mr. Blair was deluded, but sincere in his belief. After considerable reading and much reflection, however, my final conclusion is that Mr. Blair deliberately ands repeatedly misled Cabinet, the British Labour Party and the people in a number of respects. It is not possible to hold that he was simply deluded but sincere: a victim of his own self-deception. His deception was deliberate.” […]

Protected by the fake sinecure of Middle East Envoy for the Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia), Blair operates largely from a small fortress in the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, where he is an apologist for the US in the Middle East and Israel, a difficult task following the bloodbath in Gaza. […]

On 8 February, Andrew Rawnsley, the Observer’s former leading Blair fan, declared that “this shameful period will not be so smoothly and simply buried”. He demanded, “Did Blair never ask what was going on?” This is an excellent question made relevant with a slight word change: “Did the Andrew Rawnsleys never ask what was going on?” In 2001, Rawnsley alerted his readers to Iraq’s “contribution to international terrorism” and Saddam Hussein’s “frightening appetite to possess weapons of mass destruction”. Both assertions were false and echoed official Anglo-American propaganda. In 2003, when the destruction of Iraq was launched, Rawnsley described it as a “point of principle” for Blair who, he later wrote, was “fated to be right”. He lamented, “Yes, too many people died in the war. Too many people always die in war. War is nasty and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short.” In the subsequent six years at least a million people have been killed. According to the Red Cross, Iraq is now a country of widows and orphans. Yes, war is nasty and brutish, but never for the Blairs and the Rawnsleys. […]

Ginny Dougary of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times. Dougary recently accompanied Blair on what she described as his “James Bondish-ish Gulfstream” where she was privy to his “bionic energy levels”. She wrote, “I ask him the childlike question: does he want to save the world?” Blair replied, well, more or less, aw shucks, yes. The murderous assault on Gaza, which was under way during the interview, was mentioned in passing. “That is war, I’m afraid,” said Blair, “and war is horrible”. No counter came that Gaza was not a war but a massacre by any measure.