Uncategorized

by

Grey reports, grey suits, grey days for the PM.

Late on Wednesday after PMQ’s and what appears to have been a poorly received meeting with Tory backbenchers the PM’s team went into crisis management overdrive.

First priority, don’t let things get worse by allowing the PM to speak to anyone. He needed to be unavailable for interview. That was quickly sorted when a member of the PM’s family tested positive for Covid. Why they thought to test the pet goldfish is unclear. In an uncharacteristically swift commitment to the rules the PM went straight into lock down.

Next they needed time. They needed a narrative to neuter the immediate calls for his resignation. Time is the only possible friend the PM has at the moment. Who knows what might happen tomorrow, Russia invade Ukraine, China invade Taiwan, Jacob Rees Mogg invade Scotland. Any of these would shift the spotlight and buy more time. But where could they get the time?

The investigation by Susan Grey was the solution. We all needed to wait for Susan’s fact finding work to be concluded before we came to any conclusions about the PM. Having all the facts is something that any fair judgement should be based on. It sounds so reasonable.

Obviously, this involves a jaw dropping piece of double think in that the PM confirmed the relevant facts at the dispatch box indeed apologised, with qualifications, for what he had done. Not clear what additional facts help in this decision. However, logic, truth, facts are all so many weapons to be picked up, bent and dropped as occasion requires.

Next, the detailed comms. This starts with presentational guidance and here we have the tried and tested 4 rule approach that has been used for years now. Rule one, consistency. Everyone recites exactly the same answer, whatever the question, across the media. Rule two, gravitas. Speak seriously, gravely and with absolute confidence. Do not, for a moment allow your brain to engage with what you are saying. This is the kind of schoolboy error which leads to doubt and that can be heard in the voice. Rule three. If the questioner suggests the answer does not address the question, then repeat the same answer speaking as before except more slowly and precisely, as if your questioner is either deaf or dim. Finally, rule four. Whatever questions are asked from then on revert to rule three.

Next, content. First, accept mistakes have been made. Next, point out the PM made a “fulsome” apology. Next the switch. Refer to the investigation into all the facts that is being carried out by Sue Grey. Emphasise how thorough and independent minded Sue is. Don’t mention who she will submit the report to. Then, the close. Claim it is obviously only fair to wait for all the facts before judgements should be made about who should and should not resign. Finally, refer, as if in passing, to what a good job the PM has done on the “big calls”, Brexit, and Vaccination. Don’t be drawn into detail on this.

So on Thursday morning it started on the Today programme and was repeated by different ministers through the course of the day. We need to wait for the facts to be determined by the estimable Susan Grey whose character is unimpeachable. Once she has completed her work we will all be in a better position to decide.

Next stage wheel out cabinet ministers to provide statements of support. Stick to the big calls line. Avoid detail. Don’t take questions.

Next, prepare to shape the appearance of the Sue Grey report. Provide selective leaks so its shock value is undermined. Get someone to read through forensically and look for any ways in which it can be undermined or weaponised. Don’t forget strict logic is not a constraint in the process.

Finally, make sure all those involved in the “alleged” parties know what they think and ensure they have not left any inadvertent clues lying about on their phones, laptops or other electronic devices.

The first part of all this is, I think, not far from the truth. You only have to listen to the news through the course of the day to know a clear narrative has been set and applied. The latter part may be true and actually is by far the riskiest part of the whole strategy. Usually it is the cover up that delivers the killer punch.

Having said all this I suspect all this effort is likely to be of no avail. It looks very much like the judgement train has left the station. The public are not going to carefully parse a dry report on facts about the parties. And it certainly will not change their opinion.

People have watched relatives die on IPads and adhered to the most stringent curtailment of their freedoms since the second world war at the behest of the PM. The vast bulk of the population have seen the logic of what was needed and behaved with incredible restraint and probity.

When the author of the rules flagrantly breaches them, it cuts through. When he apologises but goes on to say he did not realise it was a party. It adds insult to injury.

Boris has lost the public. What is more, if he battles on it is virtually certain he will make his position worse. Cabinet colleagues and leadership contenders will need to think carefully about how much of their political capital they are willing to expend on defending the indefensible.

This is not a situation where Labour supporters are making a routine call for resignation. Many thousands of Tory voters are doing the same. The PM’s one strength was his ability to connect with the public and win elections. He has now lost that. The past year has seen a succession of spectacular own goals which have eaten away at the credibility of the PM and the Conservative Party.

Boris is famous for being able to get out of tight corners, but his slippery skills are now set against the ruthless power focus of the Conservative Party. He now looks like a loser and worse a liability. There can be few believe he will be able to change.

On Sunday there will be some awful headlines and possibly some further revelations and new poll numbers showing Labour pulling ahead of the Tory’s. In their constituencies and constituency party Conservative MP’s will be getting a grilling from their Chairs particularly those in red wall seats. Positioning for a challenge has already started with soundings amongst grandees and funders.

The men in grey suits will be calculating when is the optimum time to tap the PM on the shoulder. Next week as MP’s come back from their constituencies one suspect the calculation will only be when not if.

Allowing a culture to arise where breaches of the rules within government are allowed is a serious failure of judgement. Participating in the breaches is a disgrace. Pretending you did not know is duplicitous. But the worst thing of all is not understanding what you have done is just wrong. That is what has hurt the public and that is the tragedy of Mr Johnson – not having a clear understanding of the difference between right and wrong.

by

The limits of democracy

My last blog mentioned Ben Rhodes’ book After the Fall. In that, Mr Rhodes recounts a conversation he had with Alexey Navalny about the importance of America as a positive example of democracy. He quotes Mr Navalny as saying “Here’s why Trump is a tragedy for us. All my literature is based on the idea that free elections are a system where a better guy becomes higher and a worse guy becomes lower. And now what is the example? At the high point of this democracy there is someone corrupted.” Whilst I have nothing but admiration for Mr Navalny I feel his view of the benefit of democracy sets the bar too high.

Democracy does not guarantee the best governments. What it does do is limit the power of the worst through the operation of an independent judiciary, a free press and a host of other checks and balances which distribute rather than concentrate power. It also provides a route to getting rid of really bad leaders without recourse to violence.

US democracy was tested by the Trump presidency, and, like many other would-be tyrants he attacked the institutions that limited his power. Ultimately, however, he was voted out of office. Messy? Maybe, but effective.

Trump’s attempt to remain in power was not successful because enough people across the US political system, including his own vice President and, critically, the military, remained loyal to the office of president as opposed to its holder. Loyal to the fundamental foundation of the democratic process.

Clearly, the challenge to American democracy continues and Trump threatens to run again in 2024 and there are a lot of people who would vote for him. His chances would be much reduced, however, if a key part of the political political system in the US said what they think about him.

In a two party democracy the role of the opposition is critical and GOP has a huge burden of responsibility going forward. Their failure to make clear allegations about electoral fraud have no evidence to support them, and that the claim the election was stolen is a dangerous lie, creates enormous political risk. It means millions of US citizens will have their trust in democracy undermined. They will believe there is a credible case for Trump having been cheated of the presidency.

GOP members were alongside Democrats under the tables on 6 January and very happy to be taken to a safe location. In a country with a very well armed population, any undermining of the legitimacy of the process whereby candidates secure power is a high stakes game. If people do not accept the result of an open and free democratic process you have got to worry about what they put in its place.

Mr Navalny may not be clear on the limits of democracy, however, I am certain he is crystal clear on the limits of its absence. Democracy may only be the least worst political system but in the messy world of politics that means practically it is the best. The Republicans would do well to reflect on this.

by

Nation Building Begins At Home

Earlier this year in an interview with the Washington Post about his recent book, “After the Fall” Ben Rhodes, National Security Advisor under President Obama, outlined what he felt was the first and overarching point of the work – “… we need to get our own democracy in order, […] the democratic example that America is setting and the way that that ripples out around the world is the most consequential thing, and people in foreign policy can lose sight of that.”

His words carry a particular poignancy in the aftermath of the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle. Twenty years commitment, two trillion dollars of treasure and the blood of two and a half thousand US troops, and the net result? A Taliban led government within days of the last US evacuation. It is unsurprising many Americans are asking, “what was it all for?”

There are certainly lessons to be learned about how one supports a nation with the transition to democracy. Probably the strongest being to stamp down hard on corruption particularly amongst the political elite you have installed and sustain but also with the domestic organisations tasked to assist the nation being helped.

It is almost certainly the case the Afghan army collapsed as quickly as it did because their material support was depleted by corrupt diversion of resources, and their morale undermined by knowledge their political and military masters were doing this to them. There is a succinct outline of this in the ever insightful FT podcast “The Rachman Review“.

The war on terror sparked by the murderous attack on the twin towers was always long on rhetoric and short on strategy. Mission creep turned into mission sprint, but then degraded into the marathon crawl of a forever war. When he came into office Biden did not have a good option. It could be said he played a bad hand badly, however, it is very difficult to see how there was ever going to be a good outcome.

It remains to be seen what it does to his poll ratings in the longer term. Whilst currently the population is smarting at the national humiliation there has long been a solid demand to get out of Afghanistan. As the scenes in the airport fade the performance of the economy will, as so often, prove to be the bellwether of political support.

Whether you see the promotion of democracy as the cynical attempt to extend US power around the globe, or a principled attempt to extend the freedoms it promises to the oppressed, its execution is fundamentally, if not fatally undermined, if it is not working back home.

A society which is convulsed with racism; which locks up a greater proportion of its population than any other on earth; where hundreds of thousands live below the poverty line; where the rule of law is bent to create Guantanamo no law zones; where mass shootings are common place; where the Seat of the Legislature can be invaded and temporarily taken over; its difficult to present this as a City on a Hill.

To act as a beacon the US needs to present a model of a way forward. A guide to a better way of organising things for the benefit of all. At the moment the beacon is diminished with implications for democracies around the world and those striving to achieve them. The fear is it is extinguished.

After the Fall: Being American in the World We’ve Made. Ben Rhodes. Bloomsbury Publishing 2021.

by

Is Biden Compromised?

When he campaigned for the presidency Joe Bide talked about how he would work positively for all Americans, with all Americans. How he would cooperate with colleagues in both Houses of Congress and from both parties. Reaching across the aisle to secure a bipartisan way forward.

His claims were built on a long track record of being a dealmaker. Someone who would negotiate in good faith, stick to his word and where necessary compromise to secure progress. He recognised that politics is often about satisficing. Not getting everything you want but getting enough to make a difference.

Sadly, that skill was beginning to lose its currency in the Obama administration. Senator Mitch McConnell pursued an increasingly scorched earth policy ignoring constitutional precedents, blocking the presidents power to appoint to the Supreme Court for the whole of his last year in office.

This, no quarter, approach to politics was placed on speed with the advent of President Trump. After four years of aggressive partisan politics, part of the attraction of Joe Biden was his contrasting personal integrity and obvious democratic instinct to work in partnership across the democratic spectrum.

He has tried to do it. He has negotiated endlessly with the GOP and even with two of his own senators to try to get his key legislation through. The scale of his programme has been slashed dramatically and attempts to get billionaires to pay their share of the costs has been defeated. Whatever does get through the legislature will be a shadow of his intended transformational programme.

Interestingly, in his three terms in office FD Roosevelt faced similarly aggressive opposition from the Congress. Like Biden he was a person who could see the need to compromise occasionally. But unlike President Biden he did not focus all his efforts within the Washington beltway. He used the emerging social media of the time, the wireless, to speak directly to the people with his fireside chats. He did exhausting cross country tours to speak directly to people.

He spoke with clarity and in simple terms about what he was trying to achieve and, more importantly, why it mattered to the people he was speaking with.

Ex President Trump is thought to have understood the importance of social media and the need to speak directly, in person, to his followers. The reality may be his personality required the adulation of crowds, in person and in the Twittersphere. Who knows?

Clearly, Joe Biden should not ape Trump. But he should learn from his building grass root support for policies and political positions thus placing strong pressure on members of the Senate and House to follow his lead.

The result in the Virginia gubernatorial is a warning light. There may be all manner of local factors that have effected this race however the shift from the presidential election is alarming. It demonstrates the Biden message is not getting through. Just not being Trump would be enough for many millions of people but it is not enough to secure the Midterms and certainly not enough for 2024.

Biden has worked really hard to explain the importance and benefit of his programme to law makers, it is now time to focus on the law takers.