Why aren't Flowers and Falkirk impacting voting intention despite best efforts from many sides? Mainly, I think, because nobody in ordinary life has ever heard of any of the people involved. Flowers does sound dodgy and it's a pity that he was able to get as far as he did, but sometimes people with a confident front do make a good impression (David Herdson gave what sounded like a very fair assessment of him), and it's impractical to launch a full-scale investigation of the past life of everyone you encounter. The Mail is also suffering from being a busted flush as overworked Witchfinder in Chief on Labour stories - it's getting like the Express and Diana, more a source of amusement than interest.
Fenster's thoughtful post yesterday and Hopi Sen's blog are right. People will vote on the basis of much more deep-rooted preferences and antipathies, and pursuing each others' fringe issues is fun but ultimately a distraction from actually persuading anyone. People have lost track of what the Government thinks it's about, and unless a confident narrative is re-established, their prospects remain dim.
When Plebgate broke, were you as forgiving of Mitchell as you are of Flowers? After all, few people would have heard of Mitchell outside the political anorak circles.
I'm not sure you made a similar post back then, over what was an untruthful allegation of many orders of magnitude less seriousness.
It's all very entertaining. Rev Flowers is apparently a non-story - that he's been a Labour councillor, alleged procurer of rent boys/sacked for porn on his office computer/diddled 150k in expenses, ruined the Coop... oh and filmed buying crack and meth...
The dangerous bit would be if the inquiry shows that Labour helped to appoint a nincompoop to a top job just because he was one of theirs. It may happen with all parties but Labour seem to corner the market in this sort of thing.
Unless any other evidence emerges it looks like the Flowers mess was made in the COOP and presided over by the FSA - I very much doubt there was any direct Labour involvement other than to say "nice to meet you again" you when introduced to the new COOP Chairman.....the Labour head of Bradford Council might have done his colleagues a favour had he been more forthcoming about Flowers unsuitability for high office - but that buck appears to stop with him.
None of this alters the politics which is that the Tories will seek to extract maximum political embarrassment for their opponents from this mess - just as a Labour would do.
Amusing some PB tories are so utterly desperate to deny the obvious in that without the sex and drugs there would be no Flowers story. Allegedly or not.
Why aren't Flowers and Falkirk impacting voting intention despite best efforts from many sides? Mainly, I think, because nobody in ordinary life has ever heard of any of the people involved. Flowers does sound dodgy and it's a pity that he was able to get as far as he did, but sometimes people with a confident front do make a good impression (David Herdson gave what sounded like a very fair assessment of him), and it's impractical to launch a full-scale investigation of the past life of everyone you encounter. The Mail is also suffering from being a busted flush as overworked Witchfinder in Chief on Labour stories - it's getting like the Express and Diana, more a source of amusement than interest.
Fenster's thoughtful post yesterday and Hopi Sen's blog are right. People will vote on the basis of much more deep-rooted preferences and antipathies, and pursuing each others' fringe issues is fun but ultimately a distraction from actually persuading anyone. People have lost track of what the Government thinks it's about, and unless a confident narrative is re-established, their prospects remain dim.
Nick it does not matter that they are not impacting on voting intention, the corrosion in public trust in all parties and major institutions is deeply damaging for politics and pubic life as a whole. I am intrested in politics, but I have been sickened by the MP expenses , phone hacking, bankers, how leaders in all walks of business never take resposibility then walk away, with large amounts of cash, destroying ordinary people jobs in the process on many occasions.
The cynicism is growing everywhere.
Politicians like Michael Heseline who acted to stop innocent people going to jail regarding the Scott enquiry even though it would embarrass his own government, seem a long way from todays standards.
When Plebgate broke, were you as forgiving of Mitchell as you are of Flowers? After all, few people would have heard of Mitchell outside the political anorak circles.
I'm not sure you made a similar post back then, over what was an untruthful allegation of many orders of magnitude less seriousness.
Pretty much, I think. I've no time to trawl back, but I said that Mitchell had been seriously wronged as soon as the facts became clear. I don't think I predicted a strong public response when the allegations were made, and there wasn't one - a few people mentioned it on doorsteps but most just registered that some politician they didn't know had allegedly said something unpleasant, shrug.
I don't feel very forgiving towards Flowers, by the way - my post was about why typical voters aren't reacting as, say, the Mail might wish. We overestimate these things on pb, mainly because we talk about politics as often as teenagers supposedly think about sex (every 20 seconds or whatever it is) and most people only think seriously about politics once or twice a year.
The Flowers story is essentially a very sad story about a very personal fall from grace. Nothing that has been revealed so far really implicates the Labour leadership and unless something emerges which very clearly fixes Miliband and Balls with knowledge of Flowers' misconduct (and I am not referring here to his earlier public misdemeanour) and/or their personal intervention in his appointment by the Co-op, I don't think this story will be particularly damaging to Labour.
Nor, on the facts of the story alone, should it be. It is too much of a stretch to blame party leaders for the personal failings of local councillors or people they appoint to advisory boards or accept donations from (or people connected to companies they accept donations from, to be accurate).
However, it is difficult to have any sympathy for Labour. Previously they have made hay on the subject of the Prime Minister's relationships with third parties accused of wrongdoing. They have screamed for public inquiries, resignations and admission of terrible judgement. The parallels are clear. Schadenfeude. As some of us said at the time, Labour should have been much more circumspect in their criticism. Perhaps this will give them cause for thought and instil some much-needed humility. Perhaps.
Perhaps more significantly, there is now a theme emerging of Labour struggling to accept their own inadequacies. There is no question that if the facts of Falkirk and the Co-op were reversed, Labour would be having a field day. It would be as clear as day to them that the matters should be investigated, publicly, and the politicians held to account. It is not sufficient to say that this is just politics, and all politicians are opportunists, though that is true to an extent; we are all inclined to be more forgiving of ourselves and more lenient on those we are close to. If Labour lived up to the values they claim to espouse they would be accepting the need for both matters to be investigated, urgently and publicly. Otherwise the charge of hypocrisy weighs heavily on them.
Amusing some PB tories are so utterly desperate to deny the obvious in that without the sex and drugs there would be no Flowers story. Allegedly or not.
I wonder why?
LOL
Yes, because its not like a bloke with high up labour connections with no banking experience at all gets to be chairmen of a bank so strongly linked with the labour party and runs it into the ground is a proper story..
When Plebgate broke, were you as forgiving of Mitchell as you are of Flowers? After all, few people would have heard of Mitchell outside the political anorak circles.
I'm not sure you made a similar post back then, over what was an untruthful allegation of many orders of magnitude less seriousness.
Pretty much, I think. I've no time to trawl back, but I said that Mitchell had been seriously wronged as soon as the facts became clear. I don't think I predicted a strong public response when the allegations were made, and there wasn't one - a few people mentioned it on doorsteps but most just registered that some politician they didn't know had allegedly said something unpleasant, shrug.
I don't feel very forgiving towards Flowers, by the way - my post was about why typical voters aren't reacting as, say, the Mail might wish. We overestimate these things on pb, mainly because we talk about politics as often as teenagers supposedly think about sex (every 20 seconds or whatever it is) and most people only think seriously about politics once or twice a year.
"As soon as the facts became clear."
When was that? November? You didn't think that the whole story was dodgy from the get-go?
When was that? November? You didn't think that the whole story was dodgy from the get-go?
Excuse me if I'm sceptical.
BTW, I'm going to PM you about something...
No, it sounded plausible enough, a view which was pretty widely shared at the time. But I never really got really interested enough to study the details.
But you're excused! BTW, usually best to email me (nickmp1 at aol dot com) as I don't check the forum's PMs much.
Comments
I'm not sure you made a similar post back then, over what was an untruthful allegation of many orders of magnitude less seriousness.
This is a further extension of your view that deficit reduction has been washed from all parties agenda?
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/11/what-milibandism
Please don't discuss Andy Coulson or phone hacking directly or indirectly.
Anyone violating this rule, are likely to find their posting privileges revoked until after the conclusion of the phone hacking trials.
Which are expected to conclude next April.
Please remember that.
The moderating team are taking a zero tolerance approach to any comment that violates the wording and or spirit of this ruling.
Yup - nothing to see here - move along now.
None of this alters the politics which is that the Tories will seek to extract maximum political embarrassment for their opponents from this mess - just as a Labour would do.
It is hypocritical to suggest otherwise.
I wonder why?
LOL
I am intrested in politics, but I have been sickened by the MP expenses , phone hacking, bankers, how leaders in all walks of business never take resposibility then walk away, with large amounts of cash, destroying ordinary people jobs in the process on many occasions.
The cynicism is growing everywhere.
Politicians like Michael Heseline who acted to stop innocent people going to jail regarding the Scott enquiry even though it would embarrass his own government, seem a long way from todays standards.
I don't feel very forgiving towards Flowers, by the way - my post was about why typical voters aren't reacting as, say, the Mail might wish. We overestimate these things on pb, mainly because we talk about politics as often as teenagers supposedly think about sex (every 20 seconds or whatever it is) and most people only think seriously about politics once or twice a year.
Nor, on the facts of the story alone, should it be. It is too much of a stretch to blame party leaders for the personal failings of local councillors or people they appoint to advisory boards or accept donations from (or people connected to companies they accept donations from, to be accurate).
However, it is difficult to have any sympathy for Labour. Previously they have made hay on the subject of the Prime Minister's relationships with third parties accused of wrongdoing. They have screamed for public inquiries, resignations and admission of terrible judgement. The parallels are clear. Schadenfeude. As some of us said at the time, Labour should have been much more circumspect in their criticism. Perhaps this will give them cause for thought and instil some much-needed humility. Perhaps.
Perhaps more significantly, there is now a theme emerging of Labour struggling to accept their own inadequacies. There is no question that if the facts of Falkirk and the Co-op were reversed, Labour would be having a field day. It would be as clear as day to them that the matters should be investigated, publicly, and the politicians held to account. It is not sufficient to say that this is just politics, and all politicians are opportunists, though that is true to an extent; we are all inclined to be more forgiving of ourselves and more lenient on those we are close to. If Labour lived up to the values they claim to espouse they would be accepting the need for both matters to be investigated, urgently and publicly. Otherwise the charge of hypocrisy weighs heavily on them.
grow up.
When was that? November? You didn't think that the whole story was dodgy from the get-go?
Excuse me if I'm sceptical.
BTW, I'm going to PM you about something...
Saying 'Cameron's ex press secretary is being tried at the Old Bailey' is so obviously true that I'm left scratching my head.
But you're excused! BTW, usually best to email me (nickmp1 at aol dot com) as I don't check the forum's PMs much.