Is it just me or did yesterday's 'apology' from the Prime Minister seems slightly insincere and more of an attempt to shut down this whole storyline once and for all six days after the whole event broke?
This is just isn't good enough from the leader of this great country, especially as his supporters have now come to accept, as second nature, his unspoken approval to target any enemies, including those within their own party.
Clearly, the press seems to largely agree with this analysis, as some of the quotes below suggest:
"Gordon Brown finds his high ideals sucked down into the swamp. In seeking to dis-associate himself from his aide, Damian McBride, the prime minister has been tormented by a persistent problem - not of his making, but not of his rejecting either. That is that the conduct of politics today now appears to demand the kind of skills in character assassination displayed by Mr McBride in his series of e-mails to the former Labour aides, Derek Draper and Charlie Whelan."
"Brown has become addicted to the demolition of opponents both internal and external. The origins of this run deeper than the tactics of guerrilla warfare he licensed again the Blairites in government. Brown was of the generation that had seen Labour lose repeatedly, and was determined to ensure it did not happen again. The Tories, he calculated, started with so many advantages, such as press support and backing from the City, that Labour would have to be twice as cunning and robust to destroy them. He and Peter, now Lord, Mandelson, were well ahead of Tony Blair on this, pioneering the techniques of rapid rebuttal, spin and an obsession with a strict adherence to the message."
The story so far: Damian McBride, a spin-doctoring aide very close to Mr Brown, devised a series of lurid smears about David Cameron, the Conservative leader, George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, his wife and others. They were meant for use on a scurrilous new website to be run by Derek Draper, a disgraced lobbyist turned psychotherapist turned re-disgraced internet propagandist, and were e-mailed to him from Mr McBride’s Downing Street address. Though the innuendoes were never deployed as intended, the e-mails were obtained by Paul Staines, a caustic anti-government blogger. Mr McBride resigned on April 11th. The aim of Mr Brown’s team since then has been to portray the sordid, if aborted, plot as aberrant freelancing by a rogue loner. It wasn’t. Mr McBride’s career, and the infantile antics that ended it, are hugely damaging precisely because they encapsulate some of the government’s most corrosive flaws. Some are noting that the Conservatives should be careful of not stretching this out and thus test voters patience. I disagree and, in my opinion, they should go hell for leather for a full independent inquiry into the role of the Cabinet Office in both the Smeargate affair and the Damien Green arrest to ensure that this culture of spin and innuendo is driven out once and for all from the highest office in the land.
THE stink of a cover-up hangs over Downing Street. Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell rules out an inquiry into whether minister Tom Watson knew about the “Smeargate” emails. He says he is happy to accept the minister’s denials, and the case is closed. That might be good enough for Sir Gus. It isn’t for The Sun. How can we know the full facts without an investigation, which means examining ALL emails involved? After all, Labour allow everybody else’s emails to be snooped on. Tom Watson was at the heart of Gordon Brown’s operations. He was in charge of Damian McBride, the Downing Street public servant who planned to smear Tories with obscene lies. Mr Brown’s mealy-mouthed “regrets” are no apology at all. Now we learn it is all to be swept under the carpet. And Mr Brown wonders why faith in Labour is draining away.
To set that tone, David Cameron needs to promise the electorate that the politicisation of the civil service ends with his election and that its independence, and its reputation, is restored.
Nothing else will do.
Comments
Hmm.
So Brown’s apology I thought was at too late a time to really have an impact. However, the tories were always likely to shout ‘insincere’ regardless of what he said. The very nature of the ‘s word’ in politics normally means someone demands and apology, apology is given, demander chortles about it being apologisers fault/apology was insincere.
You then, quote some columnist from right-wing newspapers; I mean, at least use some balance.
Finally, are you serious about Cameron changing spin in government?
I mean, with respect, Andy Coulson? Of course, he has never, ever been involved in any wrong doing and deception has he?
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=36734§ioncode=1
Do me a favour! McBride was nasty and should be flogged, Brown’s apology was too late, but Cameron employs the same nasty hacks as Brown.
He won't, of course, because he is a thankfully a very different individual to the PM.
The ‘lone gunman’ theory espoused by the Government about Damian McBride isn’t holding much water at the moment. If Brown and his ministers are innocent in all of this, then I would expect that he will announce a full and independent enquiry into the matter. However, I won’t hold my breath.
As for parroting the Charlie Whelan line about Coulson, I expected more from you than a pale imitation of the vizier in chief of Brown's spin machine. If Labour really think that the defence is that 'the tories are as bad as us', then you might as well admit defeat in the next general election now.
Regarding Coulson’s character, you should read two profiles from one ‘right wing’ paper
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/sep/08/conservatives.uk?gusrc=rss&feed=global
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/jun/03/pressandpublishing.marketingandpr
Hardly the devil in disguise which your party is trying to paint in a failed attempt to change the agenda.
The problem with Labour is that it likes to talk about Andy Coulson's past with the News of the World in terms of ‘sleazy journalism’ whilst it was more than happy to have the endorsement of that paper when Coulson was editor.
Can anyone within your party point to anything that Coulson has done since he was appointed to the Conservative team that would justify Whelan's argument?
I thought not. QED
An odd riposte, which primarily tries to paint me as some labour insider and partial to the culture you describe.
The speculation around who know what of McBride’s work is fair game, I certainly have no knowledge of that. My own speculation, added with some experience when I used to work in political circles, was that scurrilous gossip was unfortunately part of the everyday lexicon from all sides. The McBride affair is a watershed moment, but it is naïve to believe this was the first time such ideas have been proposed, and that it has only ever been done by Labour.
It was horrible, families are simply not fair game, I was disgusted, so was the party I belong to.
My argument is that the political and media elite, of which you are part of far more than myself, is inherently involved in this culture. The McBride affair was a dark day for the Labour Party and the Brown Government, there should be no denying of that. Frankly, I wasn’t aware or have a care in the world for Charlie Whelan’s opinion on things, he belongs that knowing political elite of the Westminster bubble. As poor kid from Pontypool, I have no experience or connection to that world.
Andy Coulson has a questionable past, much like other people who operate in his role. Do you honestly believe that the ‘dark arts’ of gossip, briefing and scandal is solely a Labour thing? I mean historically, such was the nastiness of the people like Bernard Ingham and others, Labour’s ‘spin’ operation was a direct response to it.
The cuddling up of the New Labour project to the shit rags is certainly not something I condone, we have a democracy that is essentially trial by media. You have yet to say whether your support of Guido’s comments regarding the mainstream media includes the titles you are paid to write for? More credit to you if that is the case.
My point isn’t to deflect away from Labour’s faults, but that you believe that such media tactics have never ever been part of the Conservatives spin operation. In terms of the next election; personally I don’t hold out too much hope, thems the breaks with democracy, eventually you get turfed out.
You are a political insider, part of the elite, you probably know more than me, which is why I find it odd you even think that somehow the Tory spin machine is like some cuddly set of pot smokers.