Reflections from Manchester

Are the Tories "ready"?

The weather over the Labour and Conservative conferences was the reverse of the parties' moods. In Brighton, Labour gathered amid a sense of panic but bathed in seaside sun. Here in Manchester, the mood is calmer as the Tories prepare for power in the dreary autumn rain.

Are the Tories right to be upbeat? On the face of it, yes. David Cameron has carefully and skilfully led his party through a period of success not seen for ten years. As I discuss in my column tomorrow, he has done so without abandoning ideology, unlike the Labour Party when it was modernising itself.

George Osborne's speech on the economy yesterday was well received, his uncharismatic style compensated for by the realism and modesty of his message.

But beneath the gloss, this is the same old party: on the fringes, delegates express predictable views on immigration, Europe and spending. Their spectacles may have thicker and trendier rims, but Tory members remain overwhelmingly male and -- in the description of one broadcast journalist yesterday -- "hideously white".

On the other hand, although this party has not changed substantially, there is almost zero dissent or division. With victory perceived to be round the corner, this is the most united Tory conference I can remember. Eurosceptics are careful not to be provoked into deriding Cameron's own-goal on a Lisbon Treaty referendum. And MPs on the pro-European left are passive. The Tory Reform Group/Conservative Mainstream fringe has in recent years been a hotbed of rebellion and dissent, with Kenneth Clarke or Michael Heseltine challenging the leadership. This year a supportive Damian Green was on loyal form, refuting claims that Cameron has betrayed the Tory left. Steve Norris, the arch-moderniser, expressed genuine support for Cameron's leadership on and off the record. And it was left to Normal Lamont to say Labour could yet pull off an economic and then political recovery.

The Tories appear to be ready to take office. But there is something indefinably wrong here. Something about the collective psche that betrays complacency. This is a professional party, but it is not a government-in-waiting.

James Macintyre is political correspondent for the New Statesman.
Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496