Newsletter
Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Poll
Jobs
Policy | Charity & Fundraising | Research | Education | Executive | Media | Social Care | Communications
User login
Analysis: Brown’s opponents will go wild over “bigot-gate”. Yet there may be a backlash
The Murdoch papers and the Tories are gleeful -- but will it really “cut through”?
By James Macintyre Published 28 April 2010 14:47
There is now no doubt that Gordon Brown's verbal exchange with a voter today, his private reaction and his subsequent difficult apology will be, for the media, the biggest "story" of this, the most important election campaign in decades. The main channels will lead their news bulletins on it. The newspapers will splash it across their front pages. The British arm of the Murdoch empire, in particular, will go wild. (I wonder what delightful discussions are going on at the Sun right now.)
And of course it was bad. Gillian Duffy seems well informed and decent, and did not, relatively speaking, express "bigoted" views, though her concerns about controlling immigration are a right-wing talking point. I am also relieved that Brown -- who all too often joins in the right-wing orgy on the subject -- showed a bit of passion and admitted that he found anti-immigration rants "annoying". But, for Labour strategists, the genie of Brown's private temper is out of the bottle.
However, the Prime Minister's many opponents should not be too quick to rush to judgement, and assume -- as one said to me today -- that it is "game over". As Adam Boulton has been pointing out on Sky News, the public sometimes reacts differently from the media. Ordinary people probably do not obsess about whether Brown is "exhausted", for example -- certainly not as much as middle-class, fluffy columnists do.
And the scene where the cameras moved in on Brown being replayed the painful clip at a radio studio may look all too much like bear-baiting to some, as will the bizarre scene of journalists physically making Mrs Duffy stick around, when she plainly wanted to walk away, and demand the inevitable apology (now delivered, not just by letter but also on the telephone, according to Downing Street). The Tories are hoping Labour's ratings will fall as a result of this human mistake. We shall see.
PS: To those who think that to suggest there may be a backlash against Brown-baiting is somehow aiding Labour "spin", I would point out that not only did I highlight Brown's temper in my last post, as I frequently do, but also that, as I write, the Spectator's Fraser Nelson is condemning Brown on Sky News.
I wonder if he would be doing the same thing if it had been David Cameron caught expressing a burst of rage off camera.
Tags: Election 2010
James Macintyre is political correspondent for the New Statesman.
Latest Posts by our Bloggers
From the magazine
-
Ryan Gilbey -
Rebecca Stott -
Will Self -
Jason Cowley -
Sophie Elmhirst -
Martha Gill -
Rafael Behr -
George Eaton -
John Pilger -
Rafael Behr
Elsewhere on the Blogosphere
- ConservativeHome
Could George Osborne's leadership ambitions deliver a referendum on the EU? - Political Scrapbook
Latest data shows recession worsen after Tory HQ attempt to spin figures - Coffee House
The coalition: two years in - Left Foot Forward
Spending watchdog slams Regional Growth Fund waste - James Kirkup
LOL: David Cameron's love-texts to Rebekah Brooks could mean voters laugh out loud – at his expense
Blogroll
- Alastair Campbell
- Benedict Brogan
- Coffee House
- Comment Central
- Conservative Home
- Dave's Part
- Gary Gibbon
- Guardian Politics
- Hopi Sen
- Iain Dale
- Labour List
- Labour Uncut
- Left Foot Forward
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Liberal Democrat Voice
- Luke Akehurst
- Neil Clark
- Next Left
- Our Kingdom
- Paul Waugh
- Penny Red
- Pickled Politics
- Political Betting
- Political Scrapbook
- Simon Fletcher
- The Bleeding Heart Show
- Think Politics
- UK Polling Report
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists
62 comments
My heart sank about 4pm today when I flicked to the BBC website and saw the headlines. This wasn't/ isn't the GB that I have seen over the years- no of course it was the Murdoch inspired one they need to perpetuate to
keep all the journos in jobs. The GB I've seen is the one in this speech, speaking passionately, knowledgeably and intimately about the world we live in today.
Show this BBC and stop trying to be mini Murdochs
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/gordon_brown.html
In June of 2007, the week in which Gordon Brown became PM I predicted, with some trepidation, in the popular Scottish broad sheet -The Herald, that he (GB) “will be quickly devoured by the Tory London media”. Chiefly, I felt, for cultural-political reasons –he was a dour, dark Presbyterian roundhead in an England looking for a politically cavalier leader. Indeed, leading that charge was Boris Johnson who, on hearing Brown’s opening speech outside 10 Downing Street, declared in The Telegraph, “It was after only a few seconds of Gordonian gurning and grunting that I felt almost suffocated by the earnestness of his utterances."
I concluded my Cassandra–like letter by suggesting that, “Labour under Mr. Brown could be consumed.”
It gives me no pleasure (as one who went to the same school as GB and a labour supporter) to see my predictions being fulfilled. His darkly troubled innate personality ( Nixon-like) was wholly unsuited to the role of political leader in the 21st century. This was compounded by having his political-personality wrapped in his fractured Scottish Presbyterianism, driving a near evangelical ambition to achieve, on behalf of his class. All of this at a time and a season when cyber-media people were looking for a cool, chilled-out, political hedonism, free from ‘being real’. The flawed brand Brown, is now the flailing, tragic-hero that we see desperately lashed to his whale of leadership.
David Wearing writes "beak for all your protestations, the fact is that you have had your chance to engage in reasoned discussion , and you have carefully avoided it" clearly you haven't read a thing I have written above. You may not agree with it but don't pretend it is not there. I have not disputed the fact that immigration over the centuries has deeply enriched our society. My point was that the last 15 years or so has seen a rapid increase on a scale we have not seen before. Again some of these immigrants will be playing an important role in Britain, but my point was a that this can not continue at this rate. From David's comments it appears he would b not have a problem with a population of 70 million, 80 million or 90 million? Not only is this comp-lately out of touch with the majority view in this country but I would suggest quite extreme. We already have some of the busiest roads, a lack of housing and waiting lists though the NHS but he offers no explanation of how we can suddenly rectify this problem - showing a certain naivety of the real world. Sounds good on paper but...... You refuse to even acknowledge any of these issue's and by assumption think all immigration is good.
All in all, your piece above proves exactly what I have been saying. Any reasoned person reading my posts would struggle to come up with any bigoted/racist intent but some how David does. This portrayal of anyone who does not agree with the governments immigration policy (or indeed yours) is vindictive and anti-democratic. You baulk at my suggestion that assimilation may be an issue with such numbers in a small amount of time, saying "puts me on very dodgy ground" Why does it? I am merely making a very valid point and in some cases pointing out fact. All you are doing is insinuating racism throughout your post.
I am not attempting to stigmatise anyone, as much as you seem to want me too. It is views like yours that have alienated voters and turned them against Labour. Just like Browns comments yesterday did. The only conclusion that can be drawn from your comments is that perhaps it is you that has the extreme views. By all means argue against my points but don't try and close down any debate by accusing me of bigotry and racism because you can't win the argument. It doesn't work.
"beak" - For all your protestations, the fact is that you have had your chance to engage in a reasonsed discussion, and you have carefully avoided it.
You claimed that Britain cannot cope with the current levels of immigration. I said:
1/ Given that immigrants both add and produce value - including economic value - the premise of your argument - that they/we constitute some sort of burden that cannot be coped with - is entirely spurious. (You alluded to the need to "assimilate", which, if it refers to cultural difference, potentially puts you on very dodgy ground indeed).
2/ Even if we were to accept your false premise, the fact remains that Britain is one of the wealthiest and most unequal countries in the world, with the richest 1,000 individuals owning fully one third of a billion pounds, for example. It is therefore hard to see why any lack of public resources suffered by people at the lower end of the income scale cannot be addressed through wealth redistribution, rather than by scapegoating lower and middle income scale immigrants (who are actually themselves producing wealth and tax revenues that can be used to fund public services).
3/ That (a) falsely portraying immigrants as a societal burden, and (b) choosing to blame levels of immigration for whatever scarcity of resources is experienced by ordinary people (kicking those around and beneath you rather than seeking justice from those above you) is a straightforward, classic xenophobic bigotry.
You could have addressed those points. I made them clearly and explicitly. You chose not to. So let us be clear: you don't want a reasoned debate. What you want - prepostrously - is to stigmatise and scapegoat immigrants as a societal burden, and not have that described as bigotry. Its a sad little performance, but hardly one that hasn't been seen before.
"We already have some of the busiest roads, a lack of housing and waiting lists though the NHS but he offers no explanation of how we can suddenly rectify this problem"
Now there are two options here, "beak". Either you have resorted in desperation to the pretence that I haven't written what I've written, or you simply suffer from an honest incapability to read plain English.
If anyone is thinking of voting New Labour next week, please come and see me so I can secure your place in Arkham Asylum for the next Batman title
david Wearing:
As I say to my dog, when she is annoyed by another dog:" leave it!". There is no point talking to guys like Beak, you are just wasting your time.
Mrs Duffy's question showed bigotry or at least plain ignorance. Her question was about why there were Eastern Europeans here. Brown told her, rightly that, being European, they had every right to come here, and that there were as many British in other European countries as there were European immigrants here.If she didn't know that, she was ignorant. If she did, she was being bigoted. Period.
Attacking Eastern Europeans is especially unfair as they are the ones who come here, NOT to steal your bloody benefits, but to do the jobs that English people don't want to do (preferring to stay on benefits) as a "Dispatches" program showed demonstrably, a few months ago.They come here to WORK.And they have shown they are hard working and reliable workers.Ask employers!
In that program, when Eastern Europeans were replaced by English people on the dole (who had been blaming the immigrants about their situation), most could't not even work until lunch time, when they bothered to turn up AT ALL! Let's face it, a lot of people who are on the dole for years is simply because they are just unemployable.Employers said that if the immigrants left, their business would simply go under as these migrants couldn't be replaced by English workers.
Chew on that Beak.
Best of all ?... watching Peter 'Gaylord' Mandelson defend his 'slave' !
David! You naughty little boy! How many times!?? Beak, please ignore him, David suffers from a mild form of retardation which makes him talk complete shit almost all of the time. Now come inside David, its tea time and you can hang up your Y fronts i just washed for you xx mum
That is rich David. Try going back and reading what i have put then you may realise you have made a bit of a fool of yourself. It seems your default position of calling someone a bigot/racist when they mention immigration has come back to haunt you. Pathetic.
Yes, I know what you've written. You continue to carefully avoid the rational discussion you falsely claim to be seeking by failing, in every one of your posts, to address the 3 points I presented (twice, for your benefit), and have even gone so far as to pretend that those points were not made. Instead of addressing those points, we're treated to the the normal self-pitying, Daily Mail, "political correctness gone mad" whinging. Truly desperate stuff.
I am with Gordon on this one, I am glad atlast that a poltician has been seen to express annoyance at a voter. This woman singled out "Eastern Europeans" as flocking to the country, then proceeded to do the usual and link this to the benefits system - even if very indirectly. My questions to her would have been where is the Eastern Europenan border? And are Western Europeans ok? Or are people with slightly darker skin from Italy or Spain also flooding in too? Also Gordon rightfully pointed out as many Brits (including myself) have migrated from the UK.
The voters get the people they deserve, and I think Britain deserves the BNP if it rallies round this woman.
His comment may even encourage me to support Labour to as to keep out the Tory/BNP marching band.
This woman however well meaning, was expressing the views of many Brits, e.g. ignorance of fact combined with bigotry.
Keep trying David, keep trying.
I have read your diatribes on here and they come no where near answering the question or solving the problems. You are not in the real world.
The fact you can not accept that not all immigration is good or whether you would be happy with double the current population speaks volumes. There is a comprmise solution here but i guess that is beyond you.
Now why don't you resort back to your "eveyone is racist" claim with people who don't agree with you? Now that is desperate.
"I have read your diatribes on here and they come no where near answering the question or solving the problems"
er...that's it? Sorry, I thought you wanted rational debate. Yet all you can manage in response to three articulated and reasoned points is the assertion: "you're wrong". And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming into saying that much.
What you really want is the right to have your half-baked, prejudiced non-arguments excused from any moral analysis.
This discussion has long ceased to serve any purpose. You claimed to want rational discussion. You were given several oppotunities. You carefully dodged them all. What a waste of time.
I had called for rational debate because you seem unable to have one without hinting at racism or bigotry in everyone of your posts. This isn't debate it is attempting to close down debate.
"your half-baked, prejudiced non-arguments excused from any moral analysis. "
Pot kettle black mate!
If you really think you put forward a reasoned argument,I think you need to take a long hard lok at yourself.
I had called for rational debate because you seem unable to have one without hinting at racism or bigotry in everyone of your posts. This isn't debate it is attempting to close down debate.
"your half-baked, prejudiced non-arguments excused from any moral analysis. "
Pot kettle black mate!
If you really think you put forward a reasoned argument,I think you need to take a long hard lok at yourself.
I won't chew on that thanks Danielle. You and DW seem to be the only clowns who think Mrs Duffey said anything wrong. But as both your default positions are to accuse anyone who discusses immigration of racism, i guess that is to be expected.
Thankfully the debate has move on from 5 years ago and even Labour dare not drag that nonsense up.
Intersting you base your argument on one tv programme.....
You say English people "don't want to do" these jobs that Eastern Europeans do. Ask yourself why? Maybe because it is easier to stay on benefits thanks to good old GB and his cronies.
Again people were lied to on the numbers of Eastern Europeans who might come in. You may be happy with this figure but you have no right to tell others to be as happy
Oh one other thing. You write
"There is no point talking to guys like Beak, you are just wasting your time"
Why because we may not agree with you? Diddums!
Delighted to see everybody keeping the gibber going. If we can keep this up we'll get to next thursday without switching our brains on at all, and then we can go into the polling booths and do as we're told.
Labour needs to rally its base if its to avoid meltdown in this election, and the sight of a Labour politician finally saying calling this nonsense about immigration what it is will do them little harm in that respect. The sort of people who reflexively blame foreigners for the state of the economy were highly unlikely to vote Labour in any case. A genuine Labour Party would not pander to them, but argue that the economy is in the state its in not because of immigrants, but because of financial banditry and the lax regulation that allowed that banditry to occur.
I do not think his comments were off. I think GB needs to use the comment to have a 'teachable' moment.
Just because someone does not recognise their bigotry does not mean that they are not. On a personal level, they may be good people for all we know. But many people are 'bigots' especially when they speak about immigration. It is always about 'those' and 'that' foreigners.
GB should use the comment to start and make a grown up speech about race/immigration/crime and how the country should respond to so called 'foreigners'.
Foreigners who help to build the country back after WWII, work in the NHS, in the City, and all over the UK as teachers, cleaners, social workers, doctors, lawyers, students, and generally honest people. And contribute to the wealth and growth of this country.
But most times instead of that conversation, the first thing we get are people like the lady, the moment they talk about decline in their community, link it to foreigners. Whether eastern European or from wider afield, taking their jobs and communities, it is non-sense.
We all need to grow up and sometimes an unguarded moment is just the tonic. Think Obama and the Rev.
Now we can have GB and Mrs. Duffy because they are many (good) people who like her may be festering 'bigoted' views about immigration and 'foreigners'.
Time for a National Conversation and GB needs to stand up and lead it. With the apology out the way, he should start that conversation and tell us why he was annoyed. Because they are lots of us annoyed with people like Mrs. Duffy. The issue is complex.
He can't defend his immigration policy because Labour hasn't had one for the last 13 years. They have let hundreds of thousands in year after year at completely unsustainable levels. They have no idea how many people here, legal or otherwise. Yes immigration enriches this country but not at the mass levels we have seen over the last decade. There has been tooo many, too quickly. This isn't about race, it is about numbers and that is why so many people are so fed up with it and want something doing about it. We simply do not have the infastructure to cope. In the words of the hapless prime-minister, we need to "get real"
'Oh just heard it. Yes, she's a bigot. Actually, she's a Mail reader. Not much difference, methinks'Mehdi Hussain on twitter
I see you colleague's Mehdi worldview disgrees with yours. Keep singing this tune about bigotry chaps I'm sure there are votes in it.
Beak,
sorry to say it comes down to being about race a lot of the time because people bundle the issues together.
So we need that National conversation.
Whether Immigration is or is not out of control is not the issue as such. There will be evidence for both sides of the argument I am sure.
What is the issue is that people are too quick to bundle immigration with declining areas, or crime, or losing their job.
And if you ask them, what numbers, what examples, who has taken 'their' job, they probably could not give you a concrete answer.
As for the infrastructure, the UK has more than enough space to cope. So the geography is not an issue.
It is a matter of sentiment and emotions.
And people need to know immigration is not a threat and that much that is good about the UK was due to immigration. Whether that was forced or otherwise free, from colonialism to WWI, WWII to modern UK. (Obviously that is just a cursory analysis but the point is there).
Switched Faser Nelson off: I can take a lot, but his particular type of middle-class-privately-educated-self-satisfied, Scottish drone drives me nuts.
No self knowledge and less awareness of anyone else's problems. The worst type of Scottish Tory.
And I speak as a Scot.
Gordon should take this opportunity to turn it round to Labour's advantage and wrong foot both the Lib Dems and Tories.
Resign today - Labour appoint an Interim Leader - game changer a la Clegg?
The space issue depends on whether you want the countryside concreted over or not. Most people don't I suspect.
David Wearing and "new voter" have got it right.
I am tired of the issue of immigration treated by all parties as something bad, like crime and pollution, which has to be controlled and even eradicated. Without immigration, this country would be nothing.
The underlying truth is that people like this woman are closeted racists who objects to "foreigners" being here at all. Period.
Nothing surprising when most British papers print the most outrageous lies about immigrants every day of the week. I am actually surprised there are still people who are NOT racist in this country, considering the brainwashing they are subjected to through the press.
As to GB, he was just so unlucky or careless to have been heard express his opinion of this woman. As if the other two wouldn't do that!
New voter is right. GB should take this opportunity to explain why he thought this woman was bigoted and attack head on, the prejudices about immigration and immigrants. Will he have the balls to do it? I doubt it unfortunately.
You lot can write what you want.
After this, anyone that votes Labour needs their head checking.
I agree about the space issue. I love the Lakes and the countryside. In fact I think loads more needs to be done to protect it but at the same time create sustainable economic activity to keep more people there.
But the central issue on immigration is getting the balance right about how we see the UK. What type of country do we want and then setting policy about immigration to achieve that.
It is not easy but again I return to the point, linking immigration and decline in your community is not how we should have the debate. And whether Mrs. Duffy realised or not, that is how she was framing the debate.
It is not healthy and does not help.
Pathetic.
A fake backlash perhaps, focussing on the "oh we all say things we dont' mean" claptrap - but we don't, actually. We dont' sit down and examine how we were put into a situation we didn't like, and try to find someone to blame. We dont' abuse people as bigots when they have said nothing bigotted at all. We don't then lie and spin and crucify logic to claim that we didn't mean what we said, we often say thinsg we dont' mean, we never mean anything bad and if we do, well it's all the Murdoch press's fault!
Brown is Brown Bread. This finishes it.
It's over.
Gordon, just go now please, before its all over for this country.
The surveillance society.
"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."
Bitten on the arse by a dangerous dog you bred yourselves....
This is his last chance to seize the initiative, come out fighting, sound of like he's got a pair and stop pandering to the notion that you have to be liked by everyone in order to be successful in politics. The way I see it, there's no option left BUT to try and turn this into a virtue.
Thought it wouldn't take long. The accusation of racism from Danielle. You may well be tired of the main parties talking about immigration but the most people have been crying out for this for years. People are genuinely concerned about it and to try and tar anyone who feels this way as racist is pretty pathetic. The papers may well exaggerate but the official statistics don't. Britain has assimilated immigrants over the centuries to great affect and there can be no question that this has been of great benefit to Britain. The last 15 years, though, has seen such a dramatic increase in such a short space of time that we can not cope. Because of idiots like you no one dare question it without the accusation of racism flying at them. This should be strictly about numbers and I think even Labour now realise they have lets things slip too far out of control. The strain on schools , houses and the NHS only backs up this point.
New Labour feels total contempt for their core vote. They abandoned Labour values for Liberal-left values. We "get it".
And here's you trying to put your own labour spin on the story. The fact is, THIS CREATURE IS PRIME MINISTER OF OUR COUNTRY. HE IS INSULTING A VOTER - whose husband has just died from cancer AND she also works with children. Brown is a cretin with no empathy or compassion but swollen with hubris and his own sense of entitlement. He has had this coming for a long time, and if the Tories and LibDems are gleeful, who can blame them?? It is refreshing to see him brought low by his own hand so to speak!
The idea that immigrants simply drain resources from the country, ignoring the wealth and value that they produce and add, is straightforward bigotry.
And as for the moronic idea that "we're full", well there's a simple answer to that: start deporting the racists.
"And as for the moronic idea that "we're full", well there's a simple answer to that: start deporting the racists."
This just shows your ignorance, Stop trying to close down the debate with accusations racism it is neither helpful or clever. You seem totally to miss the point about numbers. Gradual immigration works and benefits the country, mass immigration over a short time scale does not.
Maybe we should deport you for being a clown.
Good one David W.
We are not full. (As I said in earlier post is that we just need to decide what balance we want)
And the way the lady did frame the debate, it was bigotry in some form. And we should not pander to her. Apologise if necessary for the tone, so to keep the debate in context.
But then put a line under that, and have the National conversation about immigration/race/crime/declining areas. Show that they are not the same thing. So when people like Mrs. Duffy try to link them, even if only cursory, call time on her.
As for the strain on our schools, NHS etc that commentator 'Beak' speaks about. Look at it this way if we deport the so-called 'foreigners' we probably wouldn't have much of an NHS.
It is time to be grown up about all of this.
'start deporting the racists'
Grow up. Do you include all racists in that. Anti-semites too? What about blacks or asians who hate whites?(less of them I know but we should be consistant) Should racists in other countries also be deported?. Perhaps to here.
I know lets bully an old women and smear her if she doesnt confirm to our worldview. Even if we don't know her. Even if she does vote Labour. In fact I hope she doesnt. We don't need her sort. Good luck with that strategy.
oh ffs, johnj. You think I seriously want racists to be deported? Get a grip.
beak - you forgot to tell us we're being "swamped". Go on. Let it out.
I've just watched all the clips. This woman sounds exactly like the people who I hear everyday at the bus stop who moan about everything and blame everything on the foreigner/gays/blacks/muslims.
Amazing! Keep going David ,try and cry "racist" against me? Just proves you have lost the arguement!
I am talking numbers, not race You are using the old lefty tactic.
There is nothing in her comments to suggest she is a bigot. If there was, don't you think the Labour smear machine would be in full flow by now. The only people who claim so are the usual white, middle class liberals who pounce on any kind of language that they can twist.
New voter, you are correct on the NHS in that we do very well out of immigration. But we need to be able to determine the people who come on a basis of what we actually need.
Hey James, you still reckon Labour are having a good campaign, hmm?
Well said Danielle.
Beak - have you been reading the BNP manifesto yet again?? I am suprised that you didnt use the other typical retort of "you are a leftist".
"Beak - have you been reading the BNP manifesto yet again?? I am suprised that you didnt use the other typical retort of "you are a leftist".
Well James would you like to back that up and say where in my comments has been in the BNP Manisfesto or are you just doing exactly what i said above?
Let me guess? Smear smear smear.
Grow up lad!
Actually James thank you providing me with the perfect example of what I have been saying! Case in point!
Danielle that is because for too long, people who have tried to have reasoned debate on immigration are immediately shouted down as racists/bigots by people who disagree with them. It is very easy to attempt to tar someone with this brush in the hope that mud sticks but it is a cowardly trick, normally by someone who can't win the arguement fairly.
You write "You don't win arguments by being rude and offensive" Maybe, but at the same time you don't win an argument by accusing someone of being racist when you you don't agree with them.
Post new comment