President Newt Gingrich?

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives sees unlikely poll surge after gaffes from Cain a

Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives and White House hopeful, has been considered a dead loss in the Republican field -- until now.

With just seven weeks to go until the state caucuses in Iowa (the first seat to select the Republican presidential candidate), the latest poll has put Gingrich in the lead with 28 per cent. This compares with 25 per cent for former businessman Herman Cain, 18 per cent for front-runner Mitt Romney, and 6 per cent for Rick Perry, the governor of Texas. A CNN poll released on Monday showed similar results, putting Gingrich just two points behind Romney, with 22 and 24 points respectively.

The sudden hike has come after both Cain and Perry appeared unable to remember their own policies in extraordinary gaffes. Cain, in particular, was already struggling after a series of sexual harassment allegations. All of this has apparently made Gingrich look like the only viable alternative to Romney -- the former Massachusetts governor who has failed to excite Republicans. Several pundits have suggested that Gingrich's sudden rise is due to an "anyone-but-Romney" mindset.

The televised debates -- the downfall of Michele Bachman, Perry, and Cain -- have allowed Gingrich to shine, mocking the press, refusing to attack other candidates, and (crucially) having a clear grasp of domestic and foreign policy. Generally, Republicans perceive Gingrich as the candidate who will most effectively take the fight to Obama in televised debates.

He's certainly an unlikely winner: he is the only Speaker of the House ever to be disciplined for ethics violations, and has admitted being unfaithful to two of his three wives. He also has a reputation for arrogance (so much so that New York Magazine has posted this excellent slideshow of Gingrich looking at people condescendingly). His high self-regard can be seen in his assessment of his own campaign:

Because I am much like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, I'm such an unconventional political figure that you really need to design a unique campaign that fits the way I operate and what I'm trying to do.

While Gingrich is clearly confident, however, it's important not to read too much into this survey. As Mike Smithson points out at Political Betting, at this stage last year, Rudy Guiliani was way ahead in the polls, with the eventual winner, John McCain, trailing in third place.

The overwhelming impression from the polls remains that Republican voters are not particularly enthused about any candidate. "Things can change very rapidly," Gingrich said of his sudden turnaround in the polls at a campaign stop in Sheffield, Iowa. "In my case, a lot of news media said I was dead in June and July." In a race defined so far by gaffes and scandals, a lot could still happen between now and January.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Find the EU renegotiation demands dull? Me too – but they are important

It's an old trick: smother anything in enough jargon and you can avoid being held accountable for it.

I don’t know about you, but I found the details of Britain’s European Union renegotiation demands quite hard to read. Literally. My eye kept gliding past them, in an endless quest for something more interesting in the paragraph ahead. It was as if the word “subsidiarity” had been smeared in grease. I haven’t felt tedium quite like this since I read The Lord of the Rings and found I slid straight past anything written in italics, reasoning that it was probably another interminable Elvish poem. (“The wind was in his flowing hair/The foam about him shone;/Afar they saw him strong and fair/Go riding like a swan.”)

Anyone who writes about politics encounters this; I call it Subclause Syndrome. Smother anything in enough jargon, whirr enough footnotes into the air, and you have a very effective shield for protecting yourself from accountability – better even than gutting the Freedom of Information laws, although the government seems quite keen on that, too. No wonder so much of our political conversation ends up being about personality: if we can’t hope to master all the technicalities, the next best thing is to trust the person to whom we have delegated that job.

Anyway, after 15 cups of coffee, three ice-bucket challenges and a bottle of poppers I borrowed from a Tory MP, I finally made it through. I didn’t feel much more enlightened, though, because there were notable omissions – no mention, thankfully, of rolling back employment protections – and elsewhere there was a touching faith in the power of adding “language” to official documents.

One thing did stand out, however. For months, we have been told that it is a terrible problem that migrants from Europe are sending child benefit to their families back home. In future, the amount that can be claimed will start at zero and it will reach full whack only after four years of working in Britain. Even better, to reduce the alleged “pull factor” of our generous in-work benefits regime, the child benefit rate will be paid on a ratio calculated according to average wages in the home country.

What a waste of time. At the moment, only £30m in child benefit is sent out of the country each year: quite a large sum if you’re doing a whip round for a retirement gift for a colleague, but basically a rounding error in the Department for Work and Pensions budget.

Only 20,000 workers, and 34,000 children, are involved. And yet, apparently, this makes it worth introducing 28 different rates of child benefit to be administered by the DWP. We are given to understand that Iain Duncan Smith thinks this is barmy – and this is a man optimistic enough about his department’s computer systems to predict in 2013 that 4.46 million people would be claiming Universal Credit by now*.

David Cameron’s renegotiation package was comprised exclusively of what Doctor Who fans call handwavium – a magic substance with no obvious physical attributes, which nonetheless helpfully advances the plot. In this case, the renegotiation covers up the fact that the Prime Minister always wanted to argue to stay in Europe, but needed a handy fig leaf to do so.

Brace yourself for a sentence you might not read again in the New Statesman, but this makes me feel sorry for Chris Grayling. He and other Outers in the cabinet have to wait at least two weeks for Cameron to get the demands signed off; all the while, Cameron can subtly make the case for staying in Europe, while they are bound to keep quiet because of collective responsibility.

When that stricture lifts, the high-ranking Eurosceptics will at last be free to make the case they have been sitting on for years. I have three strong beliefs about what will happen next. First, that everyone confidently predicting a paralysing civil war in the Tory ranks is doing so more in hope than expectation. Some on the left feel that if Labour is going to be divided over Trident, it is only fair that the Tories be split down the middle, too. They forget that power, and patronage, are strong solvents: there has already been much muttering about low-level blackmail from the high command, with MPs warned about the dire influence of disloyalty on their career prospects.

Second, the Europe campaign will feature large doses of both sides solemnly advising the other that they need to make “a positive case”. This will be roundly ignored. The Remain team will run a fear campaign based on job losses, access to the single market and “losing our seat at the table”; Leave will run a fear campaign based on the steady advance of whatever collective noun for migrants sounds just the right side of racist. (Current favourite: “hordes”.)

Third, the number of Britons making a decision based on a complete understanding of the renegotiation, and the future terms of our membership, will be vanishingly small. It is simply impossible to read about subsidiarity for more than an hour without lapsing into a coma.

Yet, funnily enough, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Just as the absurd complexity of policy frees us to talk instead about character, so the onset of Subclause Syndrome in the EU debate will allow us to ask ourselves a more profound, defining question: what kind of country do we want Britain to be? Polling suggests that very few of us see ourselves as “European” rather than Scottish, or British, but are we a country that feels open and looks outwards, or one that thinks this is the best it’s going to get, and we need to protect what we have? That’s more vital than any subclause. l

* For those of you keeping score at home, Universal Credit is now allegedly going to be implemented by 2021. Incidentally, George Osborne has recently discovered that it’s a great source of handwavium; tax credit cuts have been postponed because UC will render such huge savings that they aren’t needed.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle