The plot against Brown thickens

Will the rebels get the job done?

There have been rumours of one final rebellion against Gordon Brown all week and now it's said to have reached cabinet level. Paul Waugh of the Evening Standard has the story. He says:

In the last few hours, the rumours have been swirling around again that a cabinet minister could quit in protest at Gordon's leadership. The plotters have certainly asked a sympathetic minister to do so -- but whether he will do so is another matter.

Channel 4's Gary Gibbon adds:

Now I hear that phones ran hot between backbench MPs, junior ministers and at least two cabinet members, it is claimed, over the Christmas break about how to bring the PM down.

If the rebels do make their move, let's hope they finish the job this time. A failed rebellion would be the worst of all possible outcomes for Labour. I'm convinced that the absence of a pre-eminent, Heseltine-style challenger remains a fatal stumbling block to a successful putsch.

But it's not surprising that significant parts of the PLP are considering one last heave against Brown. The psephological case against the PM remains formidable. As I've noted before, no prime minister as unpopular as him has gone on to win the subsequent election. Philip Gould has told the cabinet that Labour could win only if it replaced Brown.

The best argument I've heard for removing Brown is that a new leader will provide a poll bounce for Labour at just the moment the party needs it most. Had Brown been forced out last summer, the bounce would have ended by the election.

I expect more backbenchers to take up this argument in the coming days.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of 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