Cameron and Brown hire the Obama magic

Parties prepare for the TV debates.

The Times and FT report today that Camps Brown and Cameron have reached across the Atlantic to borrow a little of Barack Obama's election-winning know-how to help them get into shape for the leaders' television debates.

The Tories have hired Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director (name-checked on this blog yesterday for praising the Daily Show's Jon Stewart), and Bill Knapp, in the form of Squier Knapp Dunn Communications (check out the flag-waving website). Brown, not to be left behind, has employed the services of Joel Benenson, Obama's lead campaign pollster and strategist.

Shipping in American expertise is a good idea -- they are experts at the TV debate format, which is new to British politicians, and the subject of apparently lengthy wrangling between the parties about structure, style and protocol. Perhaps they will import a little professionalism to their speaking styles: the Brits are schooled in the art in the House of Commons, more of a conker-bashing playfight than a forum for serious policy debate.

And it makes sense to turn to the Obama team -- they won, in a legendary campaign, in spectacular fashion.

But I can't help but suspect that the real motive is that Teams Brown and Cameron simply want a magical injection of Obama's qualities (in his vote-winning election incarnation, as opposed to his present embattled state). Hiring his people is one way of getting the fix.

It's like the photo-opportunity fight, the who's-better-friends-with-him tussle, all over again. Remember those cringing pictures of Brown clinging on to Obama's handshake with a pleading look in his eyes (see above)? Or the news that when they met, Cameron gave Obama gifts including a box of CDs by some of the Conservative leader's favourite British musicians, among them the Smiths, Radiohead, Gorillaz and Lily Allen. Translation: "I'm hip; I'm cool; just like you! BE MY FRIEND."

NB: Of course, Cameron now deems poor old Allen "unsuitable" (watch her career crumble before your very eyes). And all this proves is that the Dave U-turn is alive and well and affecting all the great issues of the day.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

 

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.