Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

What's eating Campbell

James Macintyre

Published 16 October 2008

Alastair Campbell is back as Labour's most feared communicator and strategic adviser. He talks to James Macintyre about what motivated his return

Campbell: how much work is he really doing for Gordon Brown?

“I can’t stand the sight of the Tories getting smugger’’

On 12 October, as the BBC broadcast a documentary about his breakdown and subsequent depression, Alastair Campbell was in Australia. The film was moving - Campbell confessed he still suffers from bouts of depression - but for hardened political observers it revealed little about his present position on the Gordon Brown government and, more generally, on domestic politics. It is known that Campbell is once again working behind the scenes for the Prime Minister, preparing to help out at the general election.

He remains fiercely loyal to the leadership of a party he has promoted for decades, first as a journalist and then as Tony Blair's director of communications. But Campbell is an obsessive, as he acknowledged in the documentary. Once back in politics, as he now is, will he be able to stop himself from becoming fully consumed? And how much work is he really doing for Gordon Brown?

Now Campbell, who resigned from No 10 in August 2003, has broken his silence on British politics. Speaking to the New Statesman on his return to Britain from Australia, he said that he unambiguously supported the PM.

"I believe passionately that the Labour Party still has the right values for today and the right agenda," Campbell says. "I cannot stand the sight of the Tories getting smugger and smugger, thinking they can waltz back into power when they have done nothing to deserve it. I have a lot of other things going on that I do not intend to give up, like writing, fundraising for leukaemia research and working with other individuals and organisations. But I will help as much as I can within those limits."

He also argues that the Labour Party at every level - cabinet, government ministers, MPs, party chairs, activists and supporters - has to do a better job of taking the fight to the Tories. "With modern politics surrounded by so much cynicism, mainly but not entirely media-driven, the only effective communications is authenticity. We are now seeing the authentic Gordon Brown - the serious man for serious times, the man who understands the world economy and can build the world alliances. And we are seeing the authentic Cameron - good at spin, crap on substance; good at pictures, crap on policy. He's not up to it on the stuff that really matters."

(The New Statesman has separately learned that Tony Blair is also "thoroughly unconvinced" that Cameron "has what it takes" to be prime minister. Contrary to some reports that Blair privately admires the Tory leader, and even secretly wants him to win the next election, Blair believes that now is the time to rally in support of the "superior" Brown, as was demonstrated by his endorsement of Peter Mandelson's return to the cabinet as Business Secretary.)

Campbell was in Australia for a week-long tour of public speaking, book promotion and fund raising with a fellow leukaemia campaigner, the former Australian cricketer Justin Langer. One of the speeches he made, in Canberra, was to an audience of advisers and supporters of the Australian Labor government, led by an ally of Brown's, Kevin Rudd. At another speech in Sydney, he outlined his support for the British Prime Minister.

Campbell described the recent financial crash as "the economic equivalent of September 11, in that a variety of factors that people in government have known of and worried about for some time have come together suddenly and with devastating effect". Although he frequently condemns the British media for overhyping stories, Campbell said that, "for once, the present world financial crisis is not an exaggeration. The factors causing it are global, the consequences are global and the response will have to be global. The world is looking to those leaders who step up to the mark. Just as Tony Blair was, for me, the one who stepped up to the mark over Northern Ireland, over Kosovo, and when a global response was required following the attacks on the twin towers, so Gordon Brown is the one stepping up to the mark now."

He said the Prime Minister is filling a "vacuum" of world power. "Partly because so much of this crisis was made in America, partly because George Bush is nearing the end of his time, partly because the presidential campaign is reaching its climax, there has been something of a vacuum in the US leadership. I believe Gordon and the British Labour government have shown real leadership and helped to fill it."

Campbell believes the financial crisis is what Brown "is made for". Speaking at Old Parliament House in Canberra, he said: "Gordon looks to me like a round peg in a round hole dealing with this. Big issues, big challenges requiring global responses. He does not minimise the significance of what has happened. His explanations have been clear. His analysis has been sharper than that of others. The decisions he and the government have made have shown understanding and bold leadership."

Coming soon after Campbell's role in the launch of the Go Fourth campaign, set up to steer the Labour Party towards fighting the Conser vatives, not each other, his latest series of in terventions will further cheer party leaders and activists anxious to harness his political and strategic skills.

Campbell praised Brown's decision to recall Peter Mandelson to the cabinet as evidence of his new-found bold leadership. "My initial reaction, like many people's, was surprise," he said. "But it makes sense on many levels. Peter was always a highly capable minister. He was always capable of making decisions and providing leadership to a department. He is widely respected in the business community. He is a big hitter at a time we need some big hitters around. And in his last job he has developed his understanding of the global economy."

Asked if he was going back into a full-time government or campaign role, Campbell suggested that the reports were overstated. "I have always been clear that I will do what I can to help Gordon and the party," he said. "I am passionate about Labour and about winning. Equally I have been clear that I do not want a full-time position. I did the 24-7 thing for a decade, including three elections, and it takes a lot out of you. I made a promise to my family I would not do anything like my old job. We have got our life back and I don't intend to lose it again."

In a scathing attack on the Tory leader, he said: "Cameron meanwhile is looking out of his depth. He has shown little understanding because when it comes to the serious stuff of economic policy debate he has shown little interest in the past three years. His focus has been almost entirely on the communications and the trivia. Riding his bike. Doing his silly webcasts from his kitchen. Going skiing with the huskies. Anything but making decisions on policy."

Just as Gordon is rising to the new challenges now, so the younger ones he brought on need to rise, too, all of them

Campbell said that the UK media had decided to give the Tories an easy ride. "Much more than here, the old class structures still have a certain hold in our country, I am afraid to say, and there is a lot of cap-doffing going on. With him as leader and Boris Johnson in the mayor's office - quite a lot of the highly paid people running the newspapers and broadcasts and filling the columns have no trouble with a bunch of Old Etonians running the country from White's.

"But it is the last thing Britain needs, not after all the progress we've made towards a truly meritocratic country. Cameron's speech at his conference showed that once you get [past] his youth and his cherubic looks, there is nothing much new Tory about him," Campbell said. "There was also a nastiness there that will have surprised a few people - all that rubbish about teachers refusing to put plasters on kids' knees and soldiers not being respected in their communities. What complete cock."

He said the Tories have been deliberately pursuing a strategy of avoiding policy debate and they have to be smoked out far more aggressively. "Just as the Americans have a right to know what McCain and Obama would do to handle this crisis, so Britain has a right to know what Cameron would do. His response so far has been all over the place. Problems created in and by markets give them a real headache and they have not been good at explaining it."

Asked about Labour's position in the opinion polls, Campbell said the Tories' lead was "shallow". "Obviously the polls have been bad for some time," he said. "But I think it is a shallow lead. I do not detect much positive enthusiasm for a return to the Tories under Cameron such as existed for us under Tony in '97."

He listed points on which Labour must be sharper: "Proper defence of the record of the government since '97; better communication of the overall strategy of the government policy agenda for the future; and stronger attacks on the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.

"Elections are never about the past, but you need an understanding of the record as the first base of campaigning. You need to make sure the public have a proper sense of the forward agenda. And with the media not putting the Tories under real scrutiny, Labour will have to do it."

He also says it is never enough to rely solely on the leader. "Tony was without doubt the most important factor in our success but he needed his colleagues and his team to be strong, too. Politics is a team game. Of course there is massive focus on the leaders, and the media age has in some ways intensified that, but the public know they are electing a government. On the Tory side, apart from Cameron and Hague, the front bench are virtual unknowns. That is also part of their strategy."

Campbell thinks that Labour needs to bring on and develop more big hitters. "Look at all the people we could rely on when times got tough under Tony," he said. "Some have died, like Robin Cook, Donald Dewar and Mo Mowlam. But I could always look round and you had people like JP [the former deputy prime minister John Prescott], John Reid, David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, Alan Milburn, Steve Byers, Helen Liddell, Patricia Hewitt and so on. Gordon was right to bring in lots of young blood when he took over. But he was also right to bring back Peter [Mandelson] and Margaret Beckett [as housing minister]. The younger ones need to be built up and brought on now."

In an attack on some of the more "hardcore" Brownites who were briefing against the Foreign Secretary at the Labour conference, Campbell was dismissive, contradicting rumours that he and Blair were disappointed by Miliband's performance. "There were a few people running around Manchester seeming to take pleasure in knocking David Miliband," he said. "What on earth is the point of that? It is bad politics. If people do their own side in, they should not be surprised if they start conceding a few own goals. It is good for the government and good for Gordon the more big hitters you have around the place. And just as Gordon is rising to the new challenges now, so the younger ones he brought on need to rise, too, all of them. At least David was out there with a strong forward message."

On claims that the elder Miliband brother is "finished", he said: "He should not be put off by the criticism he attracted and I know he won't be. He is a vital part of the government campaign to show new Labour is still the right party for the future, as well as the most successful political project of our past."

So why has it taken Campbell so long to "come out" publicly as a supporter of Gordon Brown's government? Why the long period of silence? Campbell merely says that he preferred helping behind the scenes and did not seek attention. "You assume I want to be in the newspapers, which I don't."

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

18 comments from readers

writeon
16 October 2008 at 20:55

To my surprise and chagrin I find myself in almost total agreement with Campbell in relation to the strategy New Labour needs to adopt in order to win the next election. Almost, but not quite. There are limits to the ammount of 'football tribalism' I can stomach.

If only 'winning' was really the point of politics and not just a means to an end. It's not so much that the ends justify the means, more that the means have become the reason and an end in and for themselves.

Campbell argues for his team very effectively. He's actually rather formidable and rather scary at the same time. Still I can't forget or forgive his appaling and aguably criminal conduct in relation to the production of propaganda and lies, designed to manipulate opinion in parliament and the country to 'justify' a clearly illegal war against a defenceless Iraq. This was carrying loyalty to the 'team' too far. It was immoral and probably a warcrime, and the terrible thing is Campbell is to self-absorbed to even realize the depths he sank to serving his lord.

BegbiesEvilTwin
16 October 2008 at 23:59

With the possible exception of James Macintyre intentionally participating in a decontamination campaign of Alastair Campbell, he has failed to enquire who labelled Brown as 'psychologically flawed'*. Days after the prog relaying his own mental health crisis to all and sundry it would have been both interesting and pertinent to learn what he felt about this attack on the mental health of a colleague, now leader of the party he believes so passionately in.

Writeon: Agreed on all counts. What struck me was that he failed to express any regret for his pivotal role in the invasion of Iraq. Presumably he has a handful of well-rehearsed 'lines to take' to neutralise those who perceive him as a possible war criminal.

Have you ever heard of the term "dry drunk/alcoholic"? From personal experience of working in the addiction field I can tell you they can be an extremely challenging cohort**.

*Blair denies calling Brown 'psychologically flawed'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/jan/17/labourleaders...

**Here's a Professor of Social Work highlighting similar concerns about GWB:-

'Addiction, Brain Damage and the President

"Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush'

http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html

Paul Lettan
17 October 2008 at 01:44

I don't agree with either of the above comments. They both display an ignorance of high level frontline politics. They're also nasty and vindictive. Love him or hate him, Campbell is a consumate professional. I don't know the man but I recognise his abilities. He is brave to talk about his addiction and his battle with depression. Those who hide behind pseudonyms should be more circumspect in their moral judgements.

It is good that a national political party is able to call on Campbell's talents and that they don't share Begbies' evident biases and prejudices. He says he worked (works?) in the addiction field! He's no professional.

This country needs the talent of Campbell's caliber, I welcome his return.

BegbiesEvilTwin
17 October 2008 at 17:37

"And thank you Paul Lettan for reducing a serious

issue to just another whinging"

-Boris clears plan to sell Holland Park fields 25.07.08

You don't have to agree with my entry but if you're

going to bother to challenge them at the very least you

should provide some decent evidence to try and make

a decent case.

It's regrettable that you feel so upset by my comments

but I am at home with them but there seems to be little

or no substance in your claim that challenges my own.

Considering your dismay at my online moniker would

you like to take the time to demonstrate who you really

are, not merely some sockpuppet that seems to

appears only in the wee small hours? How are we to

know that you aren't Alastair Campbel, an NS member

of staff or merely some New Labour intern attempting

to climb the greasy pole?

While you're at it would you like to demonstrate your

credentials to support your assertion that AC is a

consumate professional? Or would you like to

challenge Chris Ames claim that:-

"Alastair Campbell placed the September 2002 WMD

dossier in the hands of the propaganda unit that later

produced the plagiarised "dodgy dossier", the New

Statesman can reveal..."

(More lies exposed. NS 23.08.07)

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2007/08/william

s-draft-dossier-inquiry

Is that what *you* call professional Paul?

Have you even bothered to read Katherine van

Wormer's article on Dry Drunks (Counterpunch) that I

have linked to? Granted like almost every type of

phenomena there are those who challenge the

concept of a dry drunk but it seems to be a minority

view.

writeon
17 October 2008 at 20:38

Much like the recent interview with Mandelson I can't find the 'meat' anywhere. It's not exactly particularly concrete about policy is it? It's 'politics' without real political content. Is this my fault? Is there some subtle hidden content that I just don't see or understand?

I don't understand all this stuff about 'values' either. What does he mean? What values? Why are values so important in politics? Are values an alternative to ideology? When I use the term 'ideology' all I mean in this context is a set of ideas about society; what it looks like and how one wishes to govern and the distribution of wealth and power.

Basically Campbell, like Mandelson, are talented propagandists who are master at using the language and methods of public relations and advertizing to gain political advantage for their 'team'. Come on you Reds! Down with the Bluse! Zigger Zagger, Zigger Zagger!

Like others in the New Labour 'clan', like the appaling Cherie Blair, Campbell seems to believe in the creation of a truly meritocratic society which somehow is perceived as eventually banishing the evils of social class which pervade British society.

But Thatcher and her followers also believed in the creation of truly meritocratic society as well, and like New Labour only succeeded in cementing the power of an oligarchy, but I suppose if one assumes that the new oligarchy are made up of the 'best' than one can delude oneself that one has moved definitively towards meritocracy, despite the growing gap between the rich and the poor.

What characterizes these people is a stunning, shocking and extraordinary lack of elementary self-awareness, which is only trumped by their shallow and superficial understanding of how society and our economic system works. The mechanisms of inequality, based on massive maldistribution of wealth and power, on structural level, are a foreign language to these people. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic

BegbiesEvilTwin
17 October 2008 at 23:44

Writeon: Not only that the bloody articles are so light they verge on the inane. There's so little content in them they really should be used for Kevin Maguire's Inside Westminster column.

My theory is that it's the NS demonstrating their friendliness to the New Labour leadership.

Paul Lettan: Come on, retaliate you fecker! Let's see how well you can defend NL.

writeon
18 October 2008 at 13:13

Evil One,

I'm wondering if 'Nude Labour' might be more apt.

Paul Lettan
19 October 2008 at 01:02

Where to begin, Begbie, after your rant of 17.10.08?

(1) I expressed no 'dismay' at your moniker. I haven't a clue who Begbie is. Some character in a novel? Film? TV? I don't remember him from any novel or film! As I have never had a TV I wouldn't know.

(2) I go online at that time to talk to friends before they go to bed or after they get up.

(3) Trained to work in suicide prevention with a wife trained in mental health nursing, I find it unprofessional to condemn people who have suffered from drug, alcohol or mental health problems when they speak out about their condition. It was you who said you worked in the addiction field not me. I simply consider it unprofessional for someone in the field to damn Campbell in that way.

(4) Campbell is a communications professional. Don't shoot the messenger. The Euro always stopped at Blair's door. He's gone.

Campbell merely did what he was paid to do. I've campaigned in France, the States, Canada and the UK. It's a dirty business, always was, always will be. Every party has people like Campbell and Mandleson whether Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Democrat, Republican or Green or whatever. It's the nature of the beast.

To Writeon I would say this: don't look to Mandleson or Campbell for policy. They're tactical technicians that's all. Propaganda is an essential tool of their trade as Begbie might realise when he takes off his idealistic rose tinted spectacles.

To both I will say I am a member of no political party and supporter of none. That's all folks!

BegbiesEvilTwin
19 October 2008 at 02:08

OMFG...Paul...would you please re-read my original entry. You believe he was behaving professionally, From what I can determine it looks more the opposite. Piecing the overall media strategy from what 's available in the public domain (including the Hutton Enquiry) it looks fairly amateurish. Most probably it raised public opposition to the government agenda.

My comment was never meant to attack Campbell. It was flagging up the challenges for people with mental health issues in political life. It also raised the point that the the journo failed to pose a couple of obvious questions that a junior hack would have been slapped around the head, nay, kicked in the bollocks, for missing them.

Let's say it was Campbell who called Brown 'psychologically flawed'. It raises two questions. The first being does he know something about Brown and is flagging it up in the public domain to raise alarm bells? Or was it just to undermine him? If it was Blair or Mandy who said this of Brown, how did he as a person with a mental health & alcohol issue feel about someone else in his immediate circle being labelled as such to the UK media? If he is trying to deconatminate his public image to (eventually) get back on to the high table those questions will follow him. What's more his behaviour surrounding the lead-up and fallout of the push to invade Iraq remind me on the behaviour of a dry drunk, who like I said earlier can be a very challenging group.

Now for crying out loud if you're going to continue this, please build on the issue.

As for your wife's professional abilities they seem to be irrelevant here. But if she's cute and bright ,could you pass on her mobile number?

shakespearean
19 October 2008 at 11:38

Sorry to lower the tone with an item of little relevance, but I used to know a Paul Lettan and a guy who called himself Begbie (real name Steve) in Derby in the late 1960s.

I have a hunch these two actually know each other, and here they are staging an argument. Lettan had a TV at that time.

Paul Lettan
19 October 2008 at 20:17

Dear shakespearean,

Quite right! My mother had a TV. I've never owned one. The only time I had a TV was at my office, to track news, in the late 70s/80s. I don't know any Steve and haven't since I returned to the UK. I still haven't a clue who the character Begbie is!

BegbiesEvilTwin
20 October 2008 at 00:31

Shakespearean: Sorry Shakey, I'm not your man.

Paul: the moniker is a tounge-in-cheek reference to a character that Robert Carlyle plays in Trainspotting. IMHO one of the best films of 1996. Very different to the book but equally as good. Very easy to get on DVD.

Begbie:-

http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/1011797/

Evil Twin:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_twin

Trainspotting:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainspotting_(film)

George Garrett
20 October 2008 at 20:53

writon; I can agree with a lot you say. But find myself at odds with you '(Thatcher?) The Tory oilgarchy, believe in meritocracy, as well? Is Bull! Torybelieve money is at the top and that poverty is the clay pit keeps the mass of ordinary citizens under control and in ignorance.

However I do believe that the gap between rich and poor is a disgusting insult to hardworking uk working and middle class people.

flag that one up bigbies evil twin!

George Garrett
20 October 2008 at 21:04

The evil one... i liked that, writon, I find the comment 'let's say it was Campbell or Blair who said...'

The evil one doesn't know who as along as it fits his purpose, its simple propagander, baseless as usual. And Mr. Campbell is of course right about the Tory front man.

writeon
21 October 2008 at 07:49

Call me... idealistic or naive... or foolish, but I find it rather sad that people like Campbell and Mandelson and others in New Labour have wasted their undoubted talents and time for so little.

I find that there's a shallowness, a hollowness at the very heart of the project, which seems to be about 'winning' and 'power' for their own sakes, partisanship without real purpose.

Even the party has been hollowed-out, so that it's not really a political party anymore at all. It has come to resemble a supporters club for a football team and little more.

Apart from ambition and enormous personal financial gain, what's all this manic striving after political power really for?

Paul Lettan
21 October 2008 at 18:28

Writeon,

Couldn't agree more! But that's politics in our jaded, celebrity obsessed times. The last leading politicians, whose motivation was not power for its own sake, were Rene Levesgue in Quebec and Pierre Trudeau/Jean Chretien in Canada. The rot set in with Clinton, Kohl in Germany and Chirac in France. Perhaps Obama will make a difference? The Saga/Baby Boomer generation, of which I Am a member, preferred the trappings of power and all that goes with it. The rot set in the Labour party in 1997-2001. Membership collapsed due to disillusion at the cult of Blair. It has never recovered. Many hoped for better from Brown and he may yet surprise. Along with Voltaire, I've decided to faire pousser les tomates but that's for health reasons. I place my hopes in those below 40 but they will find it just as messy, just as contingent on 'events, dear boy, events' as MacMillan learned. My generation have been the Potentiores following on from the Honestiores. Then, as now, it took several generations to cleanse the Augean Stables left behind.

movedtocomment
21 October 2008 at 21:47

Okay; Can we have a shocking debate on how to cure the gap between rich and poor you guys do too much waffling. get with it.

Do we need a levelling to be enforced through the tax system. OR?

Should we let it get bad enough to enforce levelling through revolution. (french style)

Seems like it migfht be worth a chat don't you think. The subject of taxing the upper class might even make cameron stop counting his chickens.

My money is on hardworking Mr. Brown !! Lest you be mistaken.

movedtocomment
21 October 2008 at 21:56

BigIamsbie evil one; these spaces are not about how great you are friend, or how rude you can be to paul lettean's wife.

Why don't YOU give us some fine ideas to solve todays problems and maybe some precious words for your vast education to say how the gap between rich and poor be divided. Maybe you think it should be increased?

I'm sure folks would like to see what lies behind your facade

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

James Macintyre

James Macintyre is political correspondent for the New Statesman.

Read More

Newsletter

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team

Vote!

Will the Iraq inquiry be a 'whitewash'?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 - 2009

Tracker