Scorched Earth and other Fairy Tales
By Emma.
Do you remember the stories that came out of the Whitehouse in 2000 about vandalism, theft of property and other misdemeanors of the outgoing Clinton Government? Turned out to be complete tosh of course.
How about Boris’s claims that Ken had splashed out on a cellar full of expensive wine? Utter nonsense again.
So forgive me if I take the “Scorched Earth” line as so much spin (yes Lib Dems, you do it too, oh and negative and permanent campaigning). Especially since the thing they seem to be holding up in evidence, is a clearly well-intentioned jokey letter.
So much for new politics.
Tags: Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone, scortched earth, Whitehouse
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 14:05
The only time I’ve seen David Laws mention it (in the press conference), he was laughing as he did. What have I missed?
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 14:18
This among other things: http://www.libdemvoice.org/liam-byrne-19570.html
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 15:14
No, that’s transcribed from the press conference.
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 15:20
You don’t think that that Lib Dem post (mirrored in some of the trashier press (mail, Standard etc) but I thought you’d prefer it if I showed you actual Lib Dems creating this narrative) is both holier than thou, and using the letter to hold up the “Scorched Earth narrative”.
David Law’s comments and slightly tacky behaviour in publicising the letter aside.
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 15:34
Yes, I think that post is way over the top! But it’s hardly come from party central office, so calling it “spin” is a bit much too.
For what it’s worth, I think the joke was fairly glib and witless, but has also been widely misreported – he didn’t write “there’s no money left”, implying that “we’ve spent it all”, but “there’s no money”, implying nothing that we don’t already know and apportioning no blame. It doesn’t surprise me at all that the press have jumped all over it, but as yet I haven’t seen David Laws do that; just repeat the joke in a press conference, laughing along and getting a word wrong in the process. There are plenty more significant things to report on, of course.
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 15:36
Oh and by the way – completely agree on “negative campaigning”. That was my least favourite aspect of the election campaign.
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 15:44
Spin doesn’t have to centrally controlled though. I’m often accused of spin, and I’m hardly at the centre of the Labour Party. There is a party line developing among activists that Liam Byrne was behaving badly becuase of the financial crisis. I know I have been chasitsed on Twitter for saying so.
It’s not the best joke in the world, but it’s hardly a new thing to do. Good piece in the Guardian about the history of such letters: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-letter-wider-tradition I believe most of the details of the letters are revealed in memoirs later on, not turned (jokingly or not) into party political point scoring the next day.
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 16:16
Spin doesn’t have to be centrally controlled, but it’s fairly clear from the post above that you’re holding the party responsible – “Lib Dems, you do it too”, and “so much for new politics”, plus a bunch of examples of centrally-controlled “spin” from the past.
I don’t really care whether people have generally revealed the contents of these letters in the past. There’s no great reason for them to be sacrosanct. Perhaps Laws might have realised that a thoughtless joke would have to bear an excessive weight of scrutiny, but equally perhaps he was a little irritated by the thoughtlessness of someone he clearly holds responsible for some of the challenges he’s inherited. Whether he’s right or not is up for argument, but I don’t think the reveal of the joke matters – it’s just a hook to hang a sentiment on. People seem to have picked up on it because they broadly agree. Friendly suggestion: don’t worry about the joke, but have the argument.
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 16:19
My advice would be exactly the same but in the opposite direction. If the best the ConDems can do to prove this “scorched Earth” bollocks is a weak joke, then they should try not spinning it so hard, as it looks like they’re just laying the ground for the big cuts or unfair tax rises they promised all through the campaign you wouldn’t make.
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 16:39
ConDems, honestly… Now THAT’s spinning!
It isn’t “you” – I’m eternally unattached on a point of principle, have voted Labour in the past, and could happily do so again if I think they’re the best option. But the fact is that the Lib Dems didn’t get a majority (or anything like it), so can’t reasonably expect all of their policies to be implemented. Their choice was to have some or none of their policies implemented. It’s pointless blaming them for the presence of Tory policies in the coalition agreement – very easy to do when you’re in opposition and don’t have to implement or compromise, but shows an unwillingness to accept the reality of a hung parliament. Nobody promised not to make cuts or raise taxes – nobody possibly could, because everyone accepts that “there’s no money”, see? And in reality, nobody will ever know what Labour would have cut or raised, because it wasn’t detailed in their manifesto, so we’ll have to see what exact measures come up and examine them on their merits for “fairness”. No doubt Labour will spin like crazy when it inevitably happens, so I don’t blame the coalition for heading that off at the pass by stating and restating the extent of the problem at the start, however tedious it is.
That said, I’m annoyed by Laws’s more serious allegation about spending decisions made against accounting officers’ advice. If he produces evidence, then it becomes worthy of discussion, but not before.
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 17:08
I think ConDem’s going to stick – it’s funny and has a ring of truth to it – spin or not. Anyway, it’s no different from Tories, a new label for the opposition for a new politics.
I thought I had changed all of the you to they for precisely that reason, but missed one. Sorry. I on the other hand am happy to decalre myself a partisan member of the Labour Party. For democracy to function properly, some partisanship is essential. We both fulfil a role, and both are important.
I completely accept the reality of the hung parliament, and of the fact that Labour lost. That won’t stop me from criticising the Government when they implement policies that go against the grain of what I believe, That too is democracy. It is not undemocratic either, to point out that sometimes they also go against the grain of those who now implement them. Or to ask when is compromise fatal? How much is too much? I will keep up the pressure on the government in my own miniscule way, and I believe that his the democratic thing to do.
“No doubt Labour will spin like crazy when it inevitably happens, so I don’t blame the coalition for heading that off at the pass by stating and restating the extent of the problem at the start, however tedious it is.”
Do you accept that these are both spin, the “heading off” and the “spin” that follows. Do you also agree that not all criticism of Government behaviour is or will be spin but will come from a principled stance?
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 17:46
Up to a point. It isn’t “spinning” to point out that Labour themselves acknowledge the lack of money and, implicitly, the inevitability of cuts and/or taxes, in the hope that the coalition’s cuts and taxes will be seen in this light. There may well be criticism from Labour, and this criticism ought to come with proposals of alternatives or it’s fundamentally worthless. I don’t mind them pointing that out in advance. But I’m not under any illusions that the Lib Dems never spin – all parties do. It didn’t stop me voting for them because that logic could only lead me to spoil my ballot paper every five years.
And incidentally, my “point of principle” requires me only to be a floating voter. I think it is completely valid to join a party and to try to influence their direction in line with your own ideology, but ultimately their constitution will be largely out of your control, so there will always be a chance that another party will end up more closely representing your views. If parties were constant, perhaps I’d weigh anchor, but they are anything but.
As for “fatal compromise”, I have no idea whether this coalition will work out – I can’t possibly. I think that the deal offered to the Lib Dems was pretty reasonable under the circumstances and is allowing them largely to “be themselves” within the coalition; and it’s worth restating that it was the only deal they were offered that allowed this. I think they have a duty to try to make this election result work, and I support their judgement in trying to make this particular coalition work, when Labour effectively ruled themselves out of a minority coalition, and the alternative was an unstable 100% Con government. Ultimately, someone has to govern. If they’re unable to overcome their ideological differences in practice, then fine, I can accept that – but at least they’ll have showed willing, rather than acting like “two little boys at bath-time”…
And yes, the “Con-Dem nation” pun is very satisfying, but “ring of truth”? There’s no substance to it, and the “ring of truth” argument is pretty much identical to the narrative around Liam Byrne’s joke. One way or the other, Em…
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 18:43
But it certainly is spinning to claim that – more than the difficulties we already knew about – Labour had left behind, as part of a “scorched Earth policy” hidden “stink bombs”.
My priciples include the fact that I am a great believer in collectivism, which means that I know things won’t always go my way, but beleive ultimately that we do more together than we do alone.
I don’t know if it will either, but I will keep asking how much is too much for the Lib Dems to swallow. I also believe it is at least questionable, if not spin, to say that “Labour effectively ruled themselves out of a minority coalition” a small handful of backbenchers said they didn’t want to do it. As did a handful of Tories on thier side. It would have been harder no doubt, but why does doing the right thing have to be easy? There is no settled narrative on the Labour/Lib Dem negotiations, and I think the truth lies in the shades of gray in the middle. I don’t therefore wholly accept the Lib Dem narrative that Labour weren’t interested in successful talks.
Both are jokes about things where there may be a small grain of truth. both are spin. I happily accept that mine is both a joke and spin, but I’m happy with the grain of truth it exposes. Like calling the Tories Tories. I’m saying that the Lib Dems are spinning with a po face. I don’t think I’m wrong about that.
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 19:31
Spinning with a po-face is worse than spinning gleefully? Labour politicians are never po-faced? I’m not sure I understand the point.
As I said, I don’t think Laws should be talking about irresponsible government spending unless he’s prepared to back it up with specifics. We agree on that!
I haven’t heard any Labour politicians say that they were keen on a coalition or are disappointed that it didn’t happen, so I only have the Labour backbenchers’ and Lib Dem negotiators’ accounts to go on. If their accounts were inaccurate, I would at least expect Labour to have refuted them. Have they? It’s possible I’ve missed it. I would also say that “doing the right thing” does not necessarily mean following Labour. There’s a prevalent attitude that I find strange that seems to suggest that the Lib Dem vote was basically Labour’s to call in if they needed it. It obviously wasn’t – it might be a more intuitive alliance, but there were significant disparities whichever way they turned, and extensive compromise would be required. When Labour supporters talk about the coalition as some sort of betrayal, they’re ignoring that the Lib Dems’ loyalties lie with supporters of their own policies, and with the electorate at large – not with Brown’s Labour, who Lib Dem voters did not choose to/chose not to embrace. I don’t have any great love of the Tories, but I think it’s quite clear that both parties have made a difficult decision in good faith.
Finally, fair enough to favour collectivism, but you can discuss and work in groups, and still vote on your conscience as an individual. That’s the distinction I make. It doesn’t require you to vote differently from your party membership, but it doesn’t preclude the possibility either. Equally, you can discuss and campaign as a partisan, and still occasionally acknowledge publicly that your party makes mistakes, and that others don’t merit criticism at every turn. I’ve always given Labour credit where I think it’s due, and even try to do so for the Conservatives (god help me), but I sometimes get the impression that you’re loath to say a good word about anyone outside Labour, and quick to brand them as a bunch of unmitigated snakes. I don’t believe that that’s fair or productive, any more than I believe that the Lib Dems are above criticism.
Anyway, I’ll bow out now – your blog, your last word! Hope you’re enjoying your new job. x
Tuesday, May 18th 2010 at 20:10
The point was that it is spin. That it’s also po-faced is an additonal point. I’m not wholly against spin, but I’m sick to death of being told first it was something that Labour invented or something that the Lib Dems don’t do. Both of these became common themes in the political dialogue during the years of the Labour government.
Here’s a piece from the Guardian that shows both sides of the argument: I have heard plenty of Labour politicians saying they wanted a workable coalition to go ahead, including John Denham and Ed Miliband. Why it didn’t we will never know.
I am partisan, and I vote lagely on economic issues. I agreed with Vince Cable when he said that cuts this year would damage our economy. That’s what I eman about not doing the right thing.
I am also happy give credit where it is due and criticise Labour too. I have done both on this blog. For example in this post about what Labour can learn from the ascendancy of the Liberal Democrats during this campaign.
Of course my blog is going to be weighted in favour of praise for Labour’s policies and achievements. That’s what I beleive in. But I’ve never been an uncritical friend, here or in the other place (doesn’t that make us sound like Lords – I’m going to keep that rather cryptic for that reason alone!).