Why I (Would) Hate if the Coalition Government Fails…

By Maggie Palin

I’ll admit—I’ve personally been a bit skeptical of the new Coalition government since its inception last month. As a Conservative at heart, it has been exciting for me to see David Cameron become Prime Minister and watch the Conservative MPs in Westminster sit once again on the Government benches. But as a follower of Adam Smith’s laissez-faire economic philosophy, the tax reforms and proposed reductions to the size of Government that Cameron needed to cede to Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats to form a coalition does worry me. And if I’m worried about this, I can only wonder what other Tory voters from the mold of Maggie Thatcher think as well.

It’s probably too premature to discuss this, and hopefully it turns out to be just an image in the back of my mind and not actual reality, but I have to ask myself—and you alike—what would happen if the Coalition government does fail. Yes, we’re just in the early days of the new government and Cameron’s just had his first PMQs merely a few hours ago. But we do have to remember that history has a funny way of repeating itself. If the coalition fails, and another election is called, it will leave a blemish on David Cameron and the Conservative Party’s legacy in the twenty-first century that may not be insurmountable in another poll.

Let’s flash back a year in time when the Conservatives were winning 45 percent in the polls. Had a snap election been called back then, the party would have then had the requisite seven percent swing to win 325 seats in Westminster and control the Government outright. Yet this did not happen. And instead, while the Conservatives managed to win the largest share of the vote in last month’s election, they were forced to share power with the Liberal Democrats in order to form a Government.

So if this coalition does not work, will Cameron have to relinquish his title? How will the swing fall—will it fall in favour of the Tories, or perhaps bring Gordon Brown’s successor to 10 Downing Street. Now that Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have some power, what impact will they have on the electoral landscape in future elections? All of this is yet to be seen, but I can say with some certainty that for a party that had hoped to coronate its fearless leader in style last month, this Coalition Government is not the outcome for which we hoped and will hopefully be the start of a new era in British politics, and not the end of the Conservative party as we know it.

Musings On The Colour Of The Tie

By Tal-Anna Szlenski

Whilst myself and another of my Spin Surgeon companions sat to watch the parliamentary debate ensuing the Queen’s Speech, I started pondering about ties.

During the election campaign a lot of attention was paid to the tie colours and patterns worn by the main contenders in the race. Now, tie-spotting seems to have become somewhat of a fad. However I actually have a bit of a penchant for ties and scarves (and additionally have no qualms judging a person by their socks – yes, really). Hence, I started philosophying about the signals sent by the new leadership-duo, based on their ties earlier today:

So, did Cameron’s baby blue tie suggest his Conservative views had been watered down by his partnership with the Lib Dems?

And perhaps of more interest, what did it mean when Nick Clegg’s face turned wretched and became as red as his tie when Harman spoke of his partnership with the Tories? Was it a pityful appeal to the Labour oppistion, upon a realisation that his initial fascination with the Tories has worn off?

Now if only I had a view of their socks too…

Televised Political Debate: 50 odd years in the making

By Tal-Anna Szlenski

“A historic moment in television” was how Alastair Stewart described tonight’s televised debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Cleg on ITV. To that I can only respond, Yeah right. Erm, did the so-called Nixon-Kennedy debate taking place 50 years ago (yes, 50!) in the US, slip his mind?

The frenzy, zeal and buzz surrounding this happening borders on embarrassing. Don’t get me wrong, such an event is noteworthy. But in this case the hype should have been focusing on the content to be expected (or issues such as Nick Clegg appearing – is Britian truly turning into a 3-party system or is it just for show?) – not the format.

The significance assigned to the fact that this was to be Britain’s first televised election debate, becomes even more laughable considering the fact that much newer mediums have long been introduced to the election race. Just because it is a long overdue first, doesn’t necessarily make it a ‘decisive and changing event for British politics and political communication’. And yes, I am aware that this opinion goes directly against those who are keen to argue that the importance lies in the fact that all three leaders were gathered to discuss policy issues.

I on the other hand argue that apart from them standing in the same room when seeking to trump their rehearsed soundbytes through, this debate did not provide any legitimacy to claims branding it as a new dawn in British politics. Any such claims quickly fade in light of Twitter, Facebook, blogging and of course the 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon.

In postwar US a televised debate introduced the so-called personification of politics. It was truly a new way for people to engage with politicians. In a post-recession Britain, where people increasingly find themselves able to gain information and access to political happenings as they are taking place (in the name of transparency of course…), a TV debate is just one of many mediums driving forward the message of the politicians.

If ‘the medium is the message’ as our old beloved friend McLuhan claimed, then tonight’s debate only goes to show that the establishment’s approach to political communication is stuck in the past. This of course confirmed by the appearance of the ITV TV studio which would in mild terms be classified in a category starting with p and ending with an assé.

In other words – as confirmed by most commentators and bloggers out there, nothing groundbreaking in the content of this event either. My own little summary of sentiments derived from the debate:

• Gordon Brown: ‘Let me complete the projects we have started whilst in government. And by the way the recession is a global phenomenon – not just us affected (effectively, it’s not my fault).’

 

• David Cameron: ’13 years of Labour failures. We will provide solutions to mend broken Britain                                            ’, (blank space to denote the ongoing silence regarding Ashcroft and Grayling).

 

• Nick Clegg: ‘Labour, Conservatives – they’re all the same. They have ruled the country for the last 65 years. We haven’t. Now it must be our turn. We’re different.’

Spinning Before It’s Been Spun

By Kyle Taylor

Well well, it looks as if a UK election is FINALLY just around the corner. After more than three years, Gordon Brown MUST trot down to Buckingham Palace and ask the Queen to dissolve parliament so the voters can remake it again. The tell-tale signs are there: Weird, confusing, totally unclear maps like the one above are being reproduced everywhere with captions like “breakdown of the UK electorate likely voter turnout by county excluding outlier opinions and small parties were the election to occur tomorrow.” WHAT? Is this it all scientific? Then there’s inevitably some new interactive feature that allows you to “sway the vote and see what happens.” What happens, you ask? You “spin” the dial and the colors change, making a graphic you initially could not understand even more confusing and turning you into a spin doctor in the process. “Look how easy it is to totally convolute the news,” they seem to say.

The other tell-tale sign? Each party begins to spin the election and “what it’s about” before it has even started, meaning they’re spinning before there is even anything to be spun! News reports like this one in the Guardian say thinks like: “the Prime Minister will say” and “the Tory leader will counter this by saying” and “that other guy from that other party will then double back by contradicting the first guy and chastising the second guy before declaring what the election is ‘really about.'”

The media used to be in the business of telling what happened. Now they’re apparently psychics, telling us what the news will be tomorrow! Isn’t that in and of itself – a newspaper that tells the future – a cover story?!?! The reality is that the “will say” is now code for: “We’re not going to wait to convolute, contort, manipulate, and angle our story. We’re going to try and spin it before it’s a story that way when it becomes a story, it won’t appear to be “spun,” it will just appear to be news.” It’s rather brilliant on their side, rather detrimental to get fair information on our side.

Are we to the point where we’re spinning and spinning so much at every stage in the game that it’s impossible to wade out the garbage, or are we as a public so aware of it now that we just simply write it off as “spin” and ignore it all? It’s hard to tell, especially when our base line may have actually been pre-spun for us too.

Stay alert Britain. This is a big one.