…the fact the Monster Raving Looney Party’s candidate in Crewe and Nantwich is called The Flying Brick? 

Democracy in action. 

This evening I went to the press launch and screening of BBC 4’s soon to be aired dramatisation of Margaret Thatcher’s path to parliament; ‘Margaret Thatcher: The Long Walk to Finchley‘.  Firstly as a an act of fiction one has to permit the producers their fair share of dramatic licence, but taking that into account I left the theatre (which incidentally was a pretty cool one in the Charlotte Street Hotel) feeling that the BBC had managed to humanise Lady Thatcher in a way others, often purposely, have failed to. 

If I was to identify one thing that stood out and made the drama worthwhile it would have to be its effectiveness in communicating the difficulties Lady Thatcher had to overcome in order, eventually, to get selected.  Both as a woman and someone outside the establishment hers was not an easy journey.  However, in communicating the level of adversity The Walk to Finchley also managed to convey the sense of an individual possessed of incredible character, intense ambition and self-belief; sadly however it felt at times as though the ambition and self-belief were perhaps overplayed, creating an undeserved aura of inhumanity. 

My only other real criticism relates to the portrayal of Dennis Thatcher.  In their attempt to make clear Lady Thatcher’s dominance in the relationship the producers created impression that Dennis was something of a social inadequate, not altogether comfortable around other people (something his reputation as a party host would seem to contradict). 

All told though The Long Walk to Finchley is well worth a watch and portrays Lady Thatcher in a deservedly positive light. 

The negative campaigning in Crewe continues unabated, but if you’re going to attack somebody else it’s probably best if you don’t leave yourself open to attack:

What was it Labour said about education? Apparently spelling wasn’t on the list…

[Hat tip= Sarkis Zeronian]

I’ve been a bit snowed under today but my attention has been drawn by Cameron’s tax announcement (more on that soon) and the BBC’s report on incapacity benefit. 

Incapacity benefit is one of those things people on the Left love to champion, and for good reason; there are those in society who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work as a result of illness, injury or disability.  The problem though is that oftentimes the people claiming incapacity are far from incapable. 

For Labour though incapacity benefit provides a marvelous mechanism through which the true level of unemployment can be denied whilst still ensuring massive numbers of people remain dependant on the State.  But for those who want to see joblessness and hopelessness dealt with, incapacity is something that needs to be revisited and revised. 

With the polling day less than a week away in Crewe and Nantwich the Dunwoody campaign is locked into a strategy that looks certain to drive voters away (and if the polls are to be believed, a strategy that will drive them into the arms of the conservatives). 

What’s most interesting about Labour’s campaign though is the decision to define the candidate in terms of what she isn’t (a ‘toff’) rather than what she is (except to the extent the campaign plays up the Dunwoody brand).  It’s interesting of course because it comes at a time when Labour is bleeding popularity in large part due a general perception it’s run out of ideas, that it’s a ship without a captain.  By building a campaign on ad hominem attacks the campaign is simply reinforcing a negative perception already resting in the minds of voters. 

Almost laughably though the decision to base the campaign around ad hominem attacks is itself further blunted by the fact the basis of those attacks is the idea that Edward Timpson is a toff; a message that sends mixed signals to voters given the decision to juxtapose the attacks with the argument that people should vote for Tamsin Dunwoody because she’s a Dunwoody:

It won’t be lost on voters that a toff is somebody who has benefited from and inheritance not available to the vast majority of people and that Tamsin’s status as a Dunwoody makes her no different. 

Am currently in the London Transport Museum when who should I run into but Ken Livingston, formerly of this parish, sporting a tory blue bandana around his neck…
——————

It’s a solid rule of campaigning that you shouldn’t go negative on an opponent who poses no threat to you; after all in doing so you stand to lose a lot more than you could ever gain. With that in mind it’s worth considering the decision of the Labour Party in Crewe and Nantwich to attack Miss Great Britain title holder Gemma Garrett for apparently spelling ‘Britain’ incorrectly in the condolence book for Gwyneth Dunwoody. Not only did Labour’s attack provide Gemma with the opportunity to get media coverage she otherwise wouldn’t have received, but it also allowed her to challenge Labour’s implicit attack that she’s simply a ‘dumb blonde’:

“This is precisely the low, petty and underhanded sort of action which contributes to the overall impression that politics is a sleazy and grubby business. It is ironic that Labour, which is supposed to cherish the rights of women, created this cheap, wrong and stereotypical image of me intended to suggest that any girl who happened to be blonde and to look good cannot spell. It is risible and sad that they have stooped to this level of personal abuse which even included a barrage of verbal abuse directed at me by party workers. It all tells me that we need a new sort of politics which will engage peoples’ interests and help turn back the dull tide of cynicism which has dogged this country’s political life for so long now.”

So in one swift move they made themselves look desperate, by attacking someone who wasn’t a threat, and, frankly, mean. As Democratic media consultant David Doak pointed out a few years ago in an article (not online) about negative attack ads:

“Be careful if an ad is too mean (making fun of someone is mean); it can tell the voter more about your client’s character than it does about your opponent’s”

I wonder what Labour’s campaign in Crewe in Nantwich is saying about their character?

[Hat tip= Darren Lilleker]

In case you can’t get enough of me on this blog (as if!) I am now also blogging weekly for the Telegraph’s Brassneck blog which is headed up by Mick Fealty (of Slugger O’Toole fame). 

You can read my first post, which argues that David Cameron is indeed a Chameleon, here. 

Alex Singleton has a fantastic post over at the Telegraph’s Brassneck blog in which he addresses the proposal from the joint party committee on human rights that secondary school students be given the option of not attending religious education classes and assemblies. 

In my secondary school religious education classes and assemblies were compulsory.  Every Wednesday morning I and my friends would sit for 20 minutes or so whilst the religious proceedings took place and then departed for class.  Given the choice would I have attended the assemblies and indeed the RE classes?  No, I wouldn’t. 

You might think therefore that I would agree with the committee’s proposals.  But I don’t.  Although not for the same reasons as Alex.  My problem with the committee’s proposal is that it indicates a wider and more fundamental problem with secondary education in Britain; the power of the State over schools. 

Centralised diktats are incapable and have always been incapable of taking account of local factors.  This committees proposal is no different.  Why not give the schools and indeed parents the choice.  If a school wants to give students the option of opting out, or indeed wants to do away with religious ceremonies altogether then let them.  Equally if a school, such as mine, wishes to make religious assemblies and RE compulsory then so be it, and let parents decide whether that is the right school for their child. 

The committee’s proposal is little other than a declaration that schools and perhaps more importantly parents are incapable of make intelligent decisions for their children. 

If you haven’t seen it already John Harris’ column in today’s Guardian is well worth a read:

"…the essential Labour strategy is clear enough: not to concentrate on anything progressive or inspiring but to run instead on a mixture of the Dunwoody bloodline, utterly witless class warfare, and the politics of fear. One wonders what the more shrill aspects of the party’s campaign will do for Crewe’s community relations - but there again, it’s doubtful that such thoughts are troubling many Labour high-ups. Misanthropic nastiness, after all, seems to be a central plank of the government’s fightback." 

Read the full piece here.