The Daily Novel

Woke up ravenous this morning. So put four rashers of bacon, two huge tomatoes and two eggs into the frying pan, which I was enjoying when Radio Four’s 9 o-clock news came on. Almost the whole bulletin was devoted to the sudden death of Michael Jackson, aged fifty. Suddenly yesterday’s stories about BBC top brass expenses and the parade of Tory MPs, ordered by David Cameron to pay back thousands of their expenses, are no longer news. Compared with the shock waves arising from the death of a youngish man still full of zest.

I was not a fan of Michael Jackson but I am feeling some of the emotions his fans  must be feeling. Because yesterday I learnt of the sudden death of a young Frenchman, Fred Arnoult, from Toulouse.  Fred was only just over forty. He was one of those rare human beings who responded to my sense of humour. He lived in my house for a year, while he was an assistant at William Ellis school and became a life-long friend of all my family.

I still cannot believe I shall never hear his laugh again.

Trust in journalists has been declining for several years.  As evidenced, for an instance by an article last year in the British Journalism Review by Professor Steven Barnett of the University of Westminster last year. This is a review of surveys of journalists and others over several years by YouGov plc.  (Many other surveys before this one had revealed this decline and the growing lack of respect for the journalistic trade.  But, this one is particularly useful in explaining what has been happening in the last few weeks.)

The figures below from Barnett’s article show the percentage change between 2002 and 2008.

Labour ministers -5%

Leading Conservatives -7%

Leading Lib Dems -7%

BBC news journalists -20%

ITV news journalists -31%

Channel Four news journalists -29%

Journalists on up-market papers -22%

Journalists on mid-market papers -18%

Journalists on red top papers +1%

People who run large companies +4%

(The first of these surveys in 2002 showed the public trusted the broadcast media rather than the print media, and the red tops least of all the print media. Hence the small increase in trust of the red tops, who are still bottom of the league.)

The 2008 results show that that a majority do still trust broadcast news and and 44 per cent trust the upmarket newspapers (defined as papers like The Times, The Daily Telegraph and  The Guardian). But less than 20 per cent trust the mid-market papers (The Mail and The Express) and the red tops (The Sun and the Mirror). Details below.

BBC news journalists 61%

ITV news journalists 51%

Channel Four news journalists  52%

Journalists on up-market papers 44%

Journalists on mid-market papers  19%

Journalists on red top papers 15%

So on the basis of this survey, most of the public don’t trust most journalists.

Why?

See next blog.

The media was correct that in predicting that the public anger over MPs expenses would show itself in distrust of all three major parties resulting in a big gains from the fringe parties. They gave massive coverage to the BNP, and although the comment was nearly all negative they gave a national platform in print, on the radio and on television for  its leader, Nick Griffin, who insists his party is not at all extreme.  In the event the BNP got 6.3 per cent of the votes, compared with the Green’s 8.7 per cent, though they got very little media coverage, and most of what  they got dsmissed them as well-meaning idealists. UKIP got somewhat more coverage, quite a lot of it negative, including frequent mentions of their disgraced Euro MPs, who have been milking the Brussels expense system.

UKIP who was the big winner, pushing Labour into third place, with 17.4 per cent of the votes, but that was only up 1.2 points on last time.  That was only a fraction better than the 1 per cent improvement in the Conservative vote. This achieved in spite of the fact that the Conservatives had quite as much negative publicity about their expenses as Labour.  And the Lib Dems, who were much more parsimonious in supping on the Westminster gravy train, actually suffered a fall of 1.1 points in their vote.

So maybe MP’s expenses was not quite as big an influence as the media has been suggesting in Thursday’s votes.  The worst bombs were exploded nearly a month ago. And over the last two weeks the media coverage has been on the shattering effect on the party in charge.  And on the disunity of Labour. Though James Purnell did not resign until after the poll closed, other Labour ministers had resigned. And the disunity of the cabinet had been revealed to all the electorate and confirmed by the Prime Minister, who referred to his chancellor in the past tense, and, then two days later, had to keep him in post.

And, just maybe, the question we should be asking is:

But do the public trust the media?

A subject for another blog.

I have not changed my view that there is no scientific or academic analysis of  the result which can translate it into what would have happened had a British General Election last Thursday.  Because, the number who voted was half the number who vote in general elections.

There is no evidence yet available of what the stay at homes would have done.

But the result is so devastating for Labour that it demands a journalistic comment.

The mainstream media has focussed on the BNP who got 6 per cent of the votes and 2 seats.

Their headlines showed tha UKIP with 17 per cent (11 seats) had pushed Labour (16 per cent) into third place. Britain’s third established political party, the Lib Dems, was fourth  with 14 per cent.

These astonishing results cry out for explanation.

See next blog.

By asking ministers to demonstrate their loyalty.

Not directly. Only one minister stood out, and resigned yesterday, Jane Kennedy. But even she told the media that she had not been ‘directly’ asked by Brown for an oath of loyalty.

She told the media that she was resigning on a matter of conscience. But her resignation got scant media coverage.  What she got can be summed up in one sentence.

Doesn’t she not know that politics is a a dirty game governed by Machevelli, not Jesus Christ?

Gordon Brown triumphed at last night’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

How?

Although this meeting had been headlined in the press as the crucial test, the Government held it in the usual room, which is nowhere big enough for all the PLP even if they are all standing.

The Government whips told all the office holders amongst Labour MPs, numbering well over a hundred, who get extra money on top of their £64,000 salaries, and or/influence, that they should go.

Which they did, so that even some busy cabinet ministers who came at the last minute courld not get in.

So the meeting not only cheered. It drummed the table. Bolstering up their limping leader.

Contrary to my prediction of a few days ago,  Gordon Brown MAY  live on to lead Labour into an election as far ahead as May, 2010.  Why?

I will tell you by twittering.

Saying it all in written sound bites.

(P. S. I have not given up long blogs. This is a training exercise, during which I will try to adapt to the spirit of the times.)

After listening to the man himself on the Andrew Marr BBC television show I don’t want to make any corrections to what I said in my earlier blog today about Lord Mandelson’s role in Gordon Brown’s reshuffle. He dismissed everything as the tittle tattle that passes for journalism. He and Ed Balls had been laughing together about the press stories of a row between them. He continually blocked the gentle but presistent questions put by Marr. Despite what we have all been reading Hazel Blears was quite quite happy with the way Brown had dealt. He knew because he had talked. He managed to ignore totally Marr’s quiet assertion, that he also had talked to Blears and got the opposite impression.

The mask of the master of spin slipped only once. When he said, while defending Brown:

I can assure you that the cabinet are united against him.

Which, predictably is now a headline on the Daily Mail site.

I continue to believe those political reporters who have detailed Mandelson’s crucial role in gettting Brown to change key elements in his planned reshuffle.

And I continue to believe that the Daily Mail story that Tony Blair is encouraging the rebels is not true. The Independent in a long story an hour or so ago, reports that he has been shocked by the behaviour of his former aide, James Purnell. Which is entirely in character.

And I continue to believe that what we have been seeing in the last few days is not an orchestrated plot.

Mandelson insisted today the if Brown resigned the new leader would have to hold an immediate general election, which Labour would lose because it would lead to a battle for the leadership, which would expose the splits in the Labour Party.

This is a view that has been held by many ministers and MPs. But in the last few weeks in the last few weeks, an increasing number of ministers and MPs have warmed to the idea of the affable Alan Johnson, as an ideal caretaker PM, who can steer Labour who can unify the party and start to win back the trust of the voters.

Because make no mistake about it, the Labour Party is split and all the electorate know it. But no-one is quite sure how many now want Brown to go before the election. And, in this Mandelson is quite right.

If Brown does not resign voluntarily he will not be ousted by a letter from even one hundred MPs. He will not be ousted until a credible figure stands against him.

The two most credible potential candidates, Alan Johnson and David Milibrand, have not plotted against him. Both are capable of the job. But neither of them is hungry for supreme power. They are the kind of MPs who are absolutely not in politics priimarily to win glory and make money for themselves. They are not devious schemers.

To add to the current confusion, The Guardian today has reversed its bold editorial of a few days ago, condemned the rebellion as a shambles, and now states that Brown should hang on for a year.

I doubt whether that is possible. And I fear Brown may also live to regret, of all his recent decisions, his recall to the cabinet of Peter Mandelson.

He used to be called the Prince of Darkness, but I would like to re-christen him as the High Priest of Devious Scheming. Which is fine when you are working behind the scenes, but when you do it on television, it tends to show.

If other people get the impression that I have got from the events of the last few days, that Mandelson is now calling the shots, not Brown. He explained the leaked emails to Gordon Brown, as being helpful advice. He was telling his friend Gordon, to be true to himself. He was, in otherr words, behaving like a psycho-therapist, which happens to be the new profession Peter Draper, the ex-colleague to whom Mandelson sent these emails.

As it happens, I know a bit more about pscho-therapy than Mandelson, and my own view, is that a dignified resignation now, would be the best treatment for Gordon’s own personal mental health.

And I also think, contrary to the views of most political journalists, that a proper election for a new leader, would not lead to party members destroying each other. It would bring out into the open the widely differing political views in the present party. It would bring out into the open the battles that have been goinig on behind the scenes and involve the wider party membership in choosing between them.

That could be a healing process. Much bettter than the Star Chamber which is trying to single out the worst offenders on MPs expenses. Much better than behaving like Lord to be Sugar, and showing how tough he is by firing people every week with a smile on his face.

After listening to the man himself on Andrew Marr’s BBC television show I have to make a correction to my blog earlier today. Alan Sugar is not joining the government. His role as enterprise czar is merely that of an adviser, who will be doing what he has done for several years, going around the country encoraging enterprise. He is polically neutrel, although he has known Blair for several years. He would be perfectly happy to continue the role under a Conservative government but he does not know David Cameron, so cannot say anything about that possiblity.

He has talked with the BBC and wants to make it clear that he did not want to take on any job which would threaten the BBC’s huge investment in The Apprentice.

He did, however, express one political view. He thinks David Cameron must be in heaven because of the Telegraph revelations. He does not appear to have noticed that has struck down quite as many leading Tories as Labourites.

Labour has probably been more hurt, not because the revelations abour their MPs are any worse than the Consevatives, but because they are the party in power. They had the responsibility for managing the expenses. And, because they have a large majority, they must bear the bigger responsibity for dragging their feet on revealing the details and exempting MPs expenes from the Freedom of Information Act.

Gordon Brown may come to regret, not the cabinet changes which were forced on him by his colleagues, but his own choice of Alan Sugar. As Mandelson wrote in the leaked emails he is overly impressed by the celebrity culture. And he does like Sugar, who like his name, can be sweet as well as tough and ruthless. (I tried to find a picture which reveals his cuddly teddy bear side, but could not. But you have all seen flashes of it on television.

He may also live to regret not giving Caroline Flint the promotion she wanted. She is turning out flinty by nature as much as Flint by name. According to newspaper reports this morning she is going to make a fierce attack on him on Monday. She is not only angry about not getting the promotion she thought she had been promised. She is angry because of the newspaper reports that Brown was influenced by the glamour photographs of her in The Observer, which he did not like. (Probably it was the photo of her lolling on a couch, like Hollywood teenager seducing a teenager, but since I am a family blogger I have used here the primest pic from the pack.)

She is only one voice.

But the co-incidence of Brown’s embrace of Sugar coming at the same time as his rejection of Flint has angered people inside and outside the Labour Party.

Sugar at his charming is patronising towards women. And most women I know think his tough guy style is just what we don’t want in our businessmen, managers and politicians. (Indeed, part of the success of The Apprentice is that it is joke. ‘You’re fired’, is not at all like real life, when being fired means ending up without any job at all and nothing to pay the rent.)

Whatever the other Labour female MPs think of Flint, none of them will be happy with the reduction of the number of women in the cabinet (including the sacking of Margaret Beckett, who has never shown any inclination to pose for a glamour photograph.)

And most Labour MP’s, both male and female are very angry indeed at the increase of peers in the re-shuffled cabinet.