There is sustained pressure on David Cameron's Director of Communications and Planning, Andy Coulson. What is his value to Cameron?
A former tabloid editor, Coulson is reputed to have been integral to broadening the appeal of the Conservative message, and has been particularly influential on crime and debt. How successful the Conservatives have been at this is open to debate - much of their popularity seems to draw from Labour's inherent and growing weaknesses. However this is surely a crucial role for a Conservative Party which realistically needs to step up their game and fully capitalise on if they are to gain a sizable majority at the next election.
His performance has improved. Responsible for 'hug a hoodie' he has clearly learnt better to balance the old and the new in Cameron's image of the Conservative party, something which has helped the party better exploit parts of the Lib Dem vote. It would be tricky for anyone starting from scratch on this difficult balancing act, particularly someone who has not had the baptism of fire of starting with the Conservatives on a low ebb during the Brown bounce, and reticent detractors like Tebbit at their zenith. He has helped consolidate Cameron's power and drive the shift in the party image past the Parliamentary party and membership so in this respect he has been tested and has probably learnt much.
He is liked by journalists. I have heard he is a very straight reliable divester of the Conservative line to top journalists. His replacement may fulfil this role too but this is an unknown. We know how these relationships can turn sour in government and Coulson is certain to join Cameron in Downing Street.
No wonder Labour MPs and the Liberal Democrats want his head.
Thursday, July 9
What would Cameron lose if Coulson went?
Friday, July 3
Chloe Smith, the 'no hoper'?
Interesting coverage in The Times today of the forthcoming Norwich North by-election. The paper argues that a "wounded and angry city" could turn away from Labour and make the "no hoper" Chloe Smith a credible candidate.
From even my basic understanding of the electoral numbers this seems an incredible interpretation. The seat is Conservative target number 168 at the next General Election. The Conservatives would have to win seats like these to get an overall majority and current polling figures should give them the swing required to win here even in a General Election.
This is a by-election, so naturally the Governing party will do relatively badly.
Either The Times are extraordinarily badly briefed, or they want a Conservative victory to seem like a surprise against the odds victory. I give them enough credit to think the latter is true. If so why? Is it to make a better story or are they actively supporting the Conservatives?
I wonder if Rupert Murdoch has been to any meetings in Westminster recently...
Thursday, July 2
And today barmy Fox anchor supports: death to America!
Just spotted this gem of nonsense from Fox's mad media monster anchor Glenn Beck.
If you have heard Beck speak before you might assume you know what you're in for. I advise you to fasten your seatbelts all the same.
He actually argues, get this, that if he was Osama Bin Laden he would avoid instigating a terrorist attack on America at the moment, because, wait for it, this event would be the only thing that could force America to prevent a terrorist attack...
Thereby preventing the end to which he had already secured... no wait... THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
What's worse is he is actually hoping for a terrorist attack to wake up the authorities. Really like to know what he does to keep his job as it would make fascinating for people being laid off everywhere.
Wednesday, June 24
Violence in Iran reported by persiankiwi on Sky News
Just noticed Sky is reporting on persiankiwi's tweets this morning about new bouts of violence in Tehran today.
They quote this tweet:
"I see many ppl with broken arms/legs/heads - blood everywhere - pepper gas like war," persiankiwi writes in English.I actually re-tweeted this so I wonder if they heard about it through my twitter? Suppose I'll never know. Anyway if you twitter its worth following this person here: www.twitter.com/persiankiwi
Tuesday, June 9
BIS: Science to the fore?
Lord Mandelson gave his first speech as Secretary of State for BIS rather than BERR today following the second re-branding of the department in less than two years (Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to Business, Innovation and Skills).
Two things to note:
1. The comma is missing from the logo despite the shift costing a total of £70 million according to one of my sources. (If they price the change by character, this omission saved the taxpayer £1.8 million)
2. Despite the fact that Mandelson's speech today was on how the new department would "put science at centre of vision of Britain's future prosperity," I hear BIS failed to consult either the Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington or the Government Office of Science on the contents of the speech.
Oh well, who needs joined up government anyway?
UPDATE: Noticed Michael Crick pointing out that the subsumed DIUS is the only government department ever to have just one secretary of state (John Denham)
Thursday, May 28
New song: '8759...'
I've decided to start uploading tunes on YouTube, and likewise I'll share some of them on this blog.
This is the intro to what is otherwise quite a fast, loud and grandiose song which I'm still putting together (RSS Readers need to click through to see embedded video).
Do watch in HQ as the sound quality is quite poor as it is.
Sorry this has absolutely nothing to do with politics!
Thursday, April 30
Boris slams Darling's revenge on Kensington and Chelsea
Bozza published an attack on the Government's "soak the rich" budget on Monday.
His policy director Anthony Browne, who is formerly head of influential rightist think tank Policy Exchange, (or 'PX' to those in the know, darling) was in tow adding:
"the government’s class-war assault on high earners is really an assault on London."Seems a bit shrill, but then he has evidently improved his rhetorical skills since December when he said
"All those on more than £100,000 a year will be at least £1,000 a year worse off because of the halving of their personal allowances. All those on more than £140,000 a year will be at least £2,000 a year worse off because of the scrapping of their personal allowances. It is almost as though the Budget is the revenge of England on the affluent of Kensington and Chelsea."
I wonder, when Anthony Browne eats a doughnut, whether he prefers to savour the pristine white icing around the peripheries, or concentrate his efforts on the messy centre?
Posts
