Alastair Campbell http://www.alastaircampbell.org Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:46:14 +0000 en-US hourly 1 3Ps+U = REMAIN. Peace, power, prosperity v Fear of the Unknown http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/06/15/3psu-remain-peace-power-prosperity-v-fear-of-the-unknown/ http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/06/15/3psu-remain-peace-power-prosperity-v-fear-of-the-unknown/#respond Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:46:14 +0000 http://www.alastaircampbell.org/?p=6124 Yesterday I spent a lively couple of hours debating the pros and cons of EU membership with former Chancellor Norman Lamont in the City. He was one of the first high profile political figures ever to suggest one day we might leave the EU (so long ago I can’t remember when.) At the time it was something of an eccentric position, but as June 23 nears, not only do we have a referendum on membership many thought would never happen, but the prospects of Lamont being proven right are more real than even he, I suspect, imagined they might be.

His main arguments were that the EU’s primary if not sole objective was preventing the eurozone from imploding, and we were better to be well out of it when it happened which, he was adamant, it would; and that the basic project of the EU remained to create a political union that morphed into a US of E. I disagreed with the second part, had some sympathy for the first, but made the points that 1, we are not in the Euro 2, we would be affected by economic meltdown in the EU anyway.

He had little time or respect for either of the campaigns, and he did at least admit (and this is something I will be discussing on the BBC Northern Ireland referendum debate tonight) that he could not see how it was possible for the UK to leave and not have border controls at the border with the Republic of Ireland, our only land border with the EU.

As for my own main arguments, here, for those who can be bothered to read a speech in this era when some consider a whole tweet to be a long read, are the opening remarks I made before we got into the q and a.

It is very nice to be trading blows with Norman Lamont. Or Lord Lamont as he now is, one of those unelected peers who complain constantly about unelected bureaucrats making laws in Brussels. The difference being that he does and they don’t, the elected politicians do.

Norman was an important figure in my time as a journalist. Black Wednesday, when we crashed out of the exchange rate mechanism, was one of the busiest days of all for a Labour supporting Mirror hack like myself, whilst his view that unemployment was ‘a price worth paying’ for economic rigour was one of the great enduring soundbites of the era, and might perhaps be relevant too to the current debate gripping the nation and indeed the world.

But despite my parti pris approach, there was something of the politician-defending spin doctor in me even then. When we were summoned towards the end of Black Wednesday to the back of the Treasury where a pale looking Norman was to do an impromptu press conference, I noticed that the cameramen had all gathered in an arc, knowing that if the Chancellor stood in the centre of the arc, they would have a very good shot of Norman in the foreground, and a drain directly behind him. My fellow hacks will not forgive me but … I called Gus O’Donnell, the PM’s press secretary who was overseeing this event, and warned him about these looming ‘down the plughole’ headlines, so that when they came out he directed Norman very pointedly to the edge of the arc.

Also in that little gathering was one David Cameron, then a special adviser, now the Prime Minister and leader of a campaign in which I find myself, this time, on his side, and it is Norman who is on the other.

I do not particularly like being on the same side as Cameron. Partly tribal politics. Also, the strategist in me is angry that we are having this referendum, promised as a tactical response to the rise of UKIP three years ago, perhaps one of the factors that gave him a majority he didn’t always expect, but now we are having it and, guess what, possibly the most important vote of our lifetime and it is becoming as much an argument about the future leadership of the Tory party, as the future of the UK, and all manner of issues and personalities are crowding in in a way not exactly predicted when it all began.

So I do not stand here as a natural supporter of Mr Cameron, or a great admirer of the way he has handled this debate.

I stand here purely as someone who, amid all the bleatings from LEAVE about Project Fear thinks there is an awful lot to be scared about if we do the wrong thing on June 23.

I centre my arguments on three Ps and a U.

The Ps. Peace. Power. Prosperity.

The U. The Unknown. More accurately Fear of the Unknown but I thought if I said FU it was too early to be going all Malcolm Tucker on you. We can do that in q and a.

Let’s start with peace. There have not been many wonderful examples of communication in this campaign, but one I noticed, from Labour, was a short film about a very old second world war veteran, close to tears, saying he couldn’t believe that a time the forces of the good in the world need to work together, Britain of all countries, historically a leader, is on the verge of ripping itself apart.

I know that NATO has been a big part of keeping the peace in Europe. But do not underestimate the importance of Europe’s institutions becoming ever closer in helping deliver peace to a continent historically defined by wars between its great powers which have engulfed the world. If Black Wednesday was one of the big days of my journalistic career, one of the defining images was of Mitterrand and Kohl hand in hand. I am not saying that a vote for LEAVE is a vote for World War 3. I am saying that it is hard bordering on impossible to see the circumstances in which EU nations go to war with each other when they are pulling together. Easier to do so when they are pulling apart amid the kind of strains we have now over migration and economic inequality, and the reassertion of Russian power. The answer is not to run away from those challenges or think we can be immune from them but seek to meet them together.

We should resist the short memory syndrome. How many felt, as I did, a certain chill when Austria came so close to electing a far right president? Amid economic uncertainty, the forces of the far right are on the rise, sufficient even for Angela Merkel to have to warn about the return of anti Semitism. We will defeat them better together.

I am saying too that the nature of the threats we face to peace require us to be part of the collective strength that the EU gives us. There is the obvious threat, of global terrorism, which requires greater not less co-operation between the forces of security and law and order. ISIS would love it if we began the break up of the EU. So would Vladimir Putin. We should not be weakening ourselves at a time his entire objective, his strategy and his tactics are all about the reassertion of Russian strength.

Virtually every security voice is saying we fight terrorism and organized crime better together. If we leave the EU, we would lose our access to the European Arrest Warrant, making justice slower and reducing our ability to deport suspected criminals. The Association of Chief Police officers has said being out of the EAW and relying on less effective extradition arrangements could have the effect of turning the UK into a ‘safe haven’ for Europe’s criminals.

There are two borders I worry about too. Our border with France moving back from Calais to Dover. And the only land border in the UK, the one between north and south Ireland. Think that one through, those who take peace in Northern Ireland for granted. I have still to hear any credible answer to the question – how can you put an end to free movement across the EU without controls at that land border? And what are the trade and security implications in the incredibly important relationship between the UK and Ireland?

This takes me to power, the second P. The UK remains an important country. And we will not vanish off the face of the earth if we come out. But I do believe we will diminish in power very quickly. When Barack Obama talked about us going to the back of the queue, when President Hollande talked about their being ‘consequences’ to Brexit, when Angela Merkel says we have more power at the table than away from the table, when Prime Minister Modi said we would be of less interest or relevance to India out of the EU, they, in common with all the other world leaders saying the same thing, were all dismissed as part of Project Fear, in Obama’s case dismissed by Leave leader Boris Johnson – hoping to be PM in a few weeks time if we make the wrong call, ladies and gentlemen – in rather unpleasant and racist terms. But when virtually every world leader is arguing that they believe we would be taking the wrong decision, might their collective wisdom actually be worth thinking about? And might there be a message in reflecting that the only foreign voices who appear to want us to leave are Putin, ISIS and Donald Trump?

The EU is the world’s largest provider of development assistance, the world’s biggest trade bloc, and a key player in the global effort against climate change. Inside the EU, the UK has influence over how the EU uses its weight around the world. Alone, we can do some good, but not as much as through the pooling of our resources.

Let me weave in part of the U here, the fear of the Unknown and also the unintended consequences. A prediction … if we leave, we will do so despite a majority of Scots wanting us to stay. Nicola Sturgeon will have her excuse for the second referendum. This time I think she would win it, low oil price or not. Bye bye UK. And with it bye bye our seat as a permanent member of the UNSC. The power we have now comes not merely because of our history but because it gives us a top table place on so many of the important bodies of international authority. Alone in being a big player at the UN. NATO. G7. G20. Commonwealth. EU. We are deliberately taking a risk with that … and for what?

So to P for prosperity. Again, I am not saying that our economy will vanish overnight. I am saying that the single market is of enormous advantage to business and to consumers and, short of there being any compelling evidence that we would be better off out, then why on earth would we put that at risk too? And why would we assume, once we are out, that what will be by far the bigger market – 500m people minus us – would want to do a deal that was better for us than for them? This is on a par with Trump’s vain belief that the Mexicans will pay for the wall that, hopefully, he will never be in a position to build.

A vote to stay is a vote for, if not certainty in these uncertain times, much greater security. Not only with access to the single market but with a say over the rules of doing business across Europe. That means more jobs, lower prices, and more financial security for British families.

A vote to leave is a vote for a risk so big it should only be made with at least some sense of certainty that Vote Leave have not been able to provide.

If we stay, we are, Cameron’s reforms not withstanding, largely sticking with the status quo. If we come out we are making several general elections worth of change in there. And yet have the LEAVE side done the equivalent of a manifesto and said what will replace the arrangements we have now?

‘We just don’t know’ is their answer to what replaces the single market arrangements, and at various points different LEAVE campaigners have suggested deals similar to those enjoyed by Canada, Albania, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Macedonia, Andorra, The Isle of Man, The Channel Islands, Turkey, Australia, South Korea, Ukraine, Moldova, Morocco, Vanuatu, Brunei, Nicaragua, Mexico, Peru, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, or Columbia.

The truth is if we left, the EU would not give us a better deal than they have for themselves. This would harm our economy, lead to a fall in standard of living, billions in spending cuts, which would hit the NHS and other public services. And as Johnson travels Britain with his mobile lie machine, and the straightforward untruths on the side of his bus, it is hypocrisy of stomach churning proportions to see him, Farage and the NHS-hating privatisers who run Vote Leave pretending this is a fight for more money for hospitals.

It is also fantasy to say we can leave the EU yet stay inside the single market while delivering on Leave’s pledge to stop freedom of movement. To quote former civil servant Sir Stephen Wall, one of those ‘experts’ LEAVE are so keen to dismiss, who has forgotten more about the EU than most of us will ever know: ‘A vote to leave the EU would be interpreted as, at least in part, a vote against the freedom of movement of people. It is likely therefore that the Government would be obliged to seek terms giving the UK continued open access to the single market while excluding freedom of movement. Such a deal would be unnegotiable’

Again, it’s good to take a look at whose side you’re on in an argument. Now given that a lot of the current dissatisfaction with politics and economics stems from the failings which led to the GFC, and the feeling that those who caused it have carried on as per, and those who didn’t have paid a price, it is not an automatic that great economic voices are as credible as we or they might like. But can they all be wrong? Bank of England, World Bank, OECD, IMF, CBI, IMF, LSE … I could stand here pretty much for the rest of my speech and list the voices who are backing REMAIN. On the other side there is John Longworth of the BCC, and as major employers there are hardly any outside the tax dodgers and foreigners who own most of our national press and make sure the Brexit Lie Machine can tick away nicely.

It is nonsense. A market of 500 million people.
Producing and selling one third of the world’s goods and services.
Where British businesses do at least 50 per cent of their trade.
And we would be out of the decision-making process determining the rules. Can anyone tell me why, if we are out, other European countries will allow Britain to operate like some offshore centre, free from Europe’s responsibilities but participating fully in its opportunities. Even Norway doesn’t get that deal, and with their Sovereign Wealth Fund, they can call a lot of shots.

Firms come to Britain because we offer a gateway to high-income consumers who want high-value goods.
Because of the single market. If you really drill down on all the expert economic opinion, it is saying investors will pull out, firms relocate, jobs disappear – because we choose to leave this remarkable free trade area, and deliberately opt for a more restrictive trade relations with the world. So PWC has estimated almost 1m jobs will be lost if we come out of the single market. Every serious organization issues serious warnings and these are waved away as nonsense by Johnson and Farage. They’ll work it out. Those two.

It is not so much a leap in the dark as a dive from a top board into an empty pool, knowing that a catastrophe is likely but saying, oh what the hell, let’s give it a go. That is why, just as passionately as Norman believes the opposite, I believe we should vote to stay in the EU on June 23.

 

]]>
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/06/15/3psu-remain-peace-power-prosperity-v-fear-of-the-unknown/feed/ 0
Time to listen to people who know what they are on about http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/06/09/time-to-listen-to-people-who-know-what-they-are-on-about/ http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/06/09/time-to-listen-to-people-who-know-what-they-are-on-about/#respond Thu, 09 Jun 2016 06:57:11 +0000 http://www.alastaircampbell.org/?p=6122 Given that Tony Blair ousted John Major from power in 1997, they are hardly ever likely to be best buddies. But for both Prime Ministers, Northern Ireland was a big priority, and the progress to peace there one of the best examples of what boldness and courage, political commitment and hard work, can do.

So as the EU referendum nears, it is good for the campaign that they are going there together, and that their voices will be heard on a subject on which all too little has been spoken, namely the potential impact on Ireland north and south of a LEAVE vote on June 23.

Doubtless they will be drawing attention to the possible return of  controls at what is the only land border between the UK and the EU. Add in the possibility on the other side of the UK, South East England, of the border at Calais moving back to Kent (another issue on which LEAVE are conspicuously quiet) and you start to get into the nitty gritty of just two of the many difficult and unintended consequences of exit.

Border controls in Ireland have a resonance unlike no other. We in Great Britain have not had to live with the kind of checks that the security situation, the smuggling and the organised crime related to terrorism, demanded. Nobody from LEAVE has been able to explain how they can meet their promises to curb freedom of movement by EU nationals without strict border controls returning. Nor have they been able to explain how they would make up for the damage done to both UK and Irish economies by the departure from the single market on which so many of our jobs, and so much of our prosperity depend.

One of the most remarkable parts of the Boris Johnson/Michael Gove et al con trick at the heart of LEAVE has been the way they have turned the concept of the ‘expert’ on its head, and also how they, as Establishment as they come, have become self-appointed leaders against ‘the elite.’ ‘Expert’ used to mean someone who knew what they were talking about. So when nine out of ten economists argue strongly for REMAIN, and when every major economic institution bar none comes out against LEAVE, warning of potentially cataclysmic consequences, these are all dismissed, by Eton/Oxbridge/Telegraph/Tory MP/London Mayor Johnson, and Oxbridge/Murdoch press/Tory MP/Lord High Chancellor Gove as pro-establishment Project Fear flunkeys.

Sometimes, when you have difficulty making a decision, expert opinion is the one worth listening to. When it comes to the peace process, its strengths and weaknesses, you don’t have many greater experts than Tony Blair and John Major. If leaders have a genuine fear that a course of action will have bad consequences for something as important and at times as fragile as the peace process, they have a duty let alone a right to say so, however much the Project Fear attack goes up. There is a lot to be scared about. They will also be warning of the danger of a second Scottish independence if the UK votes to leave and, as I have said before, I think in those circumstances there could be a different outcome.

So yes, the economy is on the ballot paper on June 23, and the single market and the three million UK jobs that partly depend on it should be argument enough to stay. But the peace process is on the ballot paper too. And so is the Union.

They are the kind of issues too serious to be sacrificed on the altar of Boris Johnson’s ambition to follow in the footsteps of Major and Blair into Downing Street. I hope today is one of those days when people really stop and think what is at stake.

I know from my regular visits to Ireland that the business community there is if anything even more united for the UK staying than business is here. Today Ibec, a group representing Irish business, is launching a poster campaign at Dublin Airport, aimed at the many UK voters, and Irish voters with UK connections, passing through there daily.

The message is simple … ‘DON’T GO. Let’s work together.’ Ibec CEO Danny McCoy says: ‘If the UK votes to leave, not only will the UK economy suffer, Ireland will also be badly affected. An EU without the UK would be a lesser Union.

‘A UK exit would send Ireland, Britain and Europe into uncharted and treacherous waters. The value of sterling has already fallen significantly, a vote to leave would prompt a further significant depreciation, heaping pressure on businesses trading with the UK. This is in addition to the countless other risks that would arise during and after the period of a negotiated exit. A UK departure would be a blow to the Irish recovery and result in a protracted period of uncertainty. It would undermine Europe’s ability to act collectively and decisively in the world and would push the EU back into a damaging period of crisis management, at a time when it should be looking to the future.’

While Johnson, Gove, Farage et al blithely claim new trade deals will be worked out quickly and with ease, anyone with any experience of actually doing them knows how untrue that is. We are set, if we leave, for years of uncertainty and with it massive economic risk.

In this era of disbelieve, and of anti-politics and anti-business, and anti-expert, it is easier than it should be for a Trump or a Johnson to gain traction. But sometimes it really is worth listening to people who know what they are talking about. Love them or hate them, Major and Blair are seriously worth listening to on the fragility of the peace process. And the overwhelming volume of the expert voices warning of economic calamity are worth heeding too, because the prospects of it are all too real.

]]>
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/06/09/time-to-listen-to-people-who-know-what-they-are-on-about/feed/ 0
Lots to learn from the way Sadiq Khan fought and beat the Tories http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/05/08/6114/ http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/05/08/6114/#comments Sun, 08 May 2016 13:56:43 +0000 http://www.alastaircampbell.org/?p=6114 Given Sadiq Khan is in man-of-the-moment territory, I thought I would repost the transcript of the interview I did with him a few weeks back for GQ. What was clear to me then, and became clearer as the London Mayoral campaign went on, was that Sadiq had done a lot of strategic heavy-lifting – worked out the big themes and messages he wanted to put across, and thought well about how to deal with those areas where he had worked out he was vulnerable to attack. (The bits in bold, as before, are the bits that were not used in the published interview on space grounds, but which I do think say something interesting about him nonetheless).

He has got off to a good start, because of the nature of the campaign, and the size of the mandate. I also think he was absolutely right to pitch in today by emphasising the lessons to be learned from the nature of the campaign that led to his win. As I said on Robert Peston’s new ITV show this morning, he won in part by being explicit about the desire to win support from all sections of the community, including people who would not normally consider Labour. He was pro-business but also had ideas for dealing with inequality. He was not talking only to the converted, and he was always determined not to get trapped inside the political bubble. Too many people in the Labour Party today are talking to themselves about themselves, in a language many do not hear let alone understand.

I hope too that he will use his new found authority and name recognition to get right into the EU referendum. He is well placed to make the Labour case for IN, the London case for IN, and to show that positive campaigning can enthuse and motivate others to get involved. It is damaging to the campaign for IN if it is seen as being all about a Tory internal war to succeed David Cameron, Boris v George, Teresa v Michael and so on. There is a progressive case for EU membership and we need to hear a lot more of it. Sadiq can be a big part of that.

Now here is the GQ chat again.

AC: Why should London vote for a Mayor who supports Liverpool?

 

SK: Because I am an authentic football fan who doesn’t change teams to win votes.

 

AC: Why Liverpool?

 

SK: My two brothers went to Chelsea and got chased away being called “the P word,” [Paki] and never went back. I supported Wimbledon, went to Plough Lane for a Cup game against Spurs, and the Wimbledon fans – my team – were calling me the “Y-word” [Yid]. I never went back. So the only opportunity to watch was Match of the Day, Big Match, Football Focus, Saint and Greavsie. Liverpool were on all the time, playing beautiful football, the Dalglish-Rush-Souness-Hansen era, I became a Liverpool fan at eight or nine.

 

AC: Do you go?

 

SK: Last year once, this year not yet.

 

AC: Do you regret nominating Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership?

 

SK: No I don’t. We lost two elections in a row, big defeats, won just 29percent, 30percent. In those circumstances, for the Westminster elite not to let someone on the ballot paper who had support in parts of the party would have been wrong. You remember when we stitched it up to stop Ken Livingstone running for Mayor. We ended up coming third. Also, David Miliband nominated Diane Abbott in 2010, but she came fifth because there were better candidates.

 

AC: Did you think Corbyn could win?

 

SK: No, I was clear I was not supporting him, and I was as astonished as anyone by Corbynmania. I have spoken to mates of yours whose kids voted for him, because he said what he believed and believed what he said, and the other three candidates had such flat campaigns, it was not clear what they stood for. Also it is not true that his voters were all – quotes – “headbangers”, or signed up for three quid. He won among members, supporters, trade unions.

 

AC: How is he doing?

 

SK: Early days. He has made mistakes. If you have done 32 years as a backbencher, no experience of the frontbench, let alone leadership, it is a difficult transition. But simple things: as Leader of the Opposition you’re applying for the job of Prime Minister, so when there is an event to commemorate the Battle of Britain, I don’t care what your views are, you sing the national anthem. That was a mistake.

 

AC: Do you have a sense of what his general approach to policy and strategy is?

 

SK: It is not for me to answer for him, but I think he is getting to grips with the levers. Politics is a team sport, the big tent matters, and if they are honest I’m not sure they have been good at building a team.

 

AC: How much do you want him in your campaign?

 

SK: This is my campaign, and I have a similar mandate, 60 percent. A city chooses as Mayor a champion for that city, with ideas, a vision; what they do not want is a patsy for their party. That means working with a Conservative government if it is in the interests of the city. George Osborne is right to go overseas and find investment for London. And if Jeremy Corbyn says things not in London’s interests, I will say so.

 

AC: Why did you change your mind on Heathrow?

 

SK: I’ve accepted there is a case for more capacity, unlike my opponent. But last year almost ten thousand Londoners died because of poor air quality, kids are growing up with under developed lungs, the Supreme Court says we are in breach of air pollution rules. At 45, I have just been diagnosed with adult onset asthma. The idea of another runway at Heathrow is a joke. It will take decades to get legal obstacles out of the way, it certainly won’t help pollution. Gatwick is the solution. You get the jobs, you get the capacity, you get the growth …

 

AC: And the local residents don’t have a vote in the Mayoral election.

 

SK: It’s not that. It’s the practicality, and the pollution. A better Gatwick also means more competition for Heathrow who can hopefully raise their game.

 

AC: Why not take it right out of London, to the Midlands?

 

SK: I would revisit City airport and yes, better regional airports. If HS2 was linking Birmingham to London, there could be a new runway there, that is what Birmingham MPs argue for. That is an argument against Heathrow.

 

AC: Where are you on HS2?

 

SK: Great idea. We need to do infrastructure better. It costs so much more here. Since Crossrail, Paris has done five [equivalents]. One worry I have is that Euston doesn’t work as a station for HS2 because there are no links with Crossrail and other systems. So yes to HS2, no to current plans for Euston.

 

AC: How active will Jeremy be in your campaign?

 

SK: Jeremy gets the housing crisis in London, he is passionate about inequality, of course he will help. But it is about me, my campaign for London, not Jeremy.

 

AC: But if Scotland and the local elections are bad, and you win here, you are his get out of jail card.

 

SK: Alastair, you know this, you cannot choose which elections to fight and win. This is not about me …

 

AC: You just said it was …

 

SK: … it is about London. It is about housing, and whether people, graduates as well as non graduates, not just bus drivers and teachers, but there are people in Morgan Stanley, Deloittes, the tech companies, can they afford to live in London? It is about building a modern transport system. It is about helping people to do a hard day’s work and get decent pay. I am vain, and I love the party, but it is not about me or Jeremy, it is about London and Londoners. So I say to people “do not be too clever by half,” working out if this helps Jeremy Corbyn or harms him, it is about London.

 

AC: Are you finding people less willing to come out and campaign though, in case it helps him?

 

SK: On the contrary. I am getting lots of help. Hilary Benn the other day, peers coming to the phone bank yesterday, Margaret Hodge and Oona King backing me then on the other wing if you like, Ken Livingstone. I have Tories, Lib Dems, Greens, Kippers, all coming over. Sure, I could win on a core vote strategy, we have 45 out of 72 MPs in London, that is not the Mayor I want to be. I want to be Mayor for all Londoners.

 

AC: But Zac’s campaign is basically portraying you as “Corbyn’s candidate.”

 

SK: The Tory campaign is not rocket science. It will be a negative campaign about links to Corbyn, and then coded language about my background. [Goldsmith leaflets call Khan “radical and divisive]

 

AC: Is that really the case? Aren’t you proud to be radical?

 

SK: It is about context, Alastair. “Radical and divisive” – it says that with my photo, my name, in the context of the attacks in Paris, “radical and divisive.” I am not going to get sucked into their negative campaign. I have a positive vision for London, and my experience is more relevant. Only two people can be Mayor, me or Goldsmith, and I am asking people of all backgrounds, all parties, to lend me their vote.

 

AC: Have you been surprised at Zac’s campaign?

 

SK: Pleasantly surprised. He is not Boris Johnson, is he? Boris is a force of nature. He is personable, funny. I like Boris.

 

AC: Isn’t he just a right wing twat?

 

SK: You can like people with dodgy politics, dodgy ideas and ruthless ambition. Zac has none of the vision or charisma. Being the Mayor of a leading global centre, you should have done something, have ideas, know why you’re doing it. I am unclear why he is doing it. I am clear why I am doing this. London gave me all my chances to fulfill my potential. My parents were immigrants, my Dad passed away in 2003, he had been a bus driver for 25 years, my Mum sewed clothes, raised eight children, but we had security on housing, it was affordable, they could put money aside to get our own home; we went to good local schools and our parents said “listen to the teachers.” They pushed us. All of us who wanted to go to university, we did. I came back home after law school, slept in the same top bunk, saving for a deposit, then my wife and I got a property in our mid 20s; I was a lawyer, ran a business, MP, then sat at the Cabinet table …that is the London story. Too many people miss out on those chances now.

 

AC: What are you going to do about housing?

 

SK: I have a real plan, Homes for Londoners, I’ll be in charge, it will do what it says on the tin. In the London Plan, my expectation in development is that half of new homes must be genuinely affordable. I will define that. Social rents linked to salary …

 

AC: So you have to intervene in the market?

 

SK: The market isn’t working. I want half to be genuinely affordable. Developers and local authorities have to know what that means. I am also saying, no more selling off first to Asia and the Middle East.

 

AC: How do you stop them?

 

SK: The quid pro quo for permission to develop is first dibs to Londoners.

 

AC: But how do you stop them selling to foreigners?

 

SK: For six months they go first to Londoners. One of the top five estate agents, they advertised seven hundred properties overseas before here. Another one, they had fifty cocktail parties in Singapore and Malaysia on properties not yet built. So there are going to be conditions for development – first try sell here, and they have to be affordable.

 

AC: But do you have power there, or only influence?

 

SK: The Plan for London gives me that power. I am also going to set up a London wide not for profit letting agent to stop some of the worst rip offs, provide cheaper alternatives. We need a Mayor who understands the powers and how to use them.

 

AC: Do you want more powers?

 

SK: Absolutely. Of all public money spent in London, seven percent is by the Mayor. In New York, it is 50, in Tokyo 70 percent. This is the most centralized democracy in the world. We have police, fire, planning, tube, DLR, parts of the overground. We should have skills too. Now, the London Plan is the Bible

 

AC: Not the Koran?

 

SK: … I do do God, Alastair, but if I said Koran not Bible I might provoke another “radical and divisive” Zac leaflet. So the London Plan is the Bible and the next things the Mayor and local authorities should have are skills, further education, planning of education places, commuter trains to London, more powers on housing, the ability to borrow to build, issue bonds.

 

AC: Why has London not really been part of the debate about next steps for devolution?

 

SK: Because nobody is batting for London. Boris is disinterested. All he wanted was to prove he could be a winner. There is one school of thought that says Mayors should cut ribbons, be funny and be a buffoon. The other school of thought is that we can do more. Scotland is getting more powers. Wales is getting more powers. Greater Manchester. London needs more powers.

 

AC: Like?

 

SK: Like powers on skills. [New York Mayor] Bill de Blasio realized New York was a world leader on tech. He set up a tech talent pipeline, to train up New Yorkers for the skills of tomorrow. I want to do it for London, for tech, fashion, the creative industries, say to business, come to Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Harrow, Croyon, speak to our young people, inspire them, help me train them up.

 

AC: Are you looking forward to getting out of Parliament?

 

SK: I look forward to being Mayor. Being in Opposition is a grind, winning arguments and losing votes. I am loving this. The only thing I would love more is being Mayor because I can do stuff, fix the housing crisis, get employers to skill up, pay a living wage, freeze fares for four years, sort transport. If the Mayor says to top companies to come together to discuss skills, they’ll come. I can persuade people.

 

AC: I am surprised you are so intensely relaxed about billionaires getting filthy rich.

 

SK: To be fair to Peter Mandelson who said that, he also said “provided they pay their taxes.” Now we are city with 140 billionaires, over 400,000 millionaires. There are some who use us to launder money – unacceptable.

 

AC: So you’ll go for the Russians?

 

SK: Absolutely, if London is being used for money laundering, yes. There should be more transparency on property. In New York you cannot hide behind offshore. But most employers I speak to, they want to create jobs and give decent salaries. Some small and medium companies say to me they cannot afford to pay the living wage. I say “what about if I gave you a business rate cut?” and they say, yes, ok. We want companies which are skilled up, generating more profit, more corporation tax – we should not be embarrassed at success, as long as they pay their taxes. London has always been open to trade, people, ideas. We have to keep that. I want to compete not just with New York, Paris, Berlin … the ten fastest growing cities in the world are in China. How do we compete with them? We have to attract investment and we have to compete on skills.

 

AC: But the immigrants nobody ever seems to challenge are the tax-dodging superwealthy, the very ones helping create the housing crisis for Londoners.

 

SK: Sure. But the way to avoid tax avoidance is to close loopholes.

 

AC: We have said that forever. So you are sending a message to the superwealthy they are more than welcome here?

 

SK: Anyone who comes to do good things for London is welcome, wealthy or middle class. This is a place to fulfil potential, not take the piss. Some take the piss and we have to clamp down on that, but we mustn’t scare off Indian entrepreneurs, Chinese students.

 

AC: So you want the government to change the visa regime for students?

 

SK: Without a doubt. Why do Bill Clinton, Benazir Bhutto, Aung Sang Suu Kyi, have such fondness for Britain? They studied here. How great is it when students from the East go back home and say “it is not true the West hates us”?

 

AC: Do you not feel that London is becoming almost like a separate country from the rest of the UK?

 

SK: London had always been different. There is the old saying that Britain is ten years behind America, and the country as a whole is ten years behind London.

 

AC: But many parts of the country really feel left behind.

 

SK: Yes but we should not cut the cake to make it smaller. If London is more successful it makes the cake bigger for everyone. If you have a Mayor of London working for jobs and growth and strong businesses, that is going to create opportunities for businesses and people in Burnley or Hull and places all over the UK. Sure, the media are here, the creative arts are here, and I am sure lots of people have an impression of London and say “they have everything already,” but I really believe if London does better the country does better.

 

AC: Can you ever envisage a population limit?

 

SK: No. The problem is not population, it is lack of planning. We must have better planning on housing, on transport, not just Crossrail, but trams, electric buses, better cycle lanes…

 

AC: They are causing chaos right now.

 

SK: Short-term pain, long-term gain. The problem is Boris has not been on top of the project. So more planning on homes and skills. We cannot compete with China or Taiwan on price; we compete on skills, on arts and culture. On arts this is the world’s leader. Adele. James Bond. JK Rowling. Royal Opera House. Barbican. O2. Four out of five people who come here say they come for our cultural arts.

 

AC: How are you going to get more kids from poorer backgrounds into that?

 

SK: You know the European city of culture? London will have a borough of culture. Could be Redbridge, Havering, Croydon. The Royal Opera House will go to them. Imagine great art and sculpture in squares in Brixton or Tooting. Then we get the kids into the theatres and the concerts. In Newham, already, every child gets to play an instrument. Let’s spread that. London has lost thirty percent of live music venues since 2007. Never mind mourning David Bowie, some of the halls he first played in have closed down. Developers put up buildings, then complain about the noise and the venues can’t afford soundproofing. I say flip it around so the developers have to do the soundproofing on the new developments. The Mayor has the power to do that.

 

AC: What are you going to do about the growing numbers of people sleeping on the streets?

 

SK: It’s heartbreaking. You know what makes me angry – people saying you won’t get rid of it. Short memories. You guys [New Labour] got rid of it. I remember being scared going to Waterloo, cardboard city, remember? Now it is all coming back and I tell my daughters, you guys got rid of it. It took hard graft, investment, hostels, mental health interventions, alcohol dependency units.

 

AC: So what can you do?

SK: I was out with St Mungo’s Broadway and Crisis at Christmas and what is needed is faster intervention. A simple thing like duty solicitors at court when people are being made homeless. Making sure local authorities are better connected with data, so that when someone from one area is homeless in another one, nobody is able to say “nothing to do with us.” More alcohol dependency centres. Fewer silos. More joined up interventions – the Mayor can do that, bring together housing, education, children’s centres, prisons. St Mungo’s do this great thing – and fair dues, Boris played a part in this – “no second night out.” If you are out for the second night, they find emergency digs. But then the problem is lack of continuity of care. Hardly surprising when local authorities have lost 60percent of funding. But you cannot live in the best city in the world and have people living on the streets.

 

AC: You said you do do God. How much?

 

SK: We all have multiple identities. I am a Dad, a husband, Londoner, Asian, British, Muslim. I never run away from my faith but I don’t proselytise (spell ??)

 

AC: Do you pray five times a day?

 

SK: I try to. During Ramadan I fast. This Ramadan I opened fast twice in a synagogue. Where else in the world would someone of Islamic faith be welcome to do that? That is the magic of London. The faiths don’t just tolerate each other, but show respect.

 

AC: When was the last time you were racially abused?

 

SK: To my face, not recently. Growing up, a lot.

 

AC: What about your daughters?

 

SK: They have not had it to their face. That shows progress. My Dad used to tell the story of a sign up in Earl’s Court – “no Irish, no blacks, no dogs.” The Labour government brought in the Race Relations Act to make that kind of thing unlawful. This is my point about the power of politics. I had experiences which my daughters have never had to suffer. Think about it – we are at the cusp of London choosing a Londoner, son of immigrants, ethnic minority, Muslim. Not being too pompous about it, but think about the signal that is going to send around the world. Or think back to the Olympics, I was at home with twelve people, there were 80,000 in the stadium, tens of millions watching TV, cheering on an African, an asylum seeker, a Muslim, a black guy, a refugee, Mo, Mohammed, Farah. That was the best ever. And the Mo Farah story is this: he goes to his local state school, a PE teacher spots his talent, he goes to the track, he starts to get noticed, then Paula Radcliffe pays for his driving lessons so he can pass his test to drive elsewhere to train and compete and and fulfil his potential. He got a helping hand. Too many in London today, who could make it in sport, arts, media, the law, they are missing out, can’t get decent homes, not enough apprenticeships, not enough access to the best unis and colleges.

 

AC: Why are we so low on talent in politics?

 

SK: There are talented people. It’s all relative. Part of it is that a generation of Labour politicians became MPs in the time of a Labour government. The ability to be themselves and develop was inhibited by control freakery at the centre …

 

AC: We call it “necessary discipline.”

 

SK: I am not criticizing you. It was necessary. We won elections, did amazing things. But all that Blair-Brown camp stuff, or express an opinion and it makes you a rebel… The generation elected in Opposition spent a lot of time thinking, planning. Tony and Gordon went off to America to look for ideas. But was there enough succession planning? Did the generation elected when we were in government think ahead enough? No, so 2010 and 2015 were not so exciting.

 

AC: You ran Ed Miliband’s leadership campaign. Do you still think he was the right guy?

 

SK: Yes. He won fair and square in 2010.

 

AC: But the public never saw him as a PM. That was a real problem.

 

SK: Hindsight tells us that.

 

AC: You don’t think it was clear at the time?

 

SK: It was far better for him to have stood, rather than have a re-run of 1994 and all it led to, the TBGBs.

 

AC: But we did win three elections despite it all.

 

SK: Ok. But if Ed thought he should be leader, then he was right to go for it. Don’t keep your hands in your pockets, go for it. There are lots of things to say in hindsight, because we lost the election.

 

AC: What compromises are you having to make?

 

SK: I will try to let people know who I am. On the frontbench collective responsibility is like a straitjacket, message discipline binds you in. I can now say what I really think, on business say, or immigration.

 

AC: Yeah, but is that compromise? It all fits the strategy. Pro-business because Corbyn is seen as anti. Positive message on immigration because the backstory fits. It is all very nicely packaged.

 

SK: Thank you! (laughs) I am not sure I am that clever. I have to be myself.

 

AC: But you don’t really love these business guys, do you?

 

SK: The difference between me and Goldsmith is that I have run a business. I have had sleepless nights about the overdraft, bills, rent. I have lived through all that.

 

AC: But these big business investment bank people are not your people.

 

SK: A famous politician [Blair] said we must get away from “our people/their people.”

 

AC: But you wouldn’t go on holiday with them.

 

SK: I feel as comfortable in a boardroom as I do in Tooting High Street. I understand why they are important to London’s prosperity. And for every investment banker sixty other jobs depend on them.

 

AC: But life for the people in Tooting High Street has been made tougher by bankers’ greed and most of them got away with it.

 

SK: Some have taken the piss, yes, and not been stood up to.

 

AC: Your message is they are ok.

 

SK: No, what I said is London is not, and cannot be, closed for business.

 

AC: What about the cops? By and large good?

 

SK: By and large yes.

 

AC: Any lingering racism?

 

SK: I am sure there is. But it is so much better. When I grew up you crossed the road to avoid them, because of stop and search. For most of us that was our first contact with the police. Now it will be neighbourhood policing, or school visits. My kids would approach the police in a way that I would never have done when I was younger. But also remember a lot of the cases I did, which I won and became a successful lawyer, were police misconduct cases, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, or helping black police officers subject to racism.

 

AC: Are you a Monarchist?

 

SK: I like the Queen.

 

AC: I didn’t ask that. I asked if you are a Monarchist.

 

SK: I could paraphrase the Churchill quote about democracy being the worst system apart from all the others …

 

AC: The Monarchy is not democratic.

 

SK: She is doing a good job. If it ain’t broke …

 

AC: Do you think Boris could be PM?

 

SK: The jury is out. Nothing so far persuades me he can. But underestimate him at your peril.

 

AC: Could Osborne be PM?

SK: Yes.

 

AC: Competent?

SK: By his lights, yes. He has also been lucky.

 

AC: Lucky that Labour didn’t challenge him enough and let him get away with “the mess we inherited.”

 

SK: We never bounce back in one term. We have to learn lessons. But you have to be either commentator or participant, and ask, “am I doing this to feel better or influence the outcome?”

 

AC: Your job is also to be a leadership figure and we need those in the party now, saying different things.

 

SK: Yes, and I will deliver. It is going to be me, not Corbyn, on the ballot paper. I hope to show how we win elections. We have not won the Mayoral election since ’04; ’05 was our last general election. We’ve got to get the winning habit back. There are additional benefits for Labour if I win. The rest of the country can see a template.

 

AC: Can you see Corbyn as PM?

 

SK: He has to prove he can be.

 

AC: So the jury is out on Boris and very out on Jeremy?

 

SK: He has to prove he can do it.

AC: Do you worry the people have already decided?

 

SK: The downside of the five year Parliament is a very different rhythm. It is really important Jeremy gets to grips with it, because his only task is to win the next election.

 

AC: You sound even less confident than I am.

 

SK: If a week is a long time in politics, four years is an infinity.

 

AC: Could you be PM? If this goes well, and you serve two terms, you could be well placed to be leader.

 

SK: No. I am not interested. I want to be Mayor of London.

 

AC: You do stand up comedy. Tell me a joke, make me laugh.

 

SK: (long pause) Ok. So I went to St George’s my local hospital, and I asked three surgeons, “who are the easiest people to operate on?” The first surgeon said librarians, “because you slice them open, and all the parts are perfectly ordered.” The second one said “no, accountants are the easiest, because you slice them open and all their parts are numbered.” But the third one said “no, it’s politicians. We had Jeremy Hunt in here last year. I sliced him open and he was gutless, spineless, and his head and arse were totally interchangeable.”

 

AC: Not bad. Where did you hear it?

 

SK: I wrote it myself.

 

AC: This is GQ, and you once said you were cool. Define cool.

 

SK: My kids said I was cool. I was GQ Man of the Month once, photographed by David Bailey.

 

AC: He’s done me three times, that’s nothing. Define cool.

 

SK: Somebody who doesn’t embarrass his children too much. Who is just at ease at a Kooks concert or taking his kids to see the Nutcracker. Oh, and Jon Boyega knows who I am.

 

AC: Who’s he?

 

SK: Who is Jon Boyega? Finn in Star Wars.

 

AC: I’m not interested in Star Wars.

 

SK: Well, I am and he knew who I was.

 

AC: It’s hardly on a par with playing football with Maradona.

 

SK: I played in a match against you. You were good, but very dirty.

 

AC: Which politician in the world do you most admire?

 

SK: Barack Obama.

 

AC: Do you think he’s been that good?

 

SK: You said “admire.” What he did to get there was incredible. I’ll tell you what broke my heart though, when the New Yorker called him a Muslim. I wish he had said “no I’m not but so what if I was?” He just said “I am a Christian.” It took Colin Powell to say “go to Arlington Cemetery and see the graves of Muslim soldiers.”

 

AC: Are you looking forward to hustings with [George] Galloway?

 

SK: He is a hateful, horrible man, always seeks to divide. Some of the stuff he did campaigning in Bradford was truly horrible. And in Tower Hamlets. A horrible man.

 

AC: The best Prime Minister of your lifetime?

 

SK: Blair without a doubt.

 

AC: Boris in a word.

 

SK: Funny.

 

AC: Zac in a word.

 

SK: Underachiever.

 

AC: Tony in a word?

 

SK: Winner.

 

AC: Gordon in a word?

 

SK: Decent.

 

AC: Cameron in a word?

 

SK: Heartless.

 

AC: Osborne in a word?

 

SK: Calculating.

 

AC: Sadiq in a word?

 

SK: London.

 

AC: Message discipline. You’ve been well trained, I’d say.

 

 

 

 

 

]]>
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/05/08/6114/feed/ 1
Foreigners may not have a vote, but they can have a big say in EU referendum http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/20/foreigners-may-not-have-a-vote-but-they-can-have-a-big-say-in-eu-referendum/ http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/20/foreigners-may-not-have-a-vote-but-they-can-have-a-big-say-in-eu-referendum/#comments Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:58:22 +0000 http://www.alastaircampbell.org/?p=6109 I am in Dublin today, speaking about Brexit to a conference of Ibec, the Irish equivalent of the CBI. Here is the text. 

There are three things I hope to do today. Tell you what I think is happening in the Brexit debate. Explain why I am so keen for REMAIN to win. And also, suggest how you, the Irish, can be a big part of the fight.

The title of your conference is Bold Ambitions. Do you remember Yes, Prime Minister? Of course you do. The hapless minister having rings run round him by the wily civil servant Sir Humphrey who would use the word ‘bold … such a bold idea Prime Minister’ to indicate his total disdain for something. Bold to him meant utterly devoid of any merit whatever.

Now, bold is actually a good thing, a good word, and some of the best advances ever made have come from bold ambitions. Like universal suffrage. Racial equality. Education for all. The NHS. Bringing peace to Northern Ireland. Or – here’s a good one – the countries of Europe defined historically by war coming together in a union of peace and prosperity.

But bold of the Sir Humphrey variety is exactly what I would call the plans – if we can call them that – of the mix of oddballs such as Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, George Galloway and the National Union of right wing tax-dodging media barons leading the LEAVE campaign.

People love to say politicians are all the same, it makes no difference who is in power. Nonsense. Who your MP or TD is matters. Who your or our PM is matters even more. But I would say this referendum matters the equivalent of several general elections. The historic significance, if we leave, is greater than any of the elections I was involved in. The consequences – for jobs, living standards, culture, national security and our standing in the world – are greater. This referendum is not about David Cameron’s future, it is about Britain’s future. It has an impact upon many other countries and peoples too, not least yours. A PwC study estimated total UK GDP could fall between 3 and 5.5percent under alternative trade models, which could equate to an estimated reduction in Ireland’s GDP of between 0.9 and 1.6percent in the medium term. Not to be sniffed at. Not to be so airily dismissed by the other side.

So, to the question you keep asking me – who is going to win? Remain or Leave? In or Out? The honest answer is I don’t know. If I had to put my life on it, right here, right now, I would say IN. But just as the Scottish independence vote was an emotional rollercoaster, so will this be.

I also believe there are a greater proportion of undecideds in this debate. In any campaign with a binary question, essentially you have three groups of people. People like me – frankly David Cameron could have come back from his negotiations with a LIDL plastic bag and I would still vote IN. You have people like Farage for whom, whatever Cameron secured, he would have said it was not enough and we must vote to leave. Then you have the people who are going to decide this … the undecided.

It was fantastic in Scotland to be walking down the street, heading to the Better Together office, hearing schoolkids arguing not about Instagram or Justin Bieber, but welfare reform and Trident.

The EU debate right now has neither that richness nor the informed opinion. The thing you hear time and again is that people feel confused, they don’t really understand either what is at stake or what the issues are. It is hard to know who to believe, they say. One man’s fact is another man’s scaremongering.

Here we have to take a look at what I occasionally refer to as Britain’s wretched media. Newspapers which have variously reported in the past that ‘Brussels’ is intending to ban kilts, curries, Caerphilly cheese, mushy peas, paper rounds, charity shops, bulldogs, the British Army, the passport crest, lollipop ladies, lorry drivers who wear glasses; which say Britain is going to unite as a single country with France, Church schools must hire atheist teachers, Scotch whisky is being classified as an inflammable liquid, new laws are being proposed on how to climb a ladder, it will be a criminal offence to criticise Brussels, Number 10 must fly the European flag, and – did you know this one? – Europe is insisting on one size fits all condoms. This from papers which dare to claim Europe is brainwashing our children with pro-European propaganda, and go potty when the government sends out a leaflet setting out a few facts.

Alongside the inventions, there is also lying by omission and distortion. On the economy, you have not just the Treasury this week but the OECD, the IMF, the World Bank, your sister organization the CBI, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England, Deutsche Bank, Shell, BMW, Rolls Royce, Morgan Stanley, Vauxhall, UBS, Centrica, and many many more setting out serious arguments against Brexit. All dismissed as poodles of ‘Project Fear.’ Had any one of them come out for LEAVE then how many front pages would have been cleared to tell us?

This week, we hear, Barack Obama will suggest it might be a good idea if we stay. Hypocrite, says Boris Johnson. Well, at least he has some understanding of that subject if not, given his contortions about this great Canada style trade deal we could do, about economics. Ah, but fear not, Obama may say IN, but Ian Botham says OUT. And on the economy, we should apparently heed, not all those organisations, but some bloke most of us had never heard of; John Longworth, from the British Chamber of Commerce, makes a few sceptic noises and is given instant hero status by the Brexit Lie Machine. Anyone who takes another view is an idiot, and anyone from the government who objects to what he said guilty of smears and dirty tricks.

When Mark Carney, a somewhat more significant figure in the UK economy than Mr Longworth, made a few blindingly obvious statements about the inevitable uncertainty Brexit would cause, he too was denounced as being part of Project Fear. As for The Queen … she was apparently calling for Brexit before the word even existed. Project Fantasy.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is another whose views have been put through the Lie Machine mangler. He said two things, both right – the LEAVE side need to do more to explain what would happen if they won; and it is not racist to be concerned about immigration. The mangling machine largely ignored Point 1. Point 2 was spun to suggest that God was basically a fully fledged OUTer who takes his spiritual guidance from Farage and Galloway. Now with God and the Queen against you, this is a tough campaign.

I fear that Ibec are in the Project Fear naughty corner too. ‘Ibec strongly supports continued British membership of a strong, forward-looking and globally competitive EU.’ How dare you? And worse, you have published a rather good paper on the subject, with facts and reasonable arguments, and you have set out a compelling case against Brexit in those areas where you have genuine fears; the undermining of the all-island economy; trade disruption caused by years of uncertainty as the UK negotiates a new agreement with the EU, involving higher costs for business, new customs procedures, new regulation; sterling devaluation; investment uncertainty. I do hope you have sent a copy to Johnson and Farage so they can add it to their Project Fear bonfire.

There is something comical about the way the LEAVE campaign and their media cheerleaders rage constantly about Project Fear to rebut anything that dares to suggest there might be a single reason to want to stay inside a Union that has helped deliver peace, prosperity and power to our country over most of my adult lifetime. Because as I indicated earlier, their whole coverage, for years, has been based on scare stories, many with a Boris Johnson byline. Indeed, given the scale of the bias over the years, it is a miracle there is a single Mail or Sun, Star or Express reader left who is anything other than a fully fledged OUTer.

And in that reality lies a huge opportunity for the IN side. Because though people hear the noise of our newspapers, they know they cannot be trusted as once perhaps they were. If that is the good news, the bad news is that politicians are not trusted as they used to be either. It is not a happy scene for a healthy, informed debate.

Now, I wrote in the FT at the weekend that we are in the era of disbelief, where people of strong opinions tend to believe the things that fit the view they already hold, and dismiss everything else. The social media echo chamber has exacerbated this.

The danger for the Remain campaign is that the Leave true believers and their alliance of newspaper supporters manage through mood and momentum to persuade the undecideds to come their way. Or that they manage to sew so much confusion and cynicism that they depress the vote, as people say ‘I can’t decide’ or ‘I can’t be bothered.’

So the REMAIN side must always be putting the positive case for UK membership of the EU, for what it has given us in the past, and for what it can help us do in the future. But no matter how loudly the LEAVE campaign shout ‘Project Fear,’ we must not stop warning of the dangers of exit. They bleat in the hope that we do stop warning. But there is a lot to be scared about if we sleepwalk out of Europe.

Most importantly – and here is where you can help – we have to flip this issue of disbelief, turn it on its head, understand what it means for modern campaigning. If we don’t believe politicians, media or all the established economic authorities in the world, who the hell do we believe? For the answer, we need to understand the genius of Facebook – it is the simple concept of the friend. We believe each other, we believe our friends. If Mail or Sun readers believed those papers and all their lies and exaggerations, the polls would show them 100 percent for Out. They don’t. If a supporter of the Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green or Scottish Nationalist parties followed their leaders there would be a landslide for IN. That isn’t going to happen either.

I come here regularly. I like coming here. I have friends here. I enjoy the political debate here. The Northern Ireland peace process part of my time with Tony Blair was one of the things I look back on with warmest memories and also look forward with a real care, that we can stay on the path that was set.

And all of you, I am sure, have friends in the UK. There are 660,000 Southern Irish-born people living in Britain who will be entitled to vote, plus 1.5million who have varying degrees of Irishness in their identity. So to Irish friends who have been telling me of your concerns and saying how impotent you feel in not having a say, I say that you can have a say, and you must. You all have friends and connections. Many of you, probably all of you, know, are related to, some of those 660,000, some of those 1.5million people. I would urge you systematically to contact all your UK business colleagues, all your friends, all your relatives, and tell them why it matters and why – if this is your view – you want them to vote to REMAIN. Why you think it matters to them in the UK, and why it matters to you here in Ireland.

Obama and other high profile global figures can make a difference in terms of the general mood and message, whatever the Brexit Lie Machine may do to destroy or distort. But you can make a difference in the campaigning that really matters in the modern age, person to person, friend to friend. One of the late mood and momentum moments that halted the tide towards Scottish independence was a series of ‘please don’t go’ events outside Scotland. People who didn’t have a vote did have an influence.

Political leaders are going to command the air waves. But we are all opinion formers now, not just the politicians and commentariat. The real battle is going to be fought in millions of British homes and workplaces as people turn to friends and family and people we trust and respect, work with and for. And that includes people who do not have a vote, like you. Join the team. Get on the blower. Get on the social media networks. Get involved. Text and phone and email the people on whose business your business depends. Make them think.

I have set myself the not very bold target of persuading one undecided voter, face to face, to commit to REMAIN every day between now and June 23, and since I began I have beaten my target every day. It is a mindset that once you get into it, you find is good fun. Get into it. One a day. Minimum. Each of you. Get one Irish voter in the UK to shift from unsure to IN and you’ll be helping our country avoid a catastrophic mistake; get one UK business to urge its staff to vote IN, and you’ll be helping your country avoid the inevitable damaging consequences here too.

If we come out, on June 24 we will be waking up to confront a change way bigger than anything a change of government would represent. Yet where is the manifesto for what happens if OUT wins? Where are the detailed plans that public and media would expect from any party seeking to make a fundamental change to the way our country is run? They are not there. That is why it is such a leap in the dark.

Just one question that may be of concern to you: What will happen at the border with the North? What will happen to trade and security and energy arrangements with you as an EU member and your closest neighbour as a non EU member? As the Ibec report puts it, ‘if the UK vote to leave, then regardless of the type of new arrangement it reaches with the EU, Customs and other procedures are likely to become more onerous for exporters to UK. This could be particularly challenging for Ireland given our close trading linkages and we are also the only member state that shares a land border with the UK.’ I wonder if Bojo and Co have even thought about it.

This too from the Ibec report on Brexit – ‘Ireland and Northern Ireland’s relationship has been largely stable since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. The peace process is now viewed internationally as one of the most successful peace agreements in history between two border countries. If the UK votes to leave the EU, this could potentially have consequences for the Northern Ireland peace process that has recently come under strain and may have a destabilising effect on the region. Northern Ireland also receives significant funding from the EU under a special PEACE programme. If the UK votes to leave the EU, this would undoubtedly be affected.’

And this … ‘The all-island electricity market is particularly important for Northern Ireland as it relies on electricity imports from Ireland to make up for insufficient local generation capacity.’

Have you heard a word on any of this from LEAVE? Nor have I. No doubt everything will continue as now, no difficulties whatever, like their fantasy that we can vote to come out and yet stay part of the single market.

It is nonsense. A market of 500 million people.
Producing and selling one third of the world’s goods and services.
Where British businesses do at least 50 per cent of their trade.
And we would be out of the decision-making process determining the rules. Can anyone tell me why, if we are out, other European countries will allow Britain to operate like some offshore centre, free from Europe’s responsibilities but participating fully in its opportunities. Even Norway doesn’t get that deal, and with their Sovereign Wealth Fund, they can call a lot of shots.

Firms come to Britain because we offer a gateway to high-income consumers who want high-value goods.
Because of the single market. If you really drill down on all the expert economic opinion, it is saying investors will pull out, firms relocate, jobs disappear – because we choose to leave this remarkable free trade area, and deliberately opt for a more restrictive trade relations with the world. So PWC has estimated almost 1m jobs will be lost if we come out of the single market. Every serious organization issues serious warnings and these are waved away as nonsense by Johnson and Farage. They’ll work it out. Those two. There’s one to tell your UK friends and relatives. That could be your government not long after June 23, those clowns.

No serious overseas player thinks we should leave, unless it suits their agenda. Putin probably. ISIS definitely. And, depending what mood he is in, Donald Trump. That’s about it on the international scene.

I do remain confident, and there are the beginnings of an amazing debate. It is going to get like it was in Scotland, even more so once the May 5 elections are out of the way.

The day the FT piece appeared I was on a train to a Burnley game and a load of Millwall fans came into my carriage. You may be aware Millwall fans have something of a reputation. But we not only had a very good laugh, but also an interesting discussion about the referendum.

You can read about my encounter with these Millwall fans, one nicknamed the Molekiller, another, I kid you not, Paddy the Arab, on my blog. The general mood, and I keep coming across it, was one of confusion. Our discussion started because Paddy the Arab – real name Samier by the way – asked me straight out ‘In or Out?’ IN, I said. And when he said he just didn’t feel he had the information, or understood the issues, luckily I had in my back pocket the government leaflet that has gone to every home, which had arrived at my home on Friday morning, and here was my first attempt to use it. He read it cover to cover and that, with a bit of discussion, and he was over the line. Even better the next day he tweeted that he had persuaded some of his mates over the line too.

Paddy the Arab, who is half Irish, half Egyptian, agreed to become the REMAIN Ambasador to supporters of Millwall FC. Like God and the Queen, Millwall fans are people you would rather have on your side in any big fight. I will be sending him the Ibec brochure to work on his fellow half Irishmen and women. And I hope you are sending it far and wide too.

What that train ride told me is that this debate is really going live right now. Politicians and media think they control the debate. I’m not so sure.

So I now urge all Brits I meet who want us to stay in to keep the leaflets and the arguments in their pockets, purses and handbags, and when they hear someone say ‘I don’t have the information,’ whip it out and get them to read it.

And I urge you the Irish with a legitimate interest in the outcome, and genuine concerns as I have been hearing in recent days, to get stuck in. Yes, only the British people will decide. But you can be influencers, and you must be. It is a legitimate and necessary thing to do. Please do it. My country needs you. And I think most of you agree that Europe needs Britain too. As the Ibec report on Brexit says ‘Ibec strongly believes UK membership of the EU is good for European, British, and Irish business.’ Ibec is absolutely right. Thank you.

]]>
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/20/foreigners-may-not-have-a-vote-but-they-can-have-a-big-say-in-eu-referendum/feed/ 9
A train ride with Millwall fans – and the hope it gave me for the EU debate http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/17/a-train-ride-with-millwall-fans-and-the-hope-it-gave-me-for-the-eu-debate/ http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/17/a-train-ride-with-millwall-fans-and-the-hope-it-gave-me-for-the-eu-debate/#comments Sun, 17 Apr 2016 08:48:05 +0000 http://www.alastaircampbell.org/?p=6105 The usual reaction of most people, when a boisterous group of beer-laden Millwall fans get on board your mid-morning train carriage, is to do as I did yesterday – sink a little lower into your seat, and stare even more intently into your iphone.

This does not always work, however, if you have a face and a name that is known to people you don’t know at all. It was one of the older members of the group, who I later discovered was nicknamed the Molekiller, who first spotted me, and shouted out ‘Al-as-tair-Camp-bell’ – just in case anyone in the carriage hadn’t already spotted me. He and his friends then decided it would be worth joining me in a ten pound first class upgrade to have a bit of ‘banter’, as they headed off for their game at Coventry on the same train that was taking me to Burnley’s game at Birmingham.

Now even putting to one side Millwall fans’ reputation in the hooliganism stakes, I felt particularly on the at risk register as a few years ago I wrote a piece in The Times about racist abuse received by one of Burnley’s old players, Mo Camara, and the next time I went to The New Den got a lot of abuse myself and a bit of jostling for my troubles.

But an hour and a half later, as they got off to be met by an army of police waiting at Coventry station, underlining the point they had made about them being over-policed because of past reputation not current behaviour, we had not only had a very good laugh, but an interesting discussion about the EU referendum. They were well informed about all sorts of things. When the Molekiller offered me a beer, for example, the others hushed him, said ‘he’s had issues, where have you been?’ to which his response was ‘it’s not alcohol, it’s only Foster’s.’

Now fair to say none of them had read the piece I wrote in yesterday’s FT on the importance of face to face campaigning by all of us in the EU referendum, and of not leaving it all to politicians and media (though the one called Paddy the Arab said he would buy the paper as soon as he got off the train.) But the discussion did rather encourage me in thinking my assessment had some merit, and that Remain need to adapt their campaign tactics accordingly.

These guys rarely read newspapers, and when they did, they didn’t believe them. They thought Boris Johnson was a chancer and had come out for Leave for his own ambitions not Britain’s. One said he was ‘terrified’ of Donald Trump becoming US President. They didn’t (with one very enthusiastic exception) think much of Jeremy Corbyn, but they did want to hear what he thought, and were aware of the speech he had made last week. They didn’t like David Cameron much and they felt he was being too negative in his campaigning. They thought the immigration issue was more complicated than people realised, said it was less of an issue in London, but, as one put it well I thought ‘where it is a problem is in all these little towns we are going through that nobody has heard of.’

But the general mood, one I keep coming across, was one of confusion. They all wanted someone, anyone, they trusted to set out both sides of the arguments in a fair and neutral way, but they accepted that was unlikely to come from politicians who had already decided, or newspapers with a vested interest. They were frustrated at the ‘on the one hand, on the other, this side says this, the other side says that’ coverage on the TV.

Now as it happens, having said in the FT I would try to persuade at least one undecided voter to come over to IN every day between now and June 23, I had in my back pocket the government leaflet that has gone to every home, which had arrived at my home on Friday morning, and here was my first attempt to use it. My Millwall fellow travellers were aware of the row over the government funding of it, but fairly unmoved by the fuss, and broadly accepted the government had to make its case, and that was not easy when newspapers were putting out millions of pounds worth of propaganda the other way.

But two of them read through. Both said it had given them a lot to think about, and definitely made them more positive. I had the same reaction from an undecided Burnley fan on the train back to London later.

If you go down four or five tweets in this link, you will see some of my new Millwall friends, Left to Right Paddy the Arab (he started unsure but ended as IN, and agreed to become my ‘REMAIN Ambassador to Millwall fans’ ), the Molekiller, still unsure but making good IN noises, and then behind me a guy whose name I didn’t get, and to my left a man who works in something to do with asbestos,  was a big critic of neoliberalism, and scribbled the title of a book he wanted me to read by Michael Collins (not the Irish one) on the subject on the back of my ticket, and to his left the guy who likes Jeremy Corbyn and says it is not only because he has a beard.

Now maybe this was an unusual group of Millwall fans, though the language, the banter, the football chat, the annoyance with cops and stewards, all suggested not. Also there was another group at the next table and at one point I heard them having quite a heated argument about welfare reform and the economy.

But what it said to me was that this debate is really going live right now, and as I said in the FT, where it is going to matter is in the discussions between friends, families and workmates. And for all the criticism the £9m plus leaflet production attracted, it is a very effective piece of communication, and I urge the government to make sure there are plenty more to go around, and I urge all who want us to stay in to keep it in their pockets, purses and handbags, and when you hear someone say ‘I don’t have the information,’ whip it out and get them to read it.

I have also learned that such is the nature of the debate right now that it is perfectly OK to go up to complete strangers and say ‘In or Out?’ I recommend this too, especially if you have your leaflet and any other good arguments with you.

P.s. For the sake of completeness I should say that the train guard, Vishal, is definitely voting OUT, and so is the Spurs fan who was going to see his brother, and was complaining that first class was less comfortable than standard class.

Anyway I promised Paddy the Arab I would say something positive about Millwall fans, so I have kept my side of the bargain. Meanwhile Paddy (real name Samier), you get out there with your leaflet and your FT and convert a few of them Bushwackers.

]]>
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/17/a-train-ride-with-millwall-fans-and-the-hope-it-gave-me-for-the-eu-debate/feed/ 9
The joy that wildlife can bring http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/11/the-joy-that-wildlife-can-bring/ http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/11/the-joy-that-wildlife-can-bring/#comments Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:16:12 +0000 http://www.alastaircampbell.org/?p=6102 Here is a piece I have done for this week’s Radio Times, about tonight’s In The Wild documentary on BBC 2 (630pm) in which expert Gordon Buchanan takes me on a tour of the Hebrides. I hope if you see it you enjoy watching it as much as I enjoyed making it.

‘Do what you love and love what you do, and everything else is detail.’ So said tennis legend Martina Navratilova, one of the WINNERS in my book of that name. Navratilova is among the lucky ones. As an elderly woman said to me at the Cheltenham book festival ‘I didn’t feel that many of your winners are very happy.’ It took me aback, reduced me to replying ‘this book is not about happiness; it’s about winning. They are not the same thing.’

Looking at my own career through the Navratilova prism, I do not score high. I thought I loved being a journalist. But if so, how come it led to an alcohol and stress induced breakdown that I feared had ended my career before I hit 30? As for my second career with Tony Blair, I am happy that I did the job. But was I happy when doing it? My depression-laden diaries would suggest the answer is, often, No.

Today, in a third career mixing consultancy, campaigns, writing, speaking, charity and sport, I cannot claim to be doing what I love, because what I do is too varied. Some days, I fear I am wasting my life, and should be back doing something full on, full time, in politics. Other days I feel enthused, motivated, making a difference, happy. It helps that the main relationships in my life, after ups and downs galore, are in good shape. It helps too that I earn more money for doing less, (someone once called the public speaking market ‘white collar crime’) which gives me more time to do things that feel like they matter (mental health campaigning is probably the thing I enjoy most, though I couldn’t do it all the time).

 

So where does the happiness come from in this mix? It comes from freedom. I feel free to make the choices I want to make, and that is a rare privilege. So when wildlife film-maker Gordon Buchanan asks me if I would like to explore wildlife in the Hebrides where my father was born and raised, I am able to say yes, and drop or postpone other pressures on time that may be in the diary.

Now Gordon truly is, so it seems to me, someone doing what he loves, loving what he does, and knows the detail inside out. I could look for wildlife on my own, but having an expert with me, one driven by such passion for his subject, meant I was more likely to see the creatures we were looking for. Otters, eagles, puffins, seals, and, as our boat headed for home at sunset, and we discussed how losing yourself in nature can help deal with anxiety and depression and the stresses of life, an unexpected shoal of dolphins; they put on a display of such beauty I would put it up there with having children, winning elections or playing football with Diego Maradona amid my all time lifetime highlights.

 

My freedom gave me the chance to see these creatures in the wild; their freedom made them the deliverer of the joy that I felt. To protect our freedom and potential happiness, we should think more about theirs, and try to give every man, woman and especially child the chance to enjoy getting close to them. Watching a sea eagle swoop to take a fish thrown from the back of our boat, I felt almost as free as she did. We helped her feed her nesting young. She helped us nourish our souls. That is a very good deal, and I think we get the better of it.

 

 

]]>
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/11/the-joy-that-wildlife-can-bring/feed/ 7
My GQ interview with Sadiq Khan- the edited-(out) highlights! http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/04/my-gq-interview-with-sadiq-khan-the-edited-out-highlights/ http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/04/my-gq-interview-with-sadiq-khan-the-edited-out-highlights/#comments Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:03:32 +0000 http://www.alastaircampbell.org/?p=6095 Mmm, I appear to be sharing the cover of next month’s GQ magazine with Charlize Theron, as you’ll see if you scroll down this this link. Whether the interview with her, or the interview with Sadiq Khan by me, attracts more readers to the news-stands, I couldn’t begin to imagine. But if you scroll down to the bottom of her legs (well, actually to the top of her legs, but you’ll see what I mean,) you’ll see the tagline … ‘Alastair Campbell interviews the next Mayor of London.)

Now, as it happens, I hope they are right. I will certainly be voting for him, and frankly think we have had enough Old Etonians in top political jobs for a while, thank you very much. The departing Etonian, Boris Johnson, has been a very good Mayor for one thing and one thing only – for Boris Johnson. He has been totally useless for London. Most of the good things he takes credit for were actually brought in by Ken Livingstone. But the one thing any campaigner knows is that you take nothing for granted, so Sadiq will know he has to fight every minute of every day to make sure he does everything possible to win as much support as he can.

If you have ever read my GQ interviews, you will know they are run as straight-forward Q and A, over several pages. I like to get at least an hour with the interviewee, because sometimes you need to run over a bit to get enough to fill the five or six pages allocated to them.

Sadiq is a fast talker and when I transcribed our conversation, I realised I was well over the kind of wordage the magazine would be able to run. For the highlights, you’ll have to go out and buy the mag. But by kind permission of the GQ editor, here are some of the off-cuts. Starting with Heathrow. As a lifelong asthmatic, I was interested in his answer here. What he had to say on Birmingham was interesting too.

AC: Why did you change your mind on Heathrow?

SK: I’ve accepted there is a case for more capacity, unlike my opponent. But last year almost ten thousand Londoners died because of poor air quality, kids are growing up with under developed lungs, the Supreme Court says we are in breach of air pollution rules. At 45, I have just been diagnosed with adult onset asthma. The idea of another runway at Heathrow is a joke. It will take decades to get legal obstacles out of the way, it certainly won’t help pollution. Gatwick is the solution. You get the jobs, you get the capacity, you get the growth …

AC: And the local residents don’t have a vote in the Mayoral election.

SK: It’s not that. It’s the practicality, and the pollution. A better Gatwick also means more competition for Heathrow who can hopefully raise their game.

AC: Why not take it right out of London, to the Midlands?

SK: I would revisit London City airport and yes, better regional airports. If HS2 was linking Birmingham to London, there could be a new runway there, that is what Birmingham MPs argue for. That is an argument against Heathrow.

AC: Where are you on HS2?

SK: Great idea. We need to do infrastructure better. It costs so much more here. Since Crossrail, Paris has done five [equivalents]. One worry I have is that Euston doesn’t work as a station for HS2 because there are no links with Crossrail and other systems. So yes to HS2, no to current plans for Euston.

 – In the section on Jeremy Corbyn, on which GQ runs a fair chunk, this exchange was cut.

AC: Are you finding people less willing to come out and campaign though, in case it helps him if you win?

SK: On the contrary. I am getting lots of help. Hilary Benn the other day, peers coming to the phone bank yesterday, Margaret Hodge and Oona King backing me then on the other wing if you like, Ken Livingstone. I have Tories, Lib Dems, Greens, Kippers, all coming over. Sure, I could win on a core vote strategy, we have 45 out of 72 MPs in London, that is not the Mayor I want to be. I want to be Mayor for all Londoners.

-In the section on housing, this.

AC: But do you have power there, or only influence?

SK: The Plan for London gives me that power. I am also going to set up a London wide not for profit letting agent to stop some of the worst rip offs, provide cheaper alternatives. We need a Mayor who understands the powers and how to use them. Now, the London Plan is the Bible

AC: Not the Koran?

SK: … I do do God, Alastair, but if I said Koran not Bible I might provoke another “radical and divisive” Zac leaflet. So the London Plan is the Bible and (this next bit is part of the published interview …the next things the Mayor and local authorities should have are skills, further education, planning of education places, commuter trains to London, more powers on housing, the ability to borrow to build, issue bonds.)

AC: Why has London not really been part of the debate about next steps for devolution?

SK: Because nobody is batting for London. Boris is disinterested. All he wanted was to prove he could be a winner. There is one school of thought that says Mayors should cut ribbons, be funny and be a buffoon. The other school of thought is that we can do more. Scotland is getting more powers. Wales is getting more powers. Greater Manchester. London needs more powers.

AC: Like?

SK: Like powers on skills. [New York Mayor] Bill de Blasio realized New York was a world leader on tech. He set up a tech talent pipeline, to train up New Yorkers for the skills of tomorrow. I want to do it for London, for tech, fashion, the creative industries, say to business, come to Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Harrow, Croyon, speak to our young people, inspire them, help me train them up.

– He said he was loving the campaign, and added this.

The only thing I would love more is being Mayor because I can do stuff, fix the housing crisis, get employers to skill up, pay a living wage, freeze fares for four years, sort transport. If the Mayor says to top companies to come together to discuss skills, they’ll come. I can persuade people.

-He was keen to emphasise his pro-business credentials.

Most employers I speak to, they want to create jobs and give decent salaries. Some small and medium companies say to me they cannot afford to pay the living wage. I say “what about if I gave you a business rate cut?” and they say, yes, ok. We want companies which are skilled up, generating more profit, more corporation tax – we should not be embarrassed at success, as long as they pay their taxes. London has always been open to trade, people, ideas. We have to keep that. I want to compete not just with New York, Paris, Berlin … the ten fastest growing cities in the world are in China. How do we compete with them? We have to attract investment and we have to compete on skills.

AC: Do you not feel that London is becoming almost like a separate country from the rest of the UK?

SK: London had always been different. There is the old saying that Britain is ten years behind America, and the country as a whole is ten years behind London. If you have a Mayor of London working for jobs and growth and strong businesses, that is going to create opportunities for businesses and people in Burnley or Hull and places all over the UK.

-Keen too to stress support for the arts.

SK: We cannot compete with China or Taiwan on price; we compete on skills, on arts and culture. On arts this is the world’s leader. Adele. James Bond. JK Rowling. Royal Opera House. Barbican. O2. Four out of five people who come here say they come for our cultural arts.

AC: How are you going to get more kids from poorer backgrounds into that?

SK: You know the European city of culture? London will have a borough of culture. Could be Redbridge, Havering, Croydon. The Royal Opera House will go to them. Imagine great art and sculpture in squares in Brixton or Tooting. Then we get the kids into the theatres and the concerts. In Newham, already, every child gets to play an instrument. Let’s spread that. London has lost thirty percent of live music venues since 2007. Never mind mourning David Bowie, some of the halls he first played in have closed down. Developers put up buildings, then complain about the noise and the venues can’t afford soundproofing. I say flip it around so the developers have to do the soundproofing on the new developments. The Mayor has the power to do that.

-We talked a fair bit about homelessness and mental health.

SK: I was out with St Mungo’s Broadway and Crisis at Christmas and what is needed is faster intervention. A simple thing like duty solicitors at court when people are being made homeless. Making sure local authorities are better connected with data, so that when someone from one area is homeless in another one, nobody is able to say “nothing to do with us.” More alcohol dependency centres. Fewer silos. More joined up interventions – the Mayor can do that, bring together housing, education, children’s centres, prisons. St Mungo’s do this great thing – and fair dues, Boris played a part in this – “no second night out.” If you are out for the second night, they find emergency digs. But then the problem is lack of continuity of care. Hardly surprising when local authorities have lost 60percent of funding. But you cannot live in the best city in the world and have people living on the streets.

-And a fair bit about his and other people’s sense of identity.

SK: Or think back to the Olympics, I was at home with twelve people, there were 80,000 in the stadium, tens of millions watching TV, cheering on an African, an asylum seeker, a Muslim, a black guy, a refugee, Mo, Mohammed, Farah. That was the best ever. And the Mo Farah story is this: he goes to his local state school, a PE teacher spots his talent, he goes to the track, he starts to get noticed, then Paula Radcliffe pays for his driving lessons so he can pass his test to drive elsewhere to train and compete and and fulfil his potential. He got a helping hand. Too many in London today, who could make it in sport, arts, media, the law, they are missing out, can’t get decent homes, not enough apprenticeships, not enough access to the best unis and colleges.

-Insights on TB-GB, and Ed Miliband.

AC: Why are we so low on talent in politics?

SK: There are talented people. It’s all relative. Part of it is that a generation of Labour politicians became MPs in the time of a Labour government. The ability to be themselves and develop was inhibited by control freakery at the centre …

AC: We call it “necessary discipline.”

SK: I am not criticizing you. It was necessary. We won elections, did amazing things. But all that Blair-Brown camp stuff, or express an opinion and it makes you a rebel… The generation elected in Opposition spent a lot of time thinking, planning. Tony and Gordon went off to America to look for ideas. But was there enough succession planning? Did the generation elected when we were in government think ahead enough? No, so 2010 and 2015 were not so exciting.

AC: You ran Ed Miliband’s leadership campaign. Do you still think he was the right guy?

SK: Yes. He won fair and square in 2010.

AC: But the public never saw him as a PM. That was a real problem.

SK: Hindsight tells us that.

AC: You don’t think it was clear at the time?

SK: It was far better for him to have stood, rather than have a re-run of 1994 and all it led to, the TBGBs.

AC: But we did win three elections despite it all.

SK: Ok. But if Ed thought he should be leader, then he was right to go for it. Don’t keep your hands in your pockets, go for it. There are lots of things to say in hindsight, because we lost the election.

 -We discussed compromise, his various positions, and I suggested it was all a bit too neat.

AC: Yeah, but is that compromise? It all fits the strategy. Pro-business because Corbyn is seen as anti. Positive message on immigration because the backstory fits. It is all very nicely packaged.

SK: Thank you! (laughs) I am not sure I am that clever. I have to be myself.

-On the police, he says there is lingering racism, but …

My kids would approach the police in a way that I would never have done when I was younger. But also remember a lot of the cases I did, which I won and became a successful lawyer, were police misconduct cases, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, or helping black police officers subject to racism.

-He wasn’t going to fall into a Royal trap.

AC: Are you a Monarchist?

 SK: I like the Queen.

 AC: I didn’t ask that. I asked if you are a Monarchist.

 SK: I could paraphrase the Churchill quote about democracy being the worst system apart from all the others …

 AC: The Monarchy is not democratic.

 SK: She is doing a good job. If it ain’t broke …

– Emphatic about this next one.

AC: Could you be PM? If this goes well, and you serve two terms, you could be well placed to be leader.

 SK: No. I am not interested. I want to be Mayor of London.

-We both did some decent name-dropping in this final edited-out highlight.

AC: This is GQ, and you once said you were cool. Define cool.

 SK: My kids said I was cool. I was GQ Man of the Month once, photographed by David Bailey.

 AC: He’s done me three times, that’s nothing. Define cool.

 SK: Somebody who doesn’t embarrass his children too much. Who is just at ease at a Kooks concert or taking his kids to see the Nutcracker. Oh, and John Boyega knows who I am.

 AC: Who’s he?

 SK: Who is John Boyega? Finn in Star Wars.

 AC: I’m not interested in Star Wars.

 SK: Well, I am and he knew who I was.

 AC: It’s hardly on a par with playing football with Maradona.

 SK: I played in a match against you. You were good, but very dirty.

— GQ, coming soon to a news-stand near you. Vote Sadiq. Vote Remain. And wish Burnley luck against Cardiff tonight.

 

 

 

 

]]>
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/04/04/my-gq-interview-with-sadiq-khan-the-edited-out-highlights/feed/ 6
It is not unPC to worry that ISIS and Putin are more strategic than our leaders engaged in battle with them http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/03/25/it-is-not-unpc-to-worry-that-isis-and-putin-are-more-strategic-than-our-leaders-engaged-in-battle-with-them/ http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/03/25/it-is-not-unpc-to-worry-that-isis-and-putin-are-more-strategic-than-our-leaders-engaged-in-battle-with-them/#comments Fri, 25 Mar 2016 07:24:20 +0000 http://www.alastaircampbell.org/?p=6092  

Last week I was in Germany, speaking to a business team whose leader had read WINNERS and wanted me to talk about it to his colleagues, with a particular focus on OST.

As those who have read the book will know, as does anyone who has ever worked with me, OST means O for Objective, S for Strategy and T for Tactics. It is my simple but strongly held view that applying OST – in that order – to any endeavour is a good way of going about your business. Work out the Objective, then the Strategy, only then go Tactical.

Since the book, focused on winners in politics, business and sport, came out in hardback, I have had plenty of approaches like the one above. Interestingly, the biggest number has come from sport. Not far behind them comes business. There has been less of an interest from politicians, perhaps because there are fewer of them than sports and business people or organisations; or perhaps because too many governments, parties and politicians are trapped in old ways of doing things, whereas good leaders in sport and business are always looking for new ideas, new people, new ways of thinking.

It has been interesting to me that sport and business seem keen to learn from politics (good and bad) whereas politics seems less inclined to explore the sporting and business themes from which I learned so much. Yet of those three realms of life, which is doing best right now? Not politics.

On the sporting side I have done sessions in recent months for several top football clubs and sporting bodies including the FA, the SFA and UK Sport, and am particularly pleased that since I did a session with the Warrington Wolves rugby league squad, they have not lost a game. No, I am not taking all of the credit – just a little bit given coach Tony Smith says he has been applying OST to lots of different tasks.

At last week’s OST boot camp in Germany. I asked people to name companies,  organisations or people who they felt were strategic. One or two named Red Bull. Others mentioned Google and Apple; one man said ‘British Special Forces,’ and on the individual front, Michael Schumacher when dominating Formula One was mentioned, as was Richard Branson. Sadly, no politicians, governments or national brands sprang to the twenty or so minds in the room.

When I was asked to name one, I opted reluctantly for Russian President Vladimir Putin, whilst explaining that he is one of the three ‘winners’ I decided not to list on the book’s front cover – the other two, for very different reasons, are ex-cyclist Lance Armstrong and The Queen. Now Putin may well come a cropper in time, but he is the best political example to my mind of someone who has his O, S and T totally aligned.

O – reassertion of Russian power.

S – reassertion of Russian power.

T – anything, good or bad, which shows the reassertion of Russian power. That ‘anything’ could range from a war in Ukraine, to an unexpected military entrance into or seeming exit from the conflict in Syria, or a murder on the streets of London; from a picture of himself bareback on a horse, to the taking of a huge dog into a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a woman not scared of much but, following a childhood incident, very scared of dogs.

Such OST alignment across the piece is rare, though admittedly easier when as part of your S/T you have totally reshaped the media landscape in your favour, and used fear and even terror as tactical weapons home and abroad.

However, one of the people in the conference room in the Black Forest had an even more radical example of strategic power, admitting at the outset to his fears that his observation ‘might not be very PC.’

‘Go on then,’ I said. ‘Who is it?’

‘ISIS,’ he said.

This was a few days before the bombings in Brussels, but even so there were one or two sharp intakes around the room, suggesting it was indeed perhaps not something to be said in polite, PC company. But it did spark a really interesting discussion, at the end of which we had boiled down our understanding of ISIS’s OST to this.

O – create an Islamic State, a caliphate wholly based on the ISIS view of what Islamic law and values should be. Meanwhile spread terror and undermine the West. Which leads to …

S – Terror. But also the exploitation of social, political and ideological issues both in the region where they wish to form the caliphate, and all around the world…

T – hence the skilful use not just of poverty, unemployment, inequality within and between countries and regions, what they see as historical injustices, but also the skilful use of a media landscape beyond Putin-style control for most governments. Social media, we agreed, is a tactic rather than a strategy; their use of crime and intimidation is likewise a tactic but vital to the strategy. And of course the most dramatic and deadly tactics are the kind of suicide bombings we saw in Brussels, and which we will have to get used to seeing all over the world, just as we in the UK once had to be used to IRA bombs going off (though usually with warnings).

So here too it is possible to see some alignment across their OST. The terror part is embedded in all of it.

I feel the same loathing as most civilized people for what they are trying to do and the means by which they are trying to do it, not just the hatred and the indiscriminate killing, but the exploitation of young people, their use of criminal networks, and their perversion of the faith they claim to represent. But it is not enough merely to condemn, just as it is not enough simply to dismiss Putin as a very bad man. To devise your own strategy, you have to be clear about the strategy of those you are up against.

I do not for one moment minimize the difficulties of facing an enemy as vicious, well-funded and fascistic as ISIS. I feel nothing but sympathy for politicians and intelligence agencies in democracies who in good times are challenged to make more of civil liberties than securing safety on the streets, but who when terror strikes are the first in line for blame for not knowing what everyone was up to all of the time. But strategy has to be based on much more than contempt and loathing, let alone emoting and tweeting or thinking up lots of clever symbolic pictures on public buildings and social networks to show solidarity. All of that may make us feel better, but does it achieve much beyond that?

Nor am I convinced it helps anyone to dismiss suicide bombers as ‘cowardly’. These people are taking their own lives in the pursuit of hideous goals. There are many adjectives we can apply to them but I really don’t think cowardly is one of them. It suggests a long distance between what goes on in our heads and what we think goes on in theirs. We surely have to think a bit more like them in analysing them as enemies, even if we choose not to act like them.

One of the lessons from many of the sports coaches I have interviewed or worked with is that they spend as much time focusing on the weaknesses, strengths and systems of their opponents as they do on their own. I am not sure, listening to the leaders rightly lining up in verbal solidarity with Belgium this week, as with France last year, and the UK on July 7 2005, and doubtless other countries to come, that they are really anywhere close to getting inside the minds of those we are up against here.

Whether on this issue of jihadist terrorism, climate change, the possibility of a second Global Financial Crisis provoked by a slump in China, never has leadership been so needed, and seemingly so difficult in much of the democratic world. Donald Trump is clearly not the answer, but he may be a symptom of the difficulty of some of the questions. The good news about Trump is that whilst he is clear on his O – win – the S that may win him the nomination for the Republicans has within it most of the reasons why he will almost certainly lose the actual election.

But on the American elections, as on anything else right now, including the future of Europe and Britain’s place within it, certainty is somewhat lacking. And that, I fear, is because within the OST of democratic leadership, there are plenty of Os, lots of Ts, and insufficent S. Putin and ISIS are among those enjoying that sad reality, and exploiting it to the full.

I say in the book, written well over a year ago, before our election last May, that I believe in calling this referendum David Cameron put tactics ahead of strategy and without sufficient regard to his overall objective of making sure Britain does not make what he rightly views as the calamitous mistake of leaving the EU. The offer of a referendum was a tactic to deal with a rise in UKIP and internal Tory party problems. A proper strategic approach would have seen them off with argument and policy, much as mid-term highs of the SDP or their variants were often seen off in the past.

The referendum is very winnable for IN, but again we have to get better into the minds of those fighting for OUT. And no, I am not saying Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are as bad as ISIS. But I do think the threat of a Johnson Premiership – to which we could be sleepwalking in very quick order – is not one any serious person would wish to see added to the strategic jigsaw that is already making the world a very dangerous place.

– WINNERS was published in paperback yesterday, Penguin Random House, £9.99

 

 

,

]]>
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/03/25/it-is-not-unpc-to-worry-that-isis-and-putin-are-more-strategic-than-our-leaders-engaged-in-battle-with-them/feed/ 4
Time to call out the Union of Media barons’ Lie Machines and their anti-democratic role in the EU referendum http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/03/12/time-to-call-out-the-union-of-media-barons-lie-machines-and-their-anti-democratic-role-in-the-eu-referendum/ http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/03/12/time-to-call-out-the-union-of-media-barons-lie-machines-and-their-anti-democratic-role-in-the-eu-referendum/#comments Sat, 12 Mar 2016 16:59:57 +0000 http://www.alastaircampbell.org/?p=6084 This is a longer version of an article which appears in The Observer today, and a shorter version of a (draft) speech I am due to make next month on the nature of the media debate around the EU referendum. I do not read papers or listen to the broadcast media in the way I used to, but having been asked to do this speech, I have been reading more than usual for research purposes. And though I have long known there was something deeply rotten in the state of our press, the scale of the rottenness has been beyond shocking.

The Observer has published around 1200 words of this, but some of the real devil of the work being done by the OUT campaign and their media Lie Machines is in the detail, a lot of which had to be cut. So though I am still working on the speech, I thought I would post what I have done so far up here now, as I believe this is an issue that will begin to resonate as the campaign goes on. I have also had many TV and radio bids to talk about this issue, and would welcome the opportunity to debate it all with Paul Dacre or any of the other Lie Machine leaders. All the best, and remember: make your own minds up, and don’t believe a word you read about Europe in most of the papers. Here goes …

I am 58 years old, have worked in and around the media most of my adult life, on both sides of the press/politics fence; I have been both hunter and hunted, and know the game inside out. I thought I was no longer remotely shockable by anything that our wretched right-wing press could do.

But the coverage of the EU referendum so far, even by their standards of bias, deceit, misrepresentation, and lying, is taking them to fresh depths of dishonesty. In so many ways, it is as though Leveson never happened. Accuracy? Do me a favour; we have papers to sell, agendas to drive, scores to settle, personal interests to defend.

David Cameron has to take some responsibility for this. For his own political reasons – mainly the desire to see the papers hit Labour harder than they hit him in the 2010 and 2015 elections – he was dragged kicking and screaming into Leveson, and has failed to follow through on the Inquiry’s eminently sensible proposals for self-regulation, demonized and distorted as a vicious assault on press freedom by the same Union of right-wing, super-rich, partly foreign, largely tax-avoiding media barons driving the demonizing, distorting coverage of Europe now.

So part of me, the part that has seen Labour leaders get unfair treatment compared with their Tory counterparts for generations, looks at Cameron and thinks ‘you reap what you sow.’ But another part, the part that cares about Britain’s future long beyond the tenure of Cameron or any other individual Prime Minister, whether in office for one year or ten or twenty, feels this debate is far too important for Schadenfreude or party political tribalism. The result of the referendum is far more important than the outcome of a single general election. The historic significance is greater. The consequences – for jobs, living standards, culture, national security and our standing in the world – are greater.

I have written before about the strategic and tactical blunders that led Cameron into the referendum, and the situation he now finds himself in. But that too is all in the past; in the present, between now and June 23, we are confronted with this massive choice, and it is we the people, every one of us with a vote of equal weight, who will make it.

In those circumstances, we have a duty to inform ourselves, and both politicians and media have a duty, or at the least a role, to help in that process. The debate having so quickly become polarized among Tory politicians, with the focus having been as much on the personalities involved as on the issues, the role of the media is even more important.

However, more than in any such debate I can remember, large chunks of the press have totally given up on any commitment to that role of properly informing public debate. What little separation of news and comment may have existed before has now gone completely. The Mail, The Sun, The Express, and The Star in particular, to a lesser extent The Telegraph and on a bad day The Times, are more propaganda sheets for one side of the argument, than responsible contributors to a vital debate about the country’s future.

The Mail, whose evil (I use the word advisedly) cowardly and hypocritical editor Paul Dacre pockets vast EU grants on his vast Scottish estate, nonetheless allows barely a syllable in his paper that might reflect well on Europe, or anyone involved in the campaign to keep Britain in. Rupert Murdoch, through the worst of his ‘humbling’ (sic) appearances at Leveson and parliamentary committees, has refound his mojo in his business and private life and is now enjoying making sure every ounce of Sun ink is used to shape opinion in the direction he wants. Then the Barclays control the Telegraph from their Channel Island tax exile and Richard Desmond’s Express papers, amid scare stories about the weather and conspiracy theories about Princess Diana, feed a relentless diet of anti EU front page splashes as titillating and far-fetched as the stuff in the porn mags and films that helped create his fortune. By this bizarre collection of folk, or so they hope, ‘public opinion’ is formed.

Dacre has given up any pretence of being a journalist in the way most people understand the term. His staff have told the IN campaign not even to bother trying to place articles, stories or ideas, because they won’t get used unless they fit his OUT agenda. The Sun has dragged The Queen into the whole thing, taking something that was almost certainly never said, in a conversation that took place long before a referendum was even on the horizon, and the word ‘Brexit’ did not exist, to make a claim that she supported the OUT campaign. I had a fair bit to do with the Royals and the often crazy coverage of them in my time in Downing Street. Based on that experience, and her ability to shrug off without complaint so many false stories written about her, I can pretty much guarantee this – the fact the Palace has made a complaint to IPSO, the so-called independent press regulator, means the story is a load of cock.

It seems that Michael Gove and his rather odd collection of special advisors may be at the heart of the Queen story. But can you imagine the noise these right wing sceptic papers would be making if a pro-EU source had persuaded the Mirror or the Guardian to run a front page headline ‘QUEEN BACKS IN.’ We would never hear the end of it. Yet Gove has been given a free pass. (He was one of Murdoch’s guests at his wedding to Jerry Hall, an event sycophantically covered in the eurosceptic papers, The Express for example had a lovely front page smiling picture of the happy couple under a patsy headline alongside a splash claiming ‘Europe’ was going to be taking control of the British coastline. Boris Johnson has had similar free pass treatment; freed from collective responsibility by David Cameron to campaign for the OUT side, but keen to gag his own inner Cabinet from being anything other than an echo chamber. ‘It was a cock up,’ he says of the email that delivered this edict. ‘Oh that’s fine then,’ echo the Dacre/Murdoch/Barclay/Desmond Union against the Union.

Then there was the John Longworth saga. Some bloke most of us had never heard of, from the British Chamber of Commerce, makes a few sceptic noises (despite this being against the policy of the organization he leads) and is thereby elevated to instant hero by the Dacre/Murdoch/Barclay/Desmond papers. Anyone who takes another view is an idiot, a liar or a spiv, and anyone from the government who objects to what he said guilty of smears and dirty tricks.

Then Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, a somewhat more significant figure in the running of our economy than Longworth, makes a few blindingly obvious statements to MPs about the inevitable uncertainty Brexit would cause, and the need for business and the Bank to do some worst case scenario planning, and he is immediately denounced as being part of Project Fear. Worse, much of the broadcast media covers his Parliamentary committee appearance as being Carney under attack from the OUT campaign, rather than setting out in detail what this genuinely important voice in the debate had to say. (This is part of the game the Dacre/Murdoch axis has long played – try to bully the broadcasters into shaping a more sceptic agenda around their news coverage, not least by pretending the broadcasters are slavishly pro IN. Sadly, all too often, it works.)

The Archbishop of Canterbury is another senior establishment figure whose views have been put through the Dacre/Murdoch/Barclay/Desmond mangling machine. He made a long and thoughtful intervention. The press saw two main angles – the OUT side need to do more to explain what would happen if they won; and it is not racist to be concerned about immigration. The mangling machine largely ignored Point 1. Point 2 was spun to suggest he was basically a fully fledged OUTer who takes his spiritual guidance from Nigel Farage and George Galloway.

There were times in Downing Street when I felt parts of the media operated like a reverse Pravda. If a story fitted their agenda, it went in. If it didn’t it was spiked. It may have been hard for them to ignore Carney or the Archbishop, so they spun against them. But others who have come out in favour of IN – including the OECD, the IMF, Shell, BMW, Rolls Royce, Morgan Stanley, Vauxhall, UBS, Centrica, AA and many more – have been almost totally ignored. Had any one of them come out for OUT then front pages galore would have splashed it. There is literally no major employer calling for OUT, (apart from these papers) so their behaviour and tone is a symptom of their isolation which they want to hide from their readers. In addition to the invented stories, this is lying and misinformation by omission. Oh, and before any of you start bleating or tweeting ‘dodgy dossier’ the accusations against me of lying, deceit and misinformation in relation to Iraq have been thoroughly investigated by three inquiries (we await the fourth) and I have been cleared by all of them.

Now let me do something few of these right wing hacks who work for the Union of Lie Machines ever do and admit that I am biased. I am biased in favour of the UK staying in, partly because I have thought about it for longer than it takes to write yet another punning Sun headline or tweet that Boris should be PM ‘because he makes me laugh.’ But even if I take that bias into account, if I make a strategic analysis of the campaign so far, then the OUT team look like a rabble of kids running around a football pitch not quite sure where the ball has gone, while the IN team do at least seem to have a set of unified clear messages and a determination to get them across.

The IN team has forced everyone (including the OUTers) to accept there will be some kind of economic shock from leaving – but the media has barely followed up at all in questioning the cost of that to their readers and listeners. Likewise a combination of IN and broadcast media pushed Johnson into spluttering that we should do a deal with the EU like Canada’s. A proper media would have explored that further and quickly discovered plenty of stories revealing potential damage to our interests. Likewise Chris Grayling says we will get a new beneficial trade deal with India. Has anyone asked the Indians?

There is something comical about the way the OUT campaign and their media cheerleaders rage constantly about Project Fear, the label borrowed from the SNP in the Scottish referendum, to rebut anything that dares to suggest there might be a single reason to want to stay inside a Union that has helped deliver peace, prosperity and power to our country over most of my adult lifetime. Because their whole coverage, for years, has been based on scare stories, some with a Boris Johnson byline in the days when he used to write as much nonsense as today he spouts on his fantasy journey to becoming the next Winston Churchill.

In my time in Number 10, I can recall variously having to rebut stories from the right wing rags that bent bananas and cucumbers were going to be banned; the British Army was going to vanish; Cheddar cheese and Scotch whisky were going to have to be renamed; lollipop ladies were to be outlawed; we were going to have to drive on the right; Brussels was going to set all our tax levels; the British passport was to disappear; some Luxembourg or Belgian nonentity was going to replace the Queen.

In recent weeks, we have had plenty more of this, much of it peddled by Gove’s former sidekick Dominic Cummings. Perhaps most insidious, he and Nigel Farage both made the outrageous – and untrue – claim that those involved in the New Year sex attacks in Cologne would be free to come to the UK. (Well, they could if they had lived in Germany for eight years, had no criminal record, and renounced their own nationalities). We have also had the OUT campaign claiming we will have to have Arabic subtitles on our TVs. Sun readers have ‘learned’ that Christmas is going to be renamed ‘the Winter Festival’ by the EU. Several of the anti-EU axis managed to blame the floods a few months ago on ‘Brussels.’ Turkey’s desire to get in the EU has been ripe scaremongering territory. Clearly all Turks (Muslims don’t you know?) will move to Britain. Farage has managed to get some coverage for his false claim that Cameron’s negotiation means we will have an EU army in the UK, and the old (invented) EU Navy has had a few outings too. And I bet you didn’t know ‘Brussels’ was going to make you have more recycling bins, did you?

On and on and on they have gone, day after day, week after week, year after year, lie upon lie. It is a wonder there is a single Mail or Sun, Star or Express reader left who is anything other than a fully fledged OUTer.

And therein lies the opportunity for the IN side. People may be influenced at the margins by this incessant drumbeat against Britain’s membership of the EU. But the public have seen and heard enough about the press to know that their standards have fallen to base levels, that the word of many cannot be trusted, that they do not believe in giving two sides of a story, and that many of their stories are inventions.

David Cameron, who is not standing for a third term as PM, has nothing to lose from taking them head on, calling them out on the lies and the misrepresentations, making sure the public hear a message that their voices cannot remotely be trusted. The undecided are looking for two things above all – leadership and information. Cameron has to provide both.

The IN campaign more generally has to fill the gap that the public wants filled – the need for genuine information about the reality of Britain’s relations and what exit would mean. We need more of the kind of newsletter sent out by the IN campaign to 14million households a few weeks ago setting out basic information. The kind of basic information the Dacre-Murdoch axis does not want people to have.

Equally, the OUT side has to be put under much more pressure fully to explain what would happen if the country does vote to come out. If that were to happen, then on June 24 we will be waking up to confront a change way bigger than anything a change of government would represent. Yet where is the manifesto for what happens if OUT wins? Where are the detailed plans that public and media would expect from any government or party seeking to make a fundamental change to the way our country is run? They are not there. The media won’t force them out. The IN campaign has to do it.

IN is arguing for the status quo, and therefore has less to prove in terms of what happens afterwards. They should embrace the notion of Project Fear because frankly there is a lot to be afraid of, if we sleepwalk into this huge decision without actually having the informed debate we need.

In a real, healthy democracy with a vibrant free press, we would have that informed debate. But we do not have a vibrant free press. We have a press largely owned by a small group of men (at least one of whom doesn’t have a vote, several of whom don’t pay tax here) who believe their views and interests are more important than the tens of millions of people on whose behalf they claim to speak and whose views they claim to represent.

I am not a huge fan of David Cameron. But at least he is fighting for what he believes in, and at least he is telling the truth as he sees it. He is up against a collection of people and papers, Lie Machines, with a near total disregard of the truth in favour of propaganda that even Vladimir Putin might think was too one-sided to be credible.

The stakes are high for the country. But they are high for the media too. Because frankly if the country does vote to stay in it will expose Dacre and Murdoch and Co as impotent old men who can call the shots with all who work and write for them, but not with those who read what they write. That is going to be a very good day for democracy when it comes which, despite all of the above, I believe it will. Because in spite of decades of dumbing down, their readers are not as stupid as the media barons might imagine, thank God, and they are in the main more honest, decent and thoughtful too.

 

]]>
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/03/12/time-to-call-out-the-union-of-media-barons-lie-machines-and-their-anti-democratic-role-in-the-eu-referendum/feed/ 30
Power, peace and prosperity – three reasons more important than Boris Johnson’s ego to stay in EU http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/02/23/power-peace-and-prosperity-three-reasons-more-important-than-boris-johnsons-ego-to-stay-in-eu/ http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/02/23/power-peace-and-prosperity-three-reasons-more-important-than-boris-johnsons-ego-to-stay-in-eu/#comments Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:53:28 +0000 http://www.alastaircampbell.org/?p=6079 As I arrived at Hong Kong airport a few hours ago, there were three TV channels playing above our heads as we queued to go through immigration. On one, a Chinese presenter appeared to be explaining what was happening in world markets. On the second, pictures of a smiling Hillary Clinton to illustrate new polls suggesting she is well ahead of Bernie Sanders in South Carolina. And on the third, CNN, David Cameron above the headline ‘British MPs take sides on Europe.’ The EU referendum, to cite the language of comms, has had ‘global cut through.’

But just as most people outside the U.S view Donald Trump as a rather bad international joke, and ask ‘how on earth is this happening?’ so I think most people outside the UK are asking ‘why on earth is Britain thinking of coming out of the EU?’

In our personality obsessed political coverage, the hit on sterling yesterday was widely being put down to Boris Johnson’s open defiance of David Cameron, and the fear that the man the media keep telling us is ‘popular’ will be able to swing the vote against Britain’s membership of the EU.

The very fact of holding the referendum is creating the kind of uncertainty and instability about Britain’s future that cause concern among investors. So a hit was virtually inevitable once Cameron came back from Brussels, held his Cabinet meeting, and then announced the date. The Boris show, which is exactly what it is, doubtless added to the uncertainty, but it was already there.

This is a referendum we are having for the wrong reasons, and with a lot of the debate currently focused on the wrong things. The wrong reason in that it was announced by David Cameron partly because he lacked something to say at an important moment in the last Parliamentary calendar, and more so because he saw it as a tactic to halt the rise of UKIP and quell the noise of the Tory right. And the wrong things in that Cameron, tactical again, set up his negotiations for a new deal for the UK in Europe in grand, epoch-making terms when he knew that, no matter what he achieved, it would not be enough for UKIP and the veteran Eurosceptics in his party.

However we got to where we are though, here is exactly where we are, a few weeks away from a vote more important even than the one to choose a government or a Prime Minister.

Given its significance, hopefully it will move soon enough from a personality/process debate in which Boris Johnson’s ego and ambition are centre stage, and from Tory MPs dancing on pinheads about what David Cameron did or did not achieve in line 3 of paragraph 7 of the statement issued after yet another all-night EU summit. Once that happens, we are then into the real meat of the debate, and the only question that has ever really mattered – In or Out.

For all my criticisms of Cameron on the route to this point, I think that in his Downing Street statement on Saturday, his interview with Andrew Marr, and yesterday in the Commons, he has done well when getting the message focused on that big, fundamental question.

The ‘leap in the dark’ point is a phrase we can expect to hear again and again. Unlike many of the Cameron soundbites we hear again and again and again, it has the merit of truth, and nobody from the Out side has yet to explain how we will glide effortlessly from full EU membership one day to full membership of the Single Market the next, even though we are no longer in the EU.

I liked too his line on how Brexit would lead to ‘the illusion of sovereignty, but less power.’ Sitting here in Hong Kong, looking out at the venue of the ceremony at which the place was handed over to the Chinese, this is not a bad place to reflect on the fact that Britain is not the power it was. And a lot of the power we do have comes from the role we play in major international institutions. The EU is one of them. NATO is another. The Commonwealth is another. Our permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council is another.

Here is another leap in the dark point. If we leave the EU, we lose power anyway. Then we can expect a second referendum in Scotland, and this time I think the independence campaign will win. So UK out of EU, Scotland out of UK. I think at that point we can wave bye-bye to that Permanent Membership of the UNSC.

So power. Vote Out for less power. Two more Ps worth thinking about. Peace and Prosperity. The EU has helped deliver both for decades across a Continent historically defined by war and poverty. With a resurgent Russia and new depths of terroriusn being mined, we are going to need strength and solidarity to deal properly with both. We get that through the EU.

The prosperity, as business leaders are arguing today, will be put at risk if we are restricted, as we will be, in our access to the single market.

Power. Peace. Prosperity. All worth fighting for. All more important than whether Boris Johnson manages to swing a few more Tory constituencies his way in the battle to succeed David Cameron, and more important too than whether Cameron did or did not manage to get everything he wanted from his negotiations.

 

 

 

]]>
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/02/23/power-peace-and-prosperity-three-reasons-more-important-than-boris-johnsons-ego-to-stay-in-eu/feed/ 17