Steve Richards: This fiasco may have fatally damaged Gordon Brown’s capacity to take on the Tories
Without a clear media strategy in modern politics there is no chance of success
The saga of Damian McBride and his emails is the most damaging episode for Gordon Brown since the “non-election” fiasco in the autumn of 2007 – and in some ways is much more so.
McBride’s emails raise wider questions about Brown’s judgements in terms of whom he chooses as close allies, how he deals with opponents, and his approach to the media. Nor is the story a one-day-wonder over the Easter break. It will have wider consequences, curtailing Brown’s capacity to raise legitimate questions about the Tory leadership and stirring once more those within New Labour who have always been alarmed by his erratically brutal methods of leadership.
Above all, the emails confirm that McBride was no good at his job as the most senior media adviser to Brown in No 10. Irrespective of the crudely counter-productive attacks on David Cameron and others, why was he writing any of it down in the form of emails, a medium that is well known for its lack of security?
But McBride had always shown a reckless indifference to being caught out. He was often texting journalists with venomous messages or malevolent advice that took the breath away. On one occasion shortly before a presenter was about to interview a cabinet minister McBride texted him with the message: “Ask him about his drinking problem.” Again even if the attempted assassination of a minister was clever politics – and it was not – for the fingerprints to be all over the source was dangerously inept.
Yet Brown stuck with McBride and gave him immense leeway. Some of the others supposedly involved in media strategy in No 10 quite often had no idea where McBride was or what he was up to. Yet coming from a technical division in the Treasury, McBride had no background in journalism.
He recognised sometimes what would make a good news story and the importance of keeping a relationship going with a few influential political editors and that was more or less it. He mistook the occasionally positive front-page news story in a single newspaper, or an attack on a colleague or the Tories of which he had been the source, for a coherent media strategy.
But Brown has a naïve faith in the likes of McBride and one of his predecessors, Charlie Whelan. They worked for him and him alone. They dealt in their own way with enemies, actual or perceived. Yet in spite of all their work on behalf of their master, the person damaged most by their activities has been Brown. Finger prints were nearly always left at the scene of the crime. The end result was not a ghoulish assessment of the crime or its victims, but on the perpetrators and their political master. Always the question was asked: Why does Brown need to act in this way?
The manner of McBride’s departure is not therefore a minor matter. He worked directly for Brown. He was doing what he thought Brown wanted him to do. Brown must have been a huge admirer or else he would have removed him last autumn when he was under considerable pressure to do so. Instead Brown gave him a new title and let him carry on.
Indeed since becoming Prime Minister, Brown has been in the worst of all worlds. The new spin when he entered No 10 was that there would be no spin. Of course that was nonsense. Every Prime Minister is understandably obsessed with the media. Brown was no exception. And yet in an odd cack-handed way there was some truth in the claim.
Since Brown became Prime Minister he has had no effective media strategy. Monthly press conferences have been called when most senior journalists were away. Interviews have been given with no sense of what the message should be. Some previously sympathetic columnists have written recently that their calls to McBride were never returned, one reason perhaps why they became alienated.
Brown is the first Prime Minister for years to have no senior journalist at his side. Wilson had Joe Haines, Thatcher had Bernard Ingham, Blair had Alastair Campbell. All of them to varying degrees understood the rhythms of news. Brown had McBride, who did not, but thought he did. Without a clear and coherent media strategy in modern politics there is no chance of success. Few watch politics in the raw. They get a mediated version via the newspapers, blogs and broadcasting outlets.
There are many decent people working around the clock in No 10. The same applies to the so-called Brownites. I know them and they are in politics for honourable reasons. But this story will shape further in the minds of voters a sense that we are ruled by a bunch of bastards. Some Blairites and cabinet ministers who carry wounds from what they believed were assaults from McBride will also stir, wondering once more how he was allowed the freedom to undermine the reputation of the entire government.
More important, Brown’s capacity to attack the Conservatives has suddenly narrowed. There are entirely legitimate issues about the unconvincing political back story of Cameron and Osborne which are partly connected to their wealth and privileged backgrounds.
Arguably there is a superficial frivolity about their approach to politics that is a product of their pasts. I am not suggesting that such assertions are necessarily right or definitive, but they are fair game. It is a game that Brown will not be able to play easily now. Suddenly the Conservatives are much safer than they were or deserve to be.
Over this Easter break several cabinet ministers had planned to seize the usually quiet news agenda with a series of messages about the Government’s future direction. Instead their main messenger has become the story. Why was the messenger allowed to write such crass messages? Only Brown has the answer to that question.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
Well, if you think Golem Brown is one of those "decent people" and that he entered politics for "honourable reasons", you are a fool.
Golem Brown entered politics to gain power. He works as hard as he can to retain power. He employs people like McBride because he believes in the authority of the bully. Power is not a means to an end for Golem Brown, it's an end in itself.
Thus, while the country struggles mightily against the economic tsunami that Golem Brown's failed policies as chancellor created, all he's interested in is holding onto the keys of No 10 and having the country pad (which he was going to mothball, until he and his wife decided having a country residence was rather splendid).
Tee hee Mr Richards, tee hee. You're a fool.
There is a very simple answer to your question. It is quite simple. Brown allowed such crass messages and vicious attacks on all those he saw as competition, because it had always succeeded for him in the past and gave him what he wanted. Right from the times he was at university in Scotland.
Once someone learns to achieve through bullying, back stabbing and undermining anyone in their way, they will never stop. Slander and vicious attack will always be their default position.
Thinking up long term policies that may be actually good for the country, would be too open ended and not given him the certainty of success that he craves. Anyway, the man is not capable of that.
Kennedy was the triumph of style over substance. He achieved almost nothing. Unless you call defeat at the Bay of Pigs, almost starting World War 3, and getting himself assassinated by his former friends in the Mob, success.
Nobody believed Brown didn't have malice of forthought. He has become one of the most distrusted PMs in history. He must offer a fullsome ap[ology and RESIGN.
It's just a shame he hasn't got a reset button ...
Dave, I turned my back on Labour about 5 years ago when I "saw the light". Teflon Tony with Ali Campbell with all their lies did it for me. Look at at Bliar, he left power showed that he was not prepared to turn catholic while it would go against him. Then spends all his time making money to pay for his multi million pound property portfolio. Don't you get the feeling he was a fake? You say you defended Brown against unfair attackers. Where they unfair? Look at the eveience about house prices and the links with the banks. Buy to let, unfettered lending, no checks, spiraling house prices, reckless banking investments, profits from the banks to fund the Treasury. Was this just another unfortunate accident. Take a hard dispassionate look at what has gone on with this Government over the past 12 years and ask yourself have they shown competence and integrity.
The above says it all - you lot have turned politics into a spin and media game. Well ordinary people still do politics in the raw and are increasingly cutting out the middle man in the form of political journos and blogs attached to the 2 lame parties.
This explains why UKIP and other minor parties are getting more support as they talk about relevant issues while the Tories and Labour indulge in girly spats by grown men who should know better.
Every Labour member is responsible for the mess the country is in, every Labout voter is responsible for the lost houses, lost savings, lost jobs, lost banks and lost wars.
I am so glad I left the country and sold all my assets in early 2008; if I could see the crash coming why didn't you Labourites, who feel qualified to run the country, see it comign too? Not even Brown saw the crash coming when many professionals in the city did. He is a third rate Prime Minister of a third world country.
The ONLY legitimate question is how well they can do their job. This comment is class prejudice, nothing more. Try rewording it as:
"There are entirely legitimate issues about the unconvincing political back story of Cameron and Osborne which are partly connected to their poverty and working class backgrounds".
Your comment is disgraceful.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2
That old rugby injury comes in handy, on occasions.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
I suggest US TAXPAYERS demand the civil service be cleaned up. People such as this need to be eradicated. The civil service is not supposed to be political.
While I'd never wish to insult you by comparing you to the likes of the sleazy McBride & Draper, it still has to be said that when it comes to your unwavering loyalty for New Labour & its leadership, over the past years, there's still very little that ultimately separates the three of you.
I hope in good time you'll be able to repair your shot credibility, but it's not going to be easy. After all, it was only a couple of weeks ago that you were heralding Brown's "authenticiy" as being his greatest weapon against the Tories, and yet this week your questioning his "judgement". You really are making it increasingly hard for us to connect the dots to your way of thinking.
And, as for Brown's "judgement", the vast majority of us have known that it's been suspect long before he crowned himself Prime Minister without a mandate from the electorate.
Heaven forbid he may have to do some work - or more likely be working on the Hull Tribune informing readers about broken paving stones. At least then his articles may have some truth in them.
What you really mean is that you are all mates in this silly little club and they feed you stories - so that makes them ok. Your gigs at Cameron and Brown are the same digs Brown would have and look where that idiot has left the country.
The reality is who gives a shit about their past it is the future and their ability to mend this broken country. People like you can wander around with more chips on your shoulder than Brown dropping the odd name to make you feel good when in reality you are just a sycophantic prat.
Do us all a favour step back and take a look at these these idiots objectively - which for clarity means removing your tongue from their arses.