modern and timely

Looks like I chose the wrong week to start smoking soggy centrist crack. It's also a pretty bad week to manufacture the stuff. This purports to be a review of Tom Watson's Dial M for Murdoch.

David Cameron’s great strength at the last election was that he projected an image of himself as comfortable with modern Britain. While Cameron has lost his sheen, one of Labour’s current weaknesses is that we can seem opposed to modern Britain, a creature of the counterculture. At a time when people are concerned about their jobs, their public services, and their futures, perhaps there are more important subjects for Labour to discuss than the Murdochs.

The pwogginess: it burns. Check out the site as a whole: the NHS hailed for 'meeting it's productivity targets'. 'a provocative call for England shirt Labour', it's all there on the front page.

Comments

[Chris Brooke]

My goodness. I met Stephen Bush when he was an undergraduate in Oxford, and he did very good work to support the Living Wage campaign there. But this is...delusional.

[CMcM]

Delusional is about right. It's the standard Blairite/managerial technocratic response to everything the Left considers unfair, corrupt or just plain wrong: fings are like they are 'cos The People Have Spoken.

[Charlie]

This motivated me to read Liam Byrne's piece: 'The New Centre Ground'. It's all very quid pro quo. Government will invest in new technologies; in return, business people will refrain from the very worst sorts of self-rewarding behaviour. Citizens will have rights; in return, citizens will obey the law. Etc.

I guess the hope is to arrive at a style of government which all sensible people would agree on, and what's more, actually do agree on. Which is oddly utopian in its own way.

[Phil]

I guess the hope is to arrive at a style of government which all sensible people would agree on, and what's more, actually do agree on.

And then discover that we've already got it, because everything's for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

It doesn't really merit fisking, but I'm less than persuaded by the list of a few of Stephen Bush's favourite things. I positively dislike Sky Sports, I've never watched Mad Men, I wouldn't use the Sky News iPad app if I had an iPad, I've never even heard of The Times’ Philip Collins and I've only ever read Erica Wagner when there's nothing else to read. I certainly don't 'love' books from HarperCollins, or Manchester United, and the idea of the Sunday Times taking credit for stitching up the Tories once the usual arrangement had started to unravel takes chutzpah to new heights. I don't read Daniel Finkelstein on politics, I didn't even know Libby Purves wrote about theatre, I've got no intention of reading The Art of Fielding and I only watch the Simpsons when my kids have it on. I am rather fond of Caitlin Moran, though, so that's one out of thirteen.

[chris y]

Government will invest in new technologies; in return, business people will refrain from the very worst sorts of self-rewarding behaviour.

Hello? Welcome back to the discourse, Neddy. You've been missed. Not much. But a bit.

[ajay]

Mad Men doesn't have anything to do with Murdoch; it's produced by Lionsgate.

The real villain of the piece – if there is one – in Dial M For Murdoch is ourselves alone: the people who rushed to the newsstands and who marvelled at the scoops unearthed.

This is exactly the argument that the NOW editors used: it was in the public interest, because the public were interested in it.

[guthrie]

So a total abandonment of personal responsibility, ethics and accountability by the management of the tabloids.
"We had to do it otherwise our sales would have fallen, it isn't our fault people wanted to read it".

Anyone got any information on what people actually read in the tabloids? When I was working in a factory in Bellshill, most of them seemed to glance through the 'news' bit, spend a little longer looking at the nice photos of young women and longer still reading the sports pages.

[Alex]

Anyone got any information on what people actually read in the tabloids?

You're not meant to *read* it, just vaguely perceive it so it anchors and primes your judgments.

[Igor Belanov]

"Which is oddly utopian in its own way."

Yes, the basic ideology of 'Blairism' and New Labour amounted to the fact that this particular group could act as a form of political technocracy that could ascertain the 'national interest' and act upon it. In many ways it wanted to be regarded as above politics and merely a conduit for producing what the people 'wanted'.

As you said, it shows how 'ultra-pragmatism' is in many ways the least realistic of political ideologies.

[redpesto]

'a provocative call for England shirt Labour',

Sighs

Anyone for 'Insert Here' Labour? 'This Space Intentionally Left Blank' Labour? 'This Adjective Could Be Yours: Call 0800 555-5555' Labour?

[Malcs]

A stomach-churning reminder of what might still return in a few years' time.

I saw that article by Bush too, Phil. I think it's pretty relevant to an understanding of the cultural underpinnings of Blairism, which are broadly in line with a kind of Middle England view that anything approaching "high" or "counter" culture (not terms I particularly value myself, but which turn up in these discussions) is just something people do to pretend they're more alive than they really are, just as socialism is about pretending you're less selfish than you really are. Whereas what you should really be doing is surrendering to the lawful community of the dull and reveling in your own shallow and passive reception of whatever it is that content developers have determined fits a person of your income, interests and likely social outlook. I did my undergrad at Warwick in the early 90s, where this kind of attitude was growing like a virus as Blair made his ascendancy.

Ajay, the Mad Men / Sky mix-up is likely something to do with Sky Atlantic. It's somehow apt that Bush should praise Murdoch for essentially repackaging someone else's work, especially as HBO is exactly the kind of thing Murdoch would shut down if he ever owned it.

[Solomon Hughes]

(1) Not only does Rupert Murdoch have nothing to do with creating Mad Men (that was Lionsgate), the viewing figures for Mad Men since Murdoch snatched it for Sky are desparately low - 47,000 for one episode.

(2) Worth remembering that Progress is a "party within a party", funded by (literally) millions of pounds from Lord Sainsbury, with the occassional contribution from the lobbyists for the government of Azerbaijan and other ugly sorts.

[Guano]

This review article in Lobster (of a book only available in Australia, so far) is a timely warning.

http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster63/lob63-murdoch-wounded.pdf

"One thing is absolutely clear: the British political class is not going to dismantle the Murdoch empire in Britain or eliminate the man’s malign political influence. They have got neither the stomach nor the balls for it."

We shouldn't assume that the political class are going to consign the Murdochs to Botany Bay. The Murdochs may still be able to keep our politicians in awe and play-off one party with another.

[ejh]

Which is one reason why the Blairites aren't going for him: Blairism never quarrels with power.

That, and the fact that (for the reason above) that they were up to their neck in Murdoch themselves.

This Bush arse might actually be right in thinking that Murdoch isn't the sort of issue that causes people to change their votes, which is what Blairites think of as important. Which is why they are more serious than you.

Which is also why people are still voting Labour because of the legacy of Clement Attlee, whereas nobody is going to vote Labour because of the legacy of Tony Blair.

[Steve Williams]

Anyone got any information on what people actually read in the tabloids?

An acquaintance of mine who occasionally shamefacedly partook had a routine which he explained to me, with accompanying hand gestures, which was, at correct speed, frontpagepagethreebackpagebin.

[Guano]

Many hours of participant observation in canteens and greasy spoon cafes suggest that the only bit of the Sun that gets properly read is the sports' section. After 40 years there isn't much interest in Page 3. The first few pages get skimmed through because a war might have started or the price of petrol might be about to double. Some effort goes into writing the sports' section, though, and there is an interest.