Cameron - PR for dummies: scapegoats and mono-culturism

Cameron's speech on 'multi-culturism' has actually had some mainstream defenders.  Unbelievable.  I can only assume they are worried about possible loss of grants, because it is hard to see how such an ill-timed, disconnected, and lazy speech 'flawed in structure and details', could be seen as a serious contribution to debate.  Typical of the vacuous waffle from the coalition, that seems to think that assertions delivered with a forceful expression and slick delivery is a substitute for any substance.

Madeline Bunting, writing in the Guardian today did a decent job on pointing out the floors in his argument. It was a good illustration of how quickly the Coalitions arguments unravel once anyone actually bothers to questions their assertions.

Although suffering from the usual Guardian attempt at reasonableness - very misplaced on this occasion - their editorial nevertheless was good on the crassness of timing and the nonsense of the defence that the speech had been planned since Christmas:

Mr Cameron made his speech on the same day as 3,000 supporters of the English Defence League marched through Luton chanting such slogans as "Allah, Allah who the fuck is Allah". For the prime minister to talk about community cohesion right before one of the biggest anti-Islamic rallies Britain has ever seen, and not to have made even a passing criticism of the EDL – instead confining his remarks to "Islamist extremism" – is irresponsible. The fact that Nick Griffin hailed Mr Cameron's remarks as "a further huge leap for our ideas into the political mainstream" should be taken seriously by the prime minister's team as a sign that his remarks were not sufficiently clear.


It was good to see that at least they understood the motivation - although would have been braver had they also understood the historical context and the logical link (with the PR tactics and practice of Goebbels in 1930's Germany) that made the location of the speech as crass as the timing :

One other qualm about the prime minister's speech is what it says about his own standing. Governments normally bring out such dog whistles when they are faltering, just as New Labour did after Iraq. After only nine months at No 10, and with his approval ratings on the slide, Mr Cameron is already resorting to such tactics.

New Year, more of the same

Adding to the posts of June and July seemed a vaguely fatuous exercise as the rest of 2010 seemed to be variations on the theme.  Theoretical cuts became proposed cuts, and by the spring will be more actual cuts  - the process of making these more concrete has at last triggered opposition.  Whether it is libraries, forests or local campaigns to save school crossing patrols, the opposition to specific cuts and  privatisation's demonstrate the basic 'nimbyism' that sees the public accepting the need for cuts, so long as they don't affect them and impact on someone else.

Cynically, both nationally and locally, politicians seem to make a crude electoral calculation by saving/protecting services for the elderly whilst cutting the EMA and closing youth services.   Against this, the unlikely, but fantastic response of the students in November and December and the growing popularity of UKUncut all give cause for optimism.  The linking of tax avoidance/evasion and the excesses of business with the student fee hike and cuts in basic services has great popular  traction.  The arrogant claims that 'its all down to the mess they inherited from labour' is being challenged on the ground, as is the bizarre idea that the deficit was down to incompetent labour, and nothing to do with a global economic crisis.  

The disastrous GDP figures for the final quarter of last year showed the elementary economic ignorance of the marketeers and their cuts policies.  The Thatcherite battle cry of TINA has already worn thin in the mounting evidence of cuts to front line services, whilst the absence of a plan B is starting to worry even some of their supporters.  Regardless, our cabinet of millionaires, in the pocket of business, and with no understanding of the lives of ordinary people, continue their attack on the 90% who earn less than £45k a year.

History teaches us that such arrogant certainty can lead to unforeseen problems and, once the policies fail, the hunt for scapegoats starts.  Cameron's speech on multi-culturism demonstrates that he is as ignorant of this history as he is of many other things.  To not be able to see the irony of making a speech in Munich on mono-culturism, so full of lazy assumptions, and to do so on the day the fascist EDL marched in Luton, without one word of condemnation from Cameron, shows naivety.  To continue to claim that he shouldn't change what he says 'because a few people walk down a street in an english town' starts to look more like a play for their votes.  A very dangerous path to tread when the economic outlook is so uncertain.