Short-tempered, famous, Lexus driver? It can only be Alan Partridge. Can't it?

First I recommend you read Stephen Tall's piece When Chameleons Attack!.

Then, watch the video.

It seems Dave's rumoured short temper is more than a rumour ...

In the New Statesman Darcus Howe is saying what many people are thinking about Margaret Hodge

Hodge is being vague, and in politics vagueness always conceals mischief, writes Darcus Howe

Margaret Hodge, MP for Barking, employment minister and former leader of Islington Council, has ventured into racial politics again, concerned about a handful of working-class votes drifting from Labour to the British National Party in the East End of London.

When Hodge says that eight out of ten voters in her constituency are contemplating voting BNP, it's not clear whether she blames this on black and Asian immigrants, the white working classes, or the Labour Party itself. In politics, such vagueness always conceals mischief.

He reminds us of the local background

A visitor from another planet might think this tiny drift to racist politics in east London was new. I was barely out of my teens when dockers marched with Enoch Powell as he called for the "repatriation" of Asians and West Indians. "Paki-bashing" began when white gangs attacked Asians on Hodge's own parliamentary turf. Nearby, too, under the noses of the unions and the Labour Party, a kind of apartheid flowered at the Ford car factory, aimed at excluding black and Asian workers from the better jobs.

And reminds just when it is that the Labour Party gets worried about racism

I will not speculate on her reasons for raising this issue now. The BNP may increase its share of the vote in the local elections, but even it does not expect to win control of any local council. It is possible, however, that Nick Griffin's gang will split the Labour vote and let in some confused coalition, or, in time, a new MP for Barking. In that case Hodge will have nobody but herself to blame.

Tony Sewell has a similar argument in the Voice.

Dave's excuse for having his ministerial car follow him to work, whilst he rides his bike, is that he has too many files to carry. Francis Maude, when this was mentioned on "Any Questions", stated that if anyone could solve this problem Dave would give up this practice.

I think I've found the answer.

Over at Pigeon Post, Peter Pigeon has been reviewing "Mind the Gap" by Ferdinand Mount. He detects some of the thrust of Mount's argument, relating to radical proposals to develop land, in recent pronouncements by Cameron:

And, before you ask, yes I am quite sure that Mount is the source of this idea. (He is also the source of the "there is such a thing as society, it is just not the same thing as the state," soundbite). Mount's grandfather in the photograph described above is also Cameron's great-grandfather. The uncle (from whom Mount inherited his baronetcy) is Cameron's maternal grandfather. Blood is thicker than water, and I suspect that we will see some more of Mount's ideas come from the mouth of Cameron. They are about as close to a Big Idea as the Tories get at present.

Mount, it would seem, is somewhat of a Conservative free-thinker, even to the point that he is prepared to countenance that heresy of heresies, Proportional Representation, in the pages of the Daily Telegraph no less:

Labour came to power committed to a referendum on PR. And although Tony Blair cruelly ignored the proposals he had encouraged his mentor Roy Jenkins to draw up, that commitment has been repeated in diluted form in subsequent manifestoes.

What better way to draw attention to the unfairness and to show its new commitment to alliance politics than for the Conservatives to challenge an enfeebled Tony Blair to make good on his pledge? By proclaiming their readiness to work with other parties, the Tories would themselves seem more approachable and could hope to win back voters from those parties. High motives and low politics would coincide.

After his initial honeymoon, Conservative fortunes seem to be returning closer to the 30-33% box that held them captive for most of the last decade or more. It is unlikely that next Thursday's locals will give them the boost they are seeking. An outright Conservative majority in 2009/10 remains one of the less likely outcomes.

Perhaps Cameron will muse over the words of his relative and come up with another carefully-crafted exercise in rebranding the Conervative Party - this time towards a fair voting system and the willingness to share power with others.

Now that would be a Cameron PR exercise to take notice of.

There is an apocryphal story about a pupil at Eton beginning an essay on poverty thus:

"The mother was poor, the father was poor, the butler was poor ... "

'Dave' Cameron lives up to this tradition, it would seem, with the emergence of news that he has his chauffeur bring his shoes and briefcase to work in his (otherwise empty) car, whilst he cycles in front.

The Liberal Democrats have an online petition calling for Charles Clarke to resign. I've signed it, and this is why:

There are clear signs that the Home Office and its various sub-departments are not performing as they should. They're either not performing their basic duties, or not communicating with each other. This is due either to mismanagement, under-resourcing or systemic problems.

And yet, under Charles Clarke, the Home Office has been very, very busy. Just this year, we've had the ID Cards Act, Racial and Religious Hatred Act, a new Terrorism Act and a new Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. Barely a week goes by without some new initiative being announced.

So if they have the time - and money - for ID cards, why don't they make better use of it by targetting genuinely dangerous, convicted criminals rather than wasting it? They expect to be trusted to run an ID card system, with an ID database, but they can't even track dangerous criminals who have already been arrested, tried and convicted.

All of this demonstrates a serious failure to identify priorities. By chasing the headlines rather than doing the unglamorous work of making existing systems function properly, Charles Clarke has let the public down. Perhaps if he had devoted more time to solving real problems than to picking fights with the media, he might not be in the mess he's in now.

The following is an e-mail which I sent earlier today to the Editor of BBC Newsnight, following the discussions here and here.

I encourage anyone else who agrees that the biases of presenters and guest pundits should be disclosed to contact the BBC expressing this opinion. You can contact the BBC's complaints department here, or e-mail the Editor of Newsnight here.

Letter to the Editor of BBC Newsnight

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:48:03 +0100
To: peter.barron@bbc.co.uk
Subject: Frank Luntz

Dear Sir,

Regarding your use of pollster Frank Luntz:

Mr. Luntz is presented on Newsnight as a neutral pollster, an "American polling expert", implying that, since he is not British, he has no interest or stake in British politics and is therefore neutral in his conclusions. I believe this to be incorrect. He was an Oxford contemporary of several key Cameron supporters and was active in conservative political circles there. During his initial appearance on Newsnight, he produced very favourable evidence for David Cameron during his Conservative leadership campaign. In your recent programmes, Mr. Luntz has again produced favourable evidence for Mr. Cameron, this time in relation to Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians.

Furthermore, Mr. Luntz is well known in the US as a Republican pollster, not a neutral. He has produced advice and assistance for the Republicans at least as recently as the 2004 Presidential elections. This is not a matter of minor relevance; in 2004 he was fired from a planned MSNBC focus group following complaints about his partisan bias. These complaints were summarised in a letter from the President of Media Matters for America, available here. At this time, he publicly claimed to have done no work for the Republicans since 2001, a claim later found to be untrue.

This makes clear that, in the US, Mr. Luntz is regarded as a partisan figure, unable to gain employment as a neutral pollster within the mainstream media. That he is employed as such for the BBC raises serious doubts about Newsnight's credibility as a source of political news. I understand that Mr. Luntz and his focus group is to appear again on your programme; as was requested by Media Matters in the US, I would hope that you inform the viewers of Mr. Luntz's history or, more preferably, balance his coverage with some examination of his methods and a more in-depth investigation into how his results are produced.

Regards,

Rob Knight

Editor, http://www.liberalreview.com

This article written by Chrisco

We return today to the topic of Frank Luntz, and Newsnight’s decision to employ him as their focus group pollster. On the face of it Dr. Luntz has an impeccable pedigree: PhD in Political Science, winner of the 1992 Washington Post “Crystal Ball� award for most accurate pundit in the ’92 elections, 2001 Emmy winner for his MSNBC/CNBC segments ‘100 Days/1000 Voices’ and pioneer of the ‘instant response’ focus group technique (as seen on Newsnight) which was profiled on the pre-eminent American news programme, 60 Minutes, in 1998.

So, on paper at least Luntz sounds like the perfect man to run focus groups for the BBC’s Newsnight – a young, bold and pioneering pollster. But in recent years in the United States Dr. Luntz’s reputation for impartiality has taken something of a battering; he is still highly successful and influential, but his position comes from his role as a strategist for the Republican party, not as an impartial pollster. Even this, however, must be qualified: Luntz does not specialize in finding out what the public likes and dislikes. He is an expert at using focus groups to test marketing strategies, i.e. in political terms, how to find the best way to sell a message to the public. He is conservative America’s Alistair Campbell and Philip Gould all rolled into one. U.S. Vice-President Cheney’s wife, Lynne, may have famously remarked about John Kerry that “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig�, but Frank Luntz is the man to call in if you’re a conservative and you want to find a way to convince people that it’s not.

“When the going gets tough, the Republicans call in the master. No-one has been more successful at the rhetoric of political seduction than Frank Luntz. He’s a magician with a gift for the politics of words… When others talk it is often Frank Luntz speaking.�

His polling methods have also come under scrutiny:

- In 1997 he was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research after he refused to hand over polling data that he claimed demonstrated widespread public support for Newt Gingrich’s ‘Contract with America’, citing client confidentiality. Luntz also happened to be one of the chief architects of the ‘Contract with America’.
- In 2000 he was reprimanded by the (American) National Council on Public Polls for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the 2000 Republican Convention.
- This chimes with claims made by millennium elephant that Luntz misrepresented the sentiment of the room during his latest Newsnight piece.

Now, none of this is really criticism of Frank Luntz – he is after all just doing his job as a conservative strategist, as the pre-eminent ‘framer’ of the political debate for the conservative cause, the most successful practitioner of political reality construction. So successful is he at influencing people through the use of language, that he is the subject of a Linguistics class at the University of Massachussetts.

But given his manifest lack of neutrality, and alleged personal links to David Cameron, the question is should he be conducting supposedly ‘neutral’ polls for Newsnight? And has he been advising David Cameron on his media strategy at any point since Cameron launched his leadership bid?

We cannot trust Luntz to come clean on this, nor can the BBC. MSNBC dumped him as a pollster and commentator in the run-up to the 2004 Presidential election after complaints about his bias from the organization Media Matters for America. Luntz claimed that he had done no work for the Republican Party since 2001, a claim which was later shown to be false.

So, the question again needs to be asked, should Newsnight really be employing a man who is friends with three key backers of David Cameron’s leadership bid, who equates “manipulation� with “explanation and education� and who has in the past lied about his links to conservatives while polling for a national broadcaster? And has Luntz been advising David Cameron on his media strategy while at the same time 'demonstrating' the success of that media strategy via Newsnight’s focus groups?

If Millenium Elephant is to be believed, in the latest Newsnight piece on voting prospects in advance of the local elections, the voters in the room had a much more positive reaction to Ming Campbell, and a much more skeptical reaction to David Cameron, than the edited version demonstrated.

In the first of the two Newsnight pieces, we hear Luntz ask his audience, "What do you see about David Cameron in terms of local issues." We also hear him ask "In terms of local issues, why Cameron and not Blair?" Millenium Elephant claims that Ming was the most trusted of the three candidates, and the man they thought would be best for local government. They also felt that the Liberal Democrats were the party most trusted to get things sorted out locally; this was all skipped over by the piece Luntz put out on air.

Introducing Cameron, the Newsnight audience was told they would be hearing from him on "the health service, education and other issues." The Newsnight audience was later told that Ming Campbell would be talking on "Again some of the same issues, and some more particular to the Lib Dems." The implication to the Newsnight voter is that Lib Dems have 'particular issues' that are not shared by most people, a stereotype of the Lib Dems.

In the broadcast version, when it came to the party leaders, the question put to the audience with reference to Cameron was "Who had a positive reaction to that? Who had a negative reaction?" The broadcast version naturally showed a generally positive response.

Luntz's question after the Ming Campbell piece, however, was not whether the audience reaction was positive or negative, as he had done with Cameron, but whether Campbell "exceeded expectations, met them or disappointed them." This is a very different question from whether their reaction was overall positive or negative, since it is predicated on what their expectations were, not simply their reaction to the speech. So, the Newsnight audience is treated to an audience full of people saying that Ming Campbell disappointed them, not one saying that their overall reaction was positive (as was the case, we are led to believe).

In his conclusion, Luntz sums up that "the party leader and the party that are most about change will be most successful." By sheer coincidence the David Cameron piece that was broadcast had David Cameron talking about what he would change in the education system. Ming Campbell's piece had him talking about the Liberal Democrats being written off by the political establishment and local democratic decision making. Subliminal messaging? I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, and would not normally give credence to the idea, except for the fact that the man we are talking about is primarily known in the United States for his skills in subliminal and subconscious political messaging.

The Washington Post recently described Luntz as the "on-again, off-again Republican pollster", and urged its readers to take his findings "with a grain of salt".

After Luntz was dumped by MSNBC before the 2004 election, Media Matters for America CEO, David Brock, commented "It is encouraging that MSNBC responded to criticism in a constructive way. Clearly they realized that employing a partisan pollster does not reflect well on them as a responsible media outlet."

So why does another supposedly responsible media outlet, the BBC, give so much credence to his findings, especially when there exist strong suspicions that Luntz has in fact been advising Cameron on how to do well in his focus groups? No serious American media outlet would allow Luntz to present and edit the findings of his polling, yet he is allowed to do this on the BBC.

It is inconceivable that Newsnight would allow Philip Gould, or M'Lord Rennard to do the same.

So why is this conservative spin-doctor and master manipulator of public opinion, already dumped by one American news channel for bias and twice reprimanded for misrepresenting the findings of his polling, given a free reign by Newsnight?

Two similar stories today, both of which give a pretty damning assessment of the government's performance.

First, we learn that tax credits, the brainchild of Gordon Brown (the prudent "iron chancellor", lest we forget) have been overpaid to the tune of £2.2bn. Many families will now find that they are being asked to repay relatively large sums of money that they, apparently, should not have received. If this story sounds somewhat familiar, it's because precisely the same thing happened last year.

The usual claims were made - that the system is doing good overall, and that any problems were being fixed. Chairman of HM Revenue and Customs Sir David Varney:

"We reject any assertion that overpayments have occurred because the tax credit system is either unduly complex or hard to implement. This is a system benefiting over 6 million families, the vast majority of whom have faced no difficulties with their payments. We have already put in place many improvements to deal with the problems raised."

Moving neatly from one blunder to the next, we also learned today that over 1,000 convicted foreign criminals have been set free at the end of their sentences, rather than deported. They include murderers, rapists and child sex offenders, though the majority are guilty of lesser crimes. It has long been accepted that the government has difficulty in removing failed asylum seekers, since they can be difficult to locate. But this example proves that the government is struggling to remove even those already arrested, tried and convicted.

The Home Office now admits that it has little idea where these people are. This is doubly bizarre as all released murderers are supposed to be monitored and all released sex offenders are supposed to be placed on the Sex Offenders Register. If either of these proves not to be the case, it suggests that there is an even deeper problem that goes beyond merely foreign criminals.

The overall impression is of an incompetent operation. They don't know whether they're overpaying benefits, they don't know whether they're deporting people, they don't know where those people are even though they've passed several pieces of legislation to enable monitoring of released offenders.

Charles Clarke has, naturally, refused to resign or sack any of the Ministers responsible and the idea that Gordon Brown might permit any of his Treasury inner circle to suffer the consequences of the Tax Credits debacle is laughable. In both cases, the government's response appears to be that because they designed a failing system, they must now stay in place in order to fix it. If they can just work a little harder, for a little longer, all will be saved.

I am beginning to suspect that they're running out of time. They've had nine years to solve these problems; in that time, they've ignored often constructive advice from the opposition parties - chiefly the Lib Dems. They - and nobody exemplifies this better than Charles Clarke - persist in lecturing the other parties about being 'in touch' with what people want. But what people want is competent, sensible government that knows its own limits and focusses on doing its core jobs and doing them well. They don't want billions wasted on IT projects, grandiose ID card schemes or the latest revolution in healthcare or education. They're fed up of hearing about how the Home Office needs more powers when they don't seem to be able to manage the ones they already have.

This article written by Chrisco.

‘Dave’ Cameron probably owes his leadership to the ubiquitous Frank Luntz, the U.S. Republican strategist and pollster who has been hired by Newsnight to conduct focus groups for their programme. Without that exuberant programme in which Luntz demonstrated that Cameron had an appeal to the electorate that no other candidate offered, Cameron would never have got past Davis.

A resurgent Liberal has outlined the main charges against the impartiality of these focus groups and the personal links between Luntz and Cameron.

Beyond that, however, I have been giving some thought to what Mr. Luntz does for his day job, i.e. as a Republican strategist and head of Luntz Research Companies. He first came to prominence in 1995 as the brains behind Newt Gingrich's 1994 'Contract with America'. In the USA he again regained brief notoriety when his '2006 Republican Playbook' got leaked. Of more interest to me, however, is his leaked briefing for the American right on how to turn the topic of the environment to their advantage.

The right attempting to turn the environment to their advantage? Doesn't that sound quite a lot like what David Cameron is trying to do? Well, precisely - so I decided to have a closer look to see if there were any similarities between what Luntz has been advising the American right, and what 'Dave' Cameron has been doing over here.

Now, on the face of it, Frank’s advice to his Republican friends is not particularly applicable to the British political scene, since it is mostly about how to convince an American public that is, or at least was, much more sceptical about global warming (a scepticism that the Republicans did a lot to foster) that the Republicans are not anti-environment. But if we examine the core message about how conservatives can turn environmental issues to their benefit, there are more than a few similarities.

Luntz begins:

“The the first (and most important) step to neutralizing the problem and eventually bringing people around to your point of view on environmental issues is to convince them of your sincerity and concern…

I don't have to remind you how often Republicans are depicted as cold, uncaring, ruthless, even downright anti-social. These attacks appeal to resentment and they are primarily emotional in nature, they cannot be blunted with logic or statistics. Therefore, any discussion of the environment has to be grounded in an effort to reassure a skeptical public that you care about the environment fur its own sake - that your intentions are strictly honorable. Otherwise, all the rational arguments in the world won't be enough for you to prevail.

The good news, amidst all this doom and gloom, is that once you are able to establish your environmental bona fides, once you show people that your heart is in the right place and make them comfortable listening to what you have to say, then the conservative, free market approach to the environment actually has the potential to be quite popular.�

Dave was clearly listening:

“I know that eyebrows have been raised in some quarters by the prominence which I have given to environmental issues ever since I became Leader of the Opposition.�

Frank recommends a ‘personal story’ to highlight a commitment to green issues, so Dave goes to visit a Norwegian glacier and ditches his official car.

Frank also has a few ‘principles’ of environmental policy and global warming, among which are:

Punishing real polluters must be a higher priority than creating more rules and regulations.

Local problems require local solutions. National standards may be necessary, but enforcement should be local. People in the country have the greatest incentive to keep their local environment clean.
Technology, innovation and discovery should preserve a clean and healthy environment.

All nations must share responsibility for the environment. No nation should be excluded from doing its part to improve climate conditions and the health and safety of its population.

Dave says:

“By setting the right market framework, we can achieve the right outcomes with the greatest possible efficiency and the least possible regulation and centralised direction.�

“I can today announce that we will be holding a Local Green Energy Summit to share environmental best practice in local government worldwide.�

“New technology - clean, green and, importantly, profitable - will be essential for delivering effective solutions to climate change. There are so many exciting developments already well underway, such as the exploration of hydrogen's potential in the US.�

“The first principle is international partnership. Climate change is a global phenomenon. We need global co-operation to tackle it… I believe it's clear and fair that all those who contribute to the problem should contribute proportionately to the solution.�

Frank says:

“"Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming".

Dave says

‘climate change’ fifty times in Oslo; he says ‘global warming’ twice.

Frank says:

‘We should be "conservationists", not "preservationists" or "environmentalists".’

Dave says:

‘As our name implies, we are the natural party of conservation.’

Frank says:

‘Preserving parks and open spaces is a winner because it doesn't need to be explained.’

Dave says:

‘Our parks and green spaces play a vital part in improving the quality of life we all enjoy – especially in urban areas, where they serve as the ‘green lungs’ of our towns and cities.’

And finally Frank says:

‘The Kyoto camp is divided into two categories: America Besters and Calamity Janes. The American Besters, led by Sen. John Kerry, will argue that we have the most innovative, technically advanced business community that can easily adapt to stricter anti-global warming regulations. The Calamity Janes, on the other hand, use scare tactics to convince audiences that global warming will lead to doom and gloom. Both have one common argument: The future will be a better place if we take the necessary actions today.

Let me warn you that both arguments do resonate with some people when they make the case that short-term pain will yield long term gain. Americans are still forward thinking and are likely to respond favorably to sacrifice if they can see a light at the end of the tunnel.

That's what you must offer. The fact that people take a long-term view gives you an opportunity to construct a 'zero-regrets' argument. For example, you should argue that America should invest more in research and development to find ways to burn fuel more efficiently.�

While Dave says:

“But when I think about climate change and our response to it, I don't think of doom and gloom, costs and sacrifice.

I think of a cleaner, greener world for our children to enjoy and inherit.

I think of the almost unlimited power of innovation, the new technologies, the new products and services, and the progress they can bring for our planet and all mankind.

And I think of the exciting possibilities that may seem a distant dream today - changing the way we live to improve our quality of life.�

So has Frank been advising his old chum Dave on how to maximize his environmental credentials, while at the same time appearing as an 'impartial' pollster on Newsnight?

You might think so, I couldn't possibly comment.

Normal service is resumed by the Conservative Commentariat:

Next Thursday there will be local elections. As our poll today shows, sizeable minorities will vote, loyally but without enthusiasm, for their ancient allegiances, Tory or Labour.

An American usage of the term "ancient", I presume, as the Labour Party has only been in existence for just about a century. Still, we haven't yet got to the really patronising bit:

But most will register their vote as a protest, with various degrees of fury: Liberal Democrat, Ukip, BNP, or none of the above. As usual, the local elections will be won by the Abstention Party.

It's good to know that in the opinion of Mr Kruger, the 5,985,414 people who voted for the Liberal Democrats last May were merely expressing a protest against their "natural" choices. Not because they believed in a set of sound Liberal principles, or anything like that. No - the two-party duopoly is alive and well in the mind of Mr Kruger.

A quick Google on this over-opinionated non-entity turns up that he is the same Danny Kruger who was deselected by Michael Howard from standing against Tony Blair in Sedgefield last May because he was looking forward to a period of "creative destruction in the public services".

It also seems he is a member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship. Perhaps a Biblical misquote is appropriate:

By their words shall ye know them.