Ministry For Feral Media
Caesar's wife? Puh-leeze
There's a cracking piece in the Speccie this morning about how the Conway affair is really, really, really bad for the Tories and their soft lead. It finishes with this reference to Andy Coulson:
In a briefing to the Tory front bench in December, Andy Coulson, Mr Cameron’s excellent communications chief, warned that a party preparing itself for office must be supremely vigilant. It cannot afford to speak loosely or sail close to the wind. It must be above suspicion. These were sage words, and the Tory party should heed them especially carefully now. To a great extent, a country crying out for change is at the mercy of the main opposition party. To stand a chance of winning, it must behave impeccably. If the attitudes that lie behind the Conway affair are not rooted out from the Conservative benches once and for all, the country may yet drift haplessly into a fourth Labour term.
We enjoyed the article, and its forthright, reality-drenching call to Cameron to get a grip. But we fundamentally disagree with its drift. At one point, the Speccie refers to the angry comments on its Coffee House blog as evidence that the public is angry, wants change, and is demanding purity, puritanism and purification of the Commons.
We at Westmonster just do not buy that. We think the political blogosphere and the political media have become infected by the twin viruses of sloppy thinking and sloppy journalism. It's getting pretty crowded up on the blogging high horse at the moment, with many of the leading bloggers striving to outdo each other in their outrage, their anger, their sheer incandescent disappointment. They're obviously looking at their referrers and page views and saying to themselves "you know, a good chunk of self-righteous fury always gets the punters in."Because it is a fact that it is very easy to construct a simple narrative out of sleaze - They're All Bad People And Something Has To Change - but it is less easy to demonstrate that the voting public is massively energised by these revelations. People who comment on political blogs are not normal voters. The Speccie is right to argue that Conway's transgressions are of a different, more bitter flavour than Hain's, and are thus damaging to Cameron. But how damaging, exactly? With the economy slowing and house prices slipping and teenagers knifing each other on buses, exactly how much do individual voters care about this stuff? The Standard and Andrew Gilligan have been slinging pretty well-researched mud at Ken Livingstone for months, and the result? He's still ahead in the polls.
We've said it before, we'll say it again: people don't trust politicians. They don't like politicians. When politicians do sleazy things, people roll their eyes and have their prejudices confirmed. But there is also a bedrock of belief that, all things being equal, British politics is probably a bit less sleazy than politics in other countries. Only in a world where both parties are identical in all regards does sleaze become a significant electoral issue. It's perhaps sad, but we think Gordon Brown's bizarre grimace-smile is going to sway more voters than Hain's dodgy accounting.

2 Comments
"They're obviously looking at their referrers and page views and saying to themselves "you know, a good chunk of self-righteous fury always gets the punters in.""
Referring to anyone specific? Guido?
You obviously haven't studied Iain Dale's blog, his refusal to condemn Conway, out Gale's Gale.