by Craig Oliver
MICHAEL GOVE DOES NOT RULE OUT BEING SOURCE OF QUEEN BACKS BREXIT STORY
Michael Gove has refused to rule out being the source of reported comments made by the Queen on the EU. During a Brexit campaign visit in Hampshire, the Justice Secretary said he did not know where the Sun got all of its information from.
It’s a form of denial, but the use of ‘all’ is a weakening of his position.
Soon after, that mysterious ‘friend of Michael Gove’ is at it again, calling round to say, ‘Michael did not brief the Queen story.’ It’s hopeless – unless he issues a categoric denial that he has anything to do with the story being out there, people will always suspect him.
The most interesting piece in the Sunday papers is by Peter Preston in the Observer on the problem with anonymously sourced journalism – which is the foundation of political reporting in this country. On the Sun’s ‘QUEEN BACKS BREXIT’, he points out, ‘… there’s nothing in the Sun’s body-text report that justifies those three lead words in big, booming type … they at the most provided second-hand evidence of a couple of conversations up to five years old in the midst of the Eurozone crisis – when no referendum had been agreed and “Brexit” might as well have been some new patent loo cleaner.’
The most interesting part of the piece explains how the Sun rests on two anonymous sources. One, who is ‘highly reliable’ and ‘senior’, heard the Queen hold forth on Europe at a lunch after a Privy Council in 2011. A separate Parliamentary source (i.e. an MP) noted her ‘venom’ and ‘emotion’ about EU affairs at an undated Palace reception.
Preston goes on to ask what the New York Times would make of all of this, pointing out that its code says ‘anonymity is a last resort’. Margaret Sullivan, their public editor, says ‘the paper needs to show far more scepticism – a kind of prosecutorial scrutiny – at every level of the process.’
I watch Marr. George is on ahead of the budget this week. DC calls me after to get my take – he was unable to watch, because he was out with his children.
I run him through it, saying George did well. I wonder if we should be clearer about Turkey not joining the EU – the supposed doubt around it (when there really isn’t any) – is being used by the Outers as an example of why the risks of staying in are greater, opening the back door to the most unstable part of the world, and allowing floods of immigrants to come in.
DC says it’s not going to happen, but it’s hard to be categoric for diplomatic reasons. Anyway, ‘France needs to have a referendum before they get in – so it’s not going to happen.’
I drive in to work for the 8 p.m. meeting. Several bottles of wine and a few bottles of Becks are laid out on the coffee table in the PM’s office. I’m asked to open a packet of cashews, the PM delves into a big bag of Doritos roulette – where you risk eating a super-spicy one.
The agenda is long. The top issue is a report that is coming out on 24 May explaining why there is a big discrepancy between the official migration and the ‘Nino’ or National Insurance numbers released. It is obvious that there are far more active ‘Ninos’ than there are migrants being counted. The problem is if all of that comes out a month before the referendum.
The conversation segues into whether or not we will go ahead with a leaflet to every household, paid for by taxpayers’ money. I want us to properly think through what we are doing. My conclusion is, ‘If we win, and it’s close, we’re handing them an excuse for why they were cheated. That shouldn’t necessarily stop it, but we should think about it.’
Stephen Gilbert says we should not underestimate the row this will cause. He would go ‘fucking tonto’ if someone was doing it to us on the other side.
The other big topic of conversation is Turkey – when do we affirm we would never let them join the EU? DC wants to wait until after the migration summit, but agrees this is coming, and we need to neutralise it.
We talk about Gove for a bit. It’s agreed we have to hold on to the fact that he’s suggesting it isn’t him. DC’s view is he knows it makes us look naive and credulous, but we really don’t want to be seen to be shoving him.
I drive back home – back in time for the 10 p.m. news and bed. Life is one big barrel of laughs at the moment …
Chapter 12
Well, This Is a Mess
MONDAY 14 MARCH begins with a throbbing head, toothache and low-level sore throat. I’ve been run-down and ill for more than a couple of weeks now. I tell myself I’m going to have to do more than pop painkillers to mask it all, but I can’t think how I’m going to get to a doctor, who would probably just tell me to slow down.
It’s clear we’re just going to have to face up to the issue of migration and ‘Ninos’ coming out only a month before the campaign.
Then there’s the mailshot to every household – setting out why the Government believes we should Remain in the EU. We’ve decided to bring it forward to before the official ten-week period designated for the campaign, to stop it being criticised by the Electoral Commission. But that means it will come out in the ‘purdah’ period for the local elections, when the Government isn’t supposed to do anything – so the Electoral Commission will probably still hate it. It’s not even clear the Royal Mail can prepare itself to deliver that amount of material in such a short period of time.
Meanwhile, Bernard Jenkin is doing everything in his power to kill Daniel Korski over the John Longworth affair. One suggestion is that we allow Daniel to go before Jenkin’s committee and release all his texts and emails on the subject, on the grounds he will be completely exonerated.
DC pushes back hard – saying he’s not appearing and we won’t publish. He is utterly committed to protecting his staff – and this will set a dangerous precedent. It’s one reason why we feel so loyal to him.
I get on the Tube to News UK again. This time to see Tony Gallagher, the editor of the Sun. It’s fair to say we have more than our share of history, but both of us want to play nice.
When I’m shown into his office, which has an amazing view of St Paul’s, he’s kicking Sunday supplements into a pile. He doesn’t have much success and they look like he’s thrown them everywhere.
The conversation goes on for an hour. He tells me he thinks IPSO will rule against the Sun, but says he doesn’t mind.
My main point to him is, let’s not allow this to become personal about the PM. He says he won’t. I offer to get the PM to write for him and do an interview – telling him that doing so is probably a risk. He assures me DC will be fairly treated.
My last meeting of the day is at Stronger In. It’s chaired by Peter Mandelson, who is smooth, with hair that is well-groomed, but somehow also thick and fluffy. His schtick is to make, ‘What do I know?’ points, which are designed to show he knows a lot – picking up that although Will Straw thinks we won the first couple of weeks of the campaign, polling is going in the wrong direction.
He follows the opposite approach to Lynton Crosby, yearning for a room full of politicians chewing the fat and directing the campaign. He asks if more should be at this meeting. After a couple of gentle hints that I think we should be business focused, I finally say, ‘It’s your meeting, but I’m worried we can create situations where people just yak.’
We discuss it after – his critique of the Conservative way is that you miss good ideas ignoring people. I agree up to a point, but a lot of people don’t know the facts, have a theory and just commentate.
He also worries that youth-focused campaigns won’t get in the papers or on the news. I point out that the average Sun reader is forty-nine – something Tony Gallagher pointed out earlier. We need to be making sure we are going where young people actually are. He argues that people need to see it as a ‘good’ campaign. I don’t point out that no one thought Lynton Crosby’s general election campaign was great – until we won … and then people called it a classic.
Mandelson disappears out into Cannon Street, briefcase in hand, saying he will next be available after Easter, because he’s on a speaking tour of Chi
na and Singapore.
He isn’t the only one doing a stock take of the campaign. Lynton points out in analysis he publishes in the Telegraph that we should stress how important the vote is in fairly neutral terms, in order to drive up turnout. The belief among all pollsters is: the higher the turnout, the better it is for Remain (though some worry about a scenario where turnout is so high, it could mean traditionally disengaged voters are turning out in force to send a message). One way of doing that is underlining the real possibility that Remain may not win.
It’s also clearer than ever that for undecided voters, the biggest hesitation about voting Remain is the impact of uncontrolled immigration, while their biggest hesitation about Leave is the potential to damage the economy.
Many of these voters are women, work in some capacity, tend to be aged 35–44, have a mortgage, voted Conservative in 2015, and are divided over whether the country is going in the right direction. Essentially, they are in the most exposed position in society – they have worked hard and cannot risk what they have strived for.
That means the Remain campaign should focus on the certainty staying in the EU provides and raise the personal relevance of the outcome.
In other words, we need to do more to underline personal risk, so that it is specific to the voter: your job could be at risk, your mortgage could be at risk, the funding that pays for your child’s school and your local GP …
I am responsible for the ‘Air War’, the media side of the operation, and the team work to ensure our stories focus on that personal risk. Ameet has been creating a grid of stories that we roll out daily for some time now, but we also have sub-grids aimed at the nations and regions, young people, social media, the BME communities, and softer, lifestyle media.
Elsewhere, Stephen is focused on the ‘Ground War’ – monitoring what is going on in terms of targeting people across the country. How many campaigners are out each day? How many phone calls have been made? How we get regular nationwide reports on contact. The plan for material to be distributed, including how many leaflets and which letters go out – often written to a specific householder and focused on their specific concerns.
On Wednesday 16 March, everything stops for the budget. As we have wrestled with the campaign, the Treasury has been beavering away – regularly coming into No. 10 for small group meetings to discuss the plan.
The budget speech trundles through. The showy ‘sugar tax’ on fizzy drinks is met by silence in the Commons – apart from the thud of what’s assumed to be a dead cat being thrown on the table to distract the media from some other unpalatable news.
The idea of a dead-cat strategy is part of the legend of Lynton Crosby. Boris popularised it by describing it: ‘There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining-room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted … everyone will shout, “Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!” In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.’ And since he described it, everyone assumes it’s a Machiavellian manoeuvre employed by all good political strategists.
As with all budgets, its true impact will only become apparent in the coming days, when the experts have had a proper look.
The next day, the response is a mixed bag. The Sun predictably slams George for the fizzy drinks tax – the Mail applauds the tax measures, but is critical on debt. In the distance, I can hear the slow train coming on the Personal Independence Payment. Ameet has been flagging that this will be a disaster for weeks – inevitably billed as taking money from people with disabilities, though it is not as clear-cut as that.
Anna Soubry, a business minister and passionate Remain campaigner, alerts me to the problem – having been monstered on the issues on BBC Radio 5 Live: why are you cutting benefits at the same time as cutting taxes?
At the 8.30 meeting, I warn the PM it could be a serious problem. He is angry that the Department for Work and Pensions has done a poor job in controlling its budget, which is ballooning. There’s been a recent judgment that has significantly widened the people who can get a repeating Personal Independence Payment. The aim is to reform the system to stop that. The problem is how it is being presented. Ideally, it should never have been associated with the budget, but the damage is already done.
While this is going on, I’m in another tussle with the BBC.
At 7.09 this morning, Justin Webb introduced a piece on the Today programme claiming ‘most small businesses tend to be Out’ in terms of the EU referendum. This simply isn’t true and is part of the misleading picture about the weight of business opinion.
I send them several proof points, including: ‘71% of small and medium-sized businesses back Remain in CBI ComRes poll.’ CBI ComRes poll, 15 March 2016.
One thing that lightens the mood is the fact that Sir Alan Duncan MP is coming out as a Remainer in the next few days. He drafts a statement he thinks we should use as a speaking note:
In a major blow to the campaign to leave the EU, senior Tory MP Sir Alan Duncan has today announced we should remain a member. As one of the few undeclared MPs, he is seen as an experienced and reasonable figure of influence. Known as a longstanding but thoughtful Eurosceptic, his declaration will be seen to have a pivotal bearing on the many voters who are still undecided.
To have won over such a senior and experienced political figure will be seen as a significant coup both for the Prime Minister and the campaign to remain, all the more so as Alan Duncan is seen as independent minded and someone who cannot be pushed around.
We tell him, ‘Maybe it needs a little rewriting.’
On Friday 18 March, the morning’s news bulletins focus on comments made by Nicky Morgan on Question Time, which appear to back away from the Personal Independence Payment proposals. She has the right tone – taking the heat out of the ‘proposals’ and buying time to come up with something more palatable. I call IDS’s special adviser, who tells me she has been calling round the media suggesting that Nicky Morgan doesn’t understand the proposals.
I’m concerned to hear her using the phrase, ‘we are not in concession territory.’ I tell her it isn’t wise to look like you are in a spat with another Cabinet minister. I also make clear that IDS needs to get out there and explain what is going on, i.e., we are taking time to assess all of this. Most significantly, she says IDS is refusing to go out on broadcast, though he will consider a statement.
DC and George aren’t in Westminster, but I let them know what is happening. I ask if we should just let this cool down and not throw another log on the fire.
I go up to the Thatcher Room to go through the Government document that will go out during the referendum with about a dozen people from across Government. It’s a slow process – with attention to every word. My phone keeps ringing. Emails keep arriving. The view is that IDS should go out and defend the Personal Independence Payment proposals.
I step out of the leaflet meeting, go and lean on the banister at the top of the stairs lined by pictures of all the former Prime Ministers, and set up a conference call with the relevant special advisers, saying, ‘We could go round in circles on this, but it’s been decided Iain needs to go out and clear all of this up.’ Neither argue. I tell them it’s in danger of spiralling out of control – and they need to make sure they are singing from the same hymn sheet.
At 10.24, I text IDS: ‘Hi, the PM wants you to do a clip on welfare today to make the position clear. I have spoken to your team and am happy to discuss.’
At 13.06, he replies: ‘Just come out of a funeral. I will call.’
I respond – sorry to have disturbed him at a funeral: ‘Thanks.’
I give him a fair bit of time. I ring him again at 14.46. He doesn’t answer or call back.
I make clear to the PM and George that he isn’t calling me. I don’t want to keep poking the hornets’ nest.
<
br /> Everything goes quiet until around 7 p.m., when I get a call from the PM saying, ‘IDS is raging about this. I think it’s serious.’ He tells me to stay by my phone.
This feels like it’s going south very quickly.
The call comes from Ed Llewellyn just after 9 p.m., when I am at home. He tells me, ‘IDS says he is going to resign.’
In the background, I can hear DC saying in a raised voice, ‘You are literally resigning over SpAds briefing against each other!’
I race to put on my shoes, grab my keys and jump in the car.
I am already getting calls. First Peston, ‘Well, this is a mess.’ I tell him I will be in touch shortly.
I call Ed – it’s out there. He’s resigned. In the background, I can hear DC say, ‘It’s on Sky now.’ Clearly we need a statement before the 10 p.m. news.
I get across IDS’s letter. It’s a missile aimed at George Osborne’s heart, concluding we should question the Government’s mantra that ‘we are all in it together’. He goes on to claim that the PIP reforms may be defensible in narrow terms, but not in the context of a budget that benefits higher-rate tax payers.
I park at the back of No. 10.
As I get out of my car, a Range Rover swishes in. I jump backwards to avoid it. George gets out – wearing jeans and a jacket. His wife Frances is with him. We go in the back door together, awkwardly acknowledging the situation. They have been at a dinner.
George and I go to the PM’s study, Frances up to the flat.
DC and Kate are waiting for us.
We spend some time talking through the lines I should give to the press. I call Laura Kuenssberg and Robert Peston, making clear that we are bemused that he’s resigning in these circumstances: the policy came from his department and was defended by him in a letter to MPs last night. IDS is now saying he had problems with it, but he didn’t raise them when he had a chance.
The counter-briefing is that it all became indefensible for him when he heard there were welfare cuts at a time when Capital Gains Tax was also being cut. In fact this language is bogus – the PIP budget is rising, it’s just some people aren’t getting money they might have got. He doesn’t seem to have got his story straight – he was anti the policy, but defending it in a letter to colleagues … then he appears to be complaining that he felt undermined when others said we should back away. What really appears to be happening here is he thinks he was being left carrying the baby for a policy that is now being seen as unfair. It’s not entirely the principled resignation he claims.