by Craig Oliver
I manage to get across to him that it’s more likely to be covered here if she takes a question from the BBC. He says he will go away and consider.
Straight after this I go to the Chancellor’s study, where Will Straw is waiting for a meeting. We head in and sit on the green leather armchairs opposite George on his sofa. I think it’s supposed to be a general catch-up, but George wants to iron out the issues we are having attacking the Leave campaign and specifically Boris. Leave seem to have no compunction about finding ways to attack the PM – so why aren’t we managing to do anything in return?
The truth is, we’re at an impasse. Will Straw says Labour In ‘won’t do it’, asking why they should do our dirty work. That only leaves the option of doing it through the Stronger In campaign. George expresses queasiness about this – knowing the Leave campaign will wind up the right-wing press about No. 10 being at the centre of things and playing the man not the ball.
It’s a strange stand-off. Both sides want to score a goal, but no one wants to be accused of putting the ball in the back of the net.
I trudge over to Stronger In. It’s increasingly clear that Leave are doing another big immigration story tomorrow. I end up sitting in the sweaty, small meeting room on a conference call trying to work out exactly what it is.
I’m still on a call about 10.20 p.m. after it’s emerged Leave has signed up to an Australian points-based system to control immigration. As the minutes tick by and we need to be out there rebutting this, I’m finding our conversation deeply frustrating. Our wonks keep arguing about whether it is fair to say certain things on points of detail the public will never know or care about.
I cut through it. ‘I don’t want to hear any more! Migration Watch says it doesn’t work, Australia has more immigrants per capita than we do. It means leaving the single market. Our response is: it doesn’t work, it’s likely to increase immigration and it means leaving the single market, which would wreck the economy.’
The BBC breaks the news, which will dominate tomorrow, on its 10 p.m. bulletin. Laura Kuenssberg’s live report just runs through how they claim they’d manage immigration with an Australian points-based system. I’m amazed that we have not been approached for a response – or that she has not pointed out the obvious flaws in what they are suggesting, including that doing it would involve leaving the single market. My guess is that the story has been done on a ‘no approach’ basis, where the people offering the story make it a condition of the journalist getting and running it that they do not approach the other side. I can’t help feeling that the role of an editor is to put the story into proper context – not just put one campaign’s side.
We seem to be going through a low patch with the BBC, who are lapping up everything on immigration.
We have a big announcement from the TUC tomorrow – confirming their full backing for Remain with a poster highlighting new research that indicates wages will go down if we leave. By all measures, it should get a good show on broadcast.
But the next day ends with a concerned email from the PM: ‘No TUC package on the [BBC] ten … I am worried. DC.’
He’s just watched a bulletin where Leave’s supposed solution to immigration dominates, followed by a piece showing Boris driving around the country in a bus shouting the odds, with Michael Gove and Priti Patel the grinning acolytes next to him.
There’s a moment where Laura Kuenssberg asks Boris if he is attempting to set up an alternative Government and he looks flustered, turns to Priti Patel and says, ‘Priti, you’d better answer that one. But the answer is basically – no.’ Surely people can see that’s just not good enough?
All day long, George has been incensed by the fact that Leave’s immigration story has been dominating the agenda. I try to cut through the frustration and point to what is going on, ‘They are running as an alternative Government. It’s shocking to us, but that’s a good story. We know what we need to do – discredit the immigration story and push them to cover our TUC story.’
The conversation turns to who is best to do our clip on the immigration story. Obviously it is Theresa May, but there’s nervousness she won’t deliver after her previous intervention misfired. The PM calls her – running through what he thinks she needs to say. It seems to work.
We’re looking at pushing the fact that the RSPB is supporting us tomorrow. It’s brilliant that they are writing to a million members, but it’s too soft for the news. Ameet comes up with the idea of getting the Chancellor to write a letter to Vote Leave saying they are being reckless. I suggest Alistair Darling as a co-signatory.
While all this is going on, I’m worried about the upcoming TV debates. We’re in the crazy situation where we and the BBC want Sadiq Khan to be one of our team of three at the Wembley Arena debate. Sadiq wants to do it, but no one (not the Labour people at Stronger In, not the BBC, not Sadiq) wants to tell the Labour Leader’s office. I’m clear that the BBC asked, so they need to write formally to Sadiq giving him cover. Others worry, what will Corbyn’s office do? Will they throw their toys out of the pram and insist they bigfoot Sadiq? That could mean John McDonnell doing it, or even Jeremy Corbyn. A disaster.
The best possible solution is that we have Amber Rudd, Nicola Sturgeon and Angela Eagle do the ITV debate in a week and Sadiq Khan, Ruth Davidson and a business figure do the BBC Wembley event two days before the vote. Once again, the pain of trying to run a broad coalition is crystal clear. We can suggest things, but we can’t demand. Meanwhile the ITV debate is days away.
I race over to No. 10 to meet Bill Knapp, an American consultant who’s here to help sharpen lines for the PM’s Question Time appearances and the wider TV debates. His easy charm belies a razor sharp brain.
We take him through to the Chancellor’s dining room. He’s just had a shower at his hotel after an overnight flight from Washington. He says, ‘I read your Daily Mail today. Jesus – I felt like turning round and getting back on the plane!’
‘Yep!’ I say – it’s hard to believe the sheer intensity of the campaigning against us.
He asks me, Kate and Ed to fill him in. He takes the occasional note before coming out with his thoughts, which feel on the money:
All the emotion is on the other side. You can’t win that choice between the status quo and getting back freedom and control.
You have to tap into something that’s emotional too.
You have to articulate a negative and positive message.
They are articulating a positive message. What I get from you is the lack of a disaster.
You need to say: ‘This is the wrong direction and here’s why: All the experts say it’s going to cost. It’s going to prevent us from doing what we need to do to move forward.’
His thoughts are interesting. Almost fact free – appealing to common sense or emotion. He comes up with a few more:
What is the purpose of the EU? It’s the single market. It’s about not going to be overrun by China and Russia. So we don’t get our lunch eaten.
This is about building some strength so we can succeed.
We have to position the other side as quitters. They want to cut and run. We don’t quit. Women are the swing voters. We’re quitting on our kids’ futures. (I like this a lot.)
They act like the internet and globalisation don’t exist. Let’s get real and get into the real world and win.
You’re never going to make people feel good about the EU.
And this – for me – is the best one:
Leaving is rolling the dice on our children’s future. What kind of parent does that?
I watch the 1 p.m. news. The TUC story isn’t mentioned at all – other than a brief aside at the fag end of the wrap-up two-way with the reporter. I write to James Harding and Katy Searle asking how it can be so unbalanced and am assured all will be well later.
The TUC story just about gets on the six o’clock news – and is nowhere at 10 p.m. Prompting the worried text from the PM.
I feel utterly exhausted.
The phoning, texting, emailing and meetings today have been relentless. If the BBC’s flagship news bulletin is any kind of indicator, we have got nowhere. Can they really not see how this is wrong? Have they discounted the TUC story out of some misguided sense that we had a hit on another day? If they have, they have missed a good news story and something that is vital to our campaign: demonstrating that this is not just a Tory on Tory war, but that other key parts of the political spectrum are on our side, with news stories that support their case.
How on earth are we going to tell Labour voters that politicians and organisations representing them believe it is in their interests to vote Remain, if the biggest news organisation in the country won’t cover one of our biggest moments properly?
I go to bed with nagging doubts. Could we really be beaten?
JUNE
Chapter 24
I Know Waffle When I Hear It
I WAKE UP ON Thursday 2 June to better headlines on the Today programme. They begin on the head of the GMB union saying Labour needs to be more passionate in making the case for Remain. It’s not a positive story for us, but at least it’s a signal to Labour voters. The next story is about Corbyn coming out in favour of Remain – and there are two more that we can chalk up as good for us. Senior sources at the BBC tell me they realise they screwed up, marginalising the TUC coming out for Remain yesterday, and are now attempting to redress the balance.
The papers remain the dark clouds on our horizon. The public relations firm Portland has released a pamphlet on Brexit – it includes a questionable piece by Gove claiming that as Justice Secretary, ‘I have experienced the frustration at our inability to refuse entry to those with a criminal record and even some who are suspected of terrorist links.’ Many in Government react angrily, saying it’s not true and most of the article covers areas that are not even in his remit, but the Telegraph splash on it.
When I speak with DC, he’s angry with Gove. ‘I’m going to lose my temper and unleash one on these people on live TV soon.’
Jim Messina comes in to see the PM in his office. He perches on the edge of the blue couch, knees spread wide, and tells us, ‘The thing that keeps me up at night is turnout. We have to increase it.’
The PM asks him to give his opinion on the polls putting Leave ahead. He says, ‘They are massively over-sampling people who did not vote in the last election. Those people favour Brexit by about eighteen per cent.’
DC asks how we can be sure they won’t vote this time. The answer is we can’t be, though the pattern is they tend not to, believing nothing they do will change anything. He also follows the view – built up across thousands of referenda, including in Scotland – that ‘Don’t Knows’ are likely to hold out until the end before breaking our way.
At the end of the conversation, DC asks which Jim thinks is easier, getting Hillary Clinton elected President, or this? He doesn’t even think for a moment and just says, ‘Hillary.’
We ask if he thinks we’re going to win and he says, ‘I’m encouraged, but not over-brimming with confidence.’
As we prep the PM for his Sky News interview and audience Q&A session, news starts to come through that Merkel has intervened. It sounds like a diluted version of what her team had suggested – essentially saying she wants us to stay in, and it’ll be hard for the UK to do deals in Europe if we’re outside the room.
A senior Downing Street figure reviews what she said and is very disappointed, ‘They never deliver the killer blow. They tell you they will, but they just don’t say it.’ He believes she was squeamish about appearing threatening.
I check on the latest news. Boris is auctioning a cow on my TV screen. I also see an embargoed story for the morning from the Home Affairs select committee. It says that a population the size of a small town (13,000) of foreign criminals who should have been deported is still in British jails. The chairman of the committee, Keith Vaz, who says he is a Remainer but is known for publicity seeking, has said it is a major problem for the Remain campaign. I can’t understand it – why do people supposedly on our side keep handing bullets to the opposition?
DC and I get in the car to Osterley for the Sky debate. We do a bit of light questioning, but I try to keep it nice and easy.
We’ve just been into the Sky studios to have a look round and are back in the convoy to get some food when I put on the BBC News at Six on my iPhone. DC and I try to watch it. As we do, we’re suddenly aware of the driver looking confused. We appear to be driving into a bus garage.
The convoy does a U-turn. They can’t find the restaurant. I think it’s on the left, but they turn right into heavy traffic. They then have to do another U-turn so tight I can’t believe they don’t scrape the paintwork on a stationary bus.
DC, who is keyed up about the programme tonight, says, ‘Come on guys, I’m supposed to be having a relaxing meal before I go on.’
We step out of the car, the PM into traffic and me on the kerb. As we do, the referendum section begins on the news. I boost the sound, and hold the screen close to our faces, with DC leaning in to me to hear. We are now standing by a canal side with people staring. Suddenly we hear a man singing out of tune and very loudly. I look up and see a drunk, unsteady on his feet, earphones plugged in, shouting/singing Bob Dylan’s ‘Forever Young’ into a phone.
We try to focus on the package on Jeremy Corbyn, but the protection team try to move us along. We wander at a snail’s pace along the canal – with the man now following us.
We can just about make out what’s happening on my tiny screen as we march forward. The singing fades and we make our way into the pub where we have come for dinner.
Jon Ryley, the head of Sky News, is waiting to meet us outside the studio. I let DC and him go ahead, so there’s a clean shot of them going in. After thirty seconds I race after. The studio appears to be a pop-up – just 100 seats, with the PM very close to the audience. It’s bright and clean, with a sharp yellow-and-blue theme.
We put the PM through his paces to warm him up. There’s a real sense of jeopardy in taking questions from a studio audience. There are legendary moments where politicians have been left flummoxed by blunt questions. The team jokes about the moment in The Thick of It when the minister is asked, ‘Have you ever had to clean up your own mother’s piss?’
Liz Sugg and I walk him down to the studio. He stands in the wings and we make small talk to try to lighten things up.
I jog back up to the green room, where the team has opened some wine.
The first part of the show is an interview by their political editor, Faisal Islam. He starts punchy and gets punchier, asking if DC knows the number of people who have come into the UK since he became PM, and then how many who left. He answers – making clear the net number coming in is 600k plus.
The interview is almost all about immigration. DC’s practice has worked, though – he gives a sentence in response, then pivots back to the economy.
A wag on Twitter sums up the experience as:
Faisal Islam: Immigration.
Cameron: The economy.
(Repeat)
Good. This is a battle – a test. Faisal Islam does well, but at points he’s a little too cocky, asking at one stage, ‘Which will come first, economic meltdown or World War Three?’ The audience laughs. DC does a brave job of defending his speech on the EU and security, pointing out he never talked about WW3. It doesn’t matter – when they’re laughing and you’re explaining, you’ve lost the round.
There’s a commercial break, then DC is standing ready for the audience. He plants his feet wide apart, anchoring himself.
Kay Burley loses control of the PM and the audience from minute one. The audience wants to interact. The problem is there are no boom microphones capable of picking up people who haven’t asked a question. DC starts talking back to them – obviously he can hear, and he doesn’t know that people watching can’t. Kay doesn’t assert herself and it feels a bit of a mess.
Then a student called Soray
a asks a question. She claims to be a Remainer, but attacks the campaign. She speaks about Turkey and her worries, but says she comes from a family of immigrants. I have no clue what her point is. DC tries to answer. She interrupts him to tell him not to interrupt her. When he tries to give an answer, she says, ‘I’m an English Literature student, I know waffle when I hear it.’ It feels like she’s been practising the line in the mirror all day long. There’s a smattering of applause. The hacks go mad on Twitter – relishing the idea that someone has taken on the PM and is speaking truth to power, when in reality she appears to be little more than a confused attention seeker.
DC calms things. And we get to the end of the show with no real scars.
It’s dark when we get in the car. As the doors slam, DC wants my run-down. The social media reaction shows that even hostiles think he did well. I can see he feels pretty confident. I show him various tweets as he calls Sam to get some reassurance.
Back in Downing Street, a bunch of people including George and Bill Knapp are in the No. 11 dining room. There’s a spread of Moroccan food on the table, and I grab some of the meat and pitta bread. I lean in to George. ‘Alright?’ He nods. I talk for a bit, but I want to get back to watch the news. I walk out into the warm night air. I wonder how many more times I will leave this building and walk down the street, nodding to the police as I step out onto Whitehall.
Some of the next morning’s newspapers are a joke.
The Telegraph headline is: ‘CAMERON SAVAGED AS VOTERS REVOLT’.
I text Chris Evans, the editor, and Peter Dominiczak, the political editor, telling them I think it is simply wrong.
Papers that would normally be attacking Soraya for her incoherence and self-regard lionise her. It’s another reminder of how we are playing uphill in this referendum. The very same papers that would have been cheering us to the rafters, if the same event had happened in the general election, are making life uncomfortable.