Unleashing Demons

by Craig Oliver

  Others want to make the positive case for being in the EU.

  I pull them up short, ‘I’m sorry. I’m totally confused. We’ve just all been talking about our message being about risk and the economy, how we need to keep hammering it – and now we are talking about handing over one of our last days to the positive case for the EU. We’re trying to win over the “Hearts versus Heads” people and the “Disengaged Middle”, who we know don’t respond to that.’

  Someone makes the case that the two aren’t mutually exclusive. ‘I’m sorry, they are,’ I say. ‘The reporting of this won’t be both – it’s one or the other. News doesn’t operate in double messages and it makes it look as if we can’t make our mind up. Of course, you can have the positive case in what you say, it just shouldn’t be what we push as the news headline. Either our core message is risk, or it’s positive. We all seem to agree it’s risk – so why are we using one of our precious last days talking about the positive case on the news?’

  There’s real pushback, but I am convinced. We cannot try to ride two horses. Way back at the beginning of all of this, we decided we needed to win over people who wanted to leave the EU in their hearts, but could be persuaded to stay when they realised it was a risk to their pocket and their future. That has been the core of our thinking and we need to hold our nerve.

  I look round the room and think several people look sick. But I am sure we cannot let internal debate be reflected in external arguments.

  George ends the meeting saying, ‘Everyone slags off negative campaigning, but it’s the only consistent message that’s working for us. Britain has a great future – don’t risk it.’

  After shooing everyone out of the PM’s office for an interview with the Observer, I head to the Chancellor’s dining room to talk more about how on earth we get the Labour party to score some runs. Stephen comes in, having had long conversations with the Labour element of Stronger In.

  The message coming back is that Gordon Brown wants to do more, but he has a whole series of grudges and fears. Apparently he is saying, ‘They’ve done this to me before. They’ve stabbed me in the back.’ He was furious that a day he was supposed to be leading ended with George warning from the Tokyo summit that house prices would fall and taking the news.

  A couple of very senior figures in the Labour party have told us they’re willing to talk through back channels, but their job could be at risk if we let it be known. There really is fear and loathing there.

  It’s obvious what Labour need to do – spell out that if we vote to leave the EU, there’ll be an agenda that actively harms working people. Ameet makes me laugh when he says, ‘Yeah – if you thought George Osborne was an arsehole, wait until you see these guys!’ To his credit, George thinks it’s funny, too.

  The truth is we have no power over Labour and no confidence they can deliver. Their message is weak – and they appear to have little concept of what a news story actually is. We are merely going round in circles.

  Late tonight, I feel like I’m hitting a wall. I keep having to recharge my phones because I’m taking and making so many calls. The campaign is making me ill – my chest is wheezy and I have the early symptoms of an ulcer.

  By any standards, the media team is doing an amazing job. We have a steady stream of experts explaining why they back Remain – and the BBC is leading on thirteen Nobel scientists talking about why it would be a disaster for Britain if we left.

  We’re also working hard on spelling out why we’d have to seriously review our finances if we left, given that the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies says there could be a £40 billion black hole.

  This is the central push of what we are giving to the Sundays – the Observer interview, as well as a Telegraph Op-Ed. There’ll be good stuff in the Mail on Sunday, too – including the Archbishop of Canterbury saying we should Remain, and Boris allegedly being caught plotting when asking an MP if he thinks they have fifty signatures yet to spark a leadership contest.

  The main thing that’s worrying me is a Sunday Times story claiming we are secretly trying to negotiate visa-free access to the UK for a million Turks. They have a series of ‘Diptels’ from our embassy in Ankara from May this year. I’m convinced we need to hit it hard.

  This involves trying to get a number of civil servants on a conference call. A couple of them are seemingly treating ‘Purdah’ as a holiday and don’t come on.

  I dictate a line that needs fleshing out with a few facts that I want to get to the Sunday Times – I also suggest it comes as a joint statement from the Home and Foreign Secretaries. While it is being drafted, I call Tim Shipman, the newspaper’s political editor. I tell him it is selectively leaked in order to make something appear true that isn’t, ‘You’re also doing Leave’s bidding.’

  He is indignant, ‘What am I supposed to do? It’s not coming from Leave.’

  ‘Don’t treat me like an idiot. This may not have come direct from them, but it’s plainly being done “hands free”, or at least pushed by someone trying to help.’

  I also call the editor, Martin Ivens. He says he isn’t aware of the story and I talk him through why it is wrong – finally emailing him the following:

  These are selectively leaked quotes from diplomatic telegrams designed to give a completely false impression that the UK is considering granting visa liberalisation to some Turkish citizens. This is completely untrue.

  The Government’s policy is, and will remain, to maintain current visa requirements for all Turkish nationals wishing to visit the UK, regardless of what arrangements other member states in the Schengen area may make with Turkey. Schengen visas do not give anyone the right to access the UK.

  The purpose of Diplomatic Telegrams is for our embassies around the world to feed back information on the position and views of foreign governments. They are reports from our diplomatic posts, not statements of British Government policy.

  As a full reading of these diplomatic telegrams shows, our overriding focus has been on working with the Turkish authorities to tackle illegal immigration via Turkey, because that is in our national interest. And it has been successful, with boat crossings from Turkey to Greece having fallen dramatically since the EU–Turkey deal was implemented.

  I hope the takedown is as comprehensive as it is devastating. But I have little doubt they will run the story anyway.

  Will Straw has been talking to Gordon Brown. My heart sinks at what is coming back. He wants to lead the Labour charge by challenging David Cameron to adopt a positive agenda for Europe. This would be some combination of a reduction in fuel bills through coordination on energy, more action on tax havens, support from the EU for communities with growing populations from immigration, coordination to tackle terrorism, and defending workers’ rights.

  I don’t know where to start on how bad this is. It makes Remain look disunited, with different wings arguing against each other. Rather than send a clear message to Labour voters that they will lose out if we leave, it will introduce new and confusing arguments.

  I hate being negative – Will is doing everything he can to try to make this work, but the Labour leadership and Gordon Brown aren’t helping. I send the following email:

  Let’s do the call. Sorry, but I think this is pretty hopeless really. In my old job I would be saying, this is a news programme, Gordon Brown repeating his weak and confusing lines on Europe is not news. It feels lacking in urgency, too. Craig.

  Will, Ameet, Ryan and I join the call. There’s a lot of discussion about Gordon Brown’s message. I chip in, ‘I’m sorry to be blunt. But this just isn’t big news. We need to give them a line that works credibly as a headline. He can do all the detail he wants, but if it doesn’t have a sharp newsline that works for us, it’ll just be Gordon Brown makes a lame intervention – and will get next to zero cut-through.’

  Peter Mandelson joins the call. We end up spending at least forty-five minutes describing the positive policy agenda Gordon Brown wants to put forward. It
includes the assertion that if we stay in, there will be a million more jobs created. I am scathing about this – ‘How many focus groups do we have to do that tell us the public don’t trust numbers that appear to have been plucked out of thin air?’

  Peter hits back, ‘What are people voting for, if it is not an institution that creates jobs?’ But Ryan agrees with me, specific numbers sound made up and are the surest way to stop people listening.

  Brown also includes a line on having a fund for areas that are particularly pressured on immigration. I roll my eyes – with two weeks to go, are we seriously about to go out there with a brand new policy on immigration? ‘We are way off the point here. The message we need to bash Labour voters over the head with is: If you vote Leave, you are letting in people who do not have your interests at heart take over. You and the people you care about will be worse off.’

  Peter tells me, ‘You need to be exposed to hard-core Labour voters in Hartlepool and Doncaster, who think we have nothing to offer them on immigration. If we don’t do this, we will have problems.’

  ‘I simply don’t accept that. I am well aware that’s a serious issue. But I also know that you can’t fatten a pig on market day. We know what we want to get across – we need to hammer that.’

  Later Peter agrees they need to persuade Gordon Brown to make the main story on Monday that Gordon Brown leads the fightback, spelling out Labour voters have the most to gain from remaining, and the most to lose from Leave politicians taking control.

  The next morning I am genuinely shocked by the Sunday Times splash: ‘Leaked UK plan to open doors for 1m Turks.’

  The sub-heading is: ‘Proposal under wraps until after EU vote.’

  The story’s first witness is Iain Duncan Smith, who accuses the PM of being ‘in cahoots’ with the commission to perpetrate ‘an appalling deceit’ on the British public. I knew they would do it, but this is beyond the pale given we have been clear none of this will happen.

  You have to turn to the bottom of page three and the very end of the article before you get our statement, which destroys the story.

  I’ve worked hard on the broadcasters to say they cannot cover something that is conclusively not Government policy in any way – and to their credit, they don’t touch it.

  The story is a classic of its kind – magnify and amplify certain points, diminish key details that knock it down, and defend it to the hilt as the truth. I am determined to stay Zen about it all, but there’s something maddening about how a newspaper can lend credence to a campaign that is doing all it can to mislead people.

  I drive to New Broadcasting House to meet the PM for the Marr interview. As I park, I look in my rearview mirror and I see the flashing blue lights of the motorcycle outriders coming towards me.

  I meet the PM in the rather miserable canteen. It’s windowless and humid. The back wall looks like a microwave showroom – with at least a dozen for people to heat up their food. It feels like the set of a dystopian movie.

  At these moments, we work on lines we hope will appear on the news. ‘I want you to be consciously warning people of the risks. When you think you’ve said it one too many times – say it again.’ The point is ensuring we have a clip that works on the news.

  We watch Nigel Farage from our green room. I notice that when he’s asked about sterling falling he says if it drops a few percentage points, ‘So what?’ I am immediately onto it – getting Stronger In to work up a whole load of social media. I also drill it into the PM’s head, telling him he must launch an attack on him, saying, ‘So what? I’ll tell you so what …’

  Farage is still on air when we walk through to the studio, being asked about his appalling remarks about HIV+ people coming to this country for treatment. ‘How do you know if someone coming to this country is HIV-positive?’ He seems to just ‘Harrumph!’ in response.

  DC is calm and measured throughout the interview – repeatedly warning of risk. He also lands the Farage assault. I feel pretty good about it all. He never really feels under serious pressure. The feedback is good from others, too.

  The rest of the day is lost in calls.

  I get in my car and drive in for an evening meeting at No. 10. The streets around Whitehall are closed for the Queen’s birthday, so the final half mile seems to take an eternity.

  I arrive for a pre-meet, which finds Kate, Stephen, Andrew Cooper (here for the polling), Liz and Ameet already in there. I’m a little late, so they bring me up to speed: how much should the PM and Chancellor be doing in the run-up to the day?

  All of our inclinations are the same – not very much. We need to clear space for Labour and that means not trumping them.

  The PM and George come in at 7 p.m. They both seem to agree with the approach. But I know this is the definition of stress for them, being asked not to fight too hard for their own futures.

  Andrew says he thinks the slip in our fortunes appeared to have bottomed out on Thursday – and we should take some confidence from that.

  Next on the list is the fact Labour is being allowed take centre stage. George sums up our fears, saying, ‘It’s crazy to absent yourself from the field of battle in the hope that some non-existent army is going to turn up.’

  I get home late and have to watch the news on delay. As I am watching the lead story, I get an anguished text from the PM: ‘Are you watching the BBC? How is this balance. It was my Marr day, unbelievable.’

  As I come to the referendum coverage, I see there is one weak clip from the PM on how pensions will be at risk if we leave, followed by what feels like a shamelessly helpful piece for Gove, taking him to his parents’ house in Aberdeen, and discussing how his father’s business went to the wall. It irritates me that in it, he is simply allowed to assert that Turkey will join the EU without challenge.

  DC calls, and again is understandably outraged.

  A call comes through from a senior figure at the BBC. They are emollient – and so am I. He explains that he has kept the dodgy Sunday Times Turkey story off the news all day long, when they could have done a separate piece on it, but didn’t. This is fair enough, but I also point out that the Ten is the BBC’s showcase programme, it should be an accurate representation of the day.

  Monday 13 June is the worst day of the campaign so far. The overwhelming sense is one of ground rush. Not long until we hit land and everything seems faster, more threatening.

  Amid the blur of taking dozens of decisions an hour, I have a moment of clarity:

  We have the right message – we must not wreck our economy. It’s coming across loud and clear with a regular drumbeat of businesses coming out and warning of the consequences – ‘rolling thunder’ as the PM calls it.

  But there is a simple truth, that we are also defending something that most people find unacceptable. The EU insists we accept freedom of movement, with potentially unlimited immigration, in exchange for access to the single market. I am as metropolitan and liberal on immigration as they come, but even I think that’s concerning. So what do we do?

  Today we have cleared the stage for Gordon Brown to go out and make the case. He gets into spats all day long on immigration.

  After several meetings, I whizz over to the CTN studio in Covent Garden, where I’m meeting Ruth Davidson to prep her for the Wembley debate. She is bang up for it and will do well.

  She immediately tries out a Boris zinger on me, ‘You’ve already been sacked twice for lying. Why are you doing it again?’ I tell her it’s too much, but she’s definitely been thinking.

  She also has an idea to appeal to the ‘Don’t Knows’, saying, ‘If you don’t know, don’t go.’

  When it comes to talking about Stuart Rose screwing up about wages rising if we leave the EU, she says, ‘This isn’t just any gaffe. This is an M&S gaffe.’

  Halfway through, I have to pull out to have a conference call to work through news stories for the next few days. It’s slow progress, feeling like torture.

  Late on, I notice that Twitter is
going wild about the ICM poll that is due out at 5 p.m. Apparently it has been delayed a couple of hours and the conspiracy theorists say it’s because the markets are closed.

  I text Andrew Cooper. He tells me he’s heard it’s a four-point lead to Leave. Actually, when it comes out it’s a six-point lead. I feel a little sick.

  Late in the evening, another poll drops. This time it is for YouGov. Leave has a seven-point lead. It’s starting to feel as if the bottom is dropping out of our world. The hacks are all going mad. It’s hard to believe we faced this kind of thing in the election not that long ago.

  I want to get some sleep. I’m just turning in when Peter Mandelson calls me. ‘What did you think of the ten o’clock news?’

  ‘I suppose it was good to see Gordon Brown out there. But his message felt a bit mushy.’ I don’t want to push it too hard, we argued at the weekend.

  ‘I suppose that’s better than nothing.’ He goes on to say, ‘We need some kind of spectacular luck or fluke to win this now.’

  We begin to discuss if we should make a bold move on immigration. He thinks we need to say something, to be given permission to be heard. The call goes on for some time.

  I have gone from sleepy and depressed to wide awake.

  A few hours later, I draft an email to the PM:

  I had a moment of clarity today.

  We are asking people to accept something that is wrong: the unreasonable position of the EU that there should be no limit to freedom of movement. They have acted like any big institution – intransigence in the face of early revolt.

  Long term their position is unsustainable and it may take us leaving the EU to break the deadlock. So where does that leave us?

  You could give a speech saying:

  I have listened.

  The British people are right to be worried about immigration and the impact it has on our public services.