And another thing…

THERE is a big difference between “attack” and “smear” when it comes to blogs. And there is a difference between smearing and negative campaigning.

Let me make my own position clear: negative campaigning is a necessary and inevitable part of politics. You have to attack your political opponents. For a start, you owe it to the electorate to expose your opponents’ failings. Secondly, if you don’t attack them, they will attack you first.

A lot of guff has been written and spoken in recent weeks about how we have to lift political debate up out of the sewer, and other such plumbing-related metaphors. We’re now in danger of being accused of “smearing” whenever we raise a word of criticism about our opponents. Smeargate has been awful to behold, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater (continuing with those plumbing-related metaphors). 

A commenter contacted me in the last week to point out that in his recent successful presidential campaign, Barack Obama spent more money on negative campaigning than on positive campaigning. That does not mean that he bought advertising space to attack Cindy McCain for her history of drug addiction or to smear Senator McCain for fathering an illegitimate child (the tactics of McCain’s Republican opponents during the presidential primaries in 2000). Had Obama done so, he would have proved himself unworthy of the office he now holds. But he didn’t; he did what all candidates have to do and exposed the weaknesses of his opponent’s policies. And thank goodness he did.

So I think Iain Dale was wrong when he equated the attack blogs A Leaky Chanter and Aneurin Glyndwyr with the late and not-very-lamented Red Rag smear blog.

I genuinely have no idea who set up either site (it wisnae me, in case you’re wondering), but there is clearly a place for blogs which concentrate on the weak spots of their political opponents. A Leaky Chanter has a link to the very funny “Richt Honourable Alex Salmond” Twitterfeed, featuring such memorable updates as “wants a G183 so he can go to big important meetings too. Not fair.”

Most of the stuff on A Leaky Chanter is in the same vein — irreverent, funny and merciless (although I do think it’s completely unfair and unwise to attack Salmond on his expenses — a cheap shot which can be aimed — and will be, no doubt — at any MP of any party. But then, as an MP, I would say that, wouldn’t I?).

The half-hearted attempt by the SNP to add a tartan fringe to Smeargate can be easily dismissed.  SNP MP Angus MacNeil’s claim that A Leaky Chanter is a “Labour-linked blog” is based on nothing more than the fact that it’s on my blogroll! Based on that logic, Guido, Iain Dale, Dizzy Thinks, ConservativeHome and Gallifrey One are all “Labour linked” sites…

An “attack blog” is a completely different animal from the kind of smear blog that McBride and Draper were planning to set up. By all means attack your opponents’ policies, but when you attack our families, or invent stuff to attack, you’ve crossed the line. And you’ve exposed yourself for having nothing of substance to attack on. And that means you’ve lost the argument, and deservedly so.

I HAD planned to end my self-imposed break from blogging tomorrow rather than today, but events, dear boy, events…

First, I think it’s important that Labour people make clear — and are seen to make clear — that this whole McBride/Draper episode (must we call it “Smeargate”? Really?) is as inexcusable to us as it is to the rest of the world. There is absolutely no point in anyone in the party trying to spin such an odious sequence of events, of trying to suggest that it’s less serious that what the media are trying to make out.

To those comrades who might feel tempted to downplay this episode, to dismiss it simply as “two friends exchanging not-very-serious emails”, I would pose a question: how would Labour have reacted if this smear had been aimed at the partners of Labour politicians and had been perpetrated by a senior civil servant in a Conservative administration? Go on, think about that before trying to dismiss this as a storm in a teacup.

And there’s no point in talking up the question of how these emails found their way into Guido’s possession. Do you imagine for even a moment that the electorate could possibly care less about that? It’s insulting to imagine that this can be turned into a “process” story with Derek Draper’s email account, or Derek himself, portrayed as the “victim”.

Of course, McBride had to go — that was obvious to everyone with an ounce of judgment from the second this story broke. How could No. 10 have even tried to recover from this fiasco while the perpetrator was safely ensconced? Which brings me to my next point: I can understand why the Tories might privately have hoped McBride would survive. After all, what could be more damaging to the government and to the Prime Minister himself than to be seen to endorse such behaviour by taking no action against him? The Tories were handed an enormous propaganda gift this weekend; to have protected McBride’s position in No. 10 would have made it the gift that keeps on giving.

So, yes, I can understand why the Tories would have preferred McBride to remain in post. But what on earth was Draper thinking when he told various media outlets yesterday that he didn’t think McBride should have had to resign?

But this isn’t about positioning or spinning or misdirection or whatever. This is about standards of political activity, standards which have fallen far, far below what is remotely acceptable, especially for someone working at the very heart of government. 

We screwed up, big time. We have no-one — absolutely no-one at all — to blame for this but ourselves. The damage the Labour Party and the government have sustained this last 24 hours has been entirely self-inflicted.

And the people behind this sordid little mess owe everyone named in these emails a very public apology.