Is this a car-crash campaign moment?

By Gary O'Donoghue
Political correspondent, BBC News

People often talk about political gaffes in terms of car crashes. But this is no car crash, this is a multi-lane, multi-vehicle pile-up of enormous proportion.

Worse than about three members of his own cabinet being caught on mic, worse than George W Bush also being caught on mic describing a journalist in an unfavourable light.

And possibly even worse than John Prescott's instinctive reaction in thumping a protestor during the 2001 election campaign after he'd been hit by an egg.

So why is it so bad for Gordon Brown, now that he has been caught on mic, in his car, calling a member of the voting public a "bigoted woman" after a chat on camera in the street?

Even if you leave aside the fact that we're eight days from polling day, and the fact that Labour has been trailing third in a number of polls, the stark impression now for all to see is that Mr Brown is charm itself in public, and dismissive and insulting in private.

Situations like this are always difficult for politicians. You're confronted by a member of the public, the cameras are there, you have no idea who they are or what they're going to say.

Pleased to meet you

The irony is that Mr Brown had actually managed to talk Gillian Duffy round. She'd said she was planning to vote Labour at the end of their conversation and was satisfied with the prime minister's answers.

He'd inquired about her family, told her he was pleased to see her, chatted about her grandchildren and even said that she had a "good family".

So, what was Mrs Duffy's sin that allowed the PM to describe her as a "bigoted woman" once he thought he was out of ear-shot in the privacy of his own car?

She asked him how he planned to reduce the deficit; she asked him about her grandchildren's chances of going to university and how they'd pay for it; and she raised the question of immigration from Eastern Europe and what that could mean for jobs in her area.

Head hung low

In other words, not trivial, not irrelevant, but core political issues.

The prime minister's reaction on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine programme said it all.

As the tape was played to him, presumably unaware that there were television cameras filming the radio interview, he held his head in his hands, highly emotional, conscious no doubt that this was a disaster of his own making.

Now the prime minister has apologised, he's spoken to Mrs Duffy and his chief lieutenant, Lord Mandelson, has hit the airwaves eating humble pie for his boss.

These things do of course fade with time, and there is a risk that their importance is overplayed. But Mrs Duffy and people like her are core to Labour staving off a meltdown at this election.

There is just a chance that Labour supporters may feel tempted to return the contempt with which Gordon Brown appears to have treated one voter.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDI1O1hPKh8&hl=en[/flash]

I saw the headline on my way back home. I LWKMD. I am sure that have done some damage in some ways. As it stand, he clearly ain't getting my vote.

Saw this on tv yesterday. So embarrassing.

Sun tried to nail him for its handwriting,it backfired woefully. This time he's played into their hands, now expect some sensational headline

Also watch as Clegg and co. gonna twist the knife in even deeper.

applied with whatever suffix you can. . .'Gordon-gate'  'Duffy-gate' Bigot-gate' 

The woman gordon  brown insulted has been offered a quarter of a million pounds to tell her side of the story.

I'm going to start following him around until he calls me a Arrow.

shotster50:

The woman gordon  brown insulted has been offered a quarter of a million pounds to tell her side of the story.

I'm going to start following him around until he calls me a Arrow.

Pfft. You will get shot, and you gonna be called a terrorist stalker. Don't worry, death will come faster than a flash once his aide pumps 9 hot lead of bullets into your head, just like they did with Charles de Menezez at the underground station.

Am I the only non-Eastern European in England who thinks the woman's moaning about Eastern Europeans reeks of bigotry. If she had said something like, ''all these black Africans, where are they coming from''?, the reaction would have been different.

What exactly makes her a bigot? The fact that she raises a legitimate concern or the fact that she is contemplating voting another party - her fundamental human right.

Please educate me.

It seems to me that anyone who discusses immigration gets a bad reception in the UK and on nairaland.

ElRazur:

What exactly makes her a bigot? The fact that she raises a legitimate concern or the fact that she is contemplating voting another party - her fundamental human right.

Please educate me.

It seems to me that anyone who discusses immigration gets a bad reception in the UK and on nairaland.

Eastern Europeans, as EU citizens, have a right to move to the UK so her ''legitimate concerns'' are arguably prejudiced. Eastern European migration to the UK boosts the UK economy as it keeps wage inflation down and their productivity is excellent.

Again, if she had swapped ''Eastern Europeans'' for blacks or Asians, she would have been accused of racism. It's not far fetched to assume that a white woman who has 'concerns' about Eastern Europeans would have even more concerns about immigration from Africa/Asia. She chooses not to voice it but mentions Eastern Europeans which is a proxy for immigrants in general.

That do not make her a bigot.

Each EU state is allowed to implement their own border control rule within each member nation. As of last night, I heard Gordon Brown talking about the Australian point based system. I.e People are allowed in on the basis of what they can do for the nation etc. I suggested that the day before on this forum and it goes to show that immigration can and should be regulated, even from member states of the EU.

Nothing wrong with her raising a concern, and she aint in anyway a bigot in my view.

I am African and I have concern of people coming here with the right papers. I oppose it. Something I mentioned in another thread and I was attacked for it. Omo, resources are scarce and there comes a point in time that a potential upset in demographics of nation needs to be talked about and adjusted accordingly. My stance on immigration is that it should be controlled, even more restriction placed on Nigerians coming here. It do not make me racist or a "hater". It is just what is necessary to safe guard social lives here.

You are one of those who think that wealth creation is a zero sum game. That some EU states implement restrictions which have no economic logic, merely done to sate the public's bigoted instincts, is no justification for doing same in the UK. The UK has lower unemployment rates than those EU states you talk of.

Of course, unrestricted immigration can have damaging consequences for social cohesion and nation security which override the economic benefits. To that end, restricting immigration from non-EU states, which is already done, makes sense but restricting immigration by Eastern Europeans will amount to Britain shooting itself in the foot.

4play you are missing the point and now we are going into areas that are not even related to the original issue. The point before we lose it is that talking about controlled immigration and getting rid of illegal immigration do make one a bigot. I think that is the point and to be honest, debating the same thing from yesterday and other places I frequent can get tiresome.


On a side note, resources is limited and as such, it is necessary to introduce schemes like point based system etc. I have no problem with this if plenty of immigrant uses as an avenue to come here.

ElRazur:

4play you are missing the point and now we are going into areas that are not even related to the original issue. The point before we lose it is that talking about controlled immigration and getting rid of illegal immigration do make one a bigot. I think that is the point and to be honest, debating the same thing from yesterday and other places I frequent can get tiresome.

If we are to stay on point, why are you bringing up illegal immigration when Ms Duffy's comments relate to migration by Eastern Europeans which can hardly be described as illegal?

On a side note, resources is limited and as such, it is necessary to introduce schemes like point based system etc. I have no problem with this if plenty of immigrant uses as an avenue to come here.

Resources are not limited, only your understanding is. Wealth creation or economic growth is not a zero sum game. Resources are not taken by Eastern Europeans who add nothing in return. The free movement of labour increases net resources and doesn't reduce it. If more restrictions on migration is good for the economy, someone should be able to point to empirical studies showing the link between restrictions and economic growth.

4 Play:

If we are to stay on point, why are you bringing up illegal immigration when Ms Duffy's comments relate to migration by Eastern Europeans which can hardly be described as illegal?

Easy, I have been discussing this issue on multiple fronts. Sorry, I made an error. It is easy to get things mixed up.

Resources are not limited, only your understanding is. Wealth creation or economic growth is not a zero sum game. Resources are not taken by Eastern Europeans who add nothing in return. The free movement of labour increases net resources and doesn't reduce it. If more restrictions on migration is good for the economy, someone should be able to point to empirical studies showing the link between restrictions and economic growth.

Is this an economist view or something?

I don't know about you, but allow me to give you a real life application. In practical terms, resources are limited. Be it houses, be it any form of social consumable, there is just a limited amount that can come in here. Like I have stated in other threads, there should be a balance and the way it stand we are yet to find the balance here. Hence one of the reasons I think there should be controlled immigration.

ElRazur:

Is this an economist view or something?

I don't know about you, but allow me to give you a real life application. In practical terms, resources are limited. Be it houses, be it any form of social consumable, there is just a limited amount that can come in here. Like I have stated in other threads, there should be a balance and the way it stand we are yet to find the balance here. Hence one of the reasons I think there should be controlled immigration.

The examples you give are odd. Housing stock keeps increasing year on year as new houses are built. If you are talking of social housing, the Govt can solve that by simply prioritising Brits and not making social housing available to non-UK nationals. That's an entirely different thing from saying that people should not come in as they will deplete 'resources'. Migration keeps wage inflation in check and UK bizs competitive against the Far East.

Ignore the obligatory pandering to the public's prejudices, why do you think Govt takes a fairly lax view of it? There are no votes to be won by allowing more migrants. The Govt only does it because they clearly understand that with an ageing population which poses a demographic time bomb, the UK needs an influx of young workers who are hardworking and can keep Britain competitive.

4 Play:

The examples you give are odd. Housing stock keeps increasing year on year as new houses are built. If you are talking of social housing, the Govt can solve that by simply prioritising Brits and not making social housing available to non-UK nationals. That's an entirely different thing from saying that people should not come in as they will deplete 'resources'. Migration keeps wage inflation in check and UK bizs competitive against the Far East.

Not really, it is an example to show that resources are limited. A very obvious one to be honest.

Ignore the obligatory pandering to the public's prejudices, why do you think Govt takes a fairly lax view of it? There are no votes to be won by allowing more migrants. The Govt only does it because they clearly understand that with an ageing population which poses a demographic time bomb, the UK needs an influx of young workers who are hardworking and can keep Britain competitive.

I think the point she was raising was more to do as what is perceived as lax immigration rules and some how porous borders when it comes to issue of immigration. Again, I have no problem with her asking, and as I have stated, her actions do not make her a bigot.

Yes, the UK population is an ageing one, however one do not cut one's nose to spite one's face. While I am not opposing infux of immigrant, what I am saying here is that it should be controlled with a balance between the number of those going out and number of those coming in and on the basis of what it can be done for the UK economy. I.e A controlled form of immigration that benefits the UK both in the short and long term.

As per why the govt keeping mute about it or not seen doing much. Let me answer you by asking you this - Why do you think migrants [Immigrants] tend to vote labour? I suppose the answer is clear for all to see.

I am not going to keep going round and round, so let me reiterate the points. Nothing wrong with talking about immigration be it from someone who is white black or brown. It do not mean they are bigoted. Also I am of the belief that a controlled form of immigration will benefit the UK.

ElRazur:

Not really, it is an example to show that resources are limited. A very obvious one to be honest.

It's a typical throwing the baby away with the bath water example. It's a bit like saying that the Govt should end the NHS because of lack of money. Soicial housing is not a good case to limit migration given the overall benefits derived from immigration.

There is an argument to be made that migration is insufficient, whilst social benefits are surfeit relative to the demands of the economy.

If resources are finite, surely the optimal economic policy is to boot out, as the BNP suggests, all non-indigenes(let's assume we can identify them) and the rest of Britain will be richer as there will be fewer people using the limited resources so there will be more to go round.

Yes, the UK population is an ageing one, however one do not cut one's nose to spite one's face. While I am not opposing infux of immigrant, what I am saying here is that it should be controlled with a balance between the number of those going out and number of those coming in and on the basis of what it can be done for the UK economy. I.e A controlled form of immigration that benefits the UK both in the short and long term.

You are talking as if anyone can just walk into Britain. The numbers I keep hearing don't seem to me to suggest that immigration has been uncontrolled. It's immigration that has kept the UK's population from shrinking which will be an absolute disaster for the UK economy as the ratio of those of working age to those of pension age shrinks.

I think the point she was raising was more to do as what is perceived as lax immigration rules and some how porous borders when it comes to issue of immigration. Again, I have no problem with her asking, and as I have stated, her actions do not make her a bigot.

You gathered all the above from the few words she uttered?

Gordon Brown - making fat old bints vote BNP since 2007.

shotster50:

The woman gordon brown insulted has been offered a quarter of a million pounds to tell her side of the story.

I'm going to start following him around until he calls me a Arrow.

ElRazur:


Pfft. You will get shot, and you gonna be called a terrorist stalker. Don't worry, death will come faster than a flash once his aide pumps 9 hot lead of bullets into your head, just like they did with Charles de Menezez at the underground station.

LWKMD