[Update at end of post]
The less than dynamic duo of the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his tame gofer, the flannelled fool Henry Cole, at the Guido Fawkes blog are feeling more than usually pleased with themselves this morning, as they have had word that the Tories’ Head of Press job may be about to be awarded to Susie Squire, former spinner at the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA).
The less than dynamic duo of the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his tame gofer, the flannelled fool Henry Cole, at the Guido Fawkes blog are feeling more than usually pleased with themselves this morning, as they have had word that the Tories’ Head of Press job may be about to be awarded to Susie Squire, former spinner at the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA).
Susie Squire
Ms Squire is at present special advisor (SpAd) to Iain
Duncan Smith at the DWP, and given this information, plus the amount of
falsehood and misinformation that has routinely emerged from that Department
during the Squire tenure, anyone who has engaged brain before pontificating
might be wondering if the prospective appointment is really such a brilliant
idea.
Why this might be is not hard to figure out, given some of
the singularly unfortunate spin that has emanated from the DWP since Ms Squire
went through the revolving door out of the TPA and into Government two years
ago. The following December, FullFact noted the
difficulty that the DWP was having proving statistical information, despite
it being in possession of the full relevant dataset.
They concluded “This situation appears to suggest the
Department is once again quoting selectively from the information on the number
of people who have never had jobs”, and reported that there were “serious
deficiencies” in the DWP procedure for releasing statistics. And things had not
improved when FullFact examined
a claim by both Mail and Sunday Times this month citing DWP figures.
The report, that the Glasgow suburb of Bridgeton had “nearly
9 out of 10 people” on some kind of benefit, was followed up with a call to the
DWP, who claimed not to have released any information. And their own figures
didn’t support the claim. So who span that one? And, while one might have
thought the TPA rhetoric should have been left there, it has popped up at the
DWP since Ms Squire’s arrival.
For instance, the Telegraph had
the line spun to them that migrants were likely to be benefit cheats (that’s
the C-word that Emma Boon of the TPA used to characterise folks on the
Motability scheme when talking to the Mail). The actual figures showed
otherwise. And the “scrounger” rhetoric coming out of the Department was
roundly condemned by
no less than six disability charities.
There is one common thread here: the spin is coming out of
the department where Ms Squire is the SpAd to the Minister. It shows a lack of
attention to detail, selective and – yes – dishonest use of figures, demonising
of the vulnerable (a TPA speciality) and migrants, and above all an ignorance
of the seriousness of it all. Anyone with that track record has the potential
to be very dangerous indeed.
So go on, Tory Party, make my day and appoint her. Get some more popcorn in!
[UPDATE 1850 hours: James Forsyth at the Spectator has confirmed that Ms Squire has been awarded the CCHQ press role. His reasoning as to why this is A Very Good Thing is priceless: she "is highly thought of in Number 10 where she is credited with ramming home the party's advantage over Labour on welfare". Advantage? Er, hello James?!? It's been an utter shambles. No advantage has been gained.
Forsyth, to no surprise at all, does not dwell on any of the problems that the DWP appears to have had with its information release while Ms Squire was Duncan Smith's SpAd. But he does confirm that she will be doing the lobby briefings, which will give ample room for her to realise that smiling nicely while smearing opponents might work for the TPA, but might not be a good idea in Government. More popcorn!]
[UPDATE 1850 hours: James Forsyth at the Spectator has confirmed that Ms Squire has been awarded the CCHQ press role. His reasoning as to why this is A Very Good Thing is priceless: she "is highly thought of in Number 10 where she is credited with ramming home the party's advantage over Labour on welfare". Advantage? Er, hello James?!? It's been an utter shambles. No advantage has been gained.
Forsyth, to no surprise at all, does not dwell on any of the problems that the DWP appears to have had with its information release while Ms Squire was Duncan Smith's SpAd. But he does confirm that she will be doing the lobby briefings, which will give ample room for her to realise that smiling nicely while smearing opponents might work for the TPA, but might not be a good idea in Government. More popcorn!]
5 comments:
Er. I vaguely recall a peer-reviewed paper from a social sciences class (unsure which, it's been several years) that quoted figures for residents on benefits in conjunction with homicide rates, drug use and so on, in some attempt to integrate both social and economic data for Central Belt population centres, including different districts of Glasgow. That would, I guess, be a valid source, but out of date by almost a decadeat best. While Bridgeton has a number of problems, that's probably not the biggest.
Mr. Fenton, may I ask you a possibly ill-advised question?
The Hon. Commentnaut has the floor.
If blogging about factual miscellany, science or legal coverage in news media, would you see it as advisable to keep such entries completely divorced from more personal content, rather than simply tagged or categorised separately?
(I'm sorry if the format of this is messed up.)
I'm not at all sure what you're getting at here, so by all means come back if you wish.
I suppose I mean... you and Mr. Ireland both write about journalists and politically-active people who are being misleading, making clear your own views, and you each seem to take some **** for it, while Mr. Dale and Mr. Cole are, or have been, often making things about themselves rather than the topic in hand, and so seem to both invite personal attacks and betimes make them on others.
This kind of suggests, from here, that interspersing personal pieces (for example, about what happened at the weekend) with serious ones which may be either reflective or in need of a step back (for example, what some dight from the Heartland Institute thought would work on a billboard, and the extent to which the underlying arguments are supported by evidence) could cause some problems for the person writing, particularly where the more serious topic stirs strong reactions. I hoped you might express an opinion on that view.
The question's mainly down to lack of experience. :S
Post a Comment