Dale is a wierd sort of a bloke…he thinks he’s far more important than he is. He is a junior Tory gofer, who obediently trots around the country carrying out menial tasks on behalf of the candidate of the day….his political commentaries are limited to the occasional local press article and a blog no-one outside of the Westminster Village and the internet community know exists, and an internet radio show that could probably fit its audience into a phone box….his rare forrays onto the national stage usually end up with his humiliation….Galloway embarassing him on national radio, Michael White making him look very silly on national TV, and making up stories for the Daily Mail, costing them thousands of pounds….

Whilst I imagine getting into a slanging match with such an odious, pompous twat as Dale is tempting, I would advise against it Craig….look at the things you have achieved on the world stage, in Africa, in Eastern Europe, as well as holding prestigious posts such as the one you hold with the University of Dundee, and compare it with what Dale has done…..he is barely worth mentioning on these pages.

No – you didn’t let anyone down Craig. You gave it your best and if you hadn’t been barred from the BBC Look East televised debate – and if you’d had the 18 months and paid staff and volunteers from across the country the parties had – the result might have been very different. You were an inspiring candidate and a lack of equal media coverage was the biggest problem.

I wasnt too sure about the first of the three leaflets but the second one was great and your performance in the hustings debates was electrifying.

I don’t know what Iain Dale is like as a person but in his blog as a dull, unoriginal party hack who is full of blustering hyperbole over trivia and massive pedantry.

I suspect his use of the word ‘virtual’ to qualify ‘libel’ is a euphemism for ‘not’, because he knows every word of it is true and so any libel case would be lucky even to get to court.

Nor was there anything “scurrilous” or personal about your criticisms of Chloe – they were all to do with her public life and profession and nothing to do with her private life.

P.S the last discussion i remember on where you should stand next involved weighing up where you would have the best chance of winning next time and where the volunteers would most like to go on holiday. It was a disappointing result but worth every footstep to beat the BNP and get a single vote for you, never mind 953 in two weeks – and everyone enjoyed 99.9% of it.

Thanks Dunc. Bob, you are right that Iain Dale isn’t worth the time and space, but I needed waking up and it worked!

I should add that I shared the prevailing national mood that the Tories would at least be an improvement on New Labour, until I saw them close up in the last few weeks.

Congratulations on getting that splendid article into the Mail on Sunday. As for the infantile witterings of idiotic Iain Dale, give him a taste of his own medicine and, as Maggie Thatcher advised, deny him the oxygen of publicity by ignoring the twit.

Looks to me like you’ve got the law wrong when you say, “Another fascinating point is that it turns out that Ms Smith’s “Job” at Deloitte Touche was to be on secondment to the Conservative Party. Is this a disguised form of political donation to get round disclosure rules?”

Donations in kind, such as seconding staff, have to be declared, and indeed there are example of such donations getting published on the donation registers for years now.

So how would it be “disguised” if it ends up being published just like a cash donation?

Mark,

Thanks. That’s why I was asking. Has it been declared?

Mark -

I should explin myself further. This is not really a secondment. Chloe worked for the Conservative Party – for Gillian Shepherd, and then for Jame Clapperson (sp?) who became famous for getting the taxpayer to pay for hundreds of trees to line his estate. She then left to work for Deloitte Touche – but was almost immediately seconded back to the Tory Party again.

It is therefore not a question of Deloitte Touche seconding genuine DT staff to the tory Party – though I would find that strange anyway. It is a question of Deloitte Touche taking on Tory Party staff, to disguise the fact they have never in fact worked for anybody except the Tory Party.

“Dale of course is a known and proven libeler already, so I should not be damaging anybody’s reputation. I should be grateful for your views”.

Let it go Craig. Having ‘previous’ is not proof of guilt, which is a rather important principle. If the worst he said was ‘scurrilous’ then that would almost certainly go down as a mere expression of opinion.

“I cannot get over the feeling that I let down rather badly the wonderful volunteers who came and gave so much”.

Yeah well, the result was disappointing and, although in your heart of hearts you probably didn;t really expect to win, you probably thought you’d at least keep your deposit. I certainly did. From what I’ve heard from your volunteers however they seem to have gained a huge amount from the experience and probably feel ten years younger, just like you.

Politics in Britain is in a strange place at the moment and you obviously didn’t quite hit the right note this time around. Clearly Chloe didn’t either but at least she had media exposure, habit and a well-oiled party machine on her side.

Let it go. He’s not worth the time.

Glad to see that you’re back and swinging, though.

Oh, and you didn’t let anyone down. Quite the opposite. Indeed, I’m rather hoping that you won’t get too discouraged to try again. If the Atlantic hadn’t been in the way, I’d have been there with you. But it’s mighty cold, even at this time of the year.

Hang in there.

Craig,

In answer to your question about whether or not it’s been declared, there doesn’t look to yet a published entry in the Electoral Commission’s register of donations, but given that items do not get published immediately, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything odd has happened.

There are four previous donations of staff from Deloitte to the Conservatives which have been declared, total value just under £62k.

You did your best, and therefore you didn’t let anyone down. If you want to try again next year, you may wish to consider to form a real political party in Norwich (or join forces with an existing party there), to build grass roots support and convince the voters that you can be trusted to be a good MP to them.

Craig,

Just read your Mail article..

‘we could give Parliament a real leavening of independent MPs, who were genuinely not in it for a lucrative career but to serve the public good’

Leavening, what a great word. And surely what this ‘democracy’ needs.

I have just ordered another of your books from amazon (after just finishing Murder in Samarkand) – Dirty Diplomacy, it is dated 2007 on the amazon site, is this a brand new book ? , no mention on your site about it yet. Would hate to think my money was going to a fake Craig Murray who was cashing in on your good name.

Cooler heads have already counselled against, possibly wisely, but I say sue the bastard.

I think it unsporting to sue people for stuff said in the blogosphere but this is in the super soaraway Eastern Daily Press, so why not go for it?

Obviously a right of reply or printed retraction/apology should be the first requirement on EDP, with litigation to follow only satisfaction not provided?

Chris Dooley @10.47pm:

“I have just ordered another of your books from amazon (after just finishing Murder in Samarkand) – Dirty Diplomacy, it is dated 2007 on the amazon site, is this a brand new book?”

Yikes! Pretty sure “Dirty Diplomacy” is the title of the US edition of the exact same book! So cancel your order toute de suite, if you can! The book you need (the prequel to Murder in Samarkand/Dirty Diplomacy) is “The Catholic Orangemen of Togo”.

Ooops, I have just entered Dirty Diplomacy in your searchbox and solved my question. Maybe I should have checked here first before buying your great book twice . Ah well, I can send the second one to my MP, maybe he might grow a spine against the whips after reading it.

It’s Deloitte not Deloitte and Touche. Your attempt to link Chloe with the RBS audit is ridiculous and by the way was there anything wrong with the audit that was performed anyway?

I am afraid that your line of attack was mean-spirited and paraded your ignorance to better informed people. An honest man, pah.

It’s Deloitte not Deloitte and Touche. Your attempt to link Chloe with the RBS audit is ridiculous and by the way was there anything wrong with the audit that was performed anyway?

I am afraid that your line of attack was mean-spirited and paraded your ignorance to better informed people. An honest man, pah.

Oh boy, I see the spelling monitors are out in force again.

Why did these ‘better informed people’ not want to put the facts about Chloe’s ‘work’ put before the electorate of Norwich North while they made their decision on who to vote for ?

“by the way was there anything wrong with the audit that was performed anyway?”

That’s my quote of the week. Permit me a profanity, folks:

Praguetory, you unbelievably stupid fucking twat.

I dare say there is many a libel action that doesn’t care to demonstrate reputational damage, and goes in for the financial win anyway, but I am of the mind that it *should* be demonstrated. And unless there’s more to the story, I’m not sure it’s worth it – there’s not much to Dale’s schoolboy gloating and I don’t think many non-Tories have paid attention to it.

And as has been discussed on a previous thread, his Tweeting (or re-Tweeting, as he was at considered pains to point out) makes him look like a prize plonker — hardly the sophisticated political commentator he makes himself out to be. Dizzy can get away with it, since he’s not much known outside the blogosphere. But I suspect Dale will regret his silly comments without you having to do a thing.

PS – nice to see you back on form. You will come to find out your volunteers certainly do not feel let down

Don’t waste your time on stoats like him. From what I have seen of his blog he is no more than a simpleminded arch-pedant. I hope you start planning for the General Election soon, if you are going for it that is. I honestly believe you can win. As someone else said, they are spread thin on General Elections. Also, try and figure out what obstacles may be placed in front of you well in advance. Have some strategies at the ready to overcome them. Maybe put some ads on your home page for what support you will need well in advance? Donations, foot soldiers, feedback, election team positions etc.. Winning is possible. All the best.

P.S. Even at this early stage, I wish to formally nominate eddie to be our election campaign mascot. That’s if he isn’t too busy fantasising about David Shayler of course…

Tee hee!

Thanks for the above laughs, folks, and it’s great to see you back, Craig.

I’m going to bed with a smile. There *will* be another day!!

“Galloway embarassing him on national radio”

Just for those of you that missed it…

George Galloway v Iain Dale, 31mins in…

tinyurl.com/cfvpjh

To go with the post above…

“Does the Prime Minister recall that in the 1980s this country was the world leader in the development of clean coal technology via the fluidised bed plant at Grimethorpe colliery in my constituency? That was until the Thatcher Government pulled the plug on the funding.”…

http://tinyurl.com/lm3des

test

I’ve watched Dale’s blog pretty much since its inception. At first it was because it was a sort of archetype of a new medium. It’s been an education to watch it morph into a strange, gushing, trashy, populist ‘look at me aren’t I a clever sensitive worldly-wise insider’ Dale promotion – almost child-like in its combination of egotistical desperation to be liked and judged wise and reasonable in all things. The man sees his optimum career path as being best served by Tory Party uber-loyalty (with a dash of daring tut-tutting criticism thrown in from time to time of course). He’s right on-message on such absurdities as ‘America is a force for good in the world’; ‘Poor threatened little Israel’; The UK in the vanguard of ‘the war on terror’ and such. And, in full accord with our celebrity culture, he just loves to shepherd his loyal fans. His post following the one about you is a good illustration. It reminds me of that 60′s peace of narcissistic self-promotion, since taken up by Bryan Ferry and others, the lyrics of which include:

I’m in with the in crowd;

I go where the in crowd goes.

I’m in with the in crowd;

And I know what the in crowd knows.

We got our own way of walking

We got our own way of talking

Spendin’ cash; talkin’ trash.

Quintessential Iain Dale eh? Forget about him. He’s a credulous party-political hack and simply not worth wasting time and effort on.

PS. Commiserations on the result BTW. The UK electorate is both as sheep-like in its herd instincts and as childlike in its party-political credulity as Dale himself, which goes some way to explaining his ‘popularity’ such as it is. This little poem by Emily Dickinson springs to mind:

Much madness is divinest sense

To a discerning eye

Much sense – the starkest madness

‘Tis the Majority

In this, as all, prevail:

Assent and you are sane

Demur, you’re straightway dangerous

And handled with a chain.

Just a techie aside – it may be that your web site isn’t up to much in the traffic handling stakes – but I suspect your web site was the recipient of a Denial of Service Attack during your campaign…. If it was as artless as Labour goons tearing down your posters you might be able to recoup your deposit…..

Craig

This election wasn’t about winning/losing really was it? It was about self belief and integrity and being strong enough to stand up and be counted. It was really about courage.

How many people would actually have the courage to stand on a national or international stage and state that ‘this is wrong’…very few for we all perceive we have to much to lose and therefore we would not risk taking such a stance.

You however have provided those of us who have our own thoughts of the wrongs that the government of this country (whatever colour rosette it wears)perpetuates on other countries of the world and on its own citizens, with a voice. That is your victory. Its not a great big news shattering victory, but its a small one for every one of us.

We all thank you for that Craig. Whether we were able to vote in Norwich North or we are citizens of a wider world your voice helps us all.

You did not let us down at all. Your post on The Fun of Electioneering was spot on. You gave us the best of times, too bad we were not able to persuade enough voters for you to win.

Will Dorries Dale be making any reference to these horrors, the subject of articles in the Guardian and the Mail and linked on the media lens message board today?

CIA ‘put pressure on Britain to cover up its use of torture’ – MikeD Today, 8:53 am

Secrets of CIA ‘ghost flights’ to be revealed – MikeD Today, 8:48 am

Torture ?” new claim of secret UK complicity – MikeD Today, 8:38 am

Government press release: We can win in Afghanistan – Mr Bombastic Today, 7:22 am

Mili and crew are starting to speak about talks with the ‘moderate’ Taliban (sic). USukisnato know – - Rhisiart Gwilym Today, 8:16 am

aaaaaaaaaaaaa

Did anyone hear the real Ms Dorries (and her daughter for good measure – ‘I wish my Mummuy wasn’t an MP’) a’weeping and a’wailing in the BBC Radio 4 Expenses programme? Still on iPlayer. All that stuff about seeing grown men cry and their being likely suicide risks.

Nothing has changed. No shame. No contrition, not even any insight into the commissioning of their crimes.

PS Don’t forget that Ian McIsaac is Cameroon’s party treasurer and an ex-partner in Deloittes. How can Cameroon have that Screws of the World ex editor as his Director of Communications @ $450k pa whose evidence to the Culture Committee was basically ‘I know nuffing’ or ‘Not me Guv’?

Sour grapes from the brothel user. You shamed your country, you shamed your family. Yet you have no shame.

Shame on you. Norwich deserved better than a Scottish Nationalist Male Whore.

I notice you delete all posts which are not praising of you.

Craig, it is not surprising that your reaction to the NN result is so confused – fewer than 1,000 votes is obviously deflating but the reduction in “Mainsteam” votes would be encouraging (although as a member of one of those mainstream parties I am upset at the result for different reasons =))

With about a year until the next General Election – notwithstanding any sudden posponement for “security purposes”, not entirely unthinkable a situation under Brown – you could now spend the next few months really concentrating on Norwich North as a candidate with serious ambitions to win. However you may need to do so with more than just a one-man band – if “Put an Honest Man in Parliament” is a serious attempt to have candidates across the country work needs to be put in now to have any effect.

Welcome back Craig and congratulations on a brave attempt in Norwich. Your team wouldn’t have worked with you if they had any doubts.

I wouldn’t bother with Iain Dale and his acerbic comments – easy to say right enough but still they do push the blood pressure up for a while. You create hits for him so feel honoured. He wouldn’t mention you if that wasn’t so.

Who cares

What complete nonsense. No post has ever been deleted for criticising me. Not even your silly one. By the way, it’s the first time we’ve had a Karimov troll for months.

Craig/supporters: I am wondering if there is any value in pulling together a coalition of independents and smaller parties nationally (possibly including the Greens and UKIP) whose sole task would be to lobby for equal and democratic access to the media? I am not arguing for a common political platform – just a common force that could focus efforts on pointing out the innate bias of the BBC and other media institutions.

Duncan on another thread has it entirely right when he points out the circular nature of editorial reasoning, which runs thus: “Candidate X is unlikely to do well, so we won’t give him any coverage”. Needless to say the lack of coverage creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that the BBC and others are permitted to do this needs to be challenged.

The question is, how should smaller parties go about challenging that power?

The day Ian Dale becomes more important than uncovering the UK’s involvement in torture, illegal overseas wars etc etc….. you can guess the rest.

Keep up the great work. don’t waste your energy on that muppet.

Please sue his anus off Craig!

Jon – Don’t know what Craig will think of it but that sounds like a good idea to me – a single issue coalition on getting all candidates media coverage.

It would be possible to make common cause on it with every small party and independent with the exception of the BNP.

That was the wrong symbol for Coulson’s salary. Should have been £450k pa.

This is McIsaac. I see he is involved with Wee Duggie’s DfID, now renamed UK Aid because people did not understand what DfID stood for!

http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_the_Board/McIsaac_Ian.aspx

CM: “But I am pondering the moral question of whether, in these particular circumstances, it would be good to pursue the [possible libel] case and recover my election expenses?”

Why not get a professional opinion on the merits of your case?

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/New_Case_Enquiry.asp

Carter Ruck? You should ask Private Eye readers about that lot – their clients are often not the nicest people in the world. In the magazine the firm tends to be known by a fairly obvious rhyming moniker, which for decency I can’t repeat on a family website

I stopped reading Private Eye in the late 1990s, Jon. This year, Carter Ruck successfully represented Erin Pizzey (over false allegations in Andy Marr’s book) and Dr Abdul Bari.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/16/muhammad-abdul-bari-bbc-question-time-charles-moore

“you unbelievably stupid fucking twat”

I think that kind of language is uncalled for, Strategist. You typify Craig’s very puerile attitude to all of this, which is to blame everyone else for his defeat, and then attack and denounce anyone else for suggesting otherwise.

Craig spent £50 per voter. What an idiot!

Difference between RBS and the UK government?

1. RBS’s accounts are unqualified.

2. RBS only made an annual loss of £30bn.

For clarity, a) what is the relevance of Chloe Smith working at Deloitte b) why would working on the RBS audit be a matter of shame c) what’s the link between the two.

A good comparison would be literature blaming a former ambassador for a distant oil state for Blair going to war in Iraq.

Dear Craig

If you see Iain Dale then be terribly nice to him after all, you want to upset him.

I find his outbursts rather funny.

He is not a happy man and the best way to annoy him is to be happy.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

ps

Maybe he will get piles and then we can all laugh at his ‘grapes of wrath’!

Sam Hunt – I am not a fan of abusive conversations either. Although I think Strategist is correct to support Craig in this dispute, I agree it is not helpful. But I am wondering why you are taking this line when two days ago you said, in reference to Craig’s wife and his promise to put an honest man into Parliament:

“Did you Put An Honest Man into her too?”

That also is abusive and highly personal, and I’d suggest an apology to Craig is in order for stooping so low. I would commend you if you might also make some recognition, if not apology, to Strategist for your hypocrisy. You appear to have come here to hurl abuse, though – in the interests of freedom of speech – I will speak with you here if you can be civil from now on.

Whether Craig is (a) blaming everyone but himself for his defeat, or (b) Craig’s electoral result comes as a result of genuine difficulties that are not his fault depends on what he is blaming. Since media coverage is the key issue he points to, (1) would you agree that every candidate got the same amount of TV/press coverage, and with the same careful non-bias? (2) Would you also agree that it is right that all candidates get even-handed coverage? If not, why not?

Dear All

Sam Hunt is a loon.

That is the entire problem, we can’t solve that or should even try.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

To cheer you up, Craig:

http://antarena.blogspot.com/2009/07/politics-in-mire.html

Sam Hunt – who was the first person to point out that Craig spent £50 on his campaign for each vote he got? I think you’ll find it was Craig himself on his blog. It’s pretty obvious who’s being a twat here and it’s not Craig.

oops – now i’m being a twat – Sam didnt call Craig that. However you are still pointing out what Craig was first to point out Sam. There is no way to accurately predict what vote any candidate will get in any election. For all anyone knew spending that money could have made the difference between coming 2nd and 3rd or even losing and winning.

‘Craig/supporters: I am wondering if there is any value in pulling together a coalition of independents and smaller parties nationally (possibly including the Greens and UKIP) whose sole task would be to lobby for equal and democratic access to the media? I am not arguing for a common political platform – just a common force that could focus efforts on pointing out the innate bias of the BBC and other media institutions.

Duncan on another thread has it entirely right when he points out the circular nature of editorial reasoning, which runs thus: “Candidate X is unlikely to do well, so we won’t give him any coverage”. Needless to say the lack of coverage creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that the BBC and others are permitted to do this needs to be challenged.

The question is, how should smaller parties go about challenging that power?”

Very good points. Maybe some contact with Esther Rantzen right now might be an idea? She could surely use her profile to help this cause and would be glad too.

‘Craig/supporters: I am wondering if there is any value in pulling together a coalition of independents and smaller parties nationally (possibly including the Greens and UKIP) whose sole task would be to lobby for equal and democratic access to the media? I am not arguing for a common political platform – just a common force that could focus efforts on pointing out the innate bias of the BBC and other media institutions.

Duncan on another thread has it entirely right when he points out the circular nature of editorial reasoning, which runs thus: “Candidate X is unlikely to do well, so we won’t give him any coverage”. Needless to say the lack of coverage creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that the BBC and others are permitted to do this needs to be challenged.

The question is, how should smaller parties go about challenging that power?”

Very good points. Maybe some contact with Esther Rantzen right now might be an idea? She could surely use her profile to help this cause and would be glad too.

You don’t need to do anything, the silly fat poof is doing fine all by himself. Gees I can’t stand him. I used to follow him on twitter just to keep an ear out for the waffle, but like someone has already pointed out, his blog is pure shite these days, it has become unreadable.

I got sick of his/her twitters about its boyfriend, it got beyond repulsive. I say just leave him to it, he is doing just fine.

Craig

Stick with the people who support you (lots of them on here, and many more watching). Forget those who attack you, they are not worth a breath.

As for letting people down, it’s all your armchair supporters who didn’t get off their backsides and pitch in alongside you in NN during the campaign who have let YOU down. Great effort on your part, and pleased do keep going.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Mohandas Gandhi

actgreen, I know I felt I let Craig down. I had all intentions of helping out until I fould it would have been a 5 hour journey to get to Norwich. I’ll build a small travelling expenses fund for myself, have a few days holidays saved I could use, and be ready to help out with the next campaign.

Those attempting to blame the lack of media coverage are deciving themselves. UKIP recieved little media coverage- and they did very well! The greens recieved great coverage- and were very disappointed with their result. It is not a self-fufiling prophecy- the media like to think they are the deciding factor but its not the case on such a local level.

Craig getting more media coverage would not have seen his vote sky rocket. Indeed, I restate my question- should the BNP have gotten all this coverage also? After all they got about the same number of votes- only they spent almost nothing, as opposed to the huge amount Craig did.

Craig performed badly because he doesn’t know anything about running election campaigns. The message he crafted did not appeal to voters, his election materials were, frankly, fairly awful, and his campaign appeared somewhat sanctimonious- something pointed out by more than one strong supporter, I note. The wise people pointing out the flaws in using posters, showing the ambassadors car, going negative, ect are all people Craig should be thinking of helping manage any future campaigns.

If Craig wants to fight another election he will have to borrow many of the major parties techniques. If he can’t do that he may as well save his money.

@McKenzie – wouldn’t it be best to criticise Iain Dale on his manifest political flaws, or his petty comments on Craig’s electoral losses, or his policy of preferring adequate Tory candidates over excellent independent ones, rather than resorting to homophobic abuse?

hang on, lets have a think about this coalition idea.

First things first. My thanks to all of the team in Norwich North, you all have been magic. We covered the ground twice and managed to change Royal Mail history forever, the price of beating the BNP was a bonus. Norwich North now knows off Craig and we have to keep this alive, because he wmight want to have another bite at the cherry, next time we’ll jump higher.

Now do we want to be seen with self publicists who do not care much about politics and only want to be in it if they are assured winning? I do not, celebrity politicis is not por moir, unless it is genuine and not vanity.

Secondly, to achieve a green coalition one would have to agree on were to stand and were not to stand. That decision is up to local Green Parties first and is then sanctioned by the Executive and regional council reps.

The Green Party can expect to get coverage at the GE and will not want to share any of it. Decades of craving for coverage and acceptance of a central leadership against its basic philosophical principles, all to placate and support the BBC’s choices and pre perceptions, have shaped their thinking about the media.

The latest two hustings barring Craig were just symptomatic of it.

A coalition of Independents and parties that are shut out, approaching the media is a start, a good idea.

But why argue with the BBC, when other broadcasters and european TV stations are equally accessable, I’m sure that Al Jazeera, FR24 and Sky would try their best to even out election coverage, unles Machialvelli’s start using dirty tricks.

If the BBC does not want to be democratic and wants to promote apathy, then it will carry on with their distorted reasoning, but it will show them up for what they are, so they make their own nest.

@Tinter, your criticism of Craig’s campaign is tainted by your opposition to his candidacy, as you have made clear elsewhere. It is fine for you to have these views of course, and fine for you to put them here, but I’d suggest that if your preferred candidate made the same mistakes, or was subject to the same media blackout, then you would not dismiss the efforts as ‘awful’ or ‘sanctimonious’.

We will have to disagree on the media angle, and I mean you no offence when I suggest your analysis of that topic is somewhat insubstantial. For example, UKIP may have done better than expected because of the media coverage they have received nationally. They were regarded as ‘of media interest’ (whether serious or novelty) due to the celebrity involvement of Kilkoy-Silk and are so (rightly or wrongly) a “trusted brand” for some people.

The BNP get some coverage for similar reasons – their extremism gives them a “novelty” angle in the press (admittedly one based on fascism). So they would have picked up votes almost exclusively based on their national reputation, in my view.

I agree that both the UKIP and BNP candidates (plus all the independents) were poorly covered in both local and national media at the time of the election. This put the independents at a distinct disadvantage – without any long-term “party brand” they relied on leafleting and media coverage. The former was an electoral turnoff, especially since the Tories could afford to deluge the area with 27 leaflets each. For Craig and others, without media coverage, the only other means of reaching voters was through hustings and public meetings, which were not well attended.

And for the record, it is generally thought that Craig out-performed the other candidates in the public meetings he spoke at, with good public responses to the Green candidate also. The other candidates were poor speakers, or hampered by inexperience or – in the case of Ostrowski – weighted down by the government’s badly damaged reputation.

One final thought. There is a train of thought – in evidence on the political left, especially amongst Chomsky and Media Lens readers – that the palatability of a candidacy is determined, subconsciously at least, by how far they stray from establishment views. Accordingly, UKIP with a conservative/anti-EU message will get coverage just fine, because there is plenty of anti-EU sentiment in this country (and whether that is based on sound political analysis or xenophobia is besides the point). On the other hand, an independent who:

* strongly supports the Palestinian cause,

* condemns Zionism,

* condemns the Western invasion of Iraq as a war of aggression,

* says that we should withdraw from the occupation of Afghanistan,

* suggests that the casino banking sector should have been allowed to go bust

– will get short shrift from the media, who regard him/her as too radical. Sure, there are exceptions, and the rule is not perfect, but it is my view that a strong bias exists, and this has been shown to be true in Western media generally for quite some time.

Food for thought, I hope!

Dear Who cares

“Sour grapes from the brothel user. You shamed your country, you shamed your family. Yet you have no shame”.

Have you been watching the Bridge on the River Kawi?

“Shame on you”.

That’ a lot of shame you are throwing about the place, did you buy a load in a car boot sale?

“Norwich deserved better than a Scottish Nationalist Male Whore”.

You’re mental son!

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Jon: To an extent, but I wouldn’t be being nearly so constructive if I felt like being a drive by wrecker. I am just trying to insert some realism. I note you only actually rebutted one of my points, which I tend to take as acknowlegment that the rest are correct, which I think is obvious.

Right- UKIP and the BNP have an established brand even with a lack of media coverage. Thats an *advantage* of party structures, *not* something that justifies complaints that independents should get more coverage. Craig *could* build a local brand name and profile if he so wished, and as say Esther may well do; it was Craigs decision to stand in a seat with weeks to go until the elections. Thats rarely a good move and so it proved. Working a seat from now till the general election would at least allow a proper test of a candidacy.

Obviously thats a personal view on hustings, but at at least one public meeting I know some of the attendees were a little put out by 10 very overenthusiastic Murray supporters planting themselves scattered about the room. I know its easy to be enthused by a campaign and candidate, but a turning up and clapping over eagerly at public hustings as an activist actually doesn’t go down so well.

But all the “establishment” parties support staying in the EU. The issue isn’t the radical nature of the views, its the fact that they are neither key nor popular to the electorate- foreign policy is rarely a key issue at the polls, as both Craig and Reg Keys have found.

I will note that, while its obvious I am a supporter of a party and wish all of my parties candidates to win everywhere (!) I don’t think Craig standing in a seat that is otherwise safe in 2010 and offering some competition necessarily be a bad thing, though I share Hemmings views he should probably join a party (the greens seem to suit best (not a green!)). I am just trying to point out the large amount of naivety on show here.

Tinter, thanks for corresponding. I responded to the main point of discussion, which was about media coverage and whether it was fair or not. I didn’t come back to the others as I didn’t want to dilute what I felt was, and should be, the main focus. (But for the record, on leaflets: You felt they were awful, well OK. I agree that they could be reviewed and improved upon. On negative campaigning: I felt that the majority of criticisms made about the Conservative candidate were entirely relevant to voters, but there was one leaflet that made some unkind remarks, and I think that was a mistake. On whether the fascists should have received a fair proportion of media coverage: no, they have a racist and illegal membership criteria, and so are not a legal party in the normal sense. I would be happy to come back to any of your other points if you explicitly raise them but would like to focus on the media angle, as this was the main item you were rebutting and in my view a major reason why Craig’s campaign did not do better).

You have an error of logic in your second para. Whilst it is true that electoral success that comes from having an established party/brand does not itself provide justification for increased media coverage for independents, that does not mean there are no other reasons why independents should get fair media coverage. And the primary reason is so trivial it should not need to be stated: to have an equal chance at electoral success, each candidate should be given approximately equal exposure by all forms of media. In fact, I think that attention should be given to making this a legal requirement, if only for publicly-funded bodies. In any case, outlets that call themselves part of the “democratic media” ought to pride themselves on a pull-out section looking at each candidate in detail, or TV interviews with each candidate and hustings involving all of them. But this does not happen, and I am troubled that you do not see this as a problem.

I agree that “planted cheerers” in public debates is off-putting, though I don’t know if this happened in support of Craig (it pays to be suspicious of third-hand internet reports!). However the point I was making about Craig’s excellent speaking performance was meant to be what I felt the consensus was (despite my obvious bias). Did you really prefer April Pond’s responses? Take a look at YouTube and watch a selection, if you’ve not already done so.

OK, now to the key issue. Sure, the establishment parties favour EU membership. But the establishment extends to the fourth estate, and we should remember that the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and The Sun are hostile to the EU, with the conservative broadsheets taking a more nuanced, but often sceptical, view. And it is entirely fair to say that the idea of “Brussels laws interfering with British laws” is common currency amongst the public, whatever the merits of that position. So, I would strongly re-iterate that the establishment do not find anti-EU positions radical, despite the Whitehall consensus.

We are somewhat in agreement that foreign policy is not often a key issue in the polls (though Afghanistan may change that at some point down the line, if it is allowed to go on long enough to turn into another Vietnam). But I do disagree with your casual statement that “the issue isn’t the radical nature of the views” – I strongly think it is. Indeed, the causes of the economic crash and the baling out of the banks is a major public issue, given the scale of the job losses we have seen recently, but Craig’s input on that (indeed his entirely candidacy) was largely ignored by the MSM. I am of the view that Afghanistan is becoming important not for foreign policy reasons, but because our troops are coming back dead in increasing numbers, and doubt is being expressed about strategy and purpose in some high-up military echelons. Craig’s brave position differs from the Tories, LibDems and Labour, who AFAIK are all still pro-war.

Accordingly, I think the ‘media consensus’ on what is reportable or of ‘public interest’ represents a bias that represents a huge barrier to radical candidates, and that it should be challenged. However I take your wider point that it’s not the whole problem, and that there are sure to be things that Craig’s campaign could do better if he were to run again.

Well firstly, I continue to hold that the good performance of UKIP does show that the media blackout was not the primary reason for Craigs faliure- regardless of any of his campaigns merits it did not connect with people, and thats the real problem.

On all parties getting coverage, I don’t really think this is a defensible position. Should the Libertarians have gotten an equal share? Its very clear nobody cares about them or agrees with what they have to offer, so why should they get media time? The medias job is to try and cover candidates whom the public finds of interest, not to try and force the story by covering everyone who stands. I can only imagine how many more groups like “Britains Beauties” would crop up then.

Indeed, the phrase “have an equal chance of success” still contains the view that the media is a larger factor than it is for small parties. In places like Kiddiminster and Blaenau Gent the media wasn’t especially all over it on a national level- and why should they be? Its only one constituency. Everyone has an equal opportunity to campaign locally and win votes- its only at by-elections where the mainstream media may seem a normal way of doing that.

Its perfectly reasonable to cover candidates based on their likely performance. While UKIP were badly done by, the fact is Craig was *not* well supported and so the decision not to give him much coverage wasn’t wrong.

I didn’t see a hustings with Craig in personally so I can’t comment. I will say Read seemed the most able speaker, but often said unpopular things even without being drawn into doing so. Ostrowski was probably second, and Claire regularly stumbled. Who knows if that was the general perception? But it doesn’t suggest to me hustings are of central import.

The greens agree with Craig on most of these issues, and recieved more media coverage than they deserved. So I think the point clearly falls- the mere fact of holding these views does not cause a lack of media coverage.

The barrier isn’t to radical candidates, its to candidates without any public base of support. Thats a barrier that should be there (though the BBC’s test is not a good test for it, I agree). If Craig wants to run again then he should be choosing a seat now, and starting building support; and he should probably be doing so as a green.

Apologies for the delay in replying. We are still in disagreement, I think! UKIP have in the past benefitted from plenty of media coverage – and so a lack of (local) media coverage this time around hurt them less. The central point I’ve been making is that their views are ‘perfectly acceptable’ in mainstream terms, and accordingly the media has kept their brand share in (relatively) good shape for some time. Meanwhile Craig was judged by independent sources to be a serious candidate (quite rightly of course) but the media failed to chase this up.

We shall have to take diametrically opposing sides on whether all parties should get equal coverage: you say it is not defensible, and I say it is perfectly defensible. I don’t mean you any offence when I say you are trapped in the same mainstream/consensus mindset that we are complaining about here! (How would we deal with the fascists here? Honestly, I don’t know. I would be inclined to exclude them for reasons previously given.)

Should the Libertarians get more coverage? Well, yes, they should. I think their policies are extraordinarily socially destructive, but it should not be up to the BBC (or any other establishment institution) to determine that the public are not interested in them. *Part* (but not all) of the reason for public disinterest is that they have never heard of them (so your confidence that “nobody agrees with them” is quite misplaced). And that brings us back – though I am in danger of repeating myself! – to the issue of fair media coverage.

On the hustings, given that Read *is* an able speaker, it is quite reasonable to have preferred him to Craig. But I think you are being a bit evasive in not answering the point about the poor quality of the other candidates – you can view a selection on YouTube and I would suggest that you do so .

But you are right that the hustings (a demonstration of intellect, or having ones own considered views) are not of significant import. That’s a shame, but the situation is what it is!

We can agree to disagree, I suppose, especially given that you believe that the Greens got more coverage than you think they deserved. My view is that, since they got substantially less than the Conservatives, they therefore got less than they deserved.

Should independents throw in the towel and join a party? Now, I suppose I am inclined to agree with you, with all the control and loss of autonomy that I regard that as representing. But maybe, given the clear impossibility of genuine, decent, radical candidates to get themselves elected as independents, it is the only way. And that is a damn shame.

Only happened to see this, but may as well put one last post since we seem close to settling up. As I said, the Greens hold views similar to Craig and even the BNP get coverage; I think holding that coverage relates to policies being “mainstream acceptable” is something you are pushing rather than something thats evident.

Well, if I am an ordinary voter, and there is one channel covering parties equally and one covering candidates I and other actually care about, I know which I will watch. Sure, trying to determine things can go wrong- see the poor UKIP coverage; but giving coverage to a group like the libertarians, with no members, no support and no public interest is even worse. Thats simply the facts, I’m sorry but its clearly so and nobody wants equal coverage for what are effectivly nobodies. Its not the medias job to encourage interest in groups like that- media covers news and stories because they matter, not to make them matter.

As I said I heard the hustings. I didn’t find even the conservative to be really notably awful.

Ah, but the point was you said Craig couldn’t get coverage because of his views! However, the greens got a substantial portion of coverage- probably as much as anyone except the conservatives (and indeed more than they would have if everyone was equal) while holding the views listed! So I think that point really doesn’t work.

I don’t think its tragic. A party has a brand that means voters believe they know how they will vote on a range of issues- theres no reason why voters shouldn’t value that. I think they value that parties candidates can work together as well, even if they don’t like it in every situation. Activists are happier to help parties, because by participating they can help set policy and run things in a way they just can’t with an independent- and thats something I certainly value. Independents tend to do badly at national level because of the limited nature of what they offer- and I don’t see that as a shame at all. Especially since there is at least one party close to Craigs positions.