Unleashing Demons

by Craig Oliver

  I watch Boris on Marr. There’s a lot of build-up. He’s great at the huge statements, capturing a vision of a prisoner who sees the jailer has left the door unlocked, but who is afraid to run free. Where he’s not so hot is when pressed on detail – saying some jobs ‘might’ go if we left the EU, then getting into a mess over whether we’d be part of the single market or not.

  The pack decides he was terrible – with poor Twitter reviews.

  Stronger In pump out a press release criticising his cavalier attitude, ‘[Brexit] might or it might not’ lead to job losses, and criticising him over the following exchange over the single market:

  Andrew Marr: One last time for clarity – just tell me are we going to be in it or not in it, and if we are not going to be in it, are we going to negotiate a similar kind of deal?

  Boris Johnson: We are going to have our own British arrangements which will be … will give us access to the rest of the European Union, to the European Union.

  Andrew Marr: Without paying any money, and without free movement?

  Chapter 11

  An Honest Man

  ON MONDAY 7 March, the Daily Mail excels itself in its coverage of Longworth’s resignation.

  As I’m ploughing through it, I get a text from one of my team: ‘It’s completely over the top – anyone who supports Remain is a spiv and traitor; anyone who supports Leave is a saintly hero … the leader is awful. No evidence at all, but the Mail still “suspects” No. 10 forced him out.’

  I want to go through it in more detail, because it’s worth understanding what we are dealing with.

  The front page headlines are:

  AN HONEST MAN ‘KNIFED BY No. 10’

  Downing St accused of ousting anti-EU business chief.

  Note those quotes around ‘KNIFED BY No. 10’ – it’s a quote I can see nowhere in the piece.

  The intro drags the PM into it, even though – again – there’s no evidence: ‘David Cameron was accused last night of orchestrating the removal of a business chief for speaking up for Brexit.’

  The article quotes ‘friends’ – anonymous, of course – who say they believe No. 10 ‘had a hand’ in his downfall. This despite his own quote saying pressure was not exerted. There is no shortage of Tory Outers prepared to go on the record, with no evidence to condemn us.

  One calls Longworth ‘the first Brexit martyr’. He goes on: ‘If it transpires that the Government have had any role whatsoever in costing this man his career, simply because he voiced an opinion over what he believes to be in the national interest, it will be beyond scandalous.’

  There’s nothing I can disagree with in that statement, because No. 10 didn’t cost him his job.

  UKIP’s Douglas Carswell says, ‘A decent man has been hounded out of office simply for expressing a personal view, which is that we are better off out of the EU. Project Fear is orchestrated out of Downing Street. This is what the nasties at No. 10 are up to. Well done, Downing Street, you got your man.’

  Only towards the end of the Mail piece does the BCC statement appear:

  No politician or interest group had any influence on the BCC Board decision to suspend Mr Longworth. His subsequent resignation was agreed mutually between Mr Longworth and the BCC Board, and there were no external factors involved.

  But turn a few pages and there is a double-page spread, under the banner headline: ‘CRUSHED BY PROJECT FEAR’.

  Beneath it is a piece by Ruth Sunderland, headlined: ‘Hero who didn’t hide his contempt for those in power,’ and a separate piece by Peter Oborne: ‘Chilling Witch Hunt against Free Speech.’

  Turn the page and you find another banner headline: ‘Boris: Leaving the EU would be like breaking out of jail.’

  That isn’t the half of it. It is total overkill. I wonder what normal people buying the paper make of it all.

  Ironically it emerges that Boris’s team is being hypocritical about unfair pressure by No. 10. There were some extraordinary quotes in the Sunday Telegraph about people being gagged and calls for an ‘open debate’ and yet this is the advice being handed out to key staff at London city hall:

  The advice also makes clear that GLA officers can, when not at work, express personal opinions (which can be contrary to the Mayor’s views). Whilst this is the formal position for you also, I would expect, given your roles, you either to advocate the Mayor’s position or otherwise not openly to contradict it.

  Given the nonsense over Longworth, and the extent of the freedom to roam granted to Leave ministers, we aim to maximise discomfort on this.

  I spend a couple of hours at Stronger In this morning. The reality is I am making calls and responding to emails from there, rather than at No. 10, but it’s important to be visible.

  I go to Will Straw’s executive meeting. This is the bread and butter of running a campaign, with subjects ranging from what they do with all the hate letters they get, to whether we should raise money through a merchandise shop, to the document defining how and why Stronger In should be recognised by the Electoral Commission.

  I rush back to Westminster for a meeting with Theresa May. Ameet and I are shown into her office suite in the Home Office. Her private secretaries are brought in to make a note of the meeting.

  We discuss that it would be good to have an intervention from her soon. The PM is looking like he is the only one out there fighting the campaign. She nods – and agrees that later in the week she will be asked about Europe and she will be categoric in expressing her view. She wants to give a full speech ‘after Easter’, but we settle on next week. ‘After Easter’ feels like an eternity away.

  On the way back, we talk about how in terms of pure politics we have to hand it to her – she is playing it well. She is on the right side, making clear she is In, but not looking overly enthusiastic. It’s making life uncomfortable for us and many feel she owes DC more, but in purely selfish terms, this positions her best.

  In political cabinet the next morning, Boris makes a point of catching my eye. I nod and he nods and smiles back. He’s spent the morning unpicking the mess over the advice to his staff to avoid contradicting his view on Brexit. He appears to be saying, ‘Fair play’. He then makes a big show of ruffling his hair and making sure he looks at me and rolls his eyes when George is discussing the economy.

  I can’t help feeling these meetings have become a bit pointless. The economy and party reform are two subjects that fill the space, and stop everyone discussing Europe. Fair enough – but you can almost see the 800 lb gorilla in the room.

  Other meetings are involved with big decisions being taken over the budget and whether the Queen’s Speech should be held before or after the referendum. It emerges the SNP is going to back away from an agreement to support our Sunday trading plans, despite the fact they mimic what’s already happening in Scotland. It’s no great surprise – one of the first rules of Government is the opposition will screw you over if they can.

  Some want to pull the Sunday trading vote. I’m with those who think we’ve marched everyone up to the top of the hill on this, it’s better to go down to glorious defeat than look cowardly.

  That evening, I get back from a drinks reception organised by Stronger In for International Women’s Day, when Will Straw texts me some copy from the Sun:

  QUEEN BACKS BREXIT

  The screaming headline is followed by: ‘EXCLUSIVE: BOMBSHELL CLAIM OVER EUROPE VOTE.’ And beneath that: ‘EU going in wrong direction, she says.’

  The story is that Nick Clegg and the Queen had a bust-up over Europe at a lunch attended by other ministers. My assumption is that it was linked to the Privy Council, because Nick was then the head of it. The Queen is alleged to have snapped at Clegg that Europe is going in the wrong direction.

  A source is quoted, ‘People were left in no doubt about her views on Europe … It really was something. The EU is something Her Majesty feels passionately about.’ There’s then a load of stuff from Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg: ‘I’d be delighted if
this was true and Her Majesty is a Brexiter.’

  Then it gets tricky. The paper claims that neither the Palace nor Clegg expressly denied a heated debate had taken place.

  The Palace says: ‘The Queen remains politically neutral, as she has for sixty-three years. We would never comment on spurious, anonymously sourced claims. The referendum is a matter for the British people.’

  Clegg’s response is a bit of a car crash: ‘I have absolutely no recollection of it. I think I would have remembered something as stark or significant as you have made it out to be. No doubt you’ll speak to someone else and they’ll say, “I was there, I heard it.” Fine. But I really can’t remember it at all. Anyway, without sounding pompous, I find it rather distasteful to reveal conversations with the Queen.’ I can hear him saying it – being reasonable instead of categoric and thereby leaving the door wide open.

  I text the PM, but he doesn’t respond. I also call Ed and Simon Case. We quickly work out that I should call the Buckingham Palace press office, Simon should call the Private Secretary and Ed should call Clegg.

  My contact at the Palace is just coming in after an evening out. As we talk, I can literally hear the front door close.

  The Palace has known about the story for hours. It’s repeated to me that sixty-three years of neutrality cannot be breached by revealing what went on. It’s the Palace’s view that it will just open a can of worms.

  I don’t want to push it, but find myself pointing out that a pretty big can of worms has already been opened. The Queen is on the front page of a national newspaper with a headline claiming she is pro-Brexit. Some more flesh is put on the bones. I’m told the lunch was in April 2011 – and Michael Gove was there. There seems to be a particular emphasis on the last piece of information.

  Ed, Simon and I have another conference call. Ed says Clegg is going to tweet the story is nonsense, he doesn’t recall it, and he would have remembered something that big. I groan – that will be seen as another ‘non-denial denial’. Ed says I should call him.

  When I get through, the poor guy seems exasperated. He thinks it was some lunch or other where Gove ‘and one of those other wankers’ were there. He says the story is simply not true. I say if that is the case, he needs to ensure there is no doubt. He agrees – he will get his press person onto it now.

  I go to sleep feeling the beginning of the day was a long time ago.

  On Wednesday, I wake up sure that we must not add any fuel to the Queen row. I send a WhatsApp message to No. 10 and Stronger In saying we must be careful. Our response should be, ‘The Palace has made its position clear, so has Nick Clegg. We have nothing to add.’

  More detail emerges. The lunch when it allegedly happened was in April 2011 – and Clegg, Baron McNally, Gove and Cheryl Gillan were there. Everyone feels there’s been an appalling breach of trust somewhere along the line and plenty of topspin added. In 2011, the Prime Minister would have been endlessly critical of the EU – it doesn’t mean he would ever advocate leaving it.

  DC’s dismissal of the story is simple, ‘There were no plans for Brexit then – so how could the Queen back them?’

  The Palace is to complain to IPSO – the Independent Press Standards Organisation – under the first paragraph of their code, which deals with accuracy. Their argument is that even on its own terms, the piece doesn’t work. The headline is ‘Queen Backs Brexit’, but the piece is about a claim she berated Nick Clegg about Europe going in the wrong direction. It’s not the same thing. Apparently IPSO has been very keen in the past that headlines must match the supporting copy.

  I head over to Stronger In. One of my calls is with Francis Elliott, the political editor of The Times. His question is: how can things possibly continue at this pace? The ‘burn rate’ of stories is so high, it can’t be sustained. A story emerges and is devoured in a fraction of a news cycle. Things that would normally have played out over days go in hours. I suspect the pace won’t slacken – it’s the logical conclusion of the biggest political story for a generation colliding with a digital revolution in media, shortening attention spans, and the need for more and more sensation.

  The PM’s afternoon meeting is in the Commons because of votes. It’s followed by Andrew Cooper coming in and presenting some polling. He sits at the end of the long wooden table in the PM’s office and runs through a document he hands round.

  The good news is we appear to be ahead.

  He goes through the segmentation of the electorate and says there is a lot of churn in the key sections: ‘Hearts vs Heads’ and ‘Disengaged Middle’ (the people who will decide the election). He makes a number of key points:

  ABC1s are pro remaining and vote.

  C2DEs are pro leaving and tend to be less likely to vote.

  There are several alarming facts:

  43% think staying in is riskier than leaving (pointing to immigration as their main concern).

  In a world where almost no facts are known and nothing sticks, a surprising number of people think it costs £350 million a week to stay in the EU and this money could be spent elsewhere if we left. It’s not correct.

  Many think the benefits bill, unemployment and NHS waiting lists will all fall if we leave because of reduced immigration.

  The ‘Queen Backs Brexit’ story is still big on Thursday 10 March. Full credit to the Telegraph’s young, tenacious Peter Dominiczak, who chases down everyone at the lunch. Gillan, Clegg and McNally all deny being the source and don’t recall the story. That leaves Michael Gove. ‘Friends’ of his (i.e. the person themselves or someone speaking with their knowledge) say he has no idea who the source is. My gut is he means he didn’t directly brief the story – leaving open the possibility it was someone he told.

  The Mail gives Gove a pass on the story. Others sniffily avoid it. I try to imagine the explosion if it had been the reverse, ‘Queen Backs Remain’.

  The Sun has a picture of an angry-looking Queen on the front page, with words to the effect that she has savaged DC. Turn inside – and it is a reference to her irritation at the breach of protocol when DC was unintentionally caught on camera saying she had ‘purred with pleasure’ over the Scottish referendum result.

  We’re about to do a regional round of interviews. The PM is understandably preoccupied with learning his brief, because he could get any number of detailed questions about local issues. I’m worried he will be asked if there is going to be an investigation into who briefed the Queen Brexit story.

  For me the obvious questions are: ‘The Lord Chancellor is accused of breaking one of the most precious protocols of all – why is no one going to ask him about it?’ and, ‘Have you asked Michael Gove if he is responsible? If not, why not?’

  None of us want to look shifty, but neither do we want this story to run and run.

  We go up to the Thatcher Room, where an imperious portrait of her gives the impression she sees all. The first two radio interviews done over an ISDN line don’t push the issue. The third presenter is smarter, clearly getting it and pushing the PM. DC gives the ‘Friends of Michael Gove have made clear he doesn’t know where it has come from’ answer we settled on. The presenter pushes – suggesting that if it came from a Cabinet minister it would be very serious. DC agrees.

  DC is glad we didn’t add much, but is also glad we underlined it’s a serious issue. I wonder if Gove is getting nervous and if he’ll sustain the battering of persistent questioning.

  Ultimately, what might save Gove is a simple thing: there may not be the appetite to go for him.

  My next meeting is at News UK. I’m seeing John Witherow and his key editorial team at The Times with Will Straw. Inside I find Will and we have a brief chat about how we should play it. As we chat, Francis Elliott rocks up. I ask him if I should verify it is all not for use, unless they ask us and we agree. I’m really telling him, and he says, ‘It’s always worth making something like that clear.’

  John Witherow is waiting in his office. He is a tall man with grey, curly hair,
dressed like an editor from a 1940s movie about the heyday of print: expensive, grey suit trousers held up by thick red braces, ballooning shirt with sleeves loosely rolled, and two buttons undone at the neck.

  We sit round the table. The meeting begins slightly testily. One of the Stronger In board has been in to see them and told them they can have access to people like Jim Messina and Craig Elder and Tom Edmonds, who do our digital stuff. I draw a clear line – this isn’t going to happen. John complains this isn’t very transparent, and I suggest he allows the Telegraph into his editorial meetings, or business boards. He says that’s ridiculous – and I say the point is the same, we’re not in the business of handing out information to rivals. He stretches out his long legs, leans back and pauses, before deciding to move on.

  They bring up all the criticisms of the campaign to test us. My sense in reading the paper is that John’s heart says Brexit, but his head sees the economic case against. We take them patiently through every argument. Where I think we make real progress is telling them how we’ve had two strategic victories:

  forcing everyone (including Leave) to accept that there would be a downturn of some kind if we left.

  driving Leave with questions about what Out would look like.

  At the end John asks, ‘So you are quietly confident?’

  Neither of us are stupid enough to say, ‘Yes.’

  My final meeting of the day is with the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, who we want to do more. Her take is, ‘This is a fight that’s been coming for twenty years in the Conservative party and it needs to be had.’ She’s right. It’s a bloody civil war.

  I make a quick trip to Dublin to see an old friend and watch the rugby. As I check my BlackBerry, I spot that Gove appears to be admitting he was behind ‘The Queen Backs Brexit’.

  PA reports: