by Craig Oliver
I tell him I’ll set up a discussion and begin an email chain that lasts the whole day – and which I end up wishing I hadn’t started.
The first response is that we have good lines on immigration – we just need to deploy them more. Those lines are essentially:
accepting people have concerns.
pointing out the significance of the reforms the PM achieved on curbing welfare payments to migrants (which test well).
setting out the potentially devastating consequences to our economy of ending free movement and urging people not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Will believes our challenge is getting politicians to use the script, because it jars with the more defensive position that Labour and Conservative politicians take on the issue. He suggests a big speech from the PM on the importance of the single market.
Others point out that freedom of movement is a simple fact that we struggle to get round – we cannot win an argument about control, but we can win an argument about a strong economy.
I don’t disagree with a lot of this, but there’s a problem. We have had a lot of success with the assertion that Leave believe a recession is a ‘price worth paying’. It seems to me that the weakness in our argument on immigration is the same in reverse. These levels of immigration are a price worth paying to ensure a strong economy.
So, a question we will almost certainly be hammered with in this now binary debate is: ‘Let me be clear: you are saying European immigration – whereby anyone who wants to work in our country and is not a criminal, should be allowed to come here, and use our public services – is a price worth paying?’ We can keep pointing to the hard-won curbs on welfare payments from the renegotiation, but it means we will struggle with the person saying, you don’t understand what it is like at my child’s school, or going into my local A&E.
We are in danger of sounding like an out-of-touch elite. In a general election, immigration is only part of the argument – in this referendum, it will be at least half of it.
Ryan agrees with me that our position reads as: we think free movement is a price worth paying for membership of the single market and the economic benefits that brings. The difference between our position and theirs is that, when tested, there is net support for what we say, but not for what they say.
And this is the nub of everything.
We believe we have the winning argument.
The PM’s next call is with Gordon Brown, who sounds gruff, but engaged.
DC underlines the importance of getting Labour involved and not turning this into a Tory psychodrama.
Gordon Brown believes, ‘There’s been some success getting the Tory vote back in the fold,’ but his primary concern is that the Labour vote is not secure. He says we have to focus on different messages for different people and we have to remember that the economic message doesn’t always work for people who are not already economically secure. He believes our message for them must not be one of fear, but of optimism for the future. ‘Most of all,’ he says, ‘it’s horses for courses. Including a positive voice for a better future for Labour voters.’
All of this sounds encouraging, but he then makes a rather apocalyptic point, ‘You are facing a perfect storm. Immigration, terrorism and a fragile EU economy … No one believes leaving would make things any better,’ but he seems to be pointing to a kind of anarchic ‘to hell with it all’ attitude.
I’m reminded of one of my favourite films from the 1970s, the seminal Network, where a suicidal newsreader persuades half of America to scream, ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more!’ and someone points out, ‘The American people want somebody to articulate their rage for them.’
By Saturday 30 April, it’s plain Michael Gove is prepared to embrace immigration as Leave’s main argument. He writes a piece for the Mail that causes widespread revulsion in the Remain camp. He warns of the threat from the East, with a potential 77 million Turks and Albanians coming here with their criminal gangs. I feel increasingly angry at the tactics, though my rational side thinks they have finally abandoned all hope of winning the economic argument and are simply hammering the one point that works for them. Gove now appears to have bought, and to be selling, the UKIP argument wholesale.
DC emails – we need to be clear that we will not allow enlargement of the EU.
MAY
Chapter 19
World War Three
THE STRONGER IN board meeting at the start of May begins with some polling. Andrew presents it in an unvarnished manner, which seems to spook several people. He says:
There’s an 8.8% lead for Remain in phone polls.
A 0.6% lead in online polls.
The phone lead is down from 20% at the start of the campaign.
There’s good evidence underlying indicators have recently started going our way.
He ends up telling a startled group that the polls are in even more of a mess than during the election, with the pollsters not really certain what the hell is going on. He predicts the polls will tighten more.
All of this leads to the inevitable question – if the polls are wrong, how can we be sure of our assertions? Particularly how, in a straight Economics vs Immigration fight, we will win?
There are several attempts to reassure people. Will says, ‘We have a good strategy, which we can either stick to or panic.’
The group moves on for drinks at the Mandarin Oriental, where George Osborne is speaking at a fundraiser.
From there we move on to a dinner being held by Stuart Rose for us in the Lotus Rooms. It’s an expensive hotel, and we eat in a grand, dimly lit room. When we enter, some are shocked to see Hugo Dixon has been invited to speak. He is clearly a very bright man, capable of creating the InFacts myth-busting website about Leave nonsense. He looks like a scruffy academic – more interested in argument than his appearance.
When the first course of avocado is gone, he sits slouched in his chair and pontificates about the campaign. He is clear that Leave are being utterly misleading, but he has what feels like a very big dig at No. 10, ‘You seem to be avoiding the obvious thing, which is taking down Michael Gove and Boris Johnson. I know you feel you have a party to put back together at the end of this, but you have to get over your obsession with avoiding blue-on-blue.’
As he says it, his eyes flick towards me several times. I begin to prepare my response, which I know I will be asked for, because Stuart Rose keeps catching my eye.
When Hugo is done, Stuart asks me what way I think the papers will go. I tell him it’s obvious the Mail, Sun, Telegraph and Express will all be Out. There’s a question mark over The Times and the Sunday Times, though I suspect the former will be In. The Mirror and the Guardian will be Remain, as will the Observer and the Mail on Sunday.
I decide to answer Hugo. ‘You did us the courtesy of being very frank in your talk earlier. So I hope you don’t mind if I am frank in response: you are the siren voice that is calling us to the rocks.’
He shifts in his seat. Across the table I see Ryan Coetzee and Stephen Gilbert smiling.
‘The easiest thing in the world would be for us to turn this into a Tory psychodrama. The media would love it and it would blot out almost every other story. Instead of listening to what you say – I think we need to double down on what is truly remarkable in this campaign. People from the Greens, to the Lib Dems, to Labour and the Conservatives are setting aside their differences in the national interest to say we should stay in the EU. It means we have moments like the PM standing with Brendan Barber – thank you for taking a risk and showing leadership, by the way, Brendan – ,’ I nod to him sitting at the top of the table, ‘and show that we are the reasonable, sensible moderates, and not engaged in internecine fights.’
Ryan and Stephen wade in behind me.
As the conversation develops, I am asked to speak again, ‘One of the things I have learned in this job is that there are about 3,500 people who live in the political/media village. Their
values, what they think and believe, are often dramatically different to the 35 million voters we have to win over. What I have learned is that people who focus on the 3,500 and not the 35 million are almost always the ones who fail.’
On Wednesday 4 May, there’s grumpiness all around at the morning meeting about the planned U-turn on child refugees.
Going through it, DC looks at the two or three MPs present who are glum and tells them, ‘It’s no good looking miserable about us having to make concessions, when a large part of the Parliamentary party isn’t holding the line.’
I get some grim texts from Fraser Nelson, who – after rowing out for the PM in the Telegraph last week, saying the grown-up thing to do was to limit the number coming into the UK, because not doing so simply acts as a magnet and puts more children in danger – now smells a U-turn and is irritated. His view is if we bend on this, we are just signalling to people we will bend on anything.
I have a go at defending the PM to him. But I think we should go down fighting in the Commons. The PM and George explain to me why that’s hopelessly naive, saying if you’re a Conservative MP, you don’t expect to lose votes. ‘Well, don’t bloody vote against the Government,’ I say petulantly.
Most of this week is spent preparing for the local election results, but on Thursday I walk over to North House for a meeting with what has become the core team linking No. 10 and the campaign, Will, Stephen, Ryan, Ameet and Liz. We start by looking at some interesting work from Jim Messina. It breaks down the areas of the country we should be targeting. Our strongholds are Scotland, London and big university cities like Manchester. It also lists areas where there are rich pickings in terms of ‘in play’ households that are open to persuasion. The east of England is very well represented, so are Leeds, Bradford, Doncaster and Barnsley, which we can hit hard.
Back at No. 10, I take some decisions on which television programmes the PM will do in the run-up to the referendum. The default position has been to keep our options open, but we’re just a few weeks out and I’m getting pressure, not just from the broadcasters, but from other parts of the campaign. If we don’t fill the vacuum, there’s a real chance we could see some people representing us that could spell disaster. The usual view is expressed that we should avoid them. I take a deep breath. ‘OK – maybe I have drunk the Kool-Aid, but I don’t think it’s good enough. Do you really want to spend the whole period being called a chicken?’
‘Not really …,’ says DC.
‘Well – it’s the fight of our lives. You’re the best thing we have. I don’t want to be sitting here on 24th June wishing we hadn’t saved some of our ammunition.’
I appear to be shifting them. I make the case for doing a programme with Farage in it. He’s the unacceptable face of Leave to millions – let’s put him in the centre of the frame.
The results of the local elections pour in on Friday 6 May, and it looks like no one won and no one lost.
There’s something for everyone if you’re prepared to look.
We did not go backwards. Ruth Davidson’s energetic Scottish campaign took her to the previously unthinkable position of being leader of the opposition. Labour’s disastrous performance there is evened out by victory in London.
I spend parts of the day ensuring we are fighting our corner on all of this, but as ever, my eye is really on Europe.
At 6 p.m. I get a cab to Lynton Crosby’s investiture party at the Australian High Commissioner’s house tucked in a lovely street by the Albert Hall.
As I approach, I see Boris on his bike. Traffic is slow and he is literally outside my window for a couple of minutes until we get ahead. His hair is as tousled as ever – people on the pavement stare and try to engage. When I arrive, he is a minute behind. He says, ‘Great to see you, Craig, great,’ before walking straight by. I smile, as I get the distinct impression I’m really not the person he wants to talk to.
A big theme of his and Sir Lynton’s speech is how far he has come from rural Australia. He really has achieved a lot.
On Saturday morning, I plant myself on my sofa and don’t move for several hours. There’s an endless merry-go-round of calls on Europe – making sure loose ends are tied, hares are set running or stopped.
The debates are definitely a worry for Leave. We are doing our usual trick of not giving anything away. They brief James Forsyth that it would be a scandal if we don’t end up debating Gove or Boris, but we know any such programme would be a Tory psychodrama and won’t do it.
That leads me into a negotiation with ITV, who have offered to move their programme by a week (earlier) and a Question Time format with Farage answering questions in the first half and the PM doing the same in the second.
I tell the PM it’s as good a deal as I’m going to get.
On Sunday, he says he is moving to that view, almost winking at me. I laugh and ask, ‘Any chance you’re going to reach that view soon?’
‘I’m moving at my own pace … I’m sure we will get there.’
Gove is on Marr. He will undoubtedly be asked about an intervention from John Sawers and Jonathan Evans (the recently retired heads of MI6 and MI5), who have been the splash in The Times.
I watch Gove intently. In one sense he is very polished. But, for me, he fails the blink test. There’s something too fluent, too certain about him.
The opening exchanges with Marr feel like sparring. But it really heats up when he is asked about the economy. When asked if, ‘yes or no’, should we be in the single market, Gove goes for it: ‘No. We should be outside the single market.’ He then goes on about how we should get access to the market on terms we dictate. It is pure fantasy land.
I call James Chapman, who is with the Chancellor about to do the new Peston on Sunday on ITV. I tell him, ‘Gove just made a big mistake on the single market. George needs to be clear it would be a catastrophic mistake to leave – they are being irresponsible.’ They are on in minutes. James says, ‘Got it!’ and hangs up.
Minutes later, George goes in pounding. This is when he is at his best – spot an opportunity, grab the ball and run. I feel proud of how he delivers a great soundbite on this being about real people’s jobs. This evening he jokes with me about me ringing up, getting him to say something, and it coming out on air.
I call Stronger In. We need to leap on this and get a press notice out really hammering them. The team go to town, getting every business person and economist we can to ram home the point. By lunchtime we have a very impressive press notice, ranging from Carolyn Fairbairn of easyJet to Juergen Maier of Siemens, saying Gove is playing fast and loose with jobs and the economy.
I call the PM to update him. He didn’t watch, but had heard Gove was good. I tell him the interview was fine, but the clip won’t work for him and that is how most people will encounter the interview.
On Monday there’s a hilarious editorial in the Mail in response to our briefing of the PM’s ‘Patriotic case for staying in the EU’ speech.
It says: ‘With 45 days to go, is it too much to hope Mr Cameron will tone down the rhetoric, stop pretending he’s secured a game-changing deal for Britain – and start treating the electorate like adults?’
I text a Daily Mail journalist, ‘Pot?! Kettle?!’ He claims to be trying to make our case and use as many of our quotes as he can – and pleads to have early access to our briefs.
DC gives his speech early at the British Museum. I don’t go, with too much to do here, but have it on in the background as I go through the meetings. It looks impressive, but it’s a little long. It’s designed to make the security case for staying in the EU – how the institution has helped bring peace and has been a beacon for Western values. I’ve been a little cynical about this, but having read through it all, I really can see the Niall Ferguson point, that it’s ultimately treaties and meetings, or trenches.
I get Philip Johnston, the leader writer for the Telegraph, in to talk to DC. I like him very much – he’s an older bloke, with a London accent, who sees t
he world in sensible, simple terms. I can’t imagine anything ruffling him too much.
DC begins by discussing the tendency of Leave to play the man. If anyone says anything, they write them up as ‘washed up’ and having made errors in the past. DC laments them not engaging in the argument. Phil says, ‘Well, their problem is – how do you prove a negative,’ before underlining his concerns about how the party will be put back together at the end of all of this.
DC says, ‘If we win, it’ll be fine. I’ll be magnanimous. But if we lose it will be a disaster – we’ll spend years dealing with the mess.’ He goes on, ‘What’s interesting is Gove told me he didn’t actually want a referendum … and Boris doesn’t actually want to leave.’
My day has been punctuated by prepping for a presentation to the Conservative In group of MPs. I said I would do it, but only if it was clear what I was being asked to do and we didn’t all trip over each other.
This led to endless chopping and changing. To the extent I said several times I was very happy to step down … anyway, it ended with Stephen Gilbert, Andrew Cooper, the PM, Nick Herbert and me all giving talks. By the time we get to the end of our presentations, it is forty-five minutes in.
It seems to go OK and they like the fact that I’m able to show them plenty of shiny videos, including a very moving one of veterans of the Second World War saying they fought so that there could be a lasting peace in Europe, and the EU is part of that. The presentation goes well, though there’s no shortage of people pointing out that the Union flag in one of my slides was upside down.
Graeme walks back to No. 10 a couple of steps ahead of me. He’s taking a call. When he’s done, he tells me IDS has done an interview with the Sun. He’s told them Angela Merkel vetoed a proposal for the emergency brake on migrants the night before the PM gave a key speech – and at the last minute we changed policy.
