Having worked in the Civil Service from 1996-2004, I would definitely agree with your view that those in politics have surprisingly little control over events, the news cycle and public opinion. And I was there at a time when a Labour govt had enormous majorities, a clear legislative programme, and a lot of experienced political "big beasts" (sorry, hate that phrase but couldn't think of a better one). Today, a Conservative govt has very few credible "big political names", has got rid of anyone who disagreed with its flagship policy, and has little to no continuity of political advice/political nous. Much of what people are calling "dead cat" strategy seems to be more about an amateurish govt with amateurish advisors at its centre. And few clear ideas of what it practically wants to achieve.
The London liberal left want to believe the Tory Government are evil communications geniuses duping the masses into voting for them when all evidence simply points to the government being utterly incompetent at communicating anything whatsoever. It does help the left in not having to analyse in even the smallest way why people vote for the 'evil' Tories.
Same with Brexit and the Russians / Facebook / Cambridge Analytica - it was the Russians wot dun it with their Jedi-like mind tricks on Facebook hence removing the need for any substantive analysis as to why a huge body of people voted to leave the EU. The EU still to this day actively performs no analysis whatsoever as to why it's second largest member left.
A certain Observer journalist has dined out on this giving the London liberal left what they wanted to hear spawning much litigation
It's weird, the same people who think that politics, at least as it is carried out bt the Conservative Party, is this grand game of 4D chess, are also ardent fans of The Thick Of It, which does a good job of depicting just how messy Westminster and Whitehall are.
Agree policy announcements are unlikely to fall into the “dead cat” category - but there have been other manoeuvres to manipulate the news cycle. Surprised this incident wasn’t mentioned in your post: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-48766451
On behalf of Australia, I'd like to apologize for Lynton Crosby. And Alexander Downer, I would guess that, following the Liberal/National Party model down under that it was Downer's idea to dump your refugees in Rwanda a la Nauru and Manus Island. Britain wanting to transplant unwanted people to different parts of the globe? It's amazing how history repeats itself.
Actually the" dead cat" saying goes back a long way to the financial markets originally and was known as the dead cat bounce.
If you dropped a cat from a great height it might bounce ( i.e. the market might recover temporarily) but it's still dead ( i.e. the market trend is still down).
It seems to have morphed into something different in recent years.
I'm sure this sounds horribly dumb, but what's the difference between calling something a "dead cat" and calling it a "distraction"?
Does "dead cat" provide nuance - e.g. it not only distracts, but moves the discussion to your agenda; or that it highlights that it's a strategic move?
Or would "distraction" do, and "dead cat" is usually just a way to make things sounds more complicated and the accuser more sophisticated?
("Rwanda is a dead cat" is insightful analysis, whereas "They did all this work on the Rwanda policy just to serve as a distraction" is obviously untrue.)
Isn't there a danger in putting too much emphasis on your definition? If the Rwanda policy isn't a 'dead cat' as defined, it performs largely the same function: a headline-grabbing policy, which distracts from issues the govt is worried about. If they intend to pursue the policy, in order to generate more headlines if/when it is found to be illegal, then isn't it a 'dead cat squared' - or perhaps you would just prefer to give it a different name?
If I remember my Dawkins correctly, a 'meme' evolves over time as people use it - it seems to me that 'dead cat' has evolved to mean 'deliberate government distraction of the media', even if it originally had a more precise meaning. The idea of a govt desperately trying to distract from its failings is not massively surprising, and does not require a ninja-like grip on the daily media.
I guess you made up your three categories for this posting, but I see no reason why a dead cat approach cannot also be an actual policy - a distracting policy - which would not fit your category 3. This was the light in which I think some saw the Rwanda proposal - distracts from other problems the govt has (personal, as well as on policy front). Had also thought that Mr Mogg was intended to be the 'talking dead cat' pet, and the Government's go-to distraction from other issues, all by himself?
Healthily sceptical, although it does reinforce my own bias that day to day national politics really is more Thick of It than West Wing! NB you got the SNP name wrong- it's the Scottish National Party, not 'Nationalist'
I think there's another reason why people make dead cat accusations so readily: it sounds clever and makes them look like somebody in the know.
Having worked in the Civil Service from 1996-2004, I would definitely agree with your view that those in politics have surprisingly little control over events, the news cycle and public opinion. And I was there at a time when a Labour govt had enormous majorities, a clear legislative programme, and a lot of experienced political "big beasts" (sorry, hate that phrase but couldn't think of a better one). Today, a Conservative govt has very few credible "big political names", has got rid of anyone who disagreed with its flagship policy, and has little to no continuity of political advice/political nous. Much of what people are calling "dead cat" strategy seems to be more about an amateurish govt with amateurish advisors at its centre. And few clear ideas of what it practically wants to achieve.
It is very much point (2).
The London liberal left want to believe the Tory Government are evil communications geniuses duping the masses into voting for them when all evidence simply points to the government being utterly incompetent at communicating anything whatsoever. It does help the left in not having to analyse in even the smallest way why people vote for the 'evil' Tories.
Same with Brexit and the Russians / Facebook / Cambridge Analytica - it was the Russians wot dun it with their Jedi-like mind tricks on Facebook hence removing the need for any substantive analysis as to why a huge body of people voted to leave the EU. The EU still to this day actively performs no analysis whatsoever as to why it's second largest member left.
A certain Observer journalist has dined out on this giving the London liberal left what they wanted to hear spawning much litigation
It's weird, the same people who think that politics, at least as it is carried out bt the Conservative Party, is this grand game of 4D chess, are also ardent fans of The Thick Of It, which does a good job of depicting just how messy Westminster and Whitehall are.
Agree policy announcements are unlikely to fall into the “dead cat” category - but there have been other manoeuvres to manipulate the news cycle. Surprised this incident wasn’t mentioned in your post: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-48766451
On behalf of Australia, I'd like to apologize for Lynton Crosby. And Alexander Downer, I would guess that, following the Liberal/National Party model down under that it was Downer's idea to dump your refugees in Rwanda a la Nauru and Manus Island. Britain wanting to transplant unwanted people to different parts of the globe? It's amazing how history repeats itself.
Actually the" dead cat" saying goes back a long way to the financial markets originally and was known as the dead cat bounce.
If you dropped a cat from a great height it might bounce ( i.e. the market might recover temporarily) but it's still dead ( i.e. the market trend is still down).
It seems to have morphed into something different in recent years.
I'm sure this sounds horribly dumb, but what's the difference between calling something a "dead cat" and calling it a "distraction"?
Does "dead cat" provide nuance - e.g. it not only distracts, but moves the discussion to your agenda; or that it highlights that it's a strategic move?
Or would "distraction" do, and "dead cat" is usually just a way to make things sounds more complicated and the accuser more sophisticated?
("Rwanda is a dead cat" is insightful analysis, whereas "They did all this work on the Rwanda policy just to serve as a distraction" is obviously untrue.)
Thank you for the thought-provoking article.
Isn't there a danger in putting too much emphasis on your definition? If the Rwanda policy isn't a 'dead cat' as defined, it performs largely the same function: a headline-grabbing policy, which distracts from issues the govt is worried about. If they intend to pursue the policy, in order to generate more headlines if/when it is found to be illegal, then isn't it a 'dead cat squared' - or perhaps you would just prefer to give it a different name?
If I remember my Dawkins correctly, a 'meme' evolves over time as people use it - it seems to me that 'dead cat' has evolved to mean 'deliberate government distraction of the media', even if it originally had a more precise meaning. The idea of a govt desperately trying to distract from its failings is not massively surprising, and does not require a ninja-like grip on the daily media.
I guess you made up your three categories for this posting, but I see no reason why a dead cat approach cannot also be an actual policy - a distracting policy - which would not fit your category 3. This was the light in which I think some saw the Rwanda proposal - distracts from other problems the govt has (personal, as well as on policy front). Had also thought that Mr Mogg was intended to be the 'talking dead cat' pet, and the Government's go-to distraction from other issues, all by himself?
Healthily sceptical, although it does reinforce my own bias that day to day national politics really is more Thick of It than West Wing! NB you got the SNP name wrong- it's the Scottish National Party, not 'Nationalist'