As their wanting to be seen as "in the know" clearly indicates the contrary, it tends to make one sorry for their friendless existence. However this gives me a problem with the likes of Boris and co (and doubtless Keir etc too) as they constantly face this dilema...how do you keep peoples confidence when it is plain to see, as Sam says, that they are constantly reacting after the event and don't know half of what's going on in front of their noses...and probably have difficulty determining the existence of a cat's life signs?
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
This is an interesting one. It certainly means criteria 3 (not damaging to the Govt or committing to any action). Sort of met criteria 2 in being so weird it got some attention, though not all that much. Not sure about whether it was deliberate. Quite possibly but having met the man a few times he does say random stuff like that.
I've read it was a way to shape online news. e.g. at the time there was criticism of BJ wasting so much money on Thomas Heatherwick buses that were malfunctioning. So, by talking about buses in such a strange fashion, it means when people Google Boris and buses - you don't read about his failed investment in London bus infrastructure. Instead you get this fanciful tale. But maybe that's not true, and there was no deep idea behind it all? idk
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.)
I think the difference is it implies the *sole purpose* is distraction. I.e. that there is no need to engage with the actual idea because it's not a serious suggestion. Whereas "they moved the Rwanda announcement forward to try and wrest back the agenda" might be true but still means you have to engage with the announcement.
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 think there's two reasons why I think it's a problem and don't want the definition to drift. Firstly because it implies the Govt don't actually want to do the policy - it's *just* a distraction - whereas I think it is an extremely dangerous policy which they are absolutely serious about enacting. And that they would have done anyway even if nothing else was happening. (It's been in the works for years.)
The second reason is, as a say in the piece, it's an opt out from having to make proper arguments. I am strongly opposed to the idea but I can see that the small boats are v dangerous and I would like to reduce their number. It's a legitimate aim so we should be discussing what preferable ways there are to achieve that aim. If normal voters hear one side making a proposal - even if extreme - and the other shouting "dead cat", I fear they will conclude only one side has any idea about how to solve the problem.
I'm sure you have a better idea of what they will genuinely attempt to push through. Given the focus on 'lefty lawyers challenging the policy' which seemed to be part of the initial publicity blitz, together with the vagueness about who might be covered by the policy, it struck me as a policy the headlines rather than with an intention to pursue.
On a similar issue, the 'pushback' policy in the channel was withdrawn today under legal challenge. Admittedly, the fact that they withdrew the pushback policy detracts from the idea that 'lefty lawyer' headlines is all a part of the plan but perhaps that goes back to your undoubtedly correct suggestion that there are no omniscient puppet masters at work - I wonder if their lawyers told them that they had no credible line to put forward in court, and decided that retreat was better than an excoriating judgment?
I think they knew they wouldn't be able to do pushback which is why they've been trying so hard to get the Rwanda policy in place. They are desperate to see an actual reduction in boats because (if we're being cynical) it matters a lot to their membership base and (if we're being generous) it is extremely dangerous for those on the boats.
This also provides a useful rebuttal to Dominic Cummings' view that lawyers stop govt getting anything done. They're there for very good reasons, and if they were consulted at an earlier stage, perhaps the current govt wouldn't have such a dismal record on u-turns and quietly-dropped policies. A great deal of what they want to do is both unworkable and damaging, but very different from the dead cat theory, as you say.
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?
An actual policy can't be a dead cat because the sole purpose of a dead cat is to distract. Whereas the purpose of a policy is to do the policy - or at least give the impression you're going to do the policy. Of course any Government wants to focus attention on their policies rather than whatever it is journalists or the opposition want to talk about. That's just politics.
And the 'chaos at the centre theory' can all too easily let a government off the hook. If you are right, then many fewer SPADs and more top rank civil servants needed if good and consistent policies are 'really' the aim (not always the case)
I don't think it has to be chaotic as it is - e.g. my policy unit suggestions in my last post - but it *is* chaotic and that, amongst other things, makes it v hard for Govt to control the agenda.
I fear I disagree. Govt can want to distract and also do something while distracting, so more than just distract as you imply. No inherent contradiction there but involves timing and manner of presentation of dead cats. That's why dead cats (whatever they are there for and whether they are the talking dead or not, policies or not) are both dangerous, and also demeaning to political life.
But the *sole* purpose of throwing a dead cat on a table is to get people to look at it. It has no other role. A policy might distract from other issues but that is legitimate as it reasonable for political opponents to disagree about what is important. The Government no doubt believe that partygate is a distraction from what they think is important to the country. The opposition believe it's so important as to be worth keeping focus on. That's just politics. Has there ever been a Govt in history that didn't want to talk about its agenda?
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.
Yes! It's conspiracy theory mindset for those who don't buy into conspiracy theories.
As their wanting to be seen as "in the know" clearly indicates the contrary, it tends to make one sorry for their friendless existence. However this gives me a problem with the likes of Boris and co (and doubtless Keir etc too) as they constantly face this dilema...how do you keep peoples confidence when it is plain to see, as Sam says, that they are constantly reacting after the event and don't know half of what's going on in front of their noses...and probably have difficulty determining the existence of a cat's life signs?
Yes that's true. Part of the reason for writing the piece was to help turn this around!
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.
This is a very good point.
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
This is an interesting one. It certainly means criteria 3 (not damaging to the Govt or committing to any action). Sort of met criteria 2 in being so weird it got some attention, though not all that much. Not sure about whether it was deliberate. Quite possibly but having met the man a few times he does say random stuff like that.
I've read it was a way to shape online news. e.g. at the time there was criticism of BJ wasting so much money on Thomas Heatherwick buses that were malfunctioning. So, by talking about buses in such a strange fashion, it means when people Google Boris and buses - you don't read about his failed investment in London bus infrastructure. Instead you get this fanciful tale. But maybe that's not true, and there was no deep idea behind it all? idk
That was just weird
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.
Yes and David Canzini too. As Australian imports go I prefer Vegemite and Neighbours....
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.)
I think the difference is it implies the *sole purpose* is distraction. I.e. that there is no need to engage with the actual idea because it's not a serious suggestion. Whereas "they moved the Rwanda announcement forward to try and wrest back the agenda" might be true but still means you have to engage with the announcement.
And also yes it sounds "in the know".
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.
Thank you.
I think there's two reasons why I think it's a problem and don't want the definition to drift. Firstly because it implies the Govt don't actually want to do the policy - it's *just* a distraction - whereas I think it is an extremely dangerous policy which they are absolutely serious about enacting. And that they would have done anyway even if nothing else was happening. (It's been in the works for years.)
The second reason is, as a say in the piece, it's an opt out from having to make proper arguments. I am strongly opposed to the idea but I can see that the small boats are v dangerous and I would like to reduce their number. It's a legitimate aim so we should be discussing what preferable ways there are to achieve that aim. If normal voters hear one side making a proposal - even if extreme - and the other shouting "dead cat", I fear they will conclude only one side has any idea about how to solve the problem.
I'm sure you have a better idea of what they will genuinely attempt to push through. Given the focus on 'lefty lawyers challenging the policy' which seemed to be part of the initial publicity blitz, together with the vagueness about who might be covered by the policy, it struck me as a policy the headlines rather than with an intention to pursue.
On a similar issue, the 'pushback' policy in the channel was withdrawn today under legal challenge. Admittedly, the fact that they withdrew the pushback policy detracts from the idea that 'lefty lawyer' headlines is all a part of the plan but perhaps that goes back to your undoubtedly correct suggestion that there are no omniscient puppet masters at work - I wonder if their lawyers told them that they had no credible line to put forward in court, and decided that retreat was better than an excoriating judgment?
I think they knew they wouldn't be able to do pushback which is why they've been trying so hard to get the Rwanda policy in place. They are desperate to see an actual reduction in boats because (if we're being cynical) it matters a lot to their membership base and (if we're being generous) it is extremely dangerous for those on the boats.
This also provides a useful rebuttal to Dominic Cummings' view that lawyers stop govt getting anything done. They're there for very good reasons, and if they were consulted at an earlier stage, perhaps the current govt wouldn't have such a dismal record on u-turns and quietly-dropped policies. A great deal of what they want to do is both unworkable and damaging, but very different from the dead cat theory, as you say.
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?
An actual policy can't be a dead cat because the sole purpose of a dead cat is to distract. Whereas the purpose of a policy is to do the policy - or at least give the impression you're going to do the policy. Of course any Government wants to focus attention on their policies rather than whatever it is journalists or the opposition want to talk about. That's just politics.
(I have no idea what the purpose of Rees-Mogg is but his presence in Govt certainly rebounds on it!)
And the 'chaos at the centre theory' can all too easily let a government off the hook. If you are right, then many fewer SPADs and more top rank civil servants needed if good and consistent policies are 'really' the aim (not always the case)
I don't think it has to be chaotic as it is - e.g. my policy unit suggestions in my last post - but it *is* chaotic and that, amongst other things, makes it v hard for Govt to control the agenda.
I fear I disagree. Govt can want to distract and also do something while distracting, so more than just distract as you imply. No inherent contradiction there but involves timing and manner of presentation of dead cats. That's why dead cats (whatever they are there for and whether they are the talking dead or not, policies or not) are both dangerous, and also demeaning to political life.
But the *sole* purpose of throwing a dead cat on a table is to get people to look at it. It has no other role. A policy might distract from other issues but that is legitimate as it reasonable for political opponents to disagree about what is important. The Government no doubt believe that partygate is a distraction from what they think is important to the country. The opposition believe it's so important as to be worth keeping focus on. That's just politics. Has there ever been a Govt in history that didn't want to talk about its agenda?
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'
Aargh - thank you - that's been corrected. An early morning change when I was still half asleep....