Olympian confusion
Good grief.
Gordon Brown has not performed an Olympic U-turn but, thanks to his and his team's cack handedness, it looks to the world as if he has.
I am now clear that the prime minister was never planning to attend the Olympic opening ceremony. It was always his intention to go to the closing ceremony to receive the Olympic torch on behalf of London. Britain was to have been represented at the opening ceremony by the Olympics Minister, Tessa Jowell.
Why do I state this so confidently? Journalists planning to travel to Beijing with the PM tell me that Downing Street told them this some weeks ago. I am not, as it happens, one of those making that trip and so, like most people, thought that the PM was planning to go to the opening ceremony whether other leaders boycotted it or not.
The problem for Team Brown is that he and they have never stated clearly and publicly their man's position. Thus they stand accused of making a U-turn in the face of public pressure when, it would appear, they have done no such thing. They have, however, been guilty - once again - of an utterly avoidable PR own goal.
Downing Street says that the PM's position was made clear at a lobby briefing on 19 March. Here's the official note of what was said:
"Asked if we now agreed with the French foreign secretary that there was now a case for not attending the Olympic opening ceremony, the PMS (prime minister's spokesman) replied that our position in relation to the Olympics had not changed, and we did not support a boycott of the Olympics.
Asked if it was still the prime minister's plan to attend the closing ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, the PMS replied that this was correct"
At Gordon Brown's recent news conference with France's President Sarkozy the two leaders were asked
Q : "Should the leaders of major democracies like Britain and France now boycott the opening ceremony in Beijing as a result of what is going on in Tibet?"
Sarkozy : "At the time of the opening ceremony, I will have assumed the presidency of the EU, so I have to sound out and consult my fellow members to see whether or not we should boycott"
Brown : "We will not be boycotting the Olympic Games; Britain will be attending the Olympic Games ceremonies"
Note the plural – ceremonies. It is now clear what was being said however cryptically. It was far from clear, though, to those who were not in the know. Indeed, a quick cuttings search reveals that major national newspapers stated again and again in recent weeks that the PM was indeed attending the opening ceremony.
Was it a tactical decision to be cryptic? An attempt to avoid a story? An effort not to upset the Chinese? Or was it simply that Team Brown genuinely thought everyone knew? Or a mix of all the above ?
I wish I knew...
I'm 
Comments
Nick, I'm a tad worried that you don't know/didn't know. I watched the 10 tonight and was surprised and confused why this item was leading. If I, a humble citzen who reads the news and listens to what you jurnos are actually saying, knew that Brown was only ever going to the closing ceremony, then how did you guys fail to spot it? Even your former colleagues at ITN seemed to know what was going on!
Nick
Can you tell us which journalists 'knew' that G Brown would not be at the opening ceremony, and why they didn't report it - or their editors decided not to publish it?
The opening ceremony has traditionally been the foucs of boycotts, so if this has always been the case, then the british public have been very poorly served by the massive machine that is UK journalism.
Shame on all of you - but who deserves special attention?
I'm a bit disappointed the Prime Minister isn't going to be at the Olympic opening ceremony as much as I'm disappointed by the antics of the Tibetan protestors. The best suggestion I can make is the Prime Minister is feeling a little blown about by popular sentiment and still trying to develop a lock on moving forward. As his personality type suggests, the problem he has isn't with vision or caring for people, it's that he's not used to explaining it or showing it. This goes some way to explain the mood swings and sense of mystery that surrounds his core purpose.
I still think Prime Minister Brown has the best sense of vision, society, and the long-term but action begins with the mind, and the Prime Minister needs to learn to calm down, relax, and allow events to unfold of their own accord. While the world operates to strict rules outcomes are not always predictable. Developing a lighter grip and more subtle emotional appreciation of this would better develop his character in a way that improves his governance. If the Prime Minister calmed down and got out more he'd probably feel a lot better.
D'ya know what, Nick? I bet he goes to Beijing in the end.
I guess if Brown had a blog his communication would be too clear and unambiguous!
This is all seems to stem from an assumption that he SHOULD be there.
Well should he? I think not.
"Britain will be attending the olympic ceremonies"... Sure yes 'ceremonies' are stated as plural but the fact is gordon brown referred to britain attending... Not him! In my opinion that means there has been no u-turn and make these journalistic references to 'ceremonies' irrelevant. But then a small thing like the facts won't stop journalists 'gordon bashing'!
As all this economic crash stuff was getting a bit tedious, I see the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has taken it off the top headline in favour of "PM not attending Olympics opening". Is that the opening in August, which we've known about for months and years? Chinese oppression of the Tibetans- well I'd never heard of it until yesterday either. Hmm, what a strange time to announce that, but then perhaps it's another good day to bury bad news: and a nice 'Gordon is great' story hits the spot.
I like this: "A spokeswoman said Mr Brown had never planned to attend the ceremony and was not boycotting the Games." Yes, he was saying it all the time wasn't he- I mean he was saying nothing BUT that he was going to boycott that opening ceremony.
The crisis that is Gordon Brown's premiership isn't "containable" by New Labour spin- he'll have to face the popular vote eventually.
I have a different, more cynical view; Our unelected Prime Minister was never going to the ceremony, agreed, but rather than state that publicly at the outset, I believe he now wants it to look like he has listened to the people and is boycotting it, although of course he can't use that phrase for diplomatic reasons.
Gordon, perhaps your misunderstanding of the public derives from never having won a general election?
What a complete non-news story. Only of interest to obsessive GB bashers.
Im no GB fan but he never said or even implied he was going to the pointless opening ceremony.
More to the point who cares?
I dont and a I guarentee 99% of the UK population dont either.
Why not worry about something more worth while - and I dont mean house prices falling which appears to be another Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú obsession.
The evidence does not support the fact that Gordon Brown would not be going to the Opening Ceremony, only that he would be going to the closing ceremony. He has also stated that Britain would be attending both ceremonies, and so it was quite plausible, in the absence of any other evidence, that he would indeed be going to both.
There are many press comments following David Milibands arrival in Brdo pri Kranju, where he states that Gordon Brown WOULD be going to the opening ceremony, and that he felt it was right that he should.
So, if it was not the case that Gordon Brown would be attending, it was not just the press that were under the illusion that he would be. It was his Foreign Secretary too.
Gary Belben wrote
What are you talking about read the posts BROWN DOES NOT NEED TO BE AT THE OPENING IT IS THE CLOSING THAT IS MORE IMPORTANT,for heavens sake nick can't you find something elese to report on this is a none story tax payers money to report on this what a wast.
He should be pegged down like a tent.
It may stop him being blown about by the wind.
Britain is attending, with a minister going to the opening ceremony. The PM is going to the closing ceremony as the hand-over to London Olympics. Journalists knew this 'weeks ago'. There is no U-turn. There is precious little news in the story. Maybe Gordon Brown was taking the lead for collective responsibility of government, rather than personalising it to whether he was going himself, given the Minister (and Princess Royal) will be at the opening ceremony for Britain. Maybe there was an element of diplomacy, which is a complex process in a difficult world, not suited to soundbites or headline stories. An interesting piece for comment and blog, but not a lead story for the News.
Brown is - as ever - a dither.
The aborted election that never was...
Dithering for weeks over Northern Rock...
Late arrival for the signing of the Lisbon Treaty....
Welcoming the Olympic Torch (and the posse of track-suited goons) - but not actually touching the damn thing....
He is - in Churchill's immortal words - "... decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent."
I dont like the way the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú are maliciously confusing a boycott with not attending.
You can not go to something without boycotting it.
Nick
If you liked the Prime Minister, you would be saying "This was made clear to journalists some weeks ago. It has been known for at least that long that the PM was only going to the closing ceremony."
To describe it as a PR disaster says more about the spin that you and your lobby pals want to put on it than it does about the No.10 machine.
I'm more of a fan of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú than of G. Brown by a long way, but this is nonsense. Please kill it off now.
Ed
Just another act of dithering from the blessed ditherer. His behaviour pattrns are now entirely predictable; consult first then ponder. It's indecision on an elephantine scale and utterly inappropriate way for a Prime Minister to present the country.
His unpopularity stems from his inability to take a stand on anything. We don't know what he stands for except indecision. No one should be expected to support or vote for someone whose only clue so far has been his 'moral compass' (now spinning widly out of control one supposes)
So he couldn't decide about an election, the Olympic ceremony, what to do about non doms, the EU treaty, the Northern Rock, interest rates up or down the list goes on. Nine months and he's yet to take a decisive view on anything. I give him until the crushing defeat of the local elections.
Am I, a non-native English speaker, the only one that had clearly understood what Gordon's attendance planning about Beijing Games from the first day that he announced this? The sophisticated press and journalists, perhaps, had dug way much more than the simple facts in which form the news should be perceived. It doesn't simply make sense for a UK resident to go to China *twice* in a month, whether it's me who was born there, or the PM. End of story (and speculations, please).
Oh and the boycott/no boycott claims... seems more of a domestic recipe than an international solution. Having lived in both of the two continents for some time I knew it's quite hard for each side to even know what the other side is talking about. Hence the fiasco. If there was an alien watching us, he/she must be laughing out loud.
How can you say there was no U-Turn, from your own article:
At his Downing Street news conference on 1 April, Mr Brown said: "I think President Sarkozy said himself that he expected Britain, because we are going to host the next Olympics, to be present at the Olympic ceremonies and I will certainly be there."
Nick dear
Politics, diplomacy, 'I said & didn't say', are all very interesting.
So be it the opening or closing ceremonies, GB (Gordon Brown/ Great Britain)would march on proudly to China, the emerging world power, so let's ditch the semantics.
Afterall, Jack Straw was glad to see Mugabe only because he couldn't recognise him at the time!!!
Evidently the French media corps had understood Downing Street's messages in the same way as Nick Robinson, because the lead item on French state radio this morning (France Inter) was 'Gordon Brown to boycott the Olympic opening ceremony'. There was even a discussion later in the programme about the etymology of the word boycott.
shame to see the use use "cack handedness" in an otherwise maturely written article -
is it really needed? it is a derogatory term for being left handed and isn't it time we moved beyond these silly terms. I'm sure an educated person could have thought of something slighly more appropriate!
To me it seems it is sections of the media who are confused and changing their stories, from what I've read the PM made his plans clear, has not changed them and is sticking to them. Just because certain journalists have made assumptions and not bothered to focus on the detail how does that suddenly become Brown's mistake ? Just goes to show, you don't actually need to mess up for the media to make it look like you did. This wouldn't have happened in the days of totally focussed 'media management', Alastair Campbell style, but I thought we wanted our politicians to move away from media management (aka spin).
When people misunderstand your message once or twice, it probably says something about their ability to process information. When you are often misunderstood, it means you have a problem communicating. I don't think Brown is doing a U turn but his garbled statements have given the impression that he has. Even Hilary Clinton got the wrong impression and congratulated him on boycotting the Olympic ceremonies! Brown should sack his PR team.
Nick ought to know that this is a silly story which only has some mileage because the media unfortunately, and it seems including himself, are engaged in a spot of Brown bashing whether or not it is deserved.
At his Downing Street news conference on 1 April, Mr Brown said: "I think President Sarkozy said himself that he expected Britain, because we are going to host the next Olympics, to be present at the Olympic ceremonies and I will certainly be there."
The above was the answer to my question:
" President Sarkozy said that according to what happens between now and then and between him and the other european leaders, as he will be then president of the EU, he might not attend the opening ceremony. You have stated that you will attend no matter what. Can you please clarify your position? Does that mean that if the other eu leaders decide not to attend ( the opening ceremony) you will be the only eu leader to attend? "
He could have not been any clearer.
Annalisa Piras
L'Espresso UK Correspondent
Like Jordan Dias in post No 1, I too have known that Brown intended to attend only the closing ceremony. This is because it has been reported as so and by the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú among others.
Thus I fail to see the point of this report.
However it seems to follow the current media methodology of creating the smoke and allowing the public to assume there is a fire.
Mr Robinson, you and other journalists take an important role in the system we call democracy- informing the public and checking the actions of corporations and governments. But when you celebrate a "PR own goal" brought about by the governments inability to manage you, one does get the impression you see your job more as a game in which good journalists score points against the authorities. Too often the outcome is that you sow the seeds of confusion and mistrust in offials, which you will no doubt later blame on the government.
Why don't we (the-public) boycott the Chinese games… end of the day advertisers want the west to watch. We should just let the athletes and politician do their thing and non-Olympians (including celebrates and people in the public eye) to vocally air their disapproval… This may have an affect on the advertiser linking themselves to the games… and thus the money they pay the Chinese authorities … blah… blah… there’s some logic in my thoughts, honest.
Once again, Brown is seen as inept and indecisive, a re-run of his non-attendance for the signing of the EU Constitution, sorry, Lisbon Treaty. More Mr. Bean-like embarrassment.
It does also beg the question though, that since the government constantly hides behind the sport and politics don't mix argument, why any member of the government is going to Beijing.
Our Prime Minister is a man of convenient principles.