Mountains and molehills

The Economist's leader about expenses-gate is well worth a read this week, and makes some salient points:

There may indeed soon be good reasons for forcing an election—especially if it becomes obvious, as it well might, that Gordon Brown’s spindly government has lost the authority to govern the country. But the expenses crisis, if anything, weakens the argument for a contest now. If an election were called next week, Britain might well end up with a Parliament for the next five years that is defined entirely by its views on claiming for bath plugs, rather than on how to get the country out of the worst recession in 70 years.

The same yes-but-not-now logic applies to the calls for constitutional reform. Some elements in this crisis can indeed be traced back eventually to defects in Britain’s system, notably the drift of power away from Parliament to the executive. But the heart of the matter was much smaller: a shoddy way of dealing with expenses. You could re-engineer great swathes of Westminster—bring in an elected House of Lords, introduce a Bill of Rights, design open primaries for MPs, scrap the first-past-the-post electoral system—and it would not make a shred of difference if the people elected were left in charge of claiming their own expenses amid a “course-you-can-chum” culture. A pile of swimming-pool-cleaning receipts is not a good starting place for constitutional reform.

More here.

Speakeasy

The Times appear to imply the Speaker of the House, Michael Martin, is a drunk today. The ritual humiliation the man is being put through is unfair, and misses the point.

Michael Martin isn't the best orator this country has ever produced - you only need watch his statement yesterday to see that. Nor may he be the most qualified to act as Speaker (although I don't feel expert enough to opine on this).

But the opprobrium heaped upon him by fellow MPs defies belief. They may think that sticking the knife in one of their own may in some way make up for their collective failings - like a sacrificial expenses lamb.

However, the electorate is likely to meet out a harsher, more visceral punishment at the next national poll. Such is the problem with accountability.

Showbusiness for ugly people?

First Lumley, now Rantzen and Carson. "Celebrities" should probably stick to the day job.

I'm all for people being interested in politics, but why is that those who build a celebrity career in the entertainment industries always feel the need to get involved in politics?

Sometimes their interventions can be beneficial, although oftentimes they look a little out of their depth, or do serious damage to their reputations. When backing political parties or campaigns, they are often used. Even independents, like Martin Bell, can go a little native.

They say that politics is "showbusiness for ugly people". And, particularly of late, it is not just politicians' looks, but also their moral compasses which look disfigured. 

Those in real showbusiness would probably be better off well out of it.

Assets and liabilities

Brown promised a "government of all the talents". Why doesn't he show them off more?

Tonight Labour kicked off the party election broadcast season in the run up to the local and European elections on June 4th. Nothing remarkable in that. But what was remarkable was the fact that the only member of the government to appear in the 3 minute video was ... Gordon Brown.*

When Gordon promised a government of all the talents, I hadn't realised he meant just himself. What about David Miliband or Straw? Smith or Johnson? Mandelson or Benn? What about Alexander or Hutton? Harman or Blears? Hoon or Balls? Ed Miliband or Purnell? Woodward or Baroness Royall? What about Burnham or Denham? Cooper or Murphy? (And that's before we even get to the GOATs.)

It is understandable that Labour wish to emphasise Gordon's economic credentials by focusing on him in a broadcast about the recession. But such a strategy is doubled-edged: if voters buy the line that the UK is well placed in the current recession thanks to Gordon, then Brown is the primary beneficiary; if they don't, they'll blame Gordon, not necessarily the government.

Would it not be better to show a unified cabinet out and about sorting out the recession? Working together to make life better for all? Interspersed with shots of Gordon speaking at G20 and Congress, to emphasise his leadership credentials, this would surely have made for a more compelling narrative.

For someone so economically and commercially tuned, his party election broadcast suggests Brown has confused Labour's assets and liabilities.

*The back of Alistair Darling's head got a cameo.

Debatable

Brown's YouTube disaster highlights the importance of style, as well as of substance

Hopi Sen blogs that Brown should debate Cameron in the run up to the next election in response to a post by Danny Finklestein. Sen thinks these debates will generate more attention on policy, where Cameron is weak, thus boosting Labour's chances. Finklestein argues that Cameron doesn't have much to gain by debating Brown, so shouldn't bother.

They are both wrong. 

While I agree that debates will allow more time for policy detail than would otherwise occur in an election campaign, I remain unconvinced that such a forum would benefit Brown. His YouTube appearance last week emphasised how uncomfortable he is communicating policy (although in this case the policy was not thought through either). Cameron, a former PR man, is far more polished on his WebCameron videos and will likely do well in any televised debate.

A live debate is therefore a danger to Brown. Remember Kennedy-Nixon 1960?

It is for this reason that I think Cameron would benefit from a debate - it would take a lot for Brown to convince voters, even if his policy detail was impeccable. He has much to lose. Cameron does not.

That all said, if the debates were structured such that ministers and shadow ministers debated detailed policies, leaving Brown and Cameron to fight it out over the big picture narrative, then this might work to Brown's advantage: while Cameron has detoxified the Conservative brand, not all shadow cabinet ministers are so endearing; and, while the focus is on others, Brown is, ironically, less likely to lose votes.

Such talk may be academic, however, given there is so much debate over whether there should even be a debate.

Brown and out

April is over. And with it, surely, Labour's re-election hopes at the next national poll.

They say it never rains, but pours. For Gordon Brown, April - with its attendant showers - has been torrential. First 'porno-gate', then 'smear-gate', then 'smiley-You Tube video-gate', and, finally, 'budget-gate'. No wonder that Labour's poll ratings are collapsing faster than Britain's house prices.

It is almost inevitable that the electorate will tire of the same old faces - Gordon's looks older by the day - and that the press will ignore policy in favour of tittle-tattle about expenses claims for porn, and the like. But the current lot don't do themselves any favours.

A lot of the policy and posturing at the minute looks party political. To an extent, this should be expected - Labour is a political party. But the actions of Brown et al recently nods to a more guileful bent - one that places political maneouvering above the object of government.

This is a shame. One of the great achievements of the Labour government was attention on outcomes, without so much emphasis on means. Now the balance is shifting in the other direction - for example, the Budget was miserly, but gave the appearence of a triumph for the working man over his baron paymasters (in truth, a 50% top rate tax band will generate comparatively little compared to the duty hikes in the budget which will hit lower income earners).

Tony Blair once said that: "Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile." On the basis of the past month, Labour will end the next election with neither.