Foil or Fool

When mixing with celebrities, and especially comedians, politicians tend to come off quite badly. They look foolish for trying to be cool and funny as well, or just become the foil for a joke they do not always look like they understand. Not sure which is the case here, aside from whether Walliams should have turned up and confused the children who attended the Treasury's charity party as his 'ladyee'. Darling had the guts to play along with the engagement and laugh it all off, which does take nerve when the cameras are on you and there are a bunch of kids demanding to know if they are married and why the ladyee has a beard.

It's the economy, stupid!

The words of Bill Clinton attacking George Bush Snr, which seem rather prophetic of the current problems facing British politicians and the attacks launched agaisnt both Gordon Brown and his Chancellor Alastair Darling. For Gordon Brown the challenge is to get voters to accept that there will be no crisis as he has contingencies in place, and that the crisis is not his fault but due to global economic problems beyond his control. The challenge for the Conservatives is the attach blame solely to Brown and to get the public to believe he is neither sufficiently prepared or equipped to deal with the impending crisis. If the crisis worsens the Conservatives benefit, if there are no further collapses then Brown may have time to shake this monkey off his back. Currently it is down to public trust to manage the economy, and perceptions of the two sides as they claim and counter-claim; the Conservatives' challenge, if they win an election prior to the global crisis going away, is to prove they can do better and to avoid opportunities for instant loss of credibility. Interesting times!!

Bar Alastair Darling

Alastair Darling has annoyed one pub landlord enough with his increase in tax on alcohol he has started a campaign which has spread virally around the blogosphere. The original details are available here. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Darling did find himself barred from every pub in the UK, it woudl be real evidence of the power of the people and the public sphere. Do pass the link on to your landlord, especially if you do know that (a) Mr Darling goes to the pub and (b) you know which one!

UPDATE: didn't realise how viral this one was on Saturday morning as I rushed a post. Yesterday The Telegraph ran a feature on it, love the Simpsons mock-up. As a colleague of mine notes by email "Surely it is a stunt, a psuedo-event, which is then sent around the Internet. In a sense it is no different from when a political party launches a poster during an election and all the media troop over to see it being unvelied and then twenty minutes later two blokes come along and paste over the next paying ad. Or when a trade union get a van with pigs and a trough to stop outside Parliament to campaign about bosses getting their snouts in the trough. They are all really non-events, they only happen if the media turn up, and the rest of us see it through the lens of a camera. Similarly i think that is exactly what the Alistair Darling thing is, but this time the media is the Internet. If we don't open that email, read that blog or or visit that website has anything really happened?" Is this the emergent power of the blogosphere as a public sphere?

is 'DULL' good politics?

Norman Smith looks forward to the Budget and predicts it is to be "deliberately dull", his reason is that "people want is steady-as-you-go, sober common sense. Or, put another way, dull, dull, dull." Or perhaps actually what the people want is honesty. Brown's last budget was described by opponents as a con-trick; no-one wants that do they? One former chancellor presented a fascinating argument at an academic conference, it involved building blocks. He produced three stacks and said "right, here is the budget for the health service, this is defence, this is for the police; you want more money for the health service that's fine, which budget shall I take a million from?" He went on to explain that is the job of the Chancellor, but would it not be refreshing if a Chancellor actually stood up and explained his or her thinking in simple layman's terms? Too many budgets give with one hand while picking the public pockets with the other; the reason is to openly state a requirement to increase income tax is a vote loser. Are people really that unsophisticated (well, perhaps), but if someone did step forward and state their arguments for increasing tax and why it is going to benefit the people would it be better than obfuscating and spinning? It perhaps would not be dull, but it might be better politics.

It's all about credibility

The Northern Rock crisis has haunted Alastair Darling and Gordon Brown despite it being a problem that is not of their making. The current problem is though that the prime minister and his Chancellor have failed to be seen to act in a determined and proactive way. I do not suggest that their actions are not the result of careful weighing up of the options and thinking through the possible strategies and their outcomes, the problem is that the communication seems to be failing to make them appear credible. Thus, while Darling et al may (or may not) be in control, Osborne's comments that he has "no credibility" as chancellor and is now "politically a dead man walking" may well have more resonance than Darling's response that it was "cynical opportunism with a pretty thin veneer of abuse". The Sunday Times interpreted poll results to create the headline 'Alistair Darling must go, say voters'. The Yougov poll shows that 57% of respondents think Brown is doing a bad job; 31% said that Cameron and Brown could be most trusted to raise their standard of living (only 25% said the same of Brown & Darling), and 44% think Darling should be replaced. Regardless of the caveats related to opinion polls, it seems Brown and darling have lost the one unique selling point Labour had, the credibility that comes with managerial competence: is there a way back?

What is the role of a government?

It seems that increasingly governance is about managerialism, and the perceived competent management of the bureaucracy of state, than driving forward an ideological vision; perhaps it was ever thus and those who deny the fact are idealists kidding themselves. However the recent criticism of Alastair Darling highlights some of these issues.

Darling's competence is called into question because a junior civil servant did not follow sensible procedure when handling sensitive information. I presume the junior was sacked, his boss resigned, but should the minister join them? Do we expect the Minister to accept responsibility for everything that occurs within departments for which he is nominally responsible or is he the person that reports to parliament. In other words can and should a Minister abrogate responsibility on departmental minions or accept responsibility for the fact that there are insufficient checks on procedure?

And this is not solely a New Labour problem, though it is an easy way to attack a government that seems to be losing public support for existing (the boredom with this lot factor). It was this same question that Michael Howard faced as Home Secretary when prisoners wandered out of Dartmoor with their own set of keys. His role, and whether he had personally intervened in guiding the governor, was famously the subject of the famous Paxman interview where the question was asked a ridiculous amount of times.

Hence the question can be depoliticised as being about what any Minister should do. Should we set a standard for competence that can be deemed the responsibility of either the department or the Minister? Failure of policy seems logical, though of course proof of failure is difficult; but if a Minister sets out guidance which is then not followed, should they be responsible. What would happen within a company? What is something a Director of CEO would resign for? Would they face political point scoring, as every minister has throughout the last 30-40 yrs, or media pressure to be accountable?

The bottom line, is Darling responsible? Should he go? If so, on what grounds?

Its down to Darling and Osborne

Predictions of an immediate election are now being downplayed, of course Gordon Brown had to see what impact the Conservative conference would have. He enjoyed a bounce after his, now it is the Cameron/Osborne bounce we are witnessing. With Osborne's tax cuts playing well in the marginals, and the newspapers showing a favourable disposition to the Conservatives for the first time in about 15 years, calling an election now would be madness for Brown.

A tentative prediction! Alastair Darling is to complete a spending review, within that inheritance tax will be cut and a policy on non-doms (non domicile earners) will be announced. The review will look at reducing public spending and so reducing tax, this will take the wind out of Conservative's sails and then Brown will call an election. Odds on for May 2008.

This may prove utterly wrong and Sunday will see Brown call an election, if he does it is highly risky and will give him three-four weeks to get himself back up the polls. The only reason he might is if he foresees an economic collapse; if that is imminent then he may well want to lose a snap election, let Cameron and Osborne take the credibility hit, and see what happens. But Brown is a man who seems to have had his eye on the job of PM for a long time, it is doubtful he will give it up easily.