Should we question the ethics?

In a piece for The Sun newspaper, Conservative leader David Cameron writes on the repercussions from the Independent enquiry into the tragic death of Baby P (or should we now call him by his name: Peter?). Firstly Cameron salutes those who supported his call for the enquiry "More than 1.3million signed The Sun Baby P petition, each name a cry for justice. Yesterday, those cries were answered. The sackings, suspensions, resignations were long overdue..." he also asks a range of questions concluding these with "The army of Sun readers who signed their names to that petition want answers to these questions, and so do I. It’s thanks to pressure from this paper that we’ve got this far, but we’ve got to keep pushing for the truth... And we’ve got to keep fighting to make the safety net stronger for other vulnerable children". Here he positions himself alongside the Sun's editors and the readers who have signed the petition.

The problem is that, apart from demanding an enquiry that is Independent from Haringey council, there is no indication of how David Cameron would prevent further deaths apart from ensuring there is punishment not just for the perpetrators but also "those who allow children to come to harm", the social workers etc. But here is the question. Is this ethical. The Sun will call for punitive punishment in its role as populist newspaper appealing to the 'man in the street'; it is no different from also calling for the death penalty for certain crimes or the News of the World fear camapign about paedophiles living among us on licence - one which led to the house of a paediatrician being attacked. The media can get away with this, however it is equally easy for an opposition politician to attack a system in the full knowledge that they may not be able to do any better if they were in power. This is a highly emotive and tragic case that has already been described as a political football, and it seems Cameron has scored most of the goals. However, it is easy to oppose unconstructively and tarnish an already struggling government's reputation further while eliding yourself with mass public opinion. However democracy and the running of the state should work on reasoned and rational debate, is it ethical to join an emotionally charged debate, is this simply about chasing polls, and if so does this raise serious ethical questions.

There is nothing to suggest that any other party would not act in a similar way, by the way, it is a mainstay of permanent political campaigning; the question is should this be a norm of modern politics or should they the politicians ensure there is a more considered level of debate than one that is unable to think beyond 'hanging the bastards'?

What is the point of PMQs?

It may be a controversial statement, but it is my opinion that the tradition of Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) has no democratic function whatsoever. Why do I say that?

1. Firstly, it would be wrong that the only opportunity for parliament to bring the leader of Her Majesty's Government to account would be within a couple of hours per week when short questions only can be asked and, for the majority of MPs, this is a single question that has no relation to any ongoing debate.
2. Secondly, the majority of questions from the members of the Labour Party are planted to allow the prime minister to give a good account of himself. A couple of questions I viewed today could easily have been worded "would my Honourable friend agree that the leader of the Opposition got it wrong again".
3. Thirdly, it is a huge media spectacle broadcast live on BBC TV and online and so not simply closeted away on the Parliamentary Channel and so each participant plays a role in the drama. Often the performance of a party leader is related to their performance at PMQs, particularly if they asked a difficult question of the prime minister.
4. Fourthly, and lastly at this point, it is really all about permanent campaigning and party politics. Opposition leaders and MPs must take this opportunity to publicly score points against the prime minister and diminish his standing and enhance their own; the prime minister needs to enhance his standing: and so it goes.

Today Cameron raised the tragic case of Baby P, Brown talked of procedure, investigations and reports rather than ensuring as of now such a failure in the protection of a vulnerable child could never happen again and accused David Cameron of playing party politics with a child's life. The ensuing few moments (watch here) of the debate saw Cameron getting increasingly angry at that claim and (possibly) taking the opportunity to score further points with Brown saying yes it was terrible but procedure was in place, investigations were going to happen. It was not exactly a high point for democracy and the great institution of our parliament.

But the problem is not solely about the way Brown responded. It is about the context of what PMQs has become. Brown has spent most of his time as prime minister on the back foot defending himself against people who are often better performers than he is. He hides behind procedure and argues that the right response will emerge from a measured process of deliberation and investigation, that is what he is about. He is unable to act the emotional leader expressing public grief at Baby P's brutal murder at the hands of her parents, not is he able to slam Haringey council's operatives who failed to prevent that murder, it must all be investigated. His response may seem inadequate, and indeed it lacked warmth or compassion so it was indeed a huge failure of communication; but it is also a failure of the PMQ bearpit style of attack and counter attack. At the end of the day the truth is nothing will be done for a long time as the failure needs investigating, but you cannot say that; the easy option is to make the other guy look as if he is playing politics with lives, but that can have repercussions not just on the person attacked but also the attacker. The verdict on Brown will probably be pretty bad based on today's performance, evidence from the Have Your Say section of the BBC News website suggests already this is the case:

1303: Have Your Say "The prime minister has shown his complete lack of tact, discretion and decency during this debate. He's a one-trick pony; an ex-chancellor - and, unfortunately for British tax payers - he's never been any good at that either." 'Pavillionend', Canterbury.