The Resurrection of TINA

It is time for the old Thatcherite mantra ‘There is no alternative’ to be resurrected given its relevance to the new Lib Con coalition Government, what the new Prime Minister likes to call a new form of politics.

The coalition is not what one would have expected given the divide between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats but what was the alternative? The other permutations had little if any chance of success and with the benefit of hindsight (now the most widespread of British attributes) the Labour party appears to be comfortable in opposition taking a rest from the burden of government.

Many Lib Dems have been angered, some even joining or re-joining the Labour party putting principle above pragmatism but politics is about power and making the right judgement at the right time. In doing so concessions have been made by the Conservatives allowing them to ditch some of the promises they probably wish they had not made and the Lib Dems have been given the opportunity put some of their policies into practice. Added to which, the cherished dream of a change in the voting system is much closer with Nick Clegg in charge of making arrangements for the promised referendum. It would be absurd if their party were to fragment now with the possibility of change on the horizon.

More important though is the urgent need to sort out the country’s economic difficulties without causing public anger. The best options for achieving this were explored and a deal done with apparent good will on both sides. In checking reactions to the deal I noticed that Dick Littlejohn of the Mail Online with his usual lack of grace accuses Gordon Brown of dragging British Politics into the sewer. Since he spends most of his time swimming in it he must be best placed though with something large in his eye obscuring natural vision. God forbid that I should have anything in common with the odious little man or his newspaper but even he agrees that everyone has a vested interest in making the coalition work.

There is no alternative.

Two Faces

Oliver Letwin’s face was a picture when William Hague announced that the Tories had ‘gone the extra mile’ to promise an Alternative Vote referendum. Written all over it was the sense that government was slipping from their grasp and Lord Ashcroft might ask for his money back. No surprise that the Tories made their concession only after Gordon Brown fell on his sword in the public interest to pave the way for the so-called ‘rainbow’ progressive alliance if the Tory/Lib Dem talks fail.

It has been reported that in order to make this concession David Cameron had to agree that the Tory Right would be represented in any cabinet probably with three seats. One of the names mentioned was that of their former primo uomo, Michael Howard, famously described by the great Tory diva, Ann Widdecombe, as having ‘something of the night about him’. An odd choice given the Tories frequently expressed views in this campaign about rejected politicians.

Throughout the campaign I have thought that David Milliband had a knowing look about him, like the King in waiting. He may yet be but for how long with such an assortment of minor parties needed to maintain a majority. Concessions required by them may be unrealistic leaving us in a worse mess. If the Tory party can satisfy Lib Dem anxieties and the threat of gerrymandering has been completely removed it seems reasonable that they should have their chance to form a government. What a disaster for their leader if that does not happen. So close to the ultimate prize of Prime Minister yet he could, as Ann Robinson might put it before she winks off to the news, “Mr Cameron, you go away with nothing. Goodbye!”

Postscript

With a decision expected it is interesting to see on the BBC News another change of face by Oliver Letwin resuming his previous broad grin. Deal done?

What They Won’t Tell Us

Unlike the previous ‘Leaders’ debates I found this evening’s Election Uncovered: What They Won’t Tell Us programme on Channel 4 very illuminating and didn’t drop off once this time. I was initially concerned about an unexplained empty chair and the absence of Shirley Williams, one of my long time favourite politicians regardless of party (she was one of the SDP’s ‘Gang of Four’). Seeing her name as a participant was one of my reasons for watching. The other being that, as usual, there was nothing else worth viewing despite the myriad channels we appear to have on NTL plus Freesat, but that is another story. Fortunately the Baroness turned up half way through the programme having been caught up in a traffic accident.

Unlike the personality contest that the ‘Leaders’ debates had become, this programme looked at the hard choices that have to be made by the next Government. Four polls were conducted for the programme: Economic Recovery where 58% thought that we were on the road to recovery; Honesty in Politics where 60% thought politicians less honest than they used to be. On the question of believing the Party leaders telling the truth about the tough decisions about cuts, 38% trusted Gordon Brown, 36% trusted David Cameron and 53% trusted Nick Clegg.

On Pensions people were offered the choice between working for longer or having a higher standard of living. Of those polled 61 % opted to work longer and 23 % lower standard of living.

In what was perhaps the most surprising poll, 70% thought it perfectly possible to make cuts without harming Front line services. This was the most illuminating part of the programme clearly demonstrating that tough choices have to be made and how the parties have been reluctant to be honest with the electorate, hence the high vote.

Some people, including the Governor of the Bank of England, have suggested that whoever forms the next government will be so unpopular that they will not be re-electable. That would serve the best interests of no-one. A possible solution, ironically mentioned by Shirley Williams after her late arrival, was that there should be an inter-party unity team to agree a consensus for dealing with the financial crisis. The final show of hands vote was for a hung parliament which could be the best chance of achieving such a consensus.

What is clear is that the ‘Something for nothing’ mentality of many Britons, ancient and modern, is unsustainable. Services have to be paid for. Even with the planned efficiency savings tax rises are inevitable. For the sake of unity these must applied equitably to avoid a greater burden on the poor.

Leaders Debate, Round 3

The third debate was a disappointing anticlimax.

Perhaps my expectations had been too high giving way to an overwhelming feeling of boredom. Regardless of the questions asked the session became a re-run of the same over-worked lines, the main variations coming from the party leaders’ deliveries.

At last David Cameron delivered as people had expected him to in the previous debates having observed his performance since becoming leader of the Conservative Party. A polished act, far better than before but I thought it weaker on substance. “Change” is all very well and captures the public mood but change to what? Change for change sake could simply result in us being out of the frying pan and into the fire. If he had demonstrated clearly how his vision for change would be for the better, he may have retained his previous higher poll ratings.

Cameron’s lack of clarity has resulted in the momentum for ‘change’ being transferred to Nick Clegg enabling him to offer the electorate a complete change from the two-party system. The Liberal Democrats had been largely ignored until the Clegg bombshell shook the two main parties, and the media, out of their complacency. He had it all to play for last night but failed to deliver a decisive blow and appeared the least confident of the three. Nevertheless he presented a new, clean image which will appeal to many especially the younger voters.

That leaves Labour's Gordon Brown. Once an image of ‘the Joker’ came to mind, probably as a result of his attempts to appear less dour, I was stuck with it despite the fact that he is the Prime Minister and spoke with the authority of experience in office and an obvious passion for what he believes in. But if people have decided they want a change as the polls imply, he has an up-hill struggle even if John Major did manage to surprise the pollsters. So ‘change’ in one form or another appears almost inevitable.

I applaud the BBC for their staging of the final event but illuminating I think not. The TV debate innovation gave Nick Clegg the opportunity to burst the bubble which will no doubt prick the Cameron conscience for ever if he fails to win an outright majority. The irony of it all is that the mood for change that was latched onto by the opposition looks likely to be expressed in a manner none of the leaders could have anticipated.

Don’t forget to vote for the common good.

Leaders Debate, Round 2

This time I watched the debate on the TV – until my wife found me dozing and transferred me to the computer. I don’t think I missed much so I was surprised at the result of the first poll for the Sun showing that Cameron was the clear winner with 36% of the votes, a result not sustained in other polls I should add. This time I thought the combatants more evenly matched indicating that there had been much hard work in the background since last week.

Again I thought the debate illuminating, not for what was said, but watching the facial expressions and body language when the leaders were not speaking. I thought Cameron looked the least confident, though much better than last week, while Clegg looked the most assured and Brown rather awkward. Most of the audience looked bored stiff with one member desperately trying to conceal a huge yawn.

The ‘get Clegg’ campaign fell badly after the Telegraph’s shameful attempted smear with ‘Twitters’ picking up the thread and blaming Clegg for everything from the death of Kennedy to responsibility for Samantha’s pregnancy. The desperation of the press may be explained by David Yelland, a former editor of the Sun, who explained that previously the Liberal Democrats were deliberately ignored by the press.

Yelland said, “Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.” Hmmm!

Postscript

More than 100 viewers have complained to the broadcasting regulator (Ofcom) accusing the debate Moderator (Sky News political editor Adam Boulton) of breaking strict impartiality rules by raising newspaper reports about political donations paid directly into the Liberal Democrat leader's bank account. There is no suggestion Clegg broke any rules and bank statements were produced to prove it.

Boulton -> Sky -> Murdoch - Hmmm again!

There's another interesting take on the broadcast in this Blog: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/04/sky_leaders_deb.html

PPS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/04/polling.html

- Hmmm yet again.

Losers

Yesterday evening I struggled through the first live debate between the main party leaders and avoided dropping off by keeping an eye on the ITV1 website watching viewers’ comments and their ever changing score card.

Those who said that David Cameron had most to lose were proved correct. Denied his well rehearsed brief he looked distinctly uncomfortable as he listened to what his opponents had to say. Gordon Brown suffered the ‘Nixon effect’ nervously grinning and laughing uncharacteristically in the wrong places while viewers consistently put Nick Clegg ahead with his assured performance.

More surprising though was the Party reactions afterwards. On the BBC News Vince Cable said it as it had appeared while Alan Johnson gave his considered smart response but the ex-boy-star William Hague actually claimed his man the victor. Back on ITV George Osborne was speaking from the same script, perhaps on the basis that if you say the same thing over and over people will begin to believe it. Not this time. The media have seen to that.

But at the end of the day these ‘X’ factor performances should not be about personalities and their delivery but about policies. One of the ironies following the outcome of the debate is that we should now hear more about them and be better able to make an informed judgement thus making the Great British voter the clear winner.

On Newsreaders and Weatherpersons

Perhaps I should have used the title "In Praise of Ben Brown". Increasingly irritated by current news/weather personalities, Ben stands out as an old school model which other media persons would do well to follow. His unassuming reporting and news reading present content without imposing himself. Come back Moira Stewart! Spare us from gesticulating somebodies, unable or unwilling to sit down. We even have some on the fringe channels with just one cheek wedged on a ledge and a laptop perched on a pillar for balance. But I am a BBC man at heart.

As an ancient Briton I have fond memories of those glory days when the original McDonald, McDonald Hobley, resplendent in DJ, and Sylvia Peters looking sufficiently alluring without having to glare seductively into the camera made watching television a pleasure without distracting irritants.

What has triggered this outburst? Principally gesticulating George, OBE - no, not 'other buggers' efforts' as some would have it but an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire no less, though a lot less than the later McDonald, Sir Trevor of the opposition channel.

Whether reading the news or reporting from afar the ever popular George waves his arms about like a graduate from the Toscanini School of Conducting, stabbing here, pointing there as though the news has no impact without his personal intervention. Now they're all at it. And what does he scribble on his script at the half-time break? Probably "Up yours Humphrys!" after the BBC's Rottweiler reportedly said, “You are on air for about four minutes by the time they have taken out all the filmed reports and everything else, reading from an autocue. It's not a job for a grown man, I'm afraid, or woman." Perhaps that is why George pads out his show by dismissing reporters with an "Alright [whoever]" after they've delivered their minor walk on parts. To conclude his bulletin we have a grinning introduction to the football item as if to say, alright we've got over the dull stuff, now for the really interesting bit before you have the news from where you are. Regional and local news perhaps?

And what of today's Weatherpersons? (I avoid the term 'Weatherman' because it will offend those of a delicate PC disposition while 'Weatherwoman' sounds too much like Wonderwoman. - Close!). Apart from the odd exception they illustrate the same flapping trend looking as though they went to a flying school for people with a speech impediment. Arms flying in all directions, they break their sentences into weatherspeak chunks as though two half sentences make for better weather than one. But can that be any worse than the inert who appears to have just got out of bed to deliver a monotonous confidential chat that leaves me groping for the remote? Come back Sian Lloyd, all is forgiven!