The Lives of Others

90 minutes is a long time in politics

Chris West — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:26:00 GMT

There was much debate over the weekend as to how the three Presidential-style debates will run, and what tactical approach the candidates should adopt.

Speaking on Sunday, Charles Kennedy recommended his successor “take risks” against an expectedly cautious position from his opponents. Though Lib Dem MPs defending small majorities would no doubt advise against a cavalier “nothing to lose” approach.

The real difference to the US equivalents of course is having three parties not two. With a cast of two, its more straight forward – beat the other guy. Though there is still a decision to make about how aggressive to be (a particular issue in the Vice Presidential debate, where commentators forecast the experienced Joe Biden losing popular support if he was seen to be “beating up” on Sarah Palin, a much less accomplished speaker), it’s a lot simpler when there’s only one person to deal with.

With all three parties represented, how the three interact with each other is a grey area for party strategists. For example, though Labour and the Lib Dems aren’t on as close terms as there were during much of the nineties, a recent Newsnight interview between the three Health Spokespeople saw Burnham and Lamb gang up aggressively on Lansley. Yet when the debate moves on to the Government’s record, it’ll be the Lib Dems and Conservatives who are naturally joining forces.

With the three debates lasting for 90 minutes each, it could well be that interest starts to wane towards the end. For long periods, the US Presidential debates involved the candidates giving long detailed answers to the presenter, rather than having a direct debate with their opponent. If the upcoming debates start to turn into extra long episodes of Newsnight, they’ll miss their objective of re-engaging the public in the election process.

So maybe so creative formatting is required? Final debate set out like the Jerry Springer show, maybe? “Please welcome David to the show, he’s fed up with Gordon telling everyone he’s posh, and says he should focus on why all his colleagues are scared of him…”

Saint Norman and the Dragon

Chris West — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:29:00 GMT

Better late than never – with all the debate on spring Conferences and the latest polls, I fear scant coverage was given to big political story of last week.

Disturbed by a parade celebrating Chinese New Year, Lord Tebbit became involved in a minor altercation with one of the participants. The Peer claimed self defence against an aggressor, saying “I’ve never been jostled by a dragon before.”

Analysts were keen to point out that in fact, Lord Tebbit has still to be jostled by an actual dragon, and that he had in fact fallen for the age-old trap of mistaking a fire-breathing mythical beast for a small child wearing fancy dress.

Natural historians were happy to provide further clarity*, stating that “the size of the dragon in question should have indicated that it was unlikely to be real. That, and the fact it was playing a drum. With no opposable thumb, and therefore no precision grip, no reptile (mythical or otherwise) would be able to even pick up a drum stick, let alone beat out a shoe-tapping rhythm”.

Lord Tebbit has since apologised, and the incident has been thankfully resolved without the need for an unnecessary slaying.

*Probably

Handbags and dishrags

Chris West — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:16:00 GMT

Childish outbursts from political figures are like lame jokes about London buses – months go by with everyone being quietly content, then suddenly everyone’s dipping in.

Fresh on the back of the Twitter/scum debacle (consulting my “political incident moniker guide”, I’m obliged to refer to it as “scum-gate”, “scum.com” or “a Wright–Pickles”) comes UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, offering his refreshing insights into the new President of the European Council.

“Farage hates something European” barely counts as news, so the former UKIP leader added some colour to his appraisal of the former PM of Belgium, comparing him to a dish rag and a low grade bank clerk.

As an MEP he’s entitled to his opinion on European matters, though seeking to gain publicity by personalising the attack seems slightly juvenile, regardless of the fact that comparisons to bank staff could be applied to many MEPs, including Mr Farage.

Farage will continue his indignant stand throughout the week and the episode descends into handbags at 10 paces, chasing the formal disciplinary action he desires to keep the story going. But in a lesson to those who allow themselves to get riled by such baiting, Herman Van Rompuy has maintained a dignified silence throughout. Whatever your views on the EU and the Lisbon Treaty, Herman Van Rompuy is an honest and decent politician, and is entitled to a modicum of respect.

Get back to work

Chris West — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:04:00 GMT

We all have certain triggers that send us flying off in a fit of rage – car alarms going off outside our office window, multiple exclamation marks, MK Dons, etc. When the issue of MPs’ working hours comes up for discussion, the public response is often a rant about 12 week summer holidays – this week’s consideration to reduce this may help to placate the angry mob.

Yes, Party Conference season gets in the way. No, MPs don't really spend 12 weeks on a yacht in the Mediterranean. Yes, the two week September sittings of recent years seemed a bit piecemeal. But at a time when faith in the political institutions is at its lowest ebb, some genuine action to curtail the (perceived) 12 weeks of inactivity would be a step in the right direction.

Allowing the public to vote on debates is another positive step – presuming of course steps are taken to ensure we aren’t subjected to MPs sitting through hours of debates on recognising the Jedi religion (never underestimate what a nation of bored students can pull off when they put their mind to it).

Many of the leading players in Parliament appear to be approaching this debate with an open mind, so watch this space – the times could be a changin’. Or at least, MPs have agreed to debate further the relative pros and cons of a changin’ some of the times. Still, step by step…

Back to (playground) basics

Chris West — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:51:00 GMT

“You and your mates are scum.” “Sir, he called me scum.” “No I didn’t, I wasn’t even there.” “Prove it.” “YOU prove it” Ah, the dulcet tones of reasoned debate from the home of democracy. With the political debate temporarily regressing back to the world of conkers, cabbage patch kids and jumpers for goalposts, one could be fearful for new crime statistics based on wedgie attacks and ink flicking.

When the day’s debate moves away from health, education and the economy to who called who “scum” on the internet, there’s only one course of action: run far, run fast. Because if it continues and escalates, many disinterested voters won’t remember who started it, who first made a juvenile comment (or not, legal fans) online, who lied about what – it becomes a case of whoever wins, we all lose.

Though this will almost certainly end up as a storm in a tea cup, it won’t escape the Labour leadership that a serious error of judgement was made by someone (to be determined) with access to the account in question. Any more of it, and the culprits can expect suspended from Parliament Primary School (for a maximum of five years).

Election bingo - let the games begin!

Chris West — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:04:00 GMT

Rejoice! The election campaign is well and truly under way. While Labour and the Tories pledged to fight an honest campaign free of jargon and catchphrases, within hours there were accusations of “dodgy dossiers” and “funding black holes”. So, in order to make the campaigning months fly by, why not indulge in a spot of election bingo? Tick off your favourite terms if/when they arise in media debate, and your Newsnight viewing will instantly be injected with the fun and excitement usually reserved for Eurovision.

Simply tune in to any debate and tick off the terms below if/when they arise:

- Hard working families (hang on, who’s courting the lazy family vote?)

- Tax payers

- Hard working tax payers

- Cloud cuckoo land

- Priority

- Number one priority

- Black hole

- Meltdown

- Sums

- Sums not “adding up”

- 1997

- Unprecedented

- Growth

- Failure

- Waste

- Success

This is by no means an exhaustive list – let me know if there’s anything you’d like to include on your bingo card.

The blame game - whoever wins, we all lose

Chris West — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:34:00 GMT

Time for a good old fashioned economy drive. Which means its time to go after the favourite targets – quangos (more fun to burn than witches), and those fat cats masquerading as bankers and senior civil servants. But hang on a minute. Whilst there are certainly positions in the civil service where large salaries need to be justified, is a “naming and shaming” of such positions, as suggested by the PM this week, the most progressive step to take?

If a senior civil servant is regarded as being overpaid at £100,000, does responsibility for the situation lie with the individual who took the salary offered, or the budget holder who agreed to the final figure? Tighter auditing of such salaries is to be welcomed, but blaming the individuals in post seems to be an unfair and misdirected use of the stick – I can’t think of many in the public or private sector who’ve accepted a job on the proviso that the offered salary is lowered.

Yes, we need to lose some of the public spending. But lets not lose our manners and common sense as well.

Football still governed by self interest

Chris West — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:13:00 GMT

Imagine in a time of economic hardship, a Government introducing a policy specifically to benefit the richest 10%, whilst also drastically reducing social mobility, protecting the “haves” and placing a glass ceiling on the “have nots”. Such a ridiculous scheme wouldn’t even get discussed in the political world (God bless democracy) but in the progressively more business centred Premiership, such standards of common sense and fairness are minor inconveniences, easily swept aside.

The proposal to restructure the top division of English football is supposed to more fairly distribute income between Premiership teams. You know, the 20 teams in England who benefit from the world’s most lucrative TV deal. Anything in the plans for the lower sides, many of whom worry daily about their very survival? No. Oh, except the restriction of promotion and relegation in and out of the new Premiership – that should stop those small teams barging their way into the elite, just because they dare to win a few games.

What makes the scheme even more unappealing is its sponsor, Phil Gartside, Chairman of Bolton Wanderers. Currently sitting 1 point above relegation after two years of struggling, one could speculate on his motivation to close off the unpleasant possibility of relegation from the Premiership.

The Premiership is the financially second most powerful league in world behind Spain. Plans to look after the top clubs totally ignore the needs of teams lower down the system. Furthermore, plans to restrict promotion into and relegation out of the top league kills off any hope for smaller clubs hoping to emulate Wimbledon and Oxford’s rise in the 1980s, or the more recent efforts of Reading, Wigan and Hull.

The continued existence of these teams is essential in supporting the national game at the grassroots level, as well as protecting the valuable role such clubs play in their local communities. A fairer division of resources between the entire professional game, not just the top 20, would give those at the bottom much needed security. By focusing his financial plan solely on the richest clubs, Gartside’s scheme is another step on the march towards the Premiership’s global domination, totally ignoring the rest. No-one could disagree with his statement that the gap between the top two divisions is increasing, but his solution to protect the bottom of the Premiership from the “fear factor” of relegation rather than establishing a more level playing field for those trying to get into it, simply exacerbates the division.

The first part of his plan, to introduce Rangers and Celtic into the top division, was rejected by Premiership Chairman today. It can only be hoped that the rest of the proposals are also promptly hoofed into row Z.

Deselection fuelled by sub-standard Googling

Chris West — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:38:00 GMT

Yesterday saw confirmation from South West Norfolk Conservatives that they are to hold a deselected ballot to decide whether their candidate Elizabeth Truss will be allowed to stand, following concerns that she withheld information about an affair with a former Shadow Minister.

An extraordinary story, it raises a series of questions for the local party – “so what?”, “who cares?” and “can you please stop burgling our time?” for example.

The South West Norfolk-ites aren’t calling for the deselection of Mark Field, so presumably their belated research has concluded the affair was all her fault – an enlightened view from the days of witch-burning.

But even if you agree that this affects her ability to be an MP, it's staggering they can claim the information was withheld. In an era where the internet has bought research/stalking to the computers of the masses, the most basic of internet searches would have revealed the information – she can hardly be blamed for choosing not to lead with it in her selection speech.

The fact that the local party are prepared to publicly acknowledge the weakness of their own Googling skills shows just how high they regard their moral stance, which just makes them look even more ridiculous.

2,000 years on, maybe its time we forgave womankind for Eve’s misdemeanours in the Garden of Eden and all moved on?

Attack of the Tomorrowmentarians

Chris West — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:52:00 GMT

Whilst perusing the latest issue of PR Week, I came across the word “tomorrowmentarian”. Presumably descending from Latin (“tomorium” meaning “to represent”, and “mentaria” meaning “the year to come”), its a historically underused term referring to the elected representatives of the future.

But if its here to stay, we’d better get used to it – I don’t want to get accused of being a yestergenarian, or get left behind with the Octoberistas. And as for those Last-Thursdarinos…

Limbaugh knocked out of bounds

Chris West — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:20:00 GMT

Sport has never been a good mixer. Sport and music? A walk down misery lane with Suggs and Chas n’ Dave for company. Sport and film? When proponents throw out Happy Gilmore and Escape to Victory (“so bad its good!”) you know they're on shaky ground.

Politics is no different. From Thatcher’s ham-fisted attempts to deal with hooliganism to David Mellor’s horrifying efforts as host of football phone-in 606, politicians’ getting involved in sport will always be viewed with a combination of suspicion and rage.

And its no different in America. This week, the NFL was rocked by news that right wing shock-jock Rush Limbaugh was part of a group of invested looking to buy the St Louis Rams. The involvement of Limbaugh, who has a track record of making highly controversial statements about black players in the NFL, has been heavily criticised by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, as well as several leading figures from within the game.

As is often the case, this overlap of sport and politics was short lived – Limbaugh was dropped by the consortium yesterday. Time for a short period of quiet reflection? “This is not about me. This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism,” he said yesterday. Maybe the quiet reflection will begin next week…

Governments may change but public affairs myths do not

Chris West — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:18:00 GMT

With an anticipated change of governing party next year, there has been a sudden increase in “think pieces” on how this will affect the public affairs industry. A new Government will of course bring about new policy priorities, but some still consider the colour of the ruling party to be crucial in determining the ability of a consultant to do their job. To put this view across, they build their arguments on a series of myths that often further damage the reputation of the public affairs industry.

Myth One: Party affiliation is a significant strength (or weakness) in a consultant’s skill set.

The best consultants are those that understand Government policy, who the decision makers are, and understand how a campaign can fit within this context – I’ve seen these drawn up by excellent consultants of all political colours. To imply that you need to have personal contacts to a ruling party in order to do this is absurd, and is exactly the approach that many outside (and inside) the industry find so unappealing. Furthermore, it provides ammunition for all the external attacks on public affairs as an “old boys’ network” by those calling for greater transparency.

Of course, staff from all parties is important to ensure you have a balance in the team, and intelligence from party contacts is always useful. But to imply that lobbyists benefit significantly from personally knowing the party in charge is ludicrous. By definition, their argument implies that Conservative public affairs professionals have been doing nothing but contact reports and photocopying since 1997, yearning for the day when they might finally have something to contribute.

Myth Two: Personal contacts matter

A client is likely to be far more impressed if you can demonstrate you have a professional working relationship with decision makers, rather than being an old mate. By earning the trust of politicians of all parties through a series of well planned, credible campaigns, you’re in a far stronger position than name dropping people from your rolodex.

If your campaign is timely, relevant and resonates with your audience, it will succeed. If your campaign relies on the support of personal contacts, it's simply not strong enough.

Myth Three: Contact with the centre of the ruling party is key

So much of modern public affairs will involve running campaigns that have cross party support within Parliament, as well as endorsement from outside. And with greater devolution of power to grass roots decision makers, engaging with non government agencies and local stakeholders will be more significant than ever.

Myth Four: Conservative lobbyists will have the upper hand from next May

Any Conservative lobbyist who thinks their job will be easier, and any Labour lobbyist who thinks their job will be harder hasn’t been doing their job properly for the past 12 years.

Three signs your conference isn't as popular as it used to be

Chris West — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:13:00 GMT

1. On leaving the security area at 2am, there are more binge drinking freshers week students than binge drinking politicos.

2. The number of single issue campaigners hovering round the entrance hall plummets, forcing tobacco-banning, water fluoridation-evangelising, hunting enthusiasts to head to Wikipedia for their policy briefings.

3. The entertainment bookings dry up – sets of children armed with violins replace the classic acts of yester year, such as the historic billing of Nelson Mandela supported by Gabrielle.

Communist death panels and the future of American healthcare

Chris West — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:29:00 GMT

The fears of the 1950s have become reality. As predicted, the domino effect of communism has continued with devastating results – China, Cuba, Vietnam, and now America.

Barack Obama’s proposals to address the gigantic health inequalities in the US has received the panicking and scare-mongering that would be expected from the American right – look out for trigger words such as “socialized”, “liberal” and “faceless bureaucrats” (run for your life, they’ve got no faces!).

Sarah Palin has chipped in with her own unique interpretation of the President’s proposals to improve healthcare for the poorest Americans. She’s been hard at work creating the concept of “death panels”, whereby the sick and elderly appear in front of bureaucrats to plead for their life based on their productivity and value to society (if you have five spare minutes, have a look here at the Daily Show's take on the idea).

Her death panel accusations are striking a chord with some, such as the protestor this week who crafted the banner “Obama lies, grandma dies”. It wasn’t made explicitly clear, but I’m going to assume he wasn’t one of the 47 million Americans who can’t afford healthcare insurance.

But the debate has now begun to tie in the British political parties. Following Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan’s appearance on Fox News, during which he called the NHS “a 60 year mistake”, David Cameron was forced on to BBC News to reiterate his party’s commitment to the NHS. Both he and Andrew Lansley have given robust defences of Conservative health policy today as you would expect, but both must be furious that their work to position the Conservatives as the party of the NHS has been challenged by a relatively minor figure within their own party.

He may not speak for the party leadership, but Hannan’s new role as Fox News’ British poster boy may cause concern for Cameron – a sharp dressing down maybe required to ensure he gets back on board, in public at least.

Who do the Tax Payers' Alliance speak for?

Chris West — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:49:00 GMT

This week, the issue of “Government lobbying Government” has returned to the news agenda. I use the inverted commas deliberately, as this phrase is often used to cover public sector bodies doing any engagement with anyone – NGOs, the media, the public at large – and the image of tax-funded organisations spending their (your!) money on schmoozing MPs is more often than not completely unrepresentative of how the public sector operate.

My issue with the story is the manner in which the Tax Payers’ Alliance are presented without challenge as a watchdog speaking for all tax payers. They're not. They’re a right-of-centre group campaigning for tax reduction, and many tax payers disagree with many of their beliefs.

This isn’t to down play their report’s conclusions, or their right to join, and in this case, lead the debate. But when a spokesperson from the Adam Smith Institute or Compass is interviewed, their organisation is always introduced as “right/left of centre policy group” in order to set their argument in context.

The TPA are against taxes and big government, so their conclusions on public spending are hardly surprising, and certainly not impartial. Positioning TPA as spokespeople for the masses hugely distorts the coverage the media have given them.

Of course tax payers’ money should be spent efficiently, and where its wasted there is genuine cause for outcry. We should have a debate about public money, but all cards should be on the table before we start.