Politics
New year, new problems, but nobody will gain from the malaise
Published 17 January 2008
Mendacity, stupidity or audacity? Peter Hain has been accused of all three. "Audacity" has been used most regularly to describe his career. How dare this uppity South African, a Liberal to boot, court controversy within the Labour Party? How dare he broach the question of raising the basic rate of tax (a suggestion for which he was mauled by Gordon Brown in 2003)? How dare he describe George W Bush as the most right-wing US president in living memory (in January 2007)? How dare he stand for the deputy leadership?
Hain has always displayed an admirable willingness to speak out (although this has rarely been backed up by action, as in his acquiescence to the Iraq War). It is right that the Electoral Commission and Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards be given time to investigate the charges. If we wish for scrutiny of our politicians, then what is the point of condemning MPs in kangaroo courts? If these inquiries find Hain culpable and he is required to resign, parliament will be deprived of a colourful figure, reinforcing a sense that safety and sameness are the preconditions for success.
This furore gives rise to other concerns. For the Tories to lead the charge against Hain is a brazen case of double standards. It is not just the failure of George Osborne and other senior figures to declare donations in the Register of Members' Interests. It is not just David Cameron's various misdemeanours. It is the fact that at the top of the Tory party stands one man as political playmaker and bankroller. The role of Michael Ashcroft has rightly caused Labour considerable anger, and it should be investigated further.
It is manifestly in the interest of all parties to reconvene to discuss new funding rules, and for the Electoral Commission and parliamentary authorities to iron out the present problems. Brown has nothing to gain from this malaise - the Hain affair detracted from a solid start to the new year. But neither does Cameron. As they enjoy a steady lead in the polls, the Conservatives should be looking forward to 2008 with relish. Except that it isn't that simple - and Cameron knows it. Christmas called a halt to their march, giving Labour two weeks to regroup. For the Liberal Democrats the break was particularly unwelcome, as Nick Clegg was unable to use his leadership victory as a springboard.
All parties have to maintain momentum for the next two years and four months until the most likely date of the next general election. Brown will keep grinding away, and each new policy or initiative, each reaction to a domestic or world event keeps him in the spotlight. Opposition parties struggle for such exposure. If Cameron tries too hard for television airtime he will be accused of opportunism. If he puts forward too many policies, the best ones will be cherry-picked by the government. If he goes quiet he will be accused of lacking ideas. Moreover, by May 2010 the Tory leader will look anything but new or fresh.
Brown appears to have opted for old-fashioned grit over "vision". Making a virtue of necessity, the PM appears to be playing to a miserabilist mood. He does not seek to talk down the potential for economic woe in the year ahead. While implying that the chill winds are coming squarely from abroad, he assures the British public that its savings and mortgages are safe with him.
The most intriguing recent development was the assertion by Stephen Byers that Tony Blair's most avid supporters will stand by Brown through thick and thin. If this turns out to be true (and caution is advisable), it renders comparisons between Brown and John Major redundant. Major's authority was undermined by his own party. Brown has the support of most of his party. He should welcome the conciliatory mood and accept that he has nothing to gain from picking fights with his own MPs. He has left the door slightly ajar on his plans to extend pre-trial custody, and has hinted at concessions over ID cards.
All signs point to a year of austerity. The first two weeks of 2008 - Northern Rock, public sector pay disputes, funding scandals - have already shown that it will not be pretty. It is unlikely to gladden the heart, but, if Brown plays it right, it might just bring a modicum of success.
Stop spinning the record
If heard to utter a filthy expression, children used to be ordered to wash their mouths out with soapy water. Our MPs appear to be luckier. When Hansard recorded that the armed forces minister, Bob Ainsworth, had made an unusual interjection in a House of Commons debate - the words "absolute bollocks", to be precise - the Speaker ordered it be changed. "It is not possible to establish what was said from a sedentary position during the Honourable Member's speech," he ruled.
Ainsworth denies he said anything of the sort, and Hansard now merely notes that there was an "interruption", although some present remain convinced that, from wherever it issued, unparliamentary language did indeed foul the chamber's air. But this is not the first time Hansard has spared politicians' blushes. In 2002, the Australian version expunged one MP's description of another as "a really big C".
Attlee's foreign secretary Ernest Bevin could have been grateful that instant internet reports were not available in the 1940s, when the record regularly omitted - oh, innocent times - Bevin's invocations of the Almighty.
Isn't it time Hansard changed its account to read "strictly", not "substantially", verbatim? Should a profanity be heard, we could rely on that pantomime dame manqué, the Speaker, to deliver with dignity the admonition once received weekly by Ronnie Corbett in the television series Sorry!: "Language, Timothy!"
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
