Could someone give the chaps from This Morning a beginner’s lesson in citizenship?

Let’s be clear, I know politics is not usually a main topic on ITV’s This Morning. Fair enough. But does that really excuse the absolutely astonishing lack of basic knowledge about our political system displayed by their presenters today? I mean, surely they could at least have let their researchers look into the fundamental principles of this strange form of government we have, before interviewing the Prime Minister on their show, right? Then again, judging by the questions and comments from their audience, I can see why they could be reasonably sure they’d get away with it. But we’ll get to that later.

Now you might be forgiven for thinking that even if you haven’t taken your A-levels in Politics and Government, most people surely know what a parliamentary democracy is. Well, let me tell you, sadly that’s not true. You might also think that at least those people who don’t wouldn’t get very far in their careers. Aaand… wrong again. Actually, they become TV presenters.

A Letter to the Mail

I’ve been intending to write this piece for a while now – for ten days to be precise. Dear Liam Fox, I wanted to start, because as you might remember – or not, in fact, because ten days is a long time in politics – ten days ago, much to his unfeigned surprise I am sure, the defence secretary’s charming letter criticising aid targets was leaked to the press. Now you might also remember that for more than understandable reasons – after all the letter was obviously aimed at the wider public and the far-right of the party rather than him – David Cameron didn’t even bother with an answer. Or maybe he did and it just wasn’t leaked but that amounts to the same, following the basic principle of modern government communication: if it hasn’t been leaked, it could as well not have happened. Anyway, it was such a nice and polite and only ever so slightly populist and inflammatory letter that I thought it deserved an answer. And, heaven knows, I was only too happy to take care of that. But time has this funny habit never to be available in sufficient quantities, and so the letter drafted in my head slowly sank into oblivion.

Thankfully, though, pride of British journalism The Daily Mail joined the debate with predictable enthusiasm and stirred up my irritation once more with its coverage of G8 spending on foreign aid. Britain, the Mail revealed, currently spends more on aid as a percentage of GDP than any other G8 country and shows the strongest commitment to reach the 0.7% target. Now call me naive, but in my world-view that is something to be proud of. And the Mail, I reasoned, likes a bit of national pride, so surely they wouldn’t miss the opportunity to point out that we’re doing a lot better than the French? I had so much to learn.

A big idea?

One of twenty winning essays in the Deloitte Public Pocily Essay Competition 2001

Question: Can ‘Big Society’ replace ‘Big Government’? If not, what other options should be considered to deliver efficient services and help cut the size of the public deficit?

If there is currently one characteristic feature of the Big Society, then it is the lack of characteristic features. It is an idea everyone has vaguely heard of and no one knows what to make of. ‘Decentralisation’, ‘cutting red tape’, ‘people power’ and ‘volunteering’ are the catch phrases associated with it but that is about as far as it goes. Its inventors notoriously fail to communicate their ideas to the media and public which further fuels the belief that it is just a poor attempt to put some icing sugar on the spending cuts anyway. That is too bad. Because despite its vagueness and the resentment and mockery it has provoked so far, we should not dismiss the idea too readily. It does have potential that goes beyond the ideological justification of public spending cuts, but both its supporters and its opponents have yet to fully discover that potential.

Compassionate Tories and the Nasty Welfare State?

When it comes to decontaminating his party’s brand, David Cameron spares no effort. Compassionate Conservatism seems to be one of his favourite catchphrases characterising the new Tories. Only this weekend the prime minister used his speech at the Conservative spring forum to tell the audience that ‘compassion is in our nature. Go to almost any community hall, any neighbourhood association or any charity sale up and down the country and you’ll find members of this party.’ To tell from their reaction, the party faithful enjoyed a bit of flattery after all the unpopularity they are facing in the polls these days. So what is wrong with a little pat on the back from the PM for his suffering party? Maybe, put that way, there is nothing wrong with it. But it’s not so much the new image they try to present that I find worrying. It is the underlying attitude.

We turn if you want to

‘You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.’ One of Margaret Thatcher’s most memorable quotes – and one of the most frequently cited recently. It was met with quite a bit of enthusiasm at the Conservative Party Conference in 1980. And quite rightly so – the pun is pretty good, after all. But apart from our appreciation of word plays, I don’t share much of the cheering crowd’s sentiments.

Just as much, actually, as I share with their contemporary counterparts who seem to interpret the U-turn as some sort of proof of the incompetence of a government. ‘You performed a U-turn!’ is shouted in the same accusive tone as ‘You started an illegal war!’ or ‘You let the banks off the hook… again!’ Political friends and foes alike exclaim their horror (spiced with a considerable amount of schadenfreude in the latter case) at the spineless government, sided by the media, only too keen to predict the looming disaster. And the embarrassed government burries its head in its hands and wonders in despair: ‘What will people think of us now?’