Back to the future

Tweet One of the characteristics of so-called ‘New Labour’ in government was that the solution to everything was always more legislation.  It was often poorly thought through legislation, and didn’t always achieve the claimed outcomes; but it usually achieved the desired political result, which was that the government was seen to be doing ‘something’.

Ed Miliband’s commitment to legislate for leaders’ debates in future elections seemed to me to have come from the same stable.  It’s perhaps even less well thought through than even some of Blair’s efforts, but it gives the impression of reacting decisively to a problem and promising to act.

The proposal is blatant nonsense, of course; but I doubt that Miliband will be over-worried about that.  He’s seen a problem, promised decisive action, and is now moving on.  All his focus groups probably told him that being decisive is a good thing in itself – the ‘about what’ and ‘in which way’ questions are secondary.

On the essence of the issue, I doubt that the public are demanding these debates in the way that the politicians and broadcasters seem to believe.  And I have a suspicion that 7 (or more) way debates are going to be televisual Mogadon, with too little time to explore any issue in depth, deteriorating into a swapping of pre-rehearsed sound bites and insults.  Plenty of artificial heat, and very little light.

None of that matters in the slightest to Miliband or his advisers, because his latest promise isn’t about debates or even about legislation; it’s all about image.  New Labour never really went away at all.

Half a cheer

Tweet I've never been a fan of ASBOs. Like so much of what New Labour was about, they were, first and foremost, a gimmick. They played well with people who were experiencing real problems, and it is too easy for those of us who never liked them to forget those very real problems. But I was never convinced that they were particularly effective, and they often became something of a badge of honour in some circles.

In some cases, they were used to deal with behaviour which was actually criminal, as a substitute for using existing laws; and where they were used in cases of non-criminal behaviour, breaching them could lead to jail - in effect jailing people for something which was never a criminal offence in the first place.

So my first reaction to the announcement that they are to be killed off was positive. But the small print is missing, and I'd like to see it before getting too enthusiastic, since the Government seem to be talking not so much about abolishing them, as about replacing them. And they have yet to spell out how.

Talk of communities working with the police sounds all well and good; but that is nothing new; it happens to a great extent already. (Although it does involve the police spending a lot of time in liaison and discussion sessions. Given some of the other statements made by the Government, it's hard to believe that they're proposing more of that, but the bottom line is that 'working with communities' involves a serious commitment of time and resource.)

The other strand of what the Home Secretary said – 'giving the police the powers they need' – worries me rather more. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until they spell it out; but my first reaction was that it sounds like ASBOs without the controls and checks provided by the courts etc. And that, applied to activities which are not criminal in the first place, would be a huge step backwards, not forward.

Titanic Brown

Tweet I find it hard to comprehend how far Labour have fallen in such a short time. Less than twelve months ago, they looked invincible; I was convinced that Gordon Brown would win an election any time he cared to call one. But now, I don't think he has any chance whatsoever of recovering the situation, and Labour are facing a potential wipeout.

Many in Labour seem to be trying to console themselves with the idea that if it went wrong so suddenly, it could just as easily turn around – they do, after all, have almost two years before an election becomes unavoidable. I think they're being unduly optimistic. There's been a change in mood of the sort which happens from time to time, and I suspect it's become irreversible before the next election.

I now think that Brown is doomed. Labour party MPs are starting to panic, and that just adds to the story line. Talk of replacing Brown is rife - but I doubt that it would make any difference at this stage. The ship is sinking. Arguing over who should be piloting it - rather than trying to plug the holes - is merely helping it to sink even faster.

Ceredig seems to blame the media; but my main criticism of the media in all this is not particularly the fact that they have decided on a particular story line – I suspect that they are actually reflecting more than promulgating a change in mood. Rather, it is that they have allowed Cameron and his Tories to get away with not explaining what they would do any differently.

There is an almost total policy vacuum from the Tories, which is hardly subject to questioning at all. The media are right to be holding Brown and Labour to account for a succession of failures. They are wrong, however, not to be subjecting Cameron and his crew to even a remotely similar level of scrutiny. That lack of scrutiny is in danger of encouraging voters to jump from the frying pan into the fire, rather than examining genuine alternatives. And jumping into the fire is something people would come to regret.