Usually it takes a few days for a speech (be it conference/budget/pre-budget) from this Government to start unravelling. This time it's less than 24 hours.
Firstly, it transpires that the plan to house 16 and 17 year old single mums was put forward by Tony Blair in 1999, has in fact been in operation for a few years, and may only help 2000 teenage mums, and is a BNP policy, shows that it's not the revolutionary policy as originally thought. Some Labour MPs hate this policy and have been spouting off about it.
Half of the new apprenticeships have already been been offered.
More will be spent on schools, but surely there's £2Bn savings identified by Balls? Maybe those savings won't be used to bring down the burgeoning debt...
The Child Tax credit will be removed to pay for 250,000 2 year old's child care of the poorest, but doesn't that squeeze the already 'squeezed middle' more?
There will be no compulsory ID cards. That's already the policy!
A referendum on PR and removal of hereditary peers. Hello, wasn't that 1997?
And to top it all, the Sun's had enough.
Nuff said.
Squiffy.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Gordon Brown: the Verdict
It was a good speech for Brown, delivered with passion and only a few stumbles. Though, if it had been delivered by Blair or Cameron it would have been mediocre.
It still suffered from terminal initiativitis. No idea where all the money comes from for all these new plans, savings have been mentioned by ministers on Sky - but weren't they supposed to bring down our debt?
7 out of 10.
Squiffy.
It still suffered from terminal initiativitis. No idea where all the money comes from for all these new plans, savings have been mentioned by ministers on Sky - but weren't they supposed to bring down our debt?
7 out of 10.
Squiffy.
Gordon Brown is going to woo middle England
A bit like the executioner wooing Mary, Queen of Scots. He calls them the 'squeezed middle', hmm, who did the squeezing again? And who will squeeze them again if he got elected for a first time. Gordon Brown. He set the scene with the raid on pensions, and Middle England will now get it's revenge.
George Osborne, reverse that pensions raid and the job will be done.
Squiffy.
George Osborne, reverse that pensions raid and the job will be done.
Squiffy.
What happened to conference?
I just popped out for some lunch and managed to miss all of Alan Johnson's speech. I was only gone for 10 minutes. This was the secretary of one of the most important offices of state speaking, and he only had 10 minutes.
We remember some of the embarrassing moments from the past, such as the 'I have a little list' and the SAS one, because they were lengthy speeches with some playful (cringe-worthy content). Now, anything below the chancellor is not covered on terrestrial TV and the speeches are unbelievably short.
A travesty.
Squiffy.
We remember some of the embarrassing moments from the past, such as the 'I have a little list' and the SAS one, because they were lengthy speeches with some playful (cringe-worthy content). Now, anything below the chancellor is not covered on terrestrial TV and the speeches are unbelievably short.
A travesty.
Squiffy.
The next month: a prediction
Following yesterday's terrific speech by Peter Mandelson at the Labour party conference, and the ensuing surge in optimism for Labour, I thought I'd predict what happens in the next month or so.
Firstly, today. I think Gordon Brown will make a good speech and pull a few rabbits out of hats. At the end, everybody will say that he's made the speech of his life, that it's game on and his leadership is now settled. In the polls, Labour will briefly touch 30% with Conservatives at 38% and LibDems at 22%.
Next week, at the Tory conference, George Osborne will also make a good speech and make another policy which changes the mood - the idea put to me is reversing the pensions raid Gordon Brown made in his first year. David Cameron will then "have to make the speech of his life", and again will. At the end of the week the polls will say Conservatives 40%, Labour 28% and LibDems 20%.
Within a few weeks, an "event" will happen which Gordon Brown will handle badly, his MPs will start asking questions over his leadership, and hey presto the polls will be at Conservative 43%, Labour 25% and LibDems 19%.
And hence, nothing will have changed.
Squiffy.
Firstly, today. I think Gordon Brown will make a good speech and pull a few rabbits out of hats. At the end, everybody will say that he's made the speech of his life, that it's game on and his leadership is now settled. In the polls, Labour will briefly touch 30% with Conservatives at 38% and LibDems at 22%.
Next week, at the Tory conference, George Osborne will also make a good speech and make another policy which changes the mood - the idea put to me is reversing the pensions raid Gordon Brown made in his first year. David Cameron will then "have to make the speech of his life", and again will. At the end of the week the polls will say Conservatives 40%, Labour 28% and LibDems 20%.
Within a few weeks, an "event" will happen which Gordon Brown will handle badly, his MPs will start asking questions over his leadership, and hey presto the polls will be at Conservative 43%, Labour 25% and LibDems 19%.
And hence, nothing will have changed.
Squiffy.
Monday, 28 September 2009
Brown knows only one thing, to spend.
An interesting comment in this month's Total Politics by David Starkey was spot on. He says that Gordon Brown's claim to have got us out of recession was the same behaviour as usual.
Basically, Gordon Brown's solution to everything is throw money at it. The banking crisis and recession were no different, and now we will pay for his habit.
Squiffy.
Basically, Gordon Brown's solution to everything is throw money at it. The banking crisis and recession were no different, and now we will pay for his habit.
Squiffy.
Button as champion?
Yesterday's Singapore Grand Prix was great for the Brits. Lewis Hamilton won from flag to finish and Jenson Button was able to extend his lead over Rubens Barrichello by one point.
Those saying that Button is going to be the champion should remember back to 2007. Hamilton had 17 points lead with two races to go and lost by one point, Button's lead is 15 points with three races to go.
It looks like Button will probably win, but don't count your chickens. Interestingly, if the medals system had been brought in as Ecclestone wanted at the beginning of the year, Button would have been crowned yesterday as no-one can now top his 6 victories. Thankfully, that is not in operation and so the championship race is still on...
On other news, it looks like Alonso will be confirmed as a Ferrari driver, Raikkonen back to McLaren, Kubica to Renault, Rosberg to Brawn and Barrichello to Williams. The next few weeks should see the merry go round start.
Squiffy.
Those saying that Button is going to be the champion should remember back to 2007. Hamilton had 17 points lead with two races to go and lost by one point, Button's lead is 15 points with three races to go.
It looks like Button will probably win, but don't count your chickens. Interestingly, if the medals system had been brought in as Ecclestone wanted at the beginning of the year, Button would have been crowned yesterday as no-one can now top his 6 victories. Thankfully, that is not in operation and so the championship race is still on...
On other news, it looks like Alonso will be confirmed as a Ferrari driver, Raikkonen back to McLaren, Kubica to Renault, Rosberg to Brawn and Barrichello to Williams. The next few weeks should see the merry go round start.
Squiffy.
Friday, 25 September 2009
Has Gordo found a way out?
The chatter on the blogs is that the exit of Baroness Vadera to a lowly position in the G20 (paving the way for South Korea to take over chairmanship) is a convenient way for Gordon Brown to resign and take up a post in the G20.
How true could it be? I don't know. There's two Gordon Brown traits which provide conflicting signals. The first is his tenacity, to hang in there when times get tough and come back for more. The second is to back out of a fight, and the next General Election will be the toughest of his life.
What do I believe to be the winning trait? His willingness to avoid a fight, he's done it time and time again - but will he want to go down as the biggest cowardly PM in history? I don't think so, but who knows...
Squiffy.
How true could it be? I don't know. There's two Gordon Brown traits which provide conflicting signals. The first is his tenacity, to hang in there when times get tough and come back for more. The second is to back out of a fight, and the next General Election will be the toughest of his life.
What do I believe to be the winning trait? His willingness to avoid a fight, he's done it time and time again - but will he want to go down as the biggest cowardly PM in history? I don't think so, but who knows...
Squiffy.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Clegg fails to inspire
Having listened to Nick Clegg's final speech before the General Election, I couldn't help but feel a sinking feeling.
I know that it is difficult for the third party in British politics but always seems to me that he's failing to face up to realities. Rattling off what a LibDem cabinet would look like may make the conference smile, but it made me want to laugh out loud. Apart from Vince Cable and Chris Huhne, Ed Davey and Norman Lamb, don't make me laugh.
He should look the voters in the eye and say that he would not prop up a defeated Brown Government and would try to get the best out of a Cameron Government.
Attacking the Tories for being lightweight and conmen this week seems laughable when he had no policies to mention in his speech. There were no resolved issues surrounding tuition fees, means-tested child benefit and the rubbish mansion tax. So it all remains an open issue. Don't get me started on sharing an Earl Grey with the Taliban.
The one thing that stands out is a lack of charisma or gravitas. David Cameron seems to have both, which tend to leave me entranced, Gordon Brown reels off his numbers but does it with some kind of gravity. Nick Clegg's words bounce off you or make you laugh at the unrealism.
I now know why Sky covered Obama's speech instead.
5/10
Squiffy.
I know that it is difficult for the third party in British politics but always seems to me that he's failing to face up to realities. Rattling off what a LibDem cabinet would look like may make the conference smile, but it made me want to laugh out loud. Apart from Vince Cable and Chris Huhne, Ed Davey and Norman Lamb, don't make me laugh.
He should look the voters in the eye and say that he would not prop up a defeated Brown Government and would try to get the best out of a Cameron Government.
Attacking the Tories for being lightweight and conmen this week seems laughable when he had no policies to mention in his speech. There were no resolved issues surrounding tuition fees, means-tested child benefit and the rubbish mansion tax. So it all remains an open issue. Don't get me started on sharing an Earl Grey with the Taliban.
The one thing that stands out is a lack of charisma or gravitas. David Cameron seems to have both, which tend to leave me entranced, Gordon Brown reels off his numbers but does it with some kind of gravity. Nick Clegg's words bounce off you or make you laugh at the unrealism.
I now know why Sky covered Obama's speech instead.
5/10
Squiffy.
Let Obama be Obama
It's been 9 months since Barack Obama became President, and if like me, you were hopeful of a great new direction with clear thinking then you will also be feeling a little disappointed.
With a pliant Congress, I would have hoped that he would have been able to make progress on US healthcare, the Middle East and Afghanistan. Unfortunately the former two of those have been ground down to stalemate, and for the latter it seems as if he is going in wrong direction (especially by refusing more troops for the war).
It takes me back to a fantastic episode in the first series of the West Wing, my favourite programme. After one and a half years of trying, the administration has achieved little but compromise and obfuscation and President Bartlett is very unhappy. With characteristic aplomb Leo pulls out a hanky on which "Let Bartlett be Bartlett" was written, taken from the presidential primary campaign. It was the signal that compromise should be eschewed in favour of positive action even if they lost a few battles.
I think someone needs to show Obama a similar monikered hanky. Let Obama be Obama.
Squiffy.
With a pliant Congress, I would have hoped that he would have been able to make progress on US healthcare, the Middle East and Afghanistan. Unfortunately the former two of those have been ground down to stalemate, and for the latter it seems as if he is going in wrong direction (especially by refusing more troops for the war).
It takes me back to a fantastic episode in the first series of the West Wing, my favourite programme. After one and a half years of trying, the administration has achieved little but compromise and obfuscation and President Bartlett is very unhappy. With characteristic aplomb Leo pulls out a hanky on which "Let Bartlett be Bartlett" was written, taken from the presidential primary campaign. It was the signal that compromise should be eschewed in favour of positive action even if they lost a few battles.
I think someone needs to show Obama a similar monikered hanky. Let Obama be Obama.
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
Baroness Scotland: Resign now
Baroness Scotland was fined £5000 today for admitting that she allowed an illegal immigrant to work for her and failed to photocopy a letter stating she had the right to work.
The fact that she broke the law and amazingly had put this particular law through the lords shows that she should resign. In his usual cowardice, Gordon Brown has not fired her and said that she unwittingly broke the law. Excuse me, the law really doesn't care whether you broke the law unwittingly or did it on purpose. Ask someone arrested for doing 20 mph above the speed limit, doing it unwittingly didn't stop them getting points on their licence and a fine.
No, she should resign. If forgetting to photocopy a letter is good enough for a £5000 fine, then the Attorney General should be good enough to remember it!
Squiffy.
The fact that she broke the law and amazingly had put this particular law through the lords shows that she should resign. In his usual cowardice, Gordon Brown has not fired her and said that she unwittingly broke the law. Excuse me, the law really doesn't care whether you broke the law unwittingly or did it on purpose. Ask someone arrested for doing 20 mph above the speed limit, doing it unwittingly didn't stop them getting points on their licence and a fine.
No, she should resign. If forgetting to photocopy a letter is good enough for a £5000 fine, then the Attorney General should be good enough to remember it!
Squiffy.
Will KERS stay for 2010?
One of the regulation changes for 2010 was the abandonment of KERS, the energy recovery system, announced as a voluntary agreement by the members of FOTA.
It now looks likely that this may now unravel, the Williams team have been developing a different system of KERS since last year but have not raced it. Rather than a battery, Williams have invested in a flywheel system. They've found it problematic but like the idea of KERS and intend to race it next year.
If Williams do race it, then I expect McLaren will continue with it - it makes sense for them as they have the best system on the grid. It will then snowball and the voluntary ban will be gone.
I'm in favour of KERS, as well as a ban on refuelling. Over the next few years I'd like to see a gradual reduction in the size of fuel tanks and increase in BHP provided by KERS. This could increase fuel mileage and provide green technology to most cars and that can only be a good thing.
Squiffy.
It now looks likely that this may now unravel, the Williams team have been developing a different system of KERS since last year but have not raced it. Rather than a battery, Williams have invested in a flywheel system. They've found it problematic but like the idea of KERS and intend to race it next year.
If Williams do race it, then I expect McLaren will continue with it - it makes sense for them as they have the best system on the grid. It will then snowball and the voluntary ban will be gone.
I'm in favour of KERS, as well as a ban on refuelling. Over the next few years I'd like to see a gradual reduction in the size of fuel tanks and increase in BHP provided by KERS. This could increase fuel mileage and provide green technology to most cars and that can only be a good thing.
Squiffy.
Where's the consistency? Renault were let off.
As RacingForIndia pointed out here, Renault are not the new McLaren. The punishment to the individuals involved were similar, for Flavio Briatore read Mike Coughlan, but for the organization itself the punishments were light years apart.
McLaren got the largest sporting fine in history at $100M, were stripped of all their constructors points and were given warning that any other infringement could lead to permanent exclusion. Renault got a two year suspended ban, i.e. a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again.
What are the differences between the cases? McLaren received technical information form Ferrari and some personnel discussed it. It was not clear whether any of the information was used on the McLaren MP4-22. Renault conspired to crash one car to benefit another, putting lives at risk. Incidentally in 2007, Renault were also handed technical details about the McLaren but got off scott free.
No, the real differences are that McLaren's raison d'etre is to be in F1 and that Max Mosley hated Ron Dennis, as opposed to Renault being a big car manufacturer who could walk away tomorrow, whilst Flavio is a business partner of Bernie Ecclestone.
After losing Honda and BMW, it looks like the FIA was not willing to punish a team and risk losing another. But that is a load of rubbish, they have just had to ask the teams to allow a 14th team on the grid for next year - they are not down on teams.
The truth is that the original punishment for McLaren was way in excess of what was necessary, and they found it impossible to match the punishment for Renault in the case of a worse crime. They should have stripped the constructors points for this year at the very least, and a $5M fine wouldn't have been too arduous.
Again, this has been a case of inconsistent punishment, to go along with the inconsistent rule making. There needs to be new governance.
Squiffy.
McLaren got the largest sporting fine in history at $100M, were stripped of all their constructors points and were given warning that any other infringement could lead to permanent exclusion. Renault got a two year suspended ban, i.e. a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again.
What are the differences between the cases? McLaren received technical information form Ferrari and some personnel discussed it. It was not clear whether any of the information was used on the McLaren MP4-22. Renault conspired to crash one car to benefit another, putting lives at risk. Incidentally in 2007, Renault were also handed technical details about the McLaren but got off scott free.
No, the real differences are that McLaren's raison d'etre is to be in F1 and that Max Mosley hated Ron Dennis, as opposed to Renault being a big car manufacturer who could walk away tomorrow, whilst Flavio is a business partner of Bernie Ecclestone.
After losing Honda and BMW, it looks like the FIA was not willing to punish a team and risk losing another. But that is a load of rubbish, they have just had to ask the teams to allow a 14th team on the grid for next year - they are not down on teams.
The truth is that the original punishment for McLaren was way in excess of what was necessary, and they found it impossible to match the punishment for Renault in the case of a worse crime. They should have stripped the constructors points for this year at the very least, and a $5M fine wouldn't have been too arduous.
Again, this has been a case of inconsistent punishment, to go along with the inconsistent rule making. There needs to be new governance.
Squiffy.
Monday, 21 September 2009
Envy not fairness
The new LibDem policy of adding 0.5% annual tax to the people who have houses in excess of £1M is daft but based on the old politics of envy and not fairness.
Vince Cable cited mansions owned by Roman Abramovich as an example, but what about the old dear living in a house in an affluent part of country. She bought it with her husband in the 60s when they were both working, now he's dead and she has retired. The house price shot up and it's now worth over a million.
As well as paying a huge amount of council tax to clear up the one bin bag she throws out once every two weeks, she now has to pay an additional tax out of her dwindling savings and then the inheritors will have inheritance tax to pay when she pops her clogs. Is that all fair? No, just envy based on property.
I expected this sort of clumsy thinking of union leaders and left wing thinkers on in the Labour party, not of St. Vince Cable.
It doesn't take into account regional house prices, which if nothing else, the hated council tax does.
The LibDem conference seems to be a mess. Clumsy thinking and conflicting messages. Yesterday Nick Clegg said that Middle Income Child Benefit should be looked at, this morning Steve Webb said he'd looked at it in the last 24 hours and stated it will stay the same. That's quite a slap for a leader from the underling.
What a mess.
Squiffy.
Vince Cable cited mansions owned by Roman Abramovich as an example, but what about the old dear living in a house in an affluent part of country. She bought it with her husband in the 60s when they were both working, now he's dead and she has retired. The house price shot up and it's now worth over a million.
As well as paying a huge amount of council tax to clear up the one bin bag she throws out once every two weeks, she now has to pay an additional tax out of her dwindling savings and then the inheritors will have inheritance tax to pay when she pops her clogs. Is that all fair? No, just envy based on property.
I expected this sort of clumsy thinking of union leaders and left wing thinkers on in the Labour party, not of St. Vince Cable.
It doesn't take into account regional house prices, which if nothing else, the hated council tax does.
The LibDem conference seems to be a mess. Clumsy thinking and conflicting messages. Yesterday Nick Clegg said that Middle Income Child Benefit should be looked at, this morning Steve Webb said he'd looked at it in the last 24 hours and stated it will stay the same. That's quite a slap for a leader from the underling.
What a mess.
Squiffy.
Saturday, 19 September 2009
If they don't know now they never will.
Whilst staying in Bournemouth I saw this.
Or proof that the LibDem campaign will be run by 4 year olds!
Squiffy.
Or proof that the LibDem campaign will be run by 4 year olds!
Squiffy.
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Briatore: down and out
The news that Flav has been fired probably means that the allegations are true. If so, it means the that worst cheating case occured in Singapore.
I think that this is the end for Flav and probably for Pat Simmons. Hopefully Renault will not pull out!
I think that this is the end for Flav and probably for Pat Simmons. Hopefully Renault will not pull out!
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Gordon Brown: "We'll cut inefficient and unnecessary projects"
Hmmm, which inefficient and unnecessary projects. And why were you spending money on unnecessary projects exactly?
This man should not be in charge of any taxpayers money.
Squiffy.
This man should not be in charge of any taxpayers money.
Squiffy.
Friday, 4 September 2009
Is Renault the new McLaren?
After spygate, McLaren's name was mud. It wasn't helped by the events of Melbourne this year when McLaren and Lewis Hamilton were accused of cheating. McLaren faced the biggest fine in sporting history of £50m in 2007 and were thrown out of the championship.
Now Renault stand accused of the a similar cheating story. In the Singapore GP of 2008, Fernando Alonso went to the pits early after qualifying only 15th. A strange strategy, usually when you qualify low down you put loads of fuel in and hope to make up places. A couple of laps later Nelson Piquet, Alonso's team-mate, crashed but not heavily, just enough to bring out the safety car.
From there, most of the field went into the pits leaving Alonso high up the grid. When Rosberg, Webber and Massa went into the pits Alonso was in the lead and garnered Renault's first win of the year.
Just a coincidence? Probably. But what if it isn't? At the time, there were murmurs that Renault had concocted the crash but these were dismissed. The timing of the new story at Spa was not a coincidence though, Nelson Piquet had just been fired by Renault and had been very vocal about Flavio Briatore's treatment of him. Did Nelsinho spread the story, and was it made up?
It will be fascinating to see. If Piquet did spread the story his career is over. If Renault did cheat, their championship is over. Alonso will look murky too, having been in two teams which proceeded to cheat.
Squiffy.
Now Renault stand accused of the a similar cheating story. In the Singapore GP of 2008, Fernando Alonso went to the pits early after qualifying only 15th. A strange strategy, usually when you qualify low down you put loads of fuel in and hope to make up places. A couple of laps later Nelson Piquet, Alonso's team-mate, crashed but not heavily, just enough to bring out the safety car.
From there, most of the field went into the pits leaving Alonso high up the grid. When Rosberg, Webber and Massa went into the pits Alonso was in the lead and garnered Renault's first win of the year.
Just a coincidence? Probably. But what if it isn't? At the time, there were murmurs that Renault had concocted the crash but these were dismissed. The timing of the new story at Spa was not a coincidence though, Nelson Piquet had just been fired by Renault and had been very vocal about Flavio Briatore's treatment of him. Did Nelsinho spread the story, and was it made up?
It will be fascinating to see. If Piquet did spread the story his career is over. If Renault did cheat, their championship is over. Alonso will look murky too, having been in two teams which proceeded to cheat.
Squiffy.
Gordon makes Barack depressed
An interesting interview on this morning's Today with Richard Wolffe, an author who followed Brack Obama's campaign trail, was quite revealing. So far we have been led to believe that President Obama believes Gordon Brown has 'substance' and David Cameron has 'sizzle' but is all froth.
Today we find the truth a little different, Obama found Cameron impressive and although they are from different ends of the political spectrum, they had chemistry. Apparently, Gordon Brown was depressing. This was from President Obama's aides, but I'm sure we can extrapolate that this is the view of the POTUS himself.
I wonder whether Vodafone do upgrades?
Squiffy.
Today we find the truth a little different, Obama found Cameron impressive and although they are from different ends of the political spectrum, they had chemistry. Apparently, Gordon Brown was depressing. This was from President Obama's aides, but I'm sure we can extrapolate that this is the view of the POTUS himself.
I wonder whether Vodafone do upgrades?
Squiffy.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Will there be televised leaders debate?
Sky News has lobbed a David Frost sized bomb into the political scene by sending an open letter to all three major party leaders inviting them to a TV debate in the General Election campaign. They say it is going to happen with whoever has the guts to turn up. David Cameron has already accepted.
It's interesting to see what will happen with this, if we have this debate it will be fantastic. I think a lot of the country will tune in to a political programme, and it will most likely be the biggest factor in improving turnout at the next GE, forget dodgy postal votes.
There still has to be many months of behind the scenes negotiations on format length of questions etc. Anyone who has watched The West Wing will be familiar with the concept in the states. Should it be 2 minutes to answer the question each and then a 30 second comeback? Maybe the leaders are allowed to ask each other questions. Would Nick Clegg get the same airtime? That would be something of a coup for him. In the end, for the support staff, it can be more trouble than its worth.
For the PR consultants and press officers, they have to put the leader through days of training and working out whether the Leader calls the others, opponents, Leader of the XXX party, or Gordon/David/Nick. Should they make eye-contact, what should they wear? What kind of language should be used? It's quite tricky.
I'm getting excited already. Unfortunately, though, I have the hunch that it won't happen. Traditionally it is seen that the one with most to lose backs out, in this case it would be David Cameron. So would he? I hope not, but look out of some squabble of procedures as an excuse if it doesn't happen.
My feeling is that Gordon Brown will back out though. Why? Because he has backed out of every tough confrontation going so far. He backed out of a leadership tussle with Tony Blair, he backed out of the coup attempts against TB and backed out against the election that never was. He also goes to ground when things get difficult, such as the al-Megrahi case. So, if there is an empty chair in the Sky studios where the Prime Minister should be, I hope that Sky take a leaf out of Have I Got New For You's book (when they replaced Roy Hattersley with a tub of lard), and replace GB by his own tome, entitled 'Courage'.
Squiffy.
It's interesting to see what will happen with this, if we have this debate it will be fantastic. I think a lot of the country will tune in to a political programme, and it will most likely be the biggest factor in improving turnout at the next GE, forget dodgy postal votes.
There still has to be many months of behind the scenes negotiations on format length of questions etc. Anyone who has watched The West Wing will be familiar with the concept in the states. Should it be 2 minutes to answer the question each and then a 30 second comeback? Maybe the leaders are allowed to ask each other questions. Would Nick Clegg get the same airtime? That would be something of a coup for him. In the end, for the support staff, it can be more trouble than its worth.
For the PR consultants and press officers, they have to put the leader through days of training and working out whether the Leader calls the others, opponents, Leader of the XXX party, or Gordon/David/Nick. Should they make eye-contact, what should they wear? What kind of language should be used? It's quite tricky.
I'm getting excited already. Unfortunately, though, I have the hunch that it won't happen. Traditionally it is seen that the one with most to lose backs out, in this case it would be David Cameron. So would he? I hope not, but look out of some squabble of procedures as an excuse if it doesn't happen.
My feeling is that Gordon Brown will back out though. Why? Because he has backed out of every tough confrontation going so far. He backed out of a leadership tussle with Tony Blair, he backed out of the coup attempts against TB and backed out against the election that never was. He also goes to ground when things get difficult, such as the al-Megrahi case. So, if there is an empty chair in the Sky studios where the Prime Minister should be, I hope that Sky take a leaf out of Have I Got New For You's book (when they replaced Roy Hattersley with a tub of lard), and replace GB by his own tome, entitled 'Courage'.
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
