Is it too late for electoral reform?

I am among the signatories to a letter in today's Observer calling for a referendum on electoral reform to be held on the day of the next General Election.

The Observer has a report noting that Alan Johnson and John Denham (long-time electoral reformers) believe the argument is worth pushing. There is more on the Makes Vote Count blog, noting that Labour voices in favour include Matthew Taylor, myself, Neal Lawson of Compass, former MP Oona King, Young Labour chaIr Sam Tarry, NUS President Wes Streeting, Lance Price and Tony Robinson. (My understanding is that MPs and Peers were not invited to sign the letter, but some will be backing the campaign).

And The Observer editorialises in favour of electoral reform too.

So once more unto the breach for electoral reform?

Andrew Grice in The Independent yesterday noted pressure for a 'big bang' constitutional reform from David Miliband and James Purnell. But Grice argues that, while this might have worked in 1997, it is now too late.

Constitutional reform was a significant part of Labour's first term agenda. The 1997-2001 parliament saw, by some distance, the most significant political reforms since 1911. Yet these were commitments inherited by New Labour; that momentum was not sustained after 2001 as those pluralist advances seemed at odds with the governing style of the administration. And so it is that the government has so often been caught out by its own half measures: freedom of information, party funding reform and the disclosure of MPs expenses all mean we know so many things we would never have known even in the recent past. Yet transparency is not enough if it what is made transparent is not legitimate.

Electoral reform has been seen as one of the missed opportunities of Labour's time in government, despite some valiant efforts to keep the issue alive. The current crisis may - or may not - open the question. There are an enormous number of different agendas being proposed for 'political reform'. None is a panacea, but it will be necessary to think about the links between institutional reforms - such as strengthening the Commons, electoral reform and the role of a second chamber - and broader changes to political parties and in our political culture if we want a more participatory and more pluralist politics to result.

While "I wouldn't start from here" may be correct analysis - but it is always difficult advice to act upon. However, this strengthens the case for an open reform - for the creation of a constitutional convention, where the governing party is clear that it is ceding to citizens the power to determine outcomes, and indeed creating a process and momentum behind a new constitutional settlement which will conclude some time after the next General Election.

The problem of attempting a major reform at "five minutes to midnight" was the conclusion of the first piece I wrote when about to take over at the Fabians was an essay for a Policy Network book 'Rethinking Social Democracy', edited by Matt Browne and Patrick Diamond, which was published at the 2003 party conference season.

This was the conclusion of my 2003 piece, 'Is Britain a progressive country'.

Tony Wright has written that the British seem to think that pluralism is a lung disease. This peculiarly weak conception of what politics is - the belief that compromise is always a dirty word and that power can not be shared but must ultimately reside in one place or the other - has done much to contribute to an excessively centralised and adversarial political system which has lost public confidence and trust. It doesn't make sense to talk about the importance of choice, diversity and responsiveness in public services and then to fail to make democratic politics much more responsive too.

...

If a week is a long time in politics, there is rarely much point in looking too far beyond the immediate political controversy or crisis. Of course, nobody can make confident predictions about the future. But if we are to take seriously talk of a 'progressive century', then we must also have a longer-term perspective.

Like death and taxes, some facts of political life are unavoidable. No government likes to think about its own political mortality but eventually, one day, its end will come. If Labour were to win the next election and govern for a full term, it would have been in office for 12 or 13 years. And it will only be in the years after Labour has left office, that we will be able to fully assess its legacy in office.

A progressive government which does moe to reshape political debate, create alternative centres of power and change the political culture in Britain would have done much to sow the seeds of its own subsequent political recovery, as well as to define the terrain on which any future administration must govern. But to guarantee these achievements fully, we need to more firmly embrace political pluralism. A genuine social democratic consensus can't rely on social democrats always being in government. There are many different ways to change the British political culture. But if Labour, as it seems likely to do, leaves the electoral system unchanged, it will take a major gamble by leaving the central pivot of the 'winner-takes-all' culture of British politics intact. It will fail to insist that any future British government must have widespread public support or, at least, be 'coalitionable' in party political terms. It leaves the door open for the Right to win, possibly on a low share of the vote and a historically low turnout, and to claim a mandate for a 'slash and burn' ultra-neoliberal agenda.

Right now, both the electoral arithmetic and the workings of the first-past-the-post system itself are heavily stacked against our political opponents. But an attempt at reform will not be credible if we wait until it is five minutes to midnight, and seek to construct some sort of last minute deal to try to secure another year or two in power. We need to act sooner - from a position of strength - to underpin a progressive and pro-European consensus in British politics. Which is not to end on a point of defeatism. Rather it is about having the confidence to put in place the building blocks if we want a progressive century.

I can at least claim consistency in also having argued for electoral reform - making a case for the (non-PR) Alternative Vote to unlock the reform stalemate, as part of a much broader pluralist settlement - at the height of the Brown bounce in the Autumn of 2007, and again in much less auspicious circumstances at the start of this year. Read more...

Is it too late for electoral reform?

I am among the signatories to a letter in today's Observer calling for a referendum on electoral reform to be held on the day of the next General Election.

The Observer has a report noting that Alan Johnson and John Denham (long-time electoral reformers) believe the argument is worth pushing. There is more on the Makes Vote Count blog, noting that Labour voices in favour include Matthew Taylor, myself, Neal Lawson of Compass, former MP Oona King, Young Labour chaIr Sam Tarry, NUS President Wes Streeting, Lance Price and Tony Robinson. (My understanding is that MPs and Peers were not invited to sign the letter, but some will be backing the campaign).

And The Observer editorialises in favour of electoral reform too.

So once more unto the breach for electoral reform?

Andrew Grice in The Independent yesterday noted pressure for a 'big bang' constitutional reform from David Miliband and James Purnell. But Grice argues that, while this might have worked in 1997, it is now too late.

Constitutional reform was a significant part of Labour's first term agenda. The 1997-2001 parliament saw, by some distance, the most significant political reforms since 1911. Yet these were commitments inherited by New Labour; that momentum was not sustained after 2001 as those pluralist advances seemed at odds with the governing style of the administration. And so it is that the government has so often been caught out by its own half measures: freedom of information, party funding reform and the disclosure of MPs expenses all mean we know so many things we would never have known even in the recent past. Yet transparency is not enough if it what is made transparent is not legitimate.

Electoral reform has been seen as one of the missed opportunities of Labour's time in government, despite some valiant efforts to keep the issue alive. The current crisis may - or may not - open the question. There are an enormous number of different agendas being proposed for 'political reform'. None is a panacea, but it will be necessary to think about the links between institutional reforms - such as strengthening the Commons, electoral reform and the role of a second chamber - and broader changes to political parties and in our political culture if we want a more participatory and more pluralist politics to result.

While "I wouldn't start from here" may be correct analysis - but it is always difficult advice to act upon. However, this strengthens the case for an open reform - for the creation of a constitutional convention, where the governing party is clear that it is ceding to citizens the power to determine outcomes, and indeed creating a process and momentum behind a new constitutional settlement which will conclude some time after the next General Election.

The problem of attempting a major reform at "five minutes to midnight" was the conclusion of the first piece I wrote when about to take over at the Fabians was an essay for a Policy Network book 'Rethinking Social Democracy', edited by Matt Browne and Patrick Diamond, which was published at the 2003 party conference season.

This was the conclusion of my 2003 piece, 'Is Britain a progressive country'.

Tony Wright has written that the British seem to think that pluralism is a lung disease. This peculiarly weak conception of what politics is - the belief that compromise is always a dirty word and that power can not be shared but must ultimately reside in one place or the other - has done much to contribute to an excessively centralised and adversarial political system which has lost public confidence and trust. It doesn't make sense to talk about the importance of choice, diversity and responsiveness in public services and then to fail to make democratic politics much more responsive too.

...

If a week is a long time in politics, there is rarely much point in looking too far beyond the immediate political controversy or crisis. Of course, nobody can make confident predictions about the future. But if we are to take seriously talk of a 'progressive century', then we must also have a longer-term perspective.

Like death and taxes, some facts of political life are unavoidable. No government likes to think about its own political mortality but eventually, one day, its end will come. If Labour were to win the next election and govern for a full term, it would have been in office for 12 or 13 years. And it will only be in the years after Labour has left office, that we will be able to fully assess its legacy in office.

A progressive government which does moe to reshape political debate, create alternative centres of power and change the political culture in Britain would have done much to sow the seeds of its own subsequent political recovery, as well as to define the terrain on which any future administration must govern. But to guarantee these achievements fully, we need to more firmly embrace political pluralism. A genuine social democratic consensus can't rely on social democrats always being in government. There are many different ways to change the British political culture. But if Labour, as it seems likely to do, leaves the electoral system unchanged, it will take a major gamble by leaving the central pivot of the 'winner-takes-all' culture of British politics intact. It will fail to insist that any future British government must have widespread public support or, at least, be 'coalitionable' in party political terms. It leaves the door open for the Right to win, possibly on a low share of the vote and a historically low turnout, and to claim a mandate for a 'slash and burn' ultra-neoliberal agenda.

Right now, both the electoral arithmetic and the workings of the first-past-the-post system itself are heavily stacked against our political opponents. But an attempt at reform will not be credible if we wait until it is five minutes to midnight, and seek to construct some sort of last minute deal to try to secure another year or two in power. We need to act sooner - from a position of strength - to underpin a progressive and pro-European consensus in British politics. Which is not to end on a point of defeatism. Rather it is about having the confidence to put in place the building blocks if we want a progressive century.

I can at least claim consistency in also having argued for electoral reform - making a case for the (non-PR) Alternative Vote to unlock the reform stalemate, as part of a much broader pluralist settlement - at the height of the Brown bounce in the Autumn of 2007, and again in much less auspicious circumstances at the start of this year. Read more...

The beautiful game under threat from unfair chances

Guest post by Tom Stratton

Is it possible that British society can learn a thing or two from the state of our national game? That is what Sunder Katwala and I have claimed in an essay charting decreasing social mobility in English football. Through research undertaken in conjunction with the Fabian Society we show that football has become stratified; if left unchecked, this could undermine the legitimacy of our domestic competition. The dynamics behind the threat inequality poses to football are enlightening and make a compelling point about society at large.
The case for decreasing mobility in football is undeniable. The game today has become almost predictable; the same teams, with a few exceptions, compete for the end of season honours, others reside in mid-table oblivion, while some yo-yo between divisions. The reality is that a ‘caste’ system exists in English football, where teams know their place and revise their aspirations accordingly. Finishing outside the top four is a catastrophe for the big four teams, while seventeenth place for promoted clubs represents a successful season. Only twenty years ago there was a greater chance of a promoted team finishing in the top six than being relegated.
The loss of social mobility in football was down to an erosion of the football ‘society’, a narrative that was concurrently played out in Thatcher’s Britain. During the 1980s larger clubs began to feel their worth to football was not being sufficiently rewarded. The first TV contract to weight its payments specifically towards the bigger clubs was negotiated at the beginning of the 88/89 season, while the onset of the Premier League brought the end of cross-subsidisation of gate receipts for clubs in the top flight. The individualisation of football reflected the rise of the ‘New Right in Britain’; John Redwood once noted that Conservative measures against the ‘culture of dependency’ would have been unthinkable at the beginning of the 80s, and that they came into existence at all represented a shift in the psyche of the country. Rampant individualism and minimal investment in public services saw those at the bottom left to fend for themselves. Inequality rocketed as a result of the change in atmosphere and policy; the Gini Coefficient, a widely respected measure of inequality, rose during the period 1979 – 1990 from 101 to 135.
There are useful parallels between the problems English football and Britain could face as a result of their respective unequal societies. Football is a joint product; teams are interdependent and only become viable entities as a result of combination with another club to produce a competitive saleable output. This is something even the most rabidly free market societies are aware of. In the US, the draft system favours redistribution of playing resources; American football and basketball employ salary caps while gate receipts and television money are shared under varying arrangements. Similarly, unequal societies don’t just harm those at the bottom. The Spirit Level, a wide ranging study on the consequences of inequality, shows us that in unequal societies there is lower life expectancy, higher rates of obesity and teenage pregnancy, and more violent crime than in fairer equivalents. On a purely economic level, Britain is a far more attractive investment prospect if there is a vibrant internal market, skilled, literate and healthy workers, and an environment in which people feel encouraged to be creative as upward mobility and success are obtainable, even for those at the bottom.
English football and Britain are facing not dissimilar problems. While everybody can appreciate the glamour and excitement the Premiership and the last decade of affluence have brought, it would be foolish to ignore the potential harm inequality can have on long-term prospects. Beyond the moral argument that societies should help those least able to help themselves, the gap between the top and bottom in football and British society must be reduced if both are to retain their reputation as vibrant, competitive entities. Read more...

The beautiful game under threat from unfair chances

Guest post by Tom Stratton

Is it possible that British society can learn a thing or two from the state of our national game? That is what Sunder Katwala and I have claimed in an essay charting decreasing social mobility in English football. Through research undertaken in conjunction with the Fabian Society we show that football has become stratified; if left unchecked, this could undermine the legitimacy of our domestic competition. The dynamics behind the threat inequality poses to football are enlightening and make a compelling point about society at large.
The case for decreasing mobility in football is undeniable. The game today has become almost predictable; the same teams, with a few exceptions, compete for the end of season honours, others reside in mid-table oblivion, while some yo-yo between divisions. The reality is that a ‘caste’ system exists in English football, where teams know their place and revise their aspirations accordingly. Finishing outside the top four is a catastrophe for the big four teams, while seventeenth place for promoted clubs represents a successful season. Only twenty years ago there was a greater chance of a promoted team finishing in the top six than being relegated.
The loss of social mobility in football was down to an erosion of the football ‘society’, a narrative that was concurrently played out in Thatcher’s Britain. During the 1980s larger clubs began to feel their worth to football was not being sufficiently rewarded. The first TV contract to weight its payments specifically towards the bigger clubs was negotiated at the beginning of the 88/89 season, while the onset of the Premier League brought the end of cross-subsidisation of gate receipts for clubs in the top flight. The individualisation of football reflected the rise of the ‘New Right in Britain’; John Redwood once noted that Conservative measures against the ‘culture of dependency’ would have been unthinkable at the beginning of the 80s, and that they came into existence at all represented a shift in the psyche of the country. Rampant individualism and minimal investment in public services saw those at the bottom left to fend for themselves. Inequality rocketed as a result of the change in atmosphere and policy; the Gini Coefficient, a widely respected measure of inequality, rose during the period 1979 – 1990 from 101 to 135.
There are useful parallels between the problems English football and Britain could face as a result of their respective unequal societies. Football is a joint product; teams are interdependent and only become viable entities as a result of combination with another club to produce a competitive saleable output. This is something even the most rabidly free market societies are aware of. In the US, the draft system favours redistribution of playing resources; American football and basketball employ salary caps while gate receipts and television money are shared under varying arrangements. Similarly, unequal societies don’t just harm those at the bottom. The Spirit Level, a wide ranging study on the consequences of inequality, shows us that in unequal societies there is lower life expectancy, higher rates of obesity and teenage pregnancy, and more violent crime than in fairer equivalents. On a purely economic level, Britain is a far more attractive investment prospect if there is a vibrant internal market, skilled, literate and healthy workers, and an environment in which people feel encouraged to be creative as upward mobility and success are obtainable, even for those at the bottom.
English football and Britain are facing not dissimilar problems. While everybody can appreciate the glamour and excitement the Premiership and the last decade of affluence have brought, it would be foolish to ignore the potential harm inequality can have on long-term prospects. Beyond the moral argument that societies should help those least able to help themselves, the gap between the top and bottom in football and British society must be reduced if both are to retain their reputation as vibrant, competitive entities. Read more...

An open letter to the BBC

Guy Aitchison, of openDemocracy and Defend Peaceful Protest, and I have jointly written a letter of complaint to the BBC concerning the coverage of the G20 protests and related policing issues on the BBC News. We believe the letter points to some serious concerns about the quality of BBC News reporting on this matter, and so we have decided to make this an open letter with simultaneous publication here at Next Left and at OurKingdom.

Here is the letter:

'We are writing to complain about the BBC’s coverage of the policing of the G20 protests in the City of London on April 1st. In our view the BBC’s coverage has been incomplete, inaccurate, and frequently misleading, amounting to a failure on the BBC to discharge its proper obligations as a public service broadcaster. We have four principal concerns with the BBC’s coverage.

Partial and incomplete reporting of events amounting to misinformation

The BBC’s on-the-day reporting of the G20 protests failed to acknowledge the kettling of the Climate Camp at Bishopsgate and the aggressive police action recorded in videos and eyewitness testimony. The kettle was imposed between 7pm and 8pm which is when the police started to attack the Camp, but this was not reported on the BBC website or on BBC TV News.

At 9.16pm an article went up on the BBC website entitled Eyewitness: Climate Camp, which, under the sub-heading “Happy Campers”, reported that protesters’ were very pleased with the policing of the Camp. There was no other reporting on the Climate Camp that night at a time when it was being kettled and protesters were being beaten by police and it wasn’t until Friday April 3rd that the BBC website reported concerns with the Camp’s policing.

A feature by Julian Joyce on April 16th purporting to examine the merits and demerits of kettling in light of events at the G20 Police "kettle" tactic feels the heat contained no mention of the kettling of Climate Camp whatsoever, despite this being the most controversial use of the technique since it was carried out against an entirely peaceful protest.

By our reckoning, it wasn't until April 19, almost 3 weeks after the events, that a report on the BBC TV News acknowledged the police action at Climate Camp - and it did so then because another media outlet, The Sunday Times, had released video footage of aggressive policing. This failure to acknowledge the Climate Camp, and the particular issues raised by its policing, was a feature of nearly all the BBC News's reportage that we have seen - and certainly all the TV News reportage.

Further, the BBC TV News coverage routinely used the pictures of people smashing windows at RBS, thereby giving an impression that a degree of violence was a basicfeature of the G20 protests as such, which was very misleading given the non-violent character of the Climate Camp.

Indeed, even when, on April 19, the BBC TV News reported on the Climate Camp, the report in question failed to explain the context/motivation of the Camp and to differentiate it from events elsewhere, e.g., outside the RBS. The repeated - and, frankly, rather lazy - showing of the smashing of a window at the RBS will have given viewers the impression that the window smashing and the Climate Camp were related (which they were not) implicitly justifying the aggressive police action.

Grossly inaccurate statements about police tactics

Julian Joyce’s feature on kettling was factually misleading in stating that in a kettle the police allow protesters out of the cordon if they are non-violent. All the evidence, and our own experience, proves that this was not the case and that protesters and passers-by were indiscriminately detained with only a lucky few (mainly press) allowed to leave.

There were two problems here. One was factual: readers would have hadthe impression that the police did allow people out of the cordons at the G20 protests which we know, in general, to be untrue.

Second, there is a legal-conceptual problem. When the Law Lords considered the legality of kettling in January, they were explicitly considering whether the police could kettle on the understanding that this involves the police refusing to let non-violent individuals out of the cordon. So Julian Joyce's report did not seem to have taken into account what the legal definition of kettling is.

It is not possible to have a meaningful debate on kettling and whether or nor it is a legitimate tactic for use against peaceful demonstrations unless this basic features of kettling is understood.

Poor follow up to the story of heavy-handed policing

Follow-up of the story by BBC News has been very limited. There are now investigations by five separate official bodies into the policing of the G20 yet there has been almost no reporting on them and the important issues they raise on BBC TV News or on the BBC News website.

For example, Channel 4 News had a 3.5 minute segment on last week's Parliamentary hearings on the policing of the G20 protests. So far as we could tell, the BBC TV News the same evening - Tuesday, May 12 - had nothing. This arguably reflects a failure to appreciate the constitutional and ethical importance of the issue.

Lack of investigative impetus

More generally, the BBC’s coverage has been non-investigative. Other media outlets have done excellent investigative work, including Channel 4 News. BBC TV News, to our knowledge, has not aired one single investigative report on the issue - a report that sheds new light on the issue, rather than just reporting on the light others have shed.

The investigation to uncover the truth behind Ian Tomlinson’s death and expose the
misinformation coming from police sources was carried out entirely by other media outlets. Not only was the BBC playing catch up, it seems that it wanted to deliberately play down the significance of a story involving a passer-by’s death at police hands during a controversial policing operation and a potential police cover up.

Astonishingly, it is alleged that when the footage of the police assault on Ian Tomlison came to light BBC News’s initial reaction was that the story wasn’t important enough to run. According to Guardian journalist Stephen Moss: "When The Guardian offered this astonishing footage to the BBC News at 6, apparently the response was "No thanks, we're not covering this, we see it as just a London story.""

Again, this reflects a rather limited understanding of the vocation of a publicly-funded media outlet in a democratic society.

Discussion around the legitimacy of the tactics used by police at the G20 protests raises profound constitutional and ethical principles and that is why it is essential that the public be provided with full and accurate information of what actually took place. The BBC’s reporting has frequently been incomplete and inaccurate thanks to an over-reliance on official sources and a lack of investigative impetus. As a public service broadcaster the BBC has a special responsibility not to distort a debate which is so vital to the health of our democracy. This it has failed to do. We hope for better from future BBC reporting.' Read more...

An open letter to the BBC

Guy Aitchison, of openDemocracy and Defend Peaceful Protest, and I have jointly written a letter of complaint to the BBC concerning the coverage of the G20 protests and related policing issues on the BBC News. We believe the letter points to some serious concerns about the quality of BBC News reporting on this matter, and so we have decided to make this an open letter with simultaneous publication here at Next Left and at OurKingdom.

Here is the letter:

'We are writing to complain about the BBC’s coverage of the policing of the G20 protests in the City of London on April 1st. In our view the BBC’s coverage has been incomplete, inaccurate, and frequently misleading, amounting to a failure on the BBC to discharge its proper obligations as a public service broadcaster. We have four principal concerns with the BBC’s coverage.

Partial and incomplete reporting of events amounting to misinformation

The BBC’s on-the-day reporting of the G20 protests failed to acknowledge the kettling of the Climate Camp at Bishopsgate and the aggressive police action recorded in videos and eyewitness testimony. The kettle was imposed between 7pm and 8pm which is when the police started to attack the Camp, but this was not reported on the BBC website or on BBC TV News.

At 9.16pm an article went up on the BBC website entitled Eyewitness: Climate Camp, which, under the sub-heading “Happy Campers”, reported that protesters’ were very pleased with the policing of the Camp. There was no other reporting on the Climate Camp that night at a time when it was being kettled and protesters were being beaten by police and it wasn’t until Friday April 3rd that the BBC website reported concerns with the Camp’s policing.

A feature by Julian Joyce on April 16th purporting to examine the merits and demerits of kettling in light of events at the G20 Police "kettle" tactic feels the heat contained no mention of the kettling of Climate Camp whatsoever, despite this being the most controversial use of the technique since it was carried out against an entirely peaceful protest.

By our reckoning, it wasn't until April 19, almost 3 weeks after the events, that a report on the BBC TV News acknowledged the police action at Climate Camp - and it did so then because another media outlet, The Sunday Times, had released video footage of aggressive policing. This failure to acknowledge the Climate Camp, and the particular issues raised by its policing, was a feature of nearly all the BBC News's reportage that we have seen - and certainly all the TV News reportage.

Further, the BBC TV News coverage routinely used the pictures of people smashing windows at RBS, thereby giving an impression that a degree of violence was a basicfeature of the G20 protests as such, which was very misleading given the non-violent character of the Climate Camp.

Indeed, even when, on April 19, the BBC TV News reported on the Climate Camp, the report in question failed to explain the context/motivation of the Camp and to differentiate it from events elsewhere, e.g., outside the RBS. The repeated - and, frankly, rather lazy - showing of the smashing of a window at the RBS will have given viewers the impression that the window smashing and the Climate Camp were related (which they were not) implicitly justifying the aggressive police action.

Grossly inaccurate statements about police tactics

Julian Joyce’s feature on kettling was factually misleading in stating that in a kettle the police allow protesters out of the cordon if they are non-violent. All the evidence, and our own experience, proves that this was not the case and that protesters and passers-by were indiscriminately detained with only a lucky few (mainly press) allowed to leave.

There were two problems here. One was factual: readers would have hadthe impression that the police did allow people out of the cordons at the G20 protests which we know, in general, to be untrue.

Second, there is a legal-conceptual problem. When the Law Lords considered the legality of kettling in January, they were explicitly considering whether the police could kettle on the understanding that this involves the police refusing to let non-violent individuals out of the cordon. So Julian Joyce's report did not seem to have taken into account what the legal definition of kettling is.

It is not possible to have a meaningful debate on kettling and whether or nor it is a legitimate tactic for use against peaceful demonstrations unless this basic features of kettling is understood.

Poor follow up to the story of heavy-handed policing

Follow-up of the story by BBC News has been very limited. There are now investigations by five separate official bodies into the policing of the G20 yet there has been almost no reporting on them and the important issues they raise on BBC TV News or on the BBC News website.

For example, Channel 4 News had a 3.5 minute segment on last week's Parliamentary hearings on the policing of the G20 protests. So far as we could tell, the BBC TV News the same evening - Tuesday, May 12 - had nothing. This arguably reflects a failure to appreciate the constitutional and ethical importance of the issue.

Lack of investigative impetus

More generally, the BBC’s coverage has been non-investigative. Other media outlets have done excellent investigative work, including Channel 4 News. BBC TV News, to our knowledge, has not aired one single investigative report on the issue - a report that sheds new light on the issue, rather than just reporting on the light others have shed.

The investigation to uncover the truth behind Ian Tomlinson’s death and expose the
misinformation coming from police sources was carried out entirely by other media outlets. Not only was the BBC playing catch up, it seems that it wanted to deliberately play down the significance of a story involving a passer-by’s death at police hands during a controversial policing operation and a potential police cover up.

Astonishingly, it is alleged that when the footage of the police assault on Ian Tomlison came to light BBC News’s initial reaction was that the story wasn’t important enough to run. According to Guardian journalist Stephen Moss: "When The Guardian offered this astonishing footage to the BBC News at 6, apparently the response was "No thanks, we're not covering this, we see it as just a London story.""

Again, this reflects a rather limited understanding of the vocation of a publicly-funded media outlet in a democratic society.

Discussion around the legitimacy of the tactics used by police at the G20 protests raises profound constitutional and ethical principles and that is why it is essential that the public be provided with full and accurate information of what actually took place. The BBC’s reporting has frequently been incomplete and inaccurate thanks to an over-reliance on official sources and a lack of investigative impetus. As a public service broadcaster the BBC has a special responsibility not to distort a debate which is so vital to the health of our democracy. This it has failed to do. We hope for better from future BBC reporting.' Read more...

Presentation is everything, Esther

It’s becoming abundantly clear just how important presentation is in politics - and I haven’t even seen Gordon Brown’s infamous YouTube broadcast yet (I didn’t want to scare the children that were in the room).

The thing is, I don’t really care how politicians appear. I don’t require them to be attractive, or polished, or great wits. I don’t want to be their friend. All I require of politicians is that they are intelligent, driven individuals that pursue principled politics that I can relate to (if not necessarily agree with).

Put it this way: if you had the choice of choosing the surgeon who was about to operate on you, you wouldn’t choose the one who seems like they’d be most fun down the pub. You’d go for the one who was most experienced and had the best recovery rates. Image isn’t important in fields such as medicine.

Such common sense rarely applies to politics.

If Abraham Lincoln were around today, it’s doubtful whether he’d get to be President. For all his undoubted intellect, ability and courage, he was – let’s face it – an odd looking cove. He’d be a challenge for the Republican Party communications team in today’s media saturated, image obsessed world. (“Listen, Abe. If you’re to stand a chance of getting the soccer mom vote, you’re going to have to sort out your eyebrows. And for God’s sake, lose the beard.”)

If you’re still not convinced that image is everything, consider that Esther Rantzen is now contemplating running for Parliament. Truly, we’ve gone through the looking glass. We’re so desperate for integrity, and trust, that anyone who’s appeared on TV will probably get into Parliament with a thumping majority.

And yet – with all due respect to Esther – I’m not sure what she stands for, besides being against expensive dry rot claims. Which is fine, as far as it goes. But what else is she planning to do in her five years as MP? And will she be able to function effectively without the support apparatus of a political party? As David Aaronovitch argues, it’s a moot point. It’s also something that most of us don’t tend to consider as voters.

After all, why have a boring MP who’s slogged their way through grassroots politics and knows their constituency inside out, when you could elect that one off the telly?

The way things are going, the next Parliament will be littered with the remnants of daytime TV. Bowing to public pressure, the next Cabinet will probably contain the likes of Rantzen (she’d be good as a touchy-feely Minister for Health); David Dickinson (getting the taxpayer bargain deals as Chancellor); and Jeremy Kyle (as Home Secretary, he’d keep the chavs in line through a combination of tough legislation and shouting loudly at them). While we're at it, why not bring the Loose Women team into the fold (as a special no-nonsense Cabinet taskforce to sort out the Israel-Palestine conflict).

Oh well. The campaign for Ant and Dec’s joint premiership may as well start here. Read more...