The
problem as ever isn't the standards the left has to meet - it's how
low the bar is for the right.
Jeremy
Corbyn has had a tricky encounter with Emma Barnett on Women’s
Hour, in which the Labour leader was unable to remember the cost of
his flagship childcare policy – for 30 hours of childcare to be
made available for free regardless of parental income, benefiting 1.3
million families.
The
interview is great radio – you can read the transcript here but
it’s better heard than read – but is it a good way to cover
politics? My colleague Helen doesn’t think so, and nor does Matt
Zarb-Cousin, formerly of the leader’s office, now turned pro-Corbyn
commentator. They think that by asking these questions, they are
turning elections into a test of memory, not an arena where the
strength of the parties’ programmes are judged. Are they right?
Well, sort
of. As Zarb-Cousin points out, we already know that every spending
commitment in Labour’s manifesto has been costed, so the question
of how much each commitment costs in of itself doesn’t tell us
anything. A more revealing policy question is whether or not the
£2.7bn would be better spent on children aged two to four in a
different way.
(The answer
there is: Sort of yes, sort of no. The really transformative stuff
around early years education in Britain is happening in schools
providing teacher-led care from two to 11, but that would cost a lot
more than the £2.7bn childcare commitment would. It’s a bit like
saying “Wouldn’t a new space station be better for interstellar
research than a new university building?” – the answer is yes,
but it’s beside the point.)
And Helen is
right to say that ultimately, the ability to remember a figure is not
a particularly relevant one as far as judging the next Prime Minister
is concerned.
There’s
the added problem of course that this style of questioning benefits
the right, as any gaffe made by a leftwing politician is amplified
and more widely-shared by Britain’s large right-wing press, which
in turn shapes broadcast coverage. The leftwing press is far smaller,
so gaffes by right-wing politicians often reach a smaller audience. A
good example in this election is in the fate of the two parties’
home affairs leads: Amber Rudd’s call for experts versed in the
“necessary hashtags” to stop offensive messages being posted on
social media has had a far more limited afterlife than Diane Abbott
forgetting how much Labour would have to spend to reverse the
government’s cuts to policing. Abbott got her sums wrong, Rudd
appeared not to have got her arms around a central issue relating to
her department, and yet Abbott’s gaffe has become a dominant part
of the election campaign.
There are
two “buts”, however. The first, is that while the question might
not be revealing about policy, these “gotcha” questions do
stress-test the competence of the team behind the leader. Given that
Jeremy Corbyn was on Woman’s Hour to talk about the party’s
childcare policy, he should have been armed with a small piece of
paper and to have rehearsed the cost of the policy, how it would be
paid for, and so forth, as it was all-but-inevitable he would be
asked. (Particularly as Labour are rightly making a big play of the
fact that the figures in the Conservative manifesto can be boiled
down to “Trust me, okay?”)
This isn’t
the first time that Labour’s difficulty giving its frontline
politicians the information they need has been a problem this
campaign. As I explained at the time, John McDonnell’s fiscal rule
set out clearly why they didn’t need to provide additional costing
for their planned programme of re-nationalisations. But that so many
shadow ministers, including loyal Corbynites, were unable to explain
that in interviews revealed a worrying failure on the part of the
leadership to get its ducks in a row.
And while
policies should be a big part of elections, they shouldn’t be the
only part: the characters of the leaders should too. Take the Brexit
talks. Both Labour and the Conservatives have effectively the same
policy on paper: to retain the benefits of European Union membership
as far as possible while no longer being subject to the free movement
of people. But of course, their ability to get the best possible deal
– and their willingness to harm the economy to get control over
immigration – ultimately rests on a question of what we reckon as
to their characters and disposition.
Or last
night’s not-quite-debates. Does it matter that Jeremy Corbyn worked
on his tendency to be overcome by a red mist in heated interviews and
was a model of calm, while Theresa May’s habit of shooting
murderous stares at anyone remained unchecked? Well, as far as the
telly goes, that Corbyn didn’t produce pictures of him gritting his
teeth while May stared angrily at cameras obviously contributed to
the Labour leader’s win last night. But they also speak to what you
hear from staff in the leader’s office and civil servants on
Whitehall. Corbyn’s aides will talk about how they feel able to
speak truth to power without being shouted down – they don’t
necessarily get their way but they don’t fear the consequences of
dissent. Government officials however, do fear that they will be
given a barracking if they go against May. That speaks to far bigger
concerns than who looked better on telly – not least the question
of who can negotiate Brexit or who should be in the room at moments
of crisis. Equally, how prepared a politician is for a gotcha
question does speak to how well-run their office is and is a
commentary on how well-run their government would be.
There’s a
second but. As my colleague Anoosh notes, the big problem isn’t
that the media gives Jeremy Corbyn a tough ride – it’s that the
media it gives the right an incredibly easy one. It’s not
unreasonable that for Labour to win it needs not only to cost its
policy but to brief its candidates well enough that they can explain
that policy to voters and its leader in particular.
It is
unreasonable and worrying that if the polls are right, Britain is
about to re-elect a government planning a migration target that would
blow a hole in the public finances with a Home Secretary who thinks
that social media companies are capable of “breaking into” an
encrypted message. And no-one has really asked them about it.
Source,
links:
Comments
Post a Comment