New Labour’s problem solving: a lesson to us all
A vivid illustration of this government’s misunderstanding of the nature of power is in its attitude towards its own failings. When it has a problem, instead of addressing that problem properly, honestly and openly, it seeks to choke the source that is telling the public about that problem.
Shortage of equipment killing soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? Don’t break your neck trying to fix the problem, try and gag the coroner who publicly voices his disgust. Whistleblowers concerned about your illegal maneuverings on the world stage? Don’t take a long hard look at how you’re doing things, just take away a whistleblower’s defence in law.
We’ve had a couple more examples of this just in the last couple of days. Someone in the Home Office or the Police leaked details of an anti-terrorist operation to the press last year, threatening the investigation in exchange for cheap headlines. Strangely, the source of the leak was never found. Clearly extraordinary rendition and water-boarding weren’t options on the table in this instance.
So what’s the solution for deterring further leaks? Don’t publicly bang heads together in the Home Office and Police; don’t move heaven and earth to find those risking anti-terror efforts. Simply threaten to censor the media on matters of national security. As if the media isn’t voluntarily supine enough.
Then the government finds it has the problem of rebellious backbenchers. Over a hundred Labour backbenchers have voted against the government in Parliament since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister. There’s no mention of re-evaluating whether government policies are authoritarian, unfair to the poor, badly written or not in keeping with the ethos of the Labour Party. No mention of dialogue. No questioning of the direction of the government.
No, the solution is to threaten MPs’ careers. MPs who have voted against the government in the past year will not be recommended for positions on parliamentary committees. ‘The impact will be strongest on younger MPs who tend to see the select committee system as a route to ministerial office.’ As if the parliamentary Labour party isn’t voluntarily supine enough.
Still, if this is the way the Greater Good seek to conduct their affairs, why shouldn’t we follow their example? Aren’t they the best amongst us, elected to show us the way, the truth and the light?
The next time I’ve had too much to drink and my hangover’s a bastard – when I’m tired, my head’s thumping, I’m bad tempered, and the kids want attention instead of leaving me to languish on the sofa – you know what I’m going to do, instead of moderating my intake or making the effort to get off the sofa and down on the floor? I’m going to ask myself: ‘What would Gordon Brown do?’
The kids will be locked outside in the garden while I have a hair of the dog.
Posted on November 11th, 2008 at 9:09am under New Labour
| Related posts... • Flatus Quo • Kelvin Hopkins for Prime Minister • Punishing leaks: time for some fairness |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 6 Comments |
MPs who have voted against the government in the past year will not be recommended for positions on parliamentary committees.
Just asking, but wouldn’t something similar be normal practice, not something particular to New Labour? Backbenchers who vote against their party don’t usually find favour when it comes to consdieration for promotion. Possibly that’s more accentuated in New Labour than it has been previously, but I wouldn’t say so for sure.
It’s perhaps worth adding that one persistent NL habit when coming under criticism has been to apologise and promise to “listen” in the future. After a while this has roughly the same effect as the manager who tells you that their door is always open.
I think you’re right. Thinking about it, I suppose the timing of the ‘announcement’ about rebellious MPs is the killer. Why now? I think because it helps to show that Gordon’s back and he’s pissed off. He’s not taking any more shit. He knows what’s best. Don’t get in his way.
That it serves to reinforce the public perception of MPs as self-serving careerists who are corralled by appealing to their ambitions and wallets rather than their consciences doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone in the high command.
You just know that the threat to the national media will mean that the definition of ‘national security’ becomes ever greater. That said, leaking details of a live investigation was bloody stupid.
http://www.lettersfromatory.com
Whether that was the case with mps or not is a moot point, since 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
[...] Also > Chicken Yoghurt [...]
Careful Justin – your reality based description of how this “progressive” (ie. NOT the Tory Party) administration (which was supposed to be different) operates is likely to bring down upon your head accusations of cynicism and carping from the “left” from the usual suspects eagerly competing with each other for the mantle of Squealer (from Orwell’s Animal Farm).
You’ll be telling us next that its wrong to be a hypocrite.