In the winter of
1992, the American political media concentrated its focus on the Democratic
Party’s New Hampshire primary. Shortly before the vote, Bill Clinton was ahead
of the field but Gennifer Flowers dropped a bombshell, telling the American
public of her extramarital affair with Bill. Suddenly, Clinton trailed badly in
the polls. He was a dead duck. On election night, Paul Tsongas won the primary
but the story the next day, published in all newspapers and broadcast on all
news channels up and down the States, was how Clinton was the winner, despite
coming second. Clinton named himself, “The Comeback Kid” and left New Hampshire
with momentum for the remaining primaries.
Last week, the
results of our General Election put the Conservatives miles ahead of their
opponents. Of the 650 House of Commons seats, they won 317. Their nearest
rivals, Labour, could only manage 262 seats. Minority parties accounted for the
other 71 seats. The problem for the Conservatives is that they fell 8 seats
short of a working majority needed in the House of Commons. The British media
collectively reported the outcome as a loss for Prime Minister Theresa May and
a win for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose Party had started the campaign 20
points behind the Tories.
I do not
understand how anyone in the media can report the election outcome as a loss
for the Conservatives. If the latter cannot form a coalition, they will rule as
a minority government but they didn’t lose the election. The loser was Prime
Minister May. Calling an election when it was not needed, losing the majority
in the House of Commons and a huge lead her Party held in the Polls was grounds
enough for resignation. So was the campaign she ran. It was highly personalized
and replete with empty slogans. On every appearance, in every speech and at
every interview, we were told about the “strong and stable government” over
which she would preside. At least we were not told, “Let’s Make Britain Great
Again.”
On this side of
The Pond, we seem to have adopted numerous American ways of reporting political
news, using American methods and terminology. One American approach is to
personalize the struggle between nominees for the Presidency. Trump versus
Clinton will remain in my memory bank for eons. For the past seven weeks, our
media reported on May versus Corbyn as if they were the only personalities
worth talking about, unless another politician made a huge gaffe. This was
selling the electorate short.
We do not have a
Presidential system of government. Ours is Parliamentary and the Prime Minister
is merely “primus inter pares”, first among equals. When we vote in a General
Election, our choice is a member of Parliament. We do not vote for a Prime
Minister. Yet our television news daily concentrated on the leaders as if they
were Presidential material, almost to the exclusion of everyone else. True,
they also reported on policy proposals but mainly to criticize Manifesto
promises. Interviewers would ask politicians for precise details and numbers
when no individual would be likely to have this kind of detail for instant
recall.
As for
terminology, I resent listening to a politician refer to an opponent as someone
who needs to “step up to the plate.” I have been to many baseball games and
understand the true meaning of this expression but I suspect I am in a minority
here in UK. Why do we need to use an American analogy when we have our own? We
play cricket, not baseball. Why can’t our politicians call for their opposite
number “to take his/her stance at the crease?” This is the place where a
batsman stands when awaiting a bowler to deliver.
Our political
masters probably do not understand it when they say, “Caught behind the 8
ball.” Over here, they are “snookered.” And as for the awful expression that
has become the politicians’ prayer, “we must make sure”, this import from
President Obama has become used by all and sundry. I wouldn’t mind but our
politicians do not make sure. If they did, we wouldn’t have one calamity after
another.
My point is the
political systems in America and UK are poles apart. We do not have separation
of powers like America. In UK, the House of Lords (the Legislature) has limited
powers. The House of Commons (the important part of the Legislature) is supreme
but it is heavily influenced by the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the Executive)
most of whom sit in the House of Commons. Hence, to report about our politics
as if we were a carbon copy of the American system is lazy, ineffectual,
laughable and downright wrong. Let’s demand of the UK media that it concentrate
on Party policy as much as Leader quality. Let’s end the habit of interviewers
barking questions without waiting for answers. Let’s stop the unjustifiable
mockery of individual politicians who campaign under enormous pressure and who
occasionally misspeak.
When the
Conservatives lost the 1997 election to Labour, John Major, the Tory leader,
gave a dignified acceptance speech in which he referred to politics as a “rough
old trade.” He was right. Politics is a trade, not a profession and those who
practice it should be honest about it. Likewise, it is high time many British journalists
realize they are not God Almighty and they have greater responsibilities than
finding a scoop which will just cause embarrassment or mislead the public about
political issues.
The lawsuits are
virgin territory because it is the first time government entities and
legislators have brought such an action. Trump’s slim defence is that his
business assets are in a trust managed by his sons. The question is whether a
federal judge will permit the case to proceed. The claimants seek an injunction
forcing Trump to end Constitution violations, leaving it to the Courts to
decide how this should be done. I suspect the Courts will not hear the cases,
leaving it to Congress to decide what to do about the issue. The choices: do
nothing, issuing a censure with or without conditions or impeach. As ever with
Mr. Trump, watch this space.
View
Photos
No comments:
Post a Comment