Holding to Account

Yesterday, the Independent newspaper published an article about Margaret Hodge, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. It is one of the oldest committees currently in existence, and has over many years been the major committee for overseeing the use of public money. It has the National Audit Office report direct to it. By convention, the Chair is a member of the main Opposition party.


The article describes the role and work of the PAC, but the focus of the article is on Ms Hodge’s to hold senior civil servants to account before Parliament. Of course that has faced some resistance, due to the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility. That doctrine has Ministers responsible before Parliament for the actions of the Departments they head.

Fans of “Yes, Minister”, will no doubt applaud Ms Hodge’s efforts – with its portrayal of hapless ministers constantly outwitted by cunning and clever civil servants. The reality is somewhat different.


The article can be accessed here.

Europe

Last night I enjoyed watching the "Party Games" episode of "Yes Minister" (the Christmas Special of 1984 - in which the climax is the phonecall that confirms that he is to be the new Prime Minister.)Well worth buying the complete set of 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes, Prime Minister' (a much better guide to how British politics and government works than many textbooks on the subject!)



In this episode in order to gain popularity he misrepresents a European Directive - and promises to stand against it. It's a tool that 'Yes Minister' was satirising 27 years ago - and is still a staple part of the British political scene. (Just look at the media & parliament in the last few days as we approach the European Summit.)



It is an effective technique (and I'm sorry to say even some pro-Europe politicians have used it for short term gain) - but has unfortunate consequences. Euroscepticism has flourished - and misunderstandings about the EU (the classic is the confusion between the EU Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights - which as a law lecturer I have to deal with frequently.)

I recently made a complaint to the BBC about a short item on the Steve Wright Show in which Dr Hilary Jones had attacked the an "EU directive" (and Steve Wright had joined in)

My complaint read:

Complaint Summary: Dr Hilary Jones' comments on EU (1 hr 39 mins)



Full Complaint: Yet another euromyth is being repeated by an "expert" on the BBC. In responding to a tabloid story about water Dr Jones stated "The EU directive is complete nonsense, it is absolute madness" The listening public might assume that this was a considered opinion based on reading the report. This would not appear to be the case. It is no wonder that people have a poor view of the EU. My concern is that inaccurate descriptions and glib uninformed remarks have political consequences. Our national dialogue about the EU ang government in general is being corrupted by this sort of nonsense which you have broadcast. The Regulation in question can be accessed at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:299:0001:0003:EN:PDF Further background can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov/18/1?newsfeed=true

I received this response yesterday

Dear Mr Morgan



Reference CAS-1118986-L5VWYF


I have listened to the Steve Wright Show and the comments you have raised.


The item was slightly tongue-in-cheek but was based on an EU report designed to prevent commercial bottlers from profiting from claims. The BBC did not report the story although the Daily Telegraph did:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html


The Telegraph has its own standpoint on Europe of course, but the angle they took is interesting. Clearly story headline is designed as an attention grabber.


In listening back I think the light-hearted tone was appropriate (this is an entertainment programme) and was not misleading as they did mention the commercial angle which the report and ruling were designed to address. However, taken at face value it does seem to be a report that would naturally attract ridicule. Although there is no anti-EU bias that I am aware of, I will pass your comments to the producer so that he is reminded that we do need to maintain balance, especially at the moment.
Lord Reith's aim was that the BBC should to "educate, inform and entertain" - do they have the balance right today? In "Yes Minister" they exposed the deliberate misrepresentation of European affairs as a political strategy, today are they pandering to it?

Some Political Humour

With a monster weekend coming up in Britain - this may be an opportune moment to introduce or remind you of some of the political humour websites available.

For Congress there ia "The Capitol Steps", which began as a group of congressional staffers entertaining at parties - and now can be seen weekly at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center and elsewhere when they are on tour (they are in California at the moment - all dates are listed here)

The website is regularly updated - and allows you to listen to individual songs and download previously broadcast holiday shows.

In Britain, "Yes Minister" is on tour - this week in Aylesbury. Details of the tour - and lots more, including the blog, can be found here.

Channel 4's website has a page dedicated to cartoons about the Coalition.

Enjoy - and let me know YOUR favourite sources of political humour.

Steve Bell's wicked cartoons can be found on the Guardian's website.

Private Eye Covers are browseable and Searchable here.

Comparing British and American Government

A subject central to Washminster. Just before Christmas C-SPAN aired this programme which brings together some very useful information. I recommend this as a resource to revisit many times - I will certainly be making much use of the comments made.

Liaison Committee

Today the Prime Minister appears before the Liaison Committee. This committee brings together the Chairs of the Departmental Select Committees of the House of Commons. When this system was set up in 1979 the Prime Minister was strongly opposed to having the Head of Government submit to questioning by Commons committees. Prime Minister's Question Time was seen as the appropriate forum for holding the Premier to account. The objection was maintained until Tony Blair was persuaded to attend. It has now become an important feature of parliamentary life.

The most important aspect of these sessions is the opportunity to question the Prime Minister at length. The value of PMQs can be doubted. It is a very partisan event with opposing sides of the chamber - and particularly the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition - trying to score political points. Questions - and answers - are short, and the severe time constraints rarely permit a Premier to be challenged in depth. All Prime Ministers have acquired the skills to deal with questions they would rather not face.

Sessions before the Liaison Committee were intended to address that lack of proper scrutiny. There were teething troubles - as every Chair sought to put in a question - and some were less than succinct. Lessons have been learned, but this is a new Parliament, with new Chairs.

The committee website can be accessed here.

The evidence will begin at 2.00 pm on Thursday 18 November, and is expected to last for up to two and a half hours. it will be webcast live on Parliament TV.

It is expected that the questioning will cover the following subjects:


At 2pm: - The Spending Review: the PM’s involvement

The Comprehensive Spending Review process
The Defence settlement
Higher Education and science funding
Transport spending
Housing Benefit and Local Government funding
Police funding
Early intervention

At approximately 3.10pm: “Greenest government ever”

The green agenda
Progress to a low-carbon economy
Defra funding for flood defence
The Forestry Commission

At approximately 3.40pm: Strategic Defence and Security Review

UK National Strategy
UK foreign policy and the National Security Strategy
Counter-Terrorism policy and the role of National Security Council
Development and climate change

At approximately 4pm: Afghanistan and Pakistan

DFID’s programme in Afghanistan
Cross-Government working
UK’s general strategy for the region
Policy on withdrawal

Political Humour

I have mentioned "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" a few times in this blog (for example see here). It is one of my favourite TV comedies - and alsoI rate it highly as a tongue-in-cheek guide to the workings of British government. Many of the the episodes and incidents were grounded in real events and practices.

The writers have recently started a blog in "Sir Humphrey's" name - although he should be retired now (a little like Bart Simpson, time has no effect).

I thoroughly recommend signing up for this blog. The link is here.

An explanation of Foreign Policy from the original series

British Politics in Film (and TV)

Britain has never had as large a film industry as the USA, but it has its own collection of political films. Earlier this year the Yorkshire Post published an article by Tony Earnshaw about Politics and British film

"There is something wan and feeble about British politics on film. Not for the Brits the stench of corruption that permeated the Watergate affair, or the gift of a wonderfully bent White House politico such as Richard Nixon.


No. The best Britannia can come up with is elected members fiddling their expenses, liars like Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken, a murky restaurant-based arrangement that led to a fractious partnership between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and long-forgotten MPs engaging in tawdry toe-sucking rumpy-pumpy dressed in their favourite football strips.

Admittedly, British politicians do sex scandals rather well, though it's hardly the heady stuff that creates world-class drama in the mould of Mr Smith Goes to Washington, The Manchurian Candidate or Seven Days in May. Hollywood has the monopoly on that."
 
The only film Earnshaw merited worthy of mention was Scandal, about the Profumo affair of the early 1960s. There are plenty of films (and made for TV movies) about incidents in British history. Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I's reigns and the English Civil War struggles are a frequently revisited subject. [Cromwell was my favourite]. British Prime Ministers are subjects of many films - from Disraeli in 'The Prime Minister' to the many films where Tony Blair is a key player - a role which Michael Sheen has excelled in.
 
 "V for Vendetta" is an excellent film, though personally uncomfortable - the final scene portrays the Palace of Westminster being blown up - as I work there, those are pictures I'd rather not watch! My favourite comedy is Passport to Pimlico, a clever film based on the idea that Pimlico (an area to the south of London's Victoria Station -and close to Westminster) - is discovered not to be part of the UK. In the aftermath of World War Two (with rationing) the inhabitants reassert their independence.

On TV there are two excellent series - 'Yes Minister' (which became 'Yes Prime Minister') and 'The Thick of It'. The latter is closely related to the film 'In The Loop'. There is an excellent website dedicated to Yes Minister accessible here.

TV Drama and Real Life

There are two TV programmes that I particularly enjoy - and which are also useful portrayals of how the political systems in Britain and the USA work. They are "Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister" and "West Wing". Many of the storylines are based on actual events.

NPR did a piece recently on how real life mirrors a West Wing Story line. It's an interesting piece and I recommend spending eight and a half minutes listening to it.

It may be accessed here.

The episode referred to is "Let Bartlet be Bartlet" (Season One, Episode 19)