Tuesday, May 05, 2009

An apology for a constitution

Jonathan Richards & Julian Burgess produced an interesting graph for The Times magazine feature Crunch Time: A Story in Data: the number of stories containing 7 chosen keywords which have appeared in the paper, year by year, since 1985


Love must be in short supply these days, for “Sorry” is now the most-used word, appearing almost as often as did “Princess of Wales” in 1997, though not as frequently as did “terrorism” in 2001 or even in 1986


As the gentlemanly spirit of Westminster has been overtaken by aggression, so a culture has risen of holding MPs responsible for their actions” suggest Richards & Burgess


But of course it is not just politicians who are expected to grovel. John Humphrys was apoplectic on Today when no representative of an individual bank would agree to come & be grilled & roasted, chewed up & spat out by him (a man who cannot even pronounce heteroskedacity) on the Treasury Select Committee report as he appeared to believe they had a duty to do


But then not even seasoned political observer Matthew Parris had understood that, as he wrote about another BBC programme, the Jeremy Vine Show: “Radio 2 is a lofty institution, but I had not until this week understood their position in our unwritten constitution” (He thinks they were told about the Prime Minister’s planned appearance on You Tube before the Cabinet had heard, let alone agreed to, his proposals on how to solve the problem of MPs expenses)

You have the Queen at the top, beneath her the Prime Minister, then YouTube, then Radio 2, then the Cabinet & finally (lowest of the low) Parliament


Of course the Prime Minister’s attempt to reach out & touch, to push the buttons of the population has, as we now know, rather spectacularly misfired


He was only trying to take advantage of the new style, as described by Caitlin Moran in her review of Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe:

’The news’ used to be a factual programme, to which we would then have an emotional response. But, since the death of Diana, princess of Wales, this has become reversed; the news has taken to first asking us for our emotional opinion, then covering it as a ‘factual’ event


And so, in another twist, ‘news’ must now include reports on the emotional reactions of politicians. Thus Hazel Blears is ‘distraught’ by the media reaction to her “You Tube if you want to” piece, & Ed Balls is made “sick to his stomach” by the latest revelations in the Baby P saga


How do we get to a new style of discourse? It would help if a new Bagehot could emerge to explain to us the new nature of our unwritten constitution