Keep the Change

Everywhere you look these days, there are politicians promising you "change".  In the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary campaign, Hilary Clinton was "Working for Change", then "Ready for Change".  I guess she didn't work quite hard enough, or possibly she just wasn't ready, because she lost  to Barack Obama.   Obama in turn offered Americans "Change We Can Believe In".  He must have realized that nobody actually did believe in it, because the slogan itself was the first thing he changed; first it was "Change We Need", then "Change can Happen".  Many things happen, of course, including some you wouldn't want to have likened to your candidacy,  so Obama then offered us "Change that Works for You".

Congressional Republicans weren't to be outdone.  They countered with "The Change You Deserve."  It was an odd slogan for a party that had controlled the White House for 8 years, all the more so when it was revealed that the slogan was already in use - appropriately enough, some may say - in marketing a powerful anti-depressant drug.  At least in the ensuing election Americans did get "the change they deserved".  The Republican were overwhelmingly defeated and Democrats regained control of both the White House and Congress.

Across the pond, David Cameron and the Tories pronounced 2010 as "The Year for Change",  assured voters they were "Ready for Change" and exhorted them to "Vote for Change".  The Lib-Dems also jumped on the "change" bandwagon.  But rather than waste time and money  to come up a novel twist on the old theme Clegg at al shamelessly lifted Obama's "Change that Works for You" and tacked on the clumsy non-sequitur "Building a Fairer Britain.  I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs when politicians promising "change" can't even come up with an original slogan.

In the event, fewer voters than they hoped took them up on the offer, but the failure of either major party to gain an outright majority propelled the Lib-Dems into a coalition with the Tories.  "Change that Works for Us" might have been a more appropriate slogan.

But with the formation of the coalition, all that talk about "change" took on a new dimension.  The Tories and Lib-Dems, we were told, represented not just a new government but a "new kind of politics".  Does anyone seriously believe this nonsense?  The coalition is not a new kind of politics, at least not one that has any merit or longevity.  It is an interim arrangement borne of necessity that will last only as the Tories determine that it's in their interests to keep it going.  And regardless how long it does last, you can bet that the Tories won't be fighting the next election asking voters to return the coalition to power, new politics or no new politics.

The talk about "a new kind of politics" is intended to evoke images of greater transparency, less partisanship, greater accountability. Nick Clegg may be naive enough to believe in this, but his boss David Cameron certainly doesn't.  Although these are still early days, two recent incidents show that, for Cameron, it's strictly politics as usual - and politics of the worst conceivable kind.  Politics Tony Blair style.

The first example was Cameron's clumsy effort to rig the election for Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the committee of Tory back bench MPs that acts as a conduit between the leadership and rank-and-file MPs.   Cameron demanded that Ministers, contrary to tradition, be allowed to vote in the election.  His assumption presumably was that ministers would show their loyalty to the man who had given them their jobs by supporting his favored candidate.   But his high-handedness provoked anger from many back benchers already dissatisfied over policy concessions (albeit few in number) that Clegg had been able to extract in negotiating the coalition agreement. One MP described Cameron's tactics as a "mafia stitch-up"; another likened him to Robert Mugabe.  Cameron was forced to back down, and his candidate for Chairman was handily beaten by right-winger Graham Brady.  It was the worst possible outcome for Cameron.   It strengthened opposition to him in the parliamentary party and virtually assured defeat for his candidate.

They say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it; the 1922 Committee fiasco was reminiscent of Tony Blair's attempt, shortly after taking office, to oust popular Labour backbench MPs Donald Anderson and Gwyneth Dunwoody as chairmen of two Commons select committees.  It triggered a revolt within the parliamentary party, and Blair was forced to back down.  Cameron, like Blair, appears to be afraid of dissent and intent on stifling potential opposition from within his own ranks, but hasn't figured our that respect, even from his own rank and file, has to be earned.  Or perhaps he just shares Blair's view that a "parliamentary democracy" is one in which parliament has to account to the government, rather than vice versa.

The second, even more baffling example occurred this week, when Cameron refused to allow a government minister to appear on the long-running weekly BBC discussion programme "Question Time".  The BBC is scrupulously careful in ensuring each panel includes a representative from each of the major parties.  On this occasion, Labour were to be represented by former Blair spin doctor Alastair Campbell.  When this came to Cameron's attention, the BBC were informed that unless the BBC replaced Campbell with a member of the shadow cabinet, the government would not allow any of its ministers to appear.  The BBC rightly refused to withdraw Campbell's invitation and the government boycotted the show.  The BBC then arranged, independent of Downing Street, for a Tory MP to participate.  Again, the worst possible outcome for Cameron.  After attempting unsuccessfully to bully the 1922 Committee he is now exposed as having attempted to bully, equally unsuccessfully the BBC. 

So this is the "new kind of politics"?  The "Change that Works for Us"?  The fact of the matter is that politicians who promise "change" insult the intelligence of the electorate.  Some change is good, but change for its own sake rarely is.  It's also a disingenuous tactic; it invites voters to make assumptions about what the party or candidate will do, without really promising anything.  A campaign slogan should say something about the party's underlying philosophy. It should tell voters what the party fundamentally stands for. "Change" is not a philosophy, and a party or politician that has to fall back on empty slogans like this either has no real philosophy (put Obama's name in that column) or just doesn't want the voters to know what it is.  Labour's slogan, "A Future Fair For All", may not have been the most artful, but at least it said something about the party.

I hope we've seen the last of this obsession with "change".   The next time one of these meaningless, tired and vacuous slogan is dragged out I hope the voters tell whoever's using it, in no uncertain terms, "Please - Keep the Change."

POSTSCRIPT - Shortly after this was posted, the Daily Telegraph reported that the second-ranking Lib-Dem Cabinet minister, David Laws, has announced his intention to repay $60,000 in "expenses" that he claimed in violation of parliamentary rules.  The improper claims were for rental accommodation in London.  In fact, Mr. Laws was residing with, and purportedly paying "rent" to. his long-term male partner.  Members are not entitled to claim as expenses rental paid to families and partners.  Mr. Laws apparently also failed initially to document claims for utilities and maintenance.  Mr Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, denies being motivated by financial gain and claims he was simply trying to keep his relationship with the man secret.  So why did he claim the expenses in the first place?  Interestingly, David Laws was the minister penciled in to appear on Question Time before Cameron's decision to boycott the show.  Could it be that the Tory-friendly Daily Telegraph had tipped off Cameron's office that the Laws story was about to break and Cameron was more concerned that Laws would be ambushed by a question about his expenses than he was about the appearance of Alastair Campbell?  Nobody caught with his hand in the public till should be permitted to occupy any public post,  let alone as a senior Treasury Minister.  Laws needs to go - today.