The Guardian and the Soap Opera Version of Politics

Well, this will be a massively condensed version of a post that I have been working on for just under a week. The reason why I have radically cut the word count is because it becomes counter-intuitive to write an epic blog post criticising the amount of attention that Ashcroft has got from the likes of The Guardian - frankly, neither Ashcroft nor this whole sorry non-story should be left in the limelight for any longer than is absolutely possible.

What got me started on this pointless odyssey into the obviously compromised and far from neutral Guardian was this idea here – where they want their readers to write to Tory MPs and would-be Tory MPs with a list of (really rather dull) questions. Now, I’m all for contact with your MP, but not to simply do the legwork of a national newspaper. I mean, whatever happened to investigative journalism? I mean, imagine if Woodward and Bernstein had adopted The Guardian approach to political journalism: "President Nixon, were you involved in the Watergate cover-up?" "No." "Well, we believe you were, and we're going to prove it by... by... getting people to write letters!"

Besides, any self-respecting Tory MP/candidate will simply ignore any letter demanding answers from their bosses. Probably from a mix of fear, but also because they’ll have better things to do with their time. Like trying to win (re) election to the House of Commons.

But it isn’t just the idiotic questions that Guardian readers have to spam their Tories with. No, the whole of The Guardian (well, their online presence anyway - I'm not going to pay good money for the online version of this rag) seems to be awash with articles about Ashcroft – even down to an article comparing him with a duckhouse. Yes, that’s right – the Ashcroft saga (a rich man not wanting to pay massive amounts of tax) is on a par with the expenses scandal. And, of course, the comparison is with a Tory MP’s particular moment of greed – even though it is Labour MPs who have been charged in that relation to that scandal.

So what we have here is The Guardian acting as nothing more, yet nothing less, than attack dog of the ruling party. Sure, they have never been neutral, but with this current concerted attack on one Tory donor, they have started to resemble a Nu Labour version of Pravda. Or a version of LabourList with a massive readership and a national profile. Which would be less of a problem if this particular ersatz scandal actually mattered. But it doesn’t. It really doesn’t.

Which means that the naked bias of The Guardian - and any other rag savaging to Tories for having a rich donor – are doing two things. Firstly, neither Labour nor the Tories are being challenged on their actual policies. It feels, for all the world, like The Guardian wants to turn this election into a referendum on Michael Ashcroft. If the Tories lose, then guess what? People weren’t ok with Ashcroft’s donations. If the Tories win, then we will know people don’t care. Is that really any way in which to choose the next government of the United Kingdom? The Guardian seems to think so.

Which leads us nicely on to the second, linked point – that The Guardian are doing the donkey work of those who would turn modern British politics into a bad soap opera, devoid of political content. The Ashcroft saga – which has been dragging on since the last century, for Christ’s sake – is irrelevant when you consider the challenges facing this country and the seeming inability of all parties to raise themselves to that challenge. The real problems, and the glaring issues facing us, are hidden behind a bunch of Labour supporters tutting at a rich man who wants to limit the amount of tax he pays. Which is simultaneously dangerous and pathetic.