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.

Ashcroft and The Guardian

I'm currently working on quite a long post about The Guardian's response to the Michael Ashcroft saga. However, owing to the fact that I am currently only able to use a shit PC with a shit version of IE on it - and the fact that The Guardian's position has changed as this non story drags on develops, the post will have to wait until later today/tomorrow.

To summarise, though, my position is this - I'm pretty sure that while Ashcroft has the dubious ethical status enjoyed by many wealthy "donors" to political parties, he's probably one of the best of a bad bunch. And I'd also say that The Guardian - which has its own intersting position with regard to the payment of tax - is simply using this story to prop up a failed government that has nothing to say other than pointing at the Tories and their benefactor and chanting the mantra "they are rich, they are evil. They are rich, they are evil."

Which is utterly pathetic.

Hain: It isn't just me, y'know

So, Peter Hain isn't going to be prosecuted over the donations scandal that cost him his place in the Cabinet. So, technically speaking, he is innocent. And let's not get lost in the semantics of this - yes, the police could not find sufficient evidence to charge him, but in the UK that means he is innocent.

Of course, his campaign still failed to declare thousands of pounds worth of donations, so he still fucked up in a massive way. And his defence - that other MPs have been just as careless, if not more so, really does not stand up to close scrutiny. His campaign broke the rules, just as other campaigns have broken the rules. All this means is that Peter Hain is a particularly conspicous turd in a shower of incompetent, rule dodging shits.

On Comment Is Free, Hain argues that MPs should be wary of calling for each other to resign and/or be investigated over dubious donations:

And those MPs who have been too ready to call for police involvement need to understand that any momentary political advantage they might so achieve over opponents actually undermines politics itself.

This is, of course, horse shit. It isn't politicians calling for police involvement that undermines politics, but rather the fact that the police need to be called in at all. It is the politicians breaking the laws and the rules that creates all the problems. And it is that arrogance, that fetid stench of corruption, that is so undermining politics in this country. Hain's defence - that he should never have been investigated, that others are doing it as well - reeks of the self-pity of a kid who was caught with his hand in the sweetie jar. One of the reasons why there is such contempt for politicians in this country is because they all seem to be at it, and it is only one or two of them who are actually exposed and face any sort of penalty.

Presumed Consent

An independent review is going to recommend that you can still make the choice of what happens to your body after you die. Presumed consent – which is where you are automatically signed up to a database of organ donors – is not right for the UK, according to the review:

However, this review, commissioned by the Government, is hostile to a change in the law and is likely to recommend sticking with the current laws when it is published today. That move will be welcomed by some patients' groups who are strongly opposed to presumed consent.

Whether or not that actually becomes the government’s line is open to question, though:

Mr Brown himself voted against adopting such a system in 2004 but, earlier this year, indicated he had become more favourably disposed towards it.

Now, there is a case to be made for presumed consent, as Professor Sir Liam Donaldson points out:

He said: "People are dying, people are suffering and many people are living on a knife-edge of despair waiting for a phone call that never comes. My view has always been that we need to act with solidarity, generosity and humanity to give these people a future."

Absolutely. However, if people are forced to join a donor database, that is not solidarity. It is not generosity. It has very little to do with humanity. And, on a semantic point, it is not presumed consent. It is enforced, government coerced consent.

Don’t get me wrong, once I have shuffled off this mortal coil, anyone is welcome to any of my organs. I’d steer well clear of the liver and the kidneys, though – I think the booze will have made those less attractive as potential donations. But I have no qualms about any part of me being given after my death. I am not precious about it. However, I know other people are – for reasons or religion, or vanity, or being squeamish or whatever. And this system of presumed consent removes choice, as it pressurises people to object to being donors rather than people volunteering to be donors. And the whole point of charity is people chose to give, rather and being tacitly forced to give.

This system of presumed consent isn’t a million miles away from becoming an organ tax – you have to give your organs and any other part of your body after death to the state for redistribution to others. Presumed consent is a stepping stone towards that system. As far as I am concerned, though, the one thing you should be able to claim ownership of is your body and its contents – both pre and post mortem. You can chose to become a donor, you should not have to proactively choose not to be a donor and any attempts to move in that direction should be opposed.

And rather than adopting this presumed consent system, how about starting a campaign not just to advertise organ donation but also to educate people about why organ donation is so important. Explain to people that it saves lives; use empathy to help people understand how it would feel if they, or one of their loved ones, was on the waiting list for a organ transplant. And then let people chose, rather than telling them what choice has been made on their behalf. Let’s try to be persuasive, rather than just being coercive.

The review got it right; let’s hope that the government hears what they are saying and, for once, actually do the right thing themselves.

UPDATE: As I was writing this post, Brown intervened in the debate. And guess what? If he doesn't get the result he wants, then he will legislate. Let's look at his words:

"The proposal is that we double the number of volunteers to 50 per cent. If we can't get there quickly, then we will return to the proposal I have put forward, which is a presumed consent system."

So, if Gordon can't get what he wants through blackmail, he will do so through legislation. I struggle to think up anything that sums up Nu Labour better. "Do what we want, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. Or we will pass laws to force you to".

Freedom of choice over such fundamental issues as what happens to your body after you die are irrelevant to these people. You have the right to choose. As long as you choose what Brown wants.