Daily Archives: 13 May 2007

What part of ‘Eurovision’ don’t you understand?

Last night’s Eurovision Song Contest was the first I’d sat all the way through in years. Cheesy pop isn’t my thing, ironically detached or not. What I saw remained not my thing, but it wasn’t the sort of frothy nonsense that exists in the British public’s imagination either. This is something that appears to upset Tim Moore.

The tone of his article is quite obnoxious. There are no fixed rules about what Eurovision is or is not and there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that many for many Europeans the joke is over. Lordi won last year because of a coalition between the Baltic states, people who wanted a wholly ‘inappropriate’ song to win and genuine rock fans. I was bored a few months ago and decided to see how the result would have changed if each country’s vote was weighted by population. Lordi still won hands down. Watching the voting last night it was clear that Serbia won because of more than the blatant ‘bloc voting’ of neighbouring Balkan states giving them top marks – they won because pretty much every single country gave them at least 1 point. They took it seriously and won. We treated it like a joke and were wiped out. It’s as simple as that.

Complaining that Eurovision is no longer about cheesy pop is to attempt to impose a definition of popular culture on the rest of Europe that they don’t share. Tim Moore’s complaint appears to rest on the fact that he doesn’t like power ballads and rock. Such music doesn’t exactly rock my world either, but if Eurovision is evolving into something new and decidedly less western, then we just need to deal with it. You never know, it might even mean that the British submit a half decent entry for once.

The Liberal Democrats’ mark of Cain

Liberal Democrat Voice has transformed itself into the unofficial ‘sack Ming Campbell’ campaign. To be fair, I don’t blame the editors of Voice themselves for this – they are only posting the contributions they have received and if individuals such as myself choose to respond on their own blogs rather than on that site, it is hardly LDV’s fault.

I don’t particularly want to get into the detail of the argument because, to be frightfully honest, it bores me to tears. Like most sensible people, I see party leaders as a necessary evil (which I should emphasise is NOT the same thing as saying all party leaders are evil). They are necessary because you need a figurehead and you need someone in the driving seat; it is far better to have someone do this with a clear mandate than pretend you don’t have leaders in the way that the Green Party does and have lots of unelected demagogues jostling like cats in a sack. But they are bad because the leader themselves invariably develops a bunker mindset and even in a party such as the Lib Dems which has non-conformism and the importance of the individual flowing through its collective veins, a cult of personality invariably develops.

We should be sceptical when a leader is given credit for the party’s fortunes, while avoiding blind cynicism. Paddy Ashdown clearly did steady the ship and laid important foundations for the party which we continue to benefit from. Charles Kennedy’s contribution was much less so, and I say that despite the fact that in crude electoral terms his tenure was far more successful than his predecessor’s. There wasn’t much that I saw during his tenure that I could single out as an achievement: he took a number of brave stances on issues such as immigration and drugs legislation during his first two years as leader, earning him plaudits in the run up and immediately after the 2001 General Election. Then however, we only edged forward. In 2005, when we gained far more in terms of seats and votes, his contribution was minimal. Even his opposition to the Iraq War was a result of the various factions cajoling him into position, something which became painfully clear with his clumsy formulation of ‘opposing the war buy supporting the troops’ (itself not a bad position, but one he was extremely bad at articulating). The fact is that between 2001 and 2006, the real leader of the Liberal Democrats was not Charles Kennedy, but Chris Rennard.

But we ought to be sceptical when the perceived ‘failures’ of the party are pinned on the leader as well. And those failures need to be brought into some perspective. The truth is, the last set of elections do not suggest there is any rout going on from the Lib Dem cause. Certainly, our support base has stagnated. Certainly, that in itself is not good news. But most of us who have been around politics for more than 30 seconds know that the party has had far darker moments. Having a slight brush with mortality should not provoke the reaction that it has done.

So why is this? I don’t mean to go all biblical on you, but I can’t help but feel this has something to do with Original Sin. The regicide of Charles Kennedy has left its mark. The way he was dispatched helped to develop a narrative that the Lib Dems were failing. This was further entrenched by the improvisational and gaffe prone leadership election. And our more hysterical members have taken this as a cue to dramatise every subsequent event through the same prism.

If the criticism of Campbell is that he has failed to make an impact, then his predecessor should have gone years before he did. People romanticise his ‘blokishness’ now as if it was an unalloyed asset. It’s true that the electorate liked him. But it is also true that the electorate didn’t see him leading the country. By contrast, the electorate like Ming far less, but appear to respect him when they are left to their own devices and not being repeatedly assured by his critics (and, regrettably, occasionally himself) that being old is a mortal sin.

I had originally sought to describe this as the party going through its own Lord of the Flies moment, but having reminded myself of William Golding’s book with the help of Wikipedia, I think that is probably rather crass. I can’t however help but see some parallels between the tone of some of these anti-Ming pieces and a bunch of pre-adolescent boys running rampant on a desert island. It doesn’t get much more intellectual than ‘king must die because sun not shine’.

The point I’m trying to make is that the party is continuing to suffer the aftershocks of that political earthquake. The Conservatives took a decade and more to recover from their act of regicide; I don’t think we’ll struggle for anything like that amount of time, but the fact remains that Ming hasn’t been allowed anything like the sort of honeymoon period that leaders who have been elected in less precipitous circumstances. People seem to think that the circumstances of his election as leader gives them a license turn the party’s performance into his own personal psychodrama.

There comes a point when a political party just has to weather the storm. Aside from some misguided passages in his last conference speech which were poorly handled by a misguided press officer, I can’t actually point to anything Ming has done wrong. There are certainly additional things I’d like to see him do: a much greater emphasis on membership development and recruitment for example. But knowing how the party works I’m acutely aware that these sort of things are not under the direct control of the party leader. I’m certainly unconvinced that he deserves the onslaught of abuse and dismissals that he is receiving at the moment.

More to the point, I suspect anyone in the same position would receive the same attacks. A young leader would be accused of lacking experience. A female leader would have every item of clothing and application of makeup scrutinised in intense detail to ‘prove’ she couldn’t handle the stress. A leader with a big nose would be castigated for the size of their schnoz while a leader with no prominent features would be dismissed as being anonymous. After 15 months, the only mud to stick on Ming is caricature.

Ironically, I suspect that Ming’s greatest salvation will come in the form of Gordon Brown. Like Ming, Brown’s image doesn’t fit the Blair/Cameron ‘sun king’ archetype. Brown will be good for Ming because he will both draw the fire of the image-obsessives and reinforce the notion that post-Blair politics should be about substance. Add to that the fact that Cameron’s job can only get harder from now on and there is every reason for sticking with the leader that we’ve got.

This is a rope-a-dope. If Ming can stand his ground then sooner or later his detractors will run out of energy. With all the insults and knocks just so much chip paper by that point, I suspect that Ming will go on to have a rather good general election. I suspect he will have done more than either of his predecessors to articulate a clear Liberal Democrat vision that is about more than simplistic tactical considerations about playing right and left against each other. And the good thing about not being on a pedestal is that you aren’t in danger of being knocked off it.