Instant messaging

Lord Justice Leveson publishes his report at 1.30.  The Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats aka the Deputy Prime Minister respond this afternoon.  Is that a sensible way to make policy in the minefield of press regulation.

Speed reading was clearly the order of the day in Downing Street yesterday as ministers cleared their desks to work out what to say on Leveson.  The Coalition Committee has been finally hauled into action.    Nick Clegg is on the phone to the Speaker.

After all a 2000 page report demands an instant response.  Or does it?  Maybe from individuals  whose reputations may not emerge unscathed.  But it is not clear that any good purpose is served by reacting immediately in an inevitably unthought through way to the proposals for the future.

Rather than try to make capital (or not lose it) out of Leveson, wouldn’t it be better for the Prime Minister to stand up and simply say: “I am very grateful to Lord Justice Leveson and his team for the immense amount of work they have put in.  They have produced a long and considered report.  This is an issue which raises important issues on the balance of freedoms between individuals and the press and now deserves serious study.  That is what I and my colleagues will now do as I hope will the party opposite.  In the New Year, we will bring forward proposals – on which we will then consult widely.  Where possible, I am keen to build cross-party consensus.  And I will look to see whether there are issues which would be better resolved by free votes in this House.   I – and my Ministers – like Lord Leveson, will not discuss further today”.

And then Ed Miliband would have no option but to stand up and agree with the Prime Minister that this was too serious a topic to rush to instant conclusions.

Fantasy politics?  Possibly.

Better policy making?  Definitely.

Autumn in Europe

This is a blogpost I wrote but did not post a year ago.......  as riots take hold of Madrid and Athens, there has been depressingly little progress on sorting out Europe.  Consolidating democracy in southern Europe was one of the EU's great prizes - failure to act on the euro crisis is now threatening it.

"European autumn

The hot news earlier in the year was the Arab spring.  Now the dominant story is faltering leadership in Europe.  Do the two phenomena have more in common than it looks at first sight?

 In the first part of the year, the world was taken aback as the people of the Middle East rose up against oppressive regimes.  The tide turned against autocracy.

The other big political story of the year has been of western leadership failing to measure up to the challenges of the eurozone crisis; while the extent of gridlock in the US was exposed by the debt ceiling wrangling. 

Huge issues are in play in Europe.  But one issue that is being exposed is the extent to which the euro, as an elite political project, has few popular roots in the countries that are now being asked to write the cheques to “save” the struggling southern economies.    There are some interesting lessons to learn.

Economists would always say that a 17 member euro would struggle to meet the tests of an optimal currency area.  The case for a Benelux + Germany with possible additions of some Scandinavians (who opted to stay out), possibly Switzerland and maybe France could be strong.  Adding in Spain, Portugal and Italy was a stretch.  Ireland was always a risk without the UK inside.  Greece a bridge too far. 

To make it work, it would have to be underpinned, as people are now pointing out, by a massive deepening of European governance arrangements – not just a central bank, but a European Finance Minister, extensive transfers and an ability to set fiscal policy at European not national level.  But the leaders who created the euro knew that, while people might be up for the benefits of a single currency, they were not up for that degree of surrender of national sovereignty.  And so that was a conversation that leader after leader refused to have with their people before the single currency was created.   

The single currency also needed stronger central institutions to enforce the rules – most notably on the German-inspired Stability Pact.  The fact that France and Germany went unpunished for breaching the rules sent an important message on the balance of power between individual states and the centre.  At the same time, the decision to go for 2^nd division players as the president and high representative respectively again reinforced the determination to maintain that this was a Europe of nations.

Which was fine – in a benign economic climate.  But now we are seeing Europe struggle to cope with the extraordinary political demands on it. There is no politically legitimate leadership from the centre – apart from in the ECB.   At the same time, the leaders of the strong northern states, are hamstrung by the knowledge of the limited political appetite to make sacrifices for the euro.  People allowed their leaders to engage in their grand projet on the basis of a bit more economic growth and a bit less hassle when travelling – on the basis of their assurances that this was a no risk enterprise.  Now we see a huge fissure opening up between what leaders think might need to be done to “save” the euro (or more accurately the banks that leant to Greece on the assumption it was Germany) and the price voters are willing to pay.

The European autumn reflects the gap between leaders and people.  Exactly what was exposed by the Arab spring".

Anyone for tennis?

  The fact that Rafa Nadal’s early exit from Wimbledon is front page news only underlines how the current male tennis elite have become a class apart, expected never to lose. Whereas the women’s game is suffering from a plethora of interchangeable players none of whom match the former greats. There are parallels with political leadership.

Wimbledon will be denied the chance of a Djokovic-Nadal classic (it may yet get a Federer-Djokovic semi followed by one of them taking on Andy Murray in the final). But these two have dominated men’s tennis over the past two years – and the triumvirate have won 28 out of the last 29 grand slams – the top prizes in tennis. The really interesting thing about this is the way that each player has inspired the other to raise their game. Roger Federer – five years older than Nadal – was gobbling up the opposition in routine victories before Nadal broke through: like Tony Blair against William Hague or Iain Duncan Smith or Margaret Thatcher against Michael Foot. Looked great but was barely tested – by the opposition at least. Since then Federer has won less – but arguably played better. Nadal then looked set to dominate, until Novak Djokovic discovered gluten free diets and the power of patriotism, leading Serbia to its first ever Davis cup win (tennis’s team competition), and lifted himself above both Nadal and Federer. But after a year in which Nadal could not beat Djokovic, a remodelled serve and more aggressive game looked to be evening up the Rafa-Novak rivalry. Poor Andy Murray sits by and wishing he was five years younger (or older).

Meanwhile the era of the great women’s champions is over for now. The Williams sisters are no longer the force they were; Steffi Graf is in Las Vegas with the kids and Martina and Chrissie who shared a riveting rivalry in the ‘70s and ‘80s are wheeled out as pundits not players. Six different women have won the last six grand slams and eight have won the last ten. So the choice is between a few really established leaders who bestride the international stage and challenge each other to do better and raise the bar for the rest: or a mix of nice but anonymous people who briefly emerge to the fore, fail to capture the public imagination and then leave the stage to the next person who has a good two weeks, with the game not developing or growing. Who comes out on top is fairly random – who has a good draw, holds their nerve at the right time. Noone is going on to really redefine the game.

It is tempting to say that political leadership in the west looks much more like the women’s game than then men’s. There are few figures who look set to make it into the history books as great leaders. Few people look set to dominate their own local politics for a prolonged period as government after government reaps the electoral consequences of austerity. And no one is imposing themselves on the game and challenging others to raise their own standards to meet them.

As we saw with Blair-Brown, political rivalries can be destabilising too (and much less fun to watch). But there is a real sense at the moment that there is a crisis of political leadership – with nobody matching up to the demands of the time. We really need some dynamic leaders to light up the world stage - more Novak and Roger and Rafa than Maria, Victoria, Sam and Petra. And the good news for Rafa fans is that at least this year there is a second chance to see him at Wimbledon – just let’s hope Lukas Rosol isn’t in the Czech Olympic team.