Jonathan Todd

Some good points from Philip Stephens in the FT today:

“In promising to transfer Ofcom’s work to Whitehall so it is more directly accountable to ministers and parliament, Mr Cameron has shown he has no clear idea of what it does. The central charge seems to be that Ofcom’s views on public service broadcasting have strayed too far into realms better reserved for ministers … Broadcasting policy accounts for only about 5 per cent of Ofcom’s workload. Moving it to Whitehall would scarcely mean “that Ofcom, as we know it, will cease to exist”. Some 90 per cent of Ofcom’s remit comprises unglamorous work such as telecommunications regulation, upholding broadcasting standards, allocating spectrum, and, crucially, policing competition. All this can properly be done only at arms length from civil servants and ministers … The Ofcom proposal is another salutary reminder of how much of the Conservative prospectus is still about grabbing a headline rather than setting a framework for effective government”.

30 years since Margaret Thatcher’s election as PM. I enjoyed BBC Parliament’s coverage. But David Willetts is a Thatcherite no more. Boris Johnson is. Maybe, if he is to find the ambition for London that Philip Stephens says he still lacks, it will be a Thatcherite ambition. This at a time when The Spectator, the magazine that Johnson used to edit, of course, is urging David Cameron to live up to what they see as Thatcher’s legacy:

“The challenge for David Cameron is huge. If, as seems likely, he becomes Prime Minister next year, it will be his task to ensure that future generations do not look back on the years 1979-2009 as a blip — an aberrant resurgence — in the otherwise steady decay of a once great nation”.

Johnson seems more eager to embrace Thatcher than Cameron. Perhaps, the differing attitudes of these two rivals for the leadership of the Tory Party, reflect a deeper fault line in the Tories – or, maybe, Cameron is simply more sensitive to the national mood than Johnson. Cameron may remain loath to reveal himself as a Thatcherite while public opinion continues to be as starkly divided over Thatcher as Tim Adams recently observed in The Guardian:

“It’s exactly 30 years since she came to power, nearly 20 since she was unseated and still none of us can rationalise, quite, what we feel about her – either our loathing or our adoration. Even as her era and her “-ism” abruptly ends – in the bail-out and humbling of her market economy, the smashing up of the banks – no one can get to us as a nation quite like she can”.

There is no Thatcher myth. There never was. There is a massively polarising figure and fierce debate about her policies. In contrast, a book has recently been published with the title Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future. Amazon tells us of Will Bunch’s book:

“Nearly two decades after leaving office and four years after his death, the legend of Ronald Reagan looms larger than ever over America’s political life. Nowhere has that been more evident than in the 2008 presidential campaign, with Republicans – especially presumptive nominee John McCain – appearing to run more aggressively for the Reagan mantle than for the White House itself, and with even Democrats debating how to add some Reagan lustre to their progressive platform”.

I know that Gordon Brown had Thatcher round for tea but no Labour person seriously wants to add some Thatcher “lustre to their progressive platform”. That would be absurd. Philip Collins has done a good job of explaining why this is so.

So, why does the UK attitude towards Thatcher seem so different from the US attitude to Reagan? Was Reagan less divisive? Only fighting Communists without, rather than “enemies within”? “Enemies” which never existed on the same scale in the US as they did in the UK, suggesting the less ambiguous US attitude towards Reagan may find its historical origin in the weaker socialist traditions in the US. This is the right nation, after all.    

There is a big, fat hint on today’s FT comment page for Gordon Brown.

Philip Stephens concludes his piece, thus:

“The president might fairly ask Mr Brown what he has to offer. Thus far Britain has seen the special relationship as setting it apart from the rest of Europe. The reverse should be true. Why should the US take the lead in forging a new global compact, Mr Obama could justly say, when a fractured Europe is bending to the siren voices of economic nationalism? If Britain wants to be heard in the White House, surely it must show it has real clout in Europe. Now there is something for Mr Brown to think about during the long flight home”.

Beneath Stephens, Gideon Rachman writes:

“The four freedoms already established by the EU – free movement of goods, people, services and capital – are huge and tangible achievements. It would be terrible to see them rolled back.

“Yet the threat is there. The British prime minister has talked of “British jobs for British workers”, the French president has urged car companies to invest at home rather than elsewhere in the EU, the government of Spain has launched a “Buy Spanish” campaign. State aid rules that prevent the promotion of national industrial champions are being cheerfully trashed. Despite the deliberately reassuring communiqué that closed this weekend’s summit, a genuine assault on the European single market is brewing.

“If Europe starts rolling back the four freedoms, the implications will stretch well beyond economics. Protectionism and nationalism are close cousins. The principles of consultation, co-operation and open borders within the EU have helped to repress the old, nationalist demons”.

Brown may be going to the US to warn against protectionism but his relationship will be all the more special with Obama if he can lead the EU to a future free of protectionism. The four freedoms of the EU salvaged Europe from the wreckage of fascism and communism. They deserve better than to be slain by a mere credit crunch. This should be the high principle of Brown’s engagement with the EU, while the low cunning is the gains that this will bring him with Obama.