Palin and Kelly: prospects for the fairer sex

With the global economy spending most of September lurching from one financial crisis to another, even reports of plots to bring down the Prime Minister were sometimes forced off the front pages. However, an intriguing political sub-plot emerged during the month concerning female politicians on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the UK, the shock announcement from Cabinet Minister Ruth Kelly that she was stepping down from politics overshadowed the end of the British conference season. Her descent from the political frontline came in direct contrast to the selection of Sarah Palin as the Republican’s Vice-Presidential candidate at the beginning of the month. The latter’s meteoric political rise has come at the cost of severe media scrutiny into her personal life and the opposing trajectories taken by these two female politicians raises interesting questions about the wider prospects for women in politics.

After a swift rise to high political office, Kelly had become something of a fixture in the British cabinet, though she was no stranger to personal intrusion. Her adherence to the Catholic sect, Opus Dei, attracted a great deal of media scrutiny, particularly with regard to her voting record.

But it seems Ruth Kelly was being disingenuous to no one when she attributed her resignation to a desire to “spend more time with her family.” Dissatisfaction at the Prime Minister’s performance may also have contributed to her departure, along with the possibility of becoming a high-profile casualty at the next election – she defeated her Conservative rival for the constituency of Bolton West by just 2,064 votes. But her decision to escape the heavy workload and media scrutiny of the political frontline and spend more time with her family was preceded by Sarah Palin’s decision to put both her family and reputation at the mercy of the world press.

John McCain’s decision to install Sarah Palin as his running mate transformed his previously quotidian campaign for the White House. Within a week he had wiped out the poll lead held by his Democrat opponent, Barack Obama. But it also changed forever the personal life of Palin and her family. An intense media spotlight was immediately shone into the private affairs of her husband and five children and it did not take long for a number of intimate details to emerge.

While certain details inspired support from the Republican base – such as the decision of her seventeen year old daughter to marry her boyfriend after falling pregnant – others left liberal commentators and bloggers fuming. The emergence and widespread derision of the fact that her daughter’s boyfriend had written on his Myspace profile that he “didn’t want kids” illustrates the depth of media intrusion into the family members of leading politicians that has now become acceptable.

Alongside the media intrusion into her personal affairs, she has been under fire for her performance in TV interviews, with her insistence that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience inviting public derision even from fellow Republicans. Though her spokespersons defend her and blame the barrage of criticism on sexist, out-of-touch commentators, her performance has been less than inspiring. However, it is also true that she has received far more attention due to her gender and her family life has been more highly scrutinized as a result.

But the media is not all to blame. That she has used both her family and femininity for political ends cannot be argued (witness the public announcement of her daughter’s decision to marry and her wink to camera during her debate with Joe Biden). However, it may prove damaging for future female politicians who want to get ahead in politics without their gender being an issue. With Obama having restored his lead in the polls, Palin’s rise should soon come to an end. Either way, it seems the departing Ruth Kelly set a better example for female politicians with her de-gendered, professional approach.

Swings and Roundabouts

As the media crawls back to Brown, it is worth asking what his supposed "fightback" actually amounts to. He may have taken a strong lead in dealing with the global financial crisis but stock markets remain highly volatile. The recession we are apparently entering* has yet to bite hard, but it won't be long- unemployment is surging. As tax reciepts drop, Brown's continuing spending splurges will create an ever larger hole in the public finances. It appears as if Brown's greatest challenges lie ahead.

Still, at least the media appears to be realising it has given David Cameron an easy ride for too long. But it must not swing completely in the opposite direction and give Brown unmitigated support. His performance in the opinion polls this weekend was lauded as Labour cut the Tory's lead by half. But he still trails by nine points- hardly a cause for celebration. If such an outcome was replicated in a general election, it would lead to a comfortable Conservative victory. Still, I bet David Cameron would take that now...

*I say apparently because there have been several reports this week that we are officially entering a period of recession. Hows that? The "official" definition of an economy in recession is one that has experienced two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. So it can only be labelled one after the event, once those criteria have been fulfilled. The last quarter it was still growing, and though it may be retracting now, who is to know what will happen next time? But, egged on by such breathlessly fervent and pessimistic journalism, I expect we have indeed entered one. The words "self-fulfilling prophecy" spring to mind.

Cult of celebrity leaves politicians gushing to connect

There are few things I enjoy less than reading interviews where emotionally incontinent politicians share the intimate details of their personal lives in an attempt to connect with voters. However, in an age dominated by the cult of celebrity such revealing interviews are commonplace and the abilities of politicians to govern seems to take second place to their ability to connect with certain demographics. Sarah Palin is the perfect example. As Chris Dillow writes in his latest blog-

Politicians are selected in the same way that manufactured pop bands are - for their media-friendliness, and ability to recite others' words, more than any great skill they have.

One of Gordon Brown's major failings as Prime Minister has been his failure to connect with the voter and display his "human side." While this would not have been a problem in the nineteenth century he has looked remote and aloof in the cold light of the incessant twenty-first century media. It his fair to say he has misfired in front of the orgy of media attention, but- alongside his handling of the economic crisis- increased access to his personal life has been at the heart of his recent semi-comeback.

Appearing in the papers today, an intensely personal interview marks the latest stage of his transformation. While the horribly shallow Rita Skeeter journalism of the Sunday Mail is off-putting, the interview gives a fascinating insight into the Prime Minister's private side and the exchanges that focus on his children and eyesight are particularly eye-opening (excuse the pun).

However, Gordon Brown must tread carefully. Having boasted at Conference of his children being "people, not props" he could easily look hypocritical. Yet it is a key function of today's media climate that he must show his personal side to be electoral success. Unfortunately, that is the situation we are in and it does not look like changing soon.

Crikey. This bail-out plan

is huge. Yesterday's announcement from the Government that it was putting together a £400Bn rescue package together to recapitalise the banking system has changed the course the of political and economic history. Its bid to prevent the failure of any more banks is of unprecedented scale. The plan is even bigger than that passed in the US last week. Staggering for an economy one fifth the size.

With markets rallying today, initial signs are good. However, the part-nationalisation of the UK banking sector carries many risks. The sheer cost will put a huge strain on the national debt and its failure would cause the British economy to implode. The widespread failure of banks is what turns a recession into a depression (as witnessed in 1930s America) and if this intervention does not prevent this, nothing will.

Commentators and economists have lauded it as the right move. But it is still a massive gamble. The cost of Government intervention to save (or restore) the banking system in the Great Depression amounted to 13% of GDP. This pan is nearly a third of the UK’s. Taxpayers have been left fuming at the injustice of their money being used to mop up the mess of others. But a banking failure would affect them far more negatively. It is not fair, but that's the way it is.

Brown does some Itchy Thinking

Itchy Thinking is pleased and surprised to count the country's leader amongst his readers. Just days after calling for the return to Labour's cabinet of some of the party's "big beasts" in these times of economic crisis, Brown delivers Peter Mandelson in his autumn re-shuffle. The Government has a tougher look about it now and Brown seems to be reining in the Tories’ lead. I wonder how long it will last. But keep on listening to me Gordon, and you should be alright...

Cameron gets a TV grilling

Have just watched this week's Panorama profile of Conservative leader David Cameron. It is an interesting film, and highlights the lengths he still has to go to convince low-income Britons of his appeal. During a meeting with a lady living on a council estate in Birmingham, one particular sticking-point comes over his support for tax-breaks for married couples. She views this as abandoning single parents- i.e. those who need the most support. Cameron didn't explain himself very well on this matter and it did pose an interesting point: although most would agree that secure family units are beneficial to society, can the tax system be used in a fair way to increase marriage rates? After all, few people will take the decision to marry for tax reasons, although it may be a supporting factor. Yet does this not leave single parents in the lurch?

Cameron also let himself down over a lack of detailed policy knowledge when talking to a businessman and a surgeon. Neither were satisfied by his answers. And how he squares the tax cuts he pledged to the first with the NHS improvements he promised the second is anyone's guess. Although he talked of dropping ID cards, trimming government departments and ditching regional assemblies, there was no indication of the radical cuts and changes that would be needed to bring about the ideal world he promised. Still, with the public finances in doubt and eighteen months until an election he would be hard-pushed to give such concrete answers at this stage. Apparently, Blair fared similarly in a similar programme a similar amount of time before he was elected, so Cameron still looks set for No 10.

PS I recommend reading this article from this week's New Statesman. It gives a fascinating insight into the power held by media forces in the country and the grip they have over politicians and therefore policy.

Do you understand the Global Economic Crisis?

I don't. And I don't think many people do. I don't really trust the politicians to manage it, with Congressmen and women over the pond failing to agree on a bail-out plan for the American economy. Over here, lest we forget, it was our dear leader who promised an "end to boom-and-bust." Economists, too, failed to see it coming, and if they did they didn't bother to tell anyone else about it. Journalists keep us informed of the big changes but do like to spout off about "new, unprecedented circumstances." So they don't know what’s going on either. From the collapse of Northern Rock to the plunging global shares, the scale of the problems is self-evident. The BBC graphic below shows the staggering list of casualties claimed by the downturn thus far. But how are they interlinked and interwoven? No one, not even Mr In-the-loop himself, has given an understandable overview of the bigger picture. Well, in a victory for hope over experience, I'm going to try and get my head round it. It may get messy.




Sub-Prime Problems The root of the crisis. The downturn in the US housing market between 2004 and 2006 sees a record number of defaults on sub-prime loans, defined as high risk loans to clients with poor or no credit histories. Massive problems in the banking sector stem from this starting roughly in 2007, with groups such as New Century Financial (heavily dependent on sub-primes) filing for bankruptcy. The contagion spreads as assets loaned and sold between banks "go bad," sparking a loss of confidence in inter-bank lending. Investment banks such as BNP Paribas are unable to value the assets in their accounts, owing to a "complete evaporation of liquidity" in the market.

Northern Rock In September 2007 the impact of the credit crisis hits home as the UK sees the first run on a bank since the 19th century. The bank had relied heavily on the markets, rather than savers' deposits, to fund its mortgage lending. It is later nationalised. Towards the end of the year the troubles continue, with Swiss Bank UBS announcing multi-billion pound losses from sub-prime investments and Merrill Lynch reveals a $7.9Bn exposure to bad debt. The UK housing market continues to turn down.

2008: Things turn sour This year has seen a number of record-breaking days for the FTSE 100 and Wall Street. 21st January saw both fall by the highest margin since 9/11. The downturn in the housing market continues with house prices falling, repossessions up, confidence low and estate agents reporting a lack of business. Despite massive injections of credit into the money markets, banks are still reluctant to inter-lend and the second half of this year sees the financial heavy weights begin to fall.

Nationalisation by an American Government A year on from the UK's saving of Northern Rock, seismic, history-altering shifts in global economics start to occur. In one of the largest bailouts in US history, mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are rescued by the US Government. The lenders which account for nearly half of the outstanding mortgages in the US and are taken into national ownership by an American government, altering the face of world politics too. The US government also bails out AIG, in an $85Bn loan that brings the company into 80% national hands. A day later, on September 17th, a run on the shares of HBOS, Britain's biggest mortgage lender, leads to a £12bn takeover deal by Lloyds TSB, orchestrated by the Prime Minister. A banking giant is created (holding close to one-third of the UK's savings and mortgage market) that would be illegal under competition rules in a normal economic environment.

B&B gets the public treatment The month ends with more seismic shocks: a second British bank - Bradford & Bingley - being taken into national ownership. Like Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley was demutualised in the 1990s. After the fall of Halifax, not a single demutualised building society from the 1990s now survives as an independent bank. Gordon Brown takes further precautionary treatment, raising the limit on guaranteed bank deposits from £35,000 to £50,000. In America, the failure of both Democrats and Republicans to pass a $700Bn bail out plan for the US economy further dents global confidence.

The pieces are in flux Clearly, the financial situation is contantly evolving. This is an ongoing story- the bail-out plan, for instance, now goes to the Senate. How it will affect everyday depositors in UK banks and mortgage-holders is unpredictable, but this article gives a useful guide. I don't profess to know much about it all, but I've certainly improved my understanding through writing this- I hope it will prove useful.

Some useful links:-

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7521250.stm A timeline


• http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2008/09/bradford-bingley-the-underlying-questions.html More on Bradford and Bingley


• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7631321.stm The bail-out


• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7625419.stm How it may affect the person on the street