Terms of Endearment - and What Happened to Those Vegetables? Did they Die in Vain?

I never realised that Prime Ministers were elected, or that they served for terms. I thought they were MPs, elected as such in their constituencies, who were asked by Her Majesty to form governments, if they seemed likely to be able to command a majority in the Commons. And I thought that they were removed when they lost such confidence, either in their own parties or in Parliament as a whole.

 

At some point, this all seems to have been abolished, and a Presidential system substituted.  People write to me kindly and urge me to ‘stand for Prime Minister’ . I point out, with some relief, that there is no such election. But I think they are surprised and baffled when I say so. Over the years, thanks to the Americanisation of our political language (a good example of why such changes matter and need to be resisted), people have begun to think in this way.

 

Hardly anyone ponders for any length of time about our electoral system, or how it works. I mean, people actually believe that the voters choose Members of Parliament, a belief which is quite ludicrously untrue, and obviously false -  after a moment’s observation of what actually happens at general elections.

 

There are reasons for these fancies, especially the belief that we ‘elect’ the Prime Minister. My own trade has much to answer for, as do the political party machines which promote their leaders with ludicrous personality cults.

 

Given the hopeless performance of the Tory Party in national polls, those media which want to help the Tories like to concentrate on David Cameron’s personal ratings as against those for Mr Miliband. Unsurprisingly, given the cannonade of slime directed constantly against Mr Miliband (and the almost total absence of sustained criticism of Mr Cameron, despite his serial incompetence at home and abroad) this produces better ratings for Mr Cameron than it does for his party and worse ones for Mr Miliband than it does for his party.

 

And yet I suspect that when they actually come to vote, people are not as much influenced by this as the propagandists want them to be.

 

As far as I can remember from the last time I bothered to vote, which may have been in 1979 in Hampstead (when I last voted, and indeed canvassed for Labour, in the certain knowledge that our candidate, one Ken Livingstone, would lose) but which I think was in 1987 in Oxford East (my only Tory vote, again for the losing candidate),  voting remains a remarkably isolated experience (I don’t  believe I have ever in my life voted for a winning candidate in anything) .

 

Just for a few moments, you realise that you are making a decision which may matter. And the rather surprising discovery, for many who turn up at the polls, that neither Mr Cameron nor Mr Miliband nor Mr Clegg is actually on the ballot for most of us, may increase that feeling.

 

Anyway, what a very strange encounter this ‘interview’ was.  In fact it wasn’t an interview at all, and only yielded news because Mr Cameron is (as I keep pointing out) not even a very good PR man, and said something he didn’t mean to about his future – which is not, in any case, his to decide. As Labour have rightly pointed out, the Queen hasn’t asked him to form another government yet. He can worry about ‘his’ third ministry or ‘term’ once he has that out of the way.

 

 

Almost nothing of substance was discussed. Given the opportunity to question a Prime Minister at the start of a general election campaign, , one might discuss the real state of the economy, the strange obsession with foreign aid, the problems with the USA about the size of our defence budget and about China’s new World Bank,  the various foreign policy disasters in which we are embroiled, the reasons for our involvement in the Russo-German confrontation in Ukraine, the teasing and zig-zagging on education, the increasing danger of a Scottish exit from the UK, the difficulties of arranging the vaunted EU referendum in the absence of an absolute majority, the UKIP problem and the continuing reverberations of the same-sex marriage decision, the controversy about HS2 and the votes it will cost the Tories across a great stretch of southern England. And, given the  fact that the interview was being held mainly in Mr Cameron’s constituency home, heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, a few questions about his huge housing expenses in the old days might have been justified too (see here http://dailym.ai/157kJZp) .

 

But no, it was almost all either personal stuff, about his personality, about how being an Etonian had held him back, about how his wife keeps him sane, or about when he plans to wander off and spend more time with his money.  

 

One of my Mail on Sunday colleagues, Valerie Elliott,  also pointed out another interesting thing to me. She wondered if Mr Landale’s participation in the chopping of the vegetables was quite right. Indeed, I might ask if it was a breach of BBC impartiality. Is he really just a friend, calling round? Or is he an independent journalist? Does an independent journalist help a powerful politician pretend to be an ordinary joe, which of course he is not, being surrounded by bodyguards, money and servants whom we never see on camera?

 

I wonder what happened to the vegetables afterwards. Did they die in vain?  I suspect they went straight into the slop bin thoughtfully provided by Oxfordshire County Council,  especially given that the Prime Minister twice wiped his nose with his right hand during the chopping.  

 

If you think that Mr Cameron’s minders don’t trouble themselves with such trifles, then read this account of the pre-interview negotiations, written by my sharp-witted and observant Daily Mail colleague, Andrew Pierce:

‘The agreement which was thrashed out with the BBC before the interview concentrated on dress code, of all things. Both men were to be in casual weekend attire with no ties.

There were to be limited clips of the Prime Minister’s children, too, showing only the back of their heads. There was also an agreement to ensure there were no clips of the toys lying around the house.

Samantha was also, as agreed with the BBC, a frequent presence in the kitchen, looking suitably fragrant and glamorous.’

 

The longest clip of the interview which I have been able to find is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32022484