And another thing…

The British media’s obsessive coverage of what they hope will become a recession is comparable only to their coverage of the weather. Normally the BBC only get breathless with anticipation when there’s been a couple of inches of snow somewhere and one of their news editors has had to spend 15 minutes longer than usual driving into work.

But that’s nothing compared to their pure excitement at the prospect of a recession. Amid all the coverage today of “the biggest fall in house prices in 15 years”, there’s been hardly a mention that house prices are still higher than they were this time last year. Fact is, a recession would be a big news story, and there’s nothing the media like better than a news story, regardless of who has to pay the price.

But here’s the really bad news, for the media, anyway: there isn’t going to be one. And that’s thanks largely to GB’s management of the economy since 1997. Watching the likes of Nick Robinson salivating at the thought of repossessions and mass unemployment is entertaining, but is that really what the BBC is for?

Looking back on some of Nick Robinson’s recent posts, I came across his gleeful obituary for the Barnett formula. Making the formula the centre of controversy – whatever your political view – serves only to annoy all sides.

However, like the arguments against Scottish MPs voting on so-called “English-only” measures in the Commons, the case is only superficially logical. It should be remembered that the Barnett formula has been in operation for longer under Conservative governments than Labour. And never once, during 18 years in government, did the Tories ever question the fairness or appropriateness of the formula. They only started to do so when… oh, yes, I remember: when the Tories were completely wiped out in Scotland at the 1997 general election.

Coincidence? You decide.

Lots of articial indignation in today’s press about the decision by the House of Commons authorities to appeal against publication of MPs’ expenses. Even St Norman of Lewes accepts that publishing MPs’ London addresses would be a barmy idea: to recap, by logging onto parliament’s website you would find out exactly what items individual MPs have bought for their second homes, exactly where those homes are, and what dates we’re in recess (when MPs are usually in their constituencies) – hey presto, a burglar’s charter.

I hate the term “no-brainer”, but there are times when I’m tempted to use it.

Interestingly, Guido Fawkes’s attempts to get details of Nick Robinson’s expenses (what with him being paid out of the public purse and everything) have elicited a refusal from the Beeb, on the grounds that poor Nick had every right to expect his expenses to be kept private when he first claimed them. Now where have I heard that before…?

I see the BBC’s Nick Robinson is positively salivating at the prospect of MPs’ expenses being published in full. One of the two constituents who’ve written to me about this issue received a response from me along these lines: “If it were up to the public, the only reward a public servant received would be to be put in stocks every fortnight and pelted with rotten fruit. And even then there would be a public demand that it should happen every week.”

He replied with a more chastened view. Robinson’s view is that only by being completely open about our expenses will the public have respect for MPs. Sadly optimistic. As long as MPs exist, they/we will be despised. It comes with the territory.