pumpkinstrokemarrow

But then, this morning, I realized that elections have always been a bit of a circus, ever since we allowed people to vote in significant numbers. The first phase was that prime ministerial hopefuls had to be able to perform in the House of Commons. A rather special atmosphere, not unlike that of the debating chamber in one of the better public schools. And no surprise that so many of the hopefuls plied their trade as barristers during the day. The second phase was that prime ministerial hopefuls had to be able to perform on the stump, perhaps on a soapbox. A rather different atmosphere here; open air with a much larger and a more mixed audience. The hopefuls needed big voices and a good dose of the theatrical. In neither case, was the ability to perform very obviously linked to the ability to govern. But the people who did well were usually going to have grit and determination, both useful qualities in public life.

And now we are into the third phase where hopefuls have to perform on television. On which today's thought is that such a skill is not any more useless, or rather irrelevant to the business of government, than that of doing well at debate or on the stump.

But as I type I do see a downside. Prime ministers now derive their power from their ability to bamboozle the electorate at large once every five years or so, not from their ability to bamboozle the members of the house of commons once every day or so. And these last know this. So once elected, prime ministers are apt to have too much power. They are unlikely to pay much attention to their peers in the house of commons. And this is a bad thing. Far too much power vested in the various cliques grouped around the prime minister. Groupies and special advisors rule the waves. Far too few checks and balances.

Moving down from the electrosphere, the TLS alerted me this week to an interesting imbroglio regarding litigious professors of history who like to puff their own work and pan that of others in anonymous and so deniable reviews for Amazon. A practise now much frowned on in the better senior common rooms - conveniently forgetful that reviews in papers like the TLS were also anonymous in the olden days. With one of the panned resorting to serious IT folk to break the anonymity in question, as a result of which we learn that one of those whose judgement was absent on the day was a lady fellow of Newnham College, Cambridge. Which all goes to show that membership of such an august body does not make one infallible. I am reminded of that former fellow, the fragrant Mary (clue: Agincourt). Imbroglio subsequently made it to the national press. Must be a big day for the TLS when one of its stories makes it all the way up the greasy pole.

A by product is that I learn that there are all sorts of people out there contributing reviews to Amazon. Some of them are quite long and many of them are more or less anonymous. Will I ever be moved to read one? Will I ever be moved to contribute a review myself? Amazon do send me emails from time to time asking for them - presumably they send such emails to all their many purchasers.