The response to the current economic crisis has naturally evolved from one of cross-party consensus (at least to the extent of 'we all agree that we can't let the banking system implode') to, as was inevitable, a particularly agonistic, party-political descent into the 'blame-game'. This has been going on for some weeks now, and has been particularly salient in the weekly bouts of Prime Minister's Questions.
Gordon Brown keeps reiterating, ad nauseam, that this is a global financial crisis (i.e. absolving himself of any responsibility), and that if the Conservatives were in power, they would have effectively done nothing to remedy particularly severe effects that Britain is experiencing ('the do nothing party'). His argument, in essence, is that it isn't their fault, but at any rate, they have been proactive.
David Cameron has taken the opposite tack, emphasising Britain's particularly vulnerable position relative to other economies and attempting to draw a causal link between this and the lack of regulation and fiscal responsibility imposed by Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor. By the economic measures he has implemented, Cameron argues, Brown is continuing to demonstrate remarkable irresponsibility. Moreover, Brown's priorities lie less in alleviating the economic crisis than in enhancing his image globally, as the 'saviour of the world', and buttressing his status domestically as the man of experience needed in such times. The latter is particularly important given his vulnerable position vis-a-vis the electorate.
Blame this week has been particularly intense towards bankers themselves; not really any bankers in particular, but bankers in general. The word is becoming pejorative in its own right, and will come to provide an opportunity for kids to swear whilst leaving their parents none the wiser. The debate has been about whether bankers should be given bonuses, and whether the Government should have done more to insist that they not be. We saw yesterday the 'trial by select committee' of the former bosses of RBS and HBOS, which itself descended into a collective exercise in cathartic apology-making. As a result of those proceedings, today the blame shifted to the first man pictured above, Sir James Crosby, who has been accused of firing a whistle-blower in his former capacity as head of HBOS. Since then he has been the deputy chairman of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), and has acted as an advisor to the Treasury on two separate occasions. Today he resigned from his FSA job. As Nick Robinson has noted, this situation presents a very good opportunity for David Cameron in his present line of attack, as it provides a link between Gordon Brown himself and a man who is accused of acting recklessly after being warned of the impending financial crisis.
One question I do pose is: what about Ed Balls? He too has been in the news over the past few days, in relation to both an expenses scandal and his comments in a speech to Labour activists in Yorkshire at the weekend that the current economic situation was "more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s". This claim received such wide-scale publicity not merely because of its gravity but also because Ed Balls, before being promoted to his current position of Secretary of State for Education, was Gordon Brown's number 2 at the Treasury. David Cameron is suggesting that Gordon Brown should accept a degree of personal responsibility for the economic crisis. So the question is: when will Balls become the subject of the blame-game?
Roy Keane has revealed in a recent interview with the Irish Times the reasons that led him to resign as manager of Sunderland AFC. He cites as one a change in the attitude of club Chairman Niall Quin, who he claimed began asking him at to try and put a smile on the face of the players. Keane's response was this:
