If I were a politician being interviewed by Today's John Humphrys, it wouldn't be fire in my pants I'd be worried about. Possessed by sheer terror at the thought of the Attack Dog of Morning Radio having a go at me, I'd probably come armed with Depends and a dictionary in case I needed to parse some language I'd carelessly uttered in the past.
An auto-ejection device would be nice too, just in case John got his chops sunk in my past mendacity: "Whoops, look at the time! Did I mention that podiatrist's appointment? Gotta run!"
Yes, my voice would shake, just like LibDem leader Charles Kennedy's this morning when John Humphrys gave him a 20 minute thrill-ride interview on Today. I thought John went easy on him, despite a minor tiff over the meaning of "rubbish." It's impossible not to like the ginger-haired Scotsman. He's still got the glow of new fatherhood about him, or maybe it's the glow of a politician who's actually gaining more support than losing it, an anomaly in this election.
The other two parties have all the traction of a oilslick. Their poll numbers go down, or at best stagnate, an inevitable result of the familiarity (and in some cases, revulsion) the public has with their policies and their leaders.
It's just not cool to admit you like the Conservatives. Due to their anti-immigration focus, the word "Tory" has become code for "racist," and since most Brits can trace their ancestry back to an invader of one sort or another, those who come in peace—"asylum seekers"—can't be seen as the kind of threat as, say, the Danes with their advanced Viking weapons of mass destruction. Or William of Normandy with his French-speaking pillaging nobles. Or Americans with their silly demands for good service.
New Labour, despite bringing economic prosperity to the country, has its detractors as well. Tony Blair, while he gained friends in the U.S. (on both sides) for being personable, seemingly reasonable, and somewhat Clintonian, has failed to maintain good relations with those voters in his own back yard (called a garden here, a euphemism familiar to Labour supporters for whom "spreading democracy" equals "armed invasion complete with cluster bombs"). Lying about the war did not go over well. His wife is not popular either, ever since the glow of new motherhood wore off. (A warning note to Sarah Kennedy here: don't get too posh once little Donald's out of nappies.)
Tony Blair has no plans as of yet to appear on Today with John Humphrys. Too bad. I'd love to hear him squirm through that inquisition. (I'd replace him in my mind with George Bush, a fantasy I continue to have.) Maybe it's because he read this Guardian piece today, in which Humphrys describes the lying habits of politicians:
•"There are those who lie quite happily, to the extent that they don't recognise the difference between lies and the truth. Or don't care. Or both."
•"There are those who don't like lying but recognise the need for it occasionally and you can tell when they're doing it and when they're uncomfortable. That accounts for the tension in interviews that sometimes puzzles listeners. After you've been doing this job for a while, you know they're doing it, but you can't accuse them outright of lying."
•"Then there are those who don't lie. They're the ones that never get on. Your Dennis Skinners make themselves unpopular with everyone and so don't get on and that's the way it is in the real world."
•"Equally you get those who take naturally to management-speak and instinctively use words like resources when they mean money and actually enjoy it. Jack Straw, for instance, seems to delight in telling you how many United Nations resolutions he can remember in a given time."
Yes, I'd avoid John Humphrys like I'd avoid the Asian flu if I were Tony Blair.
