The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland today joined the call for Gordon Brown to say sorry.
"It needn't be a sackcloth and ashes apology but an admission that the entire political and financial establishment erred when it believed in the infallibility of the market, and that New Labour's love affair with the City was part of that error."
He goes on to swallow the idea that Labour is simply suffering a communications problem. Tell the story, and Labour is in with a chance at next year's general election, he argues.
I expect a far more perceptive analysis from Freedland, usually one of Britain's best political commentators. The clamour for an apology is a classic Westminster village obsession. It wouldn't make the slightest impression on voters, who regard politicians' apologies as sceptically as their promises. (And it could make matters worse - just look at the reaction to the contrived apologies from disgraced bankers last month.)
Labour's problems are far more serious. It continues to disillusion voters with disastrous policy decisions, such as Peter Mandelson's part privatisation of the Royal Mail. Harriet Harman's empty promise to cut ex RBS chief executive Red Goodwin's promise showed the impotence of ministers who did nothing to stop Goodwin being rewarded for failure when they rescued RBS with billions of our money.
Dying governments often make catastrophic mistakes - wasting taxpayers' money: Margaret Thatcher's was the poll tax. I suspect the Royal Mail sell off will begin to look like Labour's equivalent of John Major's rail privatisation. We're still paying the price of that piece of prime ministerial stupidity 15 years later.
Good analysis. In a classic 'crisis management' scenario an apology is frequently the right thing to do, but ONLY if it is genuine and sincere, not simply part of the 'comms strategy'.
It needs to be credible and for GB to apologise at this stage is simply wouldn't be.
Posted by: Stuart Bruce - Wolfstar | March 05, 2009 at 06:46 AM