It’s a Conservative Party free-for-all...

If it wasn’t abundantly clear that the contest to replace Theresa May as Leader of the Conservative Party, and probably Prime Minister was underway, events this week have made it utterly obvious. Any sense of discipline appears to have been tossed aside in favour of raw ambition, as this can be the only explanation for the utter inconsistency of statements from senior Government figures.

Gavin Williamson has been talking about offering moral leadership to other nations sharing our values. And, whilst I am sceptical that our recent acts as a nation have given much of a lead, that can’t be helped by Sajid Javid’s response to a few dozen Iranian migrants attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats.

Now it may well be that he is entirely consistent with Conservative Party thinking, but the problem with being in power is that words matter. You have legislative power as a minister and, if you suggest that a refugee who might be claiming asylum status is ineligible despite there being no evidence to consider, you might well be seen to be prejudicing their case. Courts can take a dim view of such things.

It’s also not a good look to be tough on migrants when your parents were migrants. “Pulling up the drawbridge” looks selfish. It’s better to simply express the rules, encourage them to be fairly and efficiently applied, and leave it at that. At this stage, we don’t know what their circumstances are.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Hunt is swearing his love of Singapore as a guide to a positive future for the United Kingdom. I’ll set aside the minor detail that Singapore is a city state rather than a collection of islands off of the coast of Europe, and simply note that it isn’t exactly democratic, has high levels of income inequality and houses 80% of its population in high-rise public housing.

And yes, Singaporeans are freer that citizens of other countries. But those freedoms they do possess are at the cost of freedoms that we in the United Kingdom take for granted - the right to oppose the Government by democratic means without sanction, as a basic example.

Jeremy Hunt appears to be suggesting that relative economic well-being trumps a whole bunch of other rights, which just goes to show how some Conservatives view freedom, i.e. as conditional.

And the problem is that there is, for the time being, no sense that the Government has an agreed agenda on anything relating to the nation’s future. And, given that if they get their way on Brexit, the nation’s future is, to a great extent, up for grabs, that might be troubling.

Jeremy Hunt may need some better comparators for the NHS...

Reading my morning newspaper, I note that Jeremy Hunt is suggesting that the NHS must copy banks and budget airlines by using the internet to give a better service whilst cutting costs. And yes, there is no doubt that the internet does offer opportunities to increase efficiency and open up new possibilities for patients, but are banks and budget airlines really the sort of organisations that you'd want to see the NHS aspire towards?

One envisages a Ryanair-style website, where you start off with what looks like a simple transaction and then you find yourself confronted with a plethora of choices, do you want an anaesthetic for your surgery, or extra convalescence time, or clean surgical instruments, that sort of thing. Perhaps, taking a cue from the banks, you could be offered spare body parts that you don't need because you've already got one, and when you do try to use them, they tend not to be compatible with you.

And it is ironic that, as Jeremy makes his suggestion, elsewhere in my copy of The Times, there is news of a report from the Financial Ombudsman Service, noting that the number of complaints made to it about banks last year reached record numbers.

However, he makes a point which exposes a slight lack of understanding of how public services work, in that he notes that retail banks have cut a third of their costs by persuading us to do the work they used to do themselves. He is right, but he misses the point that, by doing so, the economic costs of transactions have not necessarily fallen, as the work, instead of being done by a trained professional, is being handled by an inexperienced, untrained amateur, who is likely to spend rather longer doing it.

I'm also not necessarily convinced that I have benefited financially from the arrangement either, as fees haven't fallen and senior employee salaries have increased.

So, yes, encourage the NHS and, for that matter, the rest of the public sector, to use the internet more intelligently by exploring new ways of operating by all means. But just don't forget that it's not the same as a retail transaction, in that most dealings with public services are seldom voluntary, and there's seldom a choice, because, ultimately, you're dealing with human beings with all of the irrationality and foibles that come with them...

Politics and the Media: isn't there something more important than Jeremy Hunt?

Let's see. We've booked David Cameron for the sofa, Andrew Marr is in makeup, so, what shall we have him talk about?

Well, what's happening? The economy is back in recession and there are important local government elections next week, the Leveson Enquiry is still exposing the complicity between government and the Murdoch 'empire', unemployment is far too high, the Eurozone is in trouble (again). So many choices...

I know, let's talk about Jeremy Hunt!

Don't get me wrong, the behaviour of a member of the Cabinet is a serious business, but we're hardly likely to learn anything from an attempted cross-examination of his boss. And whilst anyone who doesn't like this government, or David Cameron, will probably have enjoyed the experience, they won't actually have learned much. Cameron demonstrated that he believes in loyalty - usually a good thing - but perhaps demonstrated a tin ear when it comes to public perception - which he may pay for later.

And yes, late in the interview, there was a brief exchange on the economy, which allowed Cameron to say how much he cares and how hard he, and the Government, are working to turn things around. As if he was going to say anything else...

It reminds me that the political debate in this country is insular and closed. Do the public care much about the fate of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Will his fate impact on many people? Is he irreplaceable? The answer to all of these questions is no. Does Jeremy Hunt have an impact on the economy, on inflation, on war and peace? No, not one jot.

And yet, journalists talk to politicians, politicians to journalists, all the while not actually talking to us. No wonder that people feel further and further removed from politics.

At a time when we should all be focussing on how to build a sustainable economy, or how to provide care for an increasing elderly population, the debate is dominated by the fate of one, rather insignificant, politician. So, for pity's sake, have Sir Alex Allan look at it, and let us get on with something important.

Of course, that won't happen in our increasingly personality-driven body politic. Who's up, who's down, who is in and who is out - so much easier than the complex issues of economics or international affairs. The examination of big ideas - what balance to we want to achieve in our economy, what steps should government take to achieve that, how can government fund its activities and what those activities should be, what relationship should we have with our neighbours, our friends, our enemies - is complex, requiring reflection, close examination... and listening to the answers.

But no, we've all tuned in to watch the other guy being skewered by some bloke in a suit, whose job is to make sneering comments, interrupt virtually every answer and generally preen - yes, I'm looking at you, Jon Sopel and Jeremy Paxman - a disease which has even spread as far as local radio. I don't really care what the interviewer thinks, and I don't want him/her to do anything other than ask intelligent questions and allow the interviewee to answer them. Don't let them waffle, but do allow them to develop an argument. And if you won't, don't be surprised when politicians respond in meaningless, glib soundbites. After all, that's all that you've allowed them...

But then, as the public don't appear to care either, perhaps we have the politics that we deserve...