To what extent do politicians have a right to a private life?

The question is one which has been under much discussion in France in recent years, with the growing 'peopolisation' of politics here. During the presidential election campaign, as I pointed out in the round-table in May, there were hints that Sarkozy & Royal were both having 'marital' difficulties but very little specific was said openly, because of the French journalistic tradition of not transgressing the 'yellow line' (a law from 1970) which defines the right to a private life, and which journalists tend to abide by, because of the traditional influence of politicians over their jobs. The Elysée has just announced the official separation of Sarkozy & his wife Cécilia, and Royal announced her separation from Hollande just before the 2nd round of the legislative elections. In both cases, their private lives overlap considerably with their public lives, with considerable impact on French politics: arguably, the whole socialist campaign would have been different had R & H not been at loggerheads personally, and it was Cécilia who, with an office at the Elysée, negotiated single-handed the liberation of the Bulgarian nurses a few weeks ago, so the political connections are strong there too. Both S & R have used images of their private lives in the media to further their own personal campaigns. So whilst Mitterrand managed to maintain two families simultaneously (both at the cost of the state), and still carry on his third life as Casanova, without the press uttering more than the odd murmur, it looks as if with the new generation of politicians, things might be starting to change. But how does journalism define what is private and what is in the public interest? How to avoid either the excesses of the British tabloids, or the self-imposed (or fear-induced) censorship of the French media? Have any other countries managed to get the balance right, and if so, how have they done it?

What a Balls-up!

The will-he-won't-he election talk has quickly blown over. Certainly, Brown bottled it, or perhaps we should say he 'Ballsed' it up. But in the medium- to long-term the bigger danger is Brown's apparent ability to alienate his own party. Swerving to the right on inheritance tax might play well to middle England, but it's already angered (quite rightly in my opinion) those on the left of the Labour Party (see e.g. Polly Toynbee's splendid comment in the Guardian on Friday). In a similar vein, Brown's conference speech was a mixture of the usual vacuity laced with some nasty, jingoistic rhetoric that's hardly going to play well at the Fabian Society. 'British jobs for British workers'? Is Brown planning on withdrawing from the EU then? Of course, this won't matter much if he is able to deliver electoral or polling success a la Blair. But there are already signs that the Blairites are starting to snipe (Charlie Falconer's comments over the weekend) and the Telegraph poll suggested that while the public still view Brown as the strongest leader, they have doubts about the party as a whole. Unless Brown outlines a clear vision of where he wants to take the party and the country -- and stops nakedly opportunistic policy grabs -- he could be in for a torrid time.

Is it uniquely the British who allow the government a free reign in deciding when to call an election or is this common practice elsewhere? In France, although dissolution is the President's prerogative (but not more than once a year), it has only been used once in this 'British' spirit: this was in 1997 when Chirac called an early election (due in 1998) in anticipation of economic difficulties in the run-up to the euro, and he ended up with socialist Jospin as PM for five years! A ploy not likely to be repeated...

Welcome to the new Sussex Politics Blog

This is a new blog created by members of the Department of Politics and Contemporary European Studies at the University of Sussex. It offers academic staff, research students, visiting researchers, postgraduates and undergraduates the chance to post columns and comments on any aspect of the contemporary political scene in Britain and abroad. The blog aims to offer a chance for all in our community - and beyond - to contribute to political debate.

Robust exchanges of views are fine, but keep it clean!

This first column announces this week's event organised by the wonderful Politics Society at Sussex. On Friday at 1pm in the Falmer House Debating Chamber on campus a debate will be staged on the key political question of the moment:

Is Brown a Bottler?

My view, for what it is worth, is that he is. His friends say he never wanted an autumn election, and that he was led astray by poor advice from the 'teenagers' in the Cabinet. Probably true, but beside the point. He allowed the speculation to build far too much to be able to back away from an election at the last minute. To follow that with this week's inheritance tax announcements looks nakedly opportunistic. Just this week's crisis? All forgotten soon? Perhaps, but I think he may have done lasting damage to his personal reputation for competence and trustworthiness in this age of valence politics.


Sussex Politics Blogger