Jon Bright (London, OK): The leaders of both major UK parties, in slightly different ways, promised some kind of "new politics" when they first assumed their respective offices. Brown promised revitalised governance, respect for parliament, an end to spin. Cameron promised an end to "Punch and Judy" politics, called for serious debate rather than points scoring. Today both, in different ways, have admitted abandoning those goals.
On the Today programme, as he was taken to task for calling Brown a "loser" in PMQs last week, Cameron admitted (relatively frankly) that he had been unable to bring the calm, reasoned style to parliament that he wanted to, that Punch and Judy had won out. His reasoning, though he didn't say it in so many words, was simply that the system had got the better of him - parliament is a robust debating chamber, people enjoy a robust style, it was easy to slip into the old ways.
Gordon Brown, meanwhile, appeared on the GMTV sofa this morning dropping heavy hints that he is going to ignore the forthcoming ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) report, which will apparently advise that cannabis should remain a class C drug. Brown told GMTV that he has "always been worried about cannabis, with this new skunk, this more lethal part of cannabis." A Whitehall source was also widely quoted, saying:
Mr Brown has made clear that, notwithstanding the scientific evidence, there are other considerations
We could debate the facts of the matter. Skunk isn't lethal. The report itself will point out that cases of schizophrenia have declined in general over the past 20 years, and that "some papers suggested that users are simply moderating their use of the higher potency cannabis" (in the same way that people don't drink wine by the pint). But there hardly seems any use doing so, as we now know (if we didn't before) that "scientific evidence" will not necessarily impact on policy.
So - back to the more important point. The ACMD report will not be published until after the elections (as once again the Purdah is turned to the government's advantage) but that hasn't prevented Brown from partially announcing this Daily Mail friendly policy. And, in a moment of delicious irony, he's done it from the sofa (the GMTV one, that is), rather than in parliament. We can assume, with parties and the whip system, that if the executive wants a reclassification of cannabis, nothing - neither parliament nor scientific evidence - will have much chance of preventing it.
Why have neither Brown nor Cameron been able to bring about the systemic changes they wanted, and instead reverted to political type? I'm willing to give them credit for being sincere at the outset (though I understand people who wouldn't). But it seems, once you are truly inside the system, reforming it becomes less and less attractive.
