In the house
by Duncan O'Leary
Is it me, or is it becoming compulsory to offer some kind of metaphor to do with a house in every political intervention nowadays..?
David Cameron explained his intentions to the Conservative Party at its conference, with:
‘Getting ready for the responsibility of government is like building a house together.
Think of it in three stages.
First you prepare the ground.
Then you lay the foundations.
And then, finally, brick by brick, you build your house.’
…then John Reid popped up this week with:
If you renovate a house you start by taking the wallpaper off. Only then do you discover more problems. That's what it is like in the Home Office.
...only for Nick Robinson to explain that:
'The question is whether he can do the renovation on his own. At present some other members of the Home Office renovation team - prison officers, judges, civil servants - appear to be going from room to room in the house shouting "look at the mess you've made in here" and pulling out bits of the plaster.'
Not be outdone, Gordon Brown tells us today:
‘Our ambition for education: to raise the floor and to remove the ceiling’
Can they fix it? Maybe this man can...
Robert Sharp
Political buildings are often used as a short-hand to describe the institutions and people who work in them. This short-hand conjures the idea that the institutions are giant behemoths that cannot be assailed. In fact, all institutions are no more than the sum of the people who work in them, and are much more accessible than the language of 'the building' would have us believe. Think of "Number Ten" versus "The Treasury" for example. I've exapanded on this idea on my own blog:http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2007/02/02/wandering/