Sobre las columnas de Simon Hoggart

Son muchas las razones por las que en los últimos años he disfrutado más leyendo The Guardian que la prensa norteamericana en general. Por ejemplo, han adoptado una actitud más crítica y reflexiva ante las crisis que en los tiempos que corren viene enfrentado el mundo y, a pesar de la participación del gobierno británico en el nuevo remake de Lawrence de Arabia por parte de la Casa Blanca —muy inferior, por cierto al original, pero eso suele pasarle hasta a Hollywood—, no se cortaron para cuestionar las dudosas premisas que llevaron a la invasión de Irak, lo que tiene algún mérito. No es que estén exentos de pecado —su cobertura de la entonces famosa y hoy ya casi olvidada Revolución Naranja en Ucrania no fue menos manipuladora y simplista que la que podía encontrarse en el New York Times—, pero es un periódico que por lo general publica análisis inteligentes.

Sin embargo, entre todas las razones que me hacen regresar a The Guardian, la cobertura de las sesiones del Parlamento realizada por Simon Hoggart ocupa un lugar destacado. La verdad, no sé quién es ese señor —supongo que podría realizar una búsqueda en Google, pero para qué— y como tampoco sigo de cerca la política inglesa no suelen sonarme los nombres de los parlamentarios ni estoy siempre familiarizado con los temas que discuten. No tiene importancia. Los artículos de Hoggart, en su brevedad, son un ejercicio delicioso de ironía e inteligencia. Es raro que no consiga hacerme reírme tres o cuatro veces en poco más de media docena de párrafos.

La columna que he decidido colgar aquí la he elegido bastante al azar, y el hecho de que es reciente probablemente fuera lo más determinante a la hora de escogerla ya que no tenía ganas de ponerme a rebuscar en el archivo del periódico. A pesar de que el proceso de selección se ha visto limitado por mi dejadez y mi pereza, creo que este artículo es un buen ejemplo de lo que escribe Hoggart. Espero que les parezca tan divertido como a mí. Me haría feliz pensar que algún día pudiera hacerse un periodismo tan irreverente sobre las sesiones de nuestra mediocre Asamblea Nacional, pero no tengo muchas esperanzas de que eso suceda, sin importar los cambios que se produzcan en la Isla. Y más que por las peculiaridades de la Cuba actual, por el hecho de que este humor no abunda en la prensa de ningún país, sin importar cuán libre y cuán independiente sea ésta.

Fewer beds in our healthy NHS
Simon Hoggart
Friday February 9, 2007
The Guardian

The government is becoming ever so slightly bonkers. With Tony Blair going, or allegedly going - I'll believe that when I see it - ministers are behaving like children on a school trip while the teachers have bunked off for a fag and a drink in the nearest pub. They say mad things. Sometimes, you suspect, it's to make each other giggle. For instance during education questions yesterday, the junior minister, Parmjit Dhanda, said that the government wanted to offer children "nursery services free at the point of delivery".

At the point of delivery? The moment they come wriggling out of the womb? You may think that's silly, but it's precisely the sort of fin de regime nonsense you'd expect, complete with blather about our competitors in China having children who are fully literate by three months. Indian babies can do calculus at one year. I expect.

Then it turned out the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, had given an interview to the Daily Mirror in which she said that the fact that the NHS was closing 900 beds was a sign of success. "There will be fewer emergency admissions, so you need fewer beds," she said.

"Fewer beds are a sign of success - not a sign of failure." The paper asked: "Is this the most extraordinary statement ever made by a Labour health secretary?" - a question gleefully repeated to Jack Straw, the leader of the Commons, by his Tory opposite number, Theresa May.

Mr Straw had no idea how to handle this burst of lunacy. He said "on the health service". Then he won vital nano seconds by repeating it.

"On the health service [pause] we are always pleased to debate the health service. Some hospital wards have had their beds closed. Why?"

This time the pause proved fatal. "Because they are raddled with MRSA!" yelled a Tory.

At last Mr Straw's synapses snapped into place. The software marked "explaining away your colleague's most egregiously daft remarks" was loaded. He took refuge in repeating Ms Hewitt's remarks in different words. He said that the missing beds merely proved that people were having to spend less time in hospital because the system worked so well. It's a perfect catch-all response for any minister. If the number of police officers goes down, it's because there is less crime. Cuts at fire stations? That's because under New Labour fewer cats get stuck in trees. We have fewer teachers because people are getting their whole education in the first year, at the point of delivery. And if we are short of soldiers, it's because we have fewer wars to fight.

Well, perhaps not the last one.

We also learned yesterday that there has been a massive row between Harriet Harman, who works for Lord Falconer in the department for constitutional affairs, and the attorney general. She wants his advice to the prime minister over Iraq made public. (Translation: she is running for deputy leader and wants to sound sceptical about the war.) He wants it kept secret.

Does it matter? Not a lot, but it shows ministers these days don't give a toss about what they say.