Gordon Brown walks out .....

[Saracen]

Imho the media is way too big for its boots. It should stop trying to do all our thinking for us and get back to reporting the news. The media has turned the serious business of politics into utter farce and I'm not in the least surprised that our top politicians are getting exasperated.

I mean, come on; personal attack after personal attack followed up with a helping of the character assassination on a professional level. It is useless, negative and gutter 'entertainment'.

Andrew Marr came unstuck with it when he tried it on Peter Mandelson but why was Andrew Marr wasting PM's time?

At this time we need leaders to get on with their jobs not to sit in front of some overpaid oaf who's asking them the same old tired questions behind a smug smile. "Ooo, do you realise how much older you look these days Prime Minister" - this kind of rubbish is thrown in the face of people who are trying day and night to resolve problems for our benefit.

I am completely bored of the tripe these media people keep pumping out. The BBC should be ashamed of what it has become and newspaper rags don't even deserve comment. And all the voxpop people who criticize the Government we see these days carry equity cards and are related to someone already in TV. The nepotism sucks and the whole Corporation is starting to look like in-bred hillbillies.

Britain has become a TV show full of errant teenagers, ignorant loud mouths and slovenly layabouts and we're stupidly tuning in.

Walking out on the latest pointless interview was the right thing to do. Interviewers don't want to hear answers, they simply want to deliver the next barb as soon as they can.

It has to stop or we're all going to end up bitching about Gok Wan, or whatever her name is, whilst Rome burns.

That might be fair comment if :-

a) When commentators asked serious questions, they got straight answers. For months, when asked about the debt question, Brown insisted it was "Tory cuts versus Labour investment" when we all knew it was rubbish. All commentators got from him was spin. Now, Brown has evidently decided (or his advisers have convinced him) that that stance has zero credibility, so it turns out he's going to make better cuts than the Tories, but still won't give any significant detail about what that involves.

b) When asked a question about what rumours of what painkillers he might be taking, there's ways of answering that. One is to simply say that his medical status doesn't affect his ability to do the job, and that as a result he isn't going to comment on scurrilous rumours put out by right-wing blogs and echoed by a media that should know better. The other is to throw a strop and let the electorate see your temper tantrums. His taking, or otherwise, of prescription painkillers might not be our business, but his inability to restrain his temper is.

c) Depending on what prescription painkillers they are, that MIGHT have side-effects and some of those could impact on his ability to do the job. And if so, that IS our business.

d) The PM is only too happy to use his personal life when it suits him. Otherwise, why is his wife up on stage on a televised political conference, preening him up?

e) For a national leader, medical status emphatically can be a factor we are entitled to know about, and there's plenty of historical precedent for why it is on the agenda. Most recently, Charles Kennedy's alcohol problems. If, by some miracle, they had been elected to government and he was running the country, it would be a factor ... and we should know about it when electing him. Similarly, if a candidate (or office holder) has, say, Alzheimer’s, then THAT would be an issue. Could someone with a serious heart condition run the country? Well, it probably depends on what that condition was, but for the more serious issues, probably not, though less a serious one didn't stop Blair.

So not all matters that would normally quite correctly be entirely private matters remain so if you seek, and get, public office. Or even if you just seek it. For medical matters, there is a line, and unless they can be questioned on it, we have no way to determine if it's relevant or not.

f) Nobody drags politicians into TV studios and chains them to the chair. Brown is there because he wants to use the media to get his message, or with a more cynical view, his propaganda, out to us .... as does just about every politician. He gets to play his part by how he answers, and journalists get to play theirs by the questions they ask .... knowing full well that you're unlikely to get a straight, complete and comprehensive answer.

g) The alternative to a free press able to prod and probe is a press that's a trained puppy and asks questions from a pre-prepared list of state-authorised suitable topics. That might be in a Stalin-like situation with goons with guns prepared to re-educate the journalist is they don’t show due deference, or it might be the sort of press we had 50 or more years ago, where there was a cosy little unwritten contract and journalists "respected" politicians and never asked awkward questions. But in that environment, you'd be lucky if things like the Profumo scandal came out (which could have compromised the country's defence) and you can bet your boots that the MPs antics with their expenses would not have done, but for a probing press.

Walking out on the latest pointless interview was the right thing to do. Interviewers don't want to hear answers, they simply want to deliver the next barb as soon as they can.

And politicians don't want to give answers. How many times do we hear a perfectly sensible question asked on policy, only for a politician to completely ignore the actual question and spout whatever the current week's mantra is, even if it bears no resemblance to the question? How many times do we hear a question asked about a policy or performance, only for the politician to tell us what the last lot did last time they were is power years ago instead of talking about what they’ve done, or are going to do. And that's not a party point, because I'll bet my left gonad that in a few years, I could make exactly the same remark about the incumbents, and it'd be true whoever wins the next election.


There's some truth in the charge that the media has played a role in trivialising politics and turning it into "utter farce", but the politicians have played at least as big a part. It takes two to tango, and to mix metaphors, I'm not sure which is the chicken and which the egg. Do politicians learn the black art of evasive answers because of loaded questions, or do journalists ask loaded questions because when they ask serious ones, they get evasion and spin? My guess is it’s a bit of both.

But however it started, politicians are elected by US, are supposed to be representing US and when they dodge, duck and dive, spin and evade, it's US they're treating with contempt. We don't have the access to them to ask them directly, so it has to be done by journalists, and that includes both good and bad journalists, ranging from attack dogs at one extreme to puerile idiots at the other, but covering a broad spectrum in-between.

and I'm not in the least surprised that our top politicians are getting exasperated.

Probably about as frustrated as journalists are about getting nothing but evasion and spin when asking serious questions. For instance, we all know that the debt problem has to be faced sooner or later. Cameron wants to do it sooner and Brown later, and there's good economic arguments both ways, depending both on the extent and timing of individual proposals. There is no categorical right or wrong, because that will depend on the exact economic result of actions, and it simply isn't that exact a science, and you're going to end up judging relative merits of two different types of detrimental effect and making a value judgement. But do our politicians (on both sides) actually try explaining the options, and the likely impacts and risks each way? No, they just try to score cheap points off each other.

And, as the people in power with their hands on the steering wheel of state, naturally the most probing questions go to Brown ... though with a looming election, Cameron can expect to be held much more to account. So Brown tells us he's going to cut this whopping great deficit by 50% in four years, and despite not planning to even seriously start looking at reducing spending for the next couple of fiscal years, he won't even give a general direction of the type of measures that might be necessary. I heard him say earlier today that he's relying on economic growth to do it. The inference was that there won’t need to be any cuts, or not of any seriousness anyway. He's back onto the "Tory cuts versus Labour investment" track again, and I don't know of any serious economist that thinks for an instant that we can simply grow our way out of this mess.

Yet when Brown, or Darling, or any other minister are asked, not even for detailed plans, but merely for a broad-brush picture of the sort of extent of cuts, and the general priorities for what will be protected, all the journalists get is zip.

That leads us with two possibilities :-

1) They know roughly, or perhaps even in more detail, what's coming but don't want to tell us. Or don't dare. Or more likely, don’t dare let the unions know just before a General Election, or

2) They don't know. And that's even more frightening that 1).


Is the press perfect? Not by a hell of a long way, no. But the only light we get shone into places our supposed "elected representatives" would rather we didn't get to see is shone by the press. Imperfect though it may be, it's far better than a bunch of Fleet Street political bootlickers would be. Oh, and it's pretty varied too. There's good and bad, there's highly experienced and knowledgeable and ... well, not. There are hard interviewers and soft interviewers.

Politicians should take the good with the bad, and should be able to cope with questions that they think are out-of-bounds. But the fact that THEY think they're out of bounds doesn't mean that are. And as for questions on painkillers, if you watched Question Time tonight, you'd have seen that a range of opinions expressed on that.


To be honest, I don't much care if politicians are frustrated by the questions. As someone they're supposed to be representing, I get incredibly frustrated by them giving me the mushroom treatment (kept in the dark and fed on .... you know), and journalist's questions are about the only (slim) chance we get of finding out what our political employees are doing in our name .... and they won’t do us the courtesy of telling us.

The end result? We simply don't trust them any more. We've been conned, spun and even lied to so extensively that we don't trust a word they say, and it emphatically doesn't help when they can't even really admit that we're heading for serious cuts and tax rises, and probably over a protracted period. The press aren't the real problem. Politicians are.

[Saracen]

The man who destroyed the company pension plans of millions by his tax raid on pension fund dividends in his first budget in 1997.

The man who sold a large proportion of Britain's gold reserves when it was at one of the lowest prices of the decade - and bought euros when they were one of the most expensive currencies

The man that forced several mutual life insurance companies to de-mutualise by changing the rules on liquidity in 2003. In order to comply the companies had to ell assets (usually shares) when the stock market was at a low, affecting the investments of millions (particularly endowment linked life policies) in order to comply in the short term - and demutualise to raise funds in the longrer term, further undermining the investments of private savers.

The man whose party has politicised the civil service, who's manipulation of the media has finally come home to roost.

The man who has played the fear card in the population to justify gross intrusions into privacy, and whose attempts at social engineering has fostered a fdependency culture, giving further control by the state over ever more aspects of an individulas life.

A man whose ill conceived legislation has prevented two job sharing friends to look after each others children while the other one works.

The man whose tax breaks penalise the small independant, but allowed Hedge funds to flourish with generaous tax breaks - the hedge funds that contributed to the economic downturn.

The man who helped damage one of the more successful banks by forcing it to take over HBOS - reducing the share value, and having a further adverse effects (at least in the short term) on pension funds.

But apart from that, he's done really well.

I don't agree .... with the "apart from that" bit.

For a start, I would add "the man that set up the tripartite financial regulatory system that so spectacularly failed the UK", and "the man that claimed he's abolished boom and bust, because he didn't recognise he was fuelling a bubble, because he was too busy grabbing the tax revenues and spending like there's no tomorrow".

I'm sure I could go on, but it's 3:30AM and past my bedtime.

[peterb]

True. And yet you choose not to record any of his successes .

I think I did...

[santa claus]

When asked a question about what rumours of what painkillers he might be taking, there's ways of answering that. One is to simply say that his medical status doesn't affect his ability to do the job.....

Well all I can say is thank goodness the war time Prime Minister wasn't an obese, chain-smoking, depressive with a speech impediment. I mean, we'd all be speaking German now. Or, just maybe, it would not interfere with his judgement, leadership and statesmanship.

I think I did...

Hrhrhrhrhrhr! Nice one

[Saracen]

Well all I can say is thank goodness the war time Prime Minister wasn't an obese, chain-smoking, depressive with a speech impediment. I mean, we'd all be speaking German now. Or, just maybe, it would not interfere with his judgement, leadership and statesmanship.

But would his chain-smoking, his weight or his characteristic manner of speech affect his ability to do his job, or rather, in the times in which he existed, would it have? I'm not sure how any of those would. Similarly, why would being wheelchair-bound mean you can't govern a country?

But there ARE, as I said, medical conditions that would, and we're entitled to ask the question. As soon as we accept that there are questions that could accept suitability for office that we're not even allowed to ask, you open a door to suppressing democracy. But if journalists ask obnoxious questions without good reason (and evidence) for why it's a good question, then they're going to make themselves look like fools .... if handled properly.

Do we really think Brown's strop was just because of the painkiller question? I don't believe it for an instant. More likely, whatever the spin now being put on it, he was still fuming over the Sun's defection, and over all these jumped-up journalists refusing to accept the current spin from him they way they ate up the "prudence" and "abolished boom and bust" garbage for years.

Remember the characterisation a number of people (like Charles Clarke, Blunkett and other cabinet colleagues have attributed to Brown? Remember (denied) stories of things being sluing across the office? The employment for years of Damien Green? Just perhaps, this incident is an example of the mask usually used for the public slipping a bit and showing his inability to keep his inner control freak from peeking out .... just like numerous people that have worked with and for him have said.

[santa claus]

But would his chain-smoking, his weight or his characteristic manner of speech affect his ability to do his job, or rather, in the times in which he existed, would it have?

No it wouldn't (evidently!). But today it would be perceived that it could especially if it could be used to denigrate someone. Do we know if the opposition candidates have as yet unknown infirmities? No, we don't. Will there be a thorough and public medical before they are allowed to take office? No, there won't.

The only fuming to be done about The Sun is that it has so much influence in something it should not. It pokes fun and strips people of their dignity (and clothes) like an impudent 3 year old. And it's such a laugh isn't it? Calling names and putting heads on turnips and generally being wacky, jolly old fun.

Except, these are serious times for us all. Celebrities imho are fair game but it's time to stop rubbishing our elected leaders like it's all some kind of panto.

The next interview might go like this - "Look out behind you Mr Brown, behind you!"

Oh what fun we had .

[Perfectionist]

The man who destroyed the company pension plans of millions by his tax raid on pension fund dividends in his first budget in 1997.

The man who sold a large proportion of Britain's gold reserves when it was at one of the lowest prices of the decade - and bought euros when they were one of the most expensive currencies

The man that forced several mutual life insurance companies to de-mutualise by changing the rules on liquidity in 2003. In order to comply the companies had to ell assets (usually shares) when the stock market was at a low, affecting the investments of millions (particularly endowment linked life policies) in order to comply in the short term - and demutualise to raise funds in the longrer term, further undermining the investments of private savers.

The man whose party has politicised the civil service, who's manipulation of the media has finally come home to roost.

The man who has played the fear card in the population to justify gross intrusions into privacy, and whose attempts at social engineering has fostered a fdependency culture, giving further control by the state over ever more aspects of an individulas life.

A man whose ill conceived legislation has prevented two job sharing friends to look after each others children while the other one works.

The man whose tax breaks penalise the small independant, but allowed Hedge funds to flourish with generaous tax breaks - the hedge funds that contributed to the economic downturn.

The man who helped damage one of the more successful banks by forcing it to take over HBOS - reducing the share value, and having a further adverse effects (at least in the short term) on pension funds.

But apart from that, he's done really well.

Well said, makes it hard to pity him - which is about the only reason people would vote for him at this point I think. Sure the pile-on from the media makes you want to do the reverse of whatever they are trying to tell you to do but in the end most of it's for pretty good reasons.

[Saracen]

No it wouldn't (evidently!). But today it would be perceived that it could especially if it could be used to denigrate someone. Do we know if the opposition candidates have as yet unknown infirmities? No, we don't. Will there be a thorough and public medical before they are allowed to take office? No, there won't.

The only fuming to be done about The Sun is that it has so much influence in something it should not. It pokes fun and strips people of their dignity (and clothes) like an impudent 3 year old. And it's such a laugh isn't it? Calling names and putting heads on turnips and generally being wacky, jolly old fun.

Except, these are serious times for us all. Celebrities imho are fair game but it's time to stop rubbishing our elected leaders like it's all some kind of panto.

The next interview might go like this - "Look out behind you Mr Brown, behind you!"

Oh what fun we had .

I guess that the attitude of the Sun, and whatever "jolly old fun" they get up to (and I'll take your word for it as I don't read the Sun) really says more about the readership than anything else - they do what sells. And the fact that it sells so many says something about the electorate.

But you seem to be making a more general point, which seems to be about a "right" to privacy versus press intrusion. It's an interesting and fairly complex subject in it's own right. But I'm not sure the Sun has as much influence as you give it credit for. Their defection is certainly not good news for Labour, not least because it suggests it's likely to put up a barrage of criticism, political and probably personal, for the seven or so months to the election. But is it really going to make that much difference? Labour are certainly saying, with rather too much vigour in my opinion, that they don't think so. And online media is certainly far more influential, and the Sun less so, than it was. And finally, the suggestion that the Sun isn't leading it's readers but following them has a certain credibility to it, too. And that is bad news for Labour, because if the Sun is following it's readers, presumably based on feedback, letters, etc from them, then it suggests that the Sun is convinced it's readership have already deserted Labour.

One thing .... Brown is not my elected leader. As far as I'm concerned, he has no mandate to lead at all. Blair ran a party that was elected, and he had a mandate for his program. Brown took over as PM without either getting a mandate from the people, or even standing for an election in his own party, and promptly announced that he was going to change direction. He doesn't have a mandate to change direction. He also announced he was going to change how things were done, and be more attentive, to listen more. What a joke! Until he faces the people in an election, and wins, he's hardly an "elected leader". He was elected as a constituency MP by his constituency, and that's all.

[peterb]

I guess that the attitude of the Sun, and whatever "jolly old fun" they get up to (and I'll take your word for it as I don't read the Sun) really says more about the readership than anything else - they do what sells. And the fact that it sells so many says something about the electorate.

But you seem to be making a more general point, which seems to be about a "right" to privacy versus press intrusion. It's an interesting and fairly complex subject in it's own right. But I'm not sure the Sun has as much influence as you give it credit for. Their defection is certainly not good news for Labour, not least because it suggests it's likely to put up a barrage of criticism, political and probably personal, for the seven or so months to the election. But is it really going to make that much difference? Labour are certainly saying, with rather too much vigour in my opinion, that they don't think so. And online media is certainly far more influential, and the Sun less so, than it was. And finally, the suggestion that the Sun isn't leading it's readers but following them has a certain credibility to it, too. And that is bad news for Labour, because if the Sun is following it's readers, presumably based on feedback, letters, etc from them, then it suggests that the Sun is convinced it's readership have already deserted Labour.

One thing .... Brown is not my elected leader. As far as I'm concerned, he has no mandate to lead at all. Blair ran a party that was elected, and he had a mandate for his program. Brown took over as PM without either getting a mandate from the people, or even standing for an election in his own party, and promptly announced that he was going to change direction. He doesn't have a mandate to change direction. He also announced he was going to change how things were done, and be more attentive, to listen more. What a joke! Until he faces the people in an election, and wins, he's hardly an "elected leader". He was elected as a constituency MP by his constituency, and that's all.

It is difficult to quantify the influence that a paper like the Sun might have. Advertisers certainly think media such as newspapers influences opinion, otherwise they wouldn't advertise.

But given that the Sun (and all other media) seeks to increase sales to attract advertising revenue, then the scenario that it is following the readership is more likely, it isn't going to adopt a stance that causes its readers to turn to another paper - in this case the alternative would be the Daily Mirror

He was elected as a constituency MP by his constituency, and that's all.

That last point deserves greater emphasis too. He is an elected member of a Scottish constituency, and perversley is able to comment and vote on matters that have no effect on his constituency members, yet does affect those of us that live in England and Wales. An MP representing an English constituency does not have the same right. And legislation affecting the inhabitants of England has been enacted by parliament only with the support of Scottish MPs whose constituencies are unaffected by that legislation.

[santa claus]

One thing .... Brown is not my elected leader. As far as I'm concerned, he has no mandate to lead at all.

The Labour Party has the mandate. A 'change of direction' but within the Party's principles seems reasonable to me. Political climate is dynamic; it is the responsibility of the leader to keep up with the game, or better still, be the playmaker.

And legislation affecting the inhabitants of England has been enacted by parliament only with the support of Scottish MPs whose constituencies are unaffected by that legislation.

Shall we not do the Scots/English/Irish/Welsh thing?

[peterb]

The Labour Party has the mandate. A 'change of direction' but within the Party's principles seems reasonable to me. Political climate is dynamic; it is the responsibility of the leader to keep up with the game, or better still, be the playmaker.



Shall we not do the Scots/English/Irish/Welsh thing?

It isn't a "Scots/English/Irish/Welsh thing" - it is a fairly important point of principle that has been conveniently ignored by the Government (with the exception of Tam Dalyell) in that an elected representative can vote on issues that do not affect the electorate he represents - and that several MPS in that position have been instrumental in the passing of legislation that has no effect in the country in which they reside.

[santa claus]

It isn't a "Scots/English/Irish/Welsh thing" - it is a fairly important point of principle that has been conveniently ignored by the Government (with the exception of Tam Dalyell) in that an elected representative can vote on issues that do not affect the electorate he represents - and that several MPS in that position have been instrumental in the passing of legislation that has no effect in the country in which they reside.

Hardly worth worrying about I would have thought. England has a Scots PM and the UK will soon have a President based in Brussels. We can trust elected representatives of integrity to vote in our best interests no matter where they live

[peterb]

Hardly worth worrying about I would have thought. England has a Scots PM and the UK will soon have a President based in Brussels. We can trust elected representatives of integrity to vote in our best interests no matter where they live

And I bet you believe in Father Christmas too!

[santa claus]

And I bet you believe in Father Christmas too!

I'm not the one writing to him peterb

[Saracen]

I'm not the one writing to him peterb

I think he got you there, Peter.

[Saracen]

..... We can trust elected representatives of integrity to vote in our best interests no matter where they live

Oooh Santa, you do know what buttons to push don't you?

</Saracen muttering to himself .... you're being baited, don't bite, don't bite, don't bite.>

I have now had a nice relaxing bath, a long walk, taken my blood pressure meds and a triple dose of valium, so I feel sure I can answer that in a controlled fashion.

I absolutely trust our elected representatives of integrity to vote in our best interests, and it has nothing to do with the Scots/English/Welsh etc question.

But Santa, a politician with integrity? I mean, I have no trouble accepting the notion of Santa. I'm still not sure about the tooth fairy. I can accept unicorns and dragons, and even go along with flying saucers. But come on now ....... that's utter fantasy.




Editorial note. Okay, I'm laying it on a bit thick, but you get the point I'm sure. .