I suspect a lot of it is around the way people consume news/current affairs now is very different to what it was. Thanks to 24 hour news cycles and the move to online consumption that people dip in and out of a lot of politics seems to be about riding momentum on a particular issue rather than ideology.Originally Posted by opel80uk
It's a good question.
My suspicion is that it's more to do with changing media. There used to be a fair degree of deference. Interviewers wouldn't go near certain issues, and virtually doofed their caps, while referring to politicians as "sir". No, I'm not kidding.
And that, for me, was much too deferential.
Modern interviewers seem to constantly try to out-Pax Paxman. In particular, some of the female Newsnight interviewers seem far too fond if the own voices, and too unwilling to use their ears.
Yes, if an interviewee is dodging a question, when it's a legitimate question, interrupt. But Kirsty Wark in particular has a nasty habit of delivering a loaded question, then interupting and talking over the interviewee if she doesn't get the soundbite cockup answer the question was clearly designed to elicit.
We need more Frost-ite or even Day-ite interviewers, that are knowledgeable, bright, incisive but fair. The best, probably by a long way, is Andrew Neal, IMHO. He can back up questions, does ask legit questions, does get irked when politicians try to flannel him with bullpoop, but isn't the kind of ambush interviewer that even Paxman tends to be.
The problrm, IMHO, is that with a dominance of ambush interviews, and liaded questions, politicians have trained themselves in the black arts of media presentation as a defence against loaded questions, the result being that they feed us a loaded if guarded, often semantically null, drivel, and seem to regard interviews as similar to the role of Christians with the lions in a Roman gladiatorial contest, and getting out of the studio with scratches, but no missing body parts, as a colossal victory.
In other words, most TV interviews are a game between politicians and a TV gob, with one trying to trick the other, who returns the compliment. Meantime, they both forget that we, the people, are both viewers and voters, and aren't impressed with either.
If the blame lies anywhere, I think much is with media, not public.
I think that is a good question, and one I have asked myself from time to time.
We are certainly in an era of career politicians - MP's who seek the position as a carer decision at a young age, whereas maybe 50 years ago, a politician may have had some other career, either in industry, or as a Trade Unionist from which politics was a progression. That meant that politicians were older, and perhaps went into politics because of conviction, not because it was a career opportunity.
The press (particularly TV) is less deferential to politicians too - partly because politicians have done themselves few favours from time to time, and partly because the aggressive style of some interviewers makes good watching, and again, nothing inherently wrong with that, part of a free press's job is to report and to some extent hold a politician to account.
But one of the outcomes is that politicians have become more PR aware -knowing that any and everything they say can be dragged up - often years later - to haunt them, they are very careful in what they say, and how they say it. The phenomenon of the spin doctor is one result of that, and PR baas used to very great effect by Tony Blair and the Labour Party both before and after the 197 General Election - perhaps mindful of the perceive damage to John Major's image by Spitting Image.
I still think most politicians do enter the house of Commons with a desire to 'make a difference' to the people the represent - and I also think that the pay a back bencher gets, in return for the hours some work, is not particularly high. But with a potential limited employment contract of five years, and an election outcome that might depend more on how their party as a whole performs, rather than how they themselves perform, it is a precarious existence - especially in a marginal seat - and I can understand how a desire to look slick might be thought to improve their chances of re-election - and that may also involve following a party line.
In the days when a politician may have had independent means, it could be argued that they could follow their convictions and stick two fingers up at the party when the interests of their constituents (or consciences) required it. The corollary is that having independent means would exclude many from running for Parliament.
Politicians certainly seem blander than they were - Tony Benn was anything but bland, Enoch Powell (widely mis-quoted or deliberately misunderstood by his rivers of blood speech) was another. Margaret Thatcher has been mentioned, Tam Dalyell and Barbara Castle are two more, Dennis Skinner is another. all characters in their own way.
Much has been made of Tony Benn's power of oratory. Today, it is rare to get a hustings meeting - most addressing of the electorate is via the televised Party Conference of election walkabout, and with the ever present TV cameras, it is a foolish politician who isn't media aware (as Gordon Brown discovered to his cost) and conscious that at any time a camera could be watching him, or could be ambushed by an unexpected question.
There is one other point - perhaps our expectations of a politician knowing all there is to know about a particular issue are too high. It would be refreshing to hear a politician say "I'm sorry, I don't know, but I'll find out" in public, or even to admit that they made a mistake. But they would be pilloried in the press, their fitness to hold office would be questioned, and so they are briefed up to the eyeballs, with bland statements designed to deflect criticism at a later date - again with an eye to the next election.
It is interesting though to compare the circus of PMQs with normal House of Commons proceedings (and those of the House of Lords) which are conducted in a more civilised and almost academic fashion.
Edit - I see I have cross posted with Saracen
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
RIP Tony.
Can't stand the bloke; reminds me of a smarmier jabba-the-hut.
He knows his stuff, though, Santa.
Aye, but anyone sporting a wig/hair weave or whatever is suspect as far as I'm concerned
Or worse, that baseball cap and vest.
Well, on the wig front, I've known a few people that sported one to cover hair loss from chemotherapy, and it made a huge difference to them, as they felt with it they could go outside without everyone looking at them. Yeah, I know that's rather different, but I guess some people feel very self-concious about being bald. And most people aren't presenting TV programs. I've also known people sporting a bald spot large enough to be visible from space .... with the naked eye .... and not give a damn.Aye, but anyone sporting a wig/hair weave or whatever is suspect as far as I'm concerned
Or worse, that baseball cap and vest.
I just like the way he has a habit if letting some unwary politician make a claim, only to find Neil has the exact figures, that contradict the politician, on a sheet of paper in front of him. I like watching the politician squirm, trying to get out of having been caught in bare-faced bull.
Anyway, I'm getting rather far away from Tony Benn, somehow.
This has nowt to do with chemotherapy and all to do with a sad, old, tw't in a hat.
Anyway, as you say, we're off topic; sorry 'bout that.
There was a good tribute to Tony Benn on R4 this afternoon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03zqmw3
given by David Davis.
What struck me most was that in the 70's Benn seemed to be trying to turn the clock back to a previous era, almost denying that the world was changing and to some extent turning its back on 'traditional' pre and immediate post war socialism, and with the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that the Labour Party was even then moving towards the centre left, a trend that has continued through up until 1997, when the shift accelerated with the abolition of clause 4, and even continuing under Ed Miliband, with the recent distancing and dilution of TU influence.
Benn's nadir was his (very) narrow defeat in the election for deputy leader. It is interesting to speculate how British politics would have looked had he won. Perhaps even more right wing than it is now, because I think he was out of tune with the mood of the country at the time. But we will never know.
His views later seemed to moderate slightly, but he was certainly sincere in his convictions. What was also interesting was his strong religious (Methodist) background.
Last edited by peterb; 16-03-2014 at 01:47 AM. Reason: Undo the unhelpful Android spell checker
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Funny, as I got older I found myself agreeing with his point of view on many issues. Not his biggest fan but hats off to a man of principles....I'm afraid they are VERY thin on the ground these days.
RIP
Indeed, but you did say "anyone" in a wig/hair weave is "suspect". As I pointed out, there's a mix of reasons why people do it, some good, some not so much .... even if it looks rather ridiculous.
This has nowt to do with chemotherapy and all to do with a sad, old, tw't in a hat.
Anyway, as you say, we're off topic; sorry 'bout that.
My then girlfriend, now Wife, was treated for Leukaemia a while back, and did make use of a hairpiece when undergoing Chemo, so I appreciate how important they can be, especially for women.
What I would say is that Andrew Neil gives ‘genuine’ hairpiece wearers a bad name. His doesn’t even look like a wig, it looks like a load of pubes pritt sticked on to his head…… badly.
It's the vanity wig/weave-wearers that get my goat. Like Terry Wigon, Neal, Wayne footballing bloke, Louis X-factor nonce, Elton, Ted Danson, Cliff Pilchard etc. Obviously, people who have medical treatments are not in this category.
I just find it laughable. Isn't it like wearing a hat and fungus will grow underneath if you're not careful?.
Men lose their hair, so what? It's not as if your best friend drops off or anything.
Oh, I know, Santa. Partly, I was pulling your .... erm .... leg. It does look daft, I agree. I don't personally think it affects his ability to ask awkward questions, or his (admittedly well-briefed) grasp of facts, figures and history, though.It's the vanity wig/weave-wearers that get my goat. Like Terry Wigon, Neal, Wayne footballing bloke, Louis X-factor nonce, Elton, Ted Danson, Cliff Pilchard etc. Obviously, people who have medical treatments are not in this category.
I just find it laughable. Isn't it like wearing a hat and fungus will grow underneath if you're not careful?
Men lose their hair, so what? It's not as if your best friend drops off or anything.
Wots the difference between a wig and a weave?
Essentially, degree of permanence. Wigs are designed to be easily removable. Weaves are either glued or sown in, semi-permanently attached. These days, from what I can make of it, weaves are quite common, especially among female glitterati, as fashion statements.
And no, before someone asks, I neither do, nor ever have, used either. As anyone that sees me can confirm, visually.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote