As long as he has nice teeth

A lazy day today. It is not that I have nothing to do, it is just that I have little will to do it with. This is a common malaise; not just common to me, but common to all that use eclectic thinking as a way of life.

The most prominent of these types are the politicians and the media who together strive to lead/control our world as much as practically possible without getting shot.

Nick Robinson today has posted a short and neat article about Political Cross Dressing. He is referring to the issues of housing, education, health and welfare and how the two main parties of conceit, the Tories and Labour, seem to be unclear as to which colours they are wearing for which issue.

He is concerned, it appears, that there is worry within the Brown camp that the Boy David has stolen the moralistic high ground.

It is an interesting issue this. When does the practicality of running an institution such as a country become a fight for ideals rather than useful action? Nick points us helpfully to an article by the Guardian's Jonathan Freeland.  Jonathan is discussing the US political climate and argues, with some good reason, that US voters want their politicians to achieve things for their lives, but they want them achieved through heart-appealing rhetoric, rather than to be sold to them with statistics, tables and ven diagrams.

I have sympathy with that attitude; a friend of mine's mother once noted that she would vote for the man who had the nicest teeth. Actually, this is not such a whimsical ambition. It was not so much the nice smile as looking for the type of person who would care about having a nice smile. Any woman of a certain age will remember her mother liking a particular suitor for his neat and tidy dress sense. It was seen as a sign of success, of stability, of intelligence.

Likewise in politics, an MP or Senator who is seen to have an emotional bond with an issue can be, at least in the short term, more convincing a champion of that issue than someone who demonstrates a solid technical understanding of how it works.

However, I think this only works so far, and perhaps not as far in this country than in the US; despite my friend's mother's fixation on dentistry.  

Therefore, it may be a little premature for people to condemn our new First Lord, just because he is number orientated. Because the politics of passion is more complicated than simple speech making or crying in the right places. Blair got this one right - almost instinctively. While he was seen as being passionate about any subject, he ensured just enough grasp of the figures for people to feel he had a real grasp of the subject. Remember here that little criticism of Blair stuck prior to the Iraq war. Since the war, many people have decided that since he got that wrong, every thing else MUST be wrong. The logic is appalling, but there is nothing logical about politics; well, not if the press have any say in the matter.

And this is a good place to bring in the press. In Jonathan Freeland's piece he cites the book "The Political Brain" by Drew Western. Western spends pages and his psychology background, to explain that the political brain is an emotional brain. Well, we kind of know that! (I refer you to the dentures once again.) But this assumes that people only react using their political brain. He tested people by confronting them with political speeches; those that hit home most were the ones that appealed to the emotional receptors in our brain. However, people don't just think of politics when confronted with speech making. If you are cueing in hospital your political brain may crave for a solution, but your pragmatic brain would rather an answer to "how long will I have to wait."

And it is this second approach that, I believe, better describes peoples day to day aspiration need from the political establishment.

So, they may warm to David Cameron's tirade against the Broken Society, but when they need a house, they will love Gordon Brown for saying he will build a house exactly "here."

Davis Cameron has taken on Blair's impassioned role - but it is not the only major role in politics. The Son of the Manse with his pragmatic approach can also fulfil the nations need, but with one proviso - will the media, who love a passionate battle, let him?

 

Nobody

del.icio.us Tags: Brown, Cameron, politics, speech

Technorati Tags: Brown, Cameron, politics, Nick Robinson, BBC

A hundred trees and not one good word!

Diary entry for Thursday, 14 June 2007


Falling flat on ones face while stepping out of the old abode is, quite frankly, hardly the most edifying of sights. Nor is it one of the most expected. Though I suppose that would depend on the why one fell.

It started last night. Mrs Benedict, she of the more Catholic persuasion, held a small soiree for those of a literary bent. I, a small time wordsmith, invited as much out of courtesy as anything else, received my invitation but 30 minutes before the expected event. If ever an action were to lead one to believe that one was “filling a suddenly vacant chair,” then that would be it.

Attached to the invitation was a hastily scribed note requesting that perhaps I might say a few words to the assembled guests about literary experiences? It was one of those things that each one of us was no doubt likely to have to do. However, others of the assembled would probably have a little more time in preparation; for instance, finding out a little about the other guests. If I had sent a lad with a message to find out such delicacies, I would have arrived at the house at the same time as he; so it was pointless.

That morning I had been reading an interview with our dear First Lord (otT). It had taken me around 6 minutes to read at a leisurely pace and yet was billed as a thorough comment on his career prior to his impending retirement. It struck me then that the writer must have left out vast amounts of the original transcript in order to cram this witless little piece into it’s allotted column inches. Further study revealed how what was left so neatly coincided with this particular news journals tepid view of our FL (otR).

Ah! Thought I. A subject for the attention of the guests. I shall enthral them with my observances on the nature of modern political journalism in our over communicated environment.

Things never go as neatly as intended, and an argument over a bent penny with a London Cabby left me running the remaining 5 streets to the home of Mrs Benedict. This was especially galling as she lives but 5 streets from chez moi! Needless to say, I was one and a half courses late into a three course supper and had hardly had time to seat myself and offer my apologies than I was upstood once more to give my short deliverance.

Perhaps it was the fine Porter, but four sentence in I found myself in full flow. I offered up the problems I had had in communicating to the press in assured detail, when they had little time but to grab my first sentence and run. I described the spectacle of a rabid press, a feral pack, so desperate for a story that they ignore much else around them. I spoke of my own inadequacies in communicating clearly. I fleshed out the argument that the partnership between press and politics had become so keen as to alienate the general public. All in all it was a sound performance, well balanced, hardly laying much blame, but simply exploring a most difficult subject.

And then this morning came, and one of those details that I had had no time to investigate rose it’s face in a ten foot high pile of tree pulp, laced with vitriol, inaccuracy, and slander.

As I disentangled myself from the pile of First Editions stacked purposefully on my doorstep I realised that my assembled audience had been none other than representatives of the very media that I had referred to. On reading their comments, not one availed them selves of the balance that I so carefully put forward. Not one was interested in my admissions of failings in my own dealings with the press. All had just picked up on one word, Feral, and had built an entire fabrication around that.

Pah! Ungrateful, spiteful, arrogant lot! And to think I had been so kind, too!


Nobody

See also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6748367.stm

The Media, The politician and Mrs Peach

Diary entry for Wednesday, 13 June 2007

Mrs Peach is a round woman. This is not, in my opinion, an insult, but more of an affectionate nod in the direction of roundness. Mrs Peach is also an efficient woman. Efficient in so much as what ever she starts to say, you can be certain that by hook or by crook, in spite of wind, rain or a blizzard, Mrs Peach will finish saying.

Efficiency and Roundness, all packaged in one person who is determined to delay the start of my, as you should know, important day. Not more important than any other, but important in the way that any day should be important.

I caught the beginning of what Mrs Peach had to say; it was roughly located in the direction of the somewhat unpredictable postal delivery in our Green. I also caught the latter end, the part where, despite protestations, I eventually made my escape. This part centred itself on the fact that our current, but rapidly fading, Prime Minister was going to at last tell the press where to stick it. That is correct; the woman said “stick it.” She didn’t say precisely where it was going to be stuck or, indeed, what “it” was, but stuck it was definitely going to be.

Unfortunately, and commonly, I did not absorb the middle part of the lecture that may have explained to me the connection between the first part and the last part. However, this would have to wait, and as I circumnavigated the efficient lady, I bid her a sunny day and attempted NOT to run to the waiting hackney carriage.

The Cabbie was a little clearer, in that he separated the two subjects for me (admitting ignorance of our green’s postal service) and concentrating on the speech made by Mr. Anthony Blair, First Lord of the Treasury. It appears that he feels very hard done by, “I mean right hard done by, if you get my drift sir!” The hard donners being the massed feral pack of the media.

One cannot help but have a momentary pang of sympathy for a man who has been media-pummelled so relentlessly of recent. But this pang should be, in truth, but momentary as it is the media not the PM that supplies one’s morning literature. And as I actually put my hand in my pocket to pay for such, I have loyalty if not to the organs, but definitely to my wallet.

Passing past the surprisingly dusty visage of the Labour Party Chairwoman, I had time to disseminate the entire context of the speech; graciously and, one hopes, accurately transcribed by Auntie:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6744581.stm

John Snow, the anchor of the Channel 4 News programme, around a year ago on a rare debate appearance, said that he felt that the news people had got the balance wrong and that in a bid to "confront" the politician the answers required by the viewer were lost. Or something like that. A year on and I would say his style has not changed, though he did say at the time that perhaps it should. And Nicholas Robinson, Aunties reckless young Political Editor, has blogged noticeably about the subject. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2007/06/feral_media_my.html

He appears to be worried that Blair, and indeed others have traded accuracy in their reporting for impact. As if they would!

I kind of see is ire over this but I think journalists have traded accuracy somewhat, though not for impact, but intrigue. Over the years I have had many journalists wander through my line of sight, and I was often bemused by how their infatuation with intrigue, with the Westminster Village, would completely subjugate the heart of the story.

It is that old “affair” argument. Can a minister who has had an affair really do his or her job properly?

In reality? Of course he or she can. And do. John Major, the last First Lord that the Tories managed to put up, seems to be a prime example here. So much was he able to do his job that nobody even noticed he was having an affair till his partner in crime wrote about it in a book many years later.

However, can the politician do their job properly when the masses of the media will not let them alone over the affair?

No, they can’t.

But the public, to whom the politician is the servant, expects the job to be done. Indeed, we pay for the job to be done. But the intrusion of the press, the feral battle for those precious column inches, prevents that from happening.

The intrigue goes further. How often in reports has one heard “sources close to …?”

If a news journalist were submitting such an article to the Wikipedia, it would very soon be marked as not meeting standards as it was full of unsubstantiated claims. And quite rightly too! And yet politicians and journalists alike use this form of news dissemination more and more frequently and expect us, the paying public, to just except it. This is sort of taking us for granted and in the context of “news” rather than “views” should not be acceptable. Politicians and Journalists shouldn’t expect the public trust, they should earn it – with accuracy, substantiated fact and clear, unbiased opinion.

There is also the messy area of personality and celebrity.

When Mr Robinson interviews Mr. Prescott, to some it would be difficult to argue which is the most famous. Or which was just Rory Bremnner.

Dear Reader, it is not in my interest to shun celebrity, but it does well to admit the pressures that such an office can put on the way one delivers one’s life to the masses. Take the postal problems of our green. Now, the round lady may be having problems with the delivery of her favoured periodical, but those such as I survive on the literary content of the large sack of letters that our postman has to stagger under the weight of before he has even the chance to collect post for any other green dweller. Such is the price that has to be paid by the celebrity and everyone within a half furlong radius.

The journalist has become celebrity in this age of the media pack; one who must balance the needs of his editor with the needs of his agent. It would be a brave person who attempted to put those two into any sort of list of priorities!

So, I reflect, as I pick my way through the rubble of what had once been a prospective office. I reflect on the flashing bulbs and incautious pens of the media, I reflect on the departing back of the dusty candidate for the Labour Party deputy leadership, and most of all, I reflect that tomorrow morning I will leave my house, overlooking our green, by the backdoor!

Nobody

It is all spinning needlessly out of control!

Channel 4 news blog today is looking for a strong interviewee to comment on all the hiatus surrounding the Cash for Honors scandal (or not) and Blairs imminent future (or not). The story needs to be "knocked on" they quote the editor as saying. I assume by that the editor would like to see the story pushed up to the next level of media hysteria.

But should this be happening like this again? If the media were to shut up about the whole affair until the CPS reported, and instead reported on meaningless little stories like global warming, Iraq, Afghanistan, the state of my socks, would they be doign the public a disservice? Yes, the public might have a right to know what is going on, but does that mean we need to be force fed speculation, leaks, complete guess work, misleading headlines, etc? What service is this actually doing the country?

If we are getting bogged down in this affair it is not the affair that is doing it. I don't see the police running round telling the whole of government to down pencils and sit on their hands. Despite the protestations of David "throw his rattle out of the cot" Cameron, government is not, and in fact cannot be paralyzed. I would imagine that Cameron's own MPs are busy sitting on committees and conducting debates and doing constituency work.

The problem here is in the hands of the Media and the Pundits - and I include many politicians in that grouping. They have got their leads out of their masters hands and are running a muck in the park. Like dogs with irresponsible noses, they cannot see the woods for the trees, and the trees smell of sensation. Trouble is, the rest of us stopped living in trees a hundred thousand years ago or so - about time the media evolved to catch up!

Tags: Blair, cash for honours. cameron, channel 4, New Diary of a Nobody, Nobody

Press almost hysterical over Cash for Honours

Channel 4, like every one else could do nothing but Lead on the news that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was questioned as a witness by police last Friday undertaking the Cash for Honours enquirey. Since that interview, or course, Lord Levy (Also known as Lord Cashpoint) has been rearrested and questioned on suspicion of Conspiracy to Pervert the course of Justice - though he was not charged.

Is this investigation picking up a pace to some fantastic climax as a government is pulled down by the scales of British Justice? The press would certainly like to think so, and of course they may as yet have their wish granted.

Equally plausible, however, is that the investigation is coming to a natural and rather uneventful close and the police are doing a final round of last minute interviews to help close the books. There is the worry here that they will throw a charge at someone just so it does not seem like they have been wasting time.

Of particular note today is the release of information about that interview last Friday. The Police requested of Blair that, for "operational reasons," the interview was kept quiet. Blair told very few people, not including his press people. The Police for their part also kept the knowledge of this interview to a minimum. Now, remember that there has been some ripe rumors concerning a mole, either in Downing Street or at Scotland Yard. The press have been reporting on this mole while using the info like crazy. Certainly more than one press shaped person must know from where the leaks are emanating. But suddenly, with this news black out, the mole was silenced. The press are furious!

We should know at the time, they squealed! It is our right!

Should they? Is it?

Personally I think the press have no automatic rights whatsoever. We, the public have rights - but not through the press, by ourselves on our own behalf. The press are just indignant that they have been caught out! Jon Snow at Channel 4 points out that the police requested silence as they did not want Levy to know that they had questioned Blair again. I think that is pushing it a little. I doubt me that Levy is a flight risk or that he has not been planning for all eventualities. This is a highly intelligent man - an accountant who was a highly successful impresario in the 60s and 70s. I cannot see that him not knowing that Blair had been interviewed would make a difference one way or another. He protests his innocence, and that is perfectly possible. Being innocent does not mean that one sits down and twiddles your fingers, however.

So what would those operational reasons be? I wonder if a little bit of Mole flushing has been going on ....


Toodle pip!

Tags: Blair, cash for honours, Levy, Channel 4, press, New Diary of a Nobody, Nobody