We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Signs of a heathy disrespect for authority I cannot tell you how happy this makes me:
Ms Spelman, who is shadow local government minister, said the public were increasingly taking their cue from Mr Paxman when dealing with politicians. She said the reception she received from the public while out canvassing in her West Midlands constituency was the most unfriendly she had ever experienced. The public had clearly lost trust in politicians and thought they were only “in it for themselves”, she added.
No, really? I wonder what gave them that impression…
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Ms Spelman, who is shadow local government minister, said the public were increasingly taking their cue from Mr Paxman when dealing with politicians.
The insightful Ms Spelman knows this for a fact, does she? How does she know it? Did she take a poll? Or is she, politician-like, looking for someone to blame?
I might suggest that people are so repelled by this crop of politicians that it wouldn’t occur to them to be “respectful”, or even marginally polite, to them. Weak, indecisive, pusillanimous Za-NuLab wannabees or psycho control obsessives, I don’t think most people would need Jeremy Paxman to give them pointers on how to behave around them.
And what kind of a human being wants to be “shadow local government minister”? I’ve got a feeling Ms Spelman has been treated with exactly the amount of respect she and her type have earned.
Well I think some of the rudeness the lady notices is a sign of the times and it’s really not very nice at all.
I canvassed for the Conservatives in May and almost everybody was at least basically polite. I think we were a very disappointing opposition but I am glad the basics of courtesy were observed. We met many Labour supporters and nobody was rude. Call me a boring old git (well, go on then…) but I found it all very civilised. I don’t think that even a bad opposition deserves rudeness.
Given that they can’t be kicked out until the government calls an election, how else do you let a weak Opposition know they’re bitterly disappointing? Obviously, people were very disappointed in this lady and wanted to cut through her spiel. If she isn’t robust to take it, she should get out of politics, not blame a TV interviewer for a decline in manners.
It may be an increase in public incivility, but my own experience is that Paxmanning is necessary in almost any public discussion because of the techniques politicians themselves have now widely adopted: 1. not answering the question; 2. launching into lengthy prefabricated party lines at the slightest opportunity and leaving you no time to respond adequately.
The second is particularly egregious when the standard line is a lie, as it particularly frequently is with New Labour politicians (though they don’t always know). The only cure in that case is to interrupt and say “that is a lie” early enough to stop the flow before the narrative is established in the public/media mind. The only cure for the first is to demand they answer the question, repeatedly, until they do.
Of course they find this distressing–particularly if they only know the a partial brief, not the subject–and it does sometimes look unduly aggressive. But it is better than the alternative of smoothly delivered deceptive slime.
A politician who knows his ground properly and can argue it soundly has nothing to fear from this, and in private, off the record (which doesn’t extend to nominally unattributable conferences and briefings), they will mostly talk naturally and without giving much cause for antagonism.
Unless you accept that these are the very same specie of people, who(m) we have trusted in the past, and who have, undeniably let each and every one of us down, time and time again, and yet they still expect our respect whenever they deem it necessary to actually talk at us, i.e at election time.
I use the word ‘at’ advisedly, as they really have little concern for your, or my views or opinion, preferring the party line, to even a modicum of independent thought! Always has been that way, and always will be. I often wonder – ‘who needs them?’.
As you can guess, I have a very poor opinion of those who aspire to be ‘Our Leaders’, it hasn’t always been so, but you can only be deceived so many times, before ‘the penny drops’. The problem is the old are replaced by the new, and the ‘new’ think they have all the answers, a bit similar to teens thinking they invented sex!.
Perhaps a bit unfair to place the blame on the individuals, when it is really the system that is at fault – there just has to be a viable alternative to our ‘so-called’ democracy, never-the-less, it does seem that the ethic of ‘public service’ has all but disappeared from UK public life.
Nurse! – another tranquilizer please!
What Guy Herbert said. The incivility to politicians is in response to the towering rudeness of politicians who will not answer questions and steamroller over questioners by answering the (imaginary) question to which they have a prefabricated answer. The prefab answer will include a party political broadcast, none of which the member of the public wants shoved into his head.
Therefore they shout politicians down and the shy, shrinking violets complain that public discourse has degenerated. It certainly has. It certainly has, grace à Anthony B Liar, Her Cherieness, Alastair Campbell, the Archduchess Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw, Tessa Jowell and the rest of the Za-NuLab bullies who don’t listen to questions from the public because they’re not going to answer them anyway. They’re going to answer the question the member of the public should have asked.
Like so many other nominal Tories, Ms Spelman has clearly been copying Za-NuLab’s steamroller tactics and her constituents are to be congratulated.
But Verity – I accept your argument if you’re referring to people such as yourself – or others who observe and offer comment on the affairs of the day – who are at least aware of the insincerity and manipulation of the facts by our lords and masters.
But if the complaint is about people in general then I am afraid that most are pretty unaware of the real depth of governmental depravity and have not had their patience worn down by extensive reading of the news and daily debate on the issues – as you, me and many others will have.
They’re just plain bloody rude and it’s more to do with the general coarsening of society than Jeremy Paxman’s influence. Anyway, I don’t believe that so many people watch Paxman that his affect on them is going to be so pronounced.
Gary Munro – People who you claim are oblivious to current events will not be drawn to watch Jeremy Paxman; that is true. Therefore his influence on their behaviour will be close to nil.
But I think people have seen enough of politicians avoiding questions – they are public servants, for god’s sake! – and gerrymandering all over the place rather than give a straight answer that they’re fed up. I have seen people shouting, “Answer the question!” when a politician on the hustings avoids answering and gives a party political broadcast instead.
I could be wrong, but I think there is a vague awareness of how contemptuous of the electorate Za-NuLab has been over the years. They shout at Tony Blair in a way they would never have addressed any previous prime minister.
I would think that “rude” would be an extremely nice way of describing the manner in which Parliament has treated the citizens of Britain.