I can not have been the only blog-reader who was struck last week by the difference between this from Iain Dale:
The Browns must be shattered, particularly after the death of their daughter. Things like this bring politics into perspective and make some of the silly political games we all indulge in look absolutely pathetic. I am sure every single reader of this blog would want to put political differences aside and express their good wishes to the Brown family.
And this from Guido:
Now call Guido cynical if you will, but on the day the Charity Commissioners announce their intentions, and the Telegraph articles show the press chase has begun, we learn from a deftly placed story in the government’s favourite mouthpiece, The Sun, that tragically Gordon’s son has cystic fibrosis. A good day to front-page the tragic news?
Because yes, it would seem that there is some funding scandal surrounding Mr Brown which is now coming to the boil.
I think Guido wins. He does not deny the tragicness of the story. But, he notes the timing of the telling of it. He adds something. It is the full page spread in the Sun, which Guido reproduces, that clinches it for me.
And in the unlikely event that it was coincidence, then I am afraid that this is not the kind of benefit of the doubt that most of us are any longer prepared to give to this government.
Guido is right. The last time Brown was getting bad press (for the attempted coup to oust Blair), he did an interview with Sky News where he got all choked up and tearful about the death of baby Jennifer. This man has no shame.
You are probably right guys, but how can such unethical tactics be successfully countered? Pointing them out will simply line up the bunny-hugging, Diana-worshipping, Oprah Winfrey-viewing sentimentalists who are now the majority of British voters against you.
Perhaps that’s why Iain Dale (a potential Parliamentary candidate) is more circumspect?
It is the truth that sets men free that men are most reluctant to hear.
“silly political games”? Games? That’s our lives these bastards in Westminster are playing with. Politics is no more a “silly game” than mugging is a “lark”. It is the disconnect between what they do and the consequences for the people they do it to that makes most politicians psychologically closer to members of a predatory street gang that the people who foolishly vote for them.
*applauds*
Well said, Perry.
DK
Well said Perry.
Seconded – in fact I am sure I heard such a parallel (politicians and streetgangs) on this esteemed blog some time back (and it was a good piece, too).
Witness too the fainting Berlusconi before his court appearance, the march of Hzb’Allah before the Hariri inquiry who also wish to grab an effective veto over Lebannon.
Fascism vs Communism was a contagion in the 1920’s. Now we have Sociofascism vs Religion now. Both then as now equally corrupt and dangerous.
Well, I’ll third that one Perry!
TimC, If only it was as simple as your final paragraph indicates. The way I see it, a great many Islamists have got into bed with the lefties. Well, they all hate America don’t they? And Islam is essentially collectivist. And they all value “respect” and vote for Respect. OK, this doesn’t really get them anywhere but it does skew political discourse in the UK to the extent that we now have three centre-left parties or a collection of nut-jobs to choose from.
There’s also UKIP, but they’re seen as being single-issue mongers which is a shame. They could also do with re-jigging the colour-scheme of their web-site. It gives me a headache.
This comes under the heading of the tactic which Blair uses at the opening of each of most PMQs. He sends his regrets to the family of someone who has died, either in Iraq or not, to somehow delay the actual debate and forcing the leaders of the opposition to take some of their time agreeing with him.
You can’t. The whole point of the BBC (Brown, Blair Chokehold) is that they say whatever they want in the carefully scripted knowledge that however you respond you will be seen as either insensitive to the prevailing current (cystic fibrosis etc etc) or be perceived as a “Boris” type of buffoon who supports all the ‘inappropriate’ things that we should be thankful Labour are removing from society … smoking, foxhunting, civil liberties etc.
I think we do need to figure out how to counter this sort of stuff. The situation regarding Brown’s son is truly awful, and the same applies clearly to David Cameron’s eldest child, who is severely handicapped. Initially I felt some people were being overly harsh on DC for making some sort of political hay out of his son’s situation in order to praise the NHS. However, having seen what a shallow waste of DNA Cameron is, I feel pretty cynical about all this. If Brown tries to use his son’s situation in any way to elicit sympathy, he will be rightly condemned. I dunno, but having met Brown a couple of times, I think he has more self-respect on this issue than Cameron. We shall see.
The trick, of course, is to express sympathy with the plight of a fellow human being and yet to be on guard against some sort of emotional blackmail.
A sorry business, however one views it.
How about suggesting at every opportunity that politician’s private lives are not relevant to their political functions and they should never be held up to criticism (or public approval) – and that it is highly disreputable for the media to do it. Many politicians might welcome this suggestion, but if they ask us to grant them personal privacy they can neither reach for sentimental personal stories as easily, nor take privacy from us as busily.
Well, if there is a silver lining anywhere, this sorry saga of Brown’s and David Cameron’s handicapped kids may remind them of the vital need to oppose luddite tendencies when it comes to medical research, such as on the stem-cell issue.
I have to say I find the cynicism many of us – including me -feel about this episode to be rather alarming. I don’t feel proud of feeling what I do towards our political masters. They are human beings after all. But it does bother me that we have become so snarky. Perhaps this is what happens in a society when large numbers of people feel they are ruled by shysters of various descriptions. It corrodes the natural civility and fellow-feeling that one hopes would be a normal state of affairs.
I agree with all of the above. What seems clear is that a man with all of this on his plate, and a wife to support emotionally too, is in no fit state to lead the country, still less to have the key to the decision whether we sign up to son-of-Trident.
Jon I do not see why a healthy cynicism of politicians is a bad thing. That sort of cynicism stands one in good stead in the rest of life so why should politicians be different? They are just as prone to faults as the rest of society probably more so.
Andrew, come on, you know me well enough to know how low a view I have of folk in politics. That is why I am a skeptic about the claims made on behalf of all forms of statist, right-wing or left-wing. But I don’t personally hate some folk in politics the way that some people out there do, which is the point I am trying to make about how folk have reacted to news of Brown’s son.
NickM – my point is they are at each other’s throats and freedom was and is again in danger from both as they try to stomp on each other (and any stomping on us seen as a fortunate by-product).
Sociofascists hate Religion just as Communists did and vice versa – “not invented here” and “parallel reporting line” to use the corporatespeak.
As for UKIP, yes it is a shame and I totally agree about their retina-busting, bilious colours.
Idiots.
If Brown had ‘planted’ the story in the Sun then why did it have precisely zero contribution from the man himself, the paper having to make do with a statement from the Treasury and an old file photo?
And why would the machiavellian Browns choose to play this supposed trump card to distract us from a story that would cause Gordon no damage whatsoever, the most preliminary stage of a minor story that doesn’t even involve him? Why not save such a brilliant gambit it for some actual bad news?
And wouldn’t trying to hide the truth for a ‘bury the bad news’ day be rather stupid, since there was always a very good chance that one of the numerous people in the health service who new that Fraser Brown had cystic fibrosis would leak it to the press? Which is, er, exactly what happened(Link) and why the story came out like it did.
I see three possible explanations here:
a. Guido simply wasn’t aware of the true story, in which case he’s not the brilliant insider he or his slack-jawed fanbase think he is.
b. Guido thinks everyone is as much of an amoral toad as he is.
c. This lurid fabrication was the only way Guido could think of to keep an otherwise dull story about the Smith Institute interesting.
I suspect (c) myself. In other words, the “Guido difference” is that Guido is a worthless creep.
Oh and
“And in the unlikely event that it was coincidence, then I am afraid that this is not the kind of benefit of the doubt that most of us are any longer prepared to give to this government.”
The moral vacuity on display here is simply breathtaking. Or it would be if this had appeared somewhere other than Samizdata, where vicious hypocrisy seems to be pretty commonplace. Is this a new low? I really can’t tell.
A possible counter-action, when presented with Mr Blair’s commiserations on an unfortunate death or injury, is (as at present) to join in those commiserations, and then lambast Mr Blair over his many deficiencies.
Then finish with mention of one or more unfortunate personal happenings, perhaps or perhaps not contingent on his deficiencies, and commenting that he had not thought fit to mention them himself.
He will have to join in those comisserations before responding in his own defence to the more material points.
The success of this ploy would, of course, depend on rhetorical skill, so should be used with care. However, it might lead to some improvement in the prevailing tactics of “political warfare”.
Best regards