I watched the ITN lunchtime bulletin on this and could not believe their ludicrous reaction to what is little more than a silly, embarrassing mistake.
Tom Bradby, ITN's hysterical political editor, was declaring this was a catastrophe and the end of Brown as PM, and similar comments were made by the newscaster at least twice.
I'm not a huge fan of Gordon Brown but even I feel this is well over the top
Is it really the case, as ITN are suggesting, that voters will make their decision based on one trivial incident on the campaign trail? What about things like policies and track records?
I have read the transcript of Brown's exchange with Gillian Duffy and she seems fairly even tempered and not bigoted, so it was a crass thing for Brown to say.
But he has apologised profusely, and which of us hasn't made an intemperate remark or two in our lives.
One wonders how well Clegg and Cameron would come across if their behind the scenes comments were caught on microphone.
Seems to me there are three men with no new ideas and nothing different to offer. They remind me of Sales Managers trying to encourage their troops to increase sales in a saturated market.
The whole election thing has become a media circus and the only ones benefitting from it are the TV companies and Newspapers, but even they are stretched to find something new, hence the mole-hill to mountain building.
I'll be glad when it's all over and I hope it results in a three-way draw; that it is what the three stooges deserve.
Gillian Duffy was the voter from Hell! Imagine blaming Gordon for the volcanic ash!!
My sympathy is with Gordon.
Yes he was 2 faced but in a good way. He was good to Gillian face to face and then in the car he was good to himself because he said what he really thought!
I liked him better for it.
I generally align to the political right but even I feel this is possibly a deliberate tactic of an overwhelmingly right-wing press which really wants to see a Conservative majority. I don't believe an embarrassing Cameron comment accidently captured by a forgotten microphone would have been broadcast.
A lot of labour voters would feel that this lady carries predjudices typical of her generation and I don't think the damage will be that substantial. It would have been far worse for him to have met some newly naturalised citizens and mutter that the scoungers should be sent packing!
BTW, this woman asked: "These Eastern Europeans, where are they all coming from".
err... Africa?!
jude
One wonders how well Clegg and Cameron would come across if their behind the scenes comments were caught on microphone.
Well if it had been Cameron, Sky would not have played the comments back to the hapless member of the public... twice because she didn't quite catch it the first time. Their utter glee in the sh!t-stirring and exploitation of this woman was extremely distasteful (and like you I am no fan of GB).
jude
Sadly I think you're right, Jude. Given that you're from the political right, your comments carry even more weight.
For me this is part of the general demise of TV journalism with its increasing focus on trivia. ITN at times comes across as little better than an animated version of Hello magazine.
Even when they try to be serious they get it horribly wrong. How on earth Tom Bradby, ITN's political editor, is allowed to say the stuff he says is beyond me.
His editorialising is completely out of place on a national TV news bulletin. His logic isn't even consistent.
A few days ago he was fiercely attacking the Lib Dems for not answering the question about what they would do in the event of a hung parliament.
Then when Clegg said what he would do he fiercely attacked him for doing so.
Sky is a Murdoch company and Sky also has a stake in ITV. Murdoch (senior) like me is a Libertarian but I felt this particular episode was completely below the belt.
Sky and ITV are commercial companies with right political bias. But then the BBC have a centre left bias and this is even more wrong since it is a publically funded body.
jude
Another bit of useless info for the world, but in the league of gentlemen there is a scene in some episode where they are singing a parody about gordon brown to the stranglers tune..just thought I would share that.
Until we feel our thoughts our thinking remains unfelt
As you can see from all the above there are no answers. And just to add to the stew, I would vote for anyone, who said under a lie detector that they would force the banks to pay back monies and open up lending to small business. Now that it self interest. What I find numbing is the assumption that, to get back on track, to get the country going again, to move forward, is to stand still. The establishment needs us to buy things, anything, as long as we're out there spending then all will ok. Is that it? Is that what we've come to? Shoppers. I don't actually believe either of the three leaders. Brown didn't put us in this financial mess, we did, globally along with the Chinese, Japanese, Australians, Americans and everyone else, through borrowing and spending phantom money and neither Cameron or Clegg will get us out of it. We need to get ourselves out of it. Why are we so desperate to hand over our self determination to a group of self promoting, historically self interested and often dishonest people. The debates have been low grade, the politics patronising and the discussions often foggy and fractionated. How many people have you talked to who are undecided or confused, or more commonly disinterested. These guys seem timid of making a tough call which to me smacks of a complete lack of courage, they are driven, once again by self interest, following focus groups and surveys with a jittery, rabbit in the headlights demeanour. If just one of them put their balls on the line, stood up and made a tough statement from the heart they'd get my vote. I don't think it's going to happen, do you.
The debates have been like a game show. A shouting, slightly hysterical MC, Three sales managers gagging for attention as previously mentioned, no knew ideas. Alas, a very vacant lot.
Cameron desperate to wear the right smile, shirt,expression and egg. Brown battling away like a grandad turtle and Clegg doing very well thank you very much at saying all the right things. This is the most lack lustre election rally ever in the history of politics. They all appear scared, self consciuous and slightly frazzled to me. Lead a country, bolllicks. I hope you have all read THE ROAD By Cormac McCarthy. By the way, where do Eastern African Europeans come from?
If anything, this whole incident actually makes me admire the man even more. What is disturbing is the set up by the media who have not only intruded into the realm of someone’s private and personal conversations - but have then reported it and caused unnecessary distress to an innocent (if arguably ignorant member of the public). It is this intrusion and neglect of boundaries/ privacy that is in my view the essense of the issue.
We all have made mistakes and said things in the heat of the moment. This just emphasises Gordon Brown's flaws and shows him to be what he is - a human being.
No one is perfect afterall and Gordon is right to be frustrated about what lies at the roots of people’s fear about immigration the unvirtuous face of prejudice and hate. (Whipped into frenzy by the manipulative and pernicious part of the media controlled by the Tory cabal. This is just another one of the Machiavellian muses used by the Rupert Murdoch’s Daily Mail and Sun newspapers to incite their hysterical masses.......
Cameron said, "If you vote Conservative on Thursday, you can have a new fresh government making a clean break and taking our country in a new direction and bringing the change that we need."
Boris Johnson's claim that "If you vote for the Conservatives, your wife will get bigger breasts and your chances of driving a BMW M3 will increase" is more believable/ plausible.
"Sky and ITV are commercial companies with right political bias. But then the BBC have a centre left bias and this is even more wrong since it is a publically funded body."
I think the BBC betrays the Oxbridge liberal tendencies of most of its journalistic while striving for independence.
It's bad at representing viewpoints that Oxbridge liberals don't understand but that's not just right-wing viewpoints - it's appalling at representing the views of trade unionists.
"I don't believe an embarrassing Cameron comment accidently captured by a forgotten microphone would have been broadcast."
I agree and the broadcasting of it forced him into the overblown and slightly ridiculous apology visit - not because it was necessarily wrong to label the views the lady was expressing as bigoted but because it would've been wrong for her to be specifically labeled as a bigotted individual on the evening news for expressing a view that (whether right or wrong) isn't uncommon.
The right-wing media have definitely been on a Get Gordon campaign - briefly interrupted by their almost self-satirising Clegg bashing episode - but I'm not sure it'll actually get them the result they want, it might end up driving Labour and the Liberals together in a coalition.
I think Cameron might have done better to ask them ease off the smearing and promote serious discussion of some of the policies where the Tories are offering stuff that I don't support but many voters do.
The Tories took 18 years to the fail country. Labour took 13 years to fail the country. So why not vote in the Lib-Dems, maybe they can fail us even quicker.
The problem is that the government is voted in on the understanding it will implement a tyranny of the majority which I don't support since my individual freedoms should not be subject to a public vote. But the cabinet then goes on to ignore, bamboozle or defy the electorate, retreats into the masturbatorium of the commons/ whitehall and indulges in five years of omphaloskepsis.
However, we do need some social contract to prevent the bellum omnium contra omnes as outlined in Hobbes' Leviathan
I am becoming increasingly sceptical about the need for a majority government to deliver decisive action etc. and I am increasingly moving in favour of parliamentary reform. More important than a change in the FPTP system would be the removal of the three line whip. I could then happily vote for a candidate whose views I supported, knowing he could dissent from his party's views and vote freely in the commons. As an absolute minimum votes of an ethical nature (abortion, bioethical issues, hunting) should be a free vote.
The tories argue that we wouldn't be able to make the cuts demanded by the markets without a governmental hegemony but eventually, as demonstrated in Iceland or Ireland, you are forced into action, usually at a point where there is a much bigger consensus.
I read an interesting journalistic piece where the author relayed a comment from an Australian political researcher who after spending some time talking to British Voters exclaimed " What on earth have your politicians done to make people so angry and cynical?"
The answer, I believe is that in the post modern era, politics has been exposed for the first time on a mass-media scale. Before, those who knew how the system really worked were often people who could exploit this. From the first TV cameras in the commons to the expenses leak, the 'Flea Circus' has been turned around and the great unwashed can see the mechanisms which create the forged act.
jude
To call Murdoch a libertarian is stretching things a bit. He is a seeker of power and influence and as such has to be one of the most cynical beings on the planet. For example, he abandoned his Australian nationality to become an American citizen only so that he can comply with US laws on foreign ownership of US newspapers; he censors any broadcasters on his Star satellite that might offend the Chinese government; he uses his British newspapers to attack any opponents of the Conservative party 99% of the time though he conveniently ditched the Tories in 97 when he saw which way the wind was blowing and made nice to Blair and co; he claims to be a free marketeer/independent entrepreneur yet sought (and got) support from the Thatcher government to help Sky get on air. Murdoch is only interested in what's good for Murdoch. This time round he's returned to backing the Tories but, like most of the right wing papers and their owners, he is furious that the British electorate has, so far, not quite fallen in behind Cameron and his fellow multi-millionaires, hence all the negative reporting and badmouthing of Clegg and the Lib Dems.
To call Murdoch a libertarian is stretching things a bit I agree. I am simply relaying how he describes himself.
I have nothing against individuals who pursue their own self-interest; and cynicism and hypocrisy is inevitable unless there is a radical shake up of all the structures of society. For example, I disagree with the welfare state but I would lean heavily on it at some stages of my life to recoup what I am forced to pay into it at other stages.
"More important than a change in the FPTP system would be the removal of the three line whip. I could then happily vote for a candidate whose views I supported, knowing he could dissent from his party's views and vote freely in the commons. As an absolute minimum votes of an ethical nature (abortion, bioethical issues, hunting) should be a free vote."
Abortion and hunting are generally a free vote already. Not sure about bioethical issues.
The three line whip in itself doesn't mean much. Even if there was no whipping at all, it would still be in most MPs interests to hold the party line to a large extent because most are elected on the basis of their connection to their party, with the backing of the local and national party machine, rather than for who they are personally.
What would - theoretically - change things in the direction you'd like is a move to an American style system where the executive and legislature are separate.
Unfortunately, in practice, while the American system does make Reps and Senators more independent of their parties - despite the frequent wailing about partisan politics, the Republicans and Democrats are barely even parties at all in the British sense - it corrupts the political system in other ways so, instead of voting on a party basis, members of Congress can auction their votes in exchange for ridiculous chunks of public spending directed at areas they represent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was whipped by Labour though the Liberal Democrats and Tories gave a free vote. Abortion is usually a free vote. Hunting was a funny one as the Lords refused to pass the bill.
It is true that most MPs are elected on the basis of their connection to their party but there is a million miles between say Cruddas and Mandelson or Bercow and Hague. I would vote for the latter but not if he is being whipped by Cameronian ideology.
I know no system is perfect but there has to be room for improvement from what we currently have!
jude
'If you don't like my principles I have others'
Groucho Marx
The politics of this country are tired and timid. We need a revolution to change the class based politics. The City rules and govts pay lip service.
fuck that let's make a real change...
Make that Mountgay Rum and you're on. Seriously I agree with all your points. I just can't see any politician speaking the truth. People couldn't handle it.
@ Bexley- I cannot agree. The Lib Dems will change the voting system. That is why I am voting for them. because then everyone's vote would count. The more actual votes the Lib Dems get, the better. They won't get enough seats because they were not prepared for their surge but if they get the most votes they are in a great position to push through the changes I want to see in the political system.
@ Jude - the voice of sanity. lol
@ Boosh - Radio 4 has the least biased news reporting overall.
@ Ros - unfortunately they do believe what they read in the Sun, and in the Observer, and in the Guardian and in the Express. Most people are not particularly intelligent and newspapers take advantage of this by scaremongering.
@ Raddison - couldn't have put it better.
@ Smokejack - rofpmsl
There's a very good article in this week's News Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581.400-electoral-dysfunction...
However, they point out elsewhere in commentary that the number of voters voting for minority parties has risen from 1 in 20 in the 1950s to 1 in 4 today. A system which nullifies the votes of 25% of the active electorate (or far far higher when you consider the situation of dissenters in 'safe seats') this cannot be the best possible imperfect system.
As NS points out:
"There is no simple answer. The mathematics of democracy turns out to be so fraught with pitfalls and paradoxes that complete fairness is probably unattainable. This should not, however, deter legislators from seeking systems that better represent voters' choices. It has been shown that the greater the opportunity for voters to participate in the democratic process and the more closely the outcome matches their preferences, the happier they are. In the UK, a system whose results better match the electorate's desires might even reverse the decades-long decline in the proportion who can be bothered to vote."
jude
I'm agnostic on PR or other alterations to the voting system. PR hasn't led to big turnouts for Scottish or Welsh elected bodies or the Euro Elections.
But the reason it hasn't happened isn't because it's a bad thing but because it needs a 'turkeys voting for Christmas' move from either Labour or the Tories to make it happen.
One of the major problems with democracy is that stupid people can put themselves up and stupid people are allowed to vote. All very tiresome. Have gone completely against Cameron. I think he's a little flaky. And, don't ever forget, a turkey is for life, not just for Xmas. Join Milton Keynes Turkey obedience classes. Politics shmolitics, what we need is responsible anarchy. Responsible leaderlessness. A beautiful quantum leap in global, social evolution. If we as a species can imagine it, then we can achieve it. We seem a little stalled at the moment. I think we know we need, as a species, a change of direction. We just haven't figured out what it's to be. What it's to be may figure itself out before we do, then we'll be presented with a, natures own fait accompli. In the meantime this tired, clogged, worn out process grinds on and on and on giving us nothing new to hope for, nothing new to lose even and only those mild and misty missgivings and doubts we can't quite figure out. I think I'll go howl at the moon
Just throw the oil on the fire and begin the burning of britainia, then those who are tough enough to survive deserve a shot at rebulding the future.
Sorry meekies, but you gonna burn.
Until we feel our thoughts our thinking remains unfelt
Burton, I was once with you on the 'stupid people can vote' grumble but in fact it was with hindsight churlish arrogance on my part. In fact the flaw of democracy is not stupidity but self-interest and smart people can be as greedy and selfish as anybody else. Particularly when people have children, they will vote for whom they think will give their family the best outcome. Self interest is one of the reasons why the Libs have always had a good showing in the student population (fees) but when they graduate and have paid their fees, it is neither here nor there. Similarly, the Greens have strong support from middle class children who are idealistic but as soon as they are middle earners they balk at their socialist economic stance.
Alan Greenspan, Gordon Brown... in fact if you look at most of the individuals who feature on the list of 25 people who played an instrumental part in the financial crisis, all of them are of well above average intelligence. And the smart people who are looking at solutions, Roubini, King, Paulson don't seem to be able to agree.
When Vince Cable said that the economic boom was a mirage of debt on a housing bubble, it wasn't that he was the only person bright enough to realise. Lots of people knew this, Cable just happened to be the little boy who pointed out that the Emperor was wearing no clothes. Hence he is hailed as some kind of economic genius and the messiah in who lies salvation. It was human psychology not intellect that caused the crisis.
I don't support democracy nor believe in the validity of a government which fails to respect my social, economic and other personal freedoms. But putting that aside, there are lots of things that may make democracy unworkable if we are to survive. The short-termism may have to be abandoned in the face of ecological catastrophe. Also, look at the situation of Greece and Germany. The electorate disapprove of the government action (in greece, the cuts and in Germany, the bailout) but the governments have no option but to ride roughshod over democracy.
We could move to a system a little like Ireland where the House of Lords is elected by graduates of Russell Group Universities and you repeal Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 which enable the Commons to push through legislation without approval from the Lords. However the problems remain that a. The Lords and those 'smart' people who vote for them would be selfish too b. not all smart people go to university and some non-smart (especially privately educated) people do. Since the abolition of tripartite education, the proportion of poor people attending Russell group universities has been in decline (so the representation would be at the upper echelons of the socioeconomic spectrum).
Finally, it is worth adding that morality and governance is not necessarily logical and best addressed by intellectual scrutiny. Take for example the inviolability of life, an almost universal belief that in most circumstances it is wrong to kill an innocent person (except mercy killings or killing one person to save many others and other grey areas). This principle is actually surprisingly difficult to defend logically. The whole basis of Humean ethics is emotional not rational (like Kantian ethics) and there remains strong defenders of Hume's position.
I acknowledge that you are not arguing for a change in democracy but a quantum leap to responsible anarchy but I think it would be very difficult given the selfishness of today's consumer to make the shift. In fact, it would probably take financial meltdown, hyperinflation and governmental collapse.
I think this is due to a number of factors, in particular a toxic brew of Thatcherism combined with the post-war consensus and welfarism that did not evolve. And what would you do with all the stupid people in the new post democratic leaderless community?
jude
Great read jude. I can see what Burton means but I think his call for 'responsible anarchy' makes him something of an idealist. Humanity just isn't ready for it.
Nor do I think the electorate is totally stupid. Most just seem cynical about the whole political process. Which is probably why so many don't vote.
The 'stupid people shouldn't vote' argument is a bit of a staple of sixth-form philosophy, always good for a hypothetical argument in the pub but misses the point somewhat. The purpose of democracy is not to choose the best government but to choose a government to which no person can have a reasonable objection. You turned up, you voted, you lost. Too bad, but you can't complain.
If the stupid were denied a vote we would soon (albeit not that soon) realise that we were disenfranchised, that our needs were being overlooked, and rise up and overthrow our intellectual overlords. There are a lot more of us than there are of you.
In the next few days this country will likely do something that half the globe has yet to master, and change government without bloodshed. One of two men -one with most of the press behind him and one still holding the reigns of power- will shrug, make a half decent speech, and calmly accept defeat. I think that's pretty amazing.
Until we feel our thoughts our thinking remains unfelt
Until we feel our thoughts our thinking remains unfelt
Burton St John
Burton St John
Burton St John
Carole
Burton St John
Until we feel our thoughts our thinking remains unfelt
Burton St John