This might not be the most popular view...but am I the only person that has got fed up with the constant, unmitigated inquisition of our governments? Watching cabinet ministers squirm on the inquisitors' hooks every bloody day, on and in various media, has lost whatever allure it may have had and, in my case, that allure was tiny to begin with. All I see now is our coalition government spending almost every waking hour defending, spinning, apologising and changing approach and policy to meet the rabid demands of a press that seems to be haranguing them at every turn; probably in order to deflect attention from the inquiries into their own ordure. And that 'free' press is making the flawed assumption that we want them to do this on our behalves.
How can a government do the business of governing effectively in the face of these onslaughts?
I am not an apologist for some of the "omnishambolic" things that have been going on in the last couple of years of the coalition and neither do I feel at all comfortable with some of the revelations that have come from the Select Committee processes of late and those of the Leveson Inquiry, currently. I disagree with Cameron's and Osborne's ideologies on how to beat a recesion and I think Lansley's NHS reforms are worrying and Gove's anachronistic approach to education is barking mad. But - and it's a HUGE BUT - these people that have been elected to run the UK government; these people are the ones that we must rely upon for now in our cherished democracy (as we are unlikely to see a revolution), and they are being stopped from performing their crucial roles in order that they deal (usually to camera) with what are relatively small issues.
Let me explain my position by just taking, as an example, the majority of the DCMS Select Committee and Leveson Inquiry issues that have focused on News International and the current and previous governments' relationships with that company or, as everyone wants to believe, Rupert Murdoch and his son, James, rather than the body corporate that they have run. The only reason that this is a 'story', is because everybody wants to know everything and, in these modern times, there is an expectation that they can know everything, via multi-media, 24/7 reporting and analyses. Coupled with that, there is an unchallenged assumption that the 'public' have every right to know everything, whether that knowledge comes from FoI or from the (once) all-powerful press or bloody FaceTube or fucking YouBook or sodding Twatter. We simply cannot know everything, and even if we did, what the hell would we do with the information, as a body politic? Not much. We might think that we could but we can't.
All that happens is that we wring our hands, gnash our teeth, complain, get angry and get frustrated. And that happens with only a minority of the adult population, anyway and, for the most part, over the wrong things. Who actually gives two twopenny shits if Jeremy Hunt was colluding with the Murdochs? Well...lots of people do right now, but only because there's an inquisition. Has anyone actually looked behind the political rhetoric and wondered whether NI's deal with BSkyB might actually have been a good idea? No, they haven't. And the reason why? Murdoch is, quite clearly, the Antichrist, as far some people are concerned. It doesn't matter how he behaves at a Select Committee or at an Inquiry, the 'public' has made its mind up that the octagenarian Aussie is 'Dr Evil'. And his progeny / accolytes are 'Mini-Mes'. They have been told by the rest of the media that this man is 'bad' for Britain because he was courted by politicians and...shock horror...he responded! To sell his papers! To make money! With the awful consequences of employing people and paying taxes.
Rupert Murdoch backed whomsoever would help him make money, that's true. Rupert Murdoch did not decide, however, who would be in power. That is what all this shit is about, ultimately. There is a misguided fear (or belief) that Murdoch or, before him, even the likes of Maxwell or Rothermere, are or were the arbiters of who we got landed with at Number Ten. There is influence, sure there is. But there's also an electorate that some would have us believe are so fucking stupid that they will do whatever the media tells it to. And the people that would have us believe that there are those in the media that feel that they are so "well informed" that they want to pass on their own views about the brainwashing that's going on by Dr Evil and others, that they can't see that they're doing the same fucking thing - but, of course, with the electorate's interests at heart...yeah.
Rupert Murdoch backed whomsoever would help him make money, that's true. Rupert Murdoch did not decide, however, who would be in power. That is what all this shit is about, ultimately. There is a misguided fear (or belief) that Murdoch or, before him, even the likes of Maxwell or Rothermere, are or were the arbiters of who we got landed with at Number Ten. There is influence, sure there is. But there's also an electorate that some would have us believe are so fucking stupid that they will do whatever the media tells it to. And the people that would have us believe that there are those in the media that feel that they are so "well informed" that they want to pass on their own views about the brainwashing that's going on by Dr Evil and others, that they can't see that they're doing the same fucking thing - but, of course, with the electorate's interests at heart...yeah.
In the midst of all this hyperbole from the press about the alleged collusion and hinted-at corruption, the blame is laid upon the coalition for dragging the country into a "double-dip" recession. What is that? We have had two consecutive quarters of negative growth, the last of which was a negative of miniscule proportions. The last two quarters saw negative growth of 0.2% and 0.3%, so, overall 0.5% in six months. Prior to that there was growth of 0.6% and a shrink of 0.1%. That's flat, then, over the last twelve months, compared to 4% shrinkage in the twelve months up to Q1 2011. It's shit, but not as shit as it has been, and not even half as shitty as it is in some other so-called 'developed' nations.
But no matter, it was negative, and that means that Cameron is an incompetent arsehole and Osborne is as thick as shit, maybe. These interpretations could indeed be true. But they, and the rest of the coalition cabinet are the ministers of the day and have jobs to do (even if they never had proper jobs in the past) and are being deflected from these tasks by the daily media shit-storms. And as far as the flapping opposition are concerned, they are as bad as the media; jumping onto whichever latest faux-sleazy bandwagon they can and then riding it in the hope of political capital being made instead of making a case for no-confidence by presenting a believable alternative. The pathetic attempts by Harperson and Cooper to discredit individual government ministers over what are, effectively, minutiae in the grand scheme of running a country, are reprehensible.
If Cameron, Osborne, Gove, May, Lansley et al are actually so bloody irresponsible, then Miliband, Balls, Cooper, Burnham and Harperson should be able to present such an unassailable case for change that the only possible outcome would be an early general election on the basis that parliament, on behalf of the electorate, is unable to continue to support the government.
The case for having no confidence in the government cannot be argued on the back of accusations of the PM having had dinner with Rebekah Brooks or that the Secretary of State at the DCMS had allowed privileged information to get to News International on the matter of its desire to take over another media organisation (whether in the public interest or not).
Let me give the Labour Party (or its current apology for the same) some guidance on a manifest ten-point plan to get rid of the Bullingdon boys, their toadying Tory lackeys and their Liberal Democrat apologists:
1) Let Leveson report in the fullness of time. Leave it alone now and then take whatever high ground may be available later and ascend it, gracefully.
2) Admit to your mistakes in 2007-10. You screwed up. Learn from your errors. Be humble.
3) Present a credible, alternative set of policies for the economy that are not just the simplistic, automatic gainsay of whatever garbage is spewed from the maws of Osborne's privileged, sneering gob.
4) Find (and elect) a leader that is not called Ed (or Gordon, or Tony, or Peter.) Try "Ken", as an example.
5) Assure the electorate that Labour will not enter a coalition with the four Liberal Democrat MPs that will be left after the next General Election, even if that means operating a minority government.
But no matter, it was negative, and that means that Cameron is an incompetent arsehole and Osborne is as thick as shit, maybe. These interpretations could indeed be true. But they, and the rest of the coalition cabinet are the ministers of the day and have jobs to do (even if they never had proper jobs in the past) and are being deflected from these tasks by the daily media shit-storms. And as far as the flapping opposition are concerned, they are as bad as the media; jumping onto whichever latest faux-sleazy bandwagon they can and then riding it in the hope of political capital being made instead of making a case for no-confidence by presenting a believable alternative. The pathetic attempts by Harperson and Cooper to discredit individual government ministers over what are, effectively, minutiae in the grand scheme of running a country, are reprehensible.
If Cameron, Osborne, Gove, May, Lansley et al are actually so bloody irresponsible, then Miliband, Balls, Cooper, Burnham and Harperson should be able to present such an unassailable case for change that the only possible outcome would be an early general election on the basis that parliament, on behalf of the electorate, is unable to continue to support the government.
The case for having no confidence in the government cannot be argued on the back of accusations of the PM having had dinner with Rebekah Brooks or that the Secretary of State at the DCMS had allowed privileged information to get to News International on the matter of its desire to take over another media organisation (whether in the public interest or not).
Let me give the Labour Party (or its current apology for the same) some guidance on a manifest ten-point plan to get rid of the Bullingdon boys, their toadying Tory lackeys and their Liberal Democrat apologists:
1) Let Leveson report in the fullness of time. Leave it alone now and then take whatever high ground may be available later and ascend it, gracefully.
2) Admit to your mistakes in 2007-10. You screwed up. Learn from your errors. Be humble.
3) Present a credible, alternative set of policies for the economy that are not just the simplistic, automatic gainsay of whatever garbage is spewed from the maws of Osborne's privileged, sneering gob.
4) Find (and elect) a leader that is not called Ed (or Gordon, or Tony, or Peter.) Try "Ken", as an example.
5) Assure the electorate that Labour will not enter a coalition with the four Liberal Democrat MPs that will be left after the next General Election, even if that means operating a minority government.
6) Have a manifesto commitment that the press will only be able to report on politics on Saturdays. From Sunday to Monday, government will be able to govern, and do so without interruption.
7) Commit to the separation of Church and State, the disestablishment of the monarchy and the declaration of a republic.
8) Abolish the House of Lords
9) Esatablish a UK Bill of Rights and tell the European Parliaments and Courts to go fuck themselves
10) Give Peace a Chance (That's "...All we are saying...")
That should do it....
7) Commit to the separation of Church and State, the disestablishment of the monarchy and the declaration of a republic.
8) Abolish the House of Lords
9) Esatablish a UK Bill of Rights and tell the European Parliaments and Courts to go fuck themselves
10) Give Peace a Chance (That's "...All we are saying...")
That should do it....
No comments:
Post a Comment