Those ignorant proles! And there’s me thinking it was to do with lies, sleaze, dodgy dossiers, cash for honours, psychologically flawed leaders, utter incompetence…etc, etc, etc…

People are suspicious of politicians because they understand the political process only too well, more likely!

Anticant is spot on!
And there speaks the voice of experience – take note kiddies!

The mystique behind our political system has gone, and with it so has the public’s interest in it.

Politics is now far more open and far less corrupt than in the past. But that ‘far more open’ means that the public have far less faith in those whose flaws they can see and exaggerate.

Once upon a time it was fine for America to have a President who effectively lied about being wheelchair bound. Likewise it was fine for past Prime Ministers in England to be alcoholics.

And that’s before you consider things like party donations. Think of how many corporate donations, often from foreign shores, that Thatcher’s Government never declared.

Of course that was OK in those days. Perfectly legal and the public barely thought about such things as a result. Now it is illegal and so a couple of payments not properly registered is big news and gives the impression of terrible corruption.

Add to that that democracy has built a world in which most people are mostly fine most of the time and you have little interest in a vote between governments that will have a marginal effect on exactly how fine those many people are much of the time.

If we wanted to get people engaged in politics again, we simply need to hit them with ten years of brutal dictatorship, close the NHS, and cripple the economy. Then watch them come out in the streets in support of democratic politicians no matter where they get their campaign funding from.

ps – for evidence of my suggestion just look at Mike’s list of complaints.

apart from the dogy dossier, which was a very specific complain – his list is simply a result of us now knowing a little more about our leaders.

After all – “cash for honours, psychologically flawed leaders, utter incompetence”

how many leaders could these criticism not apply to? It is just we know, or imagine we know these things now. (to claim to know a man’s psychological flaws is ignorant rhetoric or the conclusions of the man’s own shrink, but we all imagine we know it to be true.)

Ah, they’ve never had it so good! Now where have I heard that before?

PS: Better a pisshead than a war criminal

to claim to know a man’s psychological flaws is ignorant rhetoric or the conclusions of the man’s own shrink, but we all imagine we know it to be true.

Really? I thought it was something we all did all the time, an essential part of being human and of having to make judgements about the sort of people we want as leaders, or partners or friends. I’ve clearly been overstepping the mark somewhat, not being a shrink, you see!

Well let me tell you I know a creep, cretin, lying tosspot, crook, megalomaniac, bore, bully, pervert etc etc when I see one and if that’s because I’m ‘ignorant’ then praise the lord for ignorance!

BTW, how do YOU choose your babysitters ?

Mike

When you see one one telly? Thats remarkable. You have an unholly talent.

and don’t mistake the fact that politics is far more open and accesible now than it has ever been on any quantifiable measure you like as being a wholehearted love of the political system.

I just defy you to find a measure – any single measure – just one – on which the political system is less open to public scrutiny now than in the past.

or did you (more likely mean) “I know a creep, cretin, lying tosspot, crook, megalomaniac, bore, bully, pervert etc etc (when they are reported on regularly by newspapers and when I know they are of a political nature i oppose)?

8. If you could rewrite this in a language I can understand I might think about responding.

9. No. As a mature adult I make up my own mind about such matters, don’t you?

PS: Perhaps the question about babysitting should have been addressed to your parents?

On second thoughts. We’ve reached that moment here when further comment is pointless. I’m now going to do something more constructive. Up here in Aberdeen there’s quite a wind brewing up. I think I’ll nip outside and piss into it.

Mike

How do you make up your own mind ? Do you hold an in depth chat with them? Do you think back to your sexual experience with them? Do you have personal business dealings on which to judge them? Or do you watch telly and read papers and pretend thus to know them?

for my own part – I make personal judgements about the politicians I meet and interact with personally. Granted that is quite a lot of them. But I avoid doing so with those I only see on TV, hear on radio, and read about in newspapers. (Though I can still judge their political views).

So while I find Ed Leigh a charasmatic, interesting and determined sort of fellow, I can only say of George Osborne that I think his talk of flat tax is a terrible direction for tax policy.

And even for Ed Leigh, and others I meet, I wouldn’t claim to know his perversions or criminality. I wouldn’t claim any insight into his psychological conditions. And I would not argue that I know they lie more than a typical human being. (around four times a day according to a study this week).

–

as for 8

the important bit was the challenge I set you.

Give me some evidence that the political system is not more open now than in the past.

granted it is easier to hide behind snide remarks than actually complete that challenge. but ho hum.

Sorry you diverted the question of familiarity breeding contempt there Mike – it might have been an interesting notion to discuss with some one more inclined to talk politics than you.

I have to open a wine bar with Tony Blair, fuck him and then have a long post-coital chat with him before I can make up my mind about his character? Give me a break!

Mike

so you concede then that politics is more open now than it was?

–

and yes – i think direct contact with some one is a pre-requisite before judging a man’s psychological state. Certainly seeing some one telly and in the papers is far from adequate for that.

My take on it is here.
It’s called bribery.
http://www.thebusiness.co.uk/trading-floor/452391/how-to-bribe-politicians.thtml

Tim

The BBC has gone too far down the Paxman route of “Why is this lying bastard lying to me” with every interview. And I think they know it.

They are increasingly aware that politicians no longer see news programmes and shows like Newsnight as an opportunity to discuss politics and policies. Instead they are treated as a chore to be put up with because a party whip picked them to get their head bashed in tonight.

and that goes for both the main parties.

M4E,
I’m going to have to disagree with you on almost every point you make.

Politics isn’t a matter of black and white, nor should it be reasonable to expect it to be. Better is to be able to judge the tone of grey with some degree of accuracy. Sadly for many, the is no objective measurement by which to take a view. So we argue and discuss.

Whether you regard the news media as a chore to be endured while you maintain control or an instrument by which to undertake that chore, I suggest, reflects your own position and sympathies. It is a matter of interest to note that Campbell’s NewLabour media machine was successful in establishing control because it recognised and instituted the innovative use of the media as an opportunity to connect directly with voters and promote its’ propaganda messages without their being diluted through interpretation by journalists, notwithstanding that in bypassing formal parliamentary procedure it undermined its ability to exercise power once achieved.

As for whether the system is more or less open than at any other time, that depends on whether you are looking at the message or the messenger and whatever answer you come up with will only reflects the active participation levels of the voting electorate in that instance. It is possible to gather some amusing circumstantial evidence for this, but only by standing as a candidate yourself.

OK, I admit it. I have a little extra help. I use my grandmother’s old ouija board. It’s uncannily accurate. Let’s see. I’ll just write out M.A.R.G.I.N.4.E.R.R.O.R on the planchette…

Ooo, hang on, yes, something’s coming through…yes, it’s spelling out something…

M.A.R.G.I.N.4.E.R.R.O.R. I.S.A.C.O.M.P.L.E.T.E. M.O.R.O….

…oh, hang on there’s someone at the door….

Oi, Mike, stop it.

Give the kid some credit, he/she’s interested and wants to discuss. That, at the very minimum, is a sign that there is a significant level of intelligence at work.

There’s ALWAYS the possibility that we can all learn something from each other.

Anyway, offering insults rather than compassion degrades you in the eyes of others because it doesn’t add anything of value to the discussion.

More fool who?

Margin4Error: The BBC has gone too far down the Paxman route of “Why is this lying bastard lying to me” with every interview. And I think they know it

Nah, that is not what the DG said. In fact he explicitly backed the style of Paxman and Humphreys in his speech. Have a read.

Sunny

Maybe I was wrong to suggest “and they know it” – sorry.

Thomas

“M4E,
I’m going to have to disagree with you on almost every point you make.”

Hooray – Thats what like to hear.

–

I accept that politics is of course about many shades of grey. And I would not argue either that politics is presentlt perfectly fully open, nor that it was in the recent past completely shut.

But where we debate, evidence can help us.

So, for example, I might point to the legal requirement to declare donations, the Freedom of Information Act, the greater engagement of politicians with every sort of media, and the much greater role of consultation in policy formation as significant steps that have made politics much more open now.

Indeed that continued a process started by democratisation itself, which required politicians to explain themselves to varying degrees to a public. And of course television and much higher standards of education have made politics much more open to scrutiny.

Hence when I asserted the old addage that familiarity breeds contempt – it seemed only fair that criticism of my belief that politics is now more open than it has ever been be joined with some evidence to the contrary.

and so I asked for some.

-

On Campbell’s success, I completely agree with you. He used media to open politics up direct to the public – but don’t forget that he did so because he felt journalists had ceased to serve an inquisitorial or explanatory (is that a word?) function and were little more than ferral beasts to overcome. (He had long called on Blair and Labour to ‘take on’ the media before blair finally did on leaving office.)

The Tories have since learned that lesson, and yet Labour seems to have recoiled from it under Brown.

“So the BBC wants to address that by trying to educate people about what the political process is and what is going on. What exactly could be wrong with that? To get this reaction out of that speech is simply absurd.”

What’s wrong with it is that the BBC is nu labour on air – and the phrase “educate people about the political process” sounds positively Stalinist. What part of – go into the cubicle and put an X next to one of the names – do they not “understand” ? People are cynical about politicains and politics precisely BECAUSE they understand it.

“Not all of us want children emerging from the educational system with a BBC-engendered outlook.”

And amen to that !!!!

Matt

appart from the presumption of BBC bias – I completely agree.

People know more about politics than ever before – and familiarity breeds contempt.

@23 Campbell’s innovation has been detrimental to the political process, that it was successful shows that the whole shebang is a moveable feast (or goalposts if you prefer).
And the same is true for FoI, media engagement and consultation – FoI has created openness, but is matched by delays where it is controversial, so that any information is released behind the agenda when it rarely has any more relevance; greater media engagement is matched by greater control and reduced debate; consultations are becoming more often paper exercises used to rubber-stamp decisions rather than inform or improve them (see heathrow for a case in point), thereby restricting opposition and reinforcing preconceptions: government gives with the one hand and takes away with the other.

@24 I tend to disagree that the Beeb is the voicepiece of (New)Labour, rather that post-Hutton it has been muzzled to the extent that it has become the voicepiece of the government (who currently happen to be Labour, though this will change), since it is required to toe the line of their agenda under threat of license-fee and charter renewal.
Thatcher enjoyed a similar period of influence over the venerable institution during the Hussey charmanship, and Auntie was criticised in the same vein by her opponents then too. Same lines, different actor.
I recall some similar problems expressed by Beaverbrook and earlier over media ownership, concluding that bias is inherent and unavoidable – it’s one of the reasons why there is no state-owned newspapers. The BBC is an adaptive anomaly to the problem, so just wait until the pendulum swings again.

Familiarity breeds contempt like success breed complacency.

it’s not the familiarity that breeds contempt, it’s the contemptible actions and the now obvious gaps between public voice and government policy that breeds contempt. Parties used to be champions of causes for different groups of people in Britain, perhaps it was a simpler time, now they fight over what they need to do for the economy and for business while breaking manifesto promises and forgetting the people that voted for them until the next general election rolls around. Perhaps this always happened, but new media makes it very easy to see now, and that is what disenfranchises people, not the lack of “mystery”.