Wednesday, 14 March 2012

The Westminster Bubble - aka 'Them'

Gawain Towler, England Expects, posts on a meeting which is not open to the public, access being invitation only, hosted by YouGov and the University of Cambridge who have created a new think-tank called YouGov-Cambridge, which combines academic expertise and professional polling in one place. GT remarks that Goldman Sachs is well represented and that this is being organised by Cathy Ashton's husband, the boss of YouGov Peter Kellner, with a media partner in DGFT. On the subject of Peter Kellner, both Richard North EU Referendum and I have posted here, here and here - you get the picture, no doubt!

Leaving to one side my present differences of opinion with Ukip, I can but echo GT's disbelief that not one representative of the only party campaigning for this country's withdrawal from membership of the EU is not represented - nor invited. When considering the speakers listed the first question is just what the hell is Polly Toynbee doing there? If the Symposium is discussing ‘Public Opinion, Economic Governance and the Future of Europe’ and will examine how both experts and the public view the same key questions, just where is 'a member of the public'? When considering the session titles, just where is the subject of sovereignty? What we have here, as with so many discussions about matters EU, is 'the club' - aka the 'Westminster Bubble' - talking among themselves and 'at' the public, not that the latter will be present to hear them.

With the number of candidates to be strung up growing by the day, I begin to wonder whether we will have sufficient lamp posts or piano wire - but I am sure we will 'improvise' when the time comes.


PeterCharles said...

"What we have here, as with so many discussions about matters EU, is 'the club' - aka the 'Westminster Bubble' - talking among themselves and 'at' the public, ...."

Wrong there I think WfW. They wouldn't stoop to talking 'at' the public, after all they know exactly what the public thinks, or at least what the public would think if only they knew what they know and if the public doesn't then it is simply that the public is ignorant and it is what they should think if they weren't. No need to disturb folk when everything is so certain.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

PC: You may well be right in your summation - however, do note that when I said 'at the public' I did qualify that by saying that the public would not be there to listen.

Is that not their usual trick - to speak when the public are not there, or when they are there (like the HoC) they know the reporting of what they say will be minimal if at all.