Showing posts with label Andrew Marr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Marr. Show all posts

Thursday, 22 March 2012

The fatuousness of the British political scene

That our politics, political comment and political reporting is but one big vacuum within the British political scene cannot be denied as what political comment that exists is, for the most part, servile in content; and in-depth political reporting is most noticeable by its total absence.


On television we are presented with, for example, programmes such as Marr on Sunday, Question Time and Newsnight. Marr on Sunday is no more than a political 'love-in' for politicians, with what may be termed patsy questions served up for them to bat away. Question Time is a farce, not only because it is strongly suspected that the audience is not balanced but deliberately rigged in respect of its political make-up; coupled with the farcical idea that questions can be answered in depth in such a short space of time by the five panelists. As for Newsnight, the less said the better.


Our newspapers are no better, being it seems filled not with journalists but cut 'n paste experts who do no more than repeat the press release they have been handed by politicians. There is little, if any, investigative journalism and what little that does appear tends to be superficial in content. This failing is probably due to the fact that journalists are only too aware that a critical article about any politician would result in the journalist's access to that politician being promptly terminated.


The gullibility of the British public, together with that of supposed political commentators, can be gauged by those using Twitter. As an example, a recently published opinion poll this evening has the Tories 8 points behind Labour which promptly gets mentioned by Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home as if this was ground breaking news. For heavens sake, the Tories have just screwed up big time with their latest budget, so what does everyone expect?


Politicians are no better than models, preening themselves in front of the television cameras at occasions such as Prime Ministers Questions or the Budget, when they know they will have an audience of reasonable numbers. Tune into parliament tv at any other time and one is lucky to see two or three dozen MPs on the green benches. The calibre of politician today leaves much to be desired - where, for instance is the politician who, when it is known that he/she is to speak, would guarantee virtually every seat on the green benches being occupied because of their skill of oratory?


Our national representatives are no more than placemen/women, selected by their party's central office, who once elected seem to have only one aim - climbing the ministerial ladder. Our local politicians are no better, also being placemen/women, only this time selected for the fact they are related to the present leader either by family or marriage. Where is local democracy when one person can simultaneously occupy positions on a town council, a district council and county council and not be placed in a position whereby there arises a conflict of interest?


The entire political structure of politics in this country has an unsavoury aroma attached and those working within that political structure are likewise tainted. One of the most posed questions is what is the purpose of life. I would suggest that until we solve the question  of what is the purpose of politicians, the purpose of life remains of secondary consideration.

Sunday, 16 October 2011

Andrew marrs his interview with Hague

I have not seen any mention in the media of Hague's referral to Adam Werritty during his interview on Andrew Marr's television programme this morning, an interview that can be seen here (Hague appears at 37:30).

In response to Marr's question whether he had met Adam Werritty Hague replied that he had not met him in his position as Foreign Secretary whilst in government - but did admit to having met him 'in passing' whilst he was Shadow Foreign Secretary. Any interviewer worth his salt would surely have seized on that statement and questioned Hague further. What does 'in passing' mean? When, where and in what scenario(s)? Did he question Fox at that time as to who Werritty was and why he was present? Knowing that Fox knew Werritty, on his appointment as Foreign Secretary and Fox's appointment as Defence Secretary, did Hague question Fox whether the relationship was on-going? Did Hague know that Werritty had accompanied Fox on trips abroad? Was Hague aware of the number of visits Werritty paid Fox at the Ministry of Defence?

Well, Mr. Hague?

Just asking.............................