In recent days I’ve watched two MPs – both pro-Remain – being interviewed by groups of carefully chosen panel of people made up of one-third Remain, one-third BREXIT and one-third Don’t-Knows. One was hosted by the BBC and one with Sky News. In some ways the two political leaders were very similar; in other ways they couldn’t have been more different.
Both sipped water in between questions, taken from a little glass-topped table. Both argued that immigration should be controlled, both were accused of having in the past been anti-EU. One commentator afterwards said that Cameron was “visibly rattled” by a question which compared him to Neville Chamberlain, coming back from Europe waving a useless piece of paper. I thought Cameron looked a little annoyed but far from rattled. Corbyn too was challenged over having voted against the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties. Corbyn didn’t look at all rattled by this and explained his reasons for so doing.
And that was the key difference between the two men. Cameron’s speech was based on machine-gun fire responses using phrases which he’s used many times before; Corbyn’s responses tended to be more muted, delivered in a conversational tone. Cameron tended – not surprisingly, I suppose – to emphasise the many benefits of remaining in the EU and talking of the ‘madness’ of leaving. Corbyn, in contrast, had no inhibitions about pointing out aspects of the EU which he found distasteful and which he hoped, working with other Left groups in Europe, to address.
Cameron rejected the comparison between himself and Neville Chamberlain by comparing himself with Churchill, determined to work with European allies and “not be a quitter”. “We are Britain and Britain doesn’t quit, it fights for what it believes in”.
Cameron throughout stood close to the audience, legs apart and firmly planted; Corby remained seated at a stool by the water-bearing table. Cameron called male questioners ‘Sir’ and sounded like a man in search of a killer sound-bite; Corbyn sounded like a man intent on explaining the complexities of Europe in a clear and thoughtful way. As he said himself, he doesn’t do personal attacks: he believes in sticking with the issues under debate.
In some ways watching and listening to Cameron is a more fun experience. The positioning of those feet, the manly demeanour , the relentlessly cheerful voice – all made viewing him fairly painless. Corbyn, on the other hand, was less forceful, almost dry. But as I watched and listened to him, it struck me that here was a man who wanted to do political discussion in a thoughtful, nuanced way. He was never passionate in his speech but rather quietly fluent, making it clear that he wasn’t keen on the EU as it isbut emphasizing that a better Europe was possible through addressing and resolving the problems it contained.
There are those who say that Corbyn isn’t prime minister material. They’re right, if they’re thinking of prime minister in terms of Cameron and Blair, all posh blokiness and charm. But if you’re looking for a prime minister who wants to encourage rational debate of issues, never letting his own personality or those of others to overshadow rational debate, then Corbyn’s your man.
No wonder the Murdoch media empire is suspicious of him. This guy is calling for a revolution in English politics: playing the ball and not the man. In short, he wants politics and politicians to grow up. It’s doubtful if Britain’s political class or electorate is ready for that yet. How much more fun being or watching a Boris, all bumbling British school-boy, ruffling your hand through your tousled hair and grinning boyishly. But maybe a music hall or talent show is a more suitable setting for the likes of Boris, rather than a seat in a legislating parliament.
Corbyn is intent on a new politics in Britain and shuns personal attacks on rivals. Do any of our politicians here have a similar intent? Or are they too busy thinking up stupid-ass insults to fling at political opponents?
U.K. Politics seems to be heading towards a more US style of partisan and “TV politics”. Politicians seem to be more interested in how there media image, spin and the sound bite.
The fault for this has to partly blamed on the electorate though I feel. Issues are often complicated and need to be studied in depth in order to fully understand. There is rarely a black and white answer.
Most people are not politically engaged and only want to read the headline or listen to the sound bite and issues are boiled down to the simplest terms in order to convince people to a political parties point view.
A more engaged and educated electorate who understand the issues of the day, would help improve the level of debate and tone of politics I feel.
Totally in agreement, Scott. Though will it happen? I very much doubt it. Most people opt for bread and circuses…
I doubt it also Jude. Perhaps lowering the voting age to 16 and more critical thinking and political philosophy in schools could help.
Early exposure to politics could help lead to more engagement throughout people’s lifetime.
“U.K. Politics seems to be heading towards a more US style of partisan and “TV politics”. Politicians seem to be more interested in how there media image, spin and the sound bite.”
Indeed Scott, the only thing British politicians haven’t done (yet) is get their teeth whitened. Apparently Irish American businessmen paid for Gerry Adams to have his teeth done in order to improve his image. Good teeth is very important in American politics….and the Brits are renowned for having bad teeth…..
Living in the North, I’m condemned to waking up every morning to “Good Morning Britain” hosted by the likes of Piers Morgan, etc I have never seen such an Americanized show in my life, the 3 or 4 hosts gathered around a long table to talk about events, the cheesy intro music and the constant stream of news being highlighted at the bottom of the screen…..its just like waking up in New York or California…..
“Most people are not politically engaged and only want to read the headline or listen to the sound bite and issues are boiled down to the simplest terms in order to convince people to a political parties point view. ”
The reality why most people are not politically engaged is because the political system doesn’t want them to be engaged, things run a lot more smoothly if people don’t bother taking an interest in who makes extremely important decisions which effects their lives. People only take notice (then switch off again after) when the money in their bank accounts runs low or when they lose their job or they find it very difficult to live comfortably because prices have gone up. Of course this is just my opinion, I’m open to other peoples views/opinions but I believe the vast majority of people are deliberately distracted from politics by TV programmes, the cult of “Celebrities”, etc. Do you think it was a coincidence that the Brexit vote just happened to be in the middle of the Euro 2016 Competition?
The EU, for example, has two Presidents and 99% of people dont even know their names. There’s hundreds of people working for the EU who earn more than the Irish/British PM’s and who arguably have more influence/power than the Irish/British PM’s but yet they are faceless, they weren’t even elected.
But who cares? Emmerdale is on and then Coronation Street after that………
I don’t really subscribe to your theory that the disengagement of people from politics is a conspiracy by politicians/media, Ryan.
It’s the electorates personal responsibility to educate themselves and try to fully inform themselves of all the complexities of the issues. Government can’t do this for us.
Especially in this age of information at our fingertips there’s no reason for not having a well informed electorate. Unfortunately most people are uninterested and politicians and the media just boil things down to its simplest form because that’s what we demand.
The BBC does a good job at raising the level of debate and tone. Some programs done by the BBC are fantastic and just wouldn’t be done on commercial TV as they aren’t populist enough.
Whilst all of you watch the ‘Bankster’ controlled ‘Punch and Judy’ television show – put on for your entertainment – and the gratification of the ‘sham of democracy’,- (in between your xboxes and xfactors) – a group of people will be gently ‘sniggering’ with delight, at your comatosed, incremental sleepwalk, into the ‘low wage’, ‘debt-slave’, United States of Europe, where cultural identity is being replaced by multicultural, disparate incompatibility – and an ambivalent social degradation of nationhood and economic rescources.
These people, every one a hardened zionist advocate, reside at the Bank of International Settlements in Europe,- the central bank of central banks
They own the show you’re watching, as they do all of western media, print, advertising and publishing, including all of your sources of news, – filtered by gatekeepers at the ONLY two outlets allowed – AP and Reuters.
They own the polling companies that portray the illusion of ‘fair play’ and play games with your innocent minds allowing you to think opinion is changing one way and the other.
They own the banks that finance the scam.
But most of all, they own the ‘Butchers’ who sanction perpetual wars and the murder of millions of innocents – War criminals like Blair, Bush, Obama, Cameron, Brown, Sarkozy, Netanyahu, Rumsfeld, Cheney ,Allbright, Kristol, Merkel, Junker, Bernanke, Kagan, Blankfein, Soros, Yellen, Hollande, Lagarde, to name but a few…..all in the name of ‘Democracy and Freedom’ – in their pathological quest for ‘power’.
You are ‘fatigued’ with ‘choice.
Because you are part of the ‘rich mans’ trick’
And like you – Corbyn has been ‘processed’
Watch and listen as you enter the ‘catastrophe’ of Europe in the next few years, no matter which way you vote.
The debate, oops, conversation about Brexit down here in the Free Southern Stateen, Esteemed Blogmeister, has thrown up a few unusual terms.
Chief among them being : English Nationalism.
It is, one might cooly deduce, the, erm, hot-button issue.
Naturally, the one most credited with throwing this term up is none other than Fine-minded Fintan, l’Eminence Grise of Grey Matter on Liffeyside, the biggest tool in whose mental box is his BRAIN. In other words, He who makes up the Minds of the Mindless, mainly through his column in The Unionist Times but also through innumerable appearances on the broadcasting wing of the broadsheet, RTE.
Call, if you will, ‘English Nationalism’ a trope for dopes.
Now, while the throwing up of unusual terms is only to be expected in any given Technicolour Yawn Contest especially with the, erm, Technicolour Dawn of a new E.R.A. in the offing, nonetheless there is something distinctly awry with this fad for neologisms and other fiddle faddles.
Especially, when one considers that the Brexit contretemps has been on the go for scarcely 30 days or so, at least south of the Black Sow’s Dyke. Contrast that with the 30 year Dirty War north of the same BSD, and about which Fine-minded Fintan was never less than vocal.
While one is at a loss to recall at this remove from which side he was arguing the toss – ah, yes, now one remembers: he was on the side of the Angels or was it Engels ? one or the other, anyway – one has a definite conviction that one phrase he never employed was, of course:
-British Imperialism.
Which, of course, is English Imperialism in a Michelin Man outfit , it being considered necessary by the War Office of Westminster to wear padded clothes, of Taff and Jock texture, when dealing with Paddy. It is a bit Richelieu, as it were, for Fine-minded Fintan to stoically ignore the one phrase for thirty years while employing the other phrase on an overtime basis for thirty days.
Could it be a case of (gulp) Nationalism, bad; Imperialism, good ?
A case, perchance, of his preference for the Imp over the Gnat ? (The G in Nationalism is silent as the P in swimming pool).
One thing, nevertheless, is errorless: Fine-minded Fintan is, as always, paddling with the current. For the other term which has come to dominate the ‘conversation’ down here in DOBland media is not unusual. It’s just that the Sweatshop of Pet Phrases has gone into overdrive and has of late been flat out churning out the term to meet the demand.
-Anglophone.
As in: ‘Luckily for us we will be the only Anglophone country in the EU in the event of the Brits saying No to Yes and Brexit carrying the day.’
The chief Anglophoney in this instance is the one, the only David McWilliams, the cherub-faced cheerer up of the half-empty gallowglasses and other Doomsday profiteers. One whose only destiny in medialand is definitely to become the new Hughie Green of Hibernia. One whose only mission is to see Opportunity is not knocked when it comes a-knocking on the door.
And the Anglophoney, to coin a phrase, ‘means that most sincerely’.
Like his fellow Anglophoney cum cosmopolitan with the choir boy looks, Brianeen Hayes, David McWilliams is in his element when constantly continent hopping – doing a spot of hedge-funding here and a stint of fence-mending there – he is less comfortable in mere parochial surroundings. As was evidenced in his recent whinge about ‘being stuck in Ballygobackwards and having to watch the rugger game on TG4 – through the medium of (gasp) Leprechaun’.
When one hears the positives of Anglophoneyism being constantly trumpeted -one has yet to hear it being dissed, unless one has missed something – then one knows that the outcome of Irish history has finally fallen on its well-padded catharsis.
The formula for success being: the Tallyhos, who initiated the technique, are finally of one mind and tongue with the monoglot descendants of the Dilly Dallyos who were at the receiving end of the Tally Stick .
In the malavoguing event of Brexit failing look ye to the malcontents as they legs it to the Malvern hills:
The Technicolour Dawn of a New E.R. A.
In social media balaclavas, camouflage breeches
They lie, damn lie, in statitches, in wet ditches
Failte to the era
Of the Real E.R.A.
‘English Republican Army’ whose trigger finger itches.
Corbyn reminds me of Albus Dumbledore from the Harry Potter series. Oh yes, I’m a squirt from the Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings generation lol I’ve read all those books multiple times from start to finish. I remember on my 14th Birthday my mother bought me a dog which I loved and still love (sadly passed away of old age a week before Christmas in 2013) and the then new Harry Potter book: the Order of the Phoenix. I then became a hermit in my bedroom for 2 days reading this 600 odd page book which was a brilliant read.
Dumbledore is an extremely intelligent, powerful and kind Wizard. His behaviour, approach and even the way he speaks is exactly like Corbyns. Just looking at Corbyn you can tell he’s a decent man, kindly, almost like a grandfather figure. You can also sense he has a deep well of knowledge, experience and wisdom too. Compare this to Cameron or Boris who look like City of London Bankers, you wouldn’t trust them as far as you can throw them. They may speak nice and polite in public but you know when behind closed doors they despise talking with the “Help” or the “Plebs”. Of course we have no idea what else they get up to behind closed doors, apparently Cameron likes putting his private parts in dead pigs mouth’s…..poor wee animal, as if the slaughter house wasn’t bad enough….
Much like Martin McGuinness here in the North, Corbyn does want to change British politics but will the media be fair to him? I doubt it. We see how McGuinness’s gestures aren’t reciprocated by Unionism and the media refuse to highlight this. Corbyn is portrayed by the media as someone who wants to nationalize everything and create another 1976 when the UK had to be bailed out by the IMF…..