I believe this is extremely important, but having been published a few hours before the Manchester explosions, may have missed its audience:
Theresa May performed atrociously on her interview with Andrew Neil this evening. She was patently evading or lying on every question, and as usual repeating key phrases again and again whatever she was asked. I do not think I am naïve to believe this does seriously underestimate the intelligence of the electorate.
I thought that Andrew Neil did very well. He was unusually gentle with May – he interrupted her only three times in thirty minutes, and I am willing to bet will interrupt other leaders more. But his technique worked with May, because it gave her room again and again to trot out those robotic phrases and hack off the entire nation. Whether intentional by Neil or not, she used the rope he gave her to hang herself.
Twitter thinks she did very badly by about thirteen to one. Even Tories are saying so. And I think this is the strongest proof of what people really thought:
BUT not that many people will have watched. Far more people will see news reports of the interview than saw the actual interview, and those reports will give a very different impression to the reality. Nicola Sturgeon was viewed by those who saw the full Scottish leaders’ debate as having won, but all the news bulletins merely say she was monstered by the specially planted nurse, who was on Question Time last week and was specifically invited back by the BBC. Mmay will not have been pathetic when the News reports it.
It is a fact that in all opinion polls for the last week, Labour is doing better than their performance in the 2015 General election. They will have more voters. Yet the BBC continues to produce “vox pops” in the news, which they pass off as representative, interviewing Labour voters who are converting to Tory. Of five “ordinary” voters the BBC showed in a vox pop interview from Middlesborough today, one of the five was definitely switching from Labour to Tory, and another one was “probably” going to switch from Labour to Tory which was a “game changer”. The journalist concluded the Labour Party was struggling to hang on.
But that is not what the opinion polls tell us. The Labour vote is growing not falling, and the Tory vote is indeed growing, but mostly by transfers from UKIP, not by transfers from Labour. The BBC “vox pop” gives a deliberately false impression of what is happening. There is so much they do not tell us. How did the BBC find and contact these people who are switching from Labour to Tory? How many random people did they interview? What percentage of random people they interviewed were switching to Tory, and how did they select their sample? Did they find not one person who was switching to Labour – because the polls show that people are?
This blatant and undisguised propaganda continues all day every day. Fortunately even the most sophisticated propaganda has difficulty selling ordure as birthday cake. Every time May appears, the smell is deterring buyers. How they will hide her still further for the rest of the campaign, will be fascinating to behold.
ORIGINAL POST Look at this astonishing body language from Theresa May when confronting mild contradiction.
Note the tight lines of the mouth, the eyes darting from side to side as if seeking assistance or escape, the apparently involuntary small head movements signalling disengagement, which eventually develop into vigorous head-shaking. And that is just the body language. As ever, Theresa May was in a hall containing nobody except vetted senior Tory activists and mainstream media representatives. And yet, at six minutes in below, even that audience starts audibly jeering and dissenting.
All of which underlines a thought that has been pulling at me ever since the election started. May has continually tried to pitch this as a question of who you would wish to act as the negotiator of Brexit, either her or Jeremy Corbyn. But why would anybody believe that a woman who is not even capable to debate with her opponents would be a good negotiator?
In fact she would be an appalling negotiator. She becomes completely closed off when contradicted. She is incapable of thinking on her feet. She is undoubtedly the worst performer at Prime Minister’s Questions, either for government or opposition, since they were first broadcast. Why on earth would anybody think she would be a good negotiator? As soon as Michel Barnier made a point she was not expecting across the table, she would switch off and revert to cliché, and probably give off a great deal of hostility too.
The delusion she would negotiate well has been fed by the media employing all kinds of completely inappropriate metaphors for the Brexit negotiations. From metaphors of waging war to metaphors of playing poker, they all characterise the process as binary and aggressive.
In fact – and I speak as somebody who has undertaken very serious international negotiations, including of the UK maritime boundaries and as the Head of UK Delegation to the Sierra Leone Peace Talks – intenational negotiation is the opposite. It is a cooperative process and not a confrontational process. Almost all negotiations cover a range of points, and they work on the basis of you give a bit there, and I give a bit here. Each side has its bottom lines, subjects on which it cannot move at all or move but to a limited degree. Sometimes on a single subject two “bottom lines” can be in direct conflict. Across the whole range of thousands of subjects, you are trying to find a solution all can live with.
So empathy with your opposite number is a key requirement in a skilled negotiator, and everything I have ever seen about Theresa May marks her out as perhaps having less emotional intelligence than anybody I have ever observed. Bonhommie is also important. Genuine friendship can be a vital factor in reaching agreement, and it can happen in unexpected ways. But May has never been able to strike up friendships outside of a social circle limited to a very particular segment of English society, excluding the vast majority of the English, let alone Scots and heaven forfend continentals. The best negotiators have affability, or at least the ability to switch it on. It is a vital tool.
That is not to say occasionally you do not have to speak and stare hard to make plain that one of your bottom lines is real. But that is by no means the norm. And you need the intelligence and sharpness to carry it off, which May does not. That is one of the many differences between May and Thatcher.
Frankly, if I had the choice between sending in Jeremy Corbyn, with his politeness and reasonableness, or Theresa May, into a negotiation I would not hesitate for a second in choosing Corbyn. I am quite sure there is not another diplomat in the World who would make a different choice. May’s flakiness and intolerance of disagreement represent a disaster waiting to happen.
Blimey, what a liar.
The assumption that she behaves the same on camera as she does the rest of the time may not be justified but, either way, it demonstrates how hollow is the claim that May is a strong leader. On the contrary, she appears weak and out of her depth.
Agreed, though it is more normal to behave better in front of the cameras. Her behaviour without them may be still worse…
Remember she suffers from a chronic illness – type 1 diabetes. Stroke risk. I wouldn’t be surprised if shortly after the election she has to stand down. Who on earth would succeed her, though? Hammond (Remainer)? Johnson (soft Brexiteer)?
have considered that, after reports on her constituency meetings by SME.
The knives are getting sharpened, both Spectator and today’s Sunday Times speculate she may have to go.
I find it unbelievable and unacceptable that someone seeking to hold high political office refuses to debate her opponent – Corbyn.
By extension, the questions may be asked:-
A. So if or when May becomes Prime Minister – will she not have to discuss, debate, agree and disagree ( hopefully in a courteous and agreeable manner) with her counterparts around the world?
B. Is it not par for the course that politicians are able not merely to articulate – but:-
C. Debate in a convincing, informed and competent manner?
Are A,B and C the attributes of May?
The plan is once she wins this election no dissent will be tolerated and the world’s swarthy foreigners will defer to her greatness.
It will be interesting to see how this is reported in the daily press tomorrow. I will lay even money that few if any will comment on such a poor performance. At the end of the clip she looks positively scared and overly anxious to depart. And this is in front of an invited audience consisting mainly of supporters!
I do not expect the media pressure to continue much beyond today either. May looked like she may have had little sleep last night as well.
It is receiving coverage online, but the Guardian for example has billed it beneath all important coverage on a leak of Facebook’s content moderation rulebook
Thanks for your view on this aspect Craig. It has been clear to me May is no negotiator nor is she strong or stable. Crumbling and irritated by todays more robust questioning has clearly exposed that she cannot cope with pressure, dissent and unscripted, highly controlled public events.
Would the leader be doing much negotiating? I realize they set the tone and overview but I was under the impression ministers and civil servants did the slog.
“highly controlled” should have been edited out. I really must remember to prof read!
You are quite right. The vast majority of the negotiating is done by civil servants. I was commenting on May’s own casting of this as “who would be the better negotiator, Corbyn or me?”
Actually, if one is very, very serious, Party Parliamentary consensus should be built in from the beginning, given that this is in fact a Big Deal and touches every citizen, even non-citizen residents. But it will have to be done within some agreed code of privacy just as the biggest deals are. I wonder if it’s possible in this day and age?
Often a question is mis-constructed as an either/or, when it should really be and. We will see, but this election result promises to be interesting.
Yes, I realized that. I should have made it clear I was asking an aside question for personal clarification.. Thank you for doing that.
Tories are trying to make this a Corbyn v May, ie. soley a leadership personality contest built on years/decades of undermining and smearing Corbyn and his reputation. Plenty of trigger phrases have been planted in the collective public psyche to pull over the years. So far I don’t think it is panning out as May’s team planned but I suspect they are willing to jump into the sewer and rummage around the detritus at the bottom sooner or later. They will come up smelling of where they have been this time in my opinion. My hope and suspicion is that Corbyn’s team are well prepared for the onslaught, they have gained plenty of experience to draw on and learn from in the last twenty one months or so..
But the current HMG don’t seem to trust the civil servants. They’re gearing up the Tory press for walk outs.. it’s just stupid considering the vital national interests and geography, which even Theresa may not change.
When our negotiators pass on difficult news, HMG seem likely to flounce off and go whine in the press about nasty bullies in Brussel
I clicked over to see who made the YT (Blighty TV) and up popped this which blanked out the video. So unless you obey, that’s it.
‘You Tube a Google company
English
Before you continue
To be consistent with data protection laws, we’re asking you to take a moment to review key points of Google’s Privacy Policy. This isn’t about a change that we’ve made – it’s just a chance to review some key points.
We’ll need you to do this in order to continue using Google services.
Next’
Why then. Are tabs being kept?
Watching Theresa May standing forelorn in the EU parliament, a few weeks before Brexit was triggered showed your point for all to see.
May is a terrible PM, clueless, with zero debating skills, and with a strong propensity to blame anyone and everyone, if things aren’t going her way.
Brexit in my opinion, will not only be Britain’s undoing, but Theresa May’s as well.
Roll on Scottish independence, it can’t come soon enough.
First question goes to…
Laura at the BBC.
Quelle surprise!
But, and surprisingly, LK did not ask a softball question; and that just might have given the others greater confidence.
Fascinating that May dismissed the poor old Guardian’s question as conformant with Labour’s complaint:
How not to address the substance of a fair question!
If you want someone to lead UK over the cliff edge, I reckon she has the skill set required. Next?
I think Mrs May deals with criticism quite well
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/protester-arrested-wrexham-theresa-may–13071196
Peter
I hope this guy has a good lawyer.
The police will probably NFA it, shortly.
But a woman was prosecuted many years ago for calling M Thatcher a “rich cow” as she arrived for a City event. Mercifully, the Magistrates dismissed the charge (whatever it was).
There are two issues here;
The police overreacted, ridiculously to an inoffensive protest that lasted a maximum of twelve seconds;
Had there been a serious threat to TM its potential was greatly magnified by the goonish behaviour of the Welsh Police, who completely ignored the PM as they piled in on a harmless protester.
Will they ever learn?
Complaint to IPCC: muzzled free speech combined with endangerment of the PM by police negligence?
Independent, Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Post, Mirro, BBC, are all covering the incident on their online outputs
Some spinning that the poor chap had shouted “Kill May”, she’s going to have to handle worse outbursts from EU negotiators if she treats them with the same contempt as she treats the British public.
But this incident could cause her to drop another 5 points which would put Corbyn uncomfortably (for the Tories) close to winning the election.
Leave it to May, she is doing a wonderful job.
“Theresa May marks her out as perhaps having less emotional intelligence than anybody I have ever observed.”
_________
Isn’t that a standard requirement to be a Tory, to be apathetic, and emotionally detached to the needs of those less fortunate than yourself?
Or to doublespeak at any given opportunity, or when put under pressure from a inquistive member of the public or opposing politician. To do ones utmost, to climb the greasy pole of personal advancement, no matter what the cost to those who do not matter to you.
surely its Keir Starmer QC who will be leading negotiations?
Id rather have pins stuck in my eyes than Tory social care.
It’s heading in that direction anyway. A clockwork Orange.
And she ended with a lie. Jeremy Corbyn never said he’d raise the basic rate of tax but the top rate. I take it from that her last interviews will end with a lie as she’s leaving so it cannot be challenged and the media will repeat the line as if it were true.
Manufacturing consent.
Or brainwashing. Same difference.
Wouldn’t be surprised to find out that she’s borderline schizoidal with elements of paranoia.
reel guid.
You mean like Kezia, who launched the Labour branch office manifesto today. In a room with about 50 people, out of those 50 people I’d say half were press members.
Dugdale says that SLAB’s current manifesto backs Trident, yet according to the media today SLAB, voted against Trident in 2015.
Like Davidson, Dugdale harped on about independence, independence both of them and highly insignificant Willie Rennie are an embarrassment to Scotland.
Ros
Dugdale was embarrassingly bad in the Leaders’ debate. No one’s really been talking about that though because very few people take her seriously.
Yes reel guid, like Theresa May, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie, Dugdale doesn’t inspire confidence, all of the above are mere cardboard cut outs, parroting the unionist mantra.
She will be glad when the day has ended.
Tonight BBC1 Andrew Neil. Pre recorded? Softball or hardball?
‘The Andrew Neil Interviews: Theresa May
7pm, BBC1
Assertions of strength and stability are likely to figure prominently during this first of a series of interrogations of the major party leaders (and Paul Nuttall). Theresa May has resembled a malfunctioning robot for most of this election campaign. Maybe tonight she’ll throw off her shackles and reveal herself as a politician of charm and substance. Or maybe she’ll just say “strong and stable” a lot and wait for the votes to roll in.’
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/may/22/mondays-best-tv-the-andrew-neil-interviews-theresa-may-the-fifteen-billion-pound-railway
I like May’s positioning as a one nation conservative, but she is type 1 diabetic and I do wonder if her health should be an election issue, because it could explain her behaviour under pressure as she is simply too ill to take the spotlight pressure, as opposed to being a high profile Minister dealing with civil servants.
OMG .How can any reasonable person vote for this. She cant even handle her invited,screened and scrutinized toadies.
Theresa May could well be all of the things you claim. So what? For the moment the UK is effectively a one party state and she is and will remain Prime Minister.
A far more pertinent question would be to examine the abject failure of the political class across the entire western World. Seemingly the US can only produce the entirely unspeakable Clinton or Trump. France can produce a fascist and a nonentity and any sane society would act to isolate and incarcerate the entire political class of Sweden. All politicians everywhere are acting to transfer their own authority to Central Bankers all of whom share an ultra extremist monetary and fiscal ideology..
Obviously none of this is of any interest when compared to the endlessly fascinating matter of Theresa May’s body language – which is unarguably far more subtle than Clinton’s body language which was of no interest to anyone..
Any chance of Craig acknowledging that the BBC’s political interrogators may have played a large part in forcing the Tory U-turn on social care?
“the BBC’s political interrogators”
Hahahaha, nice one.
If you can’t even be bothered to watch them, how can you even comment? Marr made Damian Green look a fool yesterday. Squirm central, it was good tv. Sometime BBC Neesnight anchor James O’ Brien has been doing the same. Evan Davies made Green look a fool last week on Newsnight.
Andrew Neil, who Craig has praised on here for his impartiality but now claims is a Tory shill.
I mean, it’s all complete fantasy, but you just lap this nonsense up.
Jim,
There is academic studies to prove the bias.
Damien Green made Damien Green look foolish on Marr not Marr. Just as Jeremy Hunt made Jeremy hunt look foolish, Boris made a fkcking dogs dinner where ever he goes etc etc.
They can’t even handle soft ball questions the have been shown and prep’ed for hours earlier.
Lightweights.
I’ll give you O’Brien. I think he just hates everyone though.
BrilloPad impartial? Where’ve you been for the last forty years?
Who are the BBC’s “political interrogators”
Laura Kuenssberg, or Norman Smith, or even beady eyed Nick Robinson, or maybe he means Andrew Neil or David Dimbleby, or Andrew Marr for that matter.
I doubt any of the above would give Theresa May a particularly difficult line of questions.
Sounds like Teresa’s normal dinner guests, RoS!
Good to see the British ruling elite never misses a beat in their attempts to set the agenda.
Who could negotiate a better deal with the EU, Corbyn or May?
Why not tell the people that in the final analysis there is no need to negotiate anything with anyone, In theory it could be possible to negotiate some kind of win-win outcome. However it is a racing certainty that Germany is going to defend its free money printing machine and will pay any price to crush the UK just to ensure that none of its other vassals get any kind of uppity ideas.
The British can play the same game as the Germans – “someone locks me out, I kick my way back in. If I get aggression I give it two times back” Once the Germans understand that then you can negotiate. But they have to believe it and it has to be true. There is no possibility that Corbyn could convey such a message.
Given the available options May looks like the perfect person to stick it to the EU and to the legion of UK based fifth columnists. All with their hands glued to the levers of power, and their knees bending to the German money hoovering machine masquerading as the EU.
Apposite diplomat’s son Strummer/Jones quote there Loon’, whilst I remain fastidiously neutral in the election & the brexit happenstances, I concur that there will inevitably be “Hate & War” moments.
I wouldn’t simply blame Germany either, [check out the amazing 32-song uk-punk parody/homage in 1992’s ‘toten hosen’ (dead trousers) “Goodbye from Janet & John” cd: Learning English – Lesson One, ‘bye-bye’.
Finally, lyrically, remember the Final Countdown – Europe – “but still it’s farewell. . .will things ever be the same again” er, No.
It is not only negotiation on which May is disastrously weak. Her command, grasp and knowledge of the subject and system she is introducing with this policy is, to be frank and serious, at the level of a five year old.
The notion of criticism being some dastardly conspiricy by the Labour is like something out of Monty Python. There has been serious criticism from a variety of serious sources even from within the Tory Party, including some standing candidates.
A couple of interesting links below…..
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/05/18/the-real-cost-of-the-new-tory-social-care-funding/comment-page-1/#comment-18951
http://www.schwehroncare.co.uk/the-first-ever-proper-plan-to-pay-for-sustainable-social-care-i-am-not-convinced/
…..suggest not only a number of insurmountable systemic problems – where, for example would the surviving spouse or partner of someone who eventually passed away following home care treatment under this scheme stand? – but also some kind of collusion with the finance industry.
The continued delusion of May and her cognitively challanged supporters and forelock tugging cheerleaders on the matter of sustainability of this proposal is sufficient to disbar every single one of them from having the vote under present legislation because it is sheer lunacy.
This is not difficult to work out for anyone with a functioning brain cell. It is not quantum mechanics. Firstly, the State, under this policy, is not proposing to be the agency offering the equity release package on the property. That role will be taken by a private, for profit, finance company belonging to the finance industry. They will be paying the up front costs to the State for the care. When the homeowner receiving the care passes away they will be wanting to recover their costs with a profit as soon as possible. Leaving aside some of the problems identified in the second url link above, this WILL result in the following problem:
Even if there is only one surviving sibling to inherit the £100k this is hardly going to make any significant impact on the growing problem of larger and larger sections of the population who cannot afford a roof over their heads. With wage levels stagnant at a level not seen since the Napoleonic Wars even with a clear £100k a great many young people, already saddled with unsustainable university tuition fee debt ( which again is going to a private company rather than the State for reinvestment back into the commons) , will be unable to afford a house even here in a depressed northern town where the cheapest house being built on a new private development is £160k.
More and more of the younger generation who will require this kind of care in the future are already living in private rented accommodation, much of it sub standard, which has been snapped up by buy to let companies. Increasingly over the past ten years it is more and more common to see a house for sale sign ome down and a to let sign go up rather than see someone actually being able to afford to buy the house or flat as was once common.
This policy will accellerate that process very rapidly as the equity companies snap up the surplus value available on the property to enable them to rent seek and coin in easy money. This will reverse Thatcher ‘s property owning democracy policy within a very short time leaving more and more of the housing stock in the hands of property and finance companies with more and more people reduced to the same level of home owning rights as medieval serfs and peasants.
At which point the State is going to have a sustainability problem when these people come on stream requiring dementia or similar care because they will not have an asset for a finance corporation to take over on an equity release package to pay the State the costs of the care. The finance corporations having taken over a large proportion of that part of the housing stock in their easy money rent seeking scheme cores of illiterate buffoons like Mugger May and her simpleton hangers on.
The exact opposite of a Tory policy. Little wonder that those remaining grown ups in the Tory Party who do know their arse from their elbows, and (Deity of choice) knows there are fewer and fewer in this category these days, are rolling their eyes and tearing their hair out at the sheer incompetence, impractical and dangerous ideological stupidity which is being sold to the electorate with this and similar uncosted and unworkable Tory manifesto policies.
Even Screaming Lord Such could do better than this. And he’s been in the ground for some time.
This story takes the matter one step further. Since the City look set to make a nice little earner out of the Dementia Tax, could Mrs May be sending some nice business in the direction of Mr May:
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/05/21/is-the-dementia-tax-a-plan-to-make-money-for-theresa-may-and-her-husband/
You don’t need to use so many words to describe a Ponzi Scheme.
All Ponzi Schemes end the same way – and this one will be no different.
Still no-ones fault (other than Theresa May’s). Who could ever have predicted any adverse consequences from handing over all wealth to the finance industry and seeking to mask the effects of that theft through inflating the costs of housing.
Try to remember: Everyone is a victim and no-one is responsible.
I’ve wondered how long after the death of the homeowner a house has to be sold, and what happens to the spouse or dependents after that time? I would say the deal will be favourable to the care provider, meaning it must be sold within a rather short time. (Three months?) If it isn’t sold within that time I would think the survivor finds herself paying rent at market rates. So what was until recently her and her husband’s own house, she now finds herself paying hundreds of pounds a month just to stay in it. All debts recoverable by bailiffs etc.
Lol, the Green Party manifesto is out and it’s offering a 4-day week/3-day weekend for everyone plus loads of free stuff from the magic money tree.
“the magic money tree.”
O my god, you still pushing this nonsense, your worth better than that, surley? How pathetic.
https://youtu.be/BPjA9dcsN10?t=4m30s
The person speaking on the video you link too appears to be under the impression that money could be raised through taxing the rich.
There are very few rich people around who wish to pay any tax at all and certainly have no intention of funding the idle, feckless and wholly deluded population of the UK.
Some people think they are rich – mostly because the value of their house seems to rise by £10,000 per month. Try taxing property and see what happens to the price of it.
Ah we could tax corporations. Most of these are fictitious entities. Who really needs any of the cheap and garish clothing produced by slave labor for Sports Direct. Who needs branded coffee? What town really needs 6 or 7 betting shops within about 200 meters of each other, do the obese really need more burgers? Try taxing them and they will be gone because like locusts they only exist in any one place for short periods of time.
No-one is going to give you or anyone else anything – because there is nothing left to give. It is gone – most of what you now see is a mirage – so it can’t go for the simple reason that it does not exist..
Anon1,
As stated yesterday, the ‘Magic Money Tree’ you so jokingly refer too actually is the basis of our digitised monetary system here in the UK and many places besides, this is due to the fact that Banks create money (DEBT) out of thin air at the flick of a switch – still, please don’t believe me, but do believe the horses mouth, namely the Bank of England and Bundesbank who both now accept the fact that banks actually do create ‘magic money’ and it has fuck all to do with deposits held. Our UK Treasury and the US Treasury could do likewise with little threat of any inflation given we are suffering real debt deflation at a time of massive asset price inflation. Obviously, issuing Bonds/State debt actually is a good idea though, particularly if you are a pension fund starved of low risk investment options.
Hello – I like that bit – “so you’ve told US”. ie plural. Is this a community you refer to? Possibly a non Scottish community?
Apart from those observations, I totally agree with you (and RoS). Roll on the day.
“Why do you keep rabbiting on about Brexit, RoS?”
_______
Habb.
For the time being Scotland is partially under the Tory thumb. Brexit will turn Britain into a long term low wage high unemployment, high priced economy.
Now if Theresa May can’t even appear strong on her weak manifesto pledges, what kind of message does that send out to the EU?
It says look I’m for turning at the first hint of pressure. Britain is led by donkeys, and Brexit will leave the average person in Britain with hee haw.
Surely Habb, you don’t live in La La Land as well?
You have made several comments about May’s fitness and capacities. i have no doubt (does anyone) that a great deal of what we see is managed in such a way as to inflate impressions and evade any negative developments. That makes it quite difficult to come to conclusions.
Towards the end of the video she became strident, revealed some irritation and became defensive. It is a curious performance for sure because there are certainly signs that the Tory Teresa May show is rather hollow.
Onbe of the curiosities that i am trying to get my head around is the lurch towards such obviously empty displays of ‘strongman politics’, or personality driven politics. Duterte in the Philippines . Obviously we see this with the ludicrous Trump, with his braggadocio, transparent self-interest and imbecile partiality but in that we also see danger and weakness.The strange thing about Trump is that he seems to be held in contempt by many who have become acquainted with him. (Certainly Trump’s performance seems unsustainable over the next three and a half years).
The Brexit vote is surely also part of that movement of political disenchantment and the desire in many to acquire some kind of influence in political matters. The constant focus on ‘elites’ and establishments’ seems to me to represent discontent with the prevailing systems of democracy which have created these self sustaining elites. The mood is certainly for deep change. One must assume that the L:ynton Crosby strategy s to answer that discontent with the appearance of ‘strong and stable’ – in other words a forceful and possibly intemperate or irascible figurehead, who exudes authoritarianism (and we all know how the English enjoy a good dressing down from their ‘school marm’ figures .
However this is treating the electorate as children. The failure to really engage with political debate by the Tory regime is a real problem because such authority figures do not answer the wish to have a more active and participative democracy. With FPTP we are a bit stuck with this manipulative approach to politics but it also seems to me to be playing a dangerous game-i.e the elevation of authoritarian personality cults. 1. From the point of view of inviting a lurch towards neo-fascism.
2 inviting real dissent and civil strife when these authority figures fail (as May will certainly fail over Brexit).
The options for the future seem to me to be one of these two (assuming May is elected) .
Indeed. Paranoid, insecure control freaks do not make good negotiators. But they do make very dangerous leaders.
I’m looking forward to meeting her immensely, although I don’t suppose the feeling’s mutual..
http://mark-russell.net/Blog/index.php/2017/05/21/mother-theresa/
Listening to her answers, they were vague and false. It was not so much what she said as what she failed to say. No mention at all of the insurance policy that a person would have to agree to, and no mention of the conditions of the policy that could mean a house being seized to pay for escalating premiums with no upper limit.
Compare with West Kirby 2 days ago:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DASHZ4aXUAE-8WX.jpg
Corbyn in Kirby: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tZ6KcKXheg
The media thrives on marketing conflict; the drama of conflict is their major crowd-puller. So who are they bound to support?
I have never personally seen a person die, not even peaceably, let alone a violent death. Yet every single day, I could watch dozens if not hundreds of simulated maimings and deaths on television. How well the blood and guts are done is a hallmark of a well made film, for many viewers.
Without war and aggression, the media’s “news” coverage could never compete with their own fiction departments.
You are very wrong Clark. Ordinary people thrive on conflict and have since time immemorial. There are a lot of intellectually driven people who thrive on external conflicts. In the end, as in the beginning it is our inner conflicts that send out the waves outwardly. Nobody wants to touch that hornets nest. Mostly they are too lazy. You are the World and the World is you. And my real name is not George Harrison nor John Lennon. I hate a good fight. I love a good quantum conversation.
Alcyone, the enjoyment of perpetrating violence is indeed a motivation necessary to animal nature. Of course the media do not target their product at a vacuum. But like any habit or addiction, the more it is fed the stronger it becomes, and in this the media are a malign influence. The entire capitalist market system is founded on competitiveness, which is why all the ‘right’ schools place such emphasis upon achievement in competitive team games which border on organised violence.
It is interesting that you found me “very wrong”, though presenting agreement with the position I advanced. Maybe Ping Ting comes for fire quite frequently.
I noticed journalists from Sky, The Times and The Sun have started to hold Ms May to account a little more vigorously.
A turf war between Murdoch and Dacre? Nose out of joint after Dacre’s woman took control of No10?
Osborne (Murdoch) also sticking the knife in at the EStandard
Nah, it was probably just getting too boring; viewing figures dropping, advert slots worth less per minute.
They only have to get their “editorial balance” right; push May a little to get those twitchy faces, ridicule Corbyn continually – achieve higher viewing figures and their favoured outcome.