Ridiculous Rantsen
by Graham Davies
There is something more obnoxious than a dishonest politician: a pampered celebrity pretending to be an honest politician.
Our MPs may well be greedy, slippery, arrogant and deceitful. And that's just the good ones. But all of them worked very hard over a period of many years to get where they are. In trying to satisfy their lust for status, none of them have been lazy.
But Esther Rantzen wants to organise her celebrity chums to into forming a little group of Crusaders for Right and Justice. She is certain that her jolly campaigns on behalf of consumers qualify her for politics.
TV Celebrities forget that fame and self-righteousness are no substitute for political experience. After all, Martin Bell achieved nothing in Parliament except proving that white suits should be left to the Man from Del Monte. Stephen Fry showed just how ignorant he is by proclaiming that expenses "are just not that important".
We certainly need a new breed in Parliament...a new breed of politician. Not a breed of famous names who would be lost without an auto-cue.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Goodbye to a Bad Speaker
by Graham Davies
With a duration of 33 seconds, the Speaker's resignation statement was probably 20 seconds too long. If anything, it was an even worse presentation performance than he had managed the previous day.
He didn't bother to learn it. He spoke in with a whispered, almost effeminate voice. If it wasn't for the high-tech microphone system built into his throne, no-one in the House would have been able to hear him. And worst of all, he only looked up once from his script. He is clearly too embarrassed...or still too arrogant...to look the world in the eye.
This was not a contrite and humble man. This was a graceless goodbye. Never forget that he only resigned because he eventually realised that he would lose the vote, and not because it was the right thing to do.
My final verdict: not only is he a very poor Speaker, but he is also a very poor speaker.
by Graham Davies
With a duration of 33 seconds, the Speaker's resignation statement was probably 20 seconds too long. If anything, it was an even worse presentation performance than he had managed the previous day.
He didn't bother to learn it. He spoke in with a whispered, almost effeminate voice. If it wasn't for the high-tech microphone system built into his throne, no-one in the House would have been able to hear him. And worst of all, he only looked up once from his script. He is clearly too embarrassed...or still too arrogant...to look the world in the eye.
This was not a contrite and humble man. This was a graceless goodbye. Never forget that he only resigned because he eventually realised that he would lose the vote, and not because it was the right thing to do.
My final verdict: not only is he a very poor Speaker, but he is also a very poor speaker.
Monday, 18 May 2009
Roast Speaker Anyone?
by Graham Davies
This afternoon I sat in the Stranger's Gallery of the House of Commons so that I could see first hand whether the Speaker deserved to survive.
He produced the worst example of high-pressure presenting that I have ever seen. He read out his statement without once looking at the audience who were judging him. His voice had all the power and sincerity of a man checking through someone else's shopping list.
It wasn't just a bad speech. It was pathetic.
He then went on to squirm and wriggle his way around the question of whether MP's would be allowed to vote on his future. This is typical of his cowardice: hiding behind a technicality when he should be facing up to what he has done.
His performance poured napalm on the bonfire that the House is building for him. But such is his blind arrogance that he still cannot see that his credibility has already melted away.
I repeat the last 2 sentences of my last blog.
by Graham Davies
This afternoon I sat in the Stranger's Gallery of the House of Commons so that I could see first hand whether the Speaker deserved to survive.
He produced the worst example of high-pressure presenting that I have ever seen. He read out his statement without once looking at the audience who were judging him. His voice had all the power and sincerity of a man checking through someone else's shopping list.
It wasn't just a bad speech. It was pathetic.
He then went on to squirm and wriggle his way around the question of whether MP's would be allowed to vote on his future. This is typical of his cowardice: hiding behind a technicality when he should be facing up to what he has done.
His performance poured napalm on the bonfire that the House is building for him. But such is his blind arrogance that he still cannot see that his credibility has already melted away.
I repeat the last 2 sentences of my last blog.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
The Speaker Thug
by Graham Davies
Just because they were elected by secret ballot does not mean that MPs should have secret expenses. However, this is not a view shared by the Speaker of the House. He was the one who led the fight to stop the disclosure. Worse than that, he has acted like a petulant child over the last 3 days.
The Speaker is meant to be the arbiter of Fair Play in the House of Commons: the man who ensures that the rules are obeyed. He is definitely not meant to defend the selfish interests of MPs at all costs.
He has made it quite clear that he is more upset about the leaking of expenses claims than he is about the inherent dishonesty involved in the claims themselves. Any MP bold enough to question his behaviour has been rudely squashed. He has shown a Soviet intolerance for opinions other than his own.
If Cameron comes across as a smug Head Boy, the Speaker is most certainly the School Bully.
The way he presents himself and the way he presents the credibility of the Mother of Parliaments is simply not good enough. It is time for the House to show some collective balls at long last.
They have to get rid of him. Immediately.
by Graham Davies
Just because they were elected by secret ballot does not mean that MPs should have secret expenses. However, this is not a view shared by the Speaker of the House. He was the one who led the fight to stop the disclosure. Worse than that, he has acted like a petulant child over the last 3 days.
The Speaker is meant to be the arbiter of Fair Play in the House of Commons: the man who ensures that the rules are obeyed. He is definitely not meant to defend the selfish interests of MPs at all costs.
He has made it quite clear that he is more upset about the leaking of expenses claims than he is about the inherent dishonesty involved in the claims themselves. Any MP bold enough to question his behaviour has been rudely squashed. He has shown a Soviet intolerance for opinions other than his own.
If Cameron comes across as a smug Head Boy, the Speaker is most certainly the School Bully.
The way he presents himself and the way he presents the credibility of the Mother of Parliaments is simply not good enough. It is time for the House to show some collective balls at long last.
They have to get rid of him. Immediately.
Hollow Cameron
by Graham Davies
David Cameron has tried to present himself as a strong, decisive and virtuous leader over the issue of expenses. He has failed.
His speech yesterday included a carefully-rehearsed dose of indignation and horror that colleagues of his could possibly have acted in such an appalling way. This injection of emotion is utterly false....because Cameron has known about all this for months, or maybe even for years.
He has only reacted now because the Daily Telegraph has caught the House of Commons with its collective trousers down. He comes across, yet again, as the pompous Head Prefect puttting on an act to impress the teachers.
Can anyone believe that he really did not know what his whoop of Old Etonian chums were up to? That one of them was asking for a sympathetic attitude to his claim for household expenses because "it takes 4 hours to mow the lawn"?
Politicians have an endless capacity to disappoint. Just to emphasize this, yesterday I received a letter from the Kensington and Chelsea Conservative association. They were asking for money. I tore it up and threw it in the bin.
by Graham Davies
David Cameron has tried to present himself as a strong, decisive and virtuous leader over the issue of expenses. He has failed.
His speech yesterday included a carefully-rehearsed dose of indignation and horror that colleagues of his could possibly have acted in such an appalling way. This injection of emotion is utterly false....because Cameron has known about all this for months, or maybe even for years.
He has only reacted now because the Daily Telegraph has caught the House of Commons with its collective trousers down. He comes across, yet again, as the pompous Head Prefect puttting on an act to impress the teachers.
Can anyone believe that he really did not know what his whoop of Old Etonian chums were up to? That one of them was asking for a sympathetic attitude to his claim for household expenses because "it takes 4 hours to mow the lawn"?
Politicians have an endless capacity to disappoint. Just to emphasize this, yesterday I received a letter from the Kensington and Chelsea Conservative association. They were asking for money. I tore it up and threw it in the bin.
Monday, 11 May 2009
The Drogba Effect
by Graham Davies
Here is the text of an email written a couple of days ago by a certain Norwegian referee:
"Dear Didier,
This is just a short note to thank you and your Chelsea colleagues, especially Messrs Terry and Ballack, for your immediate feedback on my refereeing performance during the Barcelona match. It is very easy for an official to become too aloof from the players on the pitch. However, the sheer professional maturity of your comments meant that they came close to making me change my mind about all 4 of my penalty decisions.
In fact, if you had only shouted, waved your finger and bulged your eyeballs at me a bit more during the game instead of immediately afterwards, you could be looking forward to finishing off your season in Rome instead of Wigan.
But no hard feelings, eh? Next time you will know that referees, who are all overpaid compared to long-suffering players, really need as much help, guidance and swearing as possible while doing their job.
Anyway, cheers.....oh, and you might want to get that thyroid problem sorted out."
by Graham Davies
Here is the text of an email written a couple of days ago by a certain Norwegian referee:
"Dear Didier,
This is just a short note to thank you and your Chelsea colleagues, especially Messrs Terry and Ballack, for your immediate feedback on my refereeing performance during the Barcelona match. It is very easy for an official to become too aloof from the players on the pitch. However, the sheer professional maturity of your comments meant that they came close to making me change my mind about all 4 of my penalty decisions.
In fact, if you had only shouted, waved your finger and bulged your eyeballs at me a bit more during the game instead of immediately afterwards, you could be looking forward to finishing off your season in Rome instead of Wigan.
But no hard feelings, eh? Next time you will know that referees, who are all overpaid compared to long-suffering players, really need as much help, guidance and swearing as possible while doing their job.
Anyway, cheers.....oh, and you might want to get that thyroid problem sorted out."
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Don't Twitter
by Graham Davies
There is a clue in the name, which suggests the valueless squeaking of insignificant creatures.
Twittering is a presentational liability, because it encourages you to engage your thumbs on a keyboard before you have properly engaged your brain. This is especially true if you twitter the content of someone else's speech while they are still speaking. It is extremely difficult to listen to something, form an opinion, think of the words that encapsulate that opinion and then type them out....at the same time as listening to what the speaker is saying next.
A skilled news professional can just about do it...as long as what he is conveying is essentially reportage with very little personal opinion.
But if anyone else tries, their immediate and unconsidered opinion-spouting will get in the way of careful listening. There is a real danger of inaccuracy.
You should be very careful about sending an email that is read by one person. You should be enormously careful about sending a communication that could be read by thousands of people. Inaccuracy and inadequate analysis could lead to annoyance, ill-will and defamation proceedings.
In communication, spontaneity and speed can be good things. Careful analysis and calculation are better.
So, don't Twitter immediately unless you don't mind looking a twit. And I've cleaned that up a bit.
by Graham Davies
There is a clue in the name, which suggests the valueless squeaking of insignificant creatures.
Twittering is a presentational liability, because it encourages you to engage your thumbs on a keyboard before you have properly engaged your brain. This is especially true if you twitter the content of someone else's speech while they are still speaking. It is extremely difficult to listen to something, form an opinion, think of the words that encapsulate that opinion and then type them out....at the same time as listening to what the speaker is saying next.
A skilled news professional can just about do it...as long as what he is conveying is essentially reportage with very little personal opinion.
But if anyone else tries, their immediate and unconsidered opinion-spouting will get in the way of careful listening. There is a real danger of inaccuracy.
You should be very careful about sending an email that is read by one person. You should be enormously careful about sending a communication that could be read by thousands of people. Inaccuracy and inadequate analysis could lead to annoyance, ill-will and defamation proceedings.
In communication, spontaneity and speed can be good things. Careful analysis and calculation are better.
So, don't Twitter immediately unless you don't mind looking a twit. And I've cleaned that up a bit.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
