Attendance optional
A good one this one - a new twist on the ‘unfortunately no one was available’ you hear when government ministers don’t have the bottle to front up on news programmes. It’s more ’someone was available, they just couldn’t be arsed’.
There was an item on Radio 4’s The World At One this lunchtime about the implications of growing numbers of radical Muslim prisoners in Britain’s jails - the prison service predicts prisons will hold 1,600 convicted Islamist terrorists within ten years. Unfortunately, a government view on the matter was not forthcoming:
We did ask to speak to the Ministry of Justice about how they’re dealing with this problem, but although ministers are giving interviews today about the new Conservative prison policy, we were told they wouldn’t talk about this subject.
So what you have here is government ministers willing to appear to have a go at opposition policies - to oppose the opposition, if you like - but unwilling to turn up to defend their own. How’s that for a constructive dialogue?
Is it cowardice or contempt, do you think? I can’t decide. I’ve always thought that government ministers should be forced to appear to defend their policies, with menaces if necessary.
But this then whole idea of political accountability - except at election time, obviously, when we’re asked to ratify policies we have no ‘legitimate expectation‘ to see enacted - is a honking dud. That’s why I’m typing this in my pants and the Home Secretary gets to buy kebabs in Peckham. And we’re still exporting this democracy crap to the rest of the world, you know. I hope Iraq kept the receipt.
What you mustn’t believe, however, is that this helps fuel the disconnection with, and contempt for, politics and politicians. No, like terrorism, they are spontaneous occurring phenomena. Just as the Iraq war can in no way have fuelled domestic terrorism, so the master and servant relationship politicians have established between their lordly selves and the lower orders can in no way have caused the widespread antipathy and apathy we see in Britain today. It’s just not their fault, ok?
Top government scientists are working hard on finding the causes, of course. Their latest conclusions include ‘yeah, but what you gonna do?’ and ‘unfortunately, our terms of reference do not include recommending Jack Straw would serve a better purpose stacking shelves’.
Posted on March 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
| See also • Gordon Brown pledges return of competitive elections to politics • Silence is consent • A ‘new’ politics #4 |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under UK politics |
• |
Yes, entertaining isn’t it? But this is merely a manifestation of the fear and loathing at all levels in Government. Fear of cross-examination and loathing of scrutiny.
What’s even more entertaining is that the World at One is hardly Torquemada’s chamber. After all the BBC daily prostrates itself before NuLab’s altar, declaring that it is not worthy - and it ain’t.
We did ask to speak to the Ministry of Justice about how they’re dealing with this problem, but although ministers are giving interviews today about the new Conservative prison policy, we were told they wouldn’t talk about this subject.
That’s just silly. Normally what happens is that the Minister for Defending the Indefensible (let’s say, Hazel Blears) goes on the programme and attempts to deviate the interview towards attacking the opposition - like Just a Minute from a parallel universe. To admit you’ll only do an interview to behave like an attack dog gives the whole game away. It’s both cowardice and contempt.
They’re supposed to defend their policies in Parliament (remember Parliament?). Unfortunately, the opposition, rather than prepare a series of well briefed questions which would force them to do this, prefer to play silly debating games which make Clinton and Obama look like grown ups by comparison.
Unfortunately, the opposition
This sounds rather like you’d blame a woman for being raped because she dresses too provocatively! This government rarely responds straightforwardly to questions in Parliament, however well framed are the questions from either the Official or other Opposition Parties. The fact that they, the government, are now only willing to do radio interviews to attack another Party’s policies, whilst specifically stating they will not defend their own (why, because they’re indefensible?) is just a new low in the depths this government has plumbed in its efforts to stifle democractic accountability. As with everything this Government does, for example the so-called Freedom of Information Act, the detail needs to be examined with forensic care - it loooks good on the surface, as they intend, but means in practice very little.
Watch out the Devil’s about and I think he likes you!
There’s another good one here regarding Hodge:
Hodge was due to appear on Radio 4’s the World At One yesterday to discuss her speech but “something else came up”.