Sorry for temporarily fallow blog.
The way the media (the BBC and Sky) have been feasting on Boris’s recent outburst of candour was inevitable, because that’s the way things are these days. The media seems to revel in hypocritical moral outrage.
Laura Kuenssberg and Norman Smith were incandescent with malicious glee. Was Theresa May’s mealy-mouthed “not the governments position” really such a severe rebuke? ‘ Will Boris keep his job?’ they wondered delightedly, hoping for a resignation so they could chew on ‘did he jump or was he pushed’ for another week or three.
A few hours later and various people came out with, well, actually, Boris spoke the truth, and maybe it’s about time someone said it.
What could be more hypocritical and unprincipled than moral outrage at Boris’s tactlessness and undiplomatic conduct, when it comes from those who normally consider our dealings with human rights abusers like Saudi to be hypocritical and unprincipled?
I suppose the official line is that diplomacy means realpolitik.
Never mind. The BBC will soon be back to discussing sexual abuse in football.
I propped my eyelids up to watch Question Time last night.
Practice makes perfect, and Nigel Farage has mastered to perfection the art of laughing off personal insults. ‘Water off a duck’s back?’ He’s got the look off to a tee.
Of course everyone wanted to see how Will Self and Nigel Farage would interact. Will Self seemed battle-weary after a while. Maybe he’s getting fed up with himself? I was pleasantly surprised to read an empathetic piece by him about his friend Michael Shamash. It was even written in normal language.
Sarah Woollaston even came out with a slightly regretful sounding admission that what Boris said was the truth.
Maybe everyone is changing their spots?
Here are some useful new words.
Otiose: serving no practical purpose or result.
Coprophagia: eatin’ shit
It's legitimate for the Beeboids to question Boris's job security. This is, what, the third time in less than a month that he's blabbed something outside the official line? The the thing is, I think May appointed him as Foreign Secretary precisely because she knew he wouldn't be able to control himself.ReplyDelete
It was initially a good PR move, bringing in Liam Fox, David Davis, and Boris, giving them all the most prominent Brexit-related positions. It quieted down certain voices who were concerned about a Remainiac PM and a Remainiac Chancellor attempting to lead the country through the turbulent waters of Brexit. I smelled a rat all along, though. After all, if it was agreed that Cameron stepping down was right in the end because he didn't believe in what he would have to do next, why should anyone trust Theresa May, who has said Brexit would be a disaster for the country?
In any case, of course Boris was going to screw up, multiple times. So easy to let him blunder about until she has no choice but to sack him. One Brexitter down (although I've always had doubts about his conviction), two to go. Davis has also told tales out of school, so he will next. Or mabye Fox will go next, as he and May don't like each other.
Very clever, all so she can undermine Brexit. That's what Laura K. and Norman Smith want, so they'll be very pleased to see this going on.
Do I sound cynical and paranoid? I guess, but there's so much evidence for it.
Don't worry about the fallow blog - I'm sure we all understand that, sometimes, for whatever reason, the lead bloggers will find themselves unable to contribute. A partial solution would be to have regular open threads, but to 'pin' the most recent two or three to the top of the labels column on the right & keep them there - it is disheartening to make a lengthy contribution and then find it has suddenly been shunted so far down by a sudden flurry of postings that nobody is going to find it. If you can do that, I think regular readers/contributors will keep things ticking over if the need arises.ReplyDelete
Sorry, I meant 'pin the most recent two ot three to the BLOG ARCHIVE,' rather than the labels column!Delete
I heard Norman Smith's delighted description of Boris's indiscretion. He sounded like a combination of malicious school sneak who's just got the most popular boy in class into trouble with the teacher and insufferable spoilt brat who's just been told he's going to get a train set, and a scalextric and a fully functioning, radio controlled quadropter drone for Christmas.ReplyDelete
Norman: Boris is an erudite, educated, amusing and articulate walking man bon mot; whilst you belong in the undergrowth, slithering on your belly (sorry, to all you hard working non-poisonous snakes out there).
I'm starting to wonder if it's deliberate Boris go say this and voice our displeasure.ReplyDelete
We will then deny its official British policy, whilst letting you know what we really think. It's actually all very British when you think about it.
I don’t know what to think about Boris. He is indeed a very erudite man and of course what he said about Saudi Arabia was true, although this does raise the much bigger issue of who we choose as friends in this very imperfect world. But there is unquestionably a certain unsteadiness about his character. I’m not even completely convinced he was sincere about Brexit. He is, of course an easy target for the lefties at the BBC on almost every level from his Eton education to his various gaffes. Not that all of that is necessarily a reason for him to go. The government would be a poorer place without him. The BBC is pathologically incapable of seeing their own hypocrisy on any subject.ReplyDelete
I don’t really know Teresa May’s motives in appointing Boris as Foreign Secretary, but I believe she has embraced Brexit for honourable reasons. I will hold my hands up if I am proved wrong. What matters now is can she get it right and how much she will be hampered and obstructed by groups like the BBC?
This seems to be ambivalence day. I have greatly enjoyed Will Self’s fiction writing in the past, despite his apparent addition to the Thesaurus, but some of his journalistic efforts, and silly political posturing have been infuriating in the extreme.
I think "moral outrage" is the wrong term. Schadenfreude is much closer to the mark.ReplyDelete
My understanding of the More or Less programme was that it was supposed to shed some statistical light on issues of public policy. Were it to do that it might actually serve a useful purpose.
But as you can see from it's discussion of "Were the Brexit forecasts wrong?" it's just turned into another forum used to provide cover for left-liberal received opinion. The item on the Brexit forecast could easily have formed part of TWATO, PM, Today TWTW or TWT. Standard Radio 4 newsfare - surface impartiality covering deep bias.
You should add Paul Mason to your line-up of BBC Kuenssberg-like flag-bearers and tub-thumpers. On Thursday's Daily Politics he looked intensely on-message as he foresaw the imminent collapse of the Government over Brexit due to 'deep divisions within the Cabinet' (if I read his expression correctly he was reliving the recent fake news), and then he confidently predicted a deep recession 'starting in 2017'.ReplyDelete
What worries me most is that these are probably his dearest wishes: to help bring down the Government and see a recession in the UK. After all, these outcomes would not matter a jot to Paul and his smug colleagues. Unlike the rest of us, BBC employees like him (or contractors - if he isn't directly employed) are protected from any such economic inconveniences as they continue to demonstrate their anti-democratic bias. There is malice in his behaviour.