Zeppelin of Pomposity
I am sorry to be a bit slow out of the blocks, but I have a lot on my plate at the moment and don’t always keep up with the news. So the following matter only came to my attention yesterday evening, when I caught the tail end of BBC Radio 4’s “PM” programme, and heard of the plight of our sensitive and much berated MP’s many of whom, far from being the thick-skinned, amoral carpet baggers that the filthy Murdoch controlled Press allege, are in fact sensitive souls, many on the brink of nervous breakdowns under the barrage character assassination.
I discovered this in an interview with Jim Sheridan, Labour Member of Parliament on one side, and Quentin Letts, Parliamentary sketch writer for the Daily Mail on the other.
Sheridan is suave, svelte, and dynamic – some say Darcy-esque. I must calm my homo-erotic impulses at this point. Be still my beating heart! Letts is a lumbering Neanderthal of a man, devoid of manners, wit or intellect.
Anyway, just a few hours after new powers to regulate the Press were announced, Mr. Sheridan, in a mild, considered yet forceful way, with great intellectual rigour, and whilst looking remarkably well dressed in an understated sort of way, had used the occasion of a hearing of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee to gently reprove Parliamentary sketch writers, whom he called “parasitic elements”.
Pausing there, some readers may recognise that the word “elements” is part of the lexicon of hate used by Nazi and Bolshevik alike, and by visionary leaders such as Pol Pot. It is usually used shortly before the word “liquidated” comes into play, and not in the way Nigella Lawson might use it. Of course I am not attributing such an association to the open-minded, liberal, touchy feely Mr. Sheridan, a man so gentle and noble that he might be called a latter-day Gandhi, with added on bits of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela grafted on.
No, he was a far cry from the thuggish, somewhat lardy, aggressive, half bald and glottal Glaswegian of limited intellect that the running dogs of the Murdoch Press would have us believe!
Mr. Sheridan objects to the Parliamentary passes being issued to sketch writers on the grounds that they are rude about MPs, and thus are abusing their position. He wants them stripped of their Parliamentary passes. He would prefer them to be left to their chances by finding their place in the public gallery, or watching on TV.
Anyway, I listened to the interview on the “PM programme” with eloquent and urbane Mr. Sheridan on the one hand, and Letts, all bluster and barely comprehensible, on the other
Mr. Sheridan quietly chastised the sketch writers for criticisms of people’s appearance and speech, and for not putting forward a positive view of our noble Parliamentarians – he nearly said “spin”, but held back. This, he said serves no public interest, or “business case” which justifies a Parliamentary Pass. It is just personal assassination, or as he so eloquently put it “slaggin’ people off.”
And, as he pointed out, if an MP complains, then all that stuff about expenses is regurgitated. How awful! Maybe he needs therapy for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Perhaps paid for by the public purse? It would only be fair.
Going back in time, according to the Daily Telegraph – and I have no way of knowing whether this is true – Mr. Sheridan allegedly strongly defended former speaker and fellow Scot, the famously genial and above-board Michael Martin as a man “of the highest integrity” who had been the victim of “bad advice” from his officials during the expenses row – which “Gorbals Mick” fought tooth and nail to suppress. I would also like to point out that his expenses claim for a 42 inch plasma TV (plus warranty) and a leather bed were not only reasonable, but completely necessary – no MP for that constituency could be seen to be without what the man on the Paisley Omnibus would have. He probably didn’t want the TV. It was just a statement of solidarity with his constituents. Further alleged details of Mr. Sheridan’s activities and claims can be found here:
In any event these comments have produced a reaction from the lickspittle jackal Letts, and others. Letts had abominably retorted that “You don’t actually need to be there in the flesh to see what a donkey Jim Sheraton is, you can see that from a TV screen and it is just as obvious by a distance of many a country mile”.
Fortunately, in the Daily Torygraph a writer called Micheal Deacons came to Sheridan’s defence, calling him “the noblest politician of this and any other era”, although he did warn that the “parasitic elements” that Sheridan had identified might well call him:
“A caviling joy vacuum, a waddling autocrat manqué, a great swollen zeppelin of self-importance, his face as sour as vinegar and his voice as dull as drizzle.”
Now, leaving my meagre attempts at satire behind for the moment, Sheridan’s opinion is by degrees (a) hugely ironic, (b) as stupid as he sounds, and (c) menacing.
It is ironic because of context. Just that very day I had heard a response to the Budget presented by a Leader of the Opposition who regularly satirizes the Government as a cabal of public schoolboys dedicated to protecting the interests of a millionaire elite to which they belong. The satire is perfectly justified and effective as a rhetorical device. It is also ironic for many reasons which readers can fill in for themselves, but that is not the point.
It is stupid because politics is fought in a battle ground of parody, mis-characterization, personality, tribe and slander. One of the mantras of the left is that politics is only about policy. As I have often opined, this is simply misconceived. This is an argument advanced by those with no, or an unattractive, personality, who want to shut down that inconvenient avenue of discussion. Let us go together in an imaginary time machine and go and talk to Plato, Cicero, Julius Caesar, Walpole, Pitt, and Disraeli; all master orators, all of whom understood that politics is about people and personality as well as policy. Of course policy is important, but so is the person behind it. Thatcherism does not exist without the persona that is, or was Margaret Thatcher.
Demonization, vitriol, parody and satire are the normal and essential elements of politics and debate. Satire is an essential part of a free society, and a sign of a healthy body politic. It is sufficient to say that it can trace its origins way, way back further than Ancient Rome, which I believe to have been highly decorated with “graffiti” of quite scandalous nature –and rightly so. The Greek playwright Aristophanes filled his comedies with jabs at the influential citizen leaders of Athens during the Peloponnesian War. Shakespeare took the proverbial, big style. So did Dante in his “Inferno”. In Britain the 18th and 19th Centuries were particularly robust in terms of satirical art, cartoons and pamphlets. Jonathan Swift was a master satirist. So was Mark Twain.
It is menacing because it betrays the attitude of many of those power or potential power to the Press. Satire is a necessary, although not sufficient function of a democratic society. Mr. Sheridan argues that “slagging off” MP’s is not part of the democratic purpose. Well, yes it is, actually. Just as the parties “slagging” each other off as they do every day and in almost every Parliamentary exchange is part of the democratic process. But – and here Mr. Sheridan reveals his misunderstanding and his vulnerability – sketch writing and satire is not about mere “slagging off”. Good satire, like a good lie, demands an element of truth.
If someone were to indulge in mindless and bigoted personal abuse about Mr. Sheridan or his background or family, or even his seemingly plastic teeth that would attract my disdain. And I would suggest that a personality (I use the word in the loosest possible way) such as Mr. Sheridan would not have the slightest concern if I or anyone else called him a rude name. A thick-skinned politician from the hard school that is Labour’s Scottish heartland is not going to give a plasma screen TV for that. But a barbed and witty satire that is a bit close to the bone? That is another matter. That hurts.
Satirists are here to prick the bubble of those who claim moral superiority and power over us. This is necessary, because all too often those who seek power are as we know venal, pompous, intellectually and sometimes in other more real ways corrupt, and apt to believe in their own propaganda. I believe that Julius Caesar was accompanied on his Triumphal progresses by a servant who stood behind him and whispered in his ear:” You, too, are human.”
Throughout history, one psychological constant is that tyrants display a lack of sense of humour, and intolerance of those who have one. There are no sketch writers in North Korea. And this is one of the real dangers of Leveson and press regulation, cooked up at 3.00 am in the presence of the self-appointed interest group, Hacked Off.
Gildas the Monk
March 24, 2013 at 00:59
-
#Gildas: “I must calm my homo-erotic impulses at this point. Be still my
beating heart!”
Likewise, I am smitten, Gildas. Should you need some illiterate prat as a
manservant, cum wordsmith apprentice, please send a ticket. I am good at
ironying.
- March 23, 2013 at 23:59
-
Following on from my reply to Enginner above, FWIW, here’s an example from
the swampy bit. First time I have looked at the Mail in weeks and what do we
have?
An complete turnaround, almost Damascene in its completeness, from their
stance over the last few years, one condemning the Knox girl all the way right
up to the very last moment – they even published the wrong page after the
appeal hearing, ie the ‘Found Guilty’ one when they misunderstood the verdict.
That was priceless! And look! The Italian Justice system got it wrong all the
time, and comments now moderated, with barely one of the ‘she’s a witch, I can
tell by her eyes’ type making it past moderation – or should that maybe be
censorship? Of course, it’s not. The British press has much higher sstandards
than do that
Just by way of contrast, try reading the earlier articles and the comments,
assuming they are even still online. You need to have a good laugh sometimes.
Haven’t had time to look tonight, but I always keep copies of things that I
think might conveniently vanish, just in case…it’s surprising what does.
Do you really want to live with this sort of nonsense being propogated
without any real scope for redress, and treated as if it is some sort of ‘gold
standard’, with its purveyors venerated for the manner in which they practise,
‘professionally and ethically’, almost as if they were saints, waving their
hands over the public masses, to enhance their spiritual welfare from their
benefice? Is that what ‘freedom of the press’ is?
And while it might just be possible that it’s the difference between the
Mail & the Mail on Sunday, the latter seeming to be a little better, the
names shown for the article’s author could cause one to doubt that.
On that issue, and just as aside, though there is no reason to think that
that might be so here, some UK newspapers have been thought to provide
incorrect, or even made up, byline credits, haven’t they? Obviously just
unfortunate mistakes, of course, as we should never ever think that any of our
leading industries, particularly one bearing the simple sword of truth and the
trusty shield of British fair play, might be that unprofessional, could
it?
Lets’ have more of it. We can then buy it in spadefuls down at the garden
centre.
- March 24, 2013 at 00:05
-
that should be ‘my reply to Engineer’, of course…..I was born almost
before keyboards existed and certainly prior to the point at which the male
of the species needed to acquire additional skills as to how to apply their
digits……
- March 24, 2013 at 11:37
-
@Ho Hum March 24, 2013 at 00:05
“After their invention in the 1860s, typewriters quickly became
indispensable tools for practically all writing other than personal
correspondence.”
Bless you. What’s the secret of you 153+ years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter
-
March 24, 2013 at 15:04
-
‘What’s the secret of you 153+ years?’
Avoiding pedantry, and laughing when others make the same sort of
mistakes as my own
-
March 23, 2013 at 15:23
-
The good monk omitted Mr Sheridans’ other claim to fame – his enthusiastic
defense of the expeditor in chief, Michel Martin.
- March
22, 2013 at 20:43
-
A particularly noteworthy achievement Gildas is that you have managed to
satirize a political system that has become so insane it is beyond parody.
- March 22, 2013 at 15:11
-
‘The press behaviour that you mention is all catered for in the statute
books, because they were criminal offences.’
I’m not going to repeat myself again here, but, no, it’s not.
https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/walkin-the-blog/
Ho
Hum March 19, 2013 at 21:20
Odd as it might seem to you, I wouldn’t disagree with you at all with
respect to some of the things you rail at. My own ideals encompass absolute
freedom of speech, no censorship, and apart from some very restricted set of
administrative laws, no, or only a very minimalist set of laws, which imposed
the personal prejudices of others on individual’s private morality, behaviour
or beliefs
And that’s my view as a Christian of the evangelical wing
But in that regard, I also want to see tolerance and an equality of
responsibility in the way those might be exercised that is based on treating
others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and doing them no harm, or at
the least not deliberate harm, as accidental harm is an inevitability.
In this particular issue, that sort of civility is not exhibited by the
press, and unfortunately the lesser evil is that, if they can’t or won’t sort
themselves out, something be done about that by the rest of us for the
protection of others, you and yours, me and mine, and Joe and Ethel Soap down
the road
- March 22, 2013 at 14:46
-
@Ho Hum
The press behaviour that you mention is all catered for in the statute
books, because they were criminal offences. So why do we need more legislation
given that we have existing legislation that is dealing with these arseholes
as we speak?
Why? Because the kneejerk reaction of the government (who told us in the
Coalition manifesto that we would have a Great Repeal Bill, to roll back the
4000+ new criminal offences Labour brought in), is to legislate, because
that’s what they do. Regulate and legislate. And when it is discovered that
new legislation is shit, they then make it worse.
The proposals for press regulation are horseshit, and were driven by a
private lobbying group, in the same way that Greenpeace and the WWF now drive
environment legislation worldwide. If it moves, regulate it. If it threatens
power, legislate against it.
It won’t work, and it is good to see so many publications already saying
that they won’t sign up to it. Professional status for journalists and a
related Royal Charter, as works for so many other professions, would have been
fine. But Cameron, who really is a fucking idiot, messed up. Again.
By the way, it’s worth noting that the EU is already looking at licensing
journalists.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/22/eu-lets-regulate-journalists/
See highlighted para #3.
The EU is a tyranny. At the moment, it is tyranny by bureaucracy, but it is
moving upwards and onwards from that. We need out.
-
March 22, 2013 at 15:47
-
The Coalition also promised us a ‘Recall Bill’, so we could decide to
sack any disreputable MP.
No sign of that Bill either, much to the relief of
multiple-drunken-brawler Eric Joyce and many others.
- March 22, 2013 at 14:39
-
DX Parrot is correct on Letts. He is very good. And why is that I see more
and more shooting of the messenger, not the message. Anything printed in the
Daily Mail is to most, garbage by definition. Even without reading. But – they
are the only rag doing proper work on the CAGW hoax, and they were the first
to point out that Gordon Brown was off his head.
Also, it is the most popular paper in the country; the Guardianistas hate
it, despite the fact that the Mail’s readership is probably the one that the
Guardian claims to speak for, the “voiceless” masses, they tell us, who, since
they are voiceless (really?) need the Guardian to stand up for them – whilst
at the same time holding them in profound contempt. But then, that’s Lefties
for you.
- March 22, 2013 at 14:53
-
Yes, but have you ever read in any depth the comments of the ‘voiceless
masses’ as they are presented BTL in the online version, at least to the
extent that the Mail has not censored out those that don’t toe its line, or
which even it doesn’t have the stomach to print?
I grant that one might expect, as appears elsewhere, a somewhat self
selected group of ‘Disgusted of Arnos Grove’ types, but the sheer number of
people who can’t read, can’t write, demonstrate remarkable levels of
ignorance and a lack of critical thinking of any matters of substance or
consequence, and who seem to be incapable of thinking coherently in a
straight line over succeeding days, is astonishing, even if you exclude the
American contributors and trolls.
If that’s the most popular paper in the country, don’t you think we have
even a little to be worried about?
- March 22, 2013 at 14:34
-
‘“liquidated” comes into play, and not in the way Nigella Lawson might use
it’
I suspect the sumptuous Nigella would used “liquidised”, rather than
“liquidated”.
Your point stands, regardless
-
March 22, 2013 at 15:39
-
Correct!
- March 22, 2013 at 12:47
-
On further reflection, you seem to be running the risk of conflating two
points
Satire is fine, I understand you to write, when it properly targets those
in the public eye who deserve it. I wouldn’t disagree on that at all
But in your sideways swipe at ‘press regulation’ and it’s easy dismissal,
you seem to completely ignore that what has caused much of the present problem
is press behaviour and content which goes much beyond merely the right and
proper taking of the proverbial from a bunch of thick skinned public figures,
but the press’s propensity to, something which you describe rather well,
‘indulge in mindless and bigoted personal abuse about’….whoever, and their
….’background or family’.
You implied that such would ‘attract my disdain’. A lot of their output,
particularly the traditional newspaper groups, has degenerated to simply
mischief making at the expense of otherwise innocent bystanders, because they
can titillate the public with a very slanted exposition of them or, more
worryingly, and all too often, deliberate, albeit subtle and well cloaked,
malice, exercised against those who are not ‘People Like Us’.
In your disdain, what do you think should be done about that? Or is it just
let them get on with it and ignore those who may then really be destroyed* in
the collateral damage? Presumably as long as it’s not you, or yours, or people
like you?
* I provided a few examples of the type of damage in the comments on one of
Ms R’s previous posts
-
March 22, 2013 at 12:57
-
These are interesting and valid points Ho Hum
I would think carefully
before prescribing what if anything I would do to reign in Press behaviour.
I am just not convinced what has been cooked up is necessary or
proportionate.
- March 22, 2013 at 13:29
-
But that’s what almost everybody says. Is doing nothing an acceptable
option? If not, what would you do instead to try to instill some civility
and protection for those who will otherwise just be run over and pulped by
the juggernaut?
Every other profession nowadays has proper practice standards and codes
of conduct, even if actual practise is sometimes patchy, and bad people
will be bad regardless. But why should the press effectively be considered
as somehow exempt from having enforceable equivalents? So help me, you’d
think that by now they might have caught up with the idea they need them.
And please don’t quote the PCC or its Editor’s Code of Conduct as as
example of good self-regulation. The latter has exemptions that leave
holes that are so wide that you could drive through them the same number
of tanks that would stretch across Tiananmen Square
FWIW, I know this is not exactly a new problem, as can be seen in the
link below. Leaving aside the main aims and intents of the quoted article
itself, the critique of national press behaviour included therein could
have been written yesterday.
http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/08/14/1936-rainey-bethea-last-public-hanging/
Basic question. What would you really do if it were up to you?
-
March 22, 2013 at 19:17
-
“Is doing nothing an acceptable option?”
Well, yes it is. We’ve had the scandal, and the public opprobrium.
The press know when they’ve overstepped the mark of public
acceptability. Further even than this, we’ve had journalists and
policemen arrested, and had some charged with various misdemeanours.
Arguably, that should have been happening several years ago, but better
late than never.
It seems to me that the press is either free, or it isn’t. You can’t
have the press being just a little bit free, in the same way that you
can’t be a little bit pregnant. As soon as we any sort of State control,
however ‘hands off’, there will be the temptation in some quarters to
increase regulation. The people who will lose out under that scenario
are the public, because the press will feel constrained from telling the
whole truth. That, my friend, is the route to State censorship – that
must be fought tooth and nail. If Mr Sheridan’s delicate sensibilities
are upset by that, so be it. More likely, however, is that it is Mr
Sheridan and his ilk who would be delighted to control what the press
may or may not say – and that is not something I find at all
attractive.
-
March 22, 2013 at 22:55
-
So, just to be certain, are you then saying that you, yourself, are
happy to have not even a little bit of privacy, about anything, for
you and yours?
-
March 23, 2013 at 12:29
-
So, just to be certain, are you quite happy for politicians to have
control over what may or may not be said in the press about this
country’s politics?
-
March 23, 2013 at 23:08
-
@ Engineer March 23, 2013 at 12:29
Of course not. The difference I have been making in my comments is
between what is truly in the public interest and what interests the
baser tastes of the public.
The former is fine and as far as I am concerned, every newspaper on
the planet can add whatever grist to the mill it can. Some of that
will even appeal to the baser part of the public’s instincts, but what
else do you expect?
However, the latter, the baser tastes of the public, are somewhere
near the bottom of the swamp and the tabloids, and even some
broadsheets, seem to be competing desperately with each other to reach
it first. And if you think that the damage done to some individuals in
the course of that is OK, well, let’s just hope it never happens to
you, eh?
Otherwise, if you either just can’t read what I have written
properly, or have failed to understand it and see the differentiation
being made, there is really nothing much I can do about that.
-
March 22, 2013 at 20:11
-
It is said that a fish rots from the head. So let us start there. Let
us make MPs & those in the other place be bound by the same rules as
company directors, with similar penalties for failure.
Then, as we
are paying them, let all their expense claims be listed in detail on an
open website, with explanations (excuses) if they so choose.
Once
that is in place they should have the right to correct any errors that
have been reported about them, providing they can reasonably demonstrate
that they have been wrongly defamed.
However politics should be
challenged & should be openly robust. No more dirty deals in smoke
filled rooms at 3am.
- March
22, 2013 at 20:41
-
Not allowed to have smoke-filled rooms at 3am any more, it’s a
workplace you see, as defined by that ridiculous Act. Doesn’t stop the
dirty deals, but they should be able to see them better.
- March 22, 2013 at 12:05
-
Reqarding Q.Letts: I strongly urge readers not to give in to a prejudicial
knee-jerk reaction and write him off as a scabrous Daily Mail hack.
Far from it, he is in fact a very eloquent and superbly witty writer who
skillfully evokes, in a pentrating way, the foibles of our politicians. He is
also, some of you will be surprised to know, very fair minded; Tories get as
much of an insightful scalpelling as do the Labour MPs.
I challenge anyone to read these two articles and tell me that Quentin is
not on the side of democracy and the little people and I challenge you to tell
me that Quentin is not fighting the good fight against the expanding, venal
and antidemocratic sector of our political bubble.
Description of the press censorship debate and our friend Mr “42 inches”
Sheridan:
Passionate account at one of parliament’s worst stitch-ups of our
democracy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2270995/Ive-felt-disgust-political-class.html
- March 22, 2013 at 13:50
-
I saw an article elsewhere about Nick Clegg’s Phone-In. I’d like to
imagine that Q. Lett’s take on it might have been something like…
‘Having filled the universe with the dark matter that is their poetry,
they Vogons now try their hand at satire’
No?
- March 22, 2013 at 13:51
-
or, as that should have read
I saw an article elsewhere about Nick Clegg’s Phone-In. I’d like to
imagine that Q. Lett’s take on it might have been something like…
‘Having filled the universe with the dark matter that is their poetry,
the Vogons now try their hand at satire’
No?
- March 22, 2013 at
14:12
-
What is this Vogon-like satire you are referring to? It would be nice
to judge for ourselves.
-
March 22, 2013 at 14:37
- March 22, 2013 at 11:51
-
‘Throughout history, one psychological constant is that tyrants display a
lack of sense of humour, and intolerance of those who have one. There are no
sketch writers in North Korea. And this is one of the real dangers of Leveson
and press regulation,……’
On that basis, I doubt if too many who watched Gove and Dacre at the
Leveson hearings would have had much doubt that both Aberdeen and Arnos Grove
are outposts of North Korea
- March 22, 2013 at 11:00
-
If I hadn’t known you better, Gildas……..
Excellent piece.
- March 22,
2013 at 10:56
-
Bring back spitting image
- March 22, 2013 at 10:40
-
Thank goodness I read of your admission of satire.
Damascene conversions had been known to occur on a Friday
{ 32 comments }