Fuel duty - an absolute skewering.
Discussion
XCP said:
She would have gained a good deal by being seen as someone who tells the truth, sacking her for doing that would not have reflected well on Cameron IMO.
She didn't say anything: not the truth and not a lie. She did what she was sent to do, become the subject of the interview rather than the U-turn. We, and I include myself in this of course, have been side-tracked by this demolition job. We aren't tolaking about a government that has no clear plan, turns left, right and backwards on a whim and seems unable to come up with a coherent policy. Instead we revel in this pathetic display. Even the papers, at least the tory ones, put this higher in thie online editions than the U-turn. Job done.
Rude-boy said:
wormburner said:
I think if there was any dirt on Paxman, any or all of the three parties would have found and used it. They'd all love to get him out of the way.
The guy holds them to account - something they largely don't manage to do to each other. I've never seen him treat anyone roughly who wasn't either pretending to be less useless than they patently are, or lying to him.
I have no idea if there is anything 'on' Paxman but like you suspect that he lives 'inside the line' enough that there isn't anything that could cripple him. As we all know bullies only stop once they have been knocked out, otherwise they just come back harder and stronger. As such whilst there might be 'something' it isn't enough to put him out of the game.The guy holds them to account - something they largely don't manage to do to each other. I've never seen him treat anyone roughly who wasn't either pretending to be less useless than they patently are, or lying to him.
He does hold people to account and I have to say that, sometimes, there is a time and place for his style. The problem is that he is a one trick pony and seems incapable of anything other being the worst sort of bully praying on the weakest and most defenceless or so obsequious it makes you wish to vomit.
As you may guess I have less time for him than I suspect he has for me, and he doesn't even know who I am!
If you want to call yourself a Minister of State, you'd better be able to answer any reasonable question from anybody, especially a lowly journalist. If asked, however aggressively, about your own contradictory policies and statements, you shouldn't be allowed the safe haven of calling it bullying.
Rather than bully, what he does is ask the precise question the interviewee hoped wouldn't come up. And he asks it in a way that places the interviewee in a royal dilemma. Tell the truth now and so admit the previous lie, or lie again and risk greater exposure down the line.
If someone is lying to him (which they still do every day) he is sufficiently comfortable in a confrontation to call them on it. This is what makes him such an asset. Other interviewers like Marr and Davies know very well the killer question - you can often see it on the tip of their tongue - but too often don't deliver the coup de grace.
Where others will let a lie slide, Paxman is insulted by it. He hectors the liar, and reminds them that he won't be embarrassed into acquiesence. Because the politicians know he won't let a lie slide, I think Paxman gets more truth (either in words or in body language) out of politicians than just about anybody.
(Can you tell I like him a lot?
)Gaz. said:
We went all through this a month ago Martin, most of the front benchers have never had a job outside of politics/HoC/ministeries, those that did were very short term 1-3 years with the exception of Sadiq Kahn who was in the legal profesion for 12 years.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a problem though? The fact is most people in the United Kingdom were not born into rich families with ties to aristocracies, they did not go to Oxbridge etc yet the overwhelming majority of those in the HoC - who are supposed to represent the voting public - have that cut-and-pasted background. It's almost like a production line. Nick Clegg essentially ran on an anti-establishment ticket in 2010 with his 'new politics' and when Nick Clegg runs on an anti-establishment ticket you know you've got a problem.There is the odd exception of course, I think Iain Duncan Smith had a proper job at one point and served in the Army. You mentioned Sadiq Kahn who spent 12 years in the legal profession and was then oddly put in charge of Transport rather than Justice - although he's Shadow Justice Secretary now. On the rare occasion Government gets anybody with real world experience they don't even put them in the department they know about.
It's all a total mess.
martin84 said:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a problem though? The fact is most people in the United Kingdom were not born into rich families with ties to aristocracies, they did not go to Oxbridge etc yet the overwhelming majority of those in the HoC - who are supposed to represent the voting public - have that cut-and-pasted background. It's almost like a production line. Nick Clegg essentially ran on an anti-establishment ticket in 2010 with his 'new politics' and when Nick Clegg runs on an anti-establishment ticket you know you've got a problem.
There is the odd exception of course, I think Iain Duncan Smith had a proper job at one point and served in the Army. You mentioned Sadiq Kahn who spent 12 years in the legal profession and was then oddly put in charge of Transport rather than Justice - although he's Shadow Justice Secretary now. On the rare occasion Government gets anybody with real world experience they don't even put them in the department they know about.
It's all a total mess.
I don't think the Oxbridge bit is a problem as I'd like our elected representatives to have the best education available and contrary to popular belief Oxbridge is not 100% public schooled and rich. For me the real problem is the career politician bit. Go out into the world and get some real experience of working life before deciding to represent your local community at Parliament. It should be a bit of time out from your working life rather than a potential lifetime career. Perhaps put a time limit on MPs tenure.There is the odd exception of course, I think Iain Duncan Smith had a proper job at one point and served in the Army. You mentioned Sadiq Kahn who spent 12 years in the legal profession and was then oddly put in charge of Transport rather than Justice - although he's Shadow Justice Secretary now. On the rare occasion Government gets anybody with real world experience they don't even put them in the department they know about.
It's all a total mess.
ewenm said:
I don't think the Oxbridge bit is a problem as I'd like our elected representatives to have the best education available and contrary to popular belief Oxbridge is not 100% public schooled and rich. For me the real problem is the career politician bit. Go out into the world and get some real experience of working life before deciding to represent your local community at Parliament. It should be a bit of time out from your working life rather than a potential lifetime career. Perhaps put a time limit on MPs tenure.
Ok I agree just having an Oxbridge education isn't particularly the problem. I think with this specific Government it's more the general culture and background of the people. Practically all of them are from a posh background of some sort, lets just tell it as it is. Osborne is heir to the Osborne baronecty, Cameron is a descendent of William IV and married a daughter of the Sheffield Baronets, Nick Clegg is a multi millionaire who's father was chairman of a bank etc the list goes on. These people do not live in the same world as the voters, you can forget the Oxbridge bit because that's not really the point, their general backgrounds are of people who haven't lived in the real world. The bigger problem is practically ALL of them are like that. Those three I mentioned make up the three most important positions in the Government and they're all the same person!As you say plenty of people go to Oxbridge who are not sons of Lords etc but most of the Oxbridge boys who've ended up in this Government are. I'm not a fan of the career politician, too many members of this Government fit that description. I'm not sure we really need a time limit on PM's tenures because I dont think PM's really do anything. It's not like in America where the President actually does things and there is an argument that term limits lead to successive leaders ignoring long term problems and going for the short term vote. Indeed a major criticism of Obama's spending policy is he's merely kicking the can further down the road for someone else to sort out, but he only has four more years at most so it won't be his problem.
martin84 said:
I'm not sure we really need a time limit on PM's tenures because I dont think PM's really do anything. It's not like in America where the President actually does things and there is an argument that term limits lead to successive leaders ignoring long term problems and going for the short term vote. Indeed a major criticism of Obama's spending policy is he's merely kicking the can further down the road for someone else to sort out, but he only has four more years at most so it won't be his problem.
All very well but I suggested a time limit on MP tenures, not PM only... 
Gaz. said:
We went all through this a month ago Martin, most of the front benchers have never had a job outside of politics/HoC/ministeries, those that did were very short term 1-3 years with the exception of Sadiq Kahn who was in the legal profesion for 12 years.
This would not in itself be a problem if parliament was confined to a narrow agenda.The current fashion for delving into nearly every sphere of human activity is the problem - these
s are simply out of their depth in so many areas it's embarassing!Its frustrating when the MP set down rules they tend to think of large businesses and how it affects them, not the small ones that make up most of the UK. If MP had to have a 'proper' job before they would have a much better insight into normal working of people and not these massive run buinesses.
Derek Smith said:
XCP said:
She would have gained a good deal by being seen as someone who tells the truth, sacking her for doing that would not have reflected well on Cameron IMO.
She didn't say anything: not the truth and not a lie. She did what she was sent to do, become the subject of the interview rather than the U-turn. We, and I include myself in this of course, have been side-tracked by this demolition job. We aren't tolaking about a government that has no clear plan, turns left, right and backwards on a whim and seems unable to come up with a coherent policy. Instead we revel in this pathetic display. Even the papers, at least the tory ones, put this higher in thie online editions than the U-turn. Job done.However, I'd add such pathetic instances stick in the public mind. It'll certainly stick in mine.
And it'll come as no surprise when they're kicked out of office next election.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
As the basic salary for an MP is £65k, we're unlikely to see her senior Deloitte colleagues (who might know a bit more about running things) putting themselves forward for the job. I know the pension and the holidays and the expenses are good, but we need to pay a higher basic salary (and reduce the scope for expense fiddling) if we are to get a better standard of MP.
I cannot for, a second, understand why Paxman destroying a pointless political drone is regarded by some as a bad thing. Not least as it highlighted Osbourne's cowardice in sending a sacrificial junior. As to those who say why couldn't the Tories say no one was available, that's frankly bonkers. That they sent someone who was able to state what they had been briefed, but had no ability to think or talk outside that narrow field, was an insult to all of us and showed the complete lack of depth in those who today stumble from Parliament into the light. Paxman has a long and excellent history of taking to task those who are supposed to be working for us the people. He has been as stringent across party lines and without him Newsnight is toothless. Why do you think the present PM and those Labour PMs in recent history have run scared from him. Instead appearing on lightweight chat shows. Paxman versus Ed Balls would be a delight, I'd buy a ticket if Balls had the courage to front up to him. Don't for one minute believe the Newsnight production team don't keep asking for that level of Politico. They are all scared of him. Paxman can carry on being as vicious as he likes with all of them on my behalf.
wormburner said:
(Can you tell I like him a lot? )
)
I never thought i would find something in the Sindy that I would fully agree with but shall just leave this here:-
Joan Smith said:
So, Jeremy Paxman, do you know what day it is? Do you? It's a simple enough question. On Tuesday, during an interview on Newsnight with the Treasury minister Chloe Smith, you asked: "What's happened between the 23rd of May and today, which is what, the 25th of June?" Mr Paxman, shouldn't a presenter on a salary most of us could only dream of know what day it is? Every child in the country knows that Tuesday was the 26th of June. Pathetic!
No, I haven't taken leave of my senses. I'm just sick of interviews conducted in a style more appropriate to the Colosseum than a civilised country. On Newsnight and Radio 4's Today programme, presenters swagger into interviews like lions about to devour cowering Christians. Paxman is the retiarius of interrogators, casting a net over his victims and giving them repeated jabs with his trident while they're tangled up in words.
I think Smith did rather well to keep her temper in the face of a performance – I use the word deliberately – whose chief purpose seemed to be her humiliation. Paxman began with a question she was clearly not able to answer and kept repeating it, with all the incredulity of a prosecution lawyer confronting a wife-beater. It would have been mildly interesting to know when the Government made its decision to postpone an increase in fuel duty, but Smith's reluctance to reveal confidential conversations wasn't nearly as incriminating as Paxman made out.
Confrontation has become the dominant style of current-affairs programmes. I know and like John Humphrys but it's impossible to listen to him, Paxman or Jonathan Dimbleby interrupting yet another politician without wishing they'd shut up. Often the interviewee is on the verge of saying something interesting when the interrogator decides it isn't the answer he wants, and we get another fusillade of interruptions. It doesn't make for a stimulating or informed debate.
But then I don't think that's the purpose. Gladiatorial contests are about one person coming out on top, and the interviewer has all the advantages. He doesn't have to worry about breaking confidences or letting down colleagues, while appalling rudeness is excused as fearless pursuit of the truth. "That's absolute tripe!" Paxman told the Italian journalist Annalisa Piras on Monday, dismissing her views on the Eurozone as though he were a Nobel-winning economist.
If Smith is smarting from her experience, she might want to consider this. When presenters harrumph and cut someone off mid-sentence, they think they're showing intellectual rigour. But it's really a boorish form of populism, which is just what the Colosseum audience loves.
No, I haven't taken leave of my senses. I'm just sick of interviews conducted in a style more appropriate to the Colosseum than a civilised country. On Newsnight and Radio 4's Today programme, presenters swagger into interviews like lions about to devour cowering Christians. Paxman is the retiarius of interrogators, casting a net over his victims and giving them repeated jabs with his trident while they're tangled up in words.
I think Smith did rather well to keep her temper in the face of a performance – I use the word deliberately – whose chief purpose seemed to be her humiliation. Paxman began with a question she was clearly not able to answer and kept repeating it, with all the incredulity of a prosecution lawyer confronting a wife-beater. It would have been mildly interesting to know when the Government made its decision to postpone an increase in fuel duty, but Smith's reluctance to reveal confidential conversations wasn't nearly as incriminating as Paxman made out.
Confrontation has become the dominant style of current-affairs programmes. I know and like John Humphrys but it's impossible to listen to him, Paxman or Jonathan Dimbleby interrupting yet another politician without wishing they'd shut up. Often the interviewee is on the verge of saying something interesting when the interrogator decides it isn't the answer he wants, and we get another fusillade of interruptions. It doesn't make for a stimulating or informed debate.
But then I don't think that's the purpose. Gladiatorial contests are about one person coming out on top, and the interviewer has all the advantages. He doesn't have to worry about breaking confidences or letting down colleagues, while appalling rudeness is excused as fearless pursuit of the truth. "That's absolute tripe!" Paxman told the Italian journalist Annalisa Piras on Monday, dismissing her views on the Eurozone as though he were a Nobel-winning economist.
If Smith is smarting from her experience, she might want to consider this. When presenters harrumph and cut someone off mid-sentence, they think they're showing intellectual rigour. But it's really a boorish form of populism, which is just what the Colosseum audience loves.
0000 said:
At least Paxman calls a spade a spade.
I wish other journalists weren't fobbed off so easily by such crass 'answers'.
Part of the problem is PR. Ever since Alastair Campbell arrived using his school-bully approach to media relations, it seems to have become the norm to only be granted an interview once a PR bod has checked all the questions you're planning to ask, otherwise - no interview. And if you ask a question that wasn't on the list they will just refuse to answer.I wish other journalists weren't fobbed off so easily by such crass 'answers'.
The likes of Paxman and Humphrys can get away with high-level interrogation because that's largely why people watch and listen to them and they've got themselves into career positions where politicians can't avoid them and their employers would lose out if they sacked them. However, for most 'no-name' journalists, pissing off the PR means no interview, which means no story, which means no more stories in future, which means no job if you can't come up with the goods.
The PR industry has become FAR too powerful for its own good. People get quite rightly worked up about the abuses of journalistic power shown up by Leveson, and the tabloid press really doesn't do freedom of speech any favours, but for many more serious journalists, PR gets in the way of them getting the story out.
Often, the words to the effect of 'this politician declined to speak to us' say more than they'd have got out of them anyway.
Is it PR? or simply the arrogance of your modern politician? my MP is Andrew Lansley, he doesn't even respond to my correspondence. These people are elected by us, to act on our behalf and are paid by us yet they act as if they have a god given right to act like kids let loose in a sweetshop. I think the poor turnout at election time reflects the public realisation of this
martin84 said:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a problem though? The fact is most people in the United Kingdom were not born into rich families with ties to aristocracies, they did not go to Oxbridge etc yet the overwhelming majority of those in the HoC - who are supposed to represent the voting public - have that cut-and-pasted background. It's almost like a production line. Nick Clegg essentially ran on an anti-establishment ticket in 2010 with his 'new politics' and when Nick Clegg runs on an anti-establishment ticket you know you've got a problem.
There is the odd exception of course, I think Iain Duncan Smith had a proper job at one point and served in the Army. You mentioned Sadiq Kahn who spent 12 years in the legal profession and was then oddly put in charge of Transport rather than Justice - although he's Shadow Justice Secretary now. On the rare occasion Government gets anybody with real world experience they don't even put them in the department they know about.
It's all a total mess.
Neither was Chloe Smith. I'm not defending her, just pointing that out as I went to (a very ordinary) highschool with her. I was a year above, so I didn't really know her but her mum was my textiles teacher too There is the odd exception of course, I think Iain Duncan Smith had a proper job at one point and served in the Army. You mentioned Sadiq Kahn who spent 12 years in the legal profession and was then oddly put in charge of Transport rather than Justice - although he's Shadow Justice Secretary now. On the rare occasion Government gets anybody with real world experience they don't even put them in the department they know about.
It's all a total mess.
srob said:
martin84 said:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a problem though? The fact is most people in the United Kingdom were not born into rich families with ties to aristocracies, they did not go to Oxbridge etc yet the overwhelming majority of those in the HoC - who are supposed to represent the voting public - have that cut-and-pasted background. It's almost like a production line. Nick Clegg essentially ran on an anti-establishment ticket in 2010 with his 'new politics' and when Nick Clegg runs on an anti-establishment ticket you know you've got a problem.
There is the odd exception of course, I think Iain Duncan Smith had a proper job at one point and served in the Army. You mentioned Sadiq Kahn who spent 12 years in the legal profession and was then oddly put in charge of Transport rather than Justice - although he's Shadow Justice Secretary now. On the rare occasion Government gets anybody with real world experience they don't even put them in the department they know about.
It's all a total mess.
Neither was Chloe Smith. I'm not defending her, just pointing that out as I went to (a very ordinary) highschool with her. I was a year above, so I didn't really know her but her mum was my textiles teacher too There is the odd exception of course, I think Iain Duncan Smith had a proper job at one point and served in the Army. You mentioned Sadiq Kahn who spent 12 years in the legal profession and was then oddly put in charge of Transport rather than Justice - although he's Shadow Justice Secretary now. On the rare occasion Government gets anybody with real world experience they don't even put them in the department they know about.
It's all a total mess.
Twincam16 said:
0000 said:
At least Paxman calls a spade a spade.
I wish other journalists weren't fobbed off so easily by such crass 'answers'.
Part of the problem is PR. Ever since Alastair Campbell arrived using his school-bully approach to media relations, it seems to have become the norm to only be granted an interview once a PR bod has checked all the questions you're planning to ask, otherwise - no interview. And if you ask a question that wasn't on the list they will just refuse to answer.I wish other journalists weren't fobbed off so easily by such crass 'answers'.
The likes of Paxman and Humphrys can get away with high-level interrogation because that's largely why people watch and listen to them and they've got themselves into career positions where politicians can't avoid them and their employers would lose out if they sacked them. However, for most 'no-name' journalists, pissing off the PR means no interview, which means no story, which means no more stories in future, which means no job if you can't come up with the goods.
The PR industry has become FAR too powerful for its own good. People get quite rightly worked up about the abuses of journalistic power shown up by Leveson, and the tabloid press really doesn't do freedom of speech any favours, but for many more serious journalists, PR gets in the way of them getting the story out.
Often, the words to the effect of 'this politician declined to speak to us' say more than they'd have got out of them anyway.
His interruptive style shows he places little importance on an answer, just on his position and the opportunity it gives to browbeat an interviewee. Repeating an unanswered question is another matter and he's done that calmly enough including one infamous occasion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff