Fuel duty - an absolute skewering.

[wormburner]

An absolute skewering.

Very irresponsible of the grown-ups to send her in for this when she's clearly neither important nor a good liar. From 6m15s.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/10...

[wormburner]

rfisher said:

Thought Paxo was over the top with this one.

What was he so cross about?

She was clearly unprepared though.

Can't remember him laying into any Labour fish like that.

Maybe he's in the male menopause.

I think he probably feels insulted by the under-prepared/under-qualified (delete as appropriate) minion who was sent to face the music.

Her early refusal to say when the decision was made (when it was clearly that morning) was another insult. For her to imagine she could either bullst him or swat him away was foolish and arrogant, and I think that raised his ire.

So, delivering a savaging ensures that the big boys also look bad for sending her, as well as the junior minister getting a baptism of fire that might ensure she either knows what she's doing next time, or refuses to get thrown to the lions again.

He has done this to politicians of all flavours for many, many years, and still they get caught-out. I think he's a national treasure and one of the most valuable people in the country.

[wormburner]

XCP said:

Why couldn't she just say 'I only found out about this today' if that was the case?
I don't see why there was a need for such ridiculous prevarication.

Sadly that would have been the brave thing to do because it would have cleared her and 'outed' the knee-jerk manner in which the decision was made. And then she'd have been sacked.

As it is, she's done her best to protect the incompetent boss who dropped her in it, and made herself a laughing-stock. Thanks to the unique way we're governed, that's probably the safest thing for her to have done, and in her own best interests. Ridiculous.

But I don't think even that was on purpose - she just knew that whatever direction Paxman was driving wasn't going to be a good one for her, so just deflected, dodged and shimmied around, pathetically.

Everyone in the country and Westminster now knows she's a waste of space and her parents are probably deeply embarrassed, but hey, she played the game and Osborne and Cameron are grateful (and perhaps a bit apologetic).

[wormburner]

0000 said:

If she's going to turn up and do that sort of interview, even if it's because Osborne's cowering in a corner somewhere, I still think it's her own fault. There are so many spineless MPs I would think it was an ideal opportunity to get a reputation for showing some honesty.

She'll have got excited about 10 minutes on the Telly so her nan could watch. "10 minutes to have a career dismantled by a rottweiler" won't have been the way she thought about it.

If a reputation for honesty was a good thing to have in Westminster, don't you think someone would have done it before?

0000 said:

What happens if she's sacked? Doesn't she get to opportunity to remain as an independent for her constituency, just with some credit and extra publicity?

Sacked from her ministry job, not booted out of the party. I expect she'll be quietly reshuffled out again in a short while. Osborne won't want her glumming around the office making him feel guilty...

Edited by wormburner on Wednesday 27th June 17:15

[wormburner]

Rude-boy said:

I look forward with glee to the day someone has the balls to tell Paxman his name and number on live TV. Given the chance I would love to do so. Yes he might just make me look a total twunt but I'd feel so much better knowing that at least someone had the balls to stand up to the odious little wretch. The sooner he is exposed for doing something he shouldn't or just shuffles off to a 2am Radio 4 slot the better.

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.

[wormburner]

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.

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!

I don't think it is fair to use the word bullying. For bullying you need a senior/junior relationship. Paxman is 'just' a journalist, and the people he tackles are the rulers of the country.

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? )

[wormburner]

ewenm said:

Perhaps put a time limit on MPs tenure.

There might be an awful lot to be said for this.

[wormburner]

turbobloke said:

All we 'learnt' from that interview which we didn't know before was that an experienced assertive personality on home turf can verbally hector and harass an inexperienced less assertive personality playing away, but that's hardly news or learning for plenty of us

I'd say we learnt a bit more than that:

• Chloe Smith isn't a good liar.
• Nor is she good at obfuscation.
• Chloe Smith is a Minister but isn't told very much about what is going on in government
• Chloe Smith is fed her opinion on a need to know basis
• Chloe Smith's opinion last month doesn't necessarily have any similarities with its 'this month' counterpart
• The transport secretary isn't involved in fuel tax policy
• The chancellor can reverse a decision in the morning and present it as a fait accompli to the cabinet, his party, parliament, and the nation all at the same time, that afternoon.
• Said same chancellor won't discuss that decision with Paxman, and will happily send an apprentice bullstter to draw the fire in his place.

If Paxman hadn't set about her, some of the above might not have been at all apparent.