This morning on Toady we had the less than attractive experience of a one-sided shouting match by Limpdem Home Affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, on Eric Pickles.
The exercise seems to have been a calculated attempt by BBC/LibDems to land as many slurs as possible on Pickles in rapid succession, and to shout him down whenever he tried to answer the points. Certainly Huhne seemed well rehearsed and rattled them off at high speed. When Pickles did manage to insert a phrase, Huhne was there to shout him down immediately.
This reflects no credit on the Toady programme or the BBC generally, nor on the interviewer who merely giggled. It was unedifying.
We expect some knock about, with half truth and exaggeration, in political debate, but we expect to have a serious debate, with courtesy shown to political opponents. Above all, we expect an interviewer to try to allow the accused to try to answer points, and to be given equal air time.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to the Newport Rural Conservatives Blog page, please feel free to leave comments on any of the subjects below. If you would like to add a subject, or have any suggestions, please contact: info@4newport.org
BLOG
Welcome to the Newport Rural Conservatives BLOG
Posts
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(540)
-
▼
September
(64)
- The cost of the law
- Wrong analysis, wrong prescription
- Ah, but it all depends who says it.
- Sour grapes?
- Still sinking
- Second best
- Ever remoter
- What are they for, then?
- They're both wrong
- Policing and justice
- Police Service or Police Force?
- Inadequate support over there, too much here?
- Consenting adults....?
- What have they got against rural folks?
- "Now, what else can we tax...?"
- Men-free areas
- Prosecute them!
- Even better paid down at the surgery?
- What do they stand for?
- Calling all extremists
- Are you feeling lucky, punk?
- An ambush?
- Techical offence
- If all are winners, then no-one wins
- Just one example....
- Half-baked?
- Diplomas oubtful or dead?
- Precedents
- British but not patriotic
- Common law
- Will they issue cotton wool?
- Why am I not surprised?
- It's better in Spain
- Who pays, who gains?
- Is QE a prop?
- Why not stretch the truth?
- Let's expose all the blame!
- An enviromental disaster
- Turn up and prosper
- Law making
- Are we so unhealthy?
- Balmy!
- Emasculation
- Cutting government expnditure
- They never would be missed
- A new decisiveness?
- Is it five years, maximum?
- A suitable person?
- Cameron - further savings at Westminster
- Onwards and upwards
- Measure it by the foot!
- Apex - it can be done!
- Do you feel safe in hospital?
- Do you feel safe in hospital?
- On the cheap
- The drink problem
- Biological and legal
- As it is spook
- When I say something, it doesn't exactly mean what...
- What a let down!
- More for less
- Another mayoral good idea
- An active elected Mayor
- The state as parent
-
▼
September
(64)
2 comments:
sorry which slur? i thought it was rather fun and a lot more interesting than most politicians who refuse to debate properly on the today programme... although i agree pickles was out of his depth.
Let me take your points in order. If you regard shouting down anyone who disagrees with you as edifying I don't regard that as fun, and certainly not "debating properly"
Most of machine-gun Huhne's points were open to dispute, but Pickles was given no chance to reply.The sheer number and rapidity meant that Huhne was after an effect, not engaging in debate.
The comment about the ECR grouping that the Tories have joined at Brussels is a smear or slur, for instance. Kaminsky has given a complete rebuttal, accepted as such by all except those who have something to gain by perpetuation.
Macmillan-Scott continues to make it because he wishes to keep the Tories gagged inside the EPP and therefore serve the Europhile aims.
(The other groups also have some pretty doubtful characters of their own, of course, - the EEP have former fascists and Berlusconi, while the socialists have former communist leaders.)
To the extent that Pickles did not descend to the same kind of smear and sneer, but actually tried to debate the the ostensible topic for discussion - the rather ridiculously named but apparently effective "love bombing", he may have lost in your eyes, but, to the many I have spoken to since, they would have preferred a debate where each side is accorded opportunity to rebut and to argue their own case. In the end, it may prove that he has more effect by his refusal to descend.
Post a Comment