Yesterday Prime Minister Gordon Brown saw his election campaign wagon derailed by a pensioner, Mrs Gillian Duffy, on her way to fetch a loaf of bread. The fault of course wasn't Mrs Duffy who asked very pertinent questions, largely about state pensions and benefits relating to herself, though she later asked, in one sentence 'Where are all these East Europeans flocking from?'
The Prime Minister handled the conversation very well, answering all her questions and basically his chat ended with the life long labour voter concluding she would again vote labour. Good television indeed you'd think.
So, Mr Brown should have been pleased, he should have got in his car and thought 'chalk that one up as a success in front of the cameras but sadly he decided to call her 'A bigot'. Personally I didn't see anything bigot related in the exchange, she questioned a relevant issue that people feel affected by. Instead though, Mr Brown wasn't pleased, he asked who picked the woman for him to chat too and claimed she was a bigot, all caught on microphone. Oh dear!
Now, we all say things like that, especially in the workplace, we vent our opinions of others after certain events, it's only human to release stress or frustration in such a way, so I don't think Mr Brown was being nasty or vindictive, though it did raise questions, many questions.
The main one being, how much is the Prime Minister in touch with 'real' people and issues? For years labour have been avoiding issues on immigration, admitting they haven't monitored figures and many other issues I could dredge up. When I've seen Labour minister Phil Woolas interviewed in the past he has often avoided many pressing issues seemingly, it's almost like the immigration issue is taboo at times.
Personally my opinion of immigration has softened, I ask myself what direct harm has it done to me?, and the answer is none at all. For the last few months I have worked with immigrants at a homeless centre in Nottingham and this has given me more of an open viewpoint into things. Also I've made a couple of friends nearer to home, Polish and Hungarian which has been rewarding and insightful. This all said, I still feel immigration needs tighter controls and monitoring. Whilst I can see why people use the centre in Nottingham, and the benefit it gives them, I can't help thinking they'd be better in their own country with support and family, as we don't have an extended structure here to deal with homeless immigrants, plus we have many of our own sadly. As a human being though I will help anyone, and that is how I see my work, helping a fellow human being, so I put any political issues aside, that is for the politicians to deal with.
A friend of mine raised the good point of what if someone from the BNP or UKIP parties said something similar to Mrs Duffy on camera, then they would be labelled 'bigots' immediately, and he is right. But, many people support those parties, and so would disagree with him, saying any comment was relevant. The difference is that people expect challenging comments from the BNP et al, it's expected, it's what they do. They are parties with direct goals, that appeal to certain people within this nation, Mrs Duffy, as a pensioner was more bothered about her pension payments and benefits than immigrants, she made a comment, and in truth who hasn't seen a change in communities because of immigration, it doesn't mean to say (as we are generally tolerant as a country) that we dislike them.
I suspect the whole immigration thing will come full circle in time, look at history from the middle ages onwards, Norman Barons, Flemish weavers, Jewish money lenders, later you had Irish after the famine, the commonwealth influx when we had labour shortages in the 50s, and so on. Now we have the east Europeans, seemingly in waves, the Polish came, many are going back, some have settled. Next it seems to be the Romanians and Hungarians, I suspect the pattern will be the same. What the above all have in common though, is when things are bad on the home front (which they are), is that we blame the minority, as we have done in history. That I suspect is why Mrs Duffy made her comment, but we have to consider that change doesn't come easy for some and there are issues regarding immigration.
Getting back to Mr Browns silly comment, well he did the decent thing, he apologised (like he had any choice?) and said he misunderstood Mrs Duffy, which is complete rubbish. It raises earlier questions about his temperament within the press, and to be clear here, Mr Brown did say later on BBC radio 2 that he thought the question was 'annoying'. Though I said earlier we all make mistakes like that in life, we often have the time to make amends, Mr Brown unfortunately doesn't have that time in the run up to the election.
The press of course have made a big deal about it, the Murdoch press will do anyway, but they should also be addressing Mrs Duffy's other conversation items other than immigration which was ironically the least mentioned.
The press were also eager to report Boris Johnson talking to 'chaotic' crowds yesterday, talking to all and sundry and even speaking Polish to impress immigrants, which is always going to look good, though talking to the public on camera is always a gamble I guess, you just have to have the savvy, which sadly I feel Mr Brown lacks.
The press have slowly crucified Mr Brown since he's been in office, and we can't squarely blame him for the financial mess, it's a world affair. I've always voted Labour, had socialist ideals but now we mainly have central politics over direct left and right, political parties look more generic than ever and it is more about personality than party these days, but then look at great leaders of the semi recent past, and its often individuals that have the more profound impact. I'm still not sure who to vote for, and the last debate is almost upon us, can Brown swing it around?
And for the pendantics and a bit of fun, the definition and history of 'bigot'
bigotn bigot [ˈbigət]a person who constantly and stubbornly holds a particular point of view etc (nothing constant or stubborn about what Mrs Duffy said).
History ....
Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."
The Prime Minister handled the conversation very well, answering all her questions and basically his chat ended with the life long labour voter concluding she would again vote labour. Good television indeed you'd think.
So, Mr Brown should have been pleased, he should have got in his car and thought 'chalk that one up as a success in front of the cameras but sadly he decided to call her 'A bigot'. Personally I didn't see anything bigot related in the exchange, she questioned a relevant issue that people feel affected by. Instead though, Mr Brown wasn't pleased, he asked who picked the woman for him to chat too and claimed she was a bigot, all caught on microphone. Oh dear!
Now, we all say things like that, especially in the workplace, we vent our opinions of others after certain events, it's only human to release stress or frustration in such a way, so I don't think Mr Brown was being nasty or vindictive, though it did raise questions, many questions.
The main one being, how much is the Prime Minister in touch with 'real' people and issues? For years labour have been avoiding issues on immigration, admitting they haven't monitored figures and many other issues I could dredge up. When I've seen Labour minister Phil Woolas interviewed in the past he has often avoided many pressing issues seemingly, it's almost like the immigration issue is taboo at times.
Personally my opinion of immigration has softened, I ask myself what direct harm has it done to me?, and the answer is none at all. For the last few months I have worked with immigrants at a homeless centre in Nottingham and this has given me more of an open viewpoint into things. Also I've made a couple of friends nearer to home, Polish and Hungarian which has been rewarding and insightful. This all said, I still feel immigration needs tighter controls and monitoring. Whilst I can see why people use the centre in Nottingham, and the benefit it gives them, I can't help thinking they'd be better in their own country with support and family, as we don't have an extended structure here to deal with homeless immigrants, plus we have many of our own sadly. As a human being though I will help anyone, and that is how I see my work, helping a fellow human being, so I put any political issues aside, that is for the politicians to deal with.
A friend of mine raised the good point of what if someone from the BNP or UKIP parties said something similar to Mrs Duffy on camera, then they would be labelled 'bigots' immediately, and he is right. But, many people support those parties, and so would disagree with him, saying any comment was relevant. The difference is that people expect challenging comments from the BNP et al, it's expected, it's what they do. They are parties with direct goals, that appeal to certain people within this nation, Mrs Duffy, as a pensioner was more bothered about her pension payments and benefits than immigrants, she made a comment, and in truth who hasn't seen a change in communities because of immigration, it doesn't mean to say (as we are generally tolerant as a country) that we dislike them.
I suspect the whole immigration thing will come full circle in time, look at history from the middle ages onwards, Norman Barons, Flemish weavers, Jewish money lenders, later you had Irish after the famine, the commonwealth influx when we had labour shortages in the 50s, and so on. Now we have the east Europeans, seemingly in waves, the Polish came, many are going back, some have settled. Next it seems to be the Romanians and Hungarians, I suspect the pattern will be the same. What the above all have in common though, is when things are bad on the home front (which they are), is that we blame the minority, as we have done in history. That I suspect is why Mrs Duffy made her comment, but we have to consider that change doesn't come easy for some and there are issues regarding immigration.
Getting back to Mr Browns silly comment, well he did the decent thing, he apologised (like he had any choice?) and said he misunderstood Mrs Duffy, which is complete rubbish. It raises earlier questions about his temperament within the press, and to be clear here, Mr Brown did say later on BBC radio 2 that he thought the question was 'annoying'. Though I said earlier we all make mistakes like that in life, we often have the time to make amends, Mr Brown unfortunately doesn't have that time in the run up to the election.
The press of course have made a big deal about it, the Murdoch press will do anyway, but they should also be addressing Mrs Duffy's other conversation items other than immigration which was ironically the least mentioned.
The press were also eager to report Boris Johnson talking to 'chaotic' crowds yesterday, talking to all and sundry and even speaking Polish to impress immigrants, which is always going to look good, though talking to the public on camera is always a gamble I guess, you just have to have the savvy, which sadly I feel Mr Brown lacks.
The press have slowly crucified Mr Brown since he's been in office, and we can't squarely blame him for the financial mess, it's a world affair. I've always voted Labour, had socialist ideals but now we mainly have central politics over direct left and right, political parties look more generic than ever and it is more about personality than party these days, but then look at great leaders of the semi recent past, and its often individuals that have the more profound impact. I'm still not sure who to vote for, and the last debate is almost upon us, can Brown swing it around?
And for the pendantics and a bit of fun, the definition and history of 'bigot'
bigotn bigot [ˈbigət]a person who constantly and stubbornly holds a particular point of view etc (nothing constant or stubborn about what Mrs Duffy said).
History ....
Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."
No comments:
Post a Comment