I often find myself in total amazement of the paucity of political conversation when listening to the Westminster cesspit speaking in their echo chamber.
Unfortunately they are no more switched on when it comes to engagement with those outside that circle.
I have an intense distrust of many who seek political office, of this I make no bones. I do however try to engage with these people on occasion and recently found reason to query a Politicians blog. To be fair, I usually find a reason to question most things politicians say particularly as they are all to happy to tell everyone that it is necessary to lie as a politician. I am outraged by this defence and I fail to understand why politicians don’t know why they are distrusted when this, for many ‘sometimes I have to lie’ is their start point.
Democratically elected MPs are never happier than when towing the party line, as far too many of them seem to believe that holding office, is a career move. Listening to any question posed at a politician in the UK on mainstream media, is a waste of time. They fail to answer any question and start talking about the opposition party, they sound even worse than the dodgiest second hand car salesman. Sometimes they meander off message and the true nature of their intellect comes to light.
The MP concerned, MPs as an aside laughingly like to referred to as ‘honourable’, to whom this article is dedicated, is the Honourable Member for Glasgow South. Is better known as Tom Harris.
I feel it appropriate to put Tom Harris in context.
Dear old Tom, as you may recall feels that he needed to claim £19.99 for a child’s bed set and £59.79 for a child’s inflatable bed and felt moved to appeal when his claim was rejected as the claim was not ‘not wholly, exclusively and necessarily’ incurred in relation to parliamentary duties. But he still thinks this was an unjustified rejection. This is the man who declared, as the recession was just called negative growth (a different article) that ‘In our own country today, despite the recent credit squeeze, our citizens have never been so wealthy.’ (source) and has never seen the need to revise this, whilst at the same time has never seen the need to apologize for his claim for unnecessary expenses.
The honourable Thomas decided to post a couple of blog posts here and here which I felt were suggesting those of the Muslim faith as being terrorists and told him so. Of course he replied, initially with the reply that I was just dim and so the conversation developed, with my pointing out a particular phrase on one of his posts. ‘Islamism will never seem as threatening as the government, and there will never be a shortage of appeasers who can justify the terrorists’ which to me appeared to suggest those who are Islamists are nothing but terrorists, well Tom felt I didn’t understand the basics and had no hesitation in telling me I didn’t know what I was talking about. On offering a helpful reply to elucidate, the Honourable Member for ‘spurious claims’, decided the whole subject needed changing.
The exchange on twitter….
@TomHarrisMP Take it from recent blog posts, you consider those of Islamic faith – terrorists. Why not just join the BNP & be done with it?
TomHarrisMP@timwhale That’s a rather dim statement. I consider Bin Laden and other Islamists to be terrorists. Don’t you?
@TomHarrisMP try reading your articles again esp ‘heads in the sand’ para 3 sentence 2
TomHarrisMP@timwhale So you admit to not knowing the massive difference between “Islam” and “Islamism”?
@TomHarrisMP the notion of islamism does not of itself define terrorism, Sharia Law exists in many countries.
@TomHarrisMP try this report from the International Crisis Group http://bit.ly/3InMFM
TomHarrisMP@timwhale However you define Islamism, you’d have to be pretty thick not to realise that my post was about extremists, not Muslims.
Political conversations are nothing but obfuscation and deceit, this is but one example of how when for a politician facts get in the way, the whole subject changes. I wonder why I feel there is a paucity of political conversation?
Making headline statements is OK, I understand this. However when you have got it so horribly wrong, why not just admit it? Telling someone they don’t understand and then being directed to real information, not political on-message then just pretending the advisory didn’t happen and ignoring the whole context of the conversation, is just crass stupidity and indicative of the level to which political intellect has slumped.
Did I mention….
Tom Harris is not that keen on a transparent parliament
Thinks ID cards are a good idea
Supported the Iraq war
and wants no investigation into the invasion of Iraq
One Response “Paucity of political conversation”