An email arrives...
COMMENTS: Such a shame that we had to listen to the usual bully-boy tactics of Eddie Maire in the interview so graciously granted to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ by Mr.Peter Mandelson, a man singularly lacking in self-seeking motivation and totally devoid of pomposity. Eddie Maire's constant hectoring of Mr.Mandelson was quite disgraceful. I counted no fewer than two occasions in the three minute interview in which Eddie Maire attempted to interrupt Mr.Mandelson's clear,to the point,razor-sharp answers, some of which contained fewer than a couple of hundred words.It is a credit to Mr.Mandelson's integrity that he allowed Eddie Maire such licence, without resorting to the bombast and irrelevancy often employed by less trusted or open politicians. We are lucky to have Mr.Mandelson in Europe when you think that, apart from some minor indiscretions on the part of other people, he might well still be a member of the present government. Let's hope Eddie Maire can contain his arrogance in future and!
leave such important matters to the politicians.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Christine's 42 is an early newsletter from Sir Edric, I recognise it and I claim my prize! The moving story about the nighttime bird was (I seem to remember) originally aired on Home Truths Christine? Correct me if I'm wrong.
So hail and farewell for a week froggers (bet you thought I'd gone already!). Pc has been going from bad to worse over the weekend and S.O. who is trying to mend single-handedly (ie, being an engineer he won't let anyone else near it) is doing much mumbling about it only going down the pan after I started doing all this "daft rambling". Hmmm. Discuss.
Anyway, I've managed to connect to the internet briefly, so let's hope this one gets out there into the ether. Be good all, and all being well I'll be back on the 25th. Happy Birthday all round! Duty Free anyone?
Previous post was for previous frog, but re pc problem-saga, you've got it here! Who's keeping the froglog for me for 25th?
Byeee!
I heard the interview in question, and the said Mr Mandelson seemed to be rather less than ‘to the point’ to me. And he certainly appeared to have that evasive tactic down. Telling the interviewer what he should ask, if I remember rightly, seemed on the verge of arrogance, or something. But I may have been half asleep.
Morning Eddie,
'Tis foggy in the Yorkshire Dales this morning. I can't see a thing. Still it might clear up later.
With regard to this email you've received. Was it sent by a Mr Reinaldo da Silva by any chance?
He's an 'associate' of Mr Mandleson you know.
I do hope that email was sent with e-tongue in e-cheek, because otherwise the sender is somewhat confused (or is Peter Mandelson, which I suppose is possible)
Eddie, keep up the good work.
One tip though, wish Aperitif a happy birthday or she will be very upset. Don't worry, I won't tell her I reminded you!
Happy Birthday Perry!
I hope the sender of the email had their tongue firmly in cheek.
Thank you again AndyCraMyfavouritestrapline! See previous thread for whereabout of cake!
Doc, are you perchance "half asleep" now? Read it again dahling - I think the emailer is with you... ;)
btw, this is the second 'recycling' of a blog thread title... 'Blogtastic' is an oldie too. C'mon Ed, use your imagination!
A, x.
I heard the interview and have just re listened to it (as my head was underwater the first time).
You were merely keeping him on track Eddie. You asked him 'What regulations he would Repeal' - twice - and did we get an answer ? All in all a typical waffly pundit who needs a tough interviewing technique. As for that e-mail above ! Are you bovvered ?
Recent quote from Peter Mandelson:
"I don't think it is true - as some commentators suggest - that France is going through an identity crisis, but there is an element of that."
I say you chaps!
I need not speculate on the identity of the email's author. (Would that I had such style.)
We are lucky to have Mr.Mandelson in Europe when you think that ... he might well still be a member of the present government.
How True, even today.
There are those who ponder how the country would fare if he never found the time to return to this country at all.
There are some who would be prepared to give it a go.
I like the new GTS additions to the
programme :-) but once they've started can we let them finish please !
Strangely, when I switched on to the M&M interview, I had a strange moment .... I thought I was listening to Greasy Baker (he of the 'spat' slug image)... After gathering my wits together again - as an ex teacher, Greasy has that effect on me even today - I realised that 'twas not Our Ken, but Herbie's grandson.
I feel HG should be seriously worried that I, who have never been known as a rightwinger, should have mistaken him for one of Maggie's henchmen.
Anyway, Eddie, you kept your cool remarkably well in the circumstances - A pat on the back to you!
I must say that having heard the interview in full I agree with the first correspondent. Its a bit much to ask a man in such an important position as Mr Madelson to stoop to answering questions on PM. He didn't get where he is today by such toadying tactics. This man had to resign in discgrace twice to achieve his position. Surely he has earned the right to be evasive, bombastic and smug.
How sad of me....
I have trawled the blog and The Birthday Girl is correct. "Blogtastic" was used on 29th Sept.
RE the Mandy situation - I did cringe a bit when listening to this interview, perhaps there is some history between Ed and Mandy which I don't know about. However, Peter was fairly sinister and wasn't keen to qualify his remarks. Will you reveal the source of the email? Was it from TB?
Hello Eddie,
I think it was last year when disgraced New Labour politician-turned-EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson made a grandiloquent speech in which he outlined how the European Union was going to tackle world poverty.
But if you look behind the rhetoric (and I know you do) it's not long before the true EU responce to world poverty emerges. For example, fishermen in the tsunami-hit country of Thailand have in recent years built up a highly efficient industry selling prawns to the West - so much so, that Thai prawns have become a big challenger to the main European producer, Norway.
The EU's responce to this tale of hard work, creativity and entrepreneurship by desperately poor Third World people was to slap a 12 per cent tariff on imports of fish from Thailand. Like much of the EU's business, the decision was taken by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats like Mr Mandelson. Why is the EU demanding money from some of the most poorest people on earth? Next time Eddie, if you can, ask Mr Mandelson that question.
Opponents of the European constitution are sometimes portrayed as xenophobic little Englanders, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I think that if you are a internationalist in outlook, if you believe in justice, free trade and the alleviation of poverty, then the EU has nothing to offer you.
In my view, the EU is nothing but a corrupt, protectionist, small-minded club of pampered nations which strives to keep the poor in a state of subservient destitution. Furthermore it's failed to pass its own accounts for twelve years in a row!
It's a disgrace what's going on behind those closed doors and plush offices in the European Union. I think PM should ask Mark Mardell to investigate it all - asap.
Like all politicians, Mandleson does not want to answer the question as put, although he is expert at it. As an interviewer, Eddie, it's your job to press them. Shame there was not time for you to ask the question 10 - or was it 12 - times, a la Paxman, to try and get an answer as to what regulations should go.
I'll not start on what I think of the cesspit that is Brussels.
Re (8) - Something akin to that, I’m afraid. It’s not unusual. I think I’ve got it now.
Glad to see people not shying away from expressing their deeply held views...
I found the interview frustrating, because both sides were giving the poll itself an easy ride.
If you ask a bunch of businessmen if regulation is beneficial, of course they will say 'no'. Regulation is not there to benefit them, it's there to protect us *from* them.
That it would have been politically inexpedient for even an allegedly left-wing politician to say so is regrettable but understandable.
That this elementary point was lost on both Today and PM is of greater concern, and not exactly a good advertisement for the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s analytical skills.
Admirable blogs.
Re. Mandelson interview.
Totally agree totally with last ironic comments about the interview. M patronising, arrogant and evasive IMHO. Perhaps if you ask him what the weather's like in Brussells he'll finish the answer within the hour.
I do hope that who ever sent that e-mail was just joking. Eddie - keep up the good work. It’s refreshing to hear the politicians squirm when they have no idea on the answer to a direct question.
David, 19, good point. I also heard the interview and whilst I have to admit to a growing urge to hear Eric poke a finger in his eye and say "shut up", Mandelson did at least question the status of the poll. I also thought the other poll he quoted, of bigger businesses, was also quite illuminating. I admit that I didn't hear who had done that, though.
I suspect Enoch had to go and have a lie down but I had to laugh at the intimation that the anti-EU brigade are the guardians of the world's poor.
Of course there are dangers in just assuming that the way to solve all problems is to have another layer of regulation and/or bureaucracy, but David is right, most regulation is to protect everybody else from what any individual or business might choose to do. Who knows where the line should be drawn? I don't, but the relationship between what is good for business, what is good for the public, what is good for Europe and what is good for the rest of the world is, I suspect, a little more complex than some like to pretend.
I wonder, did John W mean "Brussels", the capital city of Belgium, or "Brussels", that spectre of all things wrong with modern life, especially when they are connected to our "European partners"? Personally, I rather like the city. Good beer. How can you not like a place where one of the bars on the Grand Place has got a horse inside? (Le Roi d'Espagne, I think.) Surely it's better to be arguing over a constitution than having a war.
Great e-mail! I do worry that it may not be a joke though.
I was gnashing my teeth listening to that interview last night, and wondering if we should start a Weasel Poll, to see who - at the end of a week - has managed to weasel out of answering the most questions in a single PM interview. Weaseling out of answering the same question over and over again as PM (hah) did last night may even earn bonus points.
Each week, the winners would go on to the next level until eventually we would find the Biggest Weasel of the Year.
My feeling is that it would be a business spokesman rather than a politician, but Mandy has made a good start for his side.
Re 23, Le Roi d'Espagne is one of the best café's on the Grand Place... I especially enjoy the pigs stomachs they have hanging from the ceiling.
I really hope the anti EU mob don't get a grip on ths blog...
John H,
The source of all evils, not the city, quite nice but not my favourate.
Huh!
I posted hours ago that it was "Brussels", the capital of the EU, and not Brussels, the capital of Belgium that I was referring to. Although the latter is nice enough, it's not top of my list. As to the former, I'll just give one example; those who run it are not accountable to the people of Europe in any meaningful way. Did you vote for Mandy?
Maybe the previous entry was blocked because I used the word (opposite of Good when referring to battles, also as in Dubya's axis of), but I've had other trivial entries blocked or not appear, and I'm not the only one who has trouble.
I'm playng catch-up having had some things to do. After reading a couple of things here, I feel the need to stress that I was being facetious with my alternative characterisation of "Brussels" - I don't believe that it is the source of all ills. I approve of the EU. I accept that accountability is an issue, but is it any less accountable than the House of Lords? I'll need to think about that because I don't know - both ultimately have a line of accountability to the elected government without actually being a part of it. Anyway, rather sombre addition on account (ho, ho) of the ambiguity I realised my earlier effort contained.
John H,
The HoL is basically a revising chamber. Formerly stocked with people how knew what they were talking about, judges, bishops (OK, that is contraversial) etc, but apart from pensioned off ministers (who often are still useful), I admit now being stuffed with party placements.
The EU Commission is the lead group for all internal and external factors. Does the EU parliament have any particular member who acts as a Foreign Minister? But the commission has one - forget the current one, the previous one was Chris Patten.
I'm not anti-Europe, I am opposed to such things such as the ever-increasing tendency for civil infrigements of EU laws to be criminal offences. I have a leaflet about WEEE in front of me, and not to register is a criminal offence. Let me be clear. It's not the dumping of electronics in land-fill that will be the offence, it's the not joining of a scheme, at high cost for a small company, that is the criminal offence, even if you *do* recycle 100% of the goods manufactured.
Oh dear, I really wanted to contribute to this before I went out but now:
a) a lot of what I wanted to say has been said (a lot of that by John H);
b) I'm really tired; and
c) a lot of the Mandelson interview has become vague with the (short) passage of time.
I will just say, Mandelson may be a smarmy git (and I've met him, so I know of what I speak) and a really good example of why many become frustrated with political interviews (and why some interviewers begin to treat all politicians badly, even when they are not so deserving of it as he) but that does not mean he's wrong - his questionning of the poll's status and raising of comparisons was, if I recall correctly, highly relevant and therefore pretty important.
The Commissioners are only one part of the EU - they are there to do just that - commission: policy reviews; research etc. They can't legislate alone. Legislation has to be agreed by the Council of Ministers for the relevant policy area (who are elected members of government of the EU member state that they represent) and passed by Parliament, who are all elected individuals, and I certainly voted for mine. I was in Strasbourg earlier this year and can honestly say that the MEPs I met were fountains of knowledge on any subject thrown at them in an impromptu question and answer session, and listened to the things that their audience said (many in the audience were general public). This to me is evidence of hard work and "fingers on the pulse". However, since most of what we hear about in relation to the EU is negative (because press barons and media moguls are self-interested and frequently anti-Europe, but I digress), we know more about 'Straight Banana Laws' than the real work that goes on there.
And should some future UK government ever pull us out of Europe we will be stuffed - we cannot interact or compete alone: we need to be in it and shaping it, or we will be an irrelevance.
I could go on but I'm meant to be hosting a birthday party here! You'll be pleased to hear I'm going to lose the serious head and bleat on about cake and alcohol again for a while! :)
Party on the most recent thread?
I'm suprised that more people dont complain about the general negativity and cynicism that Eddie Mair provides us with every day.
How are people supposed to do important jobs and make important decisions in our country if they constantly have to deal with aggressive and cynical interviews on the major news outlets ?
So do we elect or employ people who can cope with this adversarial style of media ? or do we employ or elect people who are capable of doing a good job at administering the country ?
Yes politicians should be accountable, but if you want them to take the job seriously you have to let them actually open their mouths and complete sentences, otherwise the whole process is wasted.
Im sure I'm not the only person in this country who wish to see sensible and level headed debate and decision making in the UK.
In my opinion this will rarely happen if the pack of rabid dogs at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ rip anyones head off if they are brave enough to stand for government and appear on the radio.
If you truly believe that all politicians are egos on sticks who only look after themselves and their own hidden agendas, why bother to vote ? In fact why bother at all. Believe it or not some people enter politics to help improve things in this country and not to massage their own ego's.
This cynicism depresses me so much that listening to aggressive interviews genuinely makes me depressed and angry.... ok thats me probably being over sensitive.....
If you truly want the world to become a better place, which I'm sure Eddie Mair would want too, then you have to start by treating people with respect and letting them have their say, regardless of whether you agree with the sentiments or not.
The listeners are quite capable of sniffing out bullshit themselves !
The aggressive media stance will (and has done) prevent people who truly have something to offer, from coming forward... and thats a very bad thing in my opinion.
If we rely ONLY on people who can cope with being interviewed by Eddie Mair on a bad day, then we are in trouble.
I'd love to see Mr Mair just try one show a week without being aggressive and confrontational.. you can even call it "PM LIGHT" or something !
Dont get me wrong its not only Mr Mair who suffers from this (in my opinion) .
I would also like to add that i find his knowledge and skill impressive, its just the style that rubs me up the wrong way.
Any how I'm off to be nice to someone !
With respect
Adrian Taylor
Wow, Adrian, you make a lot of sense, and I do indeed know a couple of great, capable people who have consdered and rejectd political careers - the rejection being due entirley to the media climate. However, I have to say, that I find Eddie to be one of the least aggressive of the pack.
Anyway, good on yer. Hope it doesn't put you off!
A, x.
It seems to me that it’s when they’re evasive (politicians) that he (Ed-E) has to push them more. And they are more than capable when it comes to evasiveness - a few recent examples surely spring to mind.
I wonder, could we have a regular debating slot between Eddie and PM, say once a week. The entertainment value would be enormous, and I'm sure it would pull in many new listeners. This weeks debate was hysterical.
Partly as an experiment in seeing if anybody will notice a comment on such a distant frog, but mostly because I've only just seen Adrian's comment (31), I need to say something here.
First of all, I really like the principle of what he's saying. There is a real problem with being able to elect the best people to do the job rather than those with the smartest ways with words - or the thickest skin, if you want to believe that aggressive interviewing is the cause of all ills in modern politics.
The problem as I see it, though, is that it is something of a 2-way street. "Treating people with respect", I think, also applies to the politicians (and others) who appear on radio and TV programmes - they are being given a platform to air their views, but all too often, it appears that what they are offering is nothing but a smoke screen. The "modern interviewer" has come about mostly because audiences do not want somebody to simply tell us the way the world is according to their particular agenda, they want answers.
Now, another part of your thesis is that the constant aggressive questionning is destructive in that it promotes cynicism. There may be something to that, but when you say, "If you truly believe that all politicians are egos on sticks who only look after themselves and their own hidden agendas, why bother to vote?" I suspect you've identified a trend that is growing in the UK. Indeed, why bother? Is the politician a result of the questionning, or the questionning a result of the politician? Probably a bit chicken and egg, but I think it's naive to suggest that it's all one way. Take the inteview with Mandy last week, there can surely be no better example of a politician being given the freedom to challenge the basis of the questions he was being asked (and I think he did quite a good job), but I also think he went too far. It was obvious that he came into the interview with his own agenda and then invoked the toe-curling, "please may I finish" spin to make it sound as if he were being hounded.
Apologies for my poor history/philosophy, but wasn't it Plato, in Republic, who said that those who put themselves up for public office should, by that very act, be considered unsuitable for it? I think that this taps into an intuitive understanding of many "normal" people - there is an instinctive distrust of those people who want to be in charge. However, conversely, most of us are subject to the effects of charisma and oratory, thus those who can win us over are the ones suitably endowed in these areas, rather than those with the best political vision. From this, I would conclude that there are indeed problems with our political system, but I do not think that you can really lay the blame at the door of aggressive interviewers.
As for Eddie - I think he's a bit of a lamb compared to some of them - there is a world of difference between "persistent" and "aggressive".
What does this do for the results of your experiment Mr H?
John H - as ever, its worth reading your posts; ta!
Just an additional thought, but someone has to explain policies to us (the 'normal' people travelling around South London by bus). And the issues can be complex and multifaceted and not 'easy'.
They need a great deal of skill to be able to argue coherently, illuminating the problem and explain to us why they are proposing a particular solution.... hm.
Rhetoric.
And unfortunately we have a tendency not to trust people with this skill (snake oil salesmen etc).
Unfortunately we've lost trust in the politicians because of perceived and actual misuse of this skill as well as a general mistrust (which has always been there - snouts in the swill and all that...)
"Political vision" is great but without communication skills its useless (I could eg Michael Foot but seems unfair).
hm, this is all a bit random and incoherent. I'm tired.... and am illustrating the difference in communication skills between people! weirdly I agree with what you said, am saying something different yet arrive at the same point.
hm, this is now too long not to post - apologies!
Drinks, what on earth are you doing back here when there's so much else going on, er, later?
If it were earlier, I would now have to go on a trawl through earlier entries but it's a bit late - and I haven't even started on "Veils".
Gorra say that I *knew* I was a bit of a geek.
Oh heck, whisht too! I've just spent god knows how long posting to "Veils" and now need to go to bed. If I remember, I'm gonna come back to what you've said in the morning!
BTW Michael Foot - good example!
John H - no worries! a lot of words from me but not too much clarity.
btw i only intended to italicise one flippin' word!
gotta close me tags more often....