Thursday, 12 June 2014

Most people don't like politicians...

Politicians in general that is. 

Many, when asked, will say that their own MSP or MEP, councillors or MP is just fine, but if you ask them about politicians en masse, they will describe them in less than flattering terms, mentioning expenses, self interest, or laziness.

Whilst it certainly represents some of them, it by no means is true of them all. But it is the general opinion, nonetheless.

They have brought a lot of it on themselves, of course. There were expenses scandals in the London parliament's Commons and Lords (and I say scandals, because no sooner had the Telegraph's and Times's investigations died down than it started all over again, with MPs and Lords finding new ways of getting around new restrictions). 

There are also the long holidays, the empty chambers, the "sleeping" after a heavy "lunch", the subsidised food and drink and the behaviour at ministers' questions (particularly PMQs), more reminiscent of playtime in a primary school than a chamber.

We know that politicians, in common with other people, can be very career minded, and that party loyalty eases the route up the greasy pole to ministerial office and the possibility of "making history". 

So frequently we suspect that politicians are acting in the best interests of their own careers rather than the best interests of their constituents. 

Clearly, this partly-justified mistrust of elected representatives trickles down to those individuals who have not yet reached, and maybe never will reach, political prominence, advisors, potential candidates for the future. 

Such is our distrust of political figures that we are far more likely to believe an "ordinary person".

So when a party or movement wish to make a point, rather than saying "Alistair Darling says" or "Johann Lamont says" or "Alex Salmond says", knowing that a large proportion of the public will take the "oh, he or she would say that" attitude, sometimes they encourage a non political figure to speak out for "ordinary people".

The trouble is that in the days of internet communication, with social media sites as popular as Facebook and Twitter are, it pays to be very careful to ensure that your "ordinary person" is ordinary. Otherwise, with just one Tweet, the whole thing can start to unravel.

It seems that this happened in the case of "No Thanks" (another one of the names that the No campaign has come up with with immediately lends itself,with the changing of just one letter, to ridicule) which attributed a statement to a totally ordinary mum, bringing up a disabled child. 

In as much as "politician" is seen to be bad, "mum" is good. Mums know the price of milk and the struggle of putting food on the table for their families. mums are voter friendly. And so Better Together went with "mum".

I had no notion of who Ms Lally is, nor did I care. But I do now know that she indeed a mum, and he does have twins, one of which is disabled. I also know that she is a political activist and at least an advisor to Johann Lamont's team as a member of the shadow cabinet.

My point is that UKOK, Better Together, No Thanks, call them whatever you will, represented her as an ordinary mum, and that alone to court her credibility. She may well be an ordinary mum; she is also a member of Ms Lamont's shadow cabinet team, which makes her a political person with an agenda.

That makes Better Together (or whatever) at least dishonest, don't you think.

But has nothing to do with Ms Lally per se.  Although she has apparently refused to accept an abject apology for an incorrect assertion that she was related to Pat Lally, of Glasgow Labour fame, and has maintained that she has been serially abused on Twitter, whilst refusing to actually let anyone see this abuse.

30 comments:

  1. The phantom cybernat strikes again! Hahahahaha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye, but once again, where Alex?

      That's the question. We hear a lot about him sitting in his bedroom, living with his mother, being unemployed and having no friends... but where the hell is he?

      Delete
    2. Probably in an office, in London, working for U.K Intelligence Service (an oxymoron if ever there was one).

      Ignore sign in - it's Alex Smith AKA Eck fae Charleston again. This is my aeromodelling signature!

      Delete
    3. Yeah, getting a big fat salary from HM government, paid from out taxes!!!

      Delete
    4. Well your actual cybernats is a retired or early retiree, who has got his or her dander up. Who has an interest in politics, can be a member of a political party but right now not necessarily. Does not write green ink letters to the editor, but uses the computer to chase facts and who actually loves where they live and hates what is happening in a wealthy country like Scotland. What they are not is a bunch of lying toerags who in general abuse everyone, that is reserved for those of the Britnat persuasion, who are never held account for the abuse they fire at Alicsammin and anyone they perceive as following him.

      Delete
  2. The politically elite giving the two fingers to Levison and the voters in N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

    Spot the difference if any.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd say that was a bit of mistake...

      We know they are off to Brazil to win the world cup, but these men look like z list celebrities endorsing a low end newspaper for once last chance at te limelight. Maybe next they will go on "I'm a celebrity"

      Delete
  3. Isn't our media strange for a so called democracy when a Labour activist is defended by them yet when a couple who donated to the Yes side got denigrated by the self same media. I suppose one shouldn't complain when the polls are closing with only three months to go so keep it up UKOK your strategy is just fine in pushing voters our way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is.

      They don't seem to care what the Labour party tried to pull over on them. They are happy, without evidence to allow Labour to talk about the vileness of cybernattery, and yet unable to give us one example of something...

      And never mention the tweets about Alex Salmond and his family... what was it? Wishing his father would die and castigating him for not having children?

      Where was the outrage there?

      Delete
  4. Apparently Wings has been searching for evidence of abuse on Twitter directed at Clare Lally and has found none.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-worst-of-the-worst/

    There's the smell of the Susan Calman phantom abuse uproar all over the story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not exactly earth shattering, is it.

      Not what they called VILE or DISGUSTING...

      Not really on the same level as wishing someone's father dead.

      Delete
  5. LIES LIES LIES BT together we tell lies.

    NO THANKS

    hypocrites the whole lot. And where were the MSM when the Weirs were being abused

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was their day off Richy...

      They don't matter. They are nats.

      It's not a nice country at the moment.

      Delete
    2. Richy, they WERE the ones doing the abuse. Hardly going to out themselves.

      Delete
  6. Its Campbell Gunn I feel sorry for, apparently Lamont and Co want his head on a silver platter, for the utterly heinous crime of, erm! well! hmm!, calling some Labour activist someone else's daughter-in-law, ahem! an absolutely despicable evil, unforgivable crime against humanity, one that should be investigated by the Hague, err! not wee Willie Hague, the other more prestigious Hague.

    No stone should go unturned in the drive to make sure the personification of evil Campbell Gunn, is brought to justice and prosecuted to an inch within his life, tarred and feathered he should be cast out into the wilds of err! somewhere not very nice, that doesn't have a flushing toilet, how dare he call some Labour activist someone else's daughter-in-law, the press and TV channels should witch hunt this evil man, Oops! that's already happening forget that bit, and Holyrood should spend a whole FMQ's decrying Mr Gunn Oops! erm! cough! cough!,that's also already happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I were Pat Lally, I'd be annoyed that being my daughter in law constituted such a heinous crime.

      He should have checked, I guess. In his position I'd have thought accuracy was paramount.

      But that said, he has apologised.

      Why didn't Lamont want the head of the people who were calling out the FM for not having any children. For heaven's sake....

      Delete
    2. Seems the reason for Lamont not calling for the head of the person not having children was it was HER. I am on my bestest behaviour today, got my turnip head on in case I cause offence or I would use much stronger language.

      Delete
  7. We are unable to post your comment because you have been blocked by Left Foot Forward. Find out more.

    They only want to talk to themselves to shore up their declining supporter base.

    This is what the MSM are ignoring and where minds are changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has Left Foot Forward blocked you?

      Delete
  8. anon and other like minded hard line extremist snp nats

    “I think Campbell Gunn made both a mistake and a misjudgement.

    “The mistake was obvious that saying that somebody was Pat Lally’s daughter-in-law when clearly is not is clearly a mistake.

    “The misjudgement is believing that drawing attention in an email to someone’s Labour Party connections whether it is a member of the Shadow Cabinet or any other connection was an appropriate thing to do.

    That was a misjudgement, because Clare’s views on caring and other matters stand regardless of the connections. Because he made a mistake and misjudgement I asked Campbell to apologise which he did immediately and comprehensively.”

    Well Alex seems to agree what was done was out of order
    but then if Campbell Gunn had gunned her down all you
    snp nats would of said hooray !!! she deserved it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Claptrap.

      In your sights.

      By the way when is Johann going to resign for lying about that false rape case she highlighted at FMQs a few years ago?

      I see Ed is supporting your friend Murdoch Niko mind you the other two Tory parties are doing so as well, better together or is it no thanks now.

      How is the sun and sand in Cyprus?

      Delete
    2. May I suggest you visit Newsnet Scotland and then come back here. The abuse from London Labour, Scottish Branch towards David Ferguson, which I remember at the time, is very out of order, Mr Gunn has apologised for calling her Pat Lally's daughter, he was correct about her not being an ordinary Mum. I admit saying she was either an idiot and a mug if she was, but the fact she is just another liar in the Labour Party is the truth. If she was so concerned about her child why was she using her for political ends, seems that is a common problem with Labour.

      Delete
  9. all nats

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/bill-jamieson-voters-weary-of-referendum-battles-1-3441333

    I concur with Mr JAMIESON

    what will you lot do where will you go ????

    But the immediate aftermath may see a split in the independence camp, similar to that which Ireland experienced in the 1930s but hopefully without the appalling consequences. Many will not settle for a return to status quo ante.

    This is a battle that even in defeat will profoundly affect the independence movement, where it goes from here and the manner in which it does so. An end of the politics of vituperation, bullying and abuse? Many in Scotland would welcome this on 19 September. But an army roused to a defining battle is not easily stood down

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is that link Niko for those of that don't wish to support comics https://archive.today/kY95l.

      The MSM is tired of the debate as they have run the same scare stories 3 or 4 times over and it is they who are scunnered of writing p**h day after day after day.

      There are debates going on the length and breadth of the country and if these so called journos got of their backsides and did the job they are paid to do instead of reading press releases then writing articles from that then they would't be bored, the poor souls.

      Delete
    2. What is Jamieson trying to do here?

      Make some news?

      Niko... what will you lot do? to use your own disparaging words.


      Delete
    3. BTW, I imagine that if the No Thanks UKOK Better Tories win the referendum, it is unlikely that anyone will see Johann Lamont as a suitable first minister. I mean, she's not even council leader standard. She is probably the parks convenor on a small council with only 2 parks. Ruth has hardly set the place on fire drawing and erasing lines in the sand as dave changes what he is pleased to call a mind.

      The there's Willie Rennie... well...yeah, Willie Rennie. hmmmmm.

      The Greens are looking up, and patrick is the most popular leader in the country.

      It is likely that the SNP will win the following election possibly in coalition with the Greens and maybe a Scottish Socialist or two..

      Would they have another referendum?

      It would then be up to the lords and masters of the British Empire, the Eton and Oxford aristos, to decide whether the SNP won due to the fact that we actually wanted a referendum, or whether it was because the opposition couldn't run a bath. It's all decided in London.

      Maybe Mr Jamieson wants unrest. People who predict that kind of thing usually do. It creates some sort of excitement in them.

      Dodgy in my opinion.

      Delete
    4. Eh, if we get a no, and then the SNP get another landslide, with "Scottish Independance" being the only thing on their manifesto, then they're set for a unilateral declaration of independence.

      And I don't think many countries out there would complain.

      Delete
    5. Well Illy, most of the rest of the Empire got independence from Britain without UDI.

      I'd prefer to do it that way with the Scottish people behind it.

      Delete
    6. Not arguing that at all. I'd prefer for this to be peaceful and polite as we leave the british empire (even though the empire doesn't seem to want to let it be peaceful and polite)

      All I'm saying is that Westminster only has power over us because we give it to them. We stop doing that, and they're just a talking shop.

      Delete