The debasement of political debate and dialogue

 

A view from Clough Brook Cottage

An weekly commentary on current affairs from an imaginary cottage in the Peak District.

Debate in Parliament and about Government has always been robust but has it also been crass. This is Benjamin Disraeli about William Ewart Gladstone:

“A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.” Compare this with Chris Bryant in the House of Commons Chamber, Autumn 2021: “The Prime Minister is a f…… liar.”. He was only mildly admonished (“we are not having that here”) by the Speaker and left the Chamber immediately having gauged (most probably) that the punishment would be prohibition from the House for at least a day. Moreover Chris Bryant is an ex Anglican Priest.

To my mind nothing exemplifies the decline in standards than this comparison. Perhaps it is yet another expression of the overwhelming hypocrisy so prevalent. We all deserve “respect” but many who make such a demands are themselves deficient in offering it!

Many things have changed since the time of Disraeli and Gladstone in relation to political dialogue and debate. I am not saying they are to be deprecated. Far from it! It is the use to which these new features are utilised by individuals. I am referring here to 24 hour news (most of it in the visual media) and Social Media.

The physical separation of the protagonists is key. If you are doing a TV interview there is some physical inter-action, however via Facebook and Twitter for example you are shielded from your opponent.

Though not always an accurate reflection non-verbal communication can be very important – sometimes contrived and subject to manipulation. See for example during Prime Minister’s questions the camera pans to the questioner during the answer and if it is not the answer desired we have the deliberate head shaking and mouthed contrary view.

It is worth re-calling that when Parliament was first televised only the question and the answer were shown. Lobbying by the BBC led to control of camera views being given to the the provider not Parliament.

However I would argue that this has been part of the process whereby the oral and written contribution to debate has been downgraded to the detriment of real substance as it is that, (written and oral statements) which are the foundation of the legislature’s work. Whether somebody shook their head at the answer is not relevant in any degree when interpretation is carried out by the Courts! So it may be “good” TV but that does not mean it is enlightening. Perhaps (I would say certainly) its diversionary nature impedes understanding and does not provide enhancement. Removing control from Parliament opens the door to greater exposition much under the claim of improving democracy and transparency. I am not disputing those claims but doubt their complete veracity when news and current affairs become “shows”; e.g. Andrew Marr, Beth Rigby, Sophie Ridge and Andrew Neil. The purpose of these “shows” is to get an audience and thereby, in the case of the Commercial sector to secure a revenue stream via advertising; in the case of the Public broadcaster it is to secure competitive audience ratings. We therefore have a multi-objective provision overlain with the protection of the brand. Thereafter we see the exaggerated question, the production of ‘worst case scenarios’ and “grandstanding”. No don’t ban it just be aware that the visual media is a deceiving and deceptive medium.

The separation is even more marked in the Social Media. Many have described Twitter as an “anger- fest”. These keyboard warriors do not have to face their protagonists and this has led to their views being both judgemental and dismissive of opposing views. Just as you would have expected where there is a limit on the number of characters you may use in a post. Staccato debates rarely produce anything meaningful! This to, is a multi-objective business with the main requirement to have a revenue stream not to enhance knowledge and proper understanding of politics and current affairs. Again don’t ban it - read more books and quality printed media. So in this consumerist society always pay particular attention to the maxim ‘caveat emptor’.

Some further quotes which support the view of the primacy of the written and oral tradition over the confusion and downright nastiness of today. Many of the, are apposite for the present day.

“Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own”. Disraeli 9^th November 1877.

“This shows how much easier it is to be critical than to be correct”. Disraeli 24^th January 1860.

“All the world over, I will back the masses against the classes”. Gladstone 28^th June 1886.

“A desiccated calculating machine”. Aneurin Bevan on Hugh Gaitskell anticipating the Labour Party leadership contest on the retirement of Clement Attlee. 1954.