It seems to be a commonly held belief, especially among our American cousins, (I do have distant relatives in the US, although I have not discussed this with them) that we British are polite. Quite where this misapprehension has come from I am not certain, but I think Hollywood may have something to do with it. They also think we all have bad teeth, wear bowler hats and carry rolled up copies of The Times and furled umbrellas when ever we venture out of doors.
This belief is incorrect. Not the Bowler hat and umbrella one, that is so obviously correct. No I mean the one about politeness. I think the British are possibly the rudest people in the world. We can be staggeringly rude at times, it's just that we tend to do it in a superficially polite manner.
At the lowest level we have the 'No offence but...' brigade, who feel those three magic words entitle them to say anything they like. Then we have the blunt talking, 'I like to call a spade a spade' lot, who almost invariably have no idea what constitutes a spade and could not differentiate one from a shovel even if they were both labelled. Higher up the food chain we encounter sneering distain which is often missed by those not from these islands and unable to discern the hidden message. Then we have those who unconsciously patronise those whom they see as in some way inferior. Margaret Thatcher was very good at that sort of impoliteness. Moving towards the top we have those who are so bound up in their privilege that they don't even realise that they are being rude, often unbelievably so, and certainly would be surprised if it were pointed out to them. And finally we get right to top and break through the scum floating on the surface of the pond and out into the sunlight where we ordinary mortals are not even allowed to speak unless spoken to.
If we superimpose onto this labyrinthine structure questions of religion, ethnicity, colour, education and sex, we finish up with a heady mix of concealed nastiness. That is not to say that everybody behaves according to this code of conduct, but it does mean that as a society we are by no means as polite and well mannered as others might see us.
Nowhere was this made more clear to me than last night on BBC1's Question Time when John McDonnell was thrown to the lions.
The whole charade was, as usual, presided over by ex-Bullingdon Boy David Dimbleby. For years I have admired, even loved the BBC and have done what little I can to defend its status as a public service broadcaster, free from the constraints of advertisers. I refuse to have anything to do with Sky and the odious Murdoch, and have watched in dismay as programme after programme has migrated from the terrestrial to satellite platform. I used to watch and listen to the BBC to get a clear and unbiassed reporting of the news, I still think that Radio 4 is undoubtedly the best and most informative radio channel anywhere in the world, but...
And there alway is a 'but' isn't there? How can the BBC, indeed any self respecting broadcaster, but especially the BBC, one of whose remits is to behave with impartiality, think it is in anyway proper to set up a programme such as the one which they broadcast on Thursday night. I understand that the programme is broadcast live and they cannot control the content, but there is absolutely no doubt that the whole thing was a stitch-up. There is a panel of five, I don't know what to call them, certainly not celebrities, although they are undoubtedly known to the public. Experts? Not necessarily. Political figures? Not always. Talking heads? Possibly. On Thursday the panel consisted of Anna Soubry, who revealed herself to those of us unfamiliar with her oeuvre as a political Katie Hopkins, Quentin Letts, an opinionated right-wing journalist from the Daily Mail, Tony Blair's attack poodle Alastair Campbell, a token SNP MP Joanna Cherry and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.
To me that is not a balanced panel but I too am biassed so let's just leave that as my opinion. I do think however that David Dimbleby's job, for which he is no doubt paid a great deal of money, more than the Director General according to the Daily Telegraph, that organ of truth and probity, is to keep the level of personal abuse down to acceptable levels and to ensure sensible debate. In the case of Ms Soubry he signally failed to take her to task over some fairly vicious attacks on McDonnell. Ms Soubry has obviously not been brought up with any concept of manners at all. It is possible however that, in many people's minds she has merely confirmed their view of her as a screeching owl, probably still cross that Mrs May has pushed her out of the nest.
Alastair Campbell is an altogether different kettle of stinking fish. Where Ms Soubry's preferred weapon of assassination would appear to be the claw hammer, or possibly a lump of wood with a nail through it, Campbell favours poison. This he administers in small doses until a lethal level is achieved. Last night he didn't attack Jeremy Corbyn, admitting that he was probably right on Iraq, and that they, Blair et al, may have cocked that up. There were however constant references to the hard left and how Labour were throwing away all he had achieved. He didn't make one outright attack but constantly undermined what McDonnell was saying, following the Smith line of needing to be in power, while ignoring the fact that his behaviour was contributing massively to this. He said that a great deal of nastiness had crept into the party, without acknowledging that much of it was coming from his side of the party, but then he wouldn't, would he? Is David Miliband poised in the wings? Who knows?
I felt slightly sorry for Ms Cherry who hardly got a look in and tried to claim that her party was the only opposition to the government. Quentin Letts was having none of that. The thrust of much of what she was allowed to say seemed to be about the fact that Jeremy Corbyn was not attacking the government on Brexit. She implied it was because he was in favour. I suspect it is because Mr Corbyn thinks that there are more pressing problems such as housing and grammar schools which demand his immediate attention. After all he can hardly question the government's policies on the EU when they have yet to produce any.
Watching it all again just now on iPlayer I realised what it was that really got under my skin about Ms Soubry. It wasn't that she attacked John McDonnell at every possible opportunity. That, it might be argued, is her job. It wasn't that she called him 'a nasty piece of work,' and in justifying this more or less implied that he stalks the Palace of Westminster after dark waiting to attack female Labour MPs who live in fear of their lives. It wasn't that she tried to perpetuate the myth of rampant anti-semitism within the Labour Party. It was the way she behaved in those odd moments when she had her mouth shut.
This afternoon (Friday) I was dozing in front of the telly after my lunch. I am a great believer in the siesta, and daytime TV is perfect for sending me to sleep. While flicking through the channels I happened upon CBBC. Now I am not an aficionado, not being part of their target demographic. The programme which was on however caught my eye. It was a quiz called Top Class and was hosted by Susan Calman, who presumably is not yet on the stratospheric salary scale which is exercising so many of the media at present, though her apparent ubiquity both on TV and Radio must mean it is only a matter of time. I really enjoy her wit on The News Quiz, so I paused and watched for a moment. Two teams from different schools were 'battling it out'. On the buzzer round, there were two boys from what turned out to be the losing school, who were a bit trigger happy. 'Buzz first and think later' seemed to be their modus operandi. Almost invariably they answered incorrectly but when told so they frowned, looked surprised and extremely sceptical, as if Ms Calman had the wrong answer written on the card. It is the same expression often seen on the faces of litigants on Judge Rinder, another stape of daytime TV and shop window for TV wannabes. It is the look of pained hurt when someone accuses you of something and you have no immediate right of reply. A surprised frown which says 'You can't possibly believe that'.
This was the look on Ms Soubry's face for virtually the whole hour of Question Time and it annoyed the hell out of me.
No comments:
Post a Comment