Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (228729)	11/20/2007 8:11:58 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Blithering bletherers and their flapdoodling flummery Monday, 19 November 2007 Less "seven score and four" than "balanced scorecard going forward", today's leaders have lost the capacity to speak well. And if they don't speak well, the chances are that they don't think well. Rosemary Behan in The Times: Please can we stop “moving forward”, “actively reaching out” and “progressing research”? Can we instead “respond positively” to a “challenging situation” and “resolve to build a consensus” on one thing that really matters? Can we, in short, start speaking English? Labour ministers will, I know, have a terribly hard time with this. Unlike the rest of us who are forced to listen to their “very difficult issues”, “paradigm shifts” and “radical proposals” day in, day out, Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears and Dawn Primarolo seem never to have heard themselves in action. How the Today programme presenters refrain from punching their eternally waffling guests – and why they give them so much airtime – is a mystery. Take the first response of Ms Smith, the Home Secretary, to a question by John Humphrys about why rules on the questioning of terrorist suspects were being changed. “Well, the first thing to say, John, is that these form part of a range of proposals that we put forward for consultation before the summer and we are serious about involving people in that consultation, which is why we’ve had a series of regional seminars about this, it’s why I’ve talked to the Opposition, it’s why we’ve talked to groups about these implications . . .” What is this woman blathering on about? Has she no shame? How dare she flood the airwaves with such mechanical, meaningless drivel? One can, of course, see the ultimate purpose of such annoying tactics. They serve to carry out Gordon Brown’s primary political goal, which is to bore us into submission. Instead of pressing the minister on the worrying erosion of our freedoms, half the country is urging Humphrys to simply ask: “Why are you so irritating?” Political language has always been used to manipulate, but it is especially tiresome when the inaction and incompetence we have already paid for are justified by people whose only concern seems to be keeping their own job. newenglishreview.org