I was fortunate this morning to travel to work on a half empty train, with a double seat and a table to myself. So what else could I do but pull out my laptop, & set about the usually pleasurable task of looking at my Twitter stream, and clicking a few links. I soon found myself reading an article on the Guardian’s “Comment is Free”" site by Tessa Jowell.
The article examines the idea of using a “mutual” ownership model – such as that employed by co-operatives, and other organisations – notably the “John Lewis Partnership” as a way of managing public services in the future. It was an interesting piece and one that appealed to me – I’d particularly like to see co-operatives becoming involved in the sponsorship & governance of trust schools and academies, and would be interested to learn of other areas of public service where this might work to the public benefit.
This blog’s not really about what Tessa Jowell had to say though (although I’ll try to link back in the next few days to articles that do comment on the article and related issues).
No – What struck me was the nature of the comments that followed the piece. I think it’s fair to say that I got a bit annoyed by them !
Not that they were particularly unusual – anyone who’s read the BBC’s Have your Say pages, or the comments on Labour List – or even Conservative Home, will recognise the brand of comment on display here.
We were treated to one after another unrelentingly negative comment – often sneering and mocking – and in my opinion, designed merely to provoke anger in the author, or in those with a similar point of view.
It does seem to be a definite tactic in “having a go” at particular politicians – to just talk them down with negative comments – possibly unrelated to anything they’ve said, and paint a black picture of the author’s beliefs, integrity, political party, and – well just about anything they can besmirch.
Oooh good, a member of the Labour party wants to lecture us on accountability.
This is the same Labour party that took us into an illegal war on the basis of lies. No-one resigned.
This is the same Labour party whose Chancellor was so disgusted with the Prime Minister’s continual lying that he told him there is no reason why I would ever believe another word you say. No-one resigned
This is the same Labour party that kept reinstating Peter Mandleson every time he was disgraced. He resigned, but didn’t mean it.
This is the same Labour party whose Home Secretary paid for her husband’s pornographic films on expenses, and who didn’t feel the need to resign.
When I want someone to teach me about accountability, I will not be looking to these people for guidence. I will go to someone who has even the glimmerings of understanding of the concept.
Oooh good, [ a nice patronising start to set the tone ] a member of the Labour party wants to lecture us [ Well no not really - it's an article in the Guardian - not a lecture - politicians are supposed to communicate their views - it's part of what they do ] on accountability. [Well, again - no not really - it's a suggestion about making public bodies more accountable to the public - if she's lecturing anyone on accountability she's lecturing the Government - but she's not really doing that. Is she ? I don't think so - I'm not convinced Dougal the Dog does either - but he's entitled to make that inference ]
This is the same Labour party that took us into an illegal war [ It's the same Labour Party all right that took us into a war, one which former ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock recently opined was "legal but not legitimate" - which is something we could debate and discuss. We can't in fairness though simply state that it's "illegal" - that would possibly constitute libel. Doesn't stop Dougal though. Dougal also fails to mention that it wasn't just the Labour Party that took us into the war. It was heavily supported by the opposition parties. In fact of the 149 MPs who voted against going to war, all but 10 were Labour MPs - it wouldn't be stretching things too far to say that it was actually the Conservatives that enabled Tony Blair to take us to war - but let's not split too many hairs - the war did have massive public support at the time - despite a very significant minority who opposed it (most of them Labour or Lib-Dem) ] on the basis of lies. [ Well there's an inquiry take place at the moment isn't there - which prompts me to think that Dougal Dog might be better off waiting until the inquiry had finished its deliberations - or perhaps he could state his opinions in a more open spirit of debate rather than spitting it out as what appears to be an incontrovertible fact (It's not) ] No-one resigned. [ No one, at all - except perhaps if you count the leader of the House of Commons - Robin Cook. Oh and Secretary of State for international Development Clare Short - so actually if we're still worried about lies I'd have to say "Dougal the Dog : Liar Liar pants on fire !"]
This is the same Labour party whose Chancellor was so disgusted with the Prime Minister’s continual lying that he told him there is no reason why I would ever believe another word you say. No-one resigned [ Is it really ? Well it passed me by ! Is he talking about Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ? We read lots of things about a supposed pact and a supposed rift - I couldn't find those words anywhere on the web though so I'm guessing neither of them said them. Oh and by the way if you are talking about Tony & Gordon - Tony's not the PM anymore - he er ... resigned ! Neither do I find though that Alistair Darling has said it about Gordon Brown - I'm assuming that Dougal is referring to the recent reports that Gordon Brown blocked proposals by his chancellor. Well I'm a Headteacher and I've occasionally over ruled proposals made by my Deputy Head. Doesn't mean I don't have faith in her though. If Alistair Darling had blocked Gordon Brown's plan - now that would have been a story ! ]
This is the same Labour party that kept reinstating Peter Mandleson every time he was disgraced. He resigned, but didn’t mean it. [ Well that's their lookout as we say in Yorkshire. On the two occasions when Mandelson resigned he did so protesting his good behaviour and saying that he was resigning essentially to take pressure off the party and the Government - and on each occasion he was subsequently exonerated of wrong doing - so he wasn't disgraced - and he did what was considered to be the honourable thing - If he's then offered an opportunity to regain a position of influence at a later date then one can hardly blame him for accepting. The wisdom of offering the posts to him can be debated - but again our commenter merely states opinion as fact. Peter Mandelson was not ultimately disgraced, and he did mean his resignation ]
This is the same Labour party whose Home Secretary paid for her husband’s pornographic films on expenses, and who didn’t feel the need to resign. [ Sort of yeah - but look carefully - did anyone think momentarily that Dougal said "the same Labour party Home Secretary" ? No that's not what he said - and quite right too - but I'd be willing to bet that there are several readers who thought for a moment that it was Tessa Jowell who was involved in that particular part of the MPs' expenses scandal - no - it was actually Jacqui Smith. Our commenter does not say this - just plants the seed - so the casual reader will make the unimplied inference. Of course Jacqui Smith did have a relatively plausible explanation for this - her internet connection - which one would hope that she is able to claim for - is part of a package deal which includes her satellite TV, and submitted a bill which covered that - but also pay-per-view movies which her husband had watched and were "adult" in nature. Which were repaid in full (and one wonders why the hell the admin people in parliament paid it in the first place ). Leaving aside the fact that we're only talking about twelve quid or so here - I do wonder about the moral maze created here - the movies were hosted by Sky TV - part of News International - that self same organisation that owns "The Sun" - who make such a big deal about supporting the Conservatives not Labour, claim that it's "the Sun wot won it" in all recent elections, but strangely rarely debate the morality of starting each morning with a pair of female nipples, or of News International making significant amounts of money from selling soft porn via satellite to the likes of Jacqui Smith's husband. She didn't feel the need to resign of course - however she was sacked]
When I want someone to teach me about accountability, I will not be looking to these people for guidance. I will go to someone who has even the glimmerings of understanding of the concept. [ OK - that's up to him - but who will he ask ? and why is this about lessons in accountability -?]
Did you notice another thing ? Not one of Dougal the Dog’s points was directly related to the article – you could argue a tenuous link with the ones mentioning ‘accountability’ – but the article was about public services, co-operatives and mutualism – If our commenter knows anything about these things then he doesn’t display it.
If I were to go through every other similarly dismissive comment on this site it would take a long time. Most readers have neither the time nor the inclination to do this, and go away with a jaundiced view of the opinions created by the article published (and these kind of comments are by no means confined to this one, or to Tessa Jowell).
I strongly suspect that the reality is that there are people who quite deliberately place swathes of nihilistic comments on websites as a deliberate tactic to prevent constructive discussion of the subjects presented by the authors. This is a stupid approach to politics – because ultimately what matters is not which party governs, but what actions those parties take – and if the public chooses to prevent constructive discourse via interactive websites – then the ultimate result will be that the public loses its say in forming Government opinion.
I find that many of the more vociferous commenters (although not Dougal the Dog – and I’m sorry Ive picked on you Dougal – you just got lucky by being first on the list] often describe themselves as “Libertarians” – and defend their right to make negative comments as “freedom of speech”.
All well and good. Just remember though that if freedom of speech is used to negate and discourage debate and discussion you will lose a far greater freedom – Freedom of Thought !