Return to: Home | Blogs | Richard Herring

Spending less time with your family...

Wouldn't we like our politicians more if they didn't treat us like children? Wouldn't we like them more if they were candid?

I hate politicians. They are idiots. Pretty much without exception. One has a vague feeling that there might have been some more honourable ones, in some bygone era, but in reality those George Washingtons and Mahatma Gandhis and William Gladstones were probably as hollow and rotten and transparent (not a good combination, as their festering emptiness is on full view to the world) as the ones we've got now.

As I went to bed last night I decided that I hated Ruth Kelly more than any living person. It's not just that she is religious and thus opposes stem-cell research and total equality for homosexuals, though those are both good reasons. It's because of her bare-faced cheek at claiming that her decision to step down from the cabinet so she can "spend more time with her family" is not motivated by any other political agenda.

It seems she even acknowledged that the "more time with the family" thing was generally a euphemism used by people who were in fact making political capital out of their actions. But she really wasn't doing that. She was doing it because she genuinely wanted to spend more time with her family.

And yet, if that was the case, don't you think the timing of her announcement was rather foolish. Sure, she's stepping down to spend more time with her family, but decides to make that public the day after Gordon Brown makes the speech in which he attempts to save his chubby arse. (Oh would that we could actually organise the boot for outgoing Prime Ministers - I think it would make democracy a lot more popular if we were all involved in the firing as well as the hiring).

How stupid does she think we are? I hate anyone who so blatantly tries to pass off a lie, whether it's a politician or a newspaper editor whose front page promises us a comedy guide written by top TV star Catherine Tate, when we're bound to immediately discover on purchase that she only wrote the introduction and the rest of it was written by some nobody called Richard Herring (interestingly today the front cover heralded the Memoir and Biography Guide as "Introduced by Antonia Fraser" so they've obviously realised they were insulting their readers' intelligence - though they do use a photo of Keira Knightley in her latest film role to try and suck in the celebrity loving idiots).

It's obvious that the timing of the resignation means that there is more to this than her spending time with her family and yet she insists that it isn't, even in the face of overwhelming common sense. It is just a lie. She knows it's a lie. We know it's a lie. Why don't politicians tell the truth and stop treating us like idiots? This is why we hate them.

If she just said, "I'm stepping down because Gordon Brown is going to demote me in any case and I'm trying to do him some damage just as he looked like he might bounce back a bit and think that if he's still PM come the election I will lose my seat. And he does that really stupid thing with his mouth every time he speaks and it scares the shit out of me. And he had to get his wife to introduce his speech, which is only one step away from getting his mum to do it, saying, "Stop being nasty to my boy, he's doing his best. If I find anyone plotting against him I will be having a word with their mums,"" then we'd respect the sinister, pudge faced, granny-haired Opus Dei member.

But everyone has to play this game of pretending that the obvious isn't happening. So she calls Gordon Brown as "a towering figure", which no one thinks or believes, unless the tower is the leaning Tower of Pisa or one of the World Trade Centre Towers, literally seconds before it came crashing to the ground. I look at his stupid, wan, pouting face and can't even believe he is the Prime Minister. Does everyone else still think that Tony Blair is in charge? Because I really have to slap myself to remember that he isn't. Brown just doesn't have the bearing. Maybe none of us have given him the chance, but he still looks like someone who has accidentally stumbled into the role like Peter Sellers in "Being There" (though less effective) or King Ralph.

And of course though I hate Ruth Kelly (and can't believe that I am older than her - though this is pretty much true of anyone with a proper job), Brown is just as much to blame for hiding his lies in a perspex display case. He obviously was going to get rid of Kelly, but will never say that, even though we all know it. He might claim he was talking about David Cameron when he said it was "no time for a novice", but he really meant David Milliband. He knows it. We know it. Why doesn't he admit it? Wouldn't we like our politicians more if they didn't treat us like children? Wouldn't we like them more if they were candid? What does Gordon Brown really have to lose at this point? If he said "David Milliband is a scary eyed Brutus trying to stab me in the back and Ruth Kelly is a stupid Christian twat. I'm in charge and they can all fuck off!" wouldn't we suddenly have a new found respect for him? Wouldn't we think, "Hey let's give old King Ralph a chance"?" He's going down in flames anyway, why not go down as the politician who suddenly cut out all the bullshit and told it like it was. He might just survive.

In the meantime, presuming he doesn't do that, I am just waiting to see how long after Brown is overthrown it will take for Ruth Kelly to announce that she's realised that her family is quite annoying and she's going to spend less time with them after all. I think it will be less than ten minutes.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

13 comments from readers

gnuneo
28 September 2008 at 18:41

never mind that - think about the woman's poor family! Don't THEY get a choice in this? I'm sure this "sinister, pudge faced, granny-haired Opus Dei member"'s family are desperately hoping Brown resigns, quite possibly with the same degree of single-minded selfishness about it that Miliband does.

ever wonder why so many of these 'top' politicians dislike the idea of PR without strong Party lists? It can be seen as a realisation by them that they would be entirely unelectable by anyopne who gets a direct choice, or... it can be seen as a recognition that their families would probably commit hari-kiri rather than "spend more time with them". Think of the kids, man, where's your compassion!? ;)

btw, great words!

A reasonable man
01 October 2008 at 07:03

But Richard you have displayed your true intentions by writing this blog; to cover up the fact that you yourself lie. In fact, we all do. We call it bending the truth, keeping it on a need to know basis, saving people from themselves. Whatever but we all do it. The word lie appears so many times in this blog that I fear you have a very deep-seated guilt about a whopper you have told recently or perhaps in your childhood. But don't worry, Richard, you are in good company. With the rest of the world.

Richard Herring
01 October 2008 at 15:04

Not at all, reasonable man. My career is based on openness and honesty and if I had anything that juicy, believe me it would be at the heart of my next column. Unless I'd murdered someone I suppose... which I haven't.... no.

Of course we all lie to some extent, but so bare-facedly and publicly and over such important issues?

I just don't like being treated as if I'm stupid by someone openly lying and wonder why politicians can't see that they just make themselves look foolish by playing these games. Though to be fair to Ruth Kelly it seems she may have been pushed into making this announcement at this time - but she's still not being honest is she?

gnuneo
03 October 2008 at 05:42

reasonable man: are you telling us *you* wouldn't applaud such honesty in our political leaders? Even if i disagreed with them, i would still have more admiration for being so open. Such blatant lying may be considered 'face-saving', but in all truth, that's weasel talk for pure cowardice.

lying to us because they're cowards. And these bastards want our votes. Herring has it spot on.

Lawrence
03 October 2008 at 20:17

I see where you are coming from Rich, but unfortunately it's like a big game where everyone takes acting roles to play out the lie within the realms of diplomacy. Every participant takes part and the biggest faux-pas for them would be break the rules and tell the real truth. The status quo must be preserved. Though I'm not advocating it by any means. I still think Tony Benn is an old skooler who speaks his mind.

Incidently I read an article in the Grauniad a few months ago which was about a survey that showed how people have over time voted for PMs that are slightly untrustworthy and wiley as it is seen as a trait of strength and good leadership. Almost as if you are completely honest then you are not deemed alpha male enough. When I look at Blair I can only agree with these findings.

gnuneo
04 October 2008 at 00:32

Lawrence: the 'Fox' is an old accepted model of leadership, and with a loyalty to the People such types can be great leaders, they outwit the others and get better deals for their own. The 'Lion' is a very different type of leader, as is the Dragon, - they are all recognisable archetypes of behaviour. (And there are many more of course, see Jungian and/or Pagan-wisdom models.)

so i do not entirely agree that untrustworthiness and wiliness are necessarily related to alpha-male qualities, nor that such traits are necessary to being electable. Indeed, there is a very clear message at the moment from the British People that we are respecting those who tell the honest, clear truth as they see it, because it is blatantly clear that B'Liar's "wiliness" led us into two wars that are bleeding our young and our coffers dry. I suspect a lot of people who read Lee's article, even if they didn't agree with the politics, gave a silent (or not!) cheer at his obvious and Crystal Clear honesty.

and Old Ben is a true Lord of the Realm, even if he did give up his title. Would that there were more with his intelligence and compassion, indeed.

gnuneo
04 October 2008 at 00:34

oops - that should be of course, "Old Benn". 'pologies.

Lawrence
04 October 2008 at 15:08

gnuneo, thank you for the insight. I did not know about the animal metaphor leadership models but will look it up. It's interesting to look into the psychology of how people act and why we vote for them in every day life.

By the way who is this 'Lee' you are referring to with refernce to the article?

Yes I like Old Benn. I wish I had an uncle or grandad like that. I'm sure I would have grown up with some moral fibre rather than none at all. Ha ha!

gnuneo
04 October 2008 at 17:04

yes, the entire area of archetypes/character biasses is very interesting, not only for voting patterns but as another level of the interactionalist perspective in psychology. Always worth bearing in mind that not only are people different, they also admire different qualities in others. True of cultures (in generalised terms) as well.

I meant "Richard" - i have no idea where "Lee Herring" came from, is there another comedian of the Herring fame? Sorry Richard! :)

re Old Benn - well... i'm not sure about that. It certainly seems to have skipped a generation... ;)

Lawrence
06 October 2008 at 07:49

gnuneo, another good point. Do you have any links to the animal leadership model? I googled without success but I'm sure it's something I'm doing wrong.

And poor old Richard, what with Cathering Tate being credited for his work and you crediting his former comedic partner for this article, I bet he will be undergoing some serious existential angst right about now. Stay strong Richard Pryor- we all love your work!!

:p

Lawrence
06 October 2008 at 07:50

'Cathering'? Obviously I meant Catherine.

gnuneo
08 October 2008 at 22:37

unfortunately no. Its an accumulation of years of various eclectic readings, so i don't have a specific resource to send you to. If there is a pagan shop near you, i would recommend popping in and having a chat with someone there knowledgeable, and can point you towards a book or two that can help.

in general terms, here's a useful link to jungian archetypes (they don't have to be animal):

http://changingminds.org/explanations/identity/jung_archetyp...

i also did a quick search and couldn't find anything, bit weird as i know there's lots out there!

Lee Pryor? Whos' that? Was it he who wrote the above article?! :o

Lawrence
10 October 2008 at 13:13

Thanks for the link gnuneo. Not sure there are any pagan

bookshops near me. I live not too far from Glastonbury

where every single shop is called 'Avalon' so I think it

more likely if I ever return.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

Who has special needs?

30 January 2009 13:01

The kiss that spanned 200 years

16 January 2009 10:25

Muntadar al-Zaidi my hero

19 December 2008 09:25

My Tommy Cooper moment...

05 December 2008 08:59

And the real filthmongers?

21 November 2008 09:48

Racism and Lewis Hamilton

06 November 2008 11:22

Not getting laid

23 October 2008 10:17

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker