May 1, 2010
Everybody will give it to Barack Obama, the charismatic wordsmith and orator of American politics, that he dynamised and made elegant the issue of grassroots political mobilization and soapbox rhetoric. His influenza, effortlessly grip British politics and electorates who demanded to modify their electioneering system to add glamour to it and have a fair idea of what their politicians, particularly those who want to lead them at No. 10. Downing Street.
Everybody will give it to Barack Obama, the charismatic wordsmith and orator of American politics, that he dynamised and made elegant the issue of grassroots political mobilization and soapbox rhetoric. His influenza, effortlessly grip British politics and electorates who demanded to modify their electioneering system to add glamour to it and have a fair idea of what their politicians, particularly those who want to lead them at No. 10. Downing Street.
This was coming on the heels of the disappointing revelations by Daily Telegraph newspaper about a year ago, on corruption and abuse of privileges on the part of British MPs, most of them feigning ignorance or tenaciously insisting that they did not break the rules while making financial claims or spending taxpayers’ money.
The last elections into the EU parliament was disappointing for the Labour party, almost all the poll ratings suggested that the Labour party is at an all time low, in over 30 years; a situation which conversely saw the rise of the racist British Nationalist Party (BNP), a party which the Archbishop of Canterbury, along with many other clergy openly came out to urge their congregations and adherents not to vote for.
The Daily Telegraph revelation was but one of many factors that put Labour rating down. The three other crucial factors being, in descending order, the so-called economic crisis or meltdown; the handling of the Iraq question/Afghanistan and whether indeed Saddam Hussein had or did not have Weapons of Mass destruction (WMD); and the immigrants’ question. All of these are sensitive and important to the British electorates.
Many British citizens lost their jobs following the melt down and it is still unclear whether the statistics being pandered around about the profit rates and improvement in economic profile of companies in Britain truly reflect in employment/jobs gained. Parents, and especially mothers, are worried and they felt let down over the wars in the Middle East, this is because many of them have come to realize that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD as was alleged. Mr. Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Tony Blair’s closest ally, had to be politically correct in his defence of Blair’s support for former President George W. Bush, in going to war against Hussein. The argument about “regime change” or the fact that Hussein was a dictator did not make sense to British parents and mothers whose children were killed in the wars. Mr. Brown is caught napping explaining this grey area: if Hussein did not have WMD, then why claim that you were moving to unseat him because he was recalcitrant and heady over WMD?
There was no logic to the whole deal and everything was incoherent and contradictory-the sum did not add up. The reality and truth is that Bush had an agenda for regime change, this, his Former White House media Chief has come out with a book to acknowledge as being the main reason for the war in Iraq. Now, Messrs Blair and Brown are caught pants down-were they right to have blindly and uncritically support George Bush? Was regime change enough ground and justification for US to lose over 4,000 souls and Britain over 500? The British electorates fell they were wrong. British taxpayers monies were expended in prosecuting the war and many bodies were returned home, following unjustifiable war and lost of lives.
There is no way the current melt down will not logically be connected to the wars in the Middle East. So far, the United States of America has admitted to have expended almost US$900 Billion on the wars; that is almost a Trillion US Dollars. Britain is yet to disclose how much it has so far expended on the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the wars are not over, neither are the deaths or casualties.
There is also the immigration question. Britain is so far the highest recipient of immigrants in the whole of Europe. Over 800, 000 illegal immigrants get into Britain annually, yet some 450,000 remain illegally. There are asylum seekers and those who wish to have a right of abode, from far and near, including East European countries and so on. This has heavy toll on British tax payers. There is both a political and social angle to the immigration question everywhere in the world.
In the US elections Obama was able to skillfully handle it against his Republican contender-John McCain. In Britain, Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democratic candidate seems to have a fairly more balanced approach to the immigration issue, neither Messrs Brown nor David Cameron of the Tory party seem to take a position that the electorate appreciates. The anger of the spending of British MPs will also not go away easily from the constituents. The constituents, and in particular, voters of the constituents want to take their revenge at the May 6 polls. But the critical issue is just who do you vote for (read who can you trust)? As far as constituents are concerned, all the political parties were uniformly guilty? Some of the MPs were also accused of evading payment of tax.
The three televised debates in Britain saw Nick Clegg's poll rating soared. They also saw that of Brown, whose approval rating had improved in three months (February-April), suddenly drop. In all the “sins” committed by Mr. Brown, there is only one that the voters, women, activists, and public interest commentators are not likely to forgive-it is his Freudian slip against a 65 years old life time supporter of the Labour Party, Ms. Leavy Duffy. The pensioner had asked a harmless question to which Mr. Brown’s public reply was fairly satisfactory. But what has put Mr. Brown and the Labour party in a big mess is not what the British Prime Minister said in public, but what he had intended to say in private. That is what he actually had in mind but could not tell the public. While speaking in “private” to his communication strategist about Ms. Duffy’s question or conduct or both-the mic picked and amplified Mr. Brown’s comment in which he described Ms. Duffy as “that woman” and a” bigot”.
Prime Minister Brown has since called Ms, Duffy on phone to apologize to her and even visited her at her home. She accepted the apology but refused to have a hand shake with Mr. Brown before the cameras. She has made a personal decision not to vote for any party at the May 6 elections. Ms. Duffy said that what pained or offended her most, was not her description as a “bigot” but the fact that Prime Minister Brown referred to her as “that woman”. It shows how sensitive she is to her gender and will not allow anything to go underneath her gender identity.
In the last television Debate, Mr. Brown was almost telling the audience that he had given up or lost the election; he said that he knew David Cameron would want to team up with Nick Clegg to form a government. Poor Mr. Brown, poor Labour party. Both Brown and the Labour party are unable to turn around this last minute self-destruction done on it by no other person that the candidate. Ina situation of soaring poll rating, Brown and the Labour Party were hopeful that they could swing the magic wand and pull a joker. Yes, they did pull a joker, but this time it was a home goal marking political self-destruction. It is an unpardonable and unforgiveable political mistake of a life time, on both sides of the equation. Mr. Brown will ever live to regret this act, so is the party. Ms. Duffy will also live with the pain forever, in spite of having forgiven Mr. Brown and accepting his apology. But the electorates find this also unforgivable because they feel it is unacceptable personal and private display of wrong conduct. They fell that Brown acted out his true person, by playing out the private Mr. Brown.
No matter what happens on May 6, there is a telling lesson to learn from what I call the Brown Freudian slip. If it were in Nigeria, it is likely that some commentators would have trivialised the Brown Freudian slip and urged Ms. Duffy to embrace Mr. Brown unconditionally and remain loyal and committed to Labour party, especially because Mr. Brown personally visited her home to apologize and she had been pro-Labour all her life. There are instances where many of us, whether we are office holders or not, have behaved in the same manner as Mr. Brown. But this is wrong; this is impolite and unacceptable conduct. Let us treat people with respect, honor and dignity. In doing so, we are also conferring the same honour unto ourselves. A lot of the time our leaders forget this time testes virtues. Let show humility and decorum. Whatever our tongue speaks should be measured and civil. That is what grants our universal humanity.
Our leaders must learn to be sensitive to the rights of the citizens and take the project of governance seriously. The citizens are not slaves; personal and collective respect of citizens by public officers should be a cardinal issue in governance.
This was coming on the heels of the disappointing revelations by Daily Telegraph newspaper about a year ago, on corruption and abuse of privileges on the part of British MPs, most of them feigning ignorance or tenaciously insisting that they did not break the rules while making financial claims or spending taxpayers’ money.
The last elections into the EU parliament was disappointing for the Labour party, almost all the poll ratings suggested that the Labour party is at an all time low, in over 30 years; a situation which conversely saw the rise of the racist British Nationalist Party (BNP), a party which the Archbishop of Canterbury, along with many other clergy openly came out to urge their congregations and adherents not to vote for.
The Daily Telegraph revelation was but one of many factors that put Labour rating down. The three other crucial factors being, in descending order, the so-called economic crisis or meltdown; the handling of the Iraq question/Afghanistan and whether indeed Saddam Hussein had or did not have Weapons of Mass destruction (WMD); and the immigrants’ question. All of these are sensitive and important to the British electorates.
Many British citizens lost their jobs following the melt down and it is still unclear whether the statistics being pandered around about the profit rates and improvement in economic profile of companies in Britain truly reflect in employment/jobs gained. Parents, and especially mothers, are worried and they felt let down over the wars in the Middle East, this is because many of them have come to realize that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD as was alleged. Mr. Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Tony Blair’s closest ally, had to be politically correct in his defence of Blair’s support for former President George W. Bush, in going to war against Hussein. The argument about “regime change” or the fact that Hussein was a dictator did not make sense to British parents and mothers whose children were killed in the wars. Mr. Brown is caught napping explaining this grey area: if Hussein did not have WMD, then why claim that you were moving to unseat him because he was recalcitrant and heady over WMD?
There was no logic to the whole deal and everything was incoherent and contradictory-the sum did not add up. The reality and truth is that Bush had an agenda for regime change, this, his Former White House media Chief has come out with a book to acknowledge as being the main reason for the war in Iraq. Now, Messrs Blair and Brown are caught pants down-were they right to have blindly and uncritically support George Bush? Was regime change enough ground and justification for US to lose over 4,000 souls and Britain over 500? The British electorates fell they were wrong. British taxpayers monies were expended in prosecuting the war and many bodies were returned home, following unjustifiable war and lost of lives.
There is no way the current melt down will not logically be connected to the wars in the Middle East. So far, the United States of America has admitted to have expended almost US$900 Billion on the wars; that is almost a Trillion US Dollars. Britain is yet to disclose how much it has so far expended on the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the wars are not over, neither are the deaths or casualties.
There is also the immigration question. Britain is so far the highest recipient of immigrants in the whole of Europe. Over 800, 000 illegal immigrants get into Britain annually, yet some 450,000 remain illegally. There are asylum seekers and those who wish to have a right of abode, from far and near, including East European countries and so on. This has heavy toll on British tax payers. There is both a political and social angle to the immigration question everywhere in the world.
In the US elections Obama was able to skillfully handle it against his Republican contender-John McCain. In Britain, Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democratic candidate seems to have a fairly more balanced approach to the immigration issue, neither Messrs Brown nor David Cameron of the Tory party seem to take a position that the electorate appreciates. The anger of the spending of British MPs will also not go away easily from the constituents. The constituents, and in particular, voters of the constituents want to take their revenge at the May 6 polls. But the critical issue is just who do you vote for (read who can you trust)? As far as constituents are concerned, all the political parties were uniformly guilty? Some of the MPs were also accused of evading payment of tax.
The three televised debates in Britain saw Nick Clegg's poll rating soared. They also saw that of Brown, whose approval rating had improved in three months (February-April), suddenly drop. In all the “sins” committed by Mr. Brown, there is only one that the voters, women, activists, and public interest commentators are not likely to forgive-it is his Freudian slip against a 65 years old life time supporter of the Labour Party, Ms. Leavy Duffy. The pensioner had asked a harmless question to which Mr. Brown’s public reply was fairly satisfactory. But what has put Mr. Brown and the Labour party in a big mess is not what the British Prime Minister said in public, but what he had intended to say in private. That is what he actually had in mind but could not tell the public. While speaking in “private” to his communication strategist about Ms. Duffy’s question or conduct or both-the mic picked and amplified Mr. Brown’s comment in which he described Ms. Duffy as “that woman” and a” bigot”.
Prime Minister Brown has since called Ms, Duffy on phone to apologize to her and even visited her at her home. She accepted the apology but refused to have a hand shake with Mr. Brown before the cameras. She has made a personal decision not to vote for any party at the May 6 elections. Ms. Duffy said that what pained or offended her most, was not her description as a “bigot” but the fact that Prime Minister Brown referred to her as “that woman”. It shows how sensitive she is to her gender and will not allow anything to go underneath her gender identity.
In the last television Debate, Mr. Brown was almost telling the audience that he had given up or lost the election; he said that he knew David Cameron would want to team up with Nick Clegg to form a government. Poor Mr. Brown, poor Labour party. Both Brown and the Labour party are unable to turn around this last minute self-destruction done on it by no other person that the candidate. Ina situation of soaring poll rating, Brown and the Labour Party were hopeful that they could swing the magic wand and pull a joker. Yes, they did pull a joker, but this time it was a home goal marking political self-destruction. It is an unpardonable and unforgiveable political mistake of a life time, on both sides of the equation. Mr. Brown will ever live to regret this act, so is the party. Ms. Duffy will also live with the pain forever, in spite of having forgiven Mr. Brown and accepting his apology. But the electorates find this also unforgivable because they feel it is unacceptable personal and private display of wrong conduct. They fell that Brown acted out his true person, by playing out the private Mr. Brown.
No matter what happens on May 6, there is a telling lesson to learn from what I call the Brown Freudian slip. If it were in Nigeria, it is likely that some commentators would have trivialised the Brown Freudian slip and urged Ms. Duffy to embrace Mr. Brown unconditionally and remain loyal and committed to Labour party, especially because Mr. Brown personally visited her home to apologize and she had been pro-Labour all her life. There are instances where many of us, whether we are office holders or not, have behaved in the same manner as Mr. Brown. But this is wrong; this is impolite and unacceptable conduct. Let us treat people with respect, honor and dignity. In doing so, we are also conferring the same honour unto ourselves. A lot of the time our leaders forget this time testes virtues. Let show humility and decorum. Whatever our tongue speaks should be measured and civil. That is what grants our universal humanity.
Our leaders must learn to be sensitive to the rights of the citizens and take the project of governance seriously. The citizens are not slaves; personal and collective respect of citizens by public officers should be a cardinal issue in governance.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });