His department agreed to our request for an interview about cluster bombs in Lebanon and Darfur. Then, half an hour before the interview was due to take place, his department said it would not happen as promised due to an:
"unavoidable meeting in his diary".
Once again, that's
"unavoidable meeting in his diary".
Jump to more content from this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
Â鶹Éç © 2014 The Â鶹Éç is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Cracking! Thanks Eddie !!
I might use that myself when I can't think of something even vaguely plausible...!
n-n
Lovely, truly lovely...I fear this evenings programme is going to be a bit beyond me. Any chance of quick burst of birdsong at the half way stage?
Silly sod. You would think that after all these years of practice, Ministers would have perfected the art of plausible lying.
I hope that doesn't leave a giant gap in your programme, Eddie. Have you anything to fill it with? Any other cluster bomb expert available?
Mr Mayor, are you sure that this was not a case of:
"a Government interview we were hoping for has fallen through because the minister's department is refusing to allow it to take place on a mobile phone. "
I am sure that you recognise the quote, and as it has already appeared on the blog before, I will not repeat here a la Big Sister (1).
H.
PM - A minister-free zone
Is he an expert on cluster bombs then? Or a world authority on the Middle East and Africa? No, he's responsible for giving the British taxpayers money away on half-baked schemes in the Third World.
Complain to Louise Casey while you've got her on. He's showing a lack of respect to you and your listeners. You'll need to wear a hoodie though to make a complaint about a lack of 'respeck'. And I believe that the word 'Diss-ing' comes in handy on these occasions.
Amazing that they only just discovered that page in his diary. If I were his diary secretary I'd consider my position.
And diary secretaries known all about positions. Just look at the one who used to work for that nice Mr. Prescott. She knew a few positions. I've seen the TV drama. It was i colour, so it must have been accurate. I wonder why she lost her job?
But how unfortunate that he avoided an embarrassing double-booking only to be humiliated in front of the entire world on the PM Blog.
Si.
He must have a very big diary, then.
Guiness book of records?
Oh my word, the first time I've had a comment removed ........ HAHAHAHAHA!
And all because a minister's spokesperson felt the need to make a premature retraction.
If Belinda can make her comment, what was the problem with mine?
I'm really torn between being utterly perplexed and riven with laughter.
How wonderful to be controversial!
Just a further note on my disappearing comment: In case anybody thought I was referring to PM, Eddie, or anything to do with the programme, I most certainly was not.
But, like other commentators here, I could detect that somebody was being pushed into retracting their agreement to an interview.
If somebody changes their mind, they should have the courage to say so, but to use the excuse of another meeting indicates either incompetence in not spotting that the minister was not free to do the interview or that pressure was being applied from elsewhere to prevent the interview.
Either way, I repeat, if only silently, what I said before. Spherical objects are involved.
I wonder if Mr Benn still has adventures with the shopkeeper?
what a load of old b*ll*cks
Once again, that's
what a load of old b*ll*cks
[Never knowingly undermoderated]
You tell'm, Big Sis, way to go !!!
No idea who pulled what, but I'm rooting for you all the way!!
n-n
Cheers NN
Could it have been Mr. Hilaryious? His Dad would have seen the joke .....
I still think you should use your previous classic bon-mot: "We asked the government for a comment - You can guess the rest..."
:) FFred
Cripes, Big Sis, this is the Big Time!
Prophesy or what? My posting (4) refering to Big Sis (1) was, of course, refering to Big Sis (11). Only one digit out. Compared to recent form, I regard that as top quality :-).
H.
PS I still do not know which digit I was missing.
I don't think one can assume someone is lying just because one doesn't like their decision.
I do hate the way is it fashionable to assume the worst about politcians.
Go, Big Sis!
Ooooh Yah!
*chanting*
BigSis. BigSis, BigSis, etc.
Si.
Appy:
I don't think one can assume someone is lying just because one doesn't like their decision.
Decision? What decision? Decision to withdraw from an interview, do you mean? Decision to look at a diary - 'Oh, look, there's an "unavoidable meeting" in there - Silly me! Didn't spot that before!' I don't understand your point here.
I think the responses (including Eddie's and my own) are not unjustifiable in this case. And, for the record, I don't think all politicians lie, but I do think that to offer a crass excuse for not keeping to an arrangement to be interviewed is bound to invite scorn.
Politicians; if they aren't kissing babies they're trying to steal their lollipops.
I once heard someone on TV (a long time ago) comment that the desire to be elected as a politician should forever disbar one from being allowed to do so.
I'd back that up. Or put a clause in some form of acceptance criteria which requires any putative candidate to show that they have succesfully *done* something or *run* something outside the political field. There should be no such thing as a professional politician. Rather, people with an understanding of real life who get elected. That would rule out the 'Dear Leader' but allow in Prescott, Johnson, etc on the Labour side. someone with a real interest might supply a few more names...
Si.
Well, pah! And bah!
Mr Benn found a squeezie-innie place in his diary for the 'Today' programme, didn't he?
Cold light of dawn. Or something.
Meanwhile, for Si - hee hee
The decision not to be interviewed Big Sis, for whatever reason. I just hate this ultra fashionable idea that "Politician = Liar". Most people I know that are in politics are involved because they hold passionate beliefs. Some may well be corrupted along the way, as some are in every field, but they do not represent the majority in my experience. It's one thing to be a bit scornful and sceptical about what sounds like a poor excuse, but to accuse someone of lying without any proof of that is not on, and I think some of the comments above do tip over into that. I'm afraid I didn't see whatever you had moderated, so I'm not referring to yours.
I'm not even going to address Si's points -- we'll only end up arguing.
But, Appy, if the excuse wasn't true, it was a lie. You're playing with words if you prefer to use 'poor excuse' in these circumstances.
I happen to agree with you that most people involved in politics are there because they hold passionate beliefs, but I don't agree with disguising the truth with what, on the face of it, is a silly lie. If Mr. Benn had a change of mind, that is what should have been said.
Incidentally, the comment that was moderated was the same as my comment at number 11, but with only one asterisk per word and without the bit in brackets.
It should be possible to challenge the veracity of a lame excuse without somebody somewhere feeling sufficiently sensitive as to complain about a comment.
Incidentally, it is not just politicians who trot out silly excuses/lies to cover their tracks. It happens every day in offices everywhere as personal assistants can testify.
Thinking about Mr. Bean on the Today programme - perhaps Mr. Humphrys rang him in the time between agreeing to do an interview with Eddie and thought he'd prefer an early morning grill?
On the other hand, perhaps not.
Oh, sorry, that should have been Benn.
Would that be a mixed grill (with Beans), Big Sis?
5th attempt....
Big Sis (24), I don't do playing with words, but I do choose those I use carefully. My point was that it may have "sounded like" a poor excuse, but we don't know that it was, thus cannot say it was a lie. I agree with you that this sort of thing probably happens in offices all over, every day. And how would those offices function if everyone shouted "liar" at each other at every available opportunity? Not too well, I expect.
Politicians and lying, or why I have never voted Labour.
When I was 11 I lived in the sort of constituency which could put up a scarecrow as a Labour candidate and still win the seat. One evening I saw a discussion on the TV between a cabinet minister and a man who had just been made redundant (along with hundreds of others) from a nearby industrial estate. When this man pointed out that the Labour Government had promised to create jobs not preside over losing them, the cabinet minister (who may have been James Callaghan but I can't remember as being 11 is a long time ago for me now) said in a truly patronising tone 'My dear man, surely you don't really expect politicians to deliver everything they promise before an election do you'.
Is that when Labour began betraying the working class? or had it started before then? I don't know, but I decided then and there that if that was their attitude I would never vote Labour, and I never have.
Annie (28), It upsets me greatly that you would judge a whole party by one person, one comment even. That seems like an excuse not to engage in the political process, rather than a reason, I'm afraid. Or perhaps you are exaggerating for effect?
no not exaggerating for effect. I was so bloody angry that a party could take people's votes for granted to get them elected and then turn round and laugh at them for believing the promises the politicians had given them. The people who I belonged to had been led up the garden path by others who then turned round and laughed at them for their gullibility.
I'm not the only one who deplored the attitude of Labour to its 'natural' constituency. Alex Glasgow even wrote a song about it, and a damn good song it is too even though, or perhaps because, it was born from a bone deep bitter anger at a generation's betrayal.
I do engage in the political process. Women went to jail, some even died, to get me the vote. It would be a betrayal of them not to use it. I always vote. I just have one less party to choose from than is apparent from the ballot paper. In fact I am probably more engaged in the political process than many other people who vote the same way time after time, as at each election I have to think about where to vote.
Gosh Appy - that's pretty strong - "exaggerating for effect". I guess we're all formed by our previous experiences one way or another.
I agree that you can't judge a whole party by one persons job, position or stance. I believe that there are some politicians (have looked forever for a spelling of that - sorry if people think it's wrong) who may colour peoples judgement. However, who can ever know what the motivation is for people to get in to politics? Some are there because they want to make a difference, some are there because "it's in their blood" and some because "it's a good career move". Those who talk well may persuade us (or otherwise) regarless of their motivation.
It's very often difficult to know untill they've left office and give their "official" version of events. And, those around them give theirs!!
Yes, Izzy, I'd agree with that. I've worked with and for politicians in the past, both in and out of government. I know that individual motivations vary. It is a strong individual who is able, through a long career, to maintain with integrity to the principles which brought them into politics, particularly when the carrot of power is dangled. And I think you may be right that there are those who enter as a career choice without any great conviction one way or another. I base that comment upon conversations in the past with young researchers.
There are some shining examples of politicians who've clung steadfastly to their integrity. Some of them have been appointed to ministerial posts, but surviving in those posts can be a minefield unless there is a willingness at times to compromise. It's always been easier for politicians in parties that are out of office to maintain their moral standpoints.
Appy: Believe me, I'm not one of those ultra fashionable people you think are out there bashing politicians, but neither do I see their world through rose-tinted glasses (and I'm not saying that is the case with you, btw).
Izzy, Big Sis, you are both right, of course -- absolutley definitely there are people who go into politics with corrupt/selfish/other motivations (as there are in all professions). My defence was of those who do it for reasons of deep convictions, and those latter, in my experience are in the majority. I have never said we mustn't criticise people in politics -- that would be facile -- I just hate the thoughtless, fashionable assumption that everyone in polictics is corrupt and that it's OK to be insulting, rude and throw the word "liar" about as soon as a politician speaks. If my defence seems strong it's because I have to shout louder because there is so much noise on the other side of the debate: thus I don't need to cover the other side of the argument (although, as above, I always acknowledge it). I recognise, Big Sis, that you are not one of these unbalanced individuals. (I have never suggested otherwise, so am not entirely sure why you're pointing that out to me, but am happy to clarify that!)
Annie, Izzy seems to think my suggestion that you might be "exaggerating for effect" was too strong -- I didn't mean it in the perjorative sense and I apologise if it comes across that way. By way of explanation, I meant in terms of your reasons for dismissing a whole political party. I understand completely why the comment you attributed to Jim Callaghan above would make you angry. My point was, one couldn't be engaged in the political process if one dismissed whole parties there and then and never listened to their spokespeople, read their manifestoes, understood their values, asked their representatives questions etc... Parties, even small ones, will always harbour some individuals who say things that offend/upset some of their supporters, but if everyone cut the party off every time that happened there would quickly be no party or even individual that one could supprt. My suggestion of exaggeration was that there might have been other things that turned you off the Labour Party before and since, and that perhaps the offensive comment was therefore the tip of the proverbial iceberg? That I could comprehend, and, from your subsequent posting it sounds like it is what you meant. Does this clarify what I meant? Again, apologies if I gave offence where none was intended.
Appy: Thanks for your very thoughtful posting above. ;o)
Sorry, Appy, have tried to post something which doesn't appear - but basically to say "Cheers" and no offence taken - I think you know that already.
Appy - very well made point, taken. As Big Sis says elswhere, it's good to have the debate and not fall out. :)