Category: Comments on Current Affairs

I have started following the British elections purely on the fact that some weeks ago a guy named Nick Clegg mentioned “what we need around here is honesty in politics”, I thought what a contradiction.  So I watched the debate on Thursday evening between Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and David Cameron along with the millions of other viewers. I looked at the debate as an interview process selecting a leader for the job.  I was not concerned with any of the political parties they each represented.  I was amused when the presenter in the first part of the debate kept addressing the candidates as Mr Brown, Mr Cameron and Nick.  The presenter did change later to Mr Clegg. I thought shame on you all about the immigration question, as a lot of Britain was built up on the hard work of immigrants, this was not acknowledged.  There are thousands of Britain’s living and working outside the UK contributing to other economies.  I must say there was very little reference to the word honesty from any of them.  Gordon Brown seemed to always have three things he was going to do when he addressed a question.  David Cameron seemed a lot of the time on the back foot.  Nick did address the issues well and had solutions but he was given good time to think about the answer as both Gordon and David spent most of their time having a go off each other.  Gordon Brown seemed to concentrate on David Cameron more as I did not think he really sees Nick Clegg as a challenge.  I think this was an ill advised approach. Well based on their individual performance I think I would select Nick Clegg as Leader.  As it is now more than ever that active leadership is required to sort out the issues of Britian. On experience – Gordon Brown has more experience but he has presided over the issues that exist today in the UK and why has he not actioned all the three things he is now going to do to address the questioned asked? Nick – if he believes in honesty, keeps this at the forefront of dealing with current issues and faces up to the difficult issues that have to be dealt with then he could do the job – he is a new face, seems to have creative ideas.  Often having no baggage of the previous political environment is a good thing. So Nick take your hands out of your pockets – don’t hide inside an office and be where your people are, deliver on your honesty and you get this job. Only two more interviews to go?

It seems to me that British media are looking for signs of anger in their leaders for the coming elections, surely they mean passion.  Can you show passion about an issue without using anger?  If you do not get angry about an issue or topics then you seem to lack passion and ultimately leadership. In one news report they spoke about Nick Clegg and it seemed that they had never seen him get angry about anything except on one occasion on the issue of fox hunting.  I previously wrote on the 7th February this year about hearing Nick Clegg talking about being honest.  I don’t know about you but I would much prefer a leader that was honest and passionate rather than one that demonstrated anger for news headlines.  I don’t really mind what political party one is affiliated to for no one party has the ownership rights on passion and honesty. Very few great world leaders have often shown anger so Nick if you are reading this post stick with passion and honesty rather than anger as you will find there is far less competition out there in the honesty race.

On Friday last while driving I was listening to the radio and Kevin Myers was in discussions with George Hook.  They were discussing would you walk passed a fight on the street if you saw one happening or would you intervene.  Kevin said he would not get involved for several reasons especially given the current environment (drugs and the high level of violence) in which we live in.  Even though one might like to think they would go to the aid of one of the individuals involved most people would not intervene.  Whether you believe one should or not intervene is not the question, there is plenty written about this subject. A text was sent into the radio programme and Kevin seemed to get very animated and angry about a text message.  The text from a listener was a comment around his personal safety and assisting others to have him beaten up.  At first I thought what are you getting so upset about Kevin, but as I listened to what he had to say I thought well fair play to you, you are right.  We are much better off with individuals who call it as they see it, are happy to speak out for others and put their own name to what they have to say.  Individuals that don’t hide behind others who accept accountability for what they say and write and who are honest in their views and opinions.  Individuals who just don’t say what is expected of them. Whether one likes what Kevin Myers has to say or not, whether one agrees or not with his opinions, one has to admire him for being honest and true to his beliefs. Finding out who and what you are in life, being true to yourself is vital, we could do with a lot more individuals who call it as it is.

The Chinese have a terminology, ‘loosing face’. It means an embarrassment caused by a person or a situation to another individual or organisation. One thing  the Chinese dislike the most is to ‘ loose face’. ‘Face’ means, honour, good reputation, respect,and one can show ‘good face’ or ‘bad face’. Diu- mianzi, is when one’s actions or deeds are exposed to people, thus loosing face. It is seldom that people complain for the reason that you may think, Most times there is another or hidden agenda. Somewhere the truth is to be found. The current Ryanair and Irish Government issue over the hanger at Dublin Airport would strongly suggest that there is more behind this than what is said openly. Nobody wants to loose face especially a politician. I am fed up with the spins that are put on these matters trying to cover one’s own back side. No accountability and no responsibility for one’s actions. My questions is, where does honesty enter these discussions, as it seems to me not in this arena. Where is the consideration for the individuals who are faced with hardship and unemployment in this matter? Where does a dose of reality enter the world of politics?