I've just been watching Tony Blair's monthly Press Conference. I honestly can't see the point of them. So far he has refused to answer at least eight questions in forty minutes. The BBC's James Landale even had to ask three different questions before Blair would given an answer. Blair keeps saying "I've answered that one before" or "I've said all I have got to say on that" or "I'm not going to say anything until the XXXX report is published". He just refused to give any comment a all on the potential takeover of the Stock Exchange by the Nasdaq. He said he didn't have his briefing folder in front of him. Surely we have a right to know if he thinks this is in general a good thing or not?
Why is the lobby being so supine? If he refuses to ask questions they have a simple choice. To lie down and have their tummy tickled, or to walk out. I think the answer is that Blair just doesn't care anymore. He knows he is on the way out and therefore it matters less if he refuses to engage with an issue.
Footnote: I was very surprised to see him avoid giving a view on who he backs to win the X Factor final on Saturday. Very unusual for him.
17 comments:
Why don't the lobby ask him sensible questions that try to find out useful information about government policy, rather than make pointless attempts to embarrass him and questions the PM would be absolutely wrong to attempt any answer to?
Yesterday on 18doughtystreet.com, you said you don't think that is why you blog. This post appears to bear this out. Surely, Tony Blair should be answering questions not asking them? Is it your brain that has gone numb or your finger tips?
I agree Iain, having just watched it also. It really is a bizarre circumstance where you hold a press conference yet refuse to answer certain questions. Shouldn't the PM have an opinion on the Stock Exchange? I think he should. Why does he need to speak to "advisers" to find out what his opinion is?
If he doesn't have an opinion, we might as well have Jordan as PM - and we could look at her tits during the boring bits.
I quite agree with you Iain about how supline the press has become in this country.
It is a pity they did not all agree to boycott the poodle's press conferences till he does properly answer any questions.
He would look pretty foolish standing there in an empty room.
I have a feeling these press conferences wont get any better with Gordimmo.
Just wish he would spend as much time in Parliament avoiding question's from the opposition parties and his own backbenchers.
Watching points of order in the HoC yesterday, I was struck by the amount of MP's commenting on the amount of information which is given/leaked to the media rather than announced to them in the HoC.
. . . or indeed what is the point of Tony Blair? I suppose the press conference thing was set up because there was a general feeling that PMQ's were not holding him sufficiently to account. But we forgot that the media is essentially part of the same cosy set up.
I am outraged that our Prime Minister clearly regards his monthly meeting with the fourth estate as some kind of joke.
You have correctly identified the formula; "can't comment until after the report" "subject of a legal investigation" etc.
But what of the journalists? They know the score and so do you. If you piss off the PM you are out of the loop. Have they the collective guts to boycott this charade in protest at the travesty of democracy it currently represents?
I don't think so.
Perhaps the emergence of the fifth estate is the answer to this paucity of truth, and that, Iain, is in your hands and those of our fellow bloggers.
If Yates plans an interview with Bliar for a Wednesday afternoon will Bliar list the interview in his engagements during question time on the Wednesday lunchtime? It would be particularly entertaining is the first question comes from one of the useless toadying wimmin that pack the NuLab back benches. Maybe Yates could follow up the interview with a request that Bliar attend at the yard to be arrested the following Wednesday afternoon.
Your comment about the X-factor reminds me of that classic scene in that classic programme 'The Thick Of It'. The tremendous Peter Capaldi is asking Chris Langham 'What's a Chav?' and soon realises he's completely out of touch.
So he recommends showing him the 'zeitgeist tape' they show the PM with selected clips from the telly soaps and reality shows, so that he can at least appear to be in touch..
nadders - it is polite to credit sources, otherwise it gives the impression that it is you who has your finger on the pulse.
In this case 'The First Post' is I think the people you are looking for.
The point is to remind you lot who won the last election. Believe it or not Tony Blair is not accountable to the press, but to parliament and through them the electorate.
Given that boy Dave's poll rating is drooping so badly, I don't expect we'll be seeing him on that Downing Street podium.
Q: "What is the Point of the PM's Press Conferences?"
A: To give the appearance that the country is a modern, open democracy without actually having to betray any information about the inner workings of government/the PM's mind.
In other words, typical NuLabour: All flashy, bright presentation and sweet bugger all substance.
The conference has deteriorated over many months. The only questions I enjoy are from overseas correspondents as at least they ask pertinent policy questions. I find many of our reporters extremely rude and disxourteous and they do not serve me as a member of the public well. Not only are the questions irrelevant but the tone of the questioning is quite offensive.
I think the PM has tried to open up government by this conference and appearances before the House Committee (The Committee's questioning is relevant to me). Regardless of who becomes PM I am sure they will all end up frustrated with the lobby. It seems that the questions are about the journalists - who can ask the most pertinent, personal, party political, embarrassing questions. They let down their so called profession. Is it any wonder thet many of us pay no attention to them!
As any barrister will tell you, to elicit information from a reluctant witness you need to ask carefully crafted, unambiguous questions, preferably short questions dealing with one point at a time and questions of fact, not opinion; you need to persist with your questions until you get a straight answer; and you need to confront the witness with any documentary evidence which appears to contradict him.
Neither MPs or journalists are able to to this, which is why no useful information is ever elicited by PMQs or the Downing Street Press conferences.
These press conferences seem open and honest, but are in fact a classic neo-Stalinist control mechanism. To begin with, Blair is a master at avoiding giving straight answers to any sort of question, while using body language and tone of voice to appear completely sincere. But even if he weren't, the format is still biased against the reporters. There are so many of them, and the time is so short, that they can ask, at most, one question with a couple of followups. And you have to be a national journalist to get there at all, without some sort of special luck. The Prime Minister has control of the proceedings, unlike in PMQs, where the Speaker decides when a question has been dodged. Overall, these conferences are typical NuLab. Apparently very open and transparent, and in fact control freakery and spin at its worst.
Tony Blair is just an absolute c***
You give a prick like him power at your peril, he has no respect for any of our sacred institutions, you know, the things that identify us and make us unique in the world.
To me,the idiots that vote for him are as bad as him.
anonymous 4.03 said -
The Prime Minister has control of the proceedings, unlike in PMQs, where the Speaker decides when a question has been dodged.
Not this Speaker, mate. You should have finished the sentence after "proceedings"
Post a Comment