Ann Widdecombe, writing in this morning's Daily Express, thinks that there are three main reasons why turnout in elections is declining:
1. People don't believe that voting makes any difference;
2. Voters don't believe a word politicians say;
3. "They have been taught by their role models that politicians are for amusement, to be mocked and embarassed."
Miss Widdecombe makes her intervention after Jonathan Ross' controversial interview with David Cameron in which the £6m-a-year presenter asked the Tory leader - 'did you or did you not have a wank thinking Margaret Thatcher?'.
The former Home Office minister thinks that the media prefers "confrontation and derision" to "exploration and examination". She says that she has no objection to the "sharp wit" of Spitting Image or Rory Bremner. She objects to the "increasing fashion to try to trap politicians into making fools of themselves when they think they are being invited to talk about real issues." In addition to Jonathan Ross, she cites the Eleven O'Clock show which tricked a Tory MP into attacking a drug that didn't exist.
Miss Widdecombe rejects the broadcasters' defence that such shows are popular. "So were the horrors of the Roman arena," she declares. Her conclusion:
"Such obscenity should not be funded by a tax which passes under the name of a compulsory licence fee."
Ross is overpaid by about £5.5 million a year and it is clearly confusing him.
No wonder he thinks he can 'pull wank over Camewon'.
Widdecombe's on the wight twack.
Posted by: william | June 28, 2006 at 09:22
I thought it was Chris Morris on Brass Eye who tricked David Amess into believing 'cake' was a real drug.
I thought that programme was hilarious.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | June 28, 2006 at 09:34
"Such obscenity should not be funded by a tax which passes under the name of a compulsory licence fee."
The compulsory licence fee is of itself an obscenity.
Posted by: Serf | June 28, 2006 at 09:37
I totally agree with Anne Widdecome, but still dont see how DC could have ducked out of that show. It has a huge audience of younger people. DC needs to reach those people. He handled the interview well. It was the BBC's choice to include the stupider questions, and only the BBC's choice. They are the ones with no judgement.They are the ones with the left wing new labour bias. They are the ones who take our licence fees under false pretences. They are the ones who produce rubbish too much of the time.
Dont blame DC. He has a knack of feeling the zeit geist of the younger generations, and the guts to stick his neck out and go on Wossies show. In fact, DC was probably b.....if he did, and b.......if he didnt.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | June 28, 2006 at 09:50
That would be Ann Widdecombe of reality show Celebrity Fat Club?
"1. People don't believe that voting makes any difference;"
Well they have a point, the centre-ground is besieged by the three parties.
"2. Voters don't believe a word politicians say;"
Because experience tells us they lie and lie again. Promises are broken, spin and bluster are the essence of their trade.
3. "They have been taught by their role models that politicians are for amusement, to be mocked and embarassed."
It is healthy for democracy that we show no deference to them, by and large they earn their ridicule. If they were honourable they wouldn't suffer our mocking. They richly deserve everything they get.
Posted by: Guido Fawkes | June 28, 2006 at 09:57
Parliament has itself voted to transfer to unelected institutions unaccountable to the British people the widest powers of law making. It has even let slip extensive powers over taxation, as well as much actual tax revenue.
Where is the surprise then that people consequently feel disenfranchised - they are. And disenfranchised by the very people supposed to represent them!
But it seems that whoever leads Britain's major political parties are happy to maintain this state of affairs, and even exacerbate it.
Where is the leader who will not just lament this situation, but lead us out of it?
Posted by: JT | June 28, 2006 at 09:58
I totally agree with Anne Widdecome, but still dont see how DC could have ducked out of that show. It has a huge audience of younger people. DC needs to reach those people. He handled the interview well.
Ross invited DC to be on the show, Dc wasn't begging so that he could get with the "young and hip". Had he refused to turn up, or agreed to turn up and then backed out we may have had something similar to the tub of lard on Have I Got News For You!
Posted by: Chris | June 28, 2006 at 10:01
Cameron should have walked when he said that. Its a disgusting way to treat Thatcher. Cameron shouldnt have sat there. It only makes it seem OK for Ross to say that. In fact he shouldnt have bothered with the interview at all. He knew something would happen.
Posted by: James Maskell | June 28, 2006 at 10:37
Harsh but true, Guido, although I think Ann Widdecombe is more honourable than most.
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 28, 2006 at 11:18
Guido is right.
Anne "Celebrity Fat Club" Widdecombe should remember that people in glass houses should not throw stones.
Politicians who go on "Have I Got News For You" are quite prepared to ridicule their opponents.
Perhaps Anne will bring this up with Ian Hislop who bid a grand to have tea with her.
It is hypocrisy that leads to politicians being ridiculed.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | June 28, 2006 at 11:29
Jonathan Ross is like that with all his guests, he is always er...how shall I put it.."risque" and goes for shock value. To expect him to treat David Cameron any different is absurd. The Thatcher question was merely a joke designed to shock with its taboo-breaking - and evidently succeeded!
If David Cameron had stormed out he would've look totally humourless, grumpy, prudish and fuddy duddy. He handled it exactly right.
As for it being caused by left-wing bias: If memory serves Jonathan Ross repeated a couple of times that DC was "our next Prime Minister" and said he was a genuine, decent guy, and was generally positive about him. What more could DC ask for?
Posted by: Jon Gale | June 28, 2006 at 11:45
I can understand why politicians are mocked. They make fools of themselves (Prescott), they have no grip on power (Major), they come across as liars (Blair) and countless other examples of misbehaviour, stupidity, sleaze and downright cretinism. Thatcher was mocked for her authoritarianism on Spitting Image but at least people respected her.
We need strong-willed conviction politicians who don't lie to the electorate and who don't make fools of themselves in public or in private. Nobody is perfect, but some errors are less stupid than others. As politicians effectively run this country it is even more important that they should be under the spotlight and relentlessly criticised if they mess up. They control our lives and we have to pay taxes to fund it.
Posted by: Richard | June 28, 2006 at 11:53
What a stupid thing to get worked up about!
Everyone in the country thinks that politics is a ludicrous, pointless profession for grownups to persue anyway. Appearing on Ross is not going to make them think any the less of a politican, they can't think any the less of them!
Posted by: david | June 28, 2006 at 12:02
It is quite true that Ann was on "Celebrity Fat Club" - but that programme had a purpose and that was tackling obesity by getting well-known people to take part in a weight loss programme. Nothing at all wrong with that and Ann's appearance (and no doubt her health) improved dramatically thereafter.
Contrast that with "Wossy's" puerile and unpleasant behaviour. DC was quite obviously (and quite rightly) embarrassed by the whole thing. His only mistake perhaps was agreeing to be interviewed by Ross in the first place.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | June 28, 2006 at 13:21
After the agony of “Anne Widdecombe to the Rescue”, let’s admit that Anne Widdecombe has willingly transformed herself into a minor TV celeb who is jealous of Cameron’s TV success. I thought that the wank gag was quite funny – although I was surprised at the tacit admission that Mrs T sexually appealed to teenage Jonathan Ross. Being on that show put David Cameron in front of a wide audience and he did well – coming across as personable, reasonable and dignified. Cameron probably found the joke amusing but, even if he didn’t, in his tenure as Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister he will have to deal with far worse without going off in a tantrum.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | June 28, 2006 at 13:49
Those of us not used to seeing politicians on such shows as Woss on a Friday night would be shocked at the interview, and the pieces chosen to broadcast by BBC producers.
But at the end of the day, it was light and humourous for most. Cameron done very well to handle Wossy and his crude remarks, but I doubt Cameron didnt know that Wossy was a crude perv on his friday night show. He knew exactly how to handle it and it was a good idea over all.
Posted by: G-MaN | June 28, 2006 at 13:52
Political correctness has destroyed politics in the UK. The fear of upsetting any minority group means that the wishes of the silent majority are ignored.
Unless you happen to live in a marginal constituency, your vote has no value.
Posted by: Snafu | June 28, 2006 at 13:53
I'm not so sure there is any "sharp wit" to be found in Rory Bremner (at least not whenever I've paid attention).
Posted by: John Hustings | June 28, 2006 at 14:44
I worry Guido's wrong. It's the not voting and not taking an interest in politics which makes the process become even more facile and exacerbates the vicious circle of inane dumbing down.
Widdie's first point feeds into the second and third and vice versa.
Posted by: Edward | June 28, 2006 at 15:21
Political correctness has destroyed politics in the UK. The fear of upsetting any minority group means that the wishes of the silent majority are ignored.
Unless you happen to live in a marginal constituency, your vote has no value.
I have *no* idea how your first point links to your second! The importance of marginal seats is a product of the FPTP voting system, not of political correctness. (Not that I am backing any form of PR, I think FPTP is still the least worst option!).
How can the wishes of the "silent majority" be ignored? If they were genuinely a majority, they would be dictating the outcome of elections and by definition could not be ignored. I have a feeling that the "silent majority" to which you refer are actually the vocal minority favoured by a few commentators in the tabloid media.
Posted by: Richard Carey | June 28, 2006 at 20:11