Dear Dirty America

MICHAEL J BLAIR
Perthshire, Scotland

As I’m sitting here listening to the talking heads chattering about what amounts to somewhere around minus 25% of interest to the majority of the population.

This produces a mind numbing hum which makes thinking about anything else almost impossible.

This might be a deliberate experiment by the media to keep us watching their endless 24 hour loop of left/right propaganda, but most likely, we are too tired to change the channel or hit the off button.

The BBC News especially ties itself in verbal knots trying to remain impartial, but failing to convince anyone with a political leaning, that their output isn’t slanted towards or against their own unchallengeable views.

Sky News should be more relaxed but for some unfathomable reason, they come over as bad if not worse. The presenters obviously have their own political preferences, and they have such difficulties in keeping them from surfacing.

In interviewing a politician with opposing political views to themselves, one can see the pressure to speak out, building. Faces getting more red. Twitches around the eyes. Beads of sweat popping out of their puce-coloured foreheads. They look in danger of exploding.

Occasionally, the urge to give an opinion gets too much, and a noise like a constipated howling monkey is heard as the camera shot is quickly moved to the gibbering politician sitting opposite.

Meanwhile, the next item is more Brexit, but now from a live broadcast from Westminster.

This involves media commentators interviewing each other, while waiting for the next gaggle of MPs to argue with each other about the Brexit circus.

Usually there are three politicians, all with different opinions on Brexit. They all believe that they are right, and shout to be heard above the others who are also shouting.

This isn’t a very edifying spectacle, which the interviewer, having tried to keep order, gives up and allows the idiots to continue looking even more ridiculous.

Some of the politicians seem to have forgotten what this is all about, and as usual they revert to making it about themselves.

Occasionally they remember that there was a referendum in which the  majority of the UK public voted to leave the EU. This gives them a headache because they will have to make a decision based on public opinion.

I can understand why they’re not comfortable with this type of vote. If anyone has been involved with the public in any meaningful way, then they know that this is not always the best way to get anything done.

There’s always a lot of uncertainty which cannot be manipulated for the needs of the political classes. And they only like “uncertainty” if they are the organisers.

But once the results are in, they have to be honoured. There’s no point in giving the public a vote on any subject, including general elections, if you don’t like the end result.

The odd thing here is, the question of the general election where politicians tend to be happy with the results, well except for the ones who lose their comfortable jobs.

Why are referenda different? Especially on the subject of the EU?

In these cases, if the result doesn’t go the way of the political establishment, there’s a huge effort to vote and vote again until they get the result they want.

I suppose that in the case of a general election, it doesn’t really matter who gets into power. The politicians, no matter what they say they believe in, are owned by the establishment. And they will toe the line.

The likes of Jeremy Corbyn, who claims, and appears to be a radical left politician, if he were to become Prime Minister, would soon become just another political poodle.

He would be allowed to yap, but nothing would materialise which would scare the horses.

What the political establishment hates, is the public making any kind of decision which alters the landscape and stops their agenda.

Politicians either have to trust the public or never have another referendum.

[header photo courtesy of frankieleon]