British politics and assault on character

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    politics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of political discourse in British politics compared to American politics, particularly focusing on personal attacks and character assaults. Participants explore whether British politicians engage in similar name-calling and personal insults as seen in American political debates.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that while personal attacks do occur in British politics, they are generally less frequent and often more witty or sarcastic than in American politics.
  • One participant mentions that British politicians tend to maintain a mutual respect for opposing viewpoints, even amidst disagreements.
  • Another participant recalls historical examples of witty exchanges in British politics, suggesting that such repartee is a tradition rather than outright insults.
  • There are references to specific incidents, such as John Prescott's altercation during a protest, which highlight a different approach to political confrontation in Britain.
  • Some participants express a preference for the British style of political discourse, which they perceive as more civilized and less aggressive than American politics.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for personal attacks in British politics, with references to past leaders like Margaret Thatcher and the nature of media criticism.
  • Humorous anecdotes are shared regarding public reactions to political figures, illustrating the cultural context of political commentary in the UK.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether personal attacks are common in British politics. While some argue that such attacks are rare and often witty, others suggest that they do occur, particularly in media portrayals of politicians.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the cultural differences in political discourse between the UK and the US, noting that public sentiment in Britain tends to disfavor overt personal attacks, which may influence politicians' behavior.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying political communication, comparative politics, or cultural differences in political behavior.

wasteofo2
Messages
477
Reaction score
2
So in America, the Republicans are big on calling people harsh names. They accuse people of being traitors, cowards, anti-american, unpatriotic, allies of terrorism, and all other sorts of things like that if that particular person doesn't agree with Republican ideology in foreign affairs.

Recently there was this Democrat who suggested we need to immediately begin pulling troops out of Iraq. This guy was a highly decorated combat veteran, and a very respected person (apparently) within the military community, but some Republicans (none of whom, I believe, served in the military at all) began calling him names like those mentioned above; coward, traitor, ally of terrorism, that sort of stuff.

My mom heard this and commented that she'd never heard of anything like this in British politics, even though their Parliament was notoriously more raucuss.

But I don't buy that.

I mean, the way the British talk, it's like "Is the Honorable Prime Minister really such an arrogant, dispicable, horrible human being as to suggest that we accept this fascist policy that would totally demean the British Public and shatter Britain's standing in the world as a whole? Does the Prime Minister really want to throw Britain to the savages and have all of our daughters become prostitutes and our sons murderers? Is that what the Honorable Prime Minister really wants?"

At least, that's how it seems to me.

Do British politicians accuse those who disagree with them of being things like cowards and un-patriortic and allied with terrorism?

Just checking,
Jacob
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Some do, some don't.

The difference which strikes me rather frequently is that even on issues where different parties (and even different individuals within the same party) vehemently disgree, there is a mutual respect of the other standpoint. There are indeed occasions where one MP might have an underhand dig at another, but these are often witty and, rather than cause offence, can make good a point through sarcasm or hyperbole. These are usually taken in good humour and are almost a tradition of British politics.
 
"Maggy Thatcher the milk snatcher" comes to mind.
 
Political personal attacks are rare in Britain for one simple reason; the British public doesn't like it. Any attempt to gain an electoral advantage by personally abusing one's opponent will inevitably backfire. M. Howard came close to the mark in comments he made about T. Blair in the last general election and it undoubtedly did his party more harm than Blair's.
As one poster said earlier when insults are traded they are invariable witty such as when a female MP said to W. Churchill one time "Sir, if I was your wife I'd poison your tea" to which he immediately replied "Madam, if you were my wife I'd drink it"
 
Hey man, at least your Presidents don't get pies thrown at them.
 
Smurf said:
Hey man, at least your Presidents don't get pies thrown at them.
During the hustings in the last general election John Prescott the deputy PM had eggs thrown at him by one rather large male protester. John responded by throwing a right hook quickly followed by a couple of lefts the free for all was broken up by his police guard but when the Tory party tried to use this against his character it backfired spectacularly as polls showed ~90% of the public supported John Prescott wholeheartedly.
 
:smile: So insults are taboo but fist fights are all good, eh?
 
Art said:
During the hustings in the last general election John Prescott the deputy PM had eggs thrown at him by one rather large male protester. John responded by throwing a right hook quickly followed by a couple of lefts the free for all was broken up by his police guard but when the Tory party tried to use this against his character it backfired spectacularly as polls showed ~90% of the public supported John Prescott wholeheartedly.

I'd forgotten about that, thanks for reminding me! It was bloody legendary! The farmer was a right prick, Prescott was just being northern and sticking up for himself. Good on him I say.
 
Anybody remember the Taiwanese parliament and their infamous brawls? Spitting on people, throwing microphones, glasses of water, and calling each other "garbage cockroaches" is what I call politics.
 
  • #10
loseyourname said:
Anybody remember the Taiwanese parliament and their infamous brawls? Spitting on people, throwing microphones, glasses of water, and calling each other "garbage cockroaches" is what I call politics.
Not as cool as when people in the U.S. Congress used to carry around guns and stuff. Didn't a Congressman once shoot and kill another congressman during a debate in the 1800's?
 
  • #11
I think American politicians should be more like British ones. Witty reposte is much preferable to beligerant barrages of epithets.
Oh and I love the way that brits interrogate their politicians. I once saw Blair practically roasted on TV, it was great!
 
  • #12
TheStatutoryApe said:
Oh and I love the way that brits interrogate their politicians. I once saw Blair practically roasted on TV, it was great!
That's why I thought maybe British politicans weren't so immune from attacking people's character. I mean, you see people talking to Tony Blair and they're like "You have DESTROYED Great Britain, I hope you and George Bush both die!"
 
  • #13
wasteofo2 said:
That's why I thought maybe British politicans weren't so immune from attacking people's character. I mean, you see people talking to Tony Blair and they're like "You have DESTROYED Great Britain, I hope you and George Bush both die!"
Even when the press attack politicians it is their policies they attack not the man / woman. They never resort to the sort of ad-hominem attacks you see in congress or to a lesser extent on this forum. :biggrin:
 
  • #14
Art said:
Even when the press attack politicians it is their policies they attack not the man / woman.
What about with Margaret Thatcher? Weren't there all sorts of Ad Homenim attacks against her?

I heard this story about these 2 British guys in a pub in the '80's.

One guy is a bit drunk, and decides to speak his mind to the general public. He gets up on the bar-stool and shouts "Margaret Thatcher looks like a sheep's ass!".

Another guy hears him and punches him right in the face.

The first guy looks at the second with a dazed look and says, "Sorry mate, are you a Torry?"

The second guy looks at the first with a face of disgust and says, "A Torry? God no! I'm a shepherd!"

I thought that kinda stuff was common around the U.K.
 
  • #15
Art said:
As one poster said earlier when insults are traded they are invariable witty such as when a female MP said to W. Churchill one time "Sir, if I was your wife I'd poison your tea" to which he immediately replied "Madam, if you were my wife I'd drink it"

My favourite Churchillian story is he was taking a woman home nadshe commented "Winston, your drunk!, to which the hero replied "Indeed I am, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly".

On Maggie - I am too young to have a solid view but i have heard a great story about the Isreali Embassy seige. Her and her husband (no idea of name) met the SAS who had entered the embassy and shewas sat infront of one of the SAS and he said "Oi luv, duck your head down" and she turned round and said "Yes, sure!" And did! V. Cool!

Now quoting Wikipedia and the Guardian
"Margaret Thatcher and her husband Denis paid a visit to the SAS at Regents Park barracks after the incident to thank them. "Tom", one of the SAS soldiers present, quotes Denis as saying they had partially failed: "He had a big grin on his face and said, 'You let one of the bastards live.' We failed in that respect." (Guardian interview in 2002)"

nice story too.

Back on topic, could one not say that there is no need for personal attacks as either the politicians are too bland or if not, the public makes the attacks themselves! See IDS 'the quiet man', Howard 'the vampire', and Blair 'the Liar'.

In reply to an earlier post, the poster 'Vote Blair. Get Brown' was very ineffective, as everyone wanted Brown :P!

-NS
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K