|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 25 Mar 16:16
It’s almost election time and the Scottish political media will be turning its collective attention to the campaign rather than events at Holyrood.
In the absence of anything more tangible they will be looking for stories of politicians misspeaking, or evidence that someone’s past behaviour has been less than perfect.
For those candidates new to the game it can be difficult being put on the spot, particularly about a subject on which they are not expert (there will be many). Gaffes will inevitably be made. The reaction will partly depend on whether you are liked or not – if your guy makes a bad joke, it’s not a story. if their guy does the same it’s a resignation matter. Mostly it’s forgotten about in a couple of days.
Most parties will have vetted their candidates, especially where there is likely to be some focus on their particular contest, or they have a chance of winning. Reform seem the exception to this rule – I think at the General Election they tried to outsource this task (unsuccessfully). This time, they can rely on the media and the public doing it for them, albeit a bit late. They say that the American election primary season does the job of weeding out unsuitable candidates. Those standing here with little background in politics haven’t been subject to such an examination (and some may be elected by mistake)
A particular hazard is attempts at humour. Politicians rarely make good comedians, but they are expected to show their human side. It’s an occupational hazard, particularly if you are invited to make a speech. Depending on the context, you are expected to throw in some funnies. And this is fraught with danger.
Even if you have good material, it may not be appropriate for you, or for the occasion. You may misjudge the audience. You may botch the delivery. Or it may bomb for no good reason. I’m sure even professional comedians can struggle with bad audiences. Normally I’d have some sympathy.
But
We’ve already had a couple examples:
Anas Sarwar made what looked like a throw away remark – covered in the other thread. Poor taste, not particularly funny, but not a big deal IMO.
Malcolm Offord made a dreadful attempt at humour back in 2018 at a Rugby Club dinner.
He had previously sought to excuse many of his candidates who may have said “something fruity” in the past. This seemed like an acknowledgement of the quality of his candidates with the expectation that skeletons would come to light. I didn’t appreciate he might have been referring to himself.
But now this “joke” has surfaced. Why is it news now? Does it reveal a previous lack of judgement? Does it betray some deep-rooted prejudice? Does it matter? The reaction seems quite severe – it’s difficult to know if this is because people really don’t like him or his party or whether it was simply an appalling thing to say. I suspect this one will rumble on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 25 Mar 17:07
The issue people have now is nothing can be denied. It`s all recorded or photographed. People can`t be gaslit by idiots like Farage going "I never said that".
Offord`s joke was pretty homophobic but on the lighter side. I see it as valid today as it gives an indication of his character. Makes no odds to me as I assumed he was a pr*k anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 25 Mar 18:49
I found Offord`s defence of controversial comments made by some of the party`s candidates for May`s Holyrood election quite curious. One indicated support for far-right activist and convicted criminal Tommy Robinson, another spread rumours about asylum seekers and a third called former First Minister Humza Yousaf a "grandstanding Islamist moron".
Offord said: "We have all made comments in the past but the problem with this modern world is everything is written down and remembered. We need to be more realistic about the fact real people say real things."
He seemed to be saying that, once people become involved in politics, we can discount anything unsavoury they may have said in their previous non-political lives. He seemed to be suggesting it was OK for politicians to become `unreal` and say `unreal` things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
