Why it’s important that the car exchange was aired

In editorial, Gordon Brown, the labour party on April 28, 2010 at 21:01

The story has well made the rounds by now. As have the images of Gordon Brown with his head in his hands, looking completely gutted in front of Jeremy Vine.  But, a question has been raised about the ethics of airing the exchange between Brown and a member of his staff following the encounter with Mrs. Duffy.

Well, let’s put this out front right away. The comments were made by a public servant, on a campaign stop funded by the British taxpayer, while sitting in a Jaguar paid for by the electorate.  Of course it’s ethical.

The media exists to provide the citizenry with the information they need to make informed decisions and live freely in a democratic society.

If the Prime Minister thinks they’re bigots, they have the right to know.  Besides, if he was stupid enough to forget he was wearing a live mic, it’s his own damn fault.  Period.

That said, we can’t help but feel somewhat sorry for him.  He’s losing spectacularly.  Lavishly.  He knows that.  His own party is now questioning his position as leader.  The pressure he is under must be immense and while he doesn’t deserve to be Prime Minister, he does at least deserve a certain amount of sympathy.

We’d like to point out that Mr. Vine could very easily have amplified the outcome of the gaffe live on the air.  He didn’t.  That is a credit to him as a broadcaster.  We’ve always thought Jeremy to be a gentleman, and today he really showed his true colours.  Good job, Jeremy.

However, getting back to what we said earlier; it was important that the exchange was aired, having been recorded – accidentally or not.

If the Prime Minister actually believes what he said – and there can be no doubt that he does – then the public needs to know.  It reveals some very important things about his views on immigration.

In other words, throw wide the doors of Great Britain.  To offer up constraints in the manner that Mrs. Duffy would like would be to admit a bigoted, narrow view of what a multi-cultural society ought to look like.

The sage academy of the Cabinet know what it should look like. Nobody else.

Just look at this – from October 2009 (thank you, Telegraph):

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.


So, if you’re not on board with Labour’s immigration policies, you’re a bigot – and you deserve to have your nose rubbed in it.  Or you’re a working class drone that doesn’t have the right to an opinion.  Or if you do have an opinion, you have a right to keep quiet and let the Dear Leader do What He Knows Is Right For Britain.

In the end, BigotGate is not all that remarkable, as all it does is serve to exemplify all that is wrong with the Labour endeavour, and more specifically all that is wrong with Gordon Brown.

%d bloggers like this: