What you see is what you get

Baroness Deech

What do Nick Clegg, Ed Milliband, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, President Obama,  Mitt Romney and Jimmy Savile have in common? They were made or broken by their television appearances; and their visual impact was more significant with the public than the words they spoke and the actions they took or promised to take. 

It was widely agreed that the 2010 election debate was a turning point, in particular for Nick Clegg, who came to public attention in a very favourable way; while Gordon Brown’s appearance had often been less well received.  Future historians will ponder over whether the right impression was given, and whether sufficient attention was paid to the policies offered by the three men.  Prime Minister David Cameron had made a terrific impact with his party conference speech in 2005, made without reference to notes, and regarded as a turning point in his rise to the leadership.  The fact that he needed no notes is remembered more than what he said.

Ed Milliband has now used the same ploy, with a well received party speech, to enhance his image and hence his electability; what is being discussed now is how much more he looks like a prime minister.

Only a day later did the media start to ask whether there were any substantive policies or a new agenda resulting from the speech.

The Obama-Romney debate a day ago is also going to be memorable, as the occasion on which for the first time Gov. Romney made a pleasing and powerful impact visually and as a speaker, while Pres. Obama was said to look tired and detached.

The TV debate may mark the turning point in the election, which had previously been regarded as a sure triumph for Obama.  Again, more attention has been paid to the way the two candidates conducted themselves than their track record or pledges for the future.

Ed Milliband made much use of the phrase “one nation” in his speech, a phrase always associated with Disraeli.  It seems (and readers will surely correct me if I have this wrong) that Disraeli did not use this expression, relating to a united country, in a speech: it was extracted from his novel Sybil, and developed in his parliamentary appearances.  Its power and durability as an attractive aim were for those who read about it, and about Disraeli, rather than looked at him. 

Disraeli for sure would not have gone down well on television and history would have been different.

And Jimmy Savile?

For once, one can indeed judge by appearances.  It was his TV celebrity status that made him inviolable, and shame on us for for the adulation that we heap on celebs, then and now, and in relation to the reported career aim of some young people – to be a celebrity.


14 comments for “What you see is what you get

  1. MilesJSD
    05/10/2012 at 9:07 am

    “You must never judhe a book by its cover”
    innit ?

    Loverly, altering-state-of-conasciousness array-of-stars pictures!

    (But that’s your political baroness’s Ploy because)
    We are still buying pigs in pokes: (ugh!)

    • maude elwes
      05/10/2012 at 4:42 pm

      PS: And the Jimmy Saville odd man out is simply the same example of the conspiracy of cover up you get when those around the titular refuse to sacrifice their income for their country.

      Jimmy Saville is akin to John Fitzgerald Kennedy and of course Bill Clinton. The clan around these pretenders are the easiest way to sure knowledge of the soul. Look at the men they cover themselves with.

  2. Princeps Senatus
    05/10/2012 at 4:31 pm

    You have shocked my RSS feed reader, m’lady. It froze when opening Lords of the Blog today and I wondered why. I do not think it was expecting so many pictures in one post. Indeed, so few posts on LOTB have any pictures at all.

    • Baroness Deech
      Baroness Deech
      06/10/2012 at 8:40 am

      Sorry about the technical overload, but I thought that only full size pictures would make the point!

  3. maude elwes
    05/10/2012 at 4:33 pm

    @Baroness Deech:

    I beg to differ. You do not get what you see by any stretch of the imagination. What you get is a line up of actors auditioning for a stint in a play called ‘ world leader.’ Margaret Thatcher was a front runner. That’s when follow the US game began in earnest. She had a complete make over in order to make her acceptable to the public and to Ronnie Reagan. Even her voice was altered. What deception. Not since the King who stammered was their such a farce played out on the stage of Britain.

    Was it worth it for her? I don’t think so. She lost so much of her life to it. And most of the changes made under her government have shown to be mistakes of one kind or another. What she gave with one hand she took with the other and did it with a good stiff drink always at hand.

    The lot we have presently want to be in the big time. And stealthy cheating little hams they were and are. Blair an outright Judas. His legacy is still to unfurl in full. But the secrecy mantra keeps it from view.

    And now Miliband claiming he is a potential Disraeli, who was in fact a Conservative. And as a mind, brilliant. Take note all you voters, he hasn’t said that out of ignorance. He knows exactly what he means by it. Remember Blair, he too was a Conservative in New Labour clothing.

    And one nation? Now what does he mean by that I wonder? I suspect it’s one planet he is getting at there. Globalization and mass immigration. However, that game is the one they are all signed up to.

    They are on the take. What we need is a man with the confidence and courage of F.D. Roosevelt. Only a man of his kind of substance will have the vision to work us through this fiasco and bring us to the new Jerusalem they claim they have at their finger tips.

    What we have presently are little boys playing silly games and getting away with it.

  4. Twm O'r Nant
    05/10/2012 at 4:46 pm

    Politicians are best advised to keep well clear of TV/Radio unless they absolutely have to.

    Perhaps the baroness, on the basis of her intimate relationship with the BBC, would get a better hearing.

    Very little truth lies in the power relationship of the BBC to its audience/clientele.

  5. Senex
    05/10/2012 at 8:18 pm

    “What do Nick Clegg, Ed Milliband, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, President Obama, Mitt Romney and Jimmy Savile have in common?” A food for thought caption competition perhaps?

    Caption 1
    Cameron speaking: “Some say that we should stimulate growth by lowering VAT on restaurant food and some say 20% is too high but we are not Hungary at 27% nor are we Denmark, Norway or Croatia who set their rate at 25%. Some say we should be Luxembourg and set the rate at 3% but we cannot, the lowest rate we can set is 5% and even this is too low. What would Goldilocks do what would you do?”

    Clegg thinking: “Hmmm, he’s got a point! I bet he doesn’t know the Spanish plan to up theirs to 9%. I wonder if Mariano Rajoy Brey has a gold wig.”

    Brown thinking: “Silly boy! Eating out is an unnecessary luxury. We should go Hungary and set it at 27%. He’ll learn!”

    Caption 2
    Milliband speaking: “Well come on then what do you think? Should we or shouldn’t we lower the VAT on restaurant food in England.”

    Caption 3
    Obama thinking: “Cameron’s got the rate on restaurant food way too high. In Chicago the rate to 10.75%; we got it right and I don’t even own a blonde wig.”

    Romney thinking: “I can just imagine you in a blonde wig. In Milwaukee the rate is 5.65% and thankfully it’s not as low as Portland Oregon where the rate is 0%”

    Caption 4
    Disraeli thinking: “How much longer do I have to sit here? I need to say something inspiring – better cheaper unadulterated food. No! Let’s make eating out cheaper for everyone. Yes that’ll do.”

    Caption 5
    Savile somewhere: “How’s about that then; lowering the tax on pizza just when I’m in no position to eat one and all this fuss about what went on in the swinging sixties. What’s the point of flogging a dead jockey?”

    Ref: VAT rates applied to hotel and restaurant services in 2010 in Europe
    Meals Taxes in Major U.S. Cities

  6. Lord Blagger
    06/10/2012 at 11:32 am

    What we have presently are little boys playing silly games and getting away with it.


    It’s outright fraud. Fraudsters. That Deech doesn’t realize this, is either down to being incompetence or being in on the scam.

    1. State pension isn’t on the books.

    The treasury statement is they can change the law not to pay it. That means the current state pension is a legally enforceable debt, otherwise they wouldn’t need to change the law.

    2. Omitting the debt is false accounting – section 2 of the fraud act.

    Also, its not FRS17 or GAAP, and the government says it will adhere to both.

    3. To induce people or accept money knowing you won’t pay out, is fraud.

    That applies to the State pension because people can catch up on past years voluntarily.

  7. 06/10/2012 at 2:22 pm

    Not previoasly a fan of Ed Milliband but, along with a number of others who mentioned it to me, was hugely impressed by his intellectual capacity in delivering a speech of that length with no notes. The question is, is he charismatic enough, and is politics, for the man or woman in the street, more about style or substance ?

  8. Twm O'r Nant
    07/10/2012 at 11:09 am

    We can only hope that a Milliband decision is not based on his membership of the Zionist diaspora. I don’t think this particular milliband will ever get the job he is looking for. The blatant nepotism is too much for most people to accept, even in the labour party.

    They were the days when the Kibbutz movement gave Jewish people the opportunity to be socialists too, but with Iran and Islam making such loud noises,with which socialists can easily agree, and the one world too, those days have gone.

  9. MilesJSD
    07/10/2012 at 5:34 pm

    This whole sort of tarted-up, public-identity ‘spin-doctoring’
    is becoming a worldwide Marketplace and Political monopolistic ploy,
    And is a very deeply serious Threat
    to Survival both of the Human-race and, ‘colaterally’, of this Living Earth’s Lifesupports,
    all the around the world
    [but especially and possibly primarily towards England Herself, as the ‘authority’ for the fitness-for-Purpose of the defacto/default one-world-language, English;
    for the foreseeable-future (and NB-please we may already be passing the ‘point-of-no-return’)].

    “Never judge a book by its cover”,
    nor a murderous wolf by its sheep’s clothing,
    nor healthy-food by its ‘generously’ large sugar and fat content,
    nor a ‘leader’ by her, his or its fine-words and surface doll-ups.

    There are four (4) distinctive Peoples of Britain, majorly the English, the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern-Irish,
    And by definition each such People constitutes a nation in its own right.
    (A nation-state is an homogenous People in its own Land and with both its own Government and united-nations-recognised and legalised borders all around.)

    So Shadow PM Ed Miliband should surely be stating not “One Nation“ but
    “One United Kingdom”
    (But aren’t we already, and worldwide leadingly-democratically, supposed to be that already ?)

    And shouldn’t Rt Hon Miliband have laid express emphasis upon improving our individual & mutual abilities in the 75% dominant “Lifeplace” ?
    At least equally with his one-eyed clarion-battlecry for the 25% One-Nation-Workplace ?
    Instead of denying-by-total-omission this vital British-Lifeplace,
    and instead of trying to simplistically ‘hijack’ us all into Training for and Working in the 25% paid Workplace,
    exclusively for the Milibandian-Labour’s “New One Nation” & “British-Economy” ?
    and without even a mention of our 75% Lifeplace ? ]

  10. Gareth Howell
    08/10/2012 at 6:45 pm

    Can you make allegations against a dead man. or is it merely that you cannot bring charges?

    As the Noble Lord Lane said,
    (on being asked an idiotic question by an MP; “What would the dead man think?”)

    “I find it hard enough to account for the thoughts of the living,
    let alone the thoughts of the dead!”
    That is indeed what Lord Lane said!

  11. Twm O'r Nant
    09/10/2012 at 1:37 pm

    each such People constitutes a nation in its own right.

    The word “nation” only has meaning in this country, at the start of a Rugby union international. The word “Country” is not adequate since The USA describes itself as a country also.

    The Rugby playing “nations” are mere “regions” of the EU, which is a catch all term insufficiently often used.

    The UK is a “nation state” which may become a FUK (Federal state) if Scotland becomes mainly independent.
    Likewise Holland and the Netherlands are a “nation state” of “regions”, and so on.

    The UK is currently a “nation state” of four “regions” within the European Union which is a “superstate” the same as the USA. If I am not mistaken these are the only two supernations in certain senses ,but there are a good many hoping to materialize in to a superstate by consolidation; the South American states being a good example; the AL (Arab league) not so good. South American states have several international groupings
    but none of them yet qualifies as a superstate. It won’t be long. Good health to Julian Assange!

    • maude elwes
      16/10/2012 at 1:45 pm


      Why do you think the US wants to anihilate Julian Assange? He is the wistle blower of the world. And it is in the interests of those in governments affiliated to the US and its war schemes to keep his mouth shut. He is smart and knows far too much to allow himself to be shifted off to Sweden where they hand all kinds of people, covertly, over to the CIA. They are cohorts in rendition. Of course, keeping it very quiet and out of the the European Courts jurisdiction.

      And, your awareness of Globalization and what it really means is only just beginning.


      This video is only part of this seminar. The rest are on youtube in sections.

      And the story of Assange. Well this Australian production from, Four Corners, gives the full story according to them.


Comments are closed.