"The first is to say that the problems presented to the Government at any one time are entirely new and more terrible than any that have gone before. The call on the health service; the environmental challenge; the nature of terrorism; you name it and he will paint it in the most lurid colours as if our forefathers didn't face the same and far worse in time of war."Adrian doesn't stop to ask why a politician may wish to engage in this kind of demagogic simplification. Tony probably does it because he lives and works in a kind of vacuum. Probably. There is no other possible explanation.
"The second is to define the choices in terms of entirely artificial opposites - those who object to privatisation of the health service want patients to die waiting for operations."Yes. It's a shame that he does this, isn't it? Because journalists will never do anything to punish any politician that offers granularity of any kind or anything in terms other than of simple opposites.
"The third is to propose that the nation needs to have a full public debate on the challenge and the measures needed to tackle it and this particular report or speech is to open up that debate, not close it down."Yes. Why does he keep doing this? The quality of public debate in this country is so spectacularly high, Tony's missing a real trick here! And there's no danger that it will be orchestrated by generalist fuckwits either, is there?
"The fourth assertion is the accusation that decisions are being made immeasurably more difficult by the media - the demands of instant response and the growth of global communications methods."This really is the limit. How could anyone accuse our Fourth Estate of being anything other than constructive partners, working in the public interest to build a better deliberative democracy?
Adrian has upset me so much, I'm going to have to lie down.