Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Biscuitgate and what it really tells us about the Gordon Brown and more importantly, the meedja

153 replies

JustineMumsnet · 22/10/2009 12:09

Hello all - hope you will forgive me a little rant about biscuits!

Yesterday Biscuitgate reached PMQs, with a jolly quip from David Cameron about the Prime Minister not being able to decide the biscuits for his bunker and thereby cemented its place in the folklore as a paradigm example of either Gordon Brown's indecisiveness or Gordon Brown's insincerity or Gordon Brown's cowardice, depending on your point of view.

Influential right-wing blogger Ian Dale gleefully penned Gordon Brown's Top 10 Ever Dithers and ranked Biscuitgate number three. Star political columnist Rachel Sylvester concluded in the Times: "It fits a pattern of dithering." The Sun screamed Jammie Dodger! and paraphrased MadameDefarge's tongue-in-cheek remark: "Maybe he's consulting advisers on the most vote-winning biscuit to admit liking." And Sam Leith in the Standard, bless him, said it was all Gordon's own fault for coming on Mumsnet anyway: "If the forums you choose for public engagement are Mumsnet and GMTV's sofa, rather than the Today programme and Newsnight, these are the sorts of questions you must expect to answer."

Now I can't say I often find myself feeling sorry for politicians but I have to admit to feeling more than a pang of sympathy for the PM over the past few days. Because the truth is that Gordon Brown didn't follow the live chat on the screen directly - he answered the questions grouped and fed to him by MNHQ and his advisors. He didn't avoid the biscuit question because it didn't cross his path (as I said on Radio 5 on the day, in fact).

Why did we do it that way? Well, there were so many questions and they were coming in thick and fast on every subject under the sun, so we reasoned that the most effective way of getting as much ground covered as possible was to group them together for him, rather than him answering random ones that he happened to notice.

We had a pile as long as your arm on subjects ranging from climate change to childcare vouchers to treatment of asylum seekers. After he'd covered a question he would immediately demand, "What next?" Occasionally, we'd squeeze in a light-hearted one - for example about what movies he wanted to see - but we were conscious of not merely focusing on frivolities. Fun as biscuits are, access to the Prime Minister is precious and we would have hated to waste time on Rich Tea Fingers at the expense of miscarriage or school starting age. Plus, of course, we'd rather not be seen as a soft touch in the GMTV sofa mould.

That's not to say Biscuitgate didn't reveal something about the Prime Minister. I strongly suspect that Mumsnetters resorted to asking about biscuits repeatedly towards the end of the chat because they were frustrated at being fed chunks of official policy rather than being engaged with directly. It's hard, of course, to keep up with the banter on a board like ours - particularly if you're not reading the actual chat and you're a Mumsnet virgin.

But the truth is it has come more naturally to other politicians to speak to and emotionally connect with Mumsnetters. That, I think, is a fair criticism of Gordon Brown, as is a a certain brusqueness, intermittently displayed during his visit. What is unfair is that Biscuitgate proves just how indecisive or insincere Gordon Brown is - he might be of course - what do I know? But there was absolutely nothing he did during his visit to Mumsnet Towers to suggest it.

In fact the real message of Biscuitgate is that whatever you do or say as a Prime Minister can and will be woven into any commentator's particular beef or agenda, in order to prove their point.
Who'd be a politician, eh?

OP posts:
Sallypuss · 22/10/2009 13:17

I too was surprised to see it in my paper of choice,The Times. Was it just me or was it really demeaning to me and the other MNetters who posted serious questions that the media only focussed on the biscuit issue? 'cause that's all us women are capable of thinking about, obviously

FlameHasAnotherChick · 22/10/2009 13:18

All that was needed was this thread after the first article... why have you waited?

AitchTwoToTangOh · 22/10/2009 13:19

well, that's kinda why those mimsy questions were stupid in the first place, absolutely a predictable hostage to fortune.

ZephirineDrouhin · 22/10/2009 13:19

Yes to Woman's Hour/Martha Kearney/anyone else who would be prepared to explore the reasons for this stupendously dumb media response.

AitchTwoToTangOh · 22/10/2009 13:20

there's the media show on r4 as well, although it's probably a dead duck now.

pollycazalet · 22/10/2009 13:20

Sorry, but don't MN HQ bear some responsibility for the way this story has panned out?

What did they do to correct it? The story was factually incorrect if he never saw the question in the first place but as I said, this story has been running for almost a week and this is the first time this has been explained.

MN could have corrected it earlier and drawn attention to the more serious questions he actually did see, and answer.

morningpaper · 22/10/2009 13:21

I think people are taking this a little too seriously

The only chance MN had of anyone noticing the story was for PM to say something funny / insightful about his personal life or health

if he arrived with a guide dog / with his mistress / with Boyzone it would have been news

I reckon that if he'd admitted that he was an unlucky PM it would have been news...

so that only other thing left is whether he reveals a little something about his personal likes and dislikes i.e. biscuitgate and because he didn't then this is a good hook for people to beat him with

(I was tempted to ask whether he would resign if he thought that Alan johnson would have a better chance of winning the election but I suspect it would have been ignored...)

n.b. I am not aware that he has an actual mistress, example was for illustrative purposes only

AitchTwoToTangOh · 22/10/2009 13:22

i don't think it's a stupendously dumb response, though. in the absence of a denial it's a pretty funny story that goes to prove that the media characterisation of gb as a dither who can't speak to people is correct. yes, it's pretty sexist that they're concentrating on the biscuit, but we asked it in the first place and much of the later discussion was about how it was a missed opportunity to show his 'human' side.

JustineMumsnet · 22/10/2009 13:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

AitchTwoToTangOh · 22/10/2009 13:34

time to start using those guardian contacts, justine.

deepdarkwood · 22/10/2009 13:35

Another one who'd like to know why it's taken this long for the fact that the question wasn't actually asked to come out, Justine... Understandable and all that you focused elsewhere, but a little misleading.

Given that the story is pretty much off the boil now, so the medja are pretty unlikely to pick up at this stage on the (otherwise enthralling) biscuitgate was actually never asked story...

I think we all make some huge judgements about web chatees based on what they do & don't answer, so if the questions are being filtered, I for one would want to know that prior to the chat.

JustineMumsnet · 22/10/2009 13:35

The Guardian/Obs was the only national newspaper group, I think, not to cover Biscuitgate Aitch .

OP posts:
sfxmum · 22/10/2009 13:39

regardless of political belief, the PMQ's jibe was cheap and lazy, I know full well it is always about sound bites and rarely a discussion of ideas but it was quite dire
am not saying Labour are blameless on that

Further, journalism which is lazy and fails to take into account that so many women took the time to ask proper often incisive questions of their prime minister makes me quite sad
debate and democracy indeed

and you can quote me on that

AitchTwoToTangOh · 22/10/2009 13:39

arf.

Nancy66 · 22/10/2009 13:41

Morningpaper is right - the story was only ever going to make the news if he said something funny/quirky. What colour his pants are, whether he puts the loo seat down - that sort of thing.

It was days after the party conferences so all the political stuff had been said (and reported) before.

As it happened he DIDN'T answer any of the funny/quirky questions so THAT became the story.

Of course he's in a no win situation, if he'd sat down and talked about biscuits and underpants he would have been accused of dodging the real issues.

AitchTwoToTangOh · 22/10/2009 13:45

totally, nancy.

smallwhitecat · 22/10/2009 13:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

AitchTwoToTangOh · 22/10/2009 13:59

hmm, also true, swc.

Ewe · 22/10/2009 14:13

I never thought the day would come when I felt sorry for Gordon Brown, but here I am. Poor sod.

MissingMyWheels · 22/10/2009 14:25

smallwhitecat is exactly right. I am a little sorry that he's been misrepresented this time, but it wouldn't have got nearly as much media coverage if it wasn't for the fact that he regularly makes a hash of this kind of thing.

I think Gordon Brown is just a bit out of touch with the kind of 'touchy-feely' politics that most modern politicians need to do well. Look at the time he was asked what his favourite food was by some school kids. I'll try to find a link, but it was just embarassing to watch.

I think he was pushed into trying to be Blair-esque, with the whole youtube smiling incident, but it wasn't natural and he's gone back to the way he was before. I don't think he minds this, as I doubt he sees its relevance in a purely political sense. In our media-dominated society, however, I think it's an oversight that will cost him dearly.

By the way, lest we forget, it's not like the left-wing press are immune to personal attacks on members of the Conservative party...

ZephirineDrouhin · 22/10/2009 14:35

Never mind Gordon Brown, I feel sorry for all of us if we've got to the point where the people who are supposed to be running the country really have to spend their time and energy playing these ridiculous games in order to be electable. We're not children for fucks sake.

squeaver · 22/10/2009 14:44

I do feel a wee but sorry for him and the whole thing has spun out of control in a way that demonstrates exactly the current increasingly dumbed down character of our media, but let's not forget....

The cringey "I'm a lucky PM today" answer

The condescending "Sarah's a busy mum" bit

and the blatant party political broadcast at the end.

Also that lots of Mners who did get serious questions answered didn't feel satisfied with the responses.

So swings and roundabouts I suppose

mollythetortoise · 22/10/2009 16:08

I thought the I'm a lucky PM today was wuite funny and a good response and I don't find it condescending for him to say Sarah's busy mum etc. I bet she is very very busy and it was a compliment to her..
what husband would say that the mother of his two children works harder that he does if he wants to remain married!

I think this wil have implications for us too and live webchats in general as it may put serious guests off (as they will have to check and double check their answers and may refuse to do live) . I hope not but we may find only less serious/ frivolous type guests will come on from now on..

Nothing wrong with a bit of frivolity but I prefer a mixture

spookypixiebroomstix · 22/10/2009 16:09

Ahh, poor bugger. The meedja are twunts.

inveteratenamechanger · 22/10/2009 16:11

Agree with squeaver.