[Politics] It's official, Matt Hancock is a...

[Pevenseagull]

I heard him talking about it, perhaps you missed it? ITV choose not to edit it in a way, that would have helped him. It was such a blatant setup for ratings and trying to knock Hancock at every turn. It took a spectacular misfire for them. If you take on someone like Hancock you must not ever underestimate them, some will never learn.

well that's good news, I'm sure all those who were on the front line dealing the 10s of thousands that died before their time as a result of his incompetence and greed will be glad to know he's a stand up chap.

Hoorah.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

No political bias from me, just an observation.

I found it interesting that when the public could vote a celebrity to do a trial, Hancock was voted for 4-5 times on the trot before the public decided they should pick on a more entertaining celeb [one who struggled with trials]

Yet when the public were voting to keep someone in camp, Hancock was 3rd most popular.
As Boy George said upon his eviction: "I can't believe Matt Hancock is more popular than me!"

Might this indicate that more people like MH than dislike him - or did every Tory party member have the whip tell them to vote to keep him in [every night]?

I think it may come down to those who dislike him being generally the more vocal folk and those who accept him are the silent majority?

Me, I'm on the fence ....

 

[BadFish]

No political bias from me, just an observation.

I found it interesting that when the public could vote a celebrity to do a trial, Hancock was voted for 4-5 times on the trot before the public decided they should pick on a more entertaining celeb [one who struggled with trials]

Yet when the public were voting to keep someone in camp, Hancock was 3rd most popular.
As Boy George said upon his eviction: "I can't believe Matt Hancock is more popular than me!"

Might this indicate that more people like MH than dislike him - or did every Tory party member have the whip tell them to vote to keep him in [every night]?

I think it may come down to those who dislike him being generally the more vocal folk and those who accept him are the silent majority?

Me, I'm on the fence ....

I wonder if it is that people want to keep him there to do more trials?

 

[BadFish]

I heard him talking about it, perhaps you missed it? ITV choose not to edit it in a way, that would have helped him. It was such a blatant setup for ratings and trying to knock Hancock at every turn. It took a spectacular misfire for them. If you take on someone like Hancock you must not ever underestimate them, some will never learn.

you appear to ne suggesting on this thread that the media are doing a beat up job on him. Others have said they don't like him because of his involvement in the PPE debacle.

Perhaps you could even up the ledger a little here and tell us the things that you like about him? What were the good things that he did while in office?

Top 4 or 5 will do? You know to provide balance against the fact that people died through his cronyism and greed.

 

[The Clamp]

No political bias from me, just an observation.

I found it interesting that when the public could vote a celebrity to do a trial, Hancock was voted for 4-5 times on the trot before the public decided they should pick on a more entertaining celeb [one who struggled with trials]

Yet when the public were voting to keep someone in camp, Hancock was 3rd most popular.
As Boy George said upon his eviction: "I can't believe Matt Hancock is more popular than me!"

Might this indicate that more people like MH than dislike him - or did every Tory party member have the whip tell them to vote to keep him in [every night]?

I think it may come down to those who dislike him being generally the more vocal folk and those who accept him are the silent majority?

Me, I'm on the fence ....

I should think it boils down to the sort of morons that watch reality TV.

 

[Stato]

No political bias from me, just an observation.

I found it interesting that when the public could vote a celebrity to do a trial, Hancock was voted for 4-5 times on the trot before the public decided they should pick on a more entertaining celeb [one who struggled with trials]

Yet when the public were voting to keep someone in camp, Hancock was 3rd most popular.
As Boy George said upon his eviction: "I can't believe Matt Hancock is more popular than me!"

Might this indicate that more people like MH than dislike him - or did every Tory party member have the whip tell them to vote to keep him in [every night]?

I think it may come down to those who dislike him being generally the more vocal folk and those who accept him are the silent majority?

Me, I'm on the fence ....

You're reading far too much into a vote that was easily rigged by those motivated to do so. E.g. The PR firm employed by Hancock: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/27/matt-hancock-im-a-celebrity-tiktok-votes-jungle

He got about 21% of the 12 million+ votes in the final. 2.6 million seems impressive until you realise that this is not 2.6 million people. Less than 12 million watched the final and most don't vote. Everybody with the app. gets 5 votes, so those moved to support Hancock's campaign could vote at least 5 times for him. So 2.6 million immediately becomes 500,000+. You then read that one person could vote up to 600 times for one contestant without ITV caring and you realise that a contestant motivated enough to hire a PR firm is also likely to be motivated enough to encourage multiple voting if its within the rules. 500,000 then looks like a very high estimate of how many people actually voted for him. Let's take a generous guess at 300,000. Your silent majority then becomes less than three percent of the viewing audience voting for the only candidate who was running a PR campaign to seek votes. In other words, it says absolutely nothing about whether anybody likes or dislikes him, or changed their opinion of him whilst he was in there.

One of my kids has been wrapped up in voting in it and has told me that, among her friends, those who watched the programme with no prior knowledge of politics thought that he was a nice quiet middle aged bloke who offended nobody. The minority of her friendship group (early twenties) who paid attention to politics, whether left or right leaning, were aware of the consequences of his cronyism and incompetence and distrusted the persona that he presented in the show. In other words, it was the informed, not the vocal who disliked him.

 

[nicko31]

I should think it boils down to the sort of morons that watch reality TV.

Its just so boring, I'm really not interested in any of these people. The public love trivia

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

It's just a further example of how political allegiances has appeared to become tribalised beyond belief. Most of those who I have heard back him were "tory supporters". It seems to be that they feel you support 'one of your own' no matter what they've done.

In the show he said the following:

"I fessed up" - No mate. You got caught
"I fell in love" - Right.....people wern't allowed to say goodbye to those they loved because of your rules.
"It's why I resigned" - Oh f*** off. We all know you would have been sacked.

I just can't believe how short some people's memories are. You are enabling this guy to come out of here richer, when he should have been at work, having publicised his covid diaries which will be coming out soon and making him even more money off the pandemic. Madness

Still, Janet and Deborah on twitter say he's just a nice guy who is being bullied in there (because people dared to ask him questions).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I wonder if it is that people want to keep him there to do more trials?

Didn't watch any of it (not my sort of gravy) but if I were a fan of the programme I would have done whatever voting was necessary to keep Handoncock in there for as long as possible.

Not because I like him.

*Y' get me?

*(a small prize for the first person to post the name of the person whose catch phrase this was, on Big Brother).

 

[Stato]

Off the topic of Hancock, my kids have also been telling me about the social media response to Boy George and how it shows an interesting shift of attitude over recent times. I don't do any social media except this place, so was interested to learn that the more recently dominant voices on these apps are very concerned about celebs showing kindness and being team players.

My kids are big fans of 'Drag Race' and are entertained by the acerbic humour that has always been associated with gay culture. They are too young to have had much experience of George, but with the context provided by multiple seasons of Ru Paul, they found his camp 'queen bitch' persona hilarious, taking it all as a knowing performance from someone completely aware that he was on the show to entertain. They tell me that a few years ago, when Big Brother was thriving, the general view of the internet would have been the same. Reality show fans loved contestants that caused drama. This time around Twitter etc. didn't take to George, took his fronting up at face value and decided not to side with him because they considered him mean and argumentative.

My kids make a direct link between the sad death of Caroline Flack and this change in dominant attitude among reality TV fans on social media. However, interestingly they do not see this as a genuine move towards a kinder attitude. Their view is that their fellow posters do not want to be seen as being unkind and that they are subsequently very careful to portray a more empathetic side in their online public persona than they may perhaps exhibit in their real lives. In other words, compassion is currently fashionable. However, it's also true that anybody who doesn't show compassion, will be ruthlessly eaten alive by those who do.

The stripping of context and the lack of nuance possible to anybody speaking to a mass audience seems to me to be good reason to stay away from it all. It seems the equivalent of everyone shouting their everymost thought through a megaphone in a busy city centre and then being surprised that they come into contact with people who don't like them. I'm sure it has the potential to change the world, but as a scared old bloke, I'd rather stay here and occasionally whisper my dull ramblings to you lot. (I thought George was very funny too).

 

[Stato]

*(a small prize for the first person to post the name of the person whose catch phrase this was, on Big Brother).

Winston Smith?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Off the topic of Hancock, my kids have also been telling me about the social media response to Boy George and how it shows an interesting shift of attitude over recent times. I don't do any social media except this place, so was interested to learn that the more recently dominant voices on these apps are very concerned about celebs showing kindness and being team players.

My kids are big fans of 'Drag Race' and are entertained by the acerbic humour that has always been associated with gay culture. They are too young to have had much experience of George, but with the context provided by multiple seasons of Ru Paul, they found his camp 'queen bitch' persona hilarious, taking it all as a knowing performance from someone completely aware that he was on the show to entertain. They tell me that a few years ago, when Big Brother was thriving, the general view of the internet would have been the same. Reality show fans loved contestants that caused drama. This time around Twitter etc. didn't take to George, took his fronting up at face value and decided not to side with him because they considered him mean and argumentative.

My kids make a direct link between the sad death of Caroline Flack and this change in dominant attitude among reality TV fans on social media. However, interestingly they do not see this as a genuine move towards a kinder attitude. Their view is that their fellow posters do not want to be seen as being unkind and that they are subsequently very careful to portray a more empathetic side in their online public persona than they may perhaps exhibit in their real lives. In other words, compassion is currently fashionable. However, it's also true that anybody who doesn't show compassion, will be ruthlessly eaten alive by those who do.

The stripping of context and the lack of nuance possible to anybody speaking to a mass audience seems to me to be good reason to stay away from it all. It seems the equivalent of everyone shouting their everymost thought through a megaphone in a busy city centre and then being surprised that they come into contact with people who don't like them. I'm sure it has the potential to change the world, but as a scared old bloke, I'd rather stay here and occasionally whisper my dull ramblings to you lot. (I thought George was very funny too).

Very interesting. My only social media is NSC (facebook checked too infrequently to count). All I can say is that with diligent curation and the removal of trolls, this forum has become pleasant, much funnier, and even collaborative. People who are a bit different, however, may be more likely to face ostracism (vide Swanny) so perhaps your thesis applies also to NSC.

I am also an old bloke, but I see no reason to be scared. I find the manipulation of information and the creation of (genuine) fake news (how paradoxical) to be interesting, and overall, I feel that the speed with which society develops 'antibodies' to manipulation is encouraging. Thus, it is widely recognized that a whole range of claims that have swept the internet is misinformation. Contrast this with the 'fact' that Lambeth labour party banned 'baa baa black sheep' because it is racist, a trope believed at large for more than a decade. I believed it!

People are getting more savvy. Yes of course there are millions who believe what they want to believe, some of which is pernicious and dangerous, but the direction of travel is clear.

 

[Stato]

All true H, but I'm not scared of real life consequences and disinformation. I'm just scared of being laughed at by teenagers. I get enough of that at home.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Very interesting. My only social media is NSC (facebook checked too infrequently to count). All I can say is that with diligent curation and the removal of trolls, this forum has become pleasant, much funnier, and even collaborative. People who are a bit different, however, may be more likely to face ostracism (vide Swanny) so perhaps your thesis applies also to NSC.

I am also an old bloke, but I see no reason to be scared. I find the manipulation of information and the creation of (genuine) fake news (how paradoxical) to be interesting, and overall, I feel that the speed with which society develops 'antibodies' to manipulation is encouraging. Thus, it is widely recognized that a whole range of claims that have swept the internet is misinformation. Contrast this with the 'fact' that Lambeth labour party banned 'baa baa black sheep' because it is racist, a trope believed at large for more than a decade. I believed it!

People are getting more savvy. Yes of course there are millions who believe what they want to believe, some of which is pernicious and dangerous, but the direction of travel is clear.

I've learned to never take anything at face value - especially on social media. Whenever I see a story with a load of drama around it, I'll always assume there is FAR more to the story than meets the eye.


Recent example was that guy from A Place In The Sun who was diagnosed with a terminal disease. Tabloids - and therefore thousands of social media accounts - claimed that he was binned in a callous and heartless decision, but the production company couldn't get insurance for him to travel, for a start. Plus they kept him on for the remainder of his contract.

I'm not sure if the situation is getting worse, but people LOVE to be outraged. And IACGMOOH! is a prime example. I liked some of the people, but I can't work up much enthusiasm to have any anger or hate towards them (from their actions on that show alone). Hancock, to me, came across as an ungenuine, awkward at times and overly - but falsely - enthusiastic person. But then I also know some people in the editing suite might have agendas for/against him...

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I heard him talking about it, perhaps you missed it? ITV choose not to edit it in a way, that would have helped him. It was such a blatant setup for ratings and trying to knock Hancock at every turn. It took a spectacular misfire for them. If you take on someone like Hancock you must not ever underestimate them, some will never learn.

I think most people are capable of making their own minds up about Hancock.

it‘s the PR people who are showing him in a good light, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they got him the gig in the first place.

 

[zefarelly]

I should think it boils down to the sort of morons that watch reality TV.

Is Morons the right word?

Imbeciles, retards, fucknuckles, wankpuffins, and cockwombles all sping to mind.

On reflection, Morons is a good catch-all

carry on . . .

 

[BadFish]

I've learned to never take anything at face value - especially on social media. Whenever I see a story with a load of drama around it, I'll always assume there is FAR more to the story than meets the eye.


Recent example was that guy from A Place In The Sun who was diagnosed with a terminal disease. Tabloids - and therefore thousands of social media accounts - claimed that he was binned in a callous and heartless decision, but the production company couldn't get insurance for him to travel, for a start. Plus they kept him on for the remainder of his contract.

I'm not sure if the situation is getting worse, but people LOVE to be outraged. And IACGMOOH! is a prime example. I liked some of the people, but I can't work up much enthusiasm to have any anger or hate towards them (from their actions on that show alone). Hancock, to me, came across as an ungenuine, awkward at times and overly - but falsely - enthusiastic person. But then I also know some people in the editing suite might have agendas for/against him...

I think you are on to something here. Maybe we should be judging people on what they actually do rather than a carefully curated (and often expensive) PR campaign or a hatchet job of editing and/or journalism.

I suppose this brings me back to my question for @Mouldy Boots about what he has actually done to tip the balance into Mouldy's admiration.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I think you are on to something here. Maybe we should be judging people on what they actually do rather than a carefully curated (and often expensive) PR campaign or a hatchet job of editing and/or journalism.

I suppose this brings me back to my question for @Mouldy Boots about what he has actually done to tip the balance into Mouldy's admiration.

I can't remember who it was, but someone pointed out that a REALLY good time to raise awareness of dyslexia was when/if someone was health secretary. Probably more effective than from the Australian outback...

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Is Morons the right word?

Imbeciles, retards, fucknuckles, wankpuffins, and cockwombles all sping to mind.

On reflection, Morons is a good catch-all

carry on . . .

Nice! I watched it - and if that makes me a moron in people's eyes, then so be it.

I guess I could counter by saying anyone who generalises people purely because of what they choose to watch on TV is, er, a bit of a moron themselves

But I won't generalise because we're all individuals with different tastes and interests. For me, it was an hour or so spent with Mrs Bobkin and our youngest and a bit of escapism from a particularly shit time in our lives.

It's harmless entertainment - to ridicule EVERYONE who likes it is a bit odd, IMO...

 

[Stato]

For me, it was an hour or so spent with Mrs Bobkin and our youngest and a bit of escapism from a particularly shit time in our lives.

This is exactly how I feel about the programme and why the inclusion of Hancock was, for me, a big mis-step. These type of programmes offer a bit of a pause from the strife of the real world. Inviting him in allowed the real world in and stopped it from being a bit of fluffy escapism. At a time when the real world confronts us all with new depths of despair whichever way we look, the last thing stupid pointless entertainment needed was a reminder of the serious stuff that we have to face every day.