Ed Balls to appear on "How to Look Good Naked"

But I'm sure Ed is taking full advantage of the publicity.

Personally, I find it undignified.

I like the programme, but it should not be used to bolster a politican's career and influence perception in the run up to the leadership contest.

Am I one of the few left that wants politics and politicans to be above the media circus and bandwagon aka reality TV?

What's next? The Milliband brothers on Coronation Street?

What with PM's and AC's memoirs, and TB's to follow; politics seems to be becoming more entertainment than something actually important.

Meanwhile- our public services are being surreptiously dismantled,
and the social fabric of this country eroded.

Call me old fashioned, but I'd like to see Labour fighting tooth and nail on behalf of the public, getting on with the job in a dignified manner; not preening oneself and prancing about on TV.

(That goes for a few others too.)

Jo,

On the title alone, I thought OMG, but reading the post, well, I quite like the idea:

"a campaign about teaching teenagers in schools about body image and body confidence"

This is important. I've never really like Gok Wan until I heard him on Desert Island Discs. He really is a deep character and the whole "body image and body confidence" is important to him and I think he has a role to play here. We have an obesity problem, and worse, we have an obesity problem with teenagers, and a lot of that has to do with body image. Wan's own story shows this. I am glad that as a minister Ed Balls realised that it is an important issue. It's a pity thqat he's appearing as a candidate for opposition leader rather than as a minister.

I agree with you about tne memoires. It just demeans them more bringing them out while the corpse of the last election is still warm. It just shows that they really are in it just for the money.

I would prefer a short leadership campaign - we have had enough already - so that we can spend all our time telling the public exactly what they have let themselves in for. I am working through the NHS White Paper. It is frightening.

I see the NHS as a cotton wool ball of reassurance: it is always there to care for us. The Tories are taking that away. Our health safety net is having its cords cut one by one. On my site I am writing blog posts on each of the sections the first two are on the site now.

Introduction
"Liberating" the NHS
Putting the patient and public first

Thankyou so much Richard- only just seen.

Unfortunately I won't be able to return until next week,
so will try to read your posts in more detail then.

Did you see Question Time last night with AB?
A very robust defence; I just hope this continues from all quarters; the public need to know the implications for the future of our health services.

Even M.P on This Week appeared incredulous and amazed by the scale of cutbacks.

I am convinced this has a lot more to do with ideology than economics- as we are seeing across the board in public services and the welfare state. The "economics" are providing the justification....and it's the same old line:

"We have no choice, and it was all Labour's fault. We are just being responsible."

I'd imagaine there are many roads one could take.

They are hurtling a long at break neck speed; I wonder why?

Anyway , must go.

PS- agree with all you say about GW- I like him.
But not a fan of celebrity culture in every aspect of our lives...

"a campaign about teaching teenagers in schools about body image and body confidence"

I don't mean to be too down on Ed Balls, but I read an interview where because he doesn't like his own surname all their children are called Cooper. Feeling good about yourself is what matters, not what others say, think or do (sticks and stones).

""a campaign about teaching teenagers in schools about body image and body confidence."

Two politicians, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, mentioned the word "bulls*it."

One was Tony Crosland, who anticipated the rise of the "bulls*it industries (and we have seen that, in spades, in the last thirty years).

The other was Harold Macmillan who defined an educated person as someone who defined an educated person as "someone who recognised a line of bulls*it when it was being fed to him" (or words to that effect).

Both these people, to my mind, were advocating the necessity of logical thinking.

I see nothing wrong in teaching children how to learn that the angles of a (Euclidean) triangle add up to 180 degrees. I see nothing wrong in teaching children both how to (i) construct, and (ii) parse sentences.

Truly, we are approaching la-la land when we stray away from the elemental building blocks of education.

In 1959, I sat my GCE "O" levels (Northern Universities Joint Matriculation Board). When I look at the GCSE papers nowadays for Mathematics and English Language, the difference is chalk and cheese.

Sir Isaac Newton, a man who, through rational thought, made a massive contribution to our society - he set the scene for the 18C Age of Enlightenment that followed him after his death) - must be rotating in his grave .... along with Nicolas Copernicus.

Comment above - mentioning (two politicians) Tony Crosland and Harold Macmillan - I was "timed out".

Peter Barnard

Jo, I concur with you. What is going on inside Balls's campaign that they think this is a good idea?

Hi Paul, perhaps they think any publicity is good, even if it means appearing naked?!

Remember all that celebrity media bandwagon stuff from the Hamiltons? It really became so undignified, even if generated publicity and made lots of money....add to that countless other politicans like Mrs EC.

As you may have guessed I'm not a fan of celebrity culture; it's gone too far.

I also like my politicans to show principles and dignity!

Maybe I'm just old fashioned.I do have a good sense of humour, but am reminded of the phrase,"there's a place for everything, and everything in it's place."

Some of these guys just appear so hungry for any kind of attention or publicity- politicans and public figures.

Thankfully not all.

I think everyone should read the article more closely - this interview took place at the DCSF. Therefore it was before the leadership contest.

OK Mark, but for me the arguments still apply.

There just seems to be this whole atmosphere of letting it all hang out, whether its memoirs of embarrassing internal politics, or the celebrity circuit.

I really would prefer politicans sticking to their day job!

I think that everyone is going to when if (when) they see that show, that this is just a fairly straight up interview of a (then) minister discussing an issue within the remit of his department...

Oh, OK, sorry then Mark.

You kind of threw me with the title and photo!

Could I ask what's your opinion of politicans appearing on reality TV shows persae?

I'll try to return later.

Is the culture of UK politics becoming more Americanized?

Are we purely media driven now, and what implications does that have for style and substance?

(DC and NC good case in point on style.)TV debates etc.

We seem to be living in an age of celebrity status and sound bites;
one has to look hard for substance and meaning.

Personally, I think this all started in the 80's, but taken to the max- 90's onwards too.

I wonder if the day will ever return when we can have good old fashioned politicans debating on real substance, and inspiring the public, and our lives not dominated by TV and internet chat?

Sorry to sound rather wistful, but I do hold out a vague hope the public will have some input into future culture.

I think it is becoming more Americanized, but I don't necessarily think more varied media appearances are a bad thing. They can reach audiences who otherwise might not even know who they are.

It doesn't have to all be about style and 'dumbing down', just about making politicians seem a little more accessible and a little more human.

Thanks Jessica. I agree, if done carefully and in a dignified fashion, it could have some useful purpose.

But sometimes it seems that with constant book launches about gossip and innuendo, and politicans grabbing every chance to appear cool on TV, it's rather patronising and irritating.

Completely agree that they need to be less self-serving about it. It should be about proving to people that politicians do acknowledge their everyday concerns, not about trying to sell their own books.

I think politicians need to decide if they want to be serious politicians or entertainers. It is hard to keep up the image of severe gravitas when you have been on Richard & Judy's sofa, or schmoozing with Des O'Connor.....or having bizarre photographs taken involving fruit.

If you want to be taken seriously you have to behave in an appropriate way, otherwise cuddly TV shows followed by arrogant barnstorming speeches merely look pompous and silly.

Alana, I agree, but there is a problem: most of the public are not political and Richard&Judy's sofa is the most effective way to get to them.

For example during the election campaign there was a nurses conference and Brown gave a speech - it was well received as you would expect. The next day Nick Clegg gave a speech and he got a raptuous reception - this was during the hype of "Cleggmania". In my twitter feel I got a message from a journo from the Independent who said "I bet they wouldn't be applausing him if they had read his 2005 Indy article". I searched out the article and found that Clegg said categorically that he wanted to break up the NHS and replace "free at the point of delivery" with health insurance. (He's getting the former with Lansley's damaging changes, and the latter will not be far off.)

My point is that most people get carried along with the tide - the Diana effect, if you like - only a minority of nerds like us actually read the mani8festos and follow up references. I dislike it intensely, but politicians have to create that tide, and that means Richard&Judy's sofa.

This isn't new, it has always been like this. Gladstone had his speaking tours, Disraeli had his novels: they were all ways to "connect" with the voting public.