πŸ“ΊπŸA senior Labour figure just argued the BBC’s silence somehow makes Peter Mandelson’s appointment okay. That’s not just bad logic β€” it’s a full-blown constitutional faceplant dressed in plausible deniability.

🧠 β€œNo One Objected, So It Must Be Fine” β€” The Government’s New Favourite Argument

Pat McFadden’s defence of Mandelson β€” essentially β€œWell, the BBC didn’t say anything, so it must be cool” β€” is the kind of logic you’d expect from a teenager explaining why they threw a party while their parents were out. Only this time, the stakes are slightly higher than spilled WKD on the carpet. We’re talking about democratic norms being treated like optional extras.

Let’s spell it out like it’s a GCSE revision card:

  • Ministers make the decisions πŸ›οΈ
  • The media reports on the decisions πŸ“°
  • Silence from the media is not ministerial absolution 🧼❌

Blaming journalists for not raising objections quickly enough is like a burglar blaming the lack of a neighbourhood watch sign for their crime spree. β€œWell, no one told me not to rob the house!” Oh, okay then β€” carry on.

And make no mistake: this isn’t some rogue minister moment. It’s a symptom. A growing tendency among government figures to dodge upwards accountability by pointing sideways β€” to the media, β€œprocess,” or β€œprecedent.” Because why take responsibility when you can sprinkle some PR glitter on it and hope the outrage passes?

McFadden’s logic is political Teflon: slippery, shiny, and designed to keep responsibility from sticking. But here’s the kicker β€” if the media had objected, would that have changed the decision? If yes, then the government’s principles are dictated by headlines, not standards. If no, then stop invoking the media like a moral alibi.

This isn’t how democracies are supposed to work. This is how accountability gets outsourced β€” to the very institutions meant to scrutinise, not sanction.

🧨 Challenges πŸ§¨

Are we seriously letting governments justify appointments based on who didn’t scream loud enough? Is silence now the new vetting process? Say what you think in the blog β€” not just on social media. This one’s too important to scroll past. πŸ‘€πŸ—£οΈ

Leave a comment

Ian McEwan

Why Chameleon?
Named after the adaptable and vibrant creature, Chameleon Magazine mirrors its namesake by continuously evolving to reflect the world around us. Just as a chameleon changes its colours, our content adapts to provide fresh, engaging, and meaningful experiences for our readers. Join us and become part of a publication that’s as dynamic and thought-provoking as the times we live in.

Let’s connect