In no defence of Prime Ministers

- or at least some of them.

I have been having an interesting exchange with one of our local journalists. He says I "underestimate" the role required of a Prime Minister to "lead". 

Perhaps I do but I don't think it is very likely. I know what I am not underestimating and that is the power of the media to make a Prime Minister not of their choosing look foolish.

I have met a few Prime Ministers and former Prime Ministers in my time. There was the former Prime Minister whose wife introduced me to him with the words, "This is Cat - and be polite to her." Mrs PM "wore the pants" in many ways. I would never have voted for him but I might have considered voting for her. Nevertheless he got a pretty good run with the press.

There was the Prime Minister who literally pushed me out of the way as he went through the swing doors in the law school. He glared at me and made a sound that could only be interpreted as, "Get out of my way." He was the PM who later put a stop to my being appointed to a position because he was not "going to have some disabled bitch running the show". What a pity there was nobody from the press with a microphone around then! 

There was the Prime Minister who accidentally rang me one Sunday morning asking that the papers be saved for him. It was apparently his habit to pick up the Sunday papers from the local newsagent. When I told him my name and that he had the wrong number he apologised and reminded me that we had met, very briefly, at a reception in the nation's capital. He also congratulated me on "getting that year off the ground". I rather liked him for that although I by no means agreed with him on everything.

There was the Prime Minister it seemed so many people "loved to hate" but who might yet go down as one of the better Prime Ministers we have been unfortunate enough to have. He wasn't the Prime Minister when I met him, simply a minister. He listened and got the problem sorted and saved the country quite a lot of money. Later I had a very personal letter from him - not the sort written by one of his staff - with an even more personal note on the bottom. No, I didn't always agree with him either.

I have avoided all contact with several - thankfully. They are not nice people. My nephew was at a dinner of some sort in the nation's capital and told me of an incident he personally observed. It was later confirmed by someone who has never met my nephew. No, it didn't make the news headlines - but it should have. That PM was the darling of the news media.

And, so far, I have avoided all contact with the present PM but I don't think I am mistaken about his role, nor do I underestimate it. He is not popular with the press. Yes, he has made some mistakes but they have not been the hanging offences they have been made out to be. They are certainly nothing like the poor behaviour of some of his predecessors. While I suspect I might not like him much if I met him I doubt he would be deliberately rude or push me out of the way.

A lot of the criticism he has been subjected to is because those in positions to influence our vote have chosen not to support him. They have chosen to ignore what a PM can actually do and what s/he cannot do. They are ignoring constitutional restraints. If the PM ignored those restraints and did what is being said he should have done they would of course criticise him for "interfering".

It's a "no-win" situation for our Prime Ministers I suppose. I really cannot defend any of them - wherever they sit on the political line - but I do sometimes wish those that wish to influence our vote would be a little more honest about what they are doing.