What do you think?
Rate this book
Political Animal: An Anatomy
Jeremy Paxman knows every maneouvre a politician will make to avoid answering a difficult question, but in The Political Animal he seeks an answer to just one: What makes politicians tick? Embarking on a journey in which he encounters movers and shakers past and present, he discovers: that Prime Ministers have often lost a parent in childhood why Trollope is the politician's novelist of choice that Lloyd George once hunted Jack the Ripper how an Admiral's speech in parliament helped win WWII Where do politicians come from? How do they get elected? What do they do all day? And why do they seek power? All these questions and many more are addressed in Paxman's thrilling dissection of that strange and elusive breed - the political animal. 'Lively, persuasive, excellent. Boisterous and funny, provocative and punchily written... an intelligent romp' Matthew Parris, Spectator 'Entertaining, informative, incisive and insightful' Andrew Rawnsley Observer 'One of the best primers on the vicissitudes of political life I have read Christopher Silvester, Sunday Times Jeremy Paxman is a journalist, best known for his work presenting Newsnight and University Challenge. His books include Empire, On Royalty, The English and The Political Animal. He lives in Oxfordshire.
340 pages, Paperback
First published October 21, 2002
About the author
Jeremy Paxman
23 books99 followersJeremy Dickson Paxman is a British journalist, author and television presenter. He has worked for the BBC since 1977. He is noted for a forthright and abrasive interviewing style, particularly when interrogating politicians. His regular appearances on the BBC2's Newsnight programme have been criticised as aggressive, intimidating, condescending and irreverent, and applauded as tough and incisive.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
July 4, 2022
Jeremy Paxman has observed the job of a politician, more specifically the one of a British Representative in the House of Commons. He looks at stories and anecdotes that have been published on the topic and relate to incidents and occurrences in earlier times and from that historical perspective depicts the behavioural patterns of current politicians. It appears that the role of a parliamentarian and more generally speaking the job description, not least the self-understanding of a people’s deputy have changed and evolved over the last century.
The author is a journalist at heart and he knows how to get the message across. There is though hardly any judging or qualifying of those people who more or less endeavour to represent the will of the people at the legislative and executive levels of the political system.
But the mere descriptive style is well suited to leave it to the lucid reader to understand the function in its many respects: what is the personality type of people who end up as our “politicians”, what can be realistically done and achieved by a given representative to offer help to constituents at the grass-roots level, or in higher political spheres to help change the world for the better when pieces of legislation are designed and voted.
A very insightful depiction of this enigmatic and secretive “world”, offering a surprising look behind the veil, with the effect of generating a feeling of realism in the expecting reader. There seems to be idealism in some elected reps, opportunism and worse in some others. Not surprisingly aspects of behaviours which remind us of narcissism are uncovered, of people using the stage of Parliament for their own showy self-representation.
This book, even though published a few years ago, is stuffed with lasting knowledge and analytical power to apply to given political systems.
And the title may (intentionally) have been chosen with an ostentatious eye wink into the direction of another book on “politicians” this time conceived as a satire but with touches to the (sad) reality: George Orwell's - Animal Farm.
Why would Paxman use a title which includes the primitive term “animal” rather than the sublime word “human”?
Reading this book and reflecting on its content enlightens the wondering mind and reveals a few explanations.
The author is a journalist at heart and he knows how to get the message across. There is though hardly any judging or qualifying of those people who more or less endeavour to represent the will of the people at the legislative and executive levels of the political system.
But the mere descriptive style is well suited to leave it to the lucid reader to understand the function in its many respects: what is the personality type of people who end up as our “politicians”, what can be realistically done and achieved by a given representative to offer help to constituents at the grass-roots level, or in higher political spheres to help change the world for the better when pieces of legislation are designed and voted.
A very insightful depiction of this enigmatic and secretive “world”, offering a surprising look behind the veil, with the effect of generating a feeling of realism in the expecting reader. There seems to be idealism in some elected reps, opportunism and worse in some others. Not surprisingly aspects of behaviours which remind us of narcissism are uncovered, of people using the stage of Parliament for their own showy self-representation.
This book, even though published a few years ago, is stuffed with lasting knowledge and analytical power to apply to given political systems.
And the title may (intentionally) have been chosen with an ostentatious eye wink into the direction of another book on “politicians” this time conceived as a satire but with touches to the (sad) reality: George Orwell's - Animal Farm.
Why would Paxman use a title which includes the primitive term “animal” rather than the sublime word “human”?
Reading this book and reflecting on its content enlightens the wondering mind and reveals a few explanations.
April 4, 2021
Politician’s self-absorption, oratory, cheerfulness and willpower to prove oneself are subject or susceptible to
Fragile dreams of ascension, disproportional flatteries, rigid party politics, the beastly dysfunctional parliament, anachronistic procedures, the ghastly bureaucracy, mercurial climates of opinion, the brink of thorough wipe-out and oblivion, the inability to resurrect …
And, the public indifference.
Fragile dreams of ascension, disproportional flatteries, rigid party politics, the beastly dysfunctional parliament, anachronistic procedures, the ghastly bureaucracy, mercurial climates of opinion, the brink of thorough wipe-out and oblivion, the inability to resurrect …
And, the public indifference.
Read
October 21, 2007http://nhw.livejournal.com/158270.html[return][return]I met Jeremy Paxman, one of Britain's leading political journalists, twice in 1994, in my capacity as the captain of the Queen's University of Belfast's team in University Challenge (the British TV show where teams from different universities take each other on in a general knowledge quiz). He was as acerbic and funny is person as he is on the screen. I remember him growling at me to hurry up and answer a particular question, "Come on, some of us have got homes to go to!" He revealed to us that his least favourite person in the then failing Major government was health secretary Virginia Bottomley. "She never says anything when I interview her." She was probably as frightened of him as we were. He says in the first chapter,[return][return]"I have met literally hundreds of politicians. Some I have come to like, others to respect, and one or two I have learned must be handled as if they are radioactive. I know that the last feeling is reciprocated by some, but there is - or ought to be - a natural tension between reporters and politicians, and I am not close to any of them. It is easier that way."[return][return]This book is no mere pot-boiler. I get the sense that Paxman is genuinely puzzled by what makes politicians tick; why they subject themselves to humiliation by constituency selection committees, fellow MPs, party leaders, and Paxman and his own colleagues in the press, and why, as Enoch Powell observed, all political careers end in failure. He doesn't come up with a systematic reply but does have a lot of amusing anecdotes and one or two good observations - 24 out of the UK's 51 prime ministers lost their fathers before the age of 21, for instance. He talks to one of the two people in England with a personal subscription to Hansard, the official record of parliamentary debates, and asks him, why? And gets the charming answer, "I'm very old, you know. I'm over ninety. And I think I'm pretty mad."[return][return]To those who know me it's no big secret that I am attracted to the idea of being a politician. I've stood for election twice, in 1990 and 1996, though did pretty dismally both times. One striking thing is that the very academically gifted tend not to do very well in politics. Only one American president, and as far as I know no British prime minister, has gained a PhD. Paxman points out that the three prime ministers of the twentieth century with the best academic qualifications by far were Asquith, Eden and Wilson, none of them howling successes. He has obviously benefited from a long chat with my former mentor John Alderdice, who I always felt was far too intelligent to be at the heart of politics. A political consultant, quoted by Paxman, is told that political parties ought to try and attract "low-fliers" (perhaps not quite the same thing as the academically ungifted).[return][return]Paxman spends a lot of time lambasting the primitive set-up of the British political system, especially the entire architecture and procedure of the Westminster parliament. But the only modest reform he supports is to allow ministers who are MPs to be allowed to speak in relevant debates in the House of Lords, and vice versa. Quite apart from the questions one should ask about the composition of the House of Lords, this misses one of the biggest blind spots in the British constitutional tradition - the requirement that ministers must be members of one or other house, carried through slavishly to the Oireachtas and the unicameral chambers in Stormont, Edinburgh and Cardiff. Surely if most of Europe and the U.S. can manage by separating the legislative and executive, the UK and Ireland could consider this too? I need to work up a proper rant about this for publication somewhere.[return][return]It ends up a bit scrappy but there are a lot of things to like about this book. Paxman retains a certain affection for, and understanding of, Northern Ireland, which he mentions several times (indeed I think he give us proportionally more attention than Wales of Scotland). The bibliography cites a huge number of political memoirs - I estimate roughly a hundred autobiographies and about the same number of biographical studies - but almost all British, with a very few Americans and no continentals (or even Irish).
April 21, 2019
An interesting look at the personality types spliced together to create a 'political animal' quite frankly reminiscent of Frankenstein's monster.
The structure of the book follows that of a typical British MP, from the difficulties of facing the selection committees, all the way through to being unceremoniously dumped by the electorate - and all the various stages in between. Luckily, the simple structure does not inhibit Paxman's ability to incorporate both historical and contemporary anecdotes - he does so richly and seamlessly, describing the hilarious, the poignant, and the downright tragic elements of political life with skill. Added to this, the sheer amount of research Paxman has clearly conducted for what is a relatively small work is remarkable.
My only criticism, to be slightly nit-picky, is that I personally felt his typically acerbic voice to be ever so slightly subdued here. But this is a criticism that other reviewers do not seem to agree with so perhaps it was a wise choice on behalf of the editors to strike a more even tone that what we're used to from Jeremy. On the whole, however, he does capture the uniquely British politician wonderfully. Oh, and he clearly pissed William Hague off - so he can have another star for that!
The structure of the book follows that of a typical British MP, from the difficulties of facing the selection committees, all the way through to being unceremoniously dumped by the electorate - and all the various stages in between. Luckily, the simple structure does not inhibit Paxman's ability to incorporate both historical and contemporary anecdotes - he does so richly and seamlessly, describing the hilarious, the poignant, and the downright tragic elements of political life with skill. Added to this, the sheer amount of research Paxman has clearly conducted for what is a relatively small work is remarkable.
My only criticism, to be slightly nit-picky, is that I personally felt his typically acerbic voice to be ever so slightly subdued here. But this is a criticism that other reviewers do not seem to agree with so perhaps it was a wise choice on behalf of the editors to strike a more even tone that what we're used to from Jeremy. On the whole, however, he does capture the uniquely British politician wonderfully. Oh, and he clearly pissed William Hague off - so he can have another star for that!
September 28, 2017
A thorough study of ‘the’ English politician in the House of Commons. Paxman tries to find out why it is that one has the ambition to become a member of Parliament, what he/she must do to get there, what happens during his/her political career and what is left when it is over. He does this in great detail, with numerous anecdotes and facts from the lives of present and past members of ‘this curious tribe’ (p. 1). Paxman adds his comments and opinion of course, though I didn’t find him so sarcastic or ‘acerbic’ as some reviews (sometimes written by (envious?) journalists) would make you believe.
Not everyone has what it takes to become a politician. Paxman summarizes the necessary ‘talents’ in the introduction: one needs (1) a lot of self-confidence; (2) manic persistence; (3) enormous reserves of energy; (4) to be an incurable optimist; (5) the ability ‘to sift a mountain of waffle for the one nugget which will help your argument’; (6) unswerving loyalty and a limitless capacity for pointless work; (7) a husband or wife who doesn’t object to long separations and children who are prepared to put up with an absent parent. Strangely enough intelligence does not figure in this list. I guess that this requirement is so self-evident that Paxman didn't find it necessary to mention it. Or is it?
In 10 chapters the rise, life at the ‘top’ and fall of a politician is described: an adolescence often characterized by an absent or deceased father, a good education (Paxman clearly favours Oxbridge and follows mainly politicians who have become Tories!), local ‘canvassing’ to get a constituency and win a seat, the efforts to remain visible locally and in the press, the (pointless?) work in the House of Commons (‘Busy Doing Nothing’), the ambition to become member of the cabinet and even (prime) minister (‘Power at Last’) and what it takes (‘The Price of Fame’).
The most ‘touching’ chapter to me was ‘Being History’. Politicians are eventually put aside (mostly by their own party) or lose elections, are expelled from the ‘inner circle’ and have to make a new life outside politics. A hard and sometimes sad experience leading to sadness, melancholy and reflexion. Paxman gives examples of politicians who found this post-politics period difficult to swallow (Thatcher being the first to come to mind of course).
Interesting also was the bit where Paxman explains how little power ministers really have and how dependent they are on their civil servants. It was so reminiscent of comical situations in ‘Yes Minister’ that one wonders if the writer did not take this successful television series as his source, rather than true facts (he even mentions Sir Humphrey once).
With all those difficulties for politicians to overcome, one asks indeed, together with Paxman: ‘why on earth do they do it’? For the author it is power, and also the idealistic ambition to improve the lives of the people.
The book is an impressive work, not least if one looks at the bibliography with the many consulted works (often political autobiographies), the long index with names, the extensive Notes, and the list of collaborators in the ‘Acknowledgements’. It must have taken years of research, reading, interviewing and drafts to eventually produce the book. And though ‘The Political Animal’ was first published in 2002, it remains relevant and revealing to this day.
To conclude, I didn’t find Paxman’s perspective on the lives and careers of politicians as cynical as some reviewers seem to conclude. I even experienced a considerable degree of empathy and understanding of the difficulties politicians have to face. But Paxman of course remains true to his reputation of critical journalist. The ironic motto on the first page of the book reads: ‘pour encourager les autres…’.
Not everyone has what it takes to become a politician. Paxman summarizes the necessary ‘talents’ in the introduction: one needs (1) a lot of self-confidence; (2) manic persistence; (3) enormous reserves of energy; (4) to be an incurable optimist; (5) the ability ‘to sift a mountain of waffle for the one nugget which will help your argument’; (6) unswerving loyalty and a limitless capacity for pointless work; (7) a husband or wife who doesn’t object to long separations and children who are prepared to put up with an absent parent. Strangely enough intelligence does not figure in this list. I guess that this requirement is so self-evident that Paxman didn't find it necessary to mention it. Or is it?
In 10 chapters the rise, life at the ‘top’ and fall of a politician is described: an adolescence often characterized by an absent or deceased father, a good education (Paxman clearly favours Oxbridge and follows mainly politicians who have become Tories!), local ‘canvassing’ to get a constituency and win a seat, the efforts to remain visible locally and in the press, the (pointless?) work in the House of Commons (‘Busy Doing Nothing’), the ambition to become member of the cabinet and even (prime) minister (‘Power at Last’) and what it takes (‘The Price of Fame’).
The most ‘touching’ chapter to me was ‘Being History’. Politicians are eventually put aside (mostly by their own party) or lose elections, are expelled from the ‘inner circle’ and have to make a new life outside politics. A hard and sometimes sad experience leading to sadness, melancholy and reflexion. Paxman gives examples of politicians who found this post-politics period difficult to swallow (Thatcher being the first to come to mind of course).
Interesting also was the bit where Paxman explains how little power ministers really have and how dependent they are on their civil servants. It was so reminiscent of comical situations in ‘Yes Minister’ that one wonders if the writer did not take this successful television series as his source, rather than true facts (he even mentions Sir Humphrey once).
With all those difficulties for politicians to overcome, one asks indeed, together with Paxman: ‘why on earth do they do it’? For the author it is power, and also the idealistic ambition to improve the lives of the people.
The book is an impressive work, not least if one looks at the bibliography with the many consulted works (often political autobiographies), the long index with names, the extensive Notes, and the list of collaborators in the ‘Acknowledgements’. It must have taken years of research, reading, interviewing and drafts to eventually produce the book. And though ‘The Political Animal’ was first published in 2002, it remains relevant and revealing to this day.
To conclude, I didn’t find Paxman’s perspective on the lives and careers of politicians as cynical as some reviewers seem to conclude. I even experienced a considerable degree of empathy and understanding of the difficulties politicians have to face. But Paxman of course remains true to his reputation of critical journalist. The ironic motto on the first page of the book reads: ‘pour encourager les autres…’.
August 16, 2015
High 4. Paxman is far more accomplished in dealing with subject-matter with which he is much more familiar.In this work he has set out to determine the common characteristics and motivation behind those who pursue a career in politics. Key necessary attributes include high levels of self-confidence and eternal optimism that one's party will effect change, together with unswerving loyalty to party aims and boundless reserves physical energy.Intelligence is not an essential prerequisite as even those attaining the highest office have ranged from the child prodigy, Pitt the Younger, to Churchill, described by his form tutor as the stupidest boy at Harrow - in the entrance test to this illustrious educational establishment, he only managed to write the number of the first question in brackets, surrounded by blots and smudges. The author reveals that many political figures share another more tragic characteristic of having had a lonely childhood. Lloyd George's father died when he was just aged one, leaving his family in penurious circumstances, and when asked in later life if he would prefer die instantly or return to childhood he chose the former. Many of the leading political figures were groomed for office by their parents, such as Robert Peel, whose father had secured baronetcy and a seat in the Commons after making his fortune as a Lancashire cotton magnate, but whose political ambitions settled on his son. For most of its history parliament was filled with those from the highest social tiers, so little wonder that one-tenth of all cabinet ministers between 1868-1955 were themselves sons of ministers. Rather than regard themselves as sacrificing private interest for the common good, many politicians of that era saw a parliamentary seat as a status symbol and an opportunity to protect family interests, so simony was a common practice. Indeed, after victory at the polls in 1900, Lord Salisbury's administration comprised so many members of his own family that it became labelled as 'Hotel Cecil', while his appointment of his own nephew as Chief Secretary for Ireland led to the common expression: 'Bob's your uncle'. Paxman provides a wealth of examples to disprove the theory that the connection between parliamentary service and family interest is a thing of the past. As such, of the 51 Prime Ministers between Walpole and Blair no fewer than 28 were children of MPs and 24 had lost their fathers before the age of 21. Another common factor to leading politicians is their driving ambition, with Churchill epitomising the common individual whose identification of his own interests were synonymous with those he pursued for the country. He was described by Foot as an opportunist searching for 'the enemy of the moment', while Bevan criticised him as suffering from 'petrified adolescence'. In the author's opinion, what appears to bring high office is not superior ability, but rather an intense desire for success and recognition, and political office is the most public kind of all. Paxman reveals that he once asked Boris Johnson why he had given up a successful career in journalism to enter politics, and had received the answer that Johnson had wished to make a difference and not just ridicule the attempts of others. When Paxman challenged the veracity of this point, Johnson stated that 70% of his motivation was geared to serving the public good, while the other 30% was 'complete egomania'. The political arena, despite much vaunted efforts of New Labour in 1997, remains a male-dominated bastion, with parliament entering the twenty-first century with less than one out of every five MPs being female, a ratio lower than that enjoyed in Rwanda, Turkmenistan, and North Korea. The author charts the changes inherent in the political process over the last century, and thereby, attempts to interpret the growing disconnect between Westminster and the public at large. As the middle classes have grown so class issues have been dulled, leading to politicians being less imbibed with a passion to defend the interests of their class. Moreover, the same period has witnessed dramatic growth in MPs’ wages, from the first ever salary established in 1911 at £400 a year – the equivalent of £25,000 today – to a current figure of around £55,000. As such, the profession has become more attractive to individuals with much more shallow ambitions, and has witnessed the rise of the career politician. These individuals often lack experience and knowledge of areas outside politics, and thus, promotion to a Cabinet post and the running of a department does not hinge on intrinsic knowledge of that area of expertise, as it did in the past. The growing gulf between those who inhabit the corridors of power and the man on the street has not been helped by the former’s determined desire to hold on to arcane tradition and ceremony. Yet, the core problem identified by Paxman is the adolescent ‘points-scoring’ and ‘schoolyard-baiting’ debating techniques so favoured by politicians. The apparent lack of reasoned debate was finely captured by Orwell, who stated that: ‘political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind’. A further problem which characterises modern politics is the lack of accountability, with parliament having less power than ever to hold the executive branch of government to account. More than in any other period of history, parliament has been denied its function as the forum to establish change, with many government bills now being announced to the press direct via news briefings and photo opportunities, rather than channelled for debate on the floor of the Commons. Moreover, the prime minister exerts their personal influence by enjoying the means to remove rivals through constant cabinet reshuffles, thereby effectively removing a tier of potential opposition, and further weakening any expertise brought to any ministerial role. As an illustration of this, in the fifty year period from 1947-1997 there were no fewer than 25 Ministers of Transport, making continuity nigh on impossible and explaining why the nation’s transport system has been plagued by misdirection. This lack of accountability within the modern political process is further exacerbated by the influence of civil service mandarins who can obstruct the planned changes of publicly elected ministers, and which partly explain why sea-changes suggested by the electoral process often result in the maintenance of the established order of things. As Paxman explains, the vice of the civil service is their ‘desire for tranquility’. In the author’s opinion the greatest credibility problem facing the modern politician is the impossible demands placed upon them to manage the ever burgeoning public sector – the NHS alone is Europe’s largest employer with over 1.1 million employees. According to Paxman, the public sector system is ‘intrinsically incapable’ of offering what is expected of it, and as the government has become all pervasive from the second half of the twentieth century onwards, so has discontent mounted at its mishandling of these expectations. Another modern development has been an ‘Americanisation’ of the political process, where image and personality have accrued far more sway than policy and ideology. Consequently, the driving force behind party policy has become effective market research and polling to identify attractive sound-bites and vote-winning policy changes, rather than commitment to long-term political goals. In turn, this has led to greater investment in market research expertise and advertising campaigns, escalating party costs, and therefore, placing greater reliance on securing support from those who provide the necessary funds. In conclusion, the author still finds it amazing that for a breed of professionals so berated and mistrusted, the public are so prepared to delegate to them such great responsibility to determine the quality of life. Even so, the author reveals that the original title for this book was intended as: ‘Why does it always end in tears’ to reflect the common unhappy outcome of a career spent in politics - since 1945, the average lifespan of a political career is a mere 15 years.
April 2, 2021
To begin with a positive, I have learnt much more about the personalities of politicians. Politicians are such a complex breed of individuals, no one quite understands why they put themselves in the firing line, when often never make a significant mark in history, or achieve a desirable degree of power. Paxman argues that politicians quite frankly love the ladder that is politics. It is the sheer desire and self-confidence to keep climbing, from President of the Oxford Union, to MP, to junior minister, to minister, to (if they dream-big, and they are big-dreamers) Prime Minister. They can't resist going into an occupation which offers a ladder that reaches the zenith of British society, i.e. Prime Minister. If they lose their seat as MP, they are often itching to get back into politics. For example, the ex-politician who narrowly escaped unemployment, when receiving the role as head of Cats Protection League, who soon after threw this job security away to reincarnate his career in politics. Many of these individuals have dysfunctional families, mental health issues and more calamitous problems, due to this exact itch to climb the ladder. The fact of the matter is, politicians are not 'relatable' people, they are not 'representative' of the population, and that is exactly why we find them so difficult to understand. Paxman hammers down this point by saying, the success of a politician is not down to the degree of normality, it is down to how well they can mask their sheer abnormality. The 1997 defeat of William Hague by Tony Blair epitomises this point. Tony Blair managed to make himself appear more 'relatable' to the British Public.
However, 'The Political Animal' is becoming outdated, and I personally find it difficult to relate to. I was born in 2002, i.e. when the book was published, so I have no memory of these political figures in their prime or these political events taking place. If Jeremy Paxman published a political satire in 2021, about the past 20 years I would personally find it much more enjoyable.
Furthermore, whilst Paxman most certainly is a comedy genius, it feels like he burns out towards the end of the book. The book would entice readers much more if he brought the same energy to the rest of the book, as he does for the first few chapters.
As a final point, I really appreciated Paxman's impartiality. This was not your classic piece of political propaganda: no political party was left unscathed by Paxman's mockery. Politics would be much more effective if the House of Commons learnt a thing or two from Paxman. Every political scandal or sign of incompetence should be treated universally as unacceptable, regardless of your political alignment.
However, 'The Political Animal' is becoming outdated, and I personally find it difficult to relate to. I was born in 2002, i.e. when the book was published, so I have no memory of these political figures in their prime or these political events taking place. If Jeremy Paxman published a political satire in 2021, about the past 20 years I would personally find it much more enjoyable.
Furthermore, whilst Paxman most certainly is a comedy genius, it feels like he burns out towards the end of the book. The book would entice readers much more if he brought the same energy to the rest of the book, as he does for the first few chapters.
As a final point, I really appreciated Paxman's impartiality. This was not your classic piece of political propaganda: no political party was left unscathed by Paxman's mockery. Politics would be much more effective if the House of Commons learnt a thing or two from Paxman. Every political scandal or sign of incompetence should be treated universally as unacceptable, regardless of your political alignment.
March 19, 2022
Political history and opinion mixed with Paxman's sardonic humour and wit. The most interesting aspect of the book is the degree to which Paxo empathises with the impossible job of the politician whilst skewering the chancers and naming the abject failures.
Those (few) who did a good job and those (even fewer) who really made a difference are given their just acknowledgements. The title represents - the reader discovers - the fact that Paxo sees those who enter the political life as a particular species, with wide variations, but a shared fatal attraction to to the power and the two little letters: M.P. Recommended.
Those (few) who did a good job and those (even fewer) who really made a difference are given their just acknowledgements. The title represents - the reader discovers - the fact that Paxo sees those who enter the political life as a particular species, with wide variations, but a shared fatal attraction to to the power and the two little letters: M.P. Recommended.
December 26, 2021
Pretty good for the most part, although it does lose its way as it goes on (which might be explained in the afterword about how a book about politics in general became about politicians specifically, and that it went two years past deadline). Overall style is somehow both a bit too shallow and a bit too long-winded, and the authorial voice is a little too pleased with itself but then I guess that's what you'd expect from Paxman.
August 8, 2019
The book is well written, the anecdotes are interesting but somehow it failed to hook me. It's one of those books you can lay aside any time and have to remember to pick it up again to avoid leaving it unfinished.
However, it offers another great insight into British society and its mechanisms.
However, it offers another great insight into British society and its mechanisms.
February 21, 2021
very entertaining and doesnt just criticise politicians, but suggests how they (and the workings of within Westminster) could be improved. paxman's personality was coherently shown throughout, making it even more witty & enjoyable :)
May 20, 2023
A sociological survey of politics at the end of the analogue era (written in 2002), with pathos and disdain equally from the author, who is good at outlining the way people (mostly blokes) grow up to become politicians. Worth revisiting in 2023.
November 7, 2019
More anecdotal and opinionated than I had thought
February 2, 2023
Twenty years old yet still very accurate - if anything more so, thanks to the UK's increasingly ossified political system.
May 30, 2019
Excellent insight for any PPE student and those interested in the history of the UK parliament and characters who went into public service.
July 26, 2016
Power doesn’t change you. It reveals who you really are.
Jeremy Paxman‘s book is a perspicacious insight into the way politicians and politics work in the UK.
I enjoyed his book about the English people and this book is bigger and better: more in-depth and better researched.
Before I go any further I have to shout at anyone who says ‘ah, politics, boring, nothing to do with me‘. Rubbish. Politics is about how we interact; it’s about the rules by which we operate with each other and how the government looks after us.
He looks at the kind of people that get into politics, and how this has changed over time: from families that have always supplied MPs, to the modern breed of career politicians. I definitely agree with his view that more experts in their field are needed in parliament.
He describes the varying motivations of politicians, and looks at how they have such an oddly disparate set of roles: from constituency support worker to legislator to party poodle.
More here: http://unfebuckinglievable.wordpress....
Jeremy Paxman‘s book is a perspicacious insight into the way politicians and politics work in the UK.
I enjoyed his book about the English people and this book is bigger and better: more in-depth and better researched.
Before I go any further I have to shout at anyone who says ‘ah, politics, boring, nothing to do with me‘. Rubbish. Politics is about how we interact; it’s about the rules by which we operate with each other and how the government looks after us.
He looks at the kind of people that get into politics, and how this has changed over time: from families that have always supplied MPs, to the modern breed of career politicians. I definitely agree with his view that more experts in their field are needed in parliament.
He describes the varying motivations of politicians, and looks at how they have such an oddly disparate set of roles: from constituency support worker to legislator to party poodle.
More here: http://unfebuckinglievable.wordpress....
September 25, 2011
Що е туй “Политическото животно” разказва Джеръми Паксман: http://www.knigolandia.info/2010/01/b...
Да, има такова животно и то е със строго определени видови характеристики. Изследването на Паксман за съжаление обхваща само британската политическа система, но и така предоставя ред любопитни наблюдения за управлението на считаните за една от най-демократични държави в света.
Политическото животно във Великобритания обикновено идва от семейство на политик. Нерядко губи баща или майка на млади години, след което се опитва да компенсира липсата му. Ако иска да стане премиер, трябва да е участвал и да е станал президент на Оксфордския клуб по дебати. Трябва да бъде идеалист, да има огромна енергия, да вярва в мисията си… Трябва и да е безполезен за каквото и да е друго, освен политик.
Да, има такова животно и то е със строго определени видови характеристики. Изследването на Паксман за съжаление обхваща само британската политическа система, но и така предоставя ред любопитни наблюдения за управлението на считаните за една от най-демократични държави в света.
Политическото животно във Великобритания обикновено идва от семейство на политик. Нерядко губи баща или майка на млади години, след което се опитва да компенсира липсата му. Ако иска да стане премиер, трябва да е участвал и да е станал президент на Оксфордския клуб по дебати. Трябва да бъде идеалист, да има огромна енергия, да вярва в мисията си… Трябва и да е безполезен за каквото и да е друго, освен политик.
March 7, 2010
This is a book about politics and the people who choose to enter that troubled profession. It's written with Paxman's usual flair and cynicism in which he completely deconstructs the psyche of the sort of person who enters politics and then goes on to turn his attention to the institutions that make up our democracy and demolish those as well. He's obviously very cynical about the whole enterprise, but not entirely dismissive and ends by noting just how much has changed in the way we conduct politics in the past century and expecting that a similar change will happen in the next century.
I enjoyed the book and enjoyed the insights that Paxman can provide, although it left me feeling somewhat depressed by the whole endeavour.
I enjoyed the book and enjoyed the insights that Paxman can provide, although it left me feeling somewhat depressed by the whole endeavour.
August 6, 2011
Witty, entertaining and a must read for all would be MPs to see what yur entering into and all political watchers in order to take pitty on the poor sods who put themselves through the process. With the exception of chapter 7 (I confess I skipped half of that chapter but was rewarded with the last 2 chapters which were back on good form) It was a fantastic read! even better it could be picked up and put down and read around other books which is always a bonus for me!
December 30, 2017
This starts off interesting, particularly when Paxman adds his own mocking voice to the absurdity of those in politics. Less than halfway however it becomes dull. Don't get me wrong: there are some great facts about particular politicians. I even had sympathy for John Major.
I think the man problem is its dated. So much has happened in the last 15 years politically that the days of the uninvolved, disinterested public no longer exists.
I think the man problem is its dated. So much has happened in the last 15 years politically that the days of the uninvolved, disinterested public no longer exists.
April 19, 2012
At times enthralling, but those times were on the whole to few and far between to make it a great book. He made a good point at the start and at the end, but as that point as far as I could tell was little connected to rest of the books content. Although perhaps I am not the best to judge, having a far smaller knowledge of british politicians from 30 or so years ago than the author assumes.
June 29, 2009
greatly enjoyed the book. Shows all sides of being a politician, life is not paved with gold for them.
Must quote : "However much British PM may dine with queens or dance with presidents, their destiny is in the hands of their own colleagues"
Must quote : "However much British PM may dine with queens or dance with presidents, their destiny is in the hands of their own colleagues"
October 12, 2008
It started badly with Paxman scarcely able to contain his sneering cynicism but some of the later chapters about power and its loss are interesting even though he trots out well-rehearsed anecdotes. There's little new here.
February 7, 2014
Solid stuff by Paxman. I think he's a fair judge, critical in parts but not afar in to give credit where it's due. What comes across to me is the sheer hard work involved in becoming and succeeding at politics.
November 28, 2014
Paxo complete and unalloyed before he came out as a moderate Tory. No surprise there Jemmy boy.
Having said that it is an insightful book by an intelligent if belligerent participant in the political world where he exhibited the danger of the channel becoming the story.
Having said that it is an insightful book by an intelligent if belligerent participant in the political world where he exhibited the danger of the channel becoming the story.
June 16, 2007
Jeremy Paxman rules.
January 31, 2011
My lasting memory of this book is the fast pace. Paxman comes up with one informatve fact after another to make his case. A style I find very appealing.
November 28, 2011
An interesting perspective on the British political actors
August 10, 2014
Interesting and cynical insight into a politician's mind
April 26, 2014
Jeremy Paxman at his best, brilliant witty insights into the lunacy of the British parliamentary system.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews