: so easy.
I admit I rarely post something about BBC bias in UK politics, and I regret that personally. I’m usually too despairing to do so [or busy- ed.]. However I listened to Andrew Marr interview Gordon Brown today, and it was laughable how Marr merely accepted Brown’s repeated assertion that he would back Blair “in the decision he made” (yes, this was a disembodied claim, sans context), but didn’t follow up and say whether Brown would back him if he decided to stay on as Prime Minister (suspend pragmatic politics for a moment and consider that only just over a year ago people elected Blair for a third term). What kind of backing is it that Marr enabled Brown repeatedly to claim? Nothing meaningful, that’s for sure, but it made Brown seem like a nice man. Guido Fawkes noted a number of issues on which Brown had an easy ride, and a very nice line in “Baby Talk” to get around any awkward moments, such as light questioning on fits of the giggles during Blair’s darkest hours. It’s about the level of Marr’s scrutiny- coochee, coochee, coo.
(For the record, I’m not affiliated to any party, have voted variously, and would prefer not to have an unelected leader of HMG for three years or more.)
up Gordon’s ass this morning that it made painful viewing. Luckily I didnt see it until well after breakfast or I would have thrown up.
The old left guard at teh BBC has always detested Blair. Ever since the Hutton report caught out the BBC and its reporter and management in its attempt to present BBC fiction based on its for fact, TB has been enemy number one. Since then, Gordo, as Andrew Marr calls him, has had nothing but an extended love in. What should be investigated are the links between Greg Dyke, Gavin Davis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3434661.stm
and Brown (they being as thick as thieves).
Do you know who Gordon Brown reminds me of??….
Richard Nixon………
I’ve never been able to put my finger on it until lately, but he seems the same sort of animal….A greesy sweaty fatball, who looks terrible in front of the cameras, and comes accross as a “delluded control freak”…….
New Labour may as well slit their own throats by electing him, and by the BBC kissing his arse when no-one else likes him, they just hammer another nail in their coffin, as the country wakes up to their Socialist Left Wing Bias…….
and “psychologically flawed” too. like Nixon. crap smile as well – like Nixon.
this is all going to end in tears – like Nixon.
via a previous thread – about “path to 911”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_path_to_the_2.html
note the bit about clinton.
isnt the film being broadcast tonight on ABC?
No further comment necessary:
http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/09/exclusive-marrbrown-interview-out-take.html
and would prefer not to have an unelected leader of HMG for three years or more
Please correct me if I’m wrong but the people did not elect Tony Charles Lynton Blair as Prime Minister. The Labour Party (indirectly) did that. The people elected TB to be the member for Sedgefield.
While it is fair to say a majority of the people supported his policies and/or him personally and therefore the Labour Party under his leadership won the majority of seats it is impossible to look at every vote cast and assume the vote was cast for Tony and not for a variety of reasonable and unreasonable other reasons.
I don’t see the fuss. Party leaders have resigned or been pushed in mid-term for as long as Britain has had a party structure. The manouvreing to become ‘top dog’ has been media fodder for just as long.
Well, Deegee, you are of course right, in principle.
OTOH I don’t suppose I would have a problem with it if a change at the level of the highest executive for reasons other than medical were to be accompanied by a mandatory snap General Election.
As for the fuss, I think that absent the vote I mention above, the media, especialy the BBC, ought to put the onus on questioning why the change is required and who stands to gain by it. I think that would be squarely in the public interest; instead Marr is more interested (among other things) in seeing a change in the policy towards Iraq- which is his personalised view of the public interest.
ed/deegee
The constitutional conventions (ah . . happy days when this country’s government comprised people who had respect for both law and convention) covering prime ministerships are relatively straightforward: if a person can obtain – or be expected to obtain – a majority in a vote of confidence by the House of Commons, s/he’s in. The choice used to be the personal prerogative of the sovereign under advice from the outgoing PM although that advice was not always followed. However, Labour (even pre-war I believe) had decided that in the event of a prime ministerial resignation it would present only one candidate to the sovereign. The Tories waited until the appointment of Home before deciding that they too would present the sovereign with a single candidate rather than leaving the whole thing more or less open.
Accordingly, there is no need, constitutionally, for a general election once Labour has decided who would get its vote in the Commons. Presumably Brown – or whoever else Labour chooses – would continue for the remainder of this parliament to follow the general lines of the “mandate” on which the present government was elected. Anyway, I can’t wait to see the total cock-up that a Brown premiership would result in – bring it on!
A nice visual sitch up job by the Independent. Camouflaging the significance of today’s date under a pile of irrelevant numbers – the Al Independent’s desperate attempt to miminse the obvious elephant in the room … so similar to Marr’s suck up to Gordo’s baby talk … gooo .. ga ga ..
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article1466752.ece?
lasting link here
lasting link here
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1466758.ece
Its getting so obvious that I can tell what BBC coverage on their website will be before seeing the page. Here for instance not one mention that the “demonstrators” were Hezb’Allah stooges … equipped with Hezb’Allah manufactured banners. Instead they are termed as “protestors.” Also notice the honorific that the Bism’Allah Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) now gives to Fadl’allah – “Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah” … even the Iranians dont recognise him as a Grand Ayatollah! A nice touch of “militant” ass kissing by the BBC.
Didn’t see the interview but imagined with Marr it had to be very fawning.
Did he asked any questions about what Brown’s policies on Iraq and Afghanistan would be if he were Prime Minister.
As things stand I’m rooting for John Reid to be Labour PM. As a dyed in the wool Tory, I’d much prefer him as PM than David Cameron. As Mel Phillips says, he ‘gets it’ over Iraq.
Ed said: “…instead Marr is more interested (among other things) in seeing a change in the policy towards Iraq – which is his personalised view of the public interest.”
That struck me too. The vehemence of his question on this subject – “to hell in a handcart” – gave away much (as did his earlier concurrence with Chris Patten’s views on Iraq during the paper review).
Reid may “get it”, but his department is refusing to properly kit out the army for the kind of operations they face. EU Referendum has been running a series of articles about just how woefully inadequate their equipment has been, and how much they’re being let down by the MoD.
Marr’s obsequiousness to brown was almost matched by the Today programmes subservience to prescott this morning – two fat frauds allowed to perpetuate their lies and distortions at our expense, without fear of contradiction.
I found this on Guido Fawkes blog. i thought it was spot on.
“Do you think the Broccoli family, producers of the James Bond films, could get in touch with him to play the next villain? Just think, the one-eyed secretive man, lurking in the Treasury, who poses a threat to the British way of life thanks to a massive grudge. From Kirkaldy with Love? The Man with the PFI gun? Dourfinger?”
archonix | Homepage | 11.09.06 – 4:00 pm |
I think the reason for this is who has the hand on the till … back to Brown …
“As Mel Phillips says, he ‘gets it’ over Iraq.”
to be honest, it takes a totalitarian to recognise another totalitarian.
and communists like Reid will be the first up against the wall and shot if the islamists take over. He knows that.
let me diverge a bit here – most folks on this blog lump the “left” together as if the “left” are all very liberal/p.c/tree hugger types. they arent.
Reid is in the atheist Stalinist mould – no friend of the tree hugging liberal types , and no friend of religion whatsoever.
His problem is with the liberal chatterati types, who gloss over the islamonutters. Reid is not the type to do that.
Ever notice how the police raids have suddenly increased since Reid has been Home Secretary?
“communists like Reid” I’m not so sure.
“I used to be a Communist. I used to believe in Santa Claus” : John Reid.
archduke writes:
Reid is in the atheist Stalinist mould – no friend of the tree hugging liberal types , and no friend of religion whatsoever….
actually he is a Catholic. Lapsed….then unlapsed….then lapsed just a little maybe…
He calls himself a Catholic and has been helpful to the Church in Scotland.
Its unfair to always castigate the BBCs coverage on the Middle EAst when they can come up with this type of keen insight! The video (linked at the bottom) is excellent!
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22516_BBC_Staff_in_Trouble_for_Potentially_Offending_Muslims&only
archonix | Homepage | 11.09.06 – 4:00 pm |
“Reid may “get it”, but his department is refusing to properly kit out the army for the kind of operations they face. ”
Never knew defence procurement was a Home Office responsibility.
Unfit for role – eh?
Wasn’t he in defence until recently?
I must be getting old…
yeah he was.
but all trails , in terms of gov spending, go back to Brownstuff.