Andrew Mitchell, he who thinks we should aspire to be an “overseas aid super power”, is the kind of Conservative that the BBC likes. He got an easy ride on the Sunday morning horror that is the Andrew Marr show. Dripping wet, he is a C.I.N.O. in the proud tradition of Clarke and Patten, and the BBC love him for it. He was on Question Time earlier this week and up he pops again, much in demand. I also caught an odd interview with Simon Callow who was allowed to blabber on about the life of Shakespeare, claiming we know all the key details of his life. We don’t but Callow is another luvvie much favoured by the Beeb. Former Aussie PM Kevin Rudd was on and to be fair he didn’t quite give the answers that Marr was looking, which was quite entertaining.
MARRED
Bookmark the permalink.
Kevin Rudd has ‘form’ in not giving answers that BBC interviewers want. Quite recently someone gave an example, can anyone remember what?
His replacement, the Sheila whose name I can’t remember, is also a socialist who understands the meaning of honour. Top woman for calling an election when she ousted Rudd. She’s also pro-Israel. If only British lefties could take a leaf out of the book of their Australian counterparts – British conservatives would do well to do the same with their Aussie counterparts as well.
Are you thinking of when he refused to abuse the Royal Family during the Royal Wedding? I think that was him.
Yeah, I think that’s it, some Beebo was trying to get Rudd to creat Republican controversy on the eve of the Royal wedding, amongst other things if I recall.
Yes, it was Justin Webb on Today, the day before the Royal Wedding. Andrew Marr had a bit of a go at the same thing this morning, asking Rudd whether Prince Charles was ever going to be king of Australia. Kevin Rudd again refused to bite.
Hippie,
Something tells me Aussie Lefties are to the right of the British Tories !
Modern British lefties are an extremely confused bunch of hypocrites though. Their hatred of Britain and it’s working-class comes before anything else.
Racism, sexism, anti-semitism, violence, peadophilia etc.etc.etc. may all be excused or ignored as long the perpetrator has the right colour skin and belongs to the right religious group.
Yes, and that is only those calling themselves the “conservative” party.
Kevin Rudd’s answers to Andrew Marr’s questions about Afghanistan were, as David says, completely out of tune with the BBC’s narrative on the war. It was typical that every single one of Marr’s questions on Afghanistan came from the just one ideological position – the defeatist one. Rudd was having none of it though.
You must mean Ju-liar Gillard…
Promise-breaker extraordinaire.
Gillard held an election? Pah. Rudd was ousted BECAUSE there was an election coming up and he would have lost it.
If he is in the UK right now you can keep him, he is no bl**dy use to Australia. Look at Andrew Bolts comments about him.
And believe me, Aussie lefties are just as batty as British ones, different issues, that’s all.
Thank you for an Australian perspective.
Do you have the BBC talking at you down there and, if so, how do you think they portray the “British” view in political spectrum terms.
Given Emily Maitlis’s excitement over the Guardian‘s wheeze over Sarah Palin’s e-mails, it was predictable that The Andrew Marr Show began today with Marr gloatingly retelling that story from the Guardian about Lady Thatcher calling Mrs Palin “nuts”.
(A post by The Aged P. casts doubt on the truth of this story.)
Marr was chatting to Labour’s Charlie Falconer about changes to the government’s NHS reforms. As if Lord Falconer’s attacks on the government weren’t enough, Andrew Marr chipped in this loaded question:
“But it is difficult if you’re demolishing a structure to stop half way through.”
To describe the government’s planned reforms as “demolishing a structure” is quite a negative/extreme way of putting it, more suited to a Labour politician than a supposedly impartial BBC interviewer.
You’re quite right. Marr does political interviews – but when its a champagn socialist like Lord Falconer it always comes over as more of a chat between mates.
As I see it,
It is a chat between mates !
I don’t watch Marr, but I assume he featured the Telegraph’s expose of Ed Balls ? After all, it is the political news of the week.
UK aid cash helped African dictator buy himself a £30m jet
But International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell is facing a backlash for expressing his desire to make the UK a ‘development superpower’.
Ministers are increasing aid spending by 34 per cent to £12billion at a time of austerity at home and Prime Minister David Cameron will again defend the policy at an event on Monday.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002319/UK-aid-cash-helped-African-dictator-buy-30m-jet.html#ixzz1PA7lPVfb
Bugger, where’s Geldof when you need him?
Where are all the BBC reports about how the public doesn’t want to send money overseas to build aircraft carriers and nuclear programs in foreign countries whilst front line services are being decimated back home? The QT audience was clearly not in support of Mitchell’s idea. So why no follow-up? The BBC sure has found plenty of time to air public grievances about Government plans in other cases recently.
Not sure where I picked it up but someone quoted the population of Ethiopia at around 40m at the time of Bob Geldof. Now its about double that. No matter how much aid you shovel in that sort of population growth is unsustainable.
I also note on many reports of the “Arab Spring” when talking about families fleeing or unfortunately dying the number of children never seems to be one or two. Ten was quoted for a Syrian in Turkey.
Seems the best way we could spend our overseas aid money is rencouraging population growth control! It should obviously be a target of the MMGW eco-loons as well, but seemingly burgeoning population numbers do not seem to appear on their radar as a problem!
Yes, I recall reading a similar article. The conclusion was that essentially all that has happened since 1984, and the massive influx of foreign aid since then, is that the number of 3rd worlders living in poverty, and starving, has doubled, as the aid has simply meant that more of them survive beyond infancy.
The other major problem is, that when they get to Europe, they continue to breed like rats but have access to first world medical services.
Our welfare system will collapse under the weight of third world birth rates if we’re not careful.
A “controversial” view but one that my oft repeated suggestion of the government only providing cash benefits of any kind for a maximum of two children would quickly cause a reduction in children per family.
Note. I am not saying you cannot have as many children as you like, just that the state (me) will not subsidise more than two. It would also quickly reduce the number of children “born into poverty”!
That’s not controversial at all in my book, just common sense, and something that is practiced by most responsible people. Sadly though, socialism, coupled with the benefits culture that we’ve seen for the last 14 years, breeds irresponsibility as well as millions of children who’ll go on to contribute nothing to the country.