NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw a very good documentery on Tony Blair on saturday (on channel 4 i think). It contained an in-depth review on his character.

One odd thought that struck me is that he is rather like Oliver Cromwell. He is cast with a highly religious idealist.....but with a vicious and practical seat.

What do you all think?

He is a masochist. Sometimes I get the feeling he likes being abused.

He's human

He is a good politician. Smart, intelligent, educated, a great states man.
We would welcome if more countries would have such great head of government.
Especially in the Iraq question he stood for what he believed: Regime change and stripping the world of the treat of Saddam and terrorism.
I like him.

I like him too.

He would be the ideal US President. But to the UK, he is an embarrassment.

Hes betrayed labour's traditional principals [sic?]

"He would be the ideal US President." - we would agree, but he is British.
"But to the UK, he is an embarrassment." Why????

"He would be the ideal US President." - we would agree, but he is British.
"But to the UK, he is an embarrassment." Why????
He is simply unrepresentative of British public opinion. He is further to the right on just about every issue, and the only reason he has such a majority is the fact that most people cannot be bothered to vote because there is no viable left-wing alternative.

In particular, it is a case of a leader pursuing a foreign policy and projecting a national image at odds with public opinion.

Thanks to him, disillusionment with politics has reached all-time highs.

I saw a very good documentery on Tony Blair on saturday (on channel 4 i think). It contained an in-depth review on his character.

One odd thought that struck me is that he is rather like Oliver Cromwell. He is cast with a highly religious idealist.....but with a vicious and practical seat.

What do you all think?
You say channel four. But, that really doesnt give us a clue, because channels are not the same in different places.

@Tactical Grace


"He is simply unrepresentative of British public opinion. He is further to the right on just about every issue, and the only reason he has such a majority is the fact that most people cannot be bothered to vote because there is no viable left-wing alternative.
In particular, it is a case of a leader pursuing a foreign policy and projecting a national image at odds with public opinion."
Well: probably the political spectrum in the UK is more towards the right than in other european countries. Blair is not a right-winger, in our view. He is pretty liberal (left-liberal). Libaral economic policies (which was pretty succesfull since he took office in 1997) and a continuity in the traditional British foreign policy (Special relationship to the US) are determining principles of his policy. Principals he stands. We envied Britain for a leader who said what he want to do and does what he says. A rather unusal thing for europe.
It is our believe that any other British government would have acted the same way (conservative one or even a labour government under Gordon Brown)

"Thanks to him, disillusionment with politics has reached all-time highs."
Go to Germany, go to France: There the same thing is the case. Just today (European elections) the ruling social democrats in Germany and the ruling conservatives in France faced a severe blow. The turnout reached all time lows (even a little lower than 1999).
The disillusionment with politics has reached all-time highs there as well.
All western nations are going through difficult times.
Britain is doing pretty good actually, in difference to France and Germany.

"Doing pretty good" is not good enough. His performance has been unsatisfactory. Nothing new, as recent Western leaders go, but still. We have a problem.

I have to say that from what I've seen of his domestic policies, he's been burning the British Court of Public Opinion, and has successfully pushed his own agenda. Some of his policies I agree with, some I don't. However, that won't stop me from saying how brilliant this guy is.
Despite fierce oposition, he's privatized the rails, put a small tuition on public colleges, made a relationship with the EU that many Britons feel uncomfortable in, and has actively supported the Bush Administration. After all of this, I think he's done remarkably well. Even if most Britons don't like him, he is stronger than Maggie Thatcher, who resigned as soon as Britons said no to some of her ideas.

I have to say that from what I've seen of his domestic policies, he's been burning the British Court of Public Opinion, and has successfully pushed his own agenda. Some of his policies I agree with, some I don't. However, that won't stop me from saying how brilliant this guy is.
Despite fierce oposition, he's privatized the rails, put a small tuition on public colleges, made a relationship with the EU that many Britons feel uncomfortable in, and has actively supported the Bush Administration. After all of this, I think he's done remarkably well. Even if most Britons don't like him, he is stronger than Maggie Thatcher, who resigned as soon as Britons said no to some of her ideas.
:shock: You have got to be kidding me. If you really think his continued privatisation of national infrastructure has been a success, you really should come down here and use some of the trains and airports. We hate what he is doing in this area in particular.

"He would be the ideal US President." - we would agree, but he is British.
"But to the UK, he is an embarrassment." Why????
He is simply unrepresentative of British public opinion. He is further to the right on just about every issue, and the only reason he has such a majority is the fact that most people cannot be bothered to vote because there is no viable left-wing alternative.

In particular, it is a case of a leader pursuing a foreign policy and projecting a national image at odds with public opinion.

Thanks to him, disillusionment with politics has reached all-time highs.hes sounds like a British version of Clinton

I am one of those Germans who did not vote for the social democrats, but thats because I dont like their politics in our own country. Social Democrats suck in Germany = I dont want them in power in the EU Parliament either. Instead I voted for the Democratic Socialists (PDS) - because the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is exactly the same.. Its like in the USA, either option sucks, so I gave my vote to a party that didnt have a chance at screwing up politics yet.

@MKULTRA

"sounds like a British version of Clinton"
I think that would be a good description for him. He is a Clinton without the weaknesses (inapropriate behaviour).
However there are differences. Clinton worked himself up while Blair was born in a family which was part of the upper class of the UK.
And he shares with President Bush a sincere believe in God.


@Gigatron

so you are East German???
Well: where the PDS is in power the can not act differently (see Berlin or Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). There is the nominative power of the facts.
There is no alternative to cuts in the welfare state due to the economic changes of globalization and the demographic development.

Maggie Thatcher, who resigned as soon as Britons said no to some of her ideas.

Wrong. Maggie did nothing of the sort. She was betrayed by some of her own MPs and had to face a leadership battle and only resigned after the second round. So check your facts first.

Whats wrong with TB is that he is the anti-christ!!! :lol:

But seriously he is Bushs poodle and has betrayed the labour party as much as he has betrayed the country as a whole but because Labour remember 18 years as opposition they are desperate to stay in power and won't stand up to him in case they lose. Labour MPs have sold their souls to the anti-christ Tony!

:twisted:

I have to say that from what I've seen of his domestic policies, he's been burning the British Court of Public Opinion, and has successfully pushed his own agenda. Some of his policies I agree with, some I don't. However, that won't stop me from saying how brilliant this guy is.
Despite fierce oposition, he's privatized the rails, put a small tuition on public colleges, made a relationship with the EU that many Britons feel uncomfortable in, and has actively supported the Bush Administration. After all of this, I think he's done remarkably well. Even if most Britons don't like him, he is stronger than Maggie Thatcher, who resigned as soon as Britons said no to some of her ideas.

Erm... the railways were already privatised when Blair was elected. And provatisation has been an unmitigated disaster. I agree that he's done well to keep his job while acting in a way that is so out of touch with British popular opinion.

With regards to his position on the political spectrum, I think he's pretty centrist. He's no liberal (witness the clamping down on civil liberties) and he's lost all contact with the left. Yes, we have the minimum wage and a couple of other measures but these are negated by tuition fees and corporate brown-nosing (amongst many others).

Incidentally, for those who accuse Europe of being left-wing, it's worth noting that the centre-right coalition again has a clear majority after the recent elections. See, we can be thoughtless and servile too...

He's two faced. More so than many other politicians.
He's no Liberal that I'll agree with. DNA data bases, errosion of civil liberties, privitisation of the public sector, PFI :lol: .

I don't agree with Tony Ben but at least he says what he believes and believes what he says. What does two faced Tony believe in?

One big problem with Blair is that he is a religious wacko, at least in UK terms. The glassy eyes, the vacant grin, the constant use of the phrase "I say to you..." (you can hear him fighting to avoid saying "unto") -- he should be annoying people in shopping centres on Saturdays, not governing a declining world power.

Quite apart from his creepy beliefs, unjustified convictions, and rampant egotism, he has turned Labour into a version of the various European Christian Democrat parties. This has robbed a substantial portion of the British electorate as a whole, and an even bigger portion of the Scottish and Welsh electorates, of a mainstream centre-left option at the polls, worsening the UK's democratic deficit still further. His fascination and obsession with letting the private sector sink its slimy paws into the public pocket is only slightly less evangelical than the Tories', and is having the same predictably miserable results for the country's basic infrastructure.

I've never been able to work out why he continues to support George Bush, though. I think -- I hope -- he felt that he had to keep some sort of contact with Bush, that a USA with Britain tagging along behind was less dangerous to world peace than a USA out of control and shooting anything that moved (or had oil). But sometimes I worry that he did it because Jesus told him to; or even just because, in George, he's finally found another God-bothering nutter of the same calibre.

Tony Blair is a synthesis of treachery, lies, incompetence, hypocrisy and smugness. He claims to be left of centre politician and yet has done nothing at all to improve the lot of the working man - Most left thinking people on NS and in the wider world agree with this sentiment. From my perspective (as a Tory) his government has been criminally irresponsible with public finances ploughing billions into creating more beaurocracy (600,000 new civil servants, The NHS National programme for IT and other wasteful activities) which delivers no value to the tax payer or those in genuine need. He also mishandled the jusification/explaination of why we went to war to the public - resulting in a mans death. He is really arrogant about it when people criticise him for this or anything else for that matter.

Never mind our thoughts on Tony Blair, it'd be nice if, just once in a while, Tony Blair had a thought about us.

He is a good politician. Smart, intelligent, educated, a great states man.
We would welcome if more countries would have such great head of government.
Especially in the Iraq question he stood for what he believed: Regime change and stripping the world of the treat of Saddam and terrorism.
I like him.

I thought it was about WMD?

I like the typo. I always thought of Saddam as a bit of a treat for the world.

I have to say that from what I've seen of his domestic policies, he's been burning the British Court of Public Opinion, and has successfully pushed his own agenda. Some of his policies I agree with, some I don't. However, that won't stop me from saying how brilliant this guy is.
Despite fierce oposition, he's privatized the rails, put a small tuition on public colleges, made a relationship with the EU that many Britons feel uncomfortable in, and has actively supported the Bush Administration. After all of this, I think he's done remarkably well. Even if most Britons don't like him, he is stronger than Maggie Thatcher, who resigned as soon as Britons said no to some of her ideas.
:shock: You have got to be kidding me. If you really think his continued privatisation of national infrastructure has been a success, you really should come down here and use some of the trains and airports. We hate what he is doing in this area in particular.
It doesn't matter. What does is that he's been able to push it through with fierce opposition.
BTW, I don't support Blair's privatization at the rate he's doing it. There is no corporate infrastructure to support it on a massive scale. He should have done it more slowly, and let the businesses build themselves before they were completely privatized.
But, I wouldn't despair. After all, none of it will matter once oil runs out, right?

Maggie Thatcher, who resigned as soon as Britons said no to some of her ideas.

Wrong. Maggie did nothing of the sort. She was betrayed by some of her own MPs and had to face a leadership battle and only resigned after the second round. So check your facts first.


That's only partly true. She also resigned, at least in large part, due to a massive economic downswing by 1990, percieved by many as a failure of her policies.

I have to say that from what I've seen of his domestic policies, he's been burning the British Court of Public Opinion, and has successfully pushed his own agenda. Some of his policies I agree with, some I don't. However, that won't stop me from saying how brilliant this guy is.
Despite fierce oposition, he's privatized the rails, put a small tuition on public colleges, made a relationship with the EU that many Britons feel uncomfortable in, and has actively supported the Bush Administration. After all of this, I think he's done remarkably well. Even if most Britons don't like him, he is stronger than Maggie Thatcher, who resigned as soon as Britons said no to some of her ideas.

Erm... the railways were already privatised when Blair was elected. And provatisation has been an unmitigated disaster. I agree that he's done well to keep his job while acting in a way that is so out of touch with British popular opinion.

With regards to his position on the political spectrum, I think he's pretty centrist. He's no liberal (witness the clamping down on civil liberties) and he's lost all contact with the left. Yes, we have the minimum wage and a couple of other measures but these are negated by tuition fees and corporate brown-nosing (amongst many others).

Incidentally, for those who accuse Europe of being left-wing, it's worth noting that the centre-right coalition again has a clear majority after the recent elections. See, we can be thoughtless and servile too...
Wiith the way some have been bitching about the railways being privatized, it would seem that it was only a recent action. If they are still dysfunctional, however, it may be because of a poor business climate. I'd expect that a private infrastructure would take over the rails by now.
Anyhow, from what I've been hearing, in many places in Europe, socialist groups have been winning. I forgot what it was in Britain, but in many countries on the continent, socialists are in the lead. It's nearly opposite of the East, where right-wingers are in the lead.
BTW, could you tell me exactly what is being voted on? I know it's something about the EU, but I forgot what they were being elected to.

Wiith the way some have been bitching about the railways being privatized, it would seem that it was only a recent action. If they are still dysfunctional, however, it may be because of a poor business climate. I'd expect that a private infrastructure would take over the rails by now.

They were privatised in the early '90s by John Major's Conservatives. I'll not go into why I don't support privatisation of the railways on any level as it will divert us off-topic.

Anyhow, from what I've been hearing, in many places in Europe, socialist groups have been winning. I forgot what it was in Britain, but in many countries on the continent, socialists are in the lead. It's nearly opposite of the East, where right-wingers are in the lead.
BTW, could you tell me exactly what is being voted on? I know it's something about the EU, but I forgot what they were being elected to.

OK... the centre-right UEN (including the Conservatives) have 275 seats, the centre-left PES (including Labour) have 200, the centrist ELDR (including the Lib Dems) have 66, the Greens 41, the far left EUL/NGL 36, the far right EDD 28, the anti-EU EDD 17 and others 69.

The centre-left did well in Spain, France and (I think) Sweden and Finland. The centre-right have had success in the UK, Ireland, Germany and Italy (amongst others, I haven't looked at them all). It's not so simple as a west/east left/right divide; for example, Lithuania has a centre-right coalition government with a Green Prime Minister. The Czechs have a centre-left government but the centre-right trounced them in the European polls. Likewise Germany.

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3804803.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2004/euro/html/1.stm

As for what the vote is about - it's the biggie, determining who represents each nation in the EU Parliament. What's alarming is the incredibly low turnout. About 45% in Europe as a whole, under 40% in the UK (which is high for us) and under 20% in Poland and Slovakia.

Lots to think about for us Europeans, I feel.

If being a "good" politician / statesman means re-inventing youself as often as David Bowie (no offense to DB fans I do like him) to get to the top then he's good but since hes been at the top he's just shown himself to be incapable of doing what is really required.
We now have a country which is fast becoming either the 51st state or a second rate sub-division of the EU.
He needs to stop hedgeing his bets, listen to the electorate.
(HA ! a British prime minister who does that. That will be the day)

If being a "good" politician / statesman means re-inventing youself as often as David Bowie (no offense to DB fans I do like him) to get to the top then he's good but since hes been at the top he's just shown himself to be incapable of doing what is really required.
We now have a country which is fast becoming either the 51st state or a second rate sub-division of the EU.
He needs to stop hedgeing his bets, listen to the electorate.
(HA ! a British prime minister who does that. That will be the day)

Purly Euclid,


you are mistaken: the centre-right again won the European parliament election. It also won the last one in 1999 in a landslide. And this time they improved even more. It was right up until 1999 that the parliament was dominated by socialists. But now there is a conservative-liberal majority.


EP

Conservatives 37.7% (+0,3%)
Socialists 27.46 (-2,1%)
Liberals 9.02 (+0,5%)
Left-socialists/Communists 5.33 (-1,6%)
Greens 5.74 (-0,2%)
Europe of Nations (Nationalists) 3.69 (-0,1%)
EDD (other euro-sceptics, e.g. EUKIP in the UK) 2.05 (UKIP 1,64% of all votes in the EU; strongest group in the EDD)
Others 9.02 (+3,4%)

Seats 732

Conservatives: 276
Socialists: 201
Liberals: 66
Left Socialists/Communists 39
Greens: 42
Europe of Nations: 27
EDD (UKIP, e.g.) 15
Others 66

Result: Conservatives and Liberals come together to 342 seats out of 732 and with that close to a majority (367 of 732 seats). Together with other right-wing parties there would be a substantial majority for the center-right political spectrum.
Unfortunately the european political system hasn´t developed thus far. The elections where more determined by national issues. European issues didn´t play a role. It can be assume that the informal great coaliton between conservatives and socialists is going to continue. However: they are signs from the conservative that they want changes now and a broader representation for the center-right in the future european commission.

"We now have a country which is fast becoming either the 51st state or a second rate sub-division of the EU."
That statement is a bit polemic. But one day Britain has to make the decision whether it what´s to be the 25 th member of the EU or not.
That, of course doesn´t mean to cut ties with the US. As a matter of fact: 12 EU countries are having troops in Iraq.
European countries where almost evenly divided on that issue. That underlines again a very important thing. It is nonsense to say: you got to chose between Europe and the US. Only together with the US Europe can prosper and grow together. The transatlantic alliance is the basis for European cooperation.
France and Germany have made a terrible mistake. The German government and least tries to repair the damage now for its wrong policy which followed the believe: we have to choose between the US and France. That´s nonsense. The french policy can not unite Europe, it divides it.

"We now have a country which is fast becoming either the 51st state or a second rate sub-division of the EU."
That statement is a bit polemic. But one day Britain has to make the decision whether it what´s to be the 25 th member of the EU or not.
European countries where almost evenly divided on that issue. That underlines again a very important thing. It is nonsense to say: you got to chose between Europe and the US. Only together with the US Europe can prosper and grow together. The transatlantic alliance is the basis for European cooperation.

So you beleive that two groups potentially as economically powerful as these two will never have a disagreement ?

France and Germany have made a terrible mistake. The German government and least tries to repair the damage now for its wrong policy which followed the believe: we have to choose between the US and France. That´s nonsense. The french policy can not unite Europe, it divides it.

I think most voters in the UK do not agree with France and do not agree with the US to an extent to which they should sign up to either point of view. We are being led by a government keen to "join a camp" this is wrong we should take a more pragmatic approach and take on board what suits us rather than get involved in other peoples problems.

The German people refused to take part in this illegal war. I know because I am one of them. If my government were doing what I want, we'd not have soldiers in Iraq and let the US sort out their mess on their own. Fortunately for the people in Iraq, the US got a UN resolution for international troops to help them stabilize the country, which is now IN UTTER CHAOS AND SHAKEN BY TERRORIST ATTACKS EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!! If I was the German chancellor, we'd severe all diplomatic ties to the US until the people over there have a competent president who does not screwup the entire Middle East (and possibly the rest of the world) while shitting on his allies. The same applies to Blair.. damn lapdog of Bush.. grrr

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/150/view.html?ad_id=40

Tony Blair should step down as leader. If he hadn't backed Bush, I truly believe that the US would not have invaded Iraq.

Blair unfortunately got sucked into Bush's agenda.

I have to say that from what I've seen of his domestic policies, he's been burning the British Court of Public Opinion, and has successfully pushed his own agenda. Some of his policies I agree with, some I don't. However, that won't stop me from saying how brilliant this guy is.
Despite fierce oposition, he's privatized the rails, put a small tuition on public colleges, made a relationship with the EU that many Britons feel uncomfortable in, and has actively supported the Bush Administration. After all of this, I think he's done remarkably well. Even if most Britons don't like him, he is stronger than Maggie Thatcher, who resigned as soon as Britons said no to some of her ideas.
:shock: You have got to be kidding me. If you really think his continued privatisation of national infrastructure has been a success, you really should come down here and use some of the trains and airports. We hate what he is doing in this area in particular.

To be fair to the man he has had to build on the mess which Thatcharism left transport in!

Not that i support him...because i don't. I kinda get the idea that the Thatcher years are forgotten or unknown by many.

@Buzzadonia

"I think most voters in the UK do not agree with France and do not agree with the US to an extent to which they should sign up to either point of view. We are being led by a government keen to "join a camp" this is wrong we should take a more pragmatic approach and take on board what suits us rather than get involved in other peoples problems."

I understand your position: it would be an "independent approach": neither siding with France or the US.
However: the question is: is that really possible. Is it realistic. I´m very sorry to say that: but Britain isn´t a world power any more. The big colonial empire which existed till the end of world war II is no more. Britain is a country of roughly 60 million people in Western Europe. Place 78 in size and 21 in population. The fact that it is a permanent member of the Security Council is only the case because of Britains position in world war II. Given the present power situation of the world it is hardly justifiable that the UK is a member ot this council but Japan, still the second largest world economy, or India, the country with the second highest population and due to the higher population growth than in China expected to be the country with the highest population in roughly 20 to 25 years, are not permanent members of the council.
In economic terms it is still important, but only place four in the G8.
And given the strong growth in East asia and Sout asia (especially China) there are new powers to evolve like China and India.
How should Britain alone conduct a policy to those nations, without consulting or formulating it with the US, with other EU partners or with both?????

Britain has therefore sided with the US. And that was already 60 years ago, during world war II.
The last action of the "entente" with France was the desasterous occupation of the Suez channel, which was condemned by both the US and the USSR. Since then both countries went different directions. France tried a more independent strategy, developed its own nukes out of the nato structure, resigned from the military integration of nato, but remained member, while Britain moved more closely to the US.
Blair is standing in this tradition.
What other choice did he really have???

Double post deleted

double post deleted

Wiith the way some have been bitching about the railways being privatized, it would seem that it was only a recent action. If they are still dysfunctional, however, it may be because of a poor business climate. I'd expect that a private infrastructure would take over the rails by now.

They were privatised in the early '90s by John Major's Conservatives. I'll not go into why I don't support privatisation of the railways on any level as it will divert us off-topic.

Anyhow, from what I've been hearing, in many places in Europe, socialist groups have been winning. I forgot what it was in Britain, but in many countries on the continent, socialists are in the lead. It's nearly opposite of the East, where right-wingers are in the lead.
BTW, could you tell me exactly what is being voted on? I know it's something about the EU, but I forgot what they were being elected to.

OK... the centre-right UEN (including the Conservatives) have 275 seats, the centre-left PES (including Labour) have 200, the centrist ELDR (including the Lib Dems) have 66, the Greens 41, the far left EUL/NGL 36, the far right EDD 28, the anti-EU EDD 17 and others 69.

The centre-left did well in Spain, France and (I think) Sweden and Finland. The centre-right have had success in the UK, Ireland, Germany and Italy (amongst others, I haven't looked at them all). It's not so simple as a west/east left/right divide; for example, Lithuania has a centre-right coalition government with a Green Prime Minister. The Czechs have a centre-left government but the centre-right trounced them in the European polls. Likewise Germany.

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3804803.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2004/euro/html/1.stm

As for what the vote is about - it's the biggie, determining who represents each nation in the EU Parliament. What's alarming is the incredibly low turnout. About 45% in Europe as a whole, under 40% in the UK (which is high for us) and under 20% in Poland and Slovakia.

Lots to think about for us Europeans, I feel.
I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Any leader who simply follows what the polls tell him ins't really a leader. Its not the Prime Minister's job in Britain or the Presidents in the USA. If all we wanted to do was have tyranny of the majority, we could do it.

Leadership is really doing what you believe in. Like FDR helping out the British with the Lend-Lease program even though Congress and most of America didn't want to.

I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Hey, no worries. It's worth noting that Associated Press own the Daily Mail, a rabidly right-wing, anti-EU, anti-liberty newspaper that's very powerful in the UK. They probably think that centre-right = socialist...

DP

I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Hey, no worries. It's worth noting that Associated Press own the Daily Mail, a rabidly right-wing, anti-EU, anti-liberty newspaper that's very powerful in the UK. They probably think that centre-right = socialist...
Businesses usually have no effect over the media they own, I believe. For example, Fox owns Fox News and shows the Simpsons, which are completely different in political philosophy. But that's just my point of view.
And I don't percieve AP as being a right-wing media organization. If anything, they are to the left.

I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Hey, no worries. It's worth noting that Associated Press own the Daily Mail, a rabidly right-wing, anti-EU, anti-liberty newspaper that's very powerful in the UK. They probably think that centre-right = socialist...
Businesses usually have no effect over the media they own, I believe. For example, Fox owns Fox News and shows the Simpsons, which are completely different in political philosophy. But that's just my point of view.
And I don't percieve AP as being a right-wing media organization. If anything, they are to the left.

Oh come on, what about the Murdoch press - almost every single news outlet he owns is of a right wing persuasion - Fox news, the Sun, the Times, the list goes on, or the racist overtones of the "Express" a paper owned by the habitual racist Richard Desmond, the examples go on. There are exceptions but clearly there is a link in the majority of cases.

I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Hey, no worries. It's worth noting that Associated Press own the Daily Mail, a rabidly right-wing, anti-EU, anti-liberty newspaper that's very powerful in the UK. They probably think that centre-right = socialist...
Businesses usually have no effect over the media they own, I believe. For example, Fox owns Fox News and shows the Simpsons, which are completely different in political philosophy. But that's just my point of view.
And I don't percieve AP as being a right-wing media organization. If anything, they are to the left.

Oh come on, what about the Murdoch press - almost every single news outlet he owns is of a right wing persuasion - Fox news, the Sun, the Times, the list goes on, or the racist overtones of the "Express" a paper owned by the habitual racist Richard Desmond, the examples go on. There are exceptions but clearly there is a link in the majority of cases.
If the British government owns BBC, and Blair is adamantly for the Iraq war, why is BBC against it? The same could be said for PBS in this country.
As for News Corp., don't they mostly own tabloids in the UK. There's a reason they're called tabloids. Every major media company, it seems, owns one, and nothing in them is ever true. Don't believe what you read in them, unless you think aliens from Venus have captured Washington DC, or Queen Elizabeth is the second coming of Jesus.

IIRC, his papers are backing Tony Blair, right? If he was that Right-wing, it would make more sense to back the Tories, wouldn't it?

I saw a very good documentery on Tony Blair on saturday (on channel 4 i think). It contained an in-depth review on his character.

One odd thought that struck me is that he is rather like Oliver Cromwell. He is cast with a highly religious idealist.....but with a vicious and practical seat.

What do you all think?

It would be a very interesting comparision between the two, Ahkmaros.

Cromwell did some awful things, but I don't reckon he was as bad as B-liar is now :evil:

I saw a very good documentery on Tony Blair on saturday (on channel 4 i think). It contained an in-depth review on his character.

One odd thought that struck me is that he is rather like Oliver Cromwell. He is cast with a highly religious idealist.....but with a vicious and practical seat.

What do you all think?

It would be a very interesting comparision between the two, Ahkmaros.

Cromwell did some awful things, but I don't reckon he was as bad as B-liar is now :evil:

One I would like Cromwell and Blair to have in common is this, to both be leaders of a British Republic.

I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Hey, no worries. It's worth noting that Associated Press own the Daily Mail, a rabidly right-wing, anti-EU, anti-liberty newspaper that's very powerful in the UK. They probably think that centre-right = socialist...
Businesses usually have no effect over the media they own, I believe. For example, Fox owns Fox News and shows the Simpsons, which are completely different in political philosophy. But that's just my point of view.
And I don't percieve AP as being a right-wing media organization. If anything, they are to the left.

Oh come on, what about the Murdoch press - almost every single news outlet he owns is of a right wing persuasion - Fox news, the Sun, the Times, the list goes on, or the racist overtones of the "Express" a paper owned by the habitual racist Richard Desmond, the examples go on. There are exceptions but clearly there is a link in the majority of cases.
If the British government owns BBC, and Blair is adamantly for the Iraq war, why is BBC against it? The same could be said for PBS in this country.
As for News Corp., don't they mostly own tabloids in the UK. There's a reason they're called tabloids. Every major media company, it seems, owns one, and nothing in them is ever true. Don't believe what you read in them, unless you think aliens from Venus have captured Washington DC, or Queen Elizabeth is the second coming of Jesus.

Umm... in the UK, AP are very much right-wing, not a hint of left in them. I don't know what they own in the US. As for the tabloids issue, News Corp. own The Times, which is a broadsheet with a strong reputation. Finally, the BBC is independent of government, that's kind of the point. It is not anti-war either; it's neutral, as specified by its remit.

Obviously there are exceptions in programming. The Simpsons and especially Family Guy are liberal, maybe even left, yet they are also Godsends for ratings. It's a trade-off.

Murdoch's press supports Labour for a number of fairly cynical reasons, mostly to do with the political access they have gained through the connection. It's worth noting that Labour (or at least its leading figures) are no longer left wing.

In conclusion, businesses often have a huge influence on the media they control.

I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Hey, no worries. It's worth noting that Associated Press own the Daily Mail, a rabidly right-wing, anti-EU, anti-liberty newspaper that's very powerful in the UK. They probably think that centre-right = socialist...
Businesses usually have no effect over the media they own, I believe. For example, Fox owns Fox News and shows the Simpsons, which are completely different in political philosophy. But that's just my point of view.
And I don't percieve AP as being a right-wing media organization. If anything, they are to the left.

Oh come on, what about the Murdoch press - almost every single news outlet he owns is of a right wing persuasion - Fox news, the Sun, the Times, the list goes on, or the racist overtones of the "Express" a paper owned by the habitual racist Richard Desmond, the examples go on. There are exceptions but clearly there is a link in the majority of cases.
If the British government owns BBC, and Blair is adamantly for the Iraq war, why is BBC against it? The same could be said for PBS in this country.
As for News Corp., don't they mostly own tabloids in the UK. There's a reason they're called tabloids. Every major media company, it seems, owns one, and nothing in them is ever true. Don't believe what you read in them, unless you think aliens from Venus have captured Washington DC, or Queen Elizabeth is the second coming of Jesus.

The BBC is funded by a licence fee and as a result is required to be impartial, whilst it has been accused of being slanted towards an anti-war agenda that is only because it is held to such high standards.

Oh Tabloids are utter crap I'll admit but there are clear differences in their political agenda, the Sun for instance (pro-war, anti-Europe) is far more right wing than a paper like the mirror, (anti-war, pro-Europe etc).

I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Hey, no worries. It's worth noting that Associated Press own the Daily Mail, a rabidly right-wing, anti-EU, anti-liberty newspaper that's very powerful in the UK. They probably think that centre-right = socialist...
Businesses usually have no effect over the media they own, I believe. For example, Fox owns Fox News and shows the Simpsons, which are completely different in political philosophy. But that's just my point of view.
And I don't percieve AP as being a right-wing media organization. If anything, they are to the left.

Oh come on, what about the Murdoch press - almost every single news outlet he owns is of a right wing persuasion - Fox news, the Sun, the Times, the list goes on, or the racist overtones of the "Express" a paper owned by the habitual racist Richard Desmond, the examples go on. There are exceptions but clearly there is a link in the majority of cases.
If the British government owns BBC, and Blair is adamantly for the Iraq war, why is BBC against it? The same could be said for PBS in this country.
As for News Corp., don't they mostly own tabloids in the UK. There's a reason they're called tabloids. Every major media company, it seems, owns one, and nothing in them is ever true. Don't believe what you read in them, unless you think aliens from Venus have captured Washington DC, or Queen Elizabeth is the second coming of Jesus.

Umm... in the UK, AP are very much right-wing, not a hint of left in them. I don't know what they own in the US. As for the tabloids issue, News Corp. own The Times, which is a broadsheet with a strong reputation. Finally, the BBC is independent of government, that's kind of the point. It is not anti-war either; it's neutral, as specified by its remit.

Obviously there are exceptions in programming. The Simpsons and especially Family Guy are liberal, maybe even left, yet they are also Godsends for ratings. It's a trade-off.

Murdoch's press supports Labour for a number of fairly cynical reasons, mostly to do with the political access they have gained through the connection. It's worth noting that Labour (or at least its leading figures) are no longer left wing.

In conclusion, businesses often have a huge influence on the media they control.
The AP seems pretty left wing here. But I also find that many news networks are pretty liberal. CBS and ABC are okay, but NBC and CNN tend to lean liberal. Especially at NBC, where their senior editor for their nightly news, Tom Brokaw, leans left a bit. They're owned by GE, and I wouldn't describe that as being a left wing corporation. Then again, they're one of those corporations that is so big, they can transcend politics.

I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Hey, no worries. It's worth noting that Associated Press own the Daily Mail, a rabidly right-wing, anti-EU, anti-liberty newspaper that's very powerful in the UK. They probably think that centre-right = socialist...
Businesses usually have no effect over the media they own, I believe. For example, Fox owns Fox News and shows the Simpsons, which are completely different in political philosophy. But that's just my point of view.
And I don't percieve AP as being a right-wing media organization. If anything, they are to the left.

Oh come on, what about the Murdoch press - almost every single news outlet he owns is of a right wing persuasion - Fox news, the Sun, the Times, the list goes on, or the racist overtones of the "Express" a paper owned by the habitual racist Richard Desmond, the examples go on. There are exceptions but clearly there is a link in the majority of cases.
If the British government owns BBC, and Blair is adamantly for the Iraq war, why is BBC against it? The same could be said for PBS in this country.
As for News Corp., don't they mostly own tabloids in the UK. There's a reason they're called tabloids. Every major media company, it seems, owns one, and nothing in them is ever true. Don't believe what you read in them, unless you think aliens from Venus have captured Washington DC, or Queen Elizabeth is the second coming of Jesus.

Umm... in the UK, AP are very much right-wing, not a hint of left in them. I don't know what they own in the US. As for the tabloids issue, News Corp. own The Times, which is a broadsheet with a strong reputation. Finally, the BBC is independent of government, that's kind of the point. It is not anti-war either; it's neutral, as specified by its remit.

Obviously there are exceptions in programming. The Simpsons and especially Family Guy are liberal, maybe even left, yet they are also Godsends for ratings. It's a trade-off.

Murdoch's press supports Labour for a number of fairly cynical reasons, mostly to do with the political access they have gained through the connection. It's worth noting that Labour (or at least its leading figures) are no longer left wing.

In conclusion, businesses often have a huge influence on the media they control.
The AP seems pretty left wing here. But I also find that many news networks are pretty liberal. CBS and ABC are okay, but NBC and CNN tend to lean liberal. Especially at NBC, where their senior editor for their nightly news, Tom Brokaw, leans left a bit. They're owned by GE, and I wouldn't describe that as being a left wing corporation. Then again, they're one of those corporations that is so big, they can transcend politics.

How odd. AP are as right wing as the media gets here. If only I could hand you a Daily Mail as evidence!

I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Hey, no worries. It's worth noting that Associated Press own the Daily Mail, a rabidly right-wing, anti-EU, anti-liberty newspaper that's very powerful in the UK. They probably think that centre-right = socialist...
Businesses usually have no effect over the media they own, I believe. For example, Fox owns Fox News and shows the Simpsons, which are completely different in political philosophy. But that's just my point of view.
And I don't percieve AP as being a right-wing media organization. If anything, they are to the left.

Oh come on, what about the Murdoch press - almost every single news outlet he owns is of a right wing persuasion - Fox news, the Sun, the Times, the list goes on, or the racist overtones of the "Express" a paper owned by the habitual racist Richard Desmond, the examples go on. There are exceptions but clearly there is a link in the majority of cases.
If the British government owns BBC, and Blair is adamantly for the Iraq war, why is BBC against it? The same could be said for PBS in this country.
As for News Corp., don't they mostly own tabloids in the UK. There's a reason they're called tabloids. Every major media company, it seems, owns one, and nothing in them is ever true. Don't believe what you read in them, unless you think aliens from Venus have captured Washington DC, or Queen Elizabeth is the second coming of Jesus.

The BBC is funded by a licence fee and as a result is required to be impartial, whilst it has been accused of being slanted towards an anti-war agenda that is only because it is held to such high standards.

Oh Tabloids are utter crap I'll admit but there are clear differences in their political agenda, the Sun for instance (pro-war, anti-Europe) is far more right wing than a paper like the mirror, (anti-war, pro-Europe etc).
I know about that liscense fee, where Brits have to pay 200 pounds a year to get BBC. In the US, we'd rather throw away our TVs than pay that for PBS.
Anyhow, the BBC's basic structure does work like a corporation. However, they have a Board of Governors overseeing them, and they are appointed by the government. Also, I've watched BBC World News several times before. For one, they seem to promote liberal causes, and make any opposition look foolish. For another, their anchormen/women scare me, as they're like robots reporting the news. But that asside, they seem to pick anchorwomen that'd be, if not liberal, staunchly against the US, like Michel Hussein. In any case, there's a difference between mandating them to being unbiased, and the network actually being unbiased. PBS has the same problem.

I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Hey, no worries. It's worth noting that Associated Press own the Daily Mail, a rabidly right-wing, anti-EU, anti-liberty newspaper that's very powerful in the UK. They probably think that centre-right = socialist...
Businesses usually have no effect over the media they own, I believe. For example, Fox owns Fox News and shows the Simpsons, which are completely different in political philosophy. But that's just my point of view.
And I don't percieve AP as being a right-wing media organization. If anything, they are to the left.

Oh come on, what about the Murdoch press - almost every single news outlet he owns is of a right wing persuasion - Fox news, the Sun, the Times, the list goes on, or the racist overtones of the "Express" a paper owned by the habitual racist Richard Desmond, the examples go on. There are exceptions but clearly there is a link in the majority of cases.
If the British government owns BBC, and Blair is adamantly for the Iraq war, why is BBC against it? The same could be said for PBS in this country.
As for News Corp., don't they mostly own tabloids in the UK. There's a reason they're called tabloids. Every major media company, it seems, owns one, and nothing in them is ever true. Don't believe what you read in them, unless you think aliens from Venus have captured Washington DC, or Queen Elizabeth is the second coming of Jesus.

The BBC is funded by a licence fee and as a result is required to be impartial, whilst it has been accused of being slanted towards an anti-war agenda that is only because it is held to such high standards.

Oh Tabloids are utter crap I'll admit but there are clear differences in their political agenda, the Sun for instance (pro-war, anti-Europe) is far more right wing than a paper like the mirror, (anti-war, pro-Europe etc).
I know about that liscense fee, where Brits have to pay 200 pounds a year to get BBC. In the US, we'd rather throw away our TVs than pay that for PBS.
Anyhow, the BBC's basic structure does work like a corporation. However, they have a Board of Governors overseeing them, and they are appointed by the government. Also, I've watched BBC World News several times before. For one, they seem to promote liberal causes, and make any opposition look foolish. For another, their anchormen/women scare me, as they're like robots reporting the news. But that asside, they seem to pick anchorwomen that'd be, if not liberal, staunchly against the US, like Michel Hussein. In any case, there's a difference between mandating them to being unbiased, and the network actually being unbiased. PBS has the same problem.

The BBC pisses off right and left in equal measure. A sure sign that they're on the right track, I'd say. As for US scepticism, remember they're British. Unfortunately, there's little chance of removing national bias.

Oh, and it's £110, I think. If they allowed advertising it would probably be free. I prefer to pay, frankly.

I read in this morning's paper about socialists doing good in Europe. It was a syndicated Associated Press article that, sadly, I can't find on the internet. But I guess they did some false reporting, and buying into their reporting, I feel that I did the same. So I'm sorry I passed along misinformation.

Hey, no worries. It's worth noting that Associated Press own the Daily Mail, a rabidly right-wing, anti-EU, anti-liberty newspaper that's very powerful in the UK. They probably think that centre-right = socialist...
Businesses usually have no effect over the media they own, I believe. For example, Fox owns Fox News and shows the Simpsons, which are completely different in political philosophy. But that's just my point of view.
And I don't percieve AP as being a right-wing media organization. If anything, they are to the left.

Oh come on, what about the Murdoch press - almost every single news outlet he owns is of a right wing persuasion - Fox news, the Sun, the Times, the list goes on, or the racist overtones of the "Express" a paper owned by the habitual racist Richard Desmond, the examples go on. There are exceptions but clearly there is a link in the majority of cases.
If the British government owns BBC, and Blair is adamantly for the Iraq war, why is BBC against it? The same could be said for PBS in this country.
As for News Corp., don't they mostly own tabloids in the UK. There's a reason they're called tabloids. Every major media company, it seems, owns one, and nothing in them is ever true. Don't believe what you read in them, unless you think aliens from Venus have captured Washington DC, or Queen Elizabeth is the second coming of Jesus.

The BBC is funded by a licence fee and as a result is required to be impartial, whilst it has been accused of being slanted towards an anti-war agenda that is only because it is held to such high standards.

Oh Tabloids are utter crap I'll admit but there are clear differences in their political agenda, the Sun for instance (pro-war, anti-Europe) is far more right wing than a paper like the mirror, (anti-war, pro-Europe etc).
I know about that liscense fee, where Brits have to pay 200 pounds a year to get BBC. In the US, we'd rather throw away our TVs than pay that for PBS.
Anyhow, the BBC's basic structure does work like a corporation. However, they have a Board of Governors overseeing them, and they are appointed by the government. Also, I've watched BBC World News several times before. For one, they seem to promote liberal causes, and make any opposition look foolish. For another, their anchormen/women scare me, as they're like robots reporting the news. But that asside, they seem to pick anchorwomen that'd be, if not liberal, staunchly against the US, like Michel Hussein. In any case, there's a difference between mandating them to being unbiased, and the network actually being unbiased. PBS has the same problem.

The BBC pisses off right and left in equal measure. A sure sign that they're on the right track, I'd say. As for US scepticism, remember they're British. Unfortunately, there's little chance of removing national bias.

Oh, and it's £110, I think. If they allowed advertising it would probably be free. I prefer to pay, frankly.
I don't know if they dip toward the right, often. On their shows, they spend a good five minutes bashing America, then a good five minutes bashing some business or a right wing government (often interwoven with America bashing), and the rest of the time is devoted to something that seems whimsical.
As for national bias, they can't be too bias. You probably don't know this, but BBC has expanded bigtime into America. While still part of cable, they own major interests in such programming as the Discovery Channel, and with a near limitless supply of public funding, they've grown very quickly, and have started to overtake most of the smaller networks. I hear they're expanding much more aggresively in India.

I don't know if they dip toward the right, often. On their shows, they spend a good five minutes bashing America, then a good five minutes bashing some business or a right wing government (often interwoven with America bashing), and the rest of the time is devoted to something that seems whimsical.
As for national bias, they can't be too bias. You probably don't know this, but BBC has expanded bigtime into America. While still part of cable, they own major interests in such programming as the Discovery Channel, and with a near limitless supply of public funding, they've grown very quickly, and have started to overtake most of the smaller networks. I hear they're expanding much more aggresively in India.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of their acquisitive nature. It may be that the service you receive is different to that broadcast in the UK. Over here the news service is carefully opinion-free. However, there are programmes (such as Newsnight and Panorama) that have much more leeway for comment.

Channel 4 news is a better service, with much more in-depth coverage. However, they are inclined to be more explicitly damning in their commentary.

The issue of liberal/conservative is almost meaningless in the UK. In political terms, liberal here tends to mean centrist, not left.

Out of interest, which newspapers/networks do AP own in the US?

I have a friend who used to work for the BBC's complaints department. The official policy was to count up all the complaints about left-wing bias and right-wing bias and, if they balanced out, then they were doing their job properly. Year on year, there was just about an even 50-50 split between the two. Of course, it has to be remembered that what most of Britain regards as right-wing or left-wing may be not be viewed as such by people from other countries with other political traditions. But since the BBC is paid for by the British, it's only our views that count. And I'm with Ecopoeia: I'm happy to pay £110 per year not to have adverts, and to have at least a chance of finding some watchable programmes here and there, both on the BBC and on the UK commercial channels who have a half-decent benchmark to aim at. Hell, I'd fork out half that just for the Open University stuff alone.

It has to be said that most people who write to the BBC seem to be a little odd, to say the least. Or maybe that's just because I got told about the highlights, e.g.: programme suggestions for a variety show to be presented by the Queen and Shirley Bassey, complete with script; complaints about line calls during Wimbledon; requests to re-schedule programmes because they coincided with the writers' bath times; appeals for help from people who thought the Knights of St John were out to get them (a refreshing twist on the usual Templar conspiracy nuts); increasingly incoherent cassette-recordings from progressively inebriated people airing their thoughts and opinions on life in general to Greg Dyke -- now a regular favourite at staff parties; demands to bring back "The Good Old Days" (unclear whether this meant the programme or the times themselves); complaints about noisy neighbourhood children; and so on and so forth.

I think that he tries his best, even though not everyone thinks his decisions are appropriate to the situation he atleast 'tries' to do what he thinks is best for the country, which is more than what can be said about some politicians! I don't particularly like him, and there are things he does which really make me angry i.e. university fees ..but he tries!

I think that he tries his best, even though not everyone thinks his decisions are appropriate to the situation he atleast 'tries' to do what he thinks is best for the country, which is more than what can be said about some politicians! I don't particularly like him, and there are things he does which really make me angry i.e. university fees ..but he tries!

Oops. I think an apology is in order, Purly. The Daily Mail is part of the Associated Newspapers group. There appears to be no connection with Associated Press. Sorry about that.