45 minute warning

[Dudley]

Thanks to Steve bell for this one:


Nye Bevan, circa 1856, commenting on Anthony Eden's handling of the Suez crisis:

"If he knew, he's too wicked to be the Prime Minister.  If he didn't know, he's too stupid to be the Prime Minister."

[Dunk!]

"If every adult on the planet was given every single political fact and figure to digest for themselves, it would liklely bring about the collapse of civillisation as we know it."

Or just as likely it wouldn't.

90% probably couldn't give a damn unless it interrupts reality TV or puts up their taxes.

Bloody taxes.

Tulkas (the inland revenue are on to me)

[rc]

Good point by Tulkas, and a good example of why the majority of people are managed better when fed a diet of what they NEED to know rather than what they DEMAND to know - if as WoD suggests it is the politicians and the press that are the ideal medium for information, they obviously think the same.

Sure, it is a sweeping statement to dismiss most people as ultimately unwilling to get involved and disinterested if given the full and true facts of the way of our world, but we must draw these conclusions from the smaller everyday conflicts which are constantly abandoned one after the other once the interest wears off or the going gets tough.

So to admit his every human error and failing would earn respect for that politician from a small corner, but the majority would be apt to shout for resignations and changes every five minutes once inevitable fallibility was discovered - leading to unstable governments and lack of confidence in that country from the rest of the world.

The press of course love to expose the failings of politicians, but do not forget their sole purpose of existence is to sell newspapers and influence minds through exciting stories - the days when a newspaper reported unbiased news without hidden agendas are long, long gone.

[Richmond Clements]

If I told you that I had a load of freshly baked buns in the kitchen, then you went in, and they were not there, then, when you investigaed further, you discovered a bag of flour and some sugar and eggs, would that be the same thing as finding the buns?

[Generally Contrary]

There never were such days, rc.

The thing about democracy, rc, is that if you believe it to be the highest and most noble form of government then you can hardly expect it to fall into your lap.  How on earth can we expect democracy to emerge from some sort of unguided social evolution?
Rather, it seems certain that arriving at a democratic state requires a constant envigortaion of public debate, and encouragment of critical consumption of information.

To this end, we need to consider who owns the media, whose interests does it serve and the responsibilities of media producers.  Is using an hour of prime-time television to broadcast nonsense that encourages uncritical consumption of media democratically responsible.  That is not to say that such output should be censored, but in a democracy, surely the hardest type of government to maintain, a programme maker who does so should not be allowed to hide behind the suggestion that he is not a part of the nature and character of our democracy.

But can we get that?  Not when we have Kilroy and Littlejohn opposing the introduction of media studies into citizenship.  'Do we need to be taught how to read a paper?' they howl.  Well, their job relies on us being unable to.

[Generally Contrary]

FEEDING news to people, letting them only need what they need to know sounds scarily tyrannical to me.  What did you say we toppled Saddam for rc?

[rc]

I understand perfectly well the need for constant debate and re-assessment within a democracy, but in the case of the descision made by our government to send our troops into a country and risk death I think it was the correct descision - this is my part of the debate that has gripped this country ever since the descision was made.

In light of the apparent government inconsistencies and hushing-up that have emerged throughout the press, I still think it was a correct descision.

In the face of those who complain that an exposed "lying" government must therefore have made a wrong descision, I still think it was a correct descision.

Of course democracy is an ongoing and everlasting battle - but it will survive regardless of episodes like this and, in fact, may ultimately emerge stronger than before.

Nothing shakes up the people more than sudden mass-distrust of their leaders. According to many, this is happening right now.

But underneath every democratic government, there are movements for change - and there are those who will put their money where their mouth is given the chance (a chance which will come along, such is the nature of democracy), and those who will make a noise just for sake of it and will not commit any further to work and put into action what it is they are shouting about.

It is this disillusionment with many people I know, hear about, see and read about on a political basis that brings me to the conclusion some folk are all mouth.

In a situation where British lives are being lost many miles away from home while fighting for what our government has decided is worth fighting for, those people shouting down the Prime Minister and his other descision makers while using deliberately inflammitory media reports and uninformed or misinformed hearsay about George Bush's vested interests as reasons are not all champions for democracy.

No - many are bored, bandwagon-jumping whingers intent only on campaigning for "peace" as they define it, and keen to use whatever they can glean from the biased and manipulative media reports sold to them as reasons for change.

The democracy in this country is channelled through the people, but such is the worryingly increasing influence of the "newspapers" in many lives, it could be the Fleet Street pigs in charge of us before much longer.

[Generally Contrary]

So what do you, rc, think the reason we went to war was?

[stront692]

people are dissillusioned with politics bcos all the parties are fighting middle ground using spin, there is no difference betwen the 3 main parties or the old saying 'no matter who u vote for the government still gets in'

blairs belief change more often than the wind on 'hot' public issues like fox hunting and yet we are led to believe he went to war bcos he believed saddam's reign needed to be ended, if he lied and on fox hunting and tuition fees why did he come all truthful all of a sudden here

and why arent we now in ethiopia, zambia, president mugabe is killing and slaughtered british ex pats/white farmers yet we 'impose sanctions' on him and have a debate about whether we should play cricket there

taxes do not rise directly anymore but have risen incredibly since blair came to power, lower paid people pay a higher percentage of tax from their wages on fuel, wages and alcohol than ever before

the tax on fuel is a contradiction in terms, as how can people use other forms of transport with a public system in chaos and roads unequipped for bikes - if it goes into public transport then fine we might have got some where by now

but no, it is wasted on government 'qwangos' to make it look like they are doing some thing

[rc]

The reasons I think we went to war?

From evidence of Newsnights, Question Times, Commons debates, radio and [other people's!] newspapers, I would say it was because of the possibility of biological weapons in Iraq - Saddam Hussein drew much suspicion upon himself with his handling of the UN weapons inspectors.

Added to that, are my own conclusions that after the Al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Centre and the linking of the terrorist network to Saddam Hussein's regime - a linking I would believe to be highly possible, in fact probable - America wanted revenge.

After the atrocities in Halabja, the Gulf War, the apparently reliable intelligence of Iraq harbouring terrorists, the facts of Saddam Hussein's violent dictatorship and repression of his people, September 11 and the links to Iraq... the suspicious treatment of the weapons inspectors was the last straw.

Let's face it; what more reasons do you need for a despot to be disposed of?

[Will I. Cooling]

"Except of course they're not war criminals Escubria. Blair lied to us but hey whats new.
My main concern with it isn't the WMD claim, or the removal of Hussein (which is probably a good thing), its the fact they didn't seem to have a plan once control was taken.
I expect our leaders to be duplicitous, I'ld just prefer it if they weren't crap. "

Exactly!

Blair got too obsessed with UN as a means to convince his backbenchers forgetting his first, foremost and only political belief that they're completely irrelevant. Because of this he used up all his bargining power with the Americans simply to get them to go to the UN, something that actually made the situation worse as the delay in the war (Jan-Spring) meant that we lost Turkey, would only just be in control for the summer and gave Saddam more time to transfer WMD to Syria. Blair would've been wiser to go on the regime change, humatarian/realpoltick argument and then get more influence over reconstruction and Middle East peace accord.

But he didn't, so he's in the you know what.

Will

Link: http://www.411mania.com/black" target="_blank">Did anyone read my Hutton Report column? If not yo