BBC coverage to be given the "Olympics treatment"

[James Bolivar]

Of course Blair was to the right. By nature 'New Labour' were Centre right. Debate over if you think they are to the left because that means you have no idea where the left is. Now you could possibly argue Miliband and his party are centre left, but it would be a big push. We are in a period of centre/centre right consensus amongst the main two parties, unfortunately.

Those trade union foundations were in 1900 with the formation of the LRC. Hardly relevant to today. If you remove the name, the Labour Party of Hardie, Henderson, Attlee etc is not the same as the party today. Although trade union funding continues and they have a say in the leadership I would argue they were very much disconnected from Blair's PLP.

Edited February 6, 2013 by James Bolivar

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

If they're dyed in the wool Labour, who else are they going to vote for? I'm sure you're aware JB, a very small percentage of voters actually vote based on policy.

Congratulations though, you're the first person I've ever met to claim New Labour were left wing and that includes Blairites.

[MEGABOWL]

So New Labour are right-wing? A party with strong links to the Trade Union movement, a party founded as the political wing of the Trade union movement and, still, largely funded from union subscriptions. And,let's not forget, easily the most redistributive of the post-War governments. If that is "right-wing" to you then at least your perspective is obvious.

And, please, don't cite the various illegal wars they started or signed-up for - that doesn't make them right-wing it just makes them stupid and evil.

[James Bolivar]

If they're dyed in the wool Labour, who else are they going to vote for? I'm sure you're aware JB, a very small percentage of voters actually vote based on policy.

Congratulations though, you're the first person I've ever met to claim New Labour were left wing and that includes Blairites.

[James Bolivar]

New Labour went to tremendous, squirming lengths to show that they weren't traditional Labour or in the pockets of the Unions. They privatised, deregulated, pandered to the 'filthy rich. They greatly increased the free market component of the NHS. They rinsed the Public Sector with PFI contracts/sell-offs. They removed the 10% rate of tax (and yes I know they introduced it). They introduced Tuition Fees.

There is a seperate debate about whether Thatcherism, which is a shift to the right within the Tory Party, followed by New Labour, which is a shift to the right within the Labour Party, repositioned the Centre to the right, but whether you agree with that or not, New Labour was not left wing.

[strummer77]

I not writing about just voting habits, but active support - a couple are pretty prominent. As I asked earlier, are they deluding themselves or acting simply from expediency? These are not stupid people and they are not overtly cynical either.

[eFestivals]

And nobody is addressing my points regarding New Labour: That they were hugely redistributive is a matter of record.

It's because you don't have the first idea of what you're talking about. Nu-Labour were NOT redistributive.

This is proven beyond all doubt by the certain fact that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during Nu-Labour's terms, which has been a central theme of all govts since 1979 - and is why Nu-Labour were never of the left.

And, again, I am accused of confusion.

because your political knowledge is worthless. It's based on fantasies and not facts, dogma and not detail, propaganda and not practices.

[eFestivals]

for his next trick, JB will claim that we really are all in it together, and that everything that leaves Dave Moron's mouth does so because he's a man of the people and indisputably fair.

Edited February 7, 2013 by eFestivals

[James Bolivar]

It's because you don't have the first idea of what you're talking about. Nu-Labour were NOT redistributive.

This is proven beyond all doubt by the certain fact that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during Nu-Labour's terms, which has been a central theme of all govts since 1979 - and is why Nu-Labour were never of the left.

because your political knowledge is worthless. It's based on fantasies and not facts, dogma and not detail, propaganda and not practices.

[eFestivals]

oh sorry, I guess the OECD don't know what they're talking about, and that the Nu-Labour supporting New Statesman was the organ of truth.

The simple fact is that the OECD now blames the redistribution of wealth towards the rich as the central cause of the world's economic crisis - because the average man was being cut out a little more each year from being able to purchase products and so sustain the economy.

But even if they did redistribute wealth a little, they were still a massively long way from being left wing. The fact of your thinking that they were merely illustrates again that you don't understand it at all.

[strummer77]

So, NL are redistributive and therefore they are progressive, which is often described as "left-wing" and so to state that NL are to the right puts the observer way to the left of mainstream opinion.

[James Bolivar]

They were more redistributive than previous governments, but considering they were preceded largely by Thatcher it was hardly saying too much. Labour shifted to the right to get into power, and it could be argued they had to.

I know I sound critical of them, and I am to a certain extent. Their shift to the centre or the right over many aspects missed a great opportunity for further change. At the same time I must qualify that they were also in many ways a successful government and I would vote for them next time round.

For the record I am not saying the New Labour didn't do good things, there were a fair amount of central left social policies which were steps in the correct direction. However economically their policies were often a continuation of those that Thatcher's government had implemented. Privatisation, deregulation etc.

'New Labour' took so much of a shift to the right economically , billionaire newspaper owners who liked free markets felt they could support them when they couldn't under previous leaders. Which is essentially what this debate was about.

[Guest]

being fair and objective is left wing, while to be selfish and unfair is right wing...?

[eFestivals]

being fair and objective is left wing, while to be selfish and unfair is right wing...?

you've defo got the right wing part correct.

[James Bolivar]

you've defo got the right wing part correct.

[James Bolivar]

you've defo got the right wing part correct.

Edited February 7, 2013 by James Bolivar

[eFestivals]

Now you're quoting Smooth Tony to support your case? Oh! OK.

Mindnumbing dumb is an a massive understatement here, isn't it?

[eFestivals]

And I have never claimed to be left-wing, at least not here. My personal beliefs regarding economic redistribution, or redistribution of power if prefer, were not the point of the discussion.

it might not have been the point, but it's certainly what has been leading your thinking - what with you having said all that you've said, and with it being so often miles away from the fact of things.

You've demonstrated time and again that you don't understand what left wing is, tho you claim the BBC is left wing - which destroys all of your own argument.

What's so very amusing about that is that you're calling cetralist or right wing things left wing - including the BBC. You're so far to the right you can't even recognise the right as being the right. There's thatcher, there's Genghis khan, there's hitler, and then there's you.

Anyway, the beeb is a service for the country as a whole and not just you. The indisputable facts of the viewing figures for all channels gets to prove that they fulfil that purpose exceedingly well (and I could pick as many "it doesn't suit me" holes in it as you).

Edited February 7, 2013 by eFestivals

[Guest]

Now you're quoting Smooth Tony to support your case? Oh! OK.

[eFestivals]

PS: I'm not sure how a cheerleader for the monarchy - which is what the BBC is - classes as left wing, but I guess I need a politics lesson from JB.

[whisty]

PS: I'm not sure how a cheerleader for the monarchy - which is what the BBC is - classes as left wing, but I guess I need a politics lesson from JB.

[eFestivals]

Can you leave our dear old Queen out of this please. There has to be some kind of standard you know.

if only Liz and the BBC had enforced some standards ... instead we got Gary Barlow.

[James Bolivar]

it might not have been the point, but it's certainly what has been leading your thinking - what with you having said all that you've said, and with it being so often miles away from the fact of things.

You've demonstrated time and again that you don't understand what left wing is, tho you claim the BBC is left wing - which destroys all of your own argument.

What's so very amusing about that is that you're calling cetralist or right wing things left wing - including the BBC. You're so far to the right you can't even recognise the right as being the right. There's thatcher, there's Genghis khan, there's hitler, and then there's you.

Anyway, the beeb is a service for the country as a whole and not just you. The indisputable facts of the viewing figures for all channels gets to prove that they fulfil that purpose exceedingly well (and I could pick as many "it doesn't suit me" holes in it as you).

[eFestivals]

And we are back to where we started. The BBC is demonstrably popular - but it ought to be it is largely an entertainment network. My point has always been that it fails to entertain me and so I do not see why I should pay for it. There is a case for saying that the BBC performs a public service and so I should pay because I support the notion of public service broadcasting, but I believe that the public service ethos has been lost in the need to win ratings and the BBC is no longer worthy of my support, unfortunately I have no choice. It is analogous to having to pay to eat at MacDonald's even though I chose to dine elsewhere.

the difference between McD's and the BBC is that McD's is shit and the BBC isn't.

Yes, you'll say differently. But the BBC's rep proves you wrong.

You can't even say what the public service broadcasting ethos you say has been lost is (you failed when I asked before), so you're blowing empty air by your own criteria.

If what the BBC does is not popular then it ceases to have any public use at all - because how can it be 'public service broadcasting' if it's not broadcasting what the public want? The clue is in the words.

But you say it would fulfil your version of its brief by being a service that no one wants, which then brings it's whole existence into question. And guess what? What you say is the exact same thing as James Murdoch has been saying for 5 or 10 years ... and of course, Murdoch has been saying that because he wants the BBC to be successful, right?

And as for the left-liberal bias of the BBC - even its own Trust is questioning this and the last time it did so it found evidence of an implicit bias: a self-censorship. Go figure.

It does not have that bias, but it does give liberalism a platform which it is denied on other mainstream media. That's all there is for your belief in that bias - balance.

The self-censorship you speak of is nothing for how you're presenting it. It self-censors to tone down that balance, due to the attacks of the biased such as you. It self-censors for a quiet life from the raving right.

Oh how I wish we all lived in a Murdoch run world, a world were Murdoch gets into Downing Street before any minister of state, and where he offers up his media empire as a campaign platform for his anointed candidates in both the USA and the UK.

Oh, we already live in that world, and the result is JB.

[whisty]

Oh how I wish we all lived in a Murdoch run world, a world were Murdoch gets into Downing Street before any minister of state, and where he offers up his media empire as a campaign platform for his anointed candidates in both the USA and the UK.

Oh, we already live in that world, and the result is JB.