Blair Defeated and boredom with the media

10 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2005-11-10 12:01

Is anybody other than the media one bit interested in 'Blair's Defeat' - how he put his 'personal authority' on the line, how his 'leadership is under pressure', blah, blah, blah.

Now I'm all for haranguing politicians when they fuck up, but when you get that bespectacled twat on the BBC - you now the one I'm on about, oblong, thick black-rimmed glasses, bald head stuck his own arse with his sense of self-righteous macho importance, I just start to think - what is the agenda here? Is it about trying to make the news, or trying to force the fact that Balir is on his last legs, when he's definately not?

Now I know news is 'news and not comment' and don't expect 'political commentators' to not commentate, and I loved it when the BBC attacked the Tories all the time (but they did deserve it), so maybe the fact I'm a staunch leftie has something to do with this, but I am fed up of listening to these so-called 'journalists' trying to force the issues, trying to bring down ministers and primeministers on some 'moral crusade'.

Blunkett, simply did not deserve to go, it was not a par on the sleaze of the Tories - they had cash for questions, for God sake. What did Blunkett do - paid a taxi for his girlfriend, or joined a compnay to get money for his legal case (for two weeks) and didn't declare it. Oh yes, he was single as well, which means that you're fair game for scandal. It's nonsense! Are we going to allow the media to keep doing this thing - so that anybody not whiter than white will be forced to resign because the media pack have got a hold of their neck and won't let go? If you put the resources of the BBc and newspapers on your case, if you offered money for information, you'd soon get what you wanted - dirt and scandal and resignations. But is it healthy to allow this?

I'm all in favour of free speech, and for elected officials to be accountable, but are the journalists acting in the public good, or maybe, as I suspect, instead involved in some testetsterone-driven self-righteous macho-competition?

Blair is going to go at some point, the media know this, and it seems to me that they are not content with him resigning when he wants to, they are after his blood. And rightly or wrongly, I think it's detrimental to politics and the good of the country.

Thu, 2005-11-10 13:01

2Lou

I was relieved when Blair got defeated on this bill because I think the whole notion of 90 day detention without charge is scary to say the least. I also think it's healthy when PMs are reminded that they can't always expect unquestioning support from the backbenches. However, I agree the media seemed far more interested in the effects on Blair's leadership than they did on the bill itself. The knowledge that the media will jump on the party to such an extent over such defeats must dissuade backbenchers from risking voting freely on single issues, which is a bad thing (just found out that my MP voted for the bill so Iâ€™m gutted). The blatant handrubbing certainly became irritating. I don't think it was because of any political bias, just overexcited correspondents becoming so wrapped up in the Westminster soap opera that they forget not all of us spend every waking hour watching it.

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

Thu, 2005-11-10 13:31

Corvus

Totally agree Lou. I suppose the problem is that Blair said he was going to go before the next election, and the media can't wait. Was the vote about the bill at all or, about defeating Blair? Your so right calling it a soap opera, I think that's exactly how these journos see it. Their rhetoric is certainly in that genre. I'd still like to kick that BBc hack, who I've found out is called Nick Robinson, up the arse. I can't stand the bastard.

Thu, 2005-11-10 13:49

mykle

It may be that I am in a tiny minority but I dented the ceiling when I leapt into the air shouting "YESSSSSSS!" with the news that Blair had failed to force his party to blindly agree with his latest ploy to use people's fears to feed the growing tendency to fascism. Somehow we were led to believe that this 90 day law would only apply to terrorists but of course if they were really known terrorists why keep them 3 months without charge? If the police can shoot and kill an innocent electrician without penalty how many innocent people could be locked up for months only to be released in the end with a "Sorry mate, we thought you were somebody else."? It has been stated that such a law would contravene basic human rights but for some reason everyone assumes that it would only apply to guilty terrorists and they are not human after all. Surely the answer is simple - ship them to Guantanamo Bay to rot with the other 'guilty terrorists' and torture the truth out of them. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

Thu, 2005-11-10 15:11

mississippi

As usual, Slimey talks a load of bollocks, but then having bashed his stupid head against the ceiling it's hardly surprising. The police were NOT going to lock suspects up for 90days. They were going to arrest them and keep them in custody whilst pursuing their investigations. They would have been obliged to go before a judge (the independent arbiters of justice and fair-play) and convince the court that the continued detention of a suspect was in the best interests of the country, and would have been also obliged to produce sufficient evidence to support that detentiojn. For a MAXIMUM of 90 days, not a statutory period of 90 days. A healthy percentage of the dissenting Labour MP's most probably didn't have a grouse about that, BUT were determined to seek revenge on Blair for taking the country to war with Iraq against their wishes. It was revenge, pure and simple. Blair made a mistake some time back by declaring his intention to stand aside as Premier at the next election. He should have stood his ground, stated he is the elected PM, and said what happens at the next election will be seen at the time. By saying what he did, he in effect handed in his notice. No company views an employee quite the same when they are serving out their notice. As regards Blunkett, I said within minutes of hearing about his resignation that I 'knew' he hadn't sold those shares, and had no intention of so doing. He realised they were worth a fortune in the event of a stock market listing and decided they were a better bet than his crap job. Like most 'honourable' men, his integrity vapourised when it looked like holing his pocket. He's an arsehole, a bully and we're well rid of him.

Thu, 2005-11-10 16:15

fergal

I was very interested in the vote, because I couldn't see how a parliament with a 'Labour' majority could possibly put it through...I think the press did milk it, but it was a fairly big deal, in terms of Tony saying he would not compromise. The law itself would have been such a backwards step for this country, in my opinion. I was relieved the vote went the way it did. I don't know what Tony expected really.

Fri, 2005-11-11 13:22

Jack Cade

Having scanned over the front pages yesterday, I can only conclude that it was a bit stupid of him to stand in front of a big, black wall pulling anguished expressions. I'm glad the vote went against him. And he did put his authority on the line. The gloating of certain jizz-dribbling newspapers, however, is nauseating. Particularly whichever one it was (the Mail? The Express?) who added 'But for once, he was right'. They agree with him, but are glad he was defeated? Almost as bad was the Sun's claim that MP's voting against the bill were 'TRAITORS', not to Blair, I might add, but to 'the British people'. Fuck off. No, I'm sorry. Fuck off. Really. Fuck off. Just fuck off.

Fri, 2005-11-11 14:33

maddan

This was the dumbest scariest piece of legislation in four years of dumb scary legislation, and thank god it was finally dumb enough and scary enough not to go through. Obviously the police would like to be able to hold people for as long as they like without little inconveniences such as evidence, that's like asking me to calculate my own pay rise and the reason why we don't let the police make up their own laws. What confuses me was why Tony seemed so dead set for it and has damaged his own standing sticking up for it. The only explanation I've heard that makes any sense was Boris Johnson's claim that it was all a backfired attempt to split the Tory party, but then Boris has a much easier time taking the Tory party seriously than I do.

Fri, 2005-11-11 19:32

mykle

I've also wondered why Blair put his authority on the line since I strongly suspect that Blair knew the bill would not be passed. Cynically, I wondered if it was simply so that, in the event of a future terrorist attrocity, he would be able to say "I told you so! If only you'd listened we could have prevented this... " Be honest, you can already see his weasel face, so obviously pained by the tragedy and hear him speaking his weasel words in that sad, sincere, I tried my best but you wouldn't listen voice! The fact that the extra detention time would not have helped will simply be drowned out by the shock and horror.

Fri, 2005-11-11 19:41

#10

mississippi

Banged your head on the ceiling again, Slimey?

Topic locked