Is Bert the Head right about media and politics?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 16 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Hrolf The Ganger 28 Dec 15 7.36pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 29 Nov 2015 8.56am Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 1.49pm Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 1.33pm Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 12.07pm Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am Apologies in advance for rambling... Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing. Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof. My only concern with Bert is his refusal to accept that any of us are capable of evaluating messages and filtering out the spin. You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media! Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion. I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf? Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest. If you feel Farage has been unfairly "targeted" by the press,that would seem to me to be a reason for supporting the general thrust of my argument... It is,however, worth bearing in mind when you write of Farage's unfair( in your view) treatment,that that is in a context of constant spin in full support of his prime chose policy stance in the last 12 months,immigration...where you might be hard pressed to argue the press has (in general) done other than accord with the general spin Farage puts on immigration-related issues... Contrast with Corbyn,where personality and policies arguably both are generally now subject to a constant "negative spin"... I'm reading that post as it's okay for the media to bombard Farage because he's wrong about stuff, but not fair to bombard Corbyn because he's a right on sort of guy trying to help the people (in your opinion). You either accept there is negative spin or you don't. You can't say it isn't allowable for certain individuals that in your opinion don't deserve it. If I'm reading the meaning wrong, please correct me, but that's how it appears. In fact,I was saying the opposite of what you appear to have understood me to say.How you should read it Hoof is that inappropriate negative spin is not a virtue whomever is the recipient.You should also read it as a reminder (following the logic of your own valid point) that those who,for example, might object to what they see as the demonisation of Farage but happily go along with the arguably much greater demonisation of Corbyn would be completely missing the point and showing themselves to be as biased as those they criticise for bias... I don't think Corbyn has seen anything like the demonisation that Farage has been subjected to from all sides. At the moment he can enjoy family life - Farage can't... he has to have body guards to ensure the "class war" types don't overdo the specialist attention they're giving him (and his supporters). Many of these are the paid up membership of Labour and Corbyn himself. So, I think it is the Corbynistas that are missing the point. I'd happily see an end to this practice of negative spin and gutter politics but you are mistaken if you think it is only the right doing it. I also find it laughable that the left seem unable to accept a democratically decided election result and continually protest against austerity and/or other government initiatives (and not in a peaceable way). The right did, and had to endure Blair but never went on strike because him and his government were sh1t awful did they? Finally, I think Corbyn brings a lot on himself and makes himself an easy target. Doesn't make it right, but if he represents a political party where it's core membership use underhand tactics then people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Quite true. And it is typical cry baby tactics from the left to harp on about Corbyn's treatment. Good grief, the entire media is awash with liberal/socalist bias. Fortunately those within it do not accurately reflect the voting public even in our current electoral system. If we changed to PR it would be even less representative.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

28 Dec 15 7.36pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Quote Hoof Hearted at 29 Nov 2015 8.56am

Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 1.49pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 1.33pm

Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 12.07pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am

Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am

Apologies in advance for rambling...

Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing.

Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof.

My only concern with Bert is his refusal to accept that any of us are capable of evaluating messages and filtering out the spin.

You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media!

Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion.

I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf?

Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest.

If you feel Farage has been unfairly "targeted" by the press,that would seem to me to be a reason for supporting the general thrust of my argument...

It is,however, worth bearing in mind when you write of Farage's unfair( in your view) treatment,that that is in a context of constant spin in full support of his prime chose policy stance in the last 12 months,immigration...where you might be hard pressed to argue the press has (in general) done other than accord with the general spin Farage puts on immigration-related issues...

Contrast with Corbyn,where personality and policies arguably both are generally now subject to a constant "negative spin"...

I'm reading that post as it's okay for the media to bombard Farage because he's wrong about stuff, but not fair to bombard Corbyn because he's a right on sort of guy trying to help the people (in your opinion).

You either accept there is negative spin or you don't.

You can't say it isn't allowable for certain individuals that in your opinion don't deserve it.

If I'm reading the meaning wrong, please correct me, but that's how it appears.

In fact,I was saying the opposite of what you appear to have understood me to say.How you should read it Hoof is that inappropriate negative spin is not a virtue whomever is the recipient.You should also read it as a reminder (following the logic of your own valid point) that those who,for example, might object to what they see as the demonisation of Farage but happily go along with the arguably much greater demonisation of Corbyn would be completely missing the point and showing themselves to be as biased as those they criticise for bias...

I don't think Corbyn has seen anything like the demonisation that Farage has been subjected to from all sides.

At the moment he can enjoy family life - Farage can't... he has to have body guards to ensure the "class war" types don't overdo the specialist attention they're giving him (and his supporters). Many of these are the paid up membership of Labour and Corbyn himself.

So, I think it is the Corbynistas that are missing the point.

I'd happily see an end to this practice of negative spin and gutter politics but you are mistaken if you think it is only the right doing it.

I also find it laughable that the left seem unable to accept a democratically decided election result and continually protest against austerity and/or other government initiatives (and not in a peaceable way).

The right did, and had to endure Blair but never went on strike because him and his government were sh1t awful did they?

Finally, I think Corbyn brings a lot on himself and makes himself an easy target. Doesn't make it right, but if he represents a political party where it's core membership use underhand tactics then people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Quite true.
And it is typical cry baby tactics from the left to harp on about Corbyn's treatment.

Good grief, the entire media is awash with liberal/socalist bias. Fortunately those within it do not accurately reflect the voting public even in our current electoral system. If we changed to PR it would be even less representative.

Alert a moderator to this post

leifandersonshair Newport 28 Dec 15 9.16pm
The entire media awash with liberal bias?! Oh dear. So the Sun, Daily Mail, Express and Telegraph (combined total circulation May 2015- approximately 2/3rds of titles sold) are spewing liberal claptrap are they? Must have missed that. The press are pretty polarised currently, with neither the hard right, (anti Europe, anti immigration, pro austerity) or hard left (pro Europe, pro immigration, anti austerity) agendas representative of 'the great British public's' views. Thankfully, most people are a bit more sensible, and fall somewhere in the middle. I suspect that a lot of people are pretty angry at the political system in general- feel jaded at the constant sleaze and corruption (from ALL parties!). Unfortunately, the young are hit hardest and are most cynical so don't tend to vote (believing, not entirely inaccurately, that it's a pointless exercise), so most parties pander to the old, more conservative (small C!) voters. It means the whole thing is skewed towards a more conservative (small C again!) agenda. Agree that PR wouldn't help with this, although the AV system might have. Too bad it got shot down by the 2 main parties as it wouldn't have favoured them!
Alert a moderator to this post

leifandersonshair

Newport 28 Dec 15 9.16pm

Send a Private Message to leifandersonshair

The entire media awash with liberal bias?! Oh dear. So the Sun, Daily Mail, Express and Telegraph (combined total circulation May 2015- approximately 2/3rds of titles sold) are spewing liberal claptrap are they? Must have missed that.

The press are pretty polarised currently, with neither the hard right, (anti Europe, anti immigration, pro austerity) or hard left (pro Europe, pro immigration, anti austerity) agendas representative of 'the great British public's' views. Thankfully, most people are a bit more sensible, and fall somewhere in the middle.

I suspect that a lot of people are pretty angry at the political system in general- feel jaded at the constant sleaze and corruption (from ALL parties!). Unfortunately, the young are hit hardest and are most cynical so don't tend to vote (believing, not entirely inaccurately, that it's a pointless exercise), so most parties pander to the old, more conservative (small C!) voters. It means the whole thing is skewed towards a more conservative (small C again!) agenda.

Agree that PR wouldn't help with this, although the AV system might have. Too bad it got shot down by the 2 main parties as it wouldn't have favoured them!

Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 28 Dec 15 9.36pm
In respect of AV, I find it amusing that those who 5 years ago were Tories and deriding AV. Then whine about UKIPs share of the vote vs seats in Parliament last year. What short minds we have. As for the right wing bias in the media, my biggest worry is with the cuts to the BBC, we will be left only with the UK's version of Fox News, known as Sky. "Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."
Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin

Where you have to have an English ... 28 Dec 15 9.36pm

In respect of AV, I find it amusing that those who 5 years ago were Tories and deriding AV. Then whine about UKIPs share of the vote vs seats in Parliament last year.

What short minds we have.

As for the right wing bias in the media, my biggest worry is with the cuts to the BBC, we will be left only with the UK's version of Fox News, known as Sky.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Dec 15 9.36pm
The mistake is to see the media as being pro-left, pro-right when its actually in the business of making money. News media tends to pander to its audience and pursues demographics that provide it with funding through things like advertising. The media isn't really socialist or liberal bias, media is in the business of profit, revenue generation and sales. People like Murdoch couldn't give a sh*t whether or not subsidiary company media slant is, provided it makes money. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 28 Dec 15 9.36pm

The mistake is to see the media as being pro-left, pro-right when its actually in the business of making money. News media tends to pander to its audience and pursues demographics that provide it with funding through things like advertising.

The media isn't really socialist or liberal bias, media is in the business of profit, revenue generation and sales. People like Murdoch couldn't give a sh*t whether or not subsidiary company media slant is, provided it makes money.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 28 Dec 15 10.25pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Dec 2015 9.36pm The mistake is to see the media as being pro-left, pro-right when its actually in the business of making money. News media tends to pander to its audience and pursues demographics that provide it with funding through things like advertising. The media isn't really socialist or liberal bias, media is in the business of profit, revenue generation and sales. People like Murdoch couldn't give a sh*t whether or not subsidiary company media slant is, provided it makes money. This is true, but the average punter is not necessarily aware of that, so the ultimate aim is rather beside the point. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (28 Dec 2015 10.27pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

28 Dec 15 10.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Dec 2015 9.36pm

This is true, but the average punter is not necessarily aware of that, so the ultimate aim is rather beside the point.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (28 Dec 2015 10.27pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

snytaxx London 30 Dec 15 4.45am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Dec 2015 11.28am Quote snytaxx at 29 Nov 2015 12.15pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Nov 2015 8.58pm Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 28 Nov 2015 12.09pm Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 11.49am Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am Apologies in advance for rambling... Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing. Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof. My only concern with Bert is his refusal to accept that any of us are capable of evaluating messages and filtering out the spin. You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media! Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion. I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf? Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest. What percentage of the population read / watch / listen to a wide range of information sources for balance? I doubt it's very high. Look at the important debate on immigration. The way it's reported by sections of the media is done so in an inflammatory way to raise heckles thus fuelling unnecessary repercussions. A massive increase in islamophobic attacks on ordinary law abiding people is one example. The issue about bombing Syria is a very important one. So why is the focus on division in political parties rather than the pros and cons of launching airstrikes? The thing is Nick you are taking the approach that you and your beliefs are right. We all do, so anyone who disagrees is na�ve, stupid, illinformed etc When was the last time anyone actually changed their mind after reading anything in General Talk? Their views may softened slightly if you're lucky. As for Corbyn, he is an unmitigated disaster but I think most people have quickly seen through the not so hidden agenda of much of the press. His problem is he seems unable to anticipate the s* storm that follows after stunts like Mao's book Ironically of course it was the Conservative government that was doing business with Mao's legacy*, one of the most oppressive anti-democratic countries in the world. That was the point of the stunt, to draw attention to the fact that the party that bangs on about Western Values and Freedoms, will doing something like 20bn worth of business with the Chinese state for UK power. Don't take this as targeted attack but I think your statement above is incorrect for the following reasons. The China of today economically has very little in common with how Mao left China or the China he would of wanted. I would argue it is Deng Xiao Ping's legacy which the Tories are currently buying into. It was Deng and certainly not Mao who set up the current economic and political system which China currently uses. The Conservative Party has always been a secret admirer of the "邓小平理论 - D�ng Xiǎo p�ng lǐ l�n, or to give it its full English name, The Deng Xiaoping theory of the foundation of PRC economic development after the cultural revolution, building the capitalist economy within Chinese communist party control. Whew! Ironically of course, Deng Xiao Ping actually tried to suppress the 'little red book' as it was Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Gang of Four's "Criticize Deng and Oppose the Rehabilitation of Right-leaning Elements campaign" that led to his political purging and his son being thrown out of a third story window. Still, lets not let any of that get in the way of a nice political attention seeking stunt in the form of throwing a little red book across the dispatch box. Unsurprisingly that clip is yet to feature on the subway TV bulletins. After comment - apologies about the random numbers... it appears the HOL HTML scripting is unable to display Chinese Characters, what linguistic bigotry eh? Edited by snytaxx (29 Nov 2015 12.18pm) Great post - I agree with it entirely. However I still find the idea of doing business with the PRC, a brutal oppressive regime and regular human rights abuser, abhorrent. It all comes down to money and diplomacy really. Do you we as a country sit on our moral high horses and talk down at other countries telling them how they aren't good enough to trade with us or do we get stuck in and try and wield influence from the inside? If we stopped doing business with the PRC, who else would you we also need to stop doing business with? Where would we draw the line? The world is rarely so black and white and its often not clear who the 'good sort' and the not so 'good sort' are. Take a random selection of countries such as: France, Qatar, China, Singapore, India, pakistan and South African. If I really picked those countries track records on human rights I am sure I would not have to look far to find something I dont agree with. Which of those should we therefore stop trading with? What categories do we use. Some of those countries deny proper free speech, others aren't (proper) democracies, some outlaw homosexuality, others fund terrorist organisations, others oppress women or workers rights. Some even go as far as to deport groups of people based on their ethnicity (cough* Romani in FRANCE). Where do you draw the line? Would it be okay to trade with a country with a flawless democracy record but which locks up homosexuals? Does that therefore mean that democracy is more important than gay rights? What about the other way round? Obviously im not trying to belittle you or make you out to be prioritising evil but my point remains unchanged. If we cut off trade relation with the PRC and start going all 'moral crusade' on people I think we will find the world to be a very lonely place.
Alert a moderator to this post

snytaxx

London 30 Dec 15 4.45am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Dec 2015 11.28am

Quote snytaxx at 29 Nov 2015 12.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Nov 2015 8.58pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 28 Nov 2015 12.09pm

Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 11.49am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am

Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am

Apologies in advance for rambling...

Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing.

Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof.

My only concern with Bert is his refusal to accept that any of us are capable of evaluating messages and filtering out the spin.

You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media!

I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf?

What percentage of the population read / watch / listen to a wide range of information sources for balance? I doubt it's very high.

Look at the important debate on immigration. The way it's reported by sections of the media is done so in an inflammatory way to raise heckles thus fuelling unnecessary repercussions. A massive increase in islamophobic attacks on ordinary law abiding people is one example.

The issue about bombing Syria is a very important one. So why is the focus on division in political parties rather than the pros and cons of launching airstrikes?

The thing is Nick you are taking the approach that you and your beliefs are right. We all do, so anyone who disagrees is na�ve, stupid, illinformed etc

When was the last time anyone actually changed their mind after reading anything in General Talk? Their views may softened slightly if you're lucky.

As for Corbyn, he is an unmitigated disaster but I think most people have quickly seen through the not so hidden agenda of much of the press. His problem is he seems unable to anticipate the s*** storm that follows after stunts like Mao's book

Ironically of course it was the Conservative government that was doing business with Mao's legacy, one of the most oppressive anti-democratic countries in the world. That was the point of the stunt, to draw attention to the fact that the party that bangs on about Western Values and Freedoms, will doing something like 20bn worth of business with the Chinese state for UK power.

Don't take this as targeted attack but I think your statement above is incorrect for the following reasons.

The China of today economically has very little in common with how Mao left China or the China he would of wanted. I would argue it is Deng Xiao Ping's legacy which the Tories are currently buying into. It was Deng and certainly not Mao who set up the current economic and political system which China currently uses.

The Conservative Party has always been a secret admirer of the "邓小平理论 - D�ng Xiǎo p�ng lǐ l�n, or to give it its full English name, The Deng Xiaoping theory of the foundation of PRC economic development after the cultural revolution, building the capitalist economy within Chinese communist party control. Whew!

Ironically of course, Deng Xiao Ping actually tried to suppress the 'little red book' as it was Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Gang of Four's "Criticize Deng and Oppose the Rehabilitation of Right-leaning Elements campaign" that led to his political purging and his son being thrown out of a third story window.

Still, lets not let any of that get in the way of a nice political attention seeking stunt in the form of throwing a little red book across the dispatch box. Unsurprisingly that clip is yet to feature on the subway TV bulletins.

After comment - apologies about the random numbers... it appears the HOL HTML scripting is unable to display Chinese Characters, what linguistic bigotry eh?

Edited by snytaxx (29 Nov 2015 12.18pm)

Great post - I agree with it entirely. However I still find the idea of doing business with the PRC, a brutal oppressive regime and regular human rights abuser, abhorrent.

It all comes down to money and diplomacy really. Do you we as a country sit on our moral high horses and talk down at other countries telling them how they aren't good enough to trade with us or do we get stuck in and try and wield influence from the inside?

If we stopped doing business with the PRC, who else would you we also need to stop doing business with? Where would we draw the line? The world is rarely so black and white and its often not clear who the 'good sort' and the not so 'good sort' are.

Take a random selection of countries such as: France, Qatar, China, Singapore, India, pakistan and South African. If I really picked those countries track records on human rights I am sure I would not have to look far to find something I dont agree with. Which of those should we therefore stop trading with? What categories do we use. Some of those countries deny proper free speech, others aren't (proper) democracies, some outlaw homosexuality, others fund terrorist organisations, others oppress women or workers rights. Some even go as far as to deport groups of people based on their ethnicity (*cough* Romani in FRANCE).

Where do you draw the line? Would it be okay to trade with a country with a flawless democracy record but which locks up homosexuals? Does that therefore mean that democracy is more important than gay rights? What about the other way round?

Obviously im not trying to belittle you or make you out to be prioritising evil but my point remains unchanged. If we cut off trade relation with the PRC and start going all 'moral crusade' on people I think we will find the world to be a very lonely place.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Dec 15 11.06am
Quote snytaxx at 30 Dec 2015 4.45am Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Dec 2015 11.28am Quote snytaxx at 29 Nov 2015 12.15pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Nov 2015 8.58pm Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 28 Nov 2015 12.09pm Quote nickgusset at 28 Nov 2015 11.49am Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Nov 2015 11.15am Quote legaleagle at 28 Nov 2015 10.54am Apologies in advance for rambling... Good to see the usual suspects engaging in the usual irrelevant "left" bashing. Bert has a point and makes some sense if readers can see beyond their own knee jerk prejudices,as does Hoof. My only concern with Bert is his refusal to accept that any of us are capable of evaluating messages and filtering out the spin. You've made a good case for the unfair nature of Corbyn's reporting, but you have not mentioned the totally unfair nature of the bombardment that Nigel Farage has taken from the media! Not only that, he has had to put up with being shouted down whilst campaigning by left wing activists and even had a quiet family Sunday lunch in a pub invaded by scumbags that cannot campaign peaceably or in a socially acceptable fashion. I don't remember you or anyone else making an impassioned plea on Nigel Farage's behalf? Just accept, that any message imparted into the arena will have some sort of spin on it, and if you want to get nearer to the truth, read a few different sources and make your own mind up as to who is most likely to be the most honest. What percentage of the population read / watch / listen to a wide range of information sources for balance? I doubt it's very high. Look at the important debate on immigration. The way it's reported by sections of the media is done so in an inflammatory way to raise heckles thus fuelling unnecessary repercussions. A massive increase in islamophobic attacks on ordinary law abiding people is one example. The issue about bombing Syria is a very important one. So why is the focus on division in political parties rather than the pros and cons of launching airstrikes? The thing is Nick you are taking the approach that you and your beliefs are right. We all do, so anyone who disagrees is na�ve, stupid, illinformed etc When was the last time anyone actually changed their mind after reading anything in General Talk? Their views may softened slightly if you're lucky. As for Corbyn, he is an unmitigated disaster but I think most people have quickly seen through the not so hidden agenda of much of the press. His problem is he seems unable to anticipate the s* storm that follows after stunts like Mao's book Ironically of course it was the Conservative government that was doing business with Mao's legacy*, one of the most oppressive anti-democratic countries in the world. That was the point of the stunt, to draw attention to the fact that the party that bangs on about Western Values and Freedoms, will doing something like 20bn worth of business with the Chinese state for UK power. Don't take this as targeted attack but I think your statement above is incorrect for the following reasons. The China of today economically has very little in common with how Mao left China or the China he would of wanted. I would argue it is Deng Xiao Ping's legacy which the Tories are currently buying into. It was Deng and certainly not Mao who set up the current economic and political system which China currently uses. The Conservative Party has always been a secret admirer of the "邓小平理论 - D�ng Xiǎo p�ng lǐ l�n, or to give it its full English name, The Deng Xiaoping theory of the foundation of PRC economic development after the cultural revolution, building the capitalist economy within Chinese communist party control. Whew! Ironically of course, Deng Xiao Ping actually tried to suppress the 'little red book' as it was Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Gang of Four's "Criticize Deng and Oppose the Rehabilitation of Right-leaning Elements campaign" that led to his political purging and his son being thrown out of a third story window. Still, lets not let any of that get in the way of a nice political attention seeking stunt in the form of throwing a little red book across the dispatch box. Unsurprisingly that clip is yet to feature on the subway TV bulletins. After comment - apologies about the random numbers... it appears the HOL HTML scripting is unable to display Chinese Characters, what linguistic bigotry eh? Edited by snytaxx (29 Nov 2015 12.18pm) Great post - I agree with it entirely. However I still find the idea of doing business with the PRC, a brutal oppressive regime and regular human rights abuser, abhorrent. It all comes down to money and diplomacy really. Do you we as a country sit on our moral high horses and talk down at other countries telling them how they aren't good enough to trade with us or do we get stuck in and try and wield influence from the inside? If we stopped doing business with the PRC, who else would you we also need to stop doing business with? Where would we draw the line? The world is rarely so black and white and its often not clear who the 'good sort' and the not so 'good sort' are. Take a random selection of countries such as: France, Qatar, China, Singapore, India, pakistan and South African. If I really picked those countries track records on human rights I am sure I would not have to look far to find something I dont agree with. Which of those should we therefore stop trading with? What categories do we use. Some of those countries deny proper free speech, others aren't (proper) democracies, some outlaw homosexuality, others fund terrorist organisations, others oppress women or workers rights. Some even go as far as to deport groups of people based on their ethnicity (cough* Romani in FRANCE). Where do you draw the line? Would it be okay to trade with a country with a flawless democracy record but which locks up homosexuals? Does that therefore mean that democracy is more important than gay rights? What about the other way round? Obviously im not trying to belittle you or make you out to be prioritising evil but my point remains unchanged. If we cut off trade relation with the PRC and start going all 'moral crusade' on people I think we will find the world to be a very lonely place. Fair points, it does however make it somewhat hard to justify criticism of other nations, states and groups when you've just awarded such a massive contract to a country that exemplifies oppression by the state as a matter of direct policy. Similar to the problem of Saudi Arabia, we criticise the rise of Islamism and Islamist terrorism, and then do incredible business with one of the major sponsors of terrorism and exporters of our own enemies. Given we're a country that often plays a 'moral superiority' card, our own actions tie into a lot of questionable moral decisions which in the end are entirely about money. We've seen the governments open criticism of workers in Qatar, but then to go and do such business with China makes that stance seem utterly pointless. Our morality is business, plain and simple. With some of those other countries, the capacity of the UK to leverage change in exchange for commercial / economic business exists however, less so with the PRC which has a very steady record. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 30 Dec 15 11.06am

Quote snytaxx at 30 Dec 2015 4.45am