Bliar on the Wright Stuff

[v8thunder]

With most of you at work and me being a student I'm probably the only one here who caught this - Blair being grilled by Matthew Wright.

I'll be honest, although I know everything he does is laden with spin, a lot of questions put to him live by the general public certainly unsettled him a bit (especially from teachers who felt powerless and bureaucratised in the classroom). He did however come across as a bloke with a very difficult job to do. Despite what you might think of the Prime Minister's usual demeanour, you can't deny that the country's problems aren't all his fault. By the end of the programme I got the idea that it was the Labour cabinet and the extensive bureaucracy they've set up to act like some kind of politicised civil service.

Unfortunately no-one tried to pull him up over the war, but interestingly enough, he was grilled on speeding by a bloke who'd had a clean licence until recently, and kept picking up speeding tickets on deserted roads in the early hours of the morning. Blair actually agreed with him that it was ludicrous (3 points and £60 for 36 in a 30 at 1AM), but admitted that if a law is to be effective it has to be enforced at all times. If I was the caller I'd have called for a review of speed limits, but they cut him off before he could say any more.

What made me however, was the number of obviously non-driving young urbanites who were passing anti-car measures to the PM. One of them, who must've been about 15, wanted congestion charging for every road in the country. How dare she offer that opinion, she can't vote, drive, work or pay taxes yet. Also, ther was a w@nker in the audience (obviously another non-driver) who was trying to imply that there was scientific evidence to suggest that your speed, no matter how minor, is directly proportional to the likelyhood of you having an accident - and he stressed - regardless of the time of day. He even said that people were more likely to be run over crossing dual carriageways at night, and their lives would be 'saved' if we were all doing 30

It all makes me not so worried about the PM, but about the sort of people and ideas him and his party attract. If the sort of people holding the sway over what happens on the roads have never sat behind the wheel before, what hope is there for common sense or fairness?

[bga]

v8thunder said:

One of them, who must've been about 15, wanted congestion charging for every road in the country. How dare she offer that opinion, she can't vote, drive, work or pay taxes yet.

What happened to our right to express what we think?? She may have been talking bolx but that she was under the age to vote should have no bearing on her right to say what she wants.

How do you know she doesn't work? at 15 she is old enough to work, pay tax iirc and vat on her spending is all contributing. When you were 15 did you keep opinions to yourself because you were not old enough to vote?

[v8thunder]

bga said:

v8thunder said: One of them, who must've been about 15, wanted congestion charging for every road in the country. How dare she offer that opinion, she can't vote, drive, work or pay taxes yet. What happened to our right to express what we think?? She may have been talking bolx but that she was under the age to vote should have no bearing on her right to say what she wants. How do you know she doesn't work? at 15 she is old enough to work, pay tax iirc and vat on her spending is all contributing. When you were 15 did you keep opinions to yourself because you were not old enough to vote?

All true and I wouldn't go against her right to free speech, but surely you can only know of the implications, burden and intrusion of nationwide elctronic congestion charging if you are a driver. She wanted it simply to 'force' (what she said) everyone onto public transport. That's not an informed argument, it's naive idealism.

[bga]

v8thunder said:

All true and I wouldn't go against her right to free speech, but surely you can only know of the implications, burden and intrusion of nationwide elctronic congestion charging if you are a driver. She wanted it simply to 'force' (what she said) everyone onto public transport. That's not an informed argument, it's naive idealism.

Can't agree with you more, from the sounds of it what she was saying was complete crap. My pov was that she should still be able to say it.

[Plotloss]

This is what happens if you brainwash kids.

The rot is well and truly got a grip, unlike our leader...

[bga]

most kids of that age are idealists with polarised views. Part of growing up is recognising that. Much of the time (imo) it has little to do with brainwashing - that affects the adults

[v8thunder]

bga said:

most kids of that age are idealists with polarised views. Part of growing up is recognising that. Much of the time (imo) it has little to do with brainwashing - that affects the adults

Perhaps so, but in previous years, kids with idealistic views were told about the 'real world'. Now their views are presented to the PM on TV.

That must take someone with similarly idealistic naivety in the production department, surely?

[tinman0]

v8thunder said:

He did however come across as a bloke with a very difficult job to do. Despite what you might think of the Prime Minister's usual demeanour, you can't deny that the country's problems aren't all his fault.

i think you have to remember something though.

in 1997 (and for 2-3 years before hand) we were told Labour could solve all the problems. we were told it was going to be easy - throw the Tories out - install Labour and everything would OK.

we're 8 years on - and things aren't OK. he promised that Labour would be good for the UK. It hasn't been and he knows it.

[v8thunder]

tinman0 said:

v8thunder said: He did however come across as a bloke with a very difficult job to do. Despite what you might think of the Prime Minister's usual demeanour, you can't deny that the country's problems aren't all his fault. i think you have to remember something though. in 1997 (and for 2-3 years before hand) we were told Labour could solve all the problems. we were told it was going to be easy - throw the Tories out - install Labour and everything would OK. we're 8 years on - and things aren't OK. he promised that Labour would be good for the UK. It hasn't been and he knows it.

Very true. I think the awkward situation every government finds themselves in is that they can never solve all the problems the people want them to, and the best thing is to keep the country ticking over as best they can.

My biggest problem with Labour is, in following their own opinion with an oversized majority, they've created more problems than they've solved.

That's what makes me ultra-skeptical of the Liberal Democrats (aside from the obvious) because they seem to have a solution to every 'problem'. I just forsee another heavily-taxed, speed-limited, movement-restricted 1.8-litre Diesel SUV-load of problems.

[bga]

v8thunder said:

Perhaps so, but in previous years, kids with idealistic views were told about the 'real world'. Now their views are presented to the PM on TV. That must take someone with similarly idealistic naivety in the production department, surely?

Did kids ever listen? I certainly didn't at that age. Maybe I have a warped opinion. At that age I have very strong views on many things which bear no resemblance to what now, 12 years later, I believe in.
The producers role on the Wright stuff is to make tabloid TV and strong views from all around are to be expected in that format. I would only imagine that individuals given the opportunity to question the PM would be vetted with reasonable care. If the girl is 15 then at least she has the opportunity to learn, instead of some dyed in the wool treehugger.

[jamesc]

v8thunder said:

With most of you at work and me being a student I'm probably the only one here who caught this - Blair being grilled by Matthew Wright. I'll be honest, although I know everything he does is laden with spin, a lot of questions put to him live by the general public certainly unsettled him a bit (especially from teachers who felt powerless and bureaucratised in the classroom). He did however come across as a bloke with a very difficult job to do. Despite what you might think of the Prime Minister's usual demeanour, you can't deny that the country's problems aren't all his fault. By the end of the programme I got the idea that it was the Labour cabinet and the extensive bureaucracy they've set up to act like some kind of politicised civil service. Unfortunately no-one tried to pull him up over the war, but interestingly enough, he was grilled on speeding by a bloke who'd had a clean licence until recently, and kept picking up speeding tickets on deserted roads in the early hours of the morning. Blair actually agreed with him that it was ludicrous (3 points and £60 for 36 in a 30 at 1AM), but admitted that if a law is to be effective it has to be enforced at all times. If I was the caller I'd have called for a review of speed limits, but they cut him off before he could say any more. What made me however, was the number of obviously non-driving young urbanites who were passing anti-car measures to the PM. One of them, who must've been about 15, wanted congestion charging for every road in the country. How dare she offer that opinion, she can't vote, drive, work or pay taxes yet. Also, ther was a w@nker in the audience (obviously another non-driver) who was trying to imply that there was scientific evidence to suggest that your speed, no matter how minor, is directly proportional to the likelyhood of you having an accident - and he stressed - regardless of the time of day. He even said that people were more likely to be run over crossing dual carriageways at night, and their lives would be 'saved' if we were all doing 30 It all makes me not so worried about the PM, but about the sort of people and ideas him and his party attract. If the sort of people holding the sway over what happens on the roads have never sat behind the wheel before, what hope is there for common sense or fairness?

I did state in another thread this was happening. I only saw the first 10 minutes! Blair was always in for an easy ride as Channel Five is owned by a Nu Labia Peer. He is back on again at 7pm; I urged people to phone up about the Scameras and give him hell.

Get bLiar Out!

[c c]

jamesc said:

I did state in another thread this was happening. I only saw the first 10 minutes! Blair was always in for an easy ride as Channel Five is owned by a Nu Labia Peer. He is back on again at 7pm; I urged people to phone up about the Scameras and give him hell. Get bLiar Out!

This is the first of three unique day-long television events which will enable people across the UK to speak directly to their political leaders. Similar programmes with Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy will follow.....

Next week. Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy will be on Trisha.

[Plotloss]

Oh if thats the case I must phone up and ask what Charles Kennedy has to say about mixing the perfect Rusty Nail...

[jamesc]

Mr Hollick is a Nu Labia peer.

Here are his interestes:

HOLLICK, Lord

*12(e) Remunerated directorships

Director, Diageo plc
Director, Honeywell International Inc
Director, United Business Media plc

*12(g) Controlling shareholdings

50% shareholding in Harmay Ltd

15(a) Membership of public bodies

Chairman, South Bank Centre

Ah! United Business Media plc! Owners of Channel 5!

Bias? You bet they were bias!