|
« Moral confusion at Canterbury
Main |
December 24, 2003
Not right-wing, simply right
Jewish Chronicle, 26 December 2003 I read David Aaronovitch’s JC column last week with more than usual interest. His gist was that right-wing Jews were a kind of ethnic aberration, and that it was more natural and comfortable for Jews to be on the left than on the right. Nowadays, I’m always being called not just ‘right-wing’ but ‘extreme right’ or even ‘ultra-right’. Certainly, this makes me feel uncomfortable. In fact, it makes me chew the carpet. Like David, I too came from a background where Conservatives were regarded as the class enemy. Like him, I think Jews should identify with the poor and oppressed. And concern for people at the bottom of the heap is still what drives me. But unlike him, some years ago I started to change my view about the left, who confusingly often call themselves liberals. I began to realise they were not liberal at all, but profoundly illiberal. And I began to grasp that far from acting -- as they trumpeted at every opportunity -- in the interests of the poor and oppressed, just about everything they did trapped them in that condition. On every issue where there were true victims – education failure, family breakdown, drug abuse -- they denied the truth and substituted instead lies, ideology and propaganda. They were against western culture, external moral rules and self-discipline. They were for nihilism, the worship of the self and gross personal irresponsibility. And any deviation from this they labelled ‘right-wing’. Emptied of meaning, this has become a catch-all smear – code for ‘cruel and heartless’, deployed to intimidate and to shut down any challenge to the left. So saying that family disintegration is generally a disaster for children is ‘right-wing’. Saying that children are betrayed by schools that fail to teach them to read is ‘right-wing’. Saying it was right to go to war in Iraq (as David himself has discovered) is ‘right-wing’. And saying that Israel is more sinned against than sinning is so ‘right-wing’ it’s off the graph. But if anyone is being ‘cruel and heartless’ on these issues, it is the left. And wreathed in sanctimony, they ostracise and punish anyone with an opposing view who they present as swivel-eyed lunatics. BBC producers regularly tell me I am referred to within that most objective of corporations as ‘mad’. Jews on the left are just as bad. One Jewish publisher reacted to a book proposal from me by declaring, ‘I’d rather take ricin than publish her’. The left are simply obsessed by ‘the right’. Their position is often conceived principally in opposition to it. Proclaiming that they alone are moral – because they are not ‘cruel and heartless’ – they thus demonise and dehumanise the opposing point of view, to which their minds are terrifyingly closed. It is a pathology which has got far worse since the collapse of communism. These are ideologues without an ideology; and old habits die hard. In truth, these labels are now meaningless. The Tories are as likely to espouse lower-class populism as represent the men in fur-collared coats. Labour has embraced the market. The economic argument which defined my parents’ and grandparents’ view of politics is dead. Instead, today’s political battles are cultural, and the divisions are even more bitter and profound. So what am I? Well, I resist labels. But if I’m pushed into a corner, I suppose I think of myself as a liberal moralist. People use the term liberal wrongly, which accounts for much confusion. It is used to describe approval for personal autonomy, which has been taken to mean rejection of all codes of behaviour which might constrain freedom of action. In my book, that’s not liberal at all but libertinism, and a formula for radical self-centredness and a lengthening trail of victims. Real liberalism, by contrast, relied on external rules to guarantee personal liberty. It was always a moral project which believed in making judgments between right and wrong behaviour. But if there’s a cardinal value of today’s left, it is non-judgmentalism. As a result, they have embraced lies, wrongdoing and injustice. They have made morality into a dirty word. This should be fought tooth and nail, and it is surely the duty of Jews to fight it. This is not ‘right-wing’. It is instead a defence of civilised values; it is a defence, above all, of Jewish values. I believe Jews should always be on the side of truth, justice and real (rather than sentimental) compassion. I think there is no nobler cause than tikkun olam, or repair of the world. The left are taking an axe to that world. Those Jews who cling to history to justify their attachment to this creed are wrapping themselves in a mantle of self-delusion and intellectual muddle. This is not right-wing. It is simply right.
Posted by melanie at December 24, 2003
Comments
Melanie Best This is Melanie's most astute, humanitarian and persuasive column ever! But, Mike, most Labour supporters would not read it through. They have been indoctrinated by the state school system and socialist teachers since tot-hood. I personally fight the battle by always referring to the BBC as "radical left" or "hard left" - just to prick the balloon of the notion that it's somehow centrist and unbiased. I also refer to columnists and personalities similarly. Somehow - it's a puzzle - but people like Jon Snow, who can't keep a judgemental sneer off his face when the word Tories comes up on the teleprompter, are never accused of being agenda-driven. Posted by: Caroline at December 24, 2003 10:54 AMI always find Aaranovitch pompous and patrician, and a definite Blair loyalist in search of an honour......here's what someone else writes: "Background - usual radical student politico. My white hope and tip for the top to see the light and follow where Mary Kenny, Hitchens, Phillips et al have lead - how long before he realises that (nearly) all the things he (we ?) believed in and fought for in the 60s/70s/80s have made things worse rather than better ? I believe that a tell tale sign, a useful straw in the wind, is a writer who says that 'we can't put the clock back'. At that point you know that the thought of doing so has occurred to him. When he adds 'even if we wanted to' you know that the thought has occurred more than once. When DA used these phrases in a piece on 'extreme dancing' at his 12 year old daughter's private (yes, another leftwing hypocrite) school, I knew there was hope." and the same source on Melanie Phillips: http://website.lineone.net/~jancoggan/davidA.htm "Following logic remorselessly has led her to a position where she supports monarchy, patriotism, the (patriarchal ?) family and the raising of the age of consent - yet she still thinks of herself as of the left, which 50 years ago would certainly have been possible. Today, where leftism is easier to define by what you're against rather than what you're for, she makes an unlikely left-winger. Once (pre-Daily Mail) a frequent BBC contributor who presented several R4 series, now being shuffled out in McCarthyite fashion as a punishment for her rightward moves. Only to be heard on the Moral Maze (R4), replacing one of the most original of the right's voices, David Starkey (at the same time the excellent Janet Daley was dropped for the tedious Claire Fox, of identikit leftie views and flat Northern vowels, Beatrix Campbell's chippy little sister). " Posted by: Romulus at December 24, 2003 01:03 PMhttp://politics.guardian.co.uk/studentpolitics/story/0,1556,662945,00.html Jack Straw Lorna Fitzsimons Charles Clarke Sue Slipman Trevor Phillips David Aaronovitch
Caroline: 'Ahhhh. You mean the Trojan Horse. As time passes it will all become clear.’ I think I now understand what he meant. You are no doubt familiar with Gramsci’s work; he realised that the Marxist economic tactics for the establishment of world communism were doomed; that cultural infiltration and subversion were more important in the quest to achieve power through cultural hegemony. From what I have observed over the years it would appear that the first ploy in the late 1950s and early 60s was to undermine legislation regulating sexual exploitation and probity. Deviant sexual practices, promiscuity, prostitution and it’s allied trades, and pornography were espoused as ‘life styles’ that should be a matter of choice. The leftist plotters then targeted other legislation relating to the vices such as gambling and drug abuse. Such agitprop was disseminated through the universities and hand-in-hand with other measures to undermine the UK indigenous culture and the somewhat Anglocentric heart of Western culture generally. The anti-nuclear movements, anti-Vietnam war and violently anarchistic groups of the late 1960s and early 1970s and fomentation of racial and immigration issues, also added grist to the mill. I am not suggesting that all of these devices were orchestrated, but they were certainly all skilfully exploited by the leftist social mechanics. Placemen and women are now in all the regulatory institutions. The BBC and the Police were two obvious and essential areas for infiltration. I could name names, but I don’t need to because you know who they are. I agree that ‘libertarian’ can be a positive word: when applied to maximum freedom possible from political control, acquisition of maximum personal freedom commensurate with a peaceful and well-regulated society based on moral principles, mutual respect and a caring social ethos. But when it means, as it so often does in our already radically modified society, the hedonism of sexual free-for-all, promiscuity, ‘recreational’ illicit drugs (now there is an oxymoron), abandonment of marriage and monogamy as the family norm, regardless of the destruction that such behaviour ravages on both individuals and society at large, then it can be a deeply damaging concept. As I previously mentioned, when Lord Devlin in his Maccabaean Lecture In Jurisprudence, delivered at the British Academy on 18th March 1959 and published under the title of The Enforcement of Morals, he spoke of the ‘single seamless web of society’ and if he were to return to us for a day, it would be long enough to discover that he assertions were prophetically accurate. I think he meant that personal behaviour impacts on society at large, for better or for worse, a simplistic reduction perhaps but I’m just a simple country boy. I’m sure if you read his arguments you would understand them better than I. I apologise to Melanie for deviating slightly from her theme of the internal left-right dispute within the Jewish community, but the general point that emerges from it is pretty universal, I guess. Caroline, I enjoy your postings immensely and Melanie’s blog is a good vehicle for your thoughts. That is not meant to be ingratiating because I can tell from your input that flattery would not be an effective weapon to avoid opprobrium if you didn’t agree with anyone. Good to have Romulus on the side of the white hats too. Posted by: Frank Pulley at December 24, 2003 05:39 PMBy the way, wasn't David Aaronovitch's Dad a major official in the British Communist Party. If that is true, then as my old Granny used to say, "The apple never falls far from the tree." Posted by: Frank Pulley at December 24, 2003 05:50 PMMelanie has committed the unpardonable sin: questioning the moral superiority of the Left. Such actions are to them what a silver bullet is to a werewolf or a wooden stake to a vampire. They cannot function without universal public validation of their preening insistence that they, and they alone, are the keepers and enablers of The Social Good. That is why they have reacted so viciously to even the mildest of Melanie's criticisms. Posted by: Susan at December 24, 2003 05:54 PM^_^ Merry christmass season too every one who posts here and happy new year Posted by: Sheraz at December 24, 2003 06:56 PMThank-you Sheraz, and I shall wish you a Happy Christmas and a Prosperous New Year ! Posted by: Romulus at December 24, 2003 06:59 PMWhen will the Jews finally realize that Hitler did not discriminate among the Jews? A Liberal, secular Jew was gassed in the same fashion and with the same malevolence as a pious or a right-wing Jew. 2000 years of tragedies have not changed the Jewish naiveté. Who said the Jews were smart? It is one thing to have a mission of “light onto the nations”, it another thing to be practical about it. 2000 years of Jewish tragedies may have changed the world but how did it benefit the Jews? These days half the world wants to obliterate the Jews on a tiny strip of land owned by them. Nobody questions the Polish Poland or Swedish Sweden but the existence of the Jewish Israel is questioned on a continuous basis. Since anti-Semitism is no longer in vogue they have discovered anti-Zionism, which has become a very fashionable trend. How many people in this world know that the Israeli landmass constitutes 0.1% vs. the Arab states, which occupy 99.9% of the Middle East? The UN spent almost half its time on issues concerning Israel, even before 1967, when the entire West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and all of old Jerusalem already belonged to Arab populations. The current number of all UN resolutions directed against Israel has exceeded 70%. Of the 3 oldest civilizations: Chinese represent over 1B people, Indians 1B and the Jews a mere 13.9M. Despite such small numbers the 3,000-year obsession with one of the tiniest groups, the Jews, has not faded away. There are no Jewish missionaries anywhere in the world as Judaism precludes the Jews from missionizing while all kinds of groups trying to convert the Jews. Perhaps the time has come for the Jews to worry a little less about the social justice in Peru but about our own survival. Posted by: Roger at December 24, 2003 07:09 PMSusan - Lots of people question the moral superiority of the Left - although, admittedly, few who were previously members in good standing of the club. In this sense, Melanie is a British counterpart to the incisive (and addictively readable, like Melanie) David Horowitz in the US - and Hell hath no fury like a lefty scorned. Witness what Horowitz goes through on lefty college campuses. But, Susan, I'm not sure it's because they believe they are the visionaries ... did the Stalinists think they were visionaries, or did they think they had found a way to control people? I think Horowitz, a former important insider, would vote for 'control people'. The Russians were easier because they'd been peasants under the Tsars for so long, they were accustomed to taking orders. Britain was harder, because we had had 1200 years of democracy. OK - of a sort and constantly evolving - and a social fabric that had been stitched by hand over all those intervening centuries. Unpicking it all, without anyone noticing what they were doing, was the challenge. They couldn't just snip through the fabric with a pair of scissors, because people would have noticed and protested. So I commend you to the Theodore Dalrymple City piece courtesy of Brothers Judd (for which I thank you) on the trial of Lady Chatterly's Lover. This, I believe, was the first chipping away at the keystone of the British social fabric which united all classes. The ineptly argued obscenity trial. Before anyone cavils at the word 'class' - Britain today would have been a classless society without the bustling intervention of the socialists. In fact, their constant harping on 'class' held Britain back for at least two generations from being a truly egalitarian society along American lines. As soon as Britain realised that we had been overtaken, in the natural course of things, we immediately became addicted to what we thought, via movies and television, we were missing and adopted an American outlook on life almost without missing a beat. It was all part of a natural continuum which the lefties tried to derail. They kept trying to drag Britain back to clapped-out arguments developed around the time of Sydney and Beatrice Webb and Bernard Shaw at the turn of the last century - a shadow of the 1900s - when the world had whirled on light years since those days. Also, they despised the working class, who they saw as units. Yet miners and factory workers at the beginning of the last century were aspiring to self-development by attending night classes after a hard day's labour. (And unions and local councils were providing those night classes!) They were enabled to follow their interests. In the cases of those whose spirits harboured dreams of creating, some of their works, produced in cramped circumstances, after a day in the coal mines, have enough merit to be accorded places in their own right, in museums today. In other words, they were trying to escape the fetters of the serfdom that socialists want to impose on entire populations today. Posted by: Caroline at December 24, 2003 07:25 PM"Stalinists think they were visionaries, or did they think they had found a way to control people" Caroline, you do err. Stalin was not of the Left; in fact he played the Right off against the Left in his Show Trials as he destroyed Bukharin and the right; and disposed of Trotsky and the Left....... The US is not an egalitarian society it is a money-class society, and the rest is fiction......as for Europe you seem oblivious to War which changed society more than any political party......just look at how many men died on The Somme, at Verdun......and recall how they tried to rebuild the class-society after 1922 and how it caused social misery in the interwar period....and decline......you have a somewhat romanticised view of miners' lives and I find your association of WEA with local authorities strange in that it was ultra vires Posted by: Romulus at December 24, 2003 08:15 PMThank you Sheraz, for your kind Christmas wishes. And a happy belated Eid-al-Fitr to you as well. Caroline, Rom, we can discuss more later. Surely we all have better things to do on Christmas Eve! I shall be finishing up the present-wrapping and reading "A Christmas Carol" to my five-year-old. Reading this blog has put me into a very Dickensian mood. And may God bless us, every one! Posted by: Susan at December 24, 2003 08:32 PMRomulus - America is an egalitarian society. Anyone is free to make of himself/herself as they will - and can. All society is a money class society. In America, you are free to find a way of making money and the bank wills you to succeed. So do your friends. It is a positive environment. I've never been to Oz, but I suspect it is the same. I don't have a romanticised view of WEA because I have absolutely no idea what WEA is. Posted by: Caroline at December 24, 2003 09:18 PMCheers to Ms. Phillips for questioning the moral self-righteousness of the “left”, as well as the notion - so deeply, so wrongly ingrained within popular culture, let alone taken for granted by many Jews themselves - that the Jewish have a near-inevitable affinity for left-wing political causes. In that light, readers might be interested in these passages from Hillel Halkin’s (increasingly!) relevant “Letters to an American Jewish Friend – A Zionist’s Polemic”, which describe the origin of the relationship between Jews and “the left”. Though directed at an American readership, Mr. Halkin’s words ring true for all audiences.
Where then did the…notion come from? Originally from two sources, each a reflection of the Jewish search for an ideology of disguised assimilation in the modern, secular world. The earlier of these was mid-nineteenth-century German Jewry, and especially German Reform – the first radical product in modern Europe of the intersection of traditional Judaism, political emancipation, and the newly embourgeoisified Jew – which, casting about for a rationale for a Jewish existence that it wished to see purged of all cultural and religious particularism and made to conform to the liberal winds of the times, “discovered” the true social universality of Judaism. … A development parallel to this one took place later on in the last century in the Jewish labor movement in Russia. Here of course, as opposed to German Reform, there was no pretense of continuity with the world of rabbinic Judaism since Russian Jewish radicalism, as typified by an organization like the Bund, was openly antireligious. And yet, because even an organization like the Bund was composed largely of Jews who had been raised in religious homes and retained an atavistic sense of Jewish loyalty despite their conversion to revolutionary internationalism, it was necessary to give them too a Jewish straw to cling to. What better straw, then, than the proletarian insight that the essence of true Jewishness – crusted over, needless to say, by centuries of rabbinic obscurantism – was the messianic social vision of the prophets, a prototypical harbinger of the gospel according to St. Marx? … And here a curious thing happened, for while German and Russian Jews had little in common to begin with, they shared the desire to Americanize as quickly as possible while keeping a modicum of Jewish identity of which it was not necessary to feel ashamed – that is, that corresponded to recognized American ideals. The result… Long after both radical religious reform and radical politics have ceased to be significant factors in American Jewish life, long after the descendants of German or Russian Jews in the United States have forgotten whose descendants they are, the popular conception of Judaism as a religion of social justice carries on.” One more site for the Jews who are barraged by the missionaries: http://jewishanswer.org/english/index.htm Take a look what was written to me by one of the posters: “Poor Roger, you have the Messiah Jesus Christ....read the B'rit Hadashah and join the Messianic Jews and be Saved ! I do hope you redemption Roger, your inner turmoil seems to be devouring you with bile and rancour” Posted by: Romulus at December 12, 2003 01:03 PM This is one of their tactics and they have the audacity to throw at us words like “bile and rancour” or rancor. Poor poor Roger, wipe away your tears...now tell the grown-ups about your anti-Christian comments about "a dead Jew on a stick"...you are really suffering psychological delusions of persecution poor boy...... You complained you had no one to redeem your troubled soul as you made more of your provocative comments about Christians whom you seem to loathe........and "and they have the audacity to throw at us words like “bile and rancour” or rancor"....the comment about "bile" and "rancour" was reserved specifically for you and your anti-Christian vituperation Posted by: Romulus at December 27, 2003 06:42 AMThanks but the idols are not for me. We don’t believe in fairy tales about a dead Jew, a stick that he was nailed to, his virgin momma, etc. If you like the Greek mythology it is fine but it has no basis in Judaism. That is where the problem lies. Posted by: Roger at December 12, 2003 06:26 PM I guess it is because of the European love 50% of the European Jews were exterminated. It will take the Jews 1000 years to recover from that type of European love. The Europeans give a special meaning to the phrase “we love you to death”. Posted by: Roger at December 1, 2003 05:17 AM
Posted by: Roger at November 29, 2003 09:52 PM As for the theological issues, we would disagree. From the Jewish perspective and I only speak for myself; there is no shred of evidence of Jesus’ existence. Jews don’t accept any kind of idols whether they are dead Jews or statues. We don’t need the middlemen to connect with G-d! Also, unlike you we read the original Torah in Hebrew and don’t rely on some fraudulent translation.
Posted by: Roger at November 29, 2003 10:20 PM If I am suffering from a ”psychological delusions of persecution” why did not you send me to a private psychiatrist? Why did you send me to Jesus? Oh…wait I think I figured it out. You knew that I was Jewish and that I would like a free consultation. Posted by: Roger at December 27, 2003 10:12 AM"Am I my brother's keeper?" Well done Mel - articulating what needs to be articulated. I do wish romulus & Co. would keep his verbeage down a bit - our spokesperson is Melanie - her words is what matters. Also, dont be too hard on Aaronovitch - i believe his heart is in the right place - even if his brain or his conscience has fallen out of place. Anyway - happy new year to all - from a gentile Posted by: cliveyboy at December 27, 2003 05:54 PM"America is an egalitarian I find your statement to be a It's called "The Death of Joanne, Krugman is an idiot. If America is losing "social mobility" I do not see much of it from where I sit, in a state were 30 percent of the population is foreign-born. I personally know of many Iranians, Indians and mainland Chinese who now own prime pieces of California real estate, some of them living in 5,000 square foot mansions in gated communities. The only trend killing social mobility at this point that I see is a trend toward adopting European ideas about social class and the "right" schools, etc. at some companies. I have seen some blue-chip companies restrict their hiring practices to people who have attended just four schools: Cal, UCLA, USC and Stanford. Sad, really, but this is a European imported construct, not a traditional American one. Posted by: Susan at December 28, 2003 01:38 AMcliveyboy, do you really want Melanie as our spokesperson? She looks like a Zionist. We are sick of the international Zionist conspiracy. Did you hear that the Iranian government is accepting the humanitarian aid from everybody but the Zionists? Little do they know GWB is a Zionist and his confidant Barney is the greatest Zionist of them all. Posted by: Roger at December 28, 2003 06:39 AM"Cal, UCLA, USC and Stanford"
There is little to add to Mel's lucid analysis except to say that there are practical things you can do. The non-judgemental brigade are deeply embedded in the system but you can hit their blind spot : the basic fact is, they belive in either nothing - or anything convenient that suits them at the time. They have no moral authority or constancy - they are morally disabled - they can not tell right from wrong. So, those like me who believe in 'believing in something and sticking to it' - need to expose those who dont by exposing their inability to tell right from wrong and good from bad. Example question ; " knowing what we know now, if you had the opportunity to put Hitler or Stalin out of business before things got out of hand - would you take it ? " To answer this question forces anyone to take a moral position - unless they try to evade the question - in which case they reveal themselves to be a fake. I think the British social degradation can be reversed but only at the gentle human person to person level where you encourage those around you to ask themselves what is right and wrong. Showing 'right-wing' disapproval doesn't work very well with the non-judgementals. Like with children, encouragement and praise is a more powerful tool than being nasty to someone all the time. So, when chatting to them in the pub or over dinner, just remember - these liberal intellectual people genuinely find it difficult and uncomfortable to see right from wrong, black from white - they need help in working out the basics - help them if you can. They will be looking for moral guidance from a friend and you are that person to help them do the right thing. On a related topic - I am keen to know why the UK is degenerating so much - politically, socially, intellectualy, culturally etc etc - it is obvious to me but why are so few people talking about it - Melanie is positioned as a bit of an extremist on the bbc but to me she is 100% mainstream - does this mean *I* am a right-wing nutter ? - I always think of myself as too easy going but in the current political order I would be asked to stand next to adolf - can I get counselling for this ? ? Posted by: cliveyboy at December 28, 2003 11:33 AMOH look now Melanie is complaing about comments made by aniother people. It is funny how victims of domestic abuse are not allowed to complain about beiong beaten up. But you are allowed to complain about some trvial comments made By a gaurdian columnist. It seems you critic of the victim culture only applies ot victims of domestic abuse and rape. But you are allowed to fight back when ever you want. Hmmm Posted by: Rory at December 28, 2003 01:51 PMWhy are you allowed to complain about those who makes commments you dont like. But you feel victims of domestic abuse and rape should not abe allowed to complain. You made insuklting comments about the victim culture. You said it was bad. Well the victim culture is the only way forward.
Bullies want the victim culture to disappear so they can contunue to bully people. Posted by: Rory at December 28, 2003 02:22 PMCliveboy - Oh yes, like, I know so many dyed in the wool socialists who are looking to me for moral guidance. Sometimes I have to beat them off with a stick. Give me a break! Melanie is 100% mainstream. In the deranged mind of the BBC, this makes her slightly to the right of Marie-Antoinette. The BBC and its opinions are totally irrelevant. Over on www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog, they are having their annual "Idiotarian of The Year" nominations. This year, Britain's BBC is high on the list and may get into the final 10 that we will all be allowed to vote on. Posted by: Caroline at December 28, 2003 02:28 PMHappy 2004 to Melanie and her disputatious 'posters'. I am looking forward to many more of her excellent articles and your lively analyses. Dec. 28, 2003 Rom: "Cal, UCLA, USC and Stanford" and not even the good schools either !" Careful Rom, your Euro-snobbery is showing again. All of those schools are world-leaders in various sciences, business theories, and medical research. Their humanities departments, on the other hand are crap, just like humanities departments at universities all over the West. "our spokesperson is Melanie" What sort of sick, incestuous, religious cult is this? I think Rory has a point about "Victim culture". Victim culture is BAD so long as its Muslim's excusing their "backwardness" by referencing western crimes against the Middle East or so long as women are using "apparent" sexual harassment to jump ahead in life. Its NOT ok if it's a bunch of right-wing lunatics complaining that any and every problem confronting western society as we know it is the fault of a "left wing conspiracy" which patently (for anybody living on planet earth) does not exist. Susan, You don't need to defend the world-class schools. Consider who you are dealing with. Posted by: Roger at December 29, 2003 05:56 AMActually Susan I wondered why they were all on the West Coast ? Have you never heard of Harvard, Wellesley, MIT, Wharton, Princeton, Chicago, Columbia, Kellogg, RPI, Smith ? Posted by: Romulus at December 29, 2003 07:35 AMOkay Roger, we'll include Yale Posted by: Romulus at December 29, 2003 07:36 AMThanks for the support about my view on the critics of the "victim culture". Sorry, Rom, I misunderstood your intent about that comment. I was not talking about US companies in general, only about ones based in California. They naturally prefer to hire from the top California schools as they then don't have to pay relocation costs, etc. Not to say they wouldn't hire from the East Coast university elite if an attractive candidate presented himself (or herself.) There is also an unpleasant "old-boy" network active amongst many companies here. At one company I worked for, the CEO was a UCLA graduate and plum positions all seemed to be going to UCLA grads. Then he was replaced by a Stanford grad, and lo and behold, plum positions all seemed to go to Stanfordites. This kind of stuff has often been present at the upper levels of commerce, but now it seems to have percolated down to the lower levels too. A shame. Posted by: Susan at December 30, 2003 08:51 PMI see Susan, well you're not immune from it then...it is a common feature masked with propaganda about 'merit' rather than 'imperfect competition' and 'relative ability' I have seen companies where it was an SPD man followed by SPD man where most German business is CDU....The explosion of headhunting is the method used to circumvent transparency as the real selection criteria are verbal, and the illusion of open competition is an essential mask to pre-ordained selection Posted by: Romulus at December 31, 2003 07:01 AMI think you are right, Rom. Posted by: Susan at December 31, 2003 04:49 PMMelanie, within the family, we have one of these BBC producers. "BBC producers regularly tell me I am referred to within that most objective of corporations as ‘mad’." She truly believes that the BBC is "objective" and not "objectionable". However, her comments on the BBC's relationship with the politicians are truly frightening. If a politician does not get the interviewer he/she wants then they will not appear! The BBC is too craven to simply say X was invited and refused to be interviewed By Jeremy Paxman! It is time that we had a programme along the lines of the Bill O'Reilly hour( Fox News)(absolutely hated by the journalists at the BBC!!) on a UK channel, to give a right wing view and produce balanced journalism. Posted by: Geoff at January 4, 2004 12:31 AM"The BBC is too craven to simply say X was invited and refused to be interviewed " It did just that...with an empty chair.... Still, I do not think Ministers of the Crown should spend their days in TV studios chatting with journalists, and they are not part of a scripted TV show.........we have a building on St Stephen's Wharf called the Palace of Westminster where they are supposed to be held to account to the Commons...... Frankly, I would prefer politics to be focused there so we can have more cooking and lifestyle programmes on TV to entertain us in the "Bread & Circuses" mode Posted by: Romulus at January 4, 2004 12:05 PMGeoff: I concur with your view about the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News; but even their step-sister Sky News - probably the best all round UK based news service - shrinks from finding a British version of Bill O'Reilly to launch a similar hard-hitting programme to represent the traditional majority. Andrew Neil attempted for awhile to plagiarise a few of the themes, such as 'the spin stops here' and 'fair and balanced reporting' for his erstwhile 'Midnight Hour' political slot, but he obviously got sandbagged by Auntie Beeb, who then set him up with the faux flirting of the oleagenous Portillo and his hypocritical, chubby little leftie protagonist. And Richard Littlejohn, who attempts to jig up a parody of the O'Reilly show with his 7pm slot on Sky News, has neither the wit, nor experience - and certainly not the debating clout to pull it off. Who do you think might fill the Bill over here? We should perhaps delegate somebody and submit a proposal to Sky. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 5, 2004 02:32 AMSo many of the opinions on here give the impression that the British people live in some kind of ex-Soviet state in which people cannot speak their minds: it's just utter nonsense: Britain is a fully pluralist democracy with a wide range of views expounded regularly in a vigorous print media, a mixed economy (ie little state ownership of the means of production) in which it is possible to set up a business, join and actively participate in any number of interest groups or political parties. However, the world never reflects any one individual's or group's or party's view on how it should be run! Melanie is a frequent panellist on 'Question Time'. It is quite unbelievable how in a fully-functioning democracy how so many people who are so clearly adept at expressing opinions can portray Britain as anything other than a fully-functioning democracy. Sure there are loads of problems - but they sure as hell aren't solved by spening hours on blogs examining navels but by are by getting involved in various activities aimed at slowly changing things for the better. The BBC itself is biased but has always represented the views of the British establishment and intelligensia. Melanie would no doubt have found the Beeb patronising to women and minorities when she was a fully paid-up Guardianista - now she has shifted her radical credentials in another direction and is still anti-Beeb because she is now anti-estblisment in a different way. Let's please not confuse what a few lefty-trendy Beeb execs may say with real totalitarianism... Posted by: David at January 5, 2004 01:21 PMMay I turn your attention, dear David, to the anti-BBC crusade headed by former Soviet refusenick Vladimir Bukovsky (now a British citizen)? He has compared the BBC to the Soviet media at its worst and frankly, I consider Bukovsky more of an authority on the subject than you. Posted by: Susan at January 5, 2004 09:49 PMDavid: I infer from your postings on the ' marriage' thread that you are a highly articulate and proselytising homosexual activist. Each to his own cause, but I would hardly expect you, under the circumstances, to admit that the Buggers Broadcasting Corporation was anything other than a 'fair and balanced' media organisation, perhaps with ‘a few lefty trendy Beeb execs’ as you put it. Please don’t be disingenuous. It is insulting. You appear to be intelligent enough to realise that it won’t wash here. So whom are you trying to kid? The BBC certainly represents your interests with great vigour. I do not think that anyone who posts on this blog thinks that we are yet in a totalitarian state. But what I and many others fear, is that we are now closer to that potentially calamitous transmogrification than at any time in our modern history; that the state funded (taxpayer funded that is) broadcaster has among it's staff a predominance of leftist activists and militant minority stooges who are hell bent on bringing their Gramscian plans into full fruition. They will eventually cut the legs of their Trojan horse, Tony Blair, because he has used those legs to kick against the pricks, vide his excursions with Bush, Baghdad et al. Those who hid in its belly will surely whack a Trojan horse that comes to life and starts to canter in the wrong direction. Subversive cells have manifestly infected the media generally over the past 40 years or so and the balance is now way off kilter – to the left. Commentators like Melanie, and there is none better, who represent traditional values and institutions such as marriage, social responsibility; effective policing, a strong and traditional education system; freedom from State interference and other stabilising stanchions of British society are not only mostly shunned by the television media, but are more often than not vilified by those who are invited to take part in discussion panels, where the audiences are always lopsided to the left. A new cultural hegemony is what they are after and I am glad that 70 years of my life, mostly engaged in public service, are behind me, as I fear that the worst may happen ere long. But Melanie’s mind gives me some hope – long may she pour the contents of it on to paper. It makes sense. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 6, 2004 02:21 AMSusan, It's good of you to turn my attention to Vladimir Bukowsky for whose views I have a lot of time and respect. However, you appear to have misunderstood my point. "Britain is a fully pluralist democracy with a wide range of views expounded regularly in a vigorous print media" to which I could have added "which includes a couple of broadsheets and a few tabloids that broadly support Melanie's views (though express them rather differently)". To which I could also have added: the BBC is but one of several television channels which broadcast a range of programming - including news and current affairs - in the UK and this fact (in addition to the internet) should be taken into account when assessing the actual power that the BBC has in terms of shaping public opinion (which is increasingly limited). Many British people have long realized that the BBC is biased in its reporting of some issues (it is particularly poor on some aspects of its interntational reporting (where reporters appear to have read an ABC guide to 'internationally politically correct' which would be laughable were it not not so earnestly adhered to by said reporters). There is also a tendency to simplify complex situations to suit a tabloid-style delivery of a snappy story based on conflicting power struggles. However, you must remember that whereas the Soviet authorities controlled with an iron fist the output of the state-controlled Soviet media it is laughable to compare modern pluralistic Britain - where the BBC is an anachronistic institution of diminishing importance - with the control of thought, speech and action that are routine in totalitarian states. The point that Vladimir Bukovsky may have had some validity in terms of the BBC's bias and the line it adopts on some issues - but it would be a much more threatening institution if it had more power in a less democratic society. I am not sure frankly what to make about Melanie's comments about the BBC's views on her writings. It is important to remember also that serious programmes that debate serious current affairs issues in detail and give an airing to a wide range of viewpoints are difficult to find on any UK television channels. But I think this has much more to do with today's agenda of producing cheap dumbed-down shows for audiences who want to be entertained rather than any serious conspiracy to silence people who share Melanie's (or Peter Hitchens') views The sadder and perhaps more complex truth is that the British establishment (including politicians AND media) are out of touch with the way the majority of the British now live - particularly those whose cause Melanie particularly challenges. I think that it undermines the suffering of the victims of fascism or communism to cheapen the currency of these words by using these words to describe people who are not fascists or communists. I would therefore disagree totally with someone who called Melanie a fascist - it's plainly ridiculous. However, likewise, I think that to start calling the BBC a totalitarian institution is equally ridiculous - or to claim that Melanie is a victim of totalitarianism is equally ridiculous. As I stated, the BBC represents (and always has done) the views of the British establishment (many of which I disagree with) - but it is not a government poodle (witness the Dr Kelly affair). The sooner the BBC is de-nationalised the better. Posted by: David at January 6, 2004 10:53 AMFrank, "I infer from your postings on the ' marriage' thread that you are a highly articulate and proselytising homosexual activist" I must clear up immediately the incorrect conclusion you appear to have drawn from my postings on the 'marriage' thread. You have clearly not read them carefully. I am not - nor ever have been, thank God - a 'professional homosexual' - and on the 'marriage' thread I have: i) argued in support of same-sex partnership rights on the basis that these relate to people's private arrangements and are not 'public' in nature; ii) argued for a very conservative approach to sex education in schools precisely because (rather like Melanie) I think that children should be receiving a more traditional education based on the 3Rs than is lamentably currently the case; iii) stated (like Melanie) that I think the best environment for raising children is with two parents of the opposite sex in a happy family. Less the words of a "proselytising homosexual activist" than the kind of views that you might find expressed in the Daily Telegraph. Don't tell me, Frank, that paper is also part of an international marxist conspiracy to destroy British values from within! My writing of such sentiments has unleashed from a few visitors to that thread (not you, I hasten to add) an avalanche of what I can only call 'filth' - purely because I am homosexual. Even you, Frank, cannot help referring to the Buggers' Broadcasting Corporation....again, if you look at my posts on the marriage thread you will see that I have never used the word 'homophobic'. Why? Because it comes from the same stock of vocabulary used by the left to silence opponents - and, as you will see again in the 'marriage' thread, I welcome debate from all viewpoints....although I dislike the use of some of the words chosen (always strangely by men and never by women) by some of my opponents on that thread such as: 'fudge-packer', 'sad little queer', 'shirtlifter' and some of the assertions made such as 'all homosexual activity leads to child abuse / disease / shortenned life expectancy (delete as you wish. You know what, Frank? It reminds me of the bad old days pre-67 (that I know about but thank God did not live through) in the UK just before legalisation of homosexuality when it was common for police to break down the doors of people's bedrooms and for the offending homosexuals to be sent off to prison for a good stretch or to be committed to mental asylums for 'aversion therapy' (normally administered via electric shocks). Perhaps you look fondly back to those days as the 'good old days' Frank. But for many homosexuals they were a living hell. And before you complain about my introducing homosexuality onto this thread, the only reason I am mentioning this is in response to your own mention of it (it was in fact irrelevant to the content of my original thread but you just couldn't resist raising it with a nasty sneer, could you?). Again, if you read my post above you will see that I am critical of BBC bias - but that, given the pluralistic nature of British society, I do not regard the BBC with the importance that you clearly do. I would agree with you that 1) the current Labour Government However, I would disagree that this really is due to a concerted conspiracy by international marxists. It really is much more complex than that and relates to huge changes in the nature of the way in which modern democracies operate economically and politically that often cannot be easily controlled by any authorities. It is partly about a younger generation who know little about history (when I was working in Lisbon I was often shocked by how little those who had not lived under the dictatorship (from 1924-1974) understood about its all pervasive nature and how much for granted many younger voters took their new democracy. The same sentiments are now expressed by those who remember what life was like under the Iron Curtain but whose children now join prostests against globalism in Prague and Budapest and don't appreciate how fortunate they are. these may seem minor or irrelevant points but are used only to show that where we are today in western societies is far more complex than 'a left wing conspiracy' or 'political correctness gone made' or 'Brussels has taken over our lives'... Please read my reply to Susan for my other views on the Beeb...
Yes David, but no other TV station requires a tribute under penalty of gaol. Before 1949 it was not a criminal offence NOT to have a radio/tv licence. The BBC levies a tax; it has the taxpayer meeting the cost of enforcement; it is not accountable to Parliament; it does not publish transparent accounts; it does not state which employees are in which pay band, unlike a public corporation or a Plc. The current BBC has a Chairman who is a friend of Gordon Brown, whose wife runs Gordon Brown's office; a man who is a Partner at Goldman Sachs and funds the Labour Party. The CEO of the BBC is a Labour Party funder, a businessman with interests in various ventures; and both these men are paying themselves large bonuses out of taxpayer revenues whilst placing staff on short-term contracts. The BBC is more like a Soviet station loyal to The Party than ever before in its history. Posted by: Romulus at January 6, 2004 05:27 PMhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/info/running/governors/ Gavyn Davies was an economic adviser to the 10 Downing Street Policy Unit from 1976 to 1979 .....Chief International Economist and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs International.
Ranjit Sondhi was appointed to the BBC Board of Governors as the Chairman of the English National Forum, the advisory body representing licence-payers throughout the English Regions, in August 1998. His term of office was renewed for another 4 years in July 2002 and now finishes in July 2006. He has been Deputy Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Chairman of the Refugee Employment, Training and Education Forum and a member of the Ethnic Minority Advisory Committee of the Judicial Studies Board. He served on the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct and on the DfEE’s Task Force on Disability Rights.
From 1991 to 1994 she was Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet Office and between 1993 and 1994 was Head of Defence and Overseas Secretariat of the Joint Intelligence Committee. From 1994 until her retirement, she was Political Director in the Foreign Commonwealth Office, ..... Dermot Gleeson was appointed a BBC Governor in November 2000. He is a former Head of Home Affairs Section of the Conservative Research Department and was a member of Christopher Tugendhat's Cabinet in the European Commission from 1977-1979. Baroness Sarah Hogg was appointed a BBC Governor in February 2000. As Head of the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit from 1990 to 1995 she was closely involved in the programmes of privatisation and private finance, performance measurement in public services and international economic issues. Husband is Douglas Hogg, MP.
Romulus, "The BBC is more like a Soviet station loyal to The Party than ever before in its history". Yes, well...but that still does not mean 1) it toes the line like the soviet media did or 2) its output is the only source of information available to the British public (unlike the situation in the former Soviet Union). However, I agree 1) it is riddled with cronyism given its links with New Labour; 2) it is plainly ridiculous in 2004 that it is funded in the way in which it is. Perhaps the answer is, as I suggested that is should be de-nationalised ASAP
Actually David I think it is too close to Politics and too remote from the Public. I should have preferred David Dimnleby as Director-General of the BBC, and someone like David Puttnam, Melvyn Bragg, Max Hastings, or even Andrew Neill as Chairman........ I would prefer programme-makers to be back in the driving seat in place of Birtian Apparatchiki. You must remember too David, we do not know how much self-restraint has been imposed internally.....do you recall the ludicrous position on mentioning one particular factoid about Peter Mandelson ? Now if that inability to say the emperor had no clothes was not the height of Soviet-style gagging nothing was. Posted by: Romulus at January 7, 2004 12:38 PMRomulus, But do you really think that there is a need for a public broadcasting company at all now? Is it not inevitable that this and future governments will try to influence its output in a way that reflect well upon them? Using all sorts of devious tactics... Labour has been the first to turn this into an art form - but it was not the first to try...and it won't be the last. Better just to privatise don't you think? As for the suppression of information about Mandy...yes it was shocking...but it came out, didn't it? And was repeated over and over again in true British style. Just a minor point: 'Soviet-style gagging'....I am really reluctant to use such terminology because 'Soviet-style' anything can never be effective in a free society...so I think it devalues the real sense of totalitarianism that exists in dictatorships to use that language so loosely when applying it to a pluralistic system (which can never be really analagous).
David: Thank you for your considered reply to the points I made in response to you first posting on this thread. I do realise, as I previously stated, that you are an intelligent man and your postings are always worth reading. However … having observed with great interest your ding-dong with Reuben Chappel on the ‘marriage’ thread I thought it a little rich that you issued the following paragraph during your castigation of those who agreed with Melanie’s general points on this one: Really? You do not seem averse to blogging away yourself, particularly when it involves your sexual orientation; moreover as homosexual aberrations almost always seem to contain an element of narcissism I think that navel gazing is also a somewhat inappropriate phrase for you to use. And having spent all my active years in public service dealing with the results of baleful and baneful human frailty, I do not need a tutorial on what I should do towards ‘changing things for the better.’ Anyway what are you doing wasting your time here if you disapprove of debate by blog? Some of us ‘navel gazers’ might just believe that expressing our views, prompted by Melanie’s thought provoking postings, is contributing something to the democratic process, albeit not necessarily bringing about earth shattering improvements to a society that seems hell bent on depravity and self destruction. I agree that this is not the right thread for a discussion on the pros and cons of homosexuality (of whom I met many in my time). Reuben did a thorough demolition job on your arguments on the other thread, but I have noticed that facts-a-plenty fall uselessly on the sterile stony ground of your perceptions and it’s no good being prissy about the language he uses to describe the actuality of sodomy and it’s overwhelmingly dire consequences. It is sometimes difficult to describe disgusting activity without using disgusting words, though I agree ad hominem jibes can be somewhat distracting. But your objection to my ironic substitution for the acronym of our beloved national broadcasting service may also indicate that you lack a sense of humour. I assure you that I did read most carefully your postings in that debate, which is why I came to the above mentioned conclusion. If you had read Reuben’s posting more carefully, particularly the tract headed “ Behind the Gay Activist Agenda” (Dec 23 on Melanie’s “Abandonment of Marriage thread) you would probably have understood a little better the phenomenon that Melanie and her supporters are attempting to delineate in this thread. If you wish, to avoid your embarrassment on this thread, I will continue this debate back on the marriage biggy, but before I do, let me address just one more point you made on this posting: Well, I did live in those pre- 67 days and you have been fed false propaganda by the pink lobby who would like you to believe that in those days the police spent most of their time battering down doors to drag out poor old queens in loving congress from their Bayswater flats and slapping them in clink for donkey’s yonks for the delectation of sex starved convicts deprived, pro tem, of the loving attention of their wives. If you believe that you’ll believe anything, as our grand old Ducal hero once said. Buggery was (and still is with certain exemptions) indeed a serious criminal offence, so serious in fact that it was described in the police instruction book in the pre-60s era as “the abominable crime of buggery” but the police directed very little resources to the detection of it. Importuning for an immoral purpose, in other words cruising, cottaging or male street prostitution (a public nuisance) was addressed and rightly so. What was always and, I hope still is, considered extremely serious was the sodomising of teenagers by ruthless old buggers - particularly those in positions of trust. Anyone who is not queer and who thinks that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable life style may have thought differently if they had been obliged to police the ‘meat rack’ in Piccadilly Circus in the 1960s, when the provincial juvenile male waifs and strays were rounded up as rent boys by the predatory thugs of the ‘gay’ community that was part of the Soho vice syndicate and put into virtual slavery for the pleasure of well known homosexual media celebrities. I attended several medical examinations of victims during those days and I will spare your squeamish sensibilities the details. BTW the BBC has disproportionately homosexual staffing – to get back to this thread. Anyway, Reuben has amassed a vast body of evidence to indicate that one of the aims of the neo-Gramscian arty-farty literati is the aggressive promotion, through all media and literary faculties, of homosexuality as a life style. The ploy is to undermine marriage, the family and, by infiltration, the institutions that underpin our society. My empirical experience accords with everything he adduces and I could add more from my days of direct interface with the criminality of predatory perverts. Though I might express his sentiments a little more politely, I cannot argue with a word of it. Sorry to have to disabuse your naivety and apparent innocence David, but it is you who needs to get out more. I’ve been around the block so many times my size tens wore through to the soul (and that is not a spelling mistake). Forgive me if I am now limited to doing what I can from my keyboard - anno domini, I'm afraid. Frank, First of all my comments about navel gazers referred to a few people who complain endlessly on blogs about being oppressed by totalitarian tendencies when it is clear that they live in free societies and can sometimes clearly overcome their sometimes (imagined?) oppression by getting out and doing something about it. This can equally include certain gay zealots too who can also be complaining pains in the butts (in case you think my comments are restricted to those on the right who in between finishing the Daily Telegraph crossword over a G&T and tuning in to Melanie's Blog have a rish of panic about the future of western civilization as we know it...). I don't intend to respond to your other points on this thread - it is not the right place and is not fair to other bloggers - and nor do I intend to discuss other boggers' posts with third parties - both Reuben and I are perfectly able to take eachother on single-handedly. I do have a sense of humour, Frank - but, please...can you do a bit better than 'Buggers Broadcasting Company'?...groan... Posted by: David at January 7, 2004 02:32 PMNo ! I would not privatise the BBC....i would make Radio 1, 2, 5 carry adverts; and BBC1. I would return BBC2 to serious cultural programming as in the 1970s and do the same for Radio 3. I would clean up Radio 4 and remove the staff of resident Guardian presenters moonlighting there - it really is BBC = Guardian Media Group.....and I am tired of interviews with Simon Calder of The Independent and Bea Campbell, et et al of The Guardian....... I would then cut the licence fee to £75 with a reduction eacgh year like the BT pricing formula which takes account of technical progress When you can buy a colour TV for £79 it seems strange to pay £120 odd for a TV licence....a bit like Microsoft charging £200+ for a software package to run on a £300 PC. Posted by: Romulus at January 7, 2004 02:35 PMRomulus, But you illustrate the point about political interference perfectly: you would replace one lot of people you don't like with another lot that you do like... while there is a state broadcasting company there will always be attempts at political interference by the governing classes...surely the market (for news programmes, discussion programmes, documentaries, light entertainment) is the best place to decide because it is the market that most accurately reflects people's wishes in terms of consumption of media output... It is the market that buys Melanie's views in the Daily Mail... We don't have a British Newspaper Corporation which is publicly funded - why should the rules for broadcast media be different? Why on earth should people be made to subsidise (whether they consume it or not) the BBC? Posted by: David at January 7, 2004 02:49 PMALL broadcasters are under national control. Sky has only got a licence for the UK. Tell me a country in Europe where broadcasters are not subject to political influence...I bet Belgium is a real doozy. Germany even has a 50:50 split in the administration along party lines....ZDF is supposed to be one party line....and SAT-1 the Kirch channel was so pro-Helmut Kohl it was ridiculous. Television as a medium is always political.....just look at the US Channels which are in the and of certain groups and personalities. I just prefer broadcasters to be in charge of making programmes and non-political appointees representing the viewer. I have seen no TV network anywhere that gives me faith in its neutrality. The Daily Mail is controlled by an Investment Trust with weighted voting rights; it controls LOndon's evening paper, it controls ITV Teletext; and it has a defined line set by Paul Dacre. What concerns me is the links between Downing Street and the BBC through the bedroom Posted by: Romulus at January 7, 2004 04:23 PMRomulus...the newspapers in free societies are privately-owned (albeit sometimes by monopolies - which the EU might as some stage try to reduce in terms of controlling market share perentages owned by any one group) whereas wholly state-owned broadcasters like the BBC are becoming (and should be!) an anachronism. there is bound to be far greater influence by government if a broadcasting company is government-owned. I guess the danger of privatising the whole lot is that all channels will become right wing (particularly if they are owned by clones of Berlusconi) - BUT I would have thought that a right-wing BEEB would have pleased most of the contributors on this site more than the current Islington-chardonnay-socialist Beeb... Posted by: David at January 7, 2004 05:07 PMRomulus, "government-owned" that was a Freudian slip - I meant "publicly-owned"...! Posted by: David at January 7, 2004 05:09 PMDavid go back in history to 1922 and read up how the licence came about, and that it funded the BBC infrastructure not the Government. The only part of the BBC funded directly by the State is the BBC World Service formerly the Empire Service from 1936. I see no benefit in privatised media; I think television is a dead medium, and technically sophisticted in the receivers, but inane in the broadcast....fewer and fewer watch. The EU should have no role in media, but it does run a slush fund to bribe journalists to create favourable programmes.......I have not heard the EU Competition Commissioner discuss Berlusconi and his TV Channels in Italy and Spain Why a US Citizen has a role in Sky I do not know; a British Citizen could not own 37% of a US broadcaster Posted by: Romulus at January 7, 2004 05:52 PMRomulus, My language was sloppy - I know the BBC is funded by the licence fee and I meant state-owned or publicly-owned in the sense that the license fee is obligatory for all TV owners. I am surprised given your arguments that you see no benefit in privatised media: for it would work on the basis of revenues generated by advertising, on the user pays principle (by subsriptions from subsrcibers) and would mean that the great British public would no longer have to pay for a service that delivers mainly what other channels already deliver (soaps, quiz shows etc) but also adds bias to news reports which are meant to be neutral. Surely there is no longer any purpose in funding such a service from a legally-imposed license fee on all TV owners. Surely also we are also past the days when a paternalistic state broadcaster should presume to lecture to viewers in their living rooms (whether from a left or right wing bias) in any case... Posted by: David at January 7, 2004 06:34 PMWhen I visit Tesco they ask if I have a loyalty card.....I say I do not use it since I pay for it with Teco's inflated prices....likewise I pay for ITV each time I buy financial services, cars, groceries.......I think advertising should not be a tax-deductible expense in business......it seems ridiculous to let firms hide profits by squandering them on pointless adverts Posted by: Romulus at January 7, 2004 08:54 PMRomulus, You're just pointing out some of the irritations of the free market which, however irksome, are infinitely preferable to the irritations of the command economy. All companies use marketing techniques to attract new customers or to get others to switch brands. It just comes with the turf in a private enterprise economy - although some of the monopoly/cartel tendencies of big business are worrying, need careful monitoring and restrict consumer choice. Many of the current problems in the health service could be radically improved very quickly (particularly waiting lists) if there was an introduction of an internal 'mixed economy' that successfully mixed private and state health provision and made people pay up front for consultations with doctors and re-claim some of the costs later (as is the case in many European countries with much shorter waiting lists). this is only indirectly related (ie: blinkered thinking, dishonest politicians, public in denial, stubborn vested interests: all preventing necessary paradigm shift) to the issues in question in this thread so I'll shut up now and revert to this topic when one of Melanie's future diary entries or articles allows. Posted by: David at January 8, 2004 02:01 PMDavid we are short of doctors...physically short not just of hours but of doctors.......does your understanding of supply and demand tell you what happens if you break up surgical teams so they can compete ? Do you know how many private hospitals use NHS ICU beds ? Try 100%. Why do you oppose monopoly ? Most of the innovation emerges from monopoly not competition...competition is a silly naive economic construct......it does not apply in most sectors. Oligopoly is the best you can hope for. Let us talk of France with its insolvent health care short of doctors and an £8bn deficit despite spending £80bn a year. Germany is also dismantling the second costliest healthcare in the world.........Europe is broke and spends too much on healthcare, and now the shrinking is under way. Euroland is going to squeeze healthcare over the coming decades as it is too feather-bedded. Britain has a much more cost-effective system. The NHS is not short of patients....it is the one thing it has in excess. You suggest pricing patients out of the NHS....seems silly really...treatment on basis of need seems so much better. You sound like a young MP who soon gets flummoxed when he sees the complexity of healthcare.......BTW Germany employs 2-3 million in its health system mainly collecting insurance premia and sending bills......most German hospitals are insolvent and many doctors are going bust. Posted by: Romulus at January 8, 2004 09:02 PMRomulus, The NHS is the biggest employer in Europe. It is vastly inefficient. Even in Belgium there is an emerging problem with patients who are now being treated in their hundreds as a result of transfers from the NHS without the costs being properly repatriated to the Belgian health service. All health care systems in Europe are struggling - but the NHS is struggling more than the German or French systems where the waiting lists are much shorter and patients get treated more quickly. My suggestion about patients paying up front for consultations with doctors and then re-claiming some or all of the costs from insurance schemes makes perfect sense - it is a system that works in france and some other European countries. It would also cut what many GPs acknowledge is a problem of a subtantial number of patients going to them with no real health problems at all - for a chat, because they are lonely etc - because patients would think twice if they had to pay up-front. Posted by: David at January 8, 2004 10:05 PMNot so David. The NHS is not the largest employer this is a political slogan - the fact that Germany has a myriad of Krankenkasse is ignored in comparison. France is now having to cut health costs....the country cannot afford to have the highest consumption of pharmaceuticals on the planet; Germany is no longer able to afford the profligacy of their system with frauds like the highest use of heart catheters in Europe because it makes money. I don't see how you can make a political claim that the NHS is "Inefficient"...no hospital system in Europe gets the same utilisation rates on beds; no health system has a comparable throughput per doctor; and the workpace is well ahead of anything in Germany......the health stats for Germany are not better than the UK.....Germany overspends on health but does not have a healthier population....... When you look at Health economics you find that the system in France and Germany is lumbered with high capital costs in hospitals.....I suggest you read up on the German system, the economics are quite fascinating. They are now cutting hospital beds, merging hospitals, and cash-limiting doctors by refusing many a Kassenzulassung........even Poland is imposing health spending cuts....... Britain has the most cost-efficient healthcare system in Europe bar none......you make general comments David without referring to specific hospitals or even medical procedures............ Why do you think anaesthetic deaths are lower in British hospitals than elsewhere ? Posted by: Romulus at January 8, 2004 10:35 PM"It would also cut what many GPs acknowledge is a problem of a subtantial number of patients going to them with no real health problems at all - for a chat, because they are lonely etc - because patients would think twice if they had to pay up-front"
HOw you intend to claim these charges will be interesting.....will you have turnstiles or are you going to add yet another duty to the doctor's daily routine, of manning the cash register ? Pre-NHS one of the problems for GPs was collecting the money from their patients, you seem to want to add this burden to an overloaded profession.......perhaps they will need to means-test it too so Gordon Brown is happy........I mean GPs have so little to do........ Will you charge pregnant women more because of the demands they make ? Maybe women should pay higher charges ? Or old people ? Perhaps those seeking abortion referral should pay full market cost because they did not buy condoms ? Should drug addicts be treated ? Maybe they should be penalised for taking up so much time ? You have simple solutions David to complex issues......people in Europe have elected men with simple ideas in the past, maybe your time will come Posted by: Romulus at January 8, 2004 10:44 PMRomulus, "HOw you intend to claim these charges will be interesting.....will you have turnstiles or are you going to add yet another duty to the doctor's daily routine, of manning the cash register" forgive me if I'm wrong but don't surgeries in Britain still have receptionists? "You have simple solutions David to complex issues" - sometimes we tend to over-complicate in our sophisticated societies - and sometimes the solutions are startlingly easy after some quick analysis of cause and effect and once the vested interests, the political dishonesty and the public denial are cut through.. "Will you charge pregnant women more because of the demands they make ? Maybe women should pay higher charges ? Or old people ? Perhaps those seeking abortion referral should pay full market cost because they did not buy condoms ?" All interesting questions that would need to be addressed...by looking more closely at how certain European countries have implemented successful systems that include payment upfront (normally a flat fee for a general consultation with a GP) and which have cut waiting lists to such an extent that they can deal with the export of patients from the UK as well ;-) "people in Europe have elected men with simple ideas in the past" mmm...your digressing with a truism (I’m assuming you’re including the UK in Europe) rather than tackling continuing to tackle the issues...shame!.. "maybe your time will come" well it's more likely that I would be able to propose workable solutions than intellectuals with Harvard degrees and over-complicating tendencies - but I won't be standing -- but thanks anyway. You see receptionists as having nothing else to do David, you really don't know much about the NHS today.....should the GP include it in the "Career Development Plan" they are enjoined to draw up for their staff ? What exactly does the recptionist do when the patient refuses to pay ? Denial of treatment is a breach of the Hunan Rights Act. What about those who are exempt from Prescription Charges ? will they pay to see the doctor but not for the drugs ? They are usually the heavier users of medical services. I have no experience anywhere outside hospitals of up-front fees to see a doctor. Germany has just introduced this system and is facing a revolt from doctors about collection. Do you think £50 is a reasonable charge, below this amount it is probably not worth collecting.....? Night calls cost around £80 to the NHS, but since this passes to the PCTs in April and is unlikely to continue due to a shortage of doctors, there is no need to worry about doctors called out after midnight. You are right in one sense David, removal of free prescriptions and imposition of a £50 fee will cut down visits to doctors, but just increase the burden on casualty and A&E so really a charge would need to be imposed on hospitals too...... Now tell me where you have encountered such a system, and how you react to paying directly for your health care.
Romulus, I am currently working in Brussels. The system here is as follows: 1) a visit to a GP has a flat fee of 20€ payable up-front(some of which is re-claimable depending upon which type of mandatory insurance scheme a citizen belongs to; 2) the first conultation + tests with a specialist also contain a discounted up-front fee - again, some if not all is reclaimable depending upon one's insurance scheme (all cover the 'big risks' - ie major operations, diseases, care after accidents, - for around €6 per month on top of one's social security payments (which ARE higher here than in the UK). Others - which are optional - cover the 'small risks' as well - small ailments + costs of X-rays etc My two experiences of doctors in my 6 years here so far are as follows: - I developed a 'frozen shoulder'. I called the surgery for an appointment and had it that afternoon. I has a 40 minute wait. The doctor gave me anti-inflammatory drugs (which are paid at full cost up front and then some of which can be re-claimed from one's insurance company). Shoulder got better and no more problems - I had some prostrate problems and thought 'mmm..better gor for a check up in case they get worse - could it be cancer (hypochpondriac me)... again - in to see doctor with 30 minute wait during the morning on which I called for appointment. Again, €20 payment up front for consultation. Sent then to book for ultra-sound examinations in another department at same clinic - appointment made with ultra-soundist for that afternoon - total cost of ultrasound tests - €65. Appointment made to see doctor for further consultation to discuss results for next week at same time. All OK - further €20 up front. Under my insurance scheme I had these costs partially re-funded. Perhaps I've been lucky - but ( I know this is anecdotal ) a work colleague of mine who developed cancer of the colon while here also had the operations and all subsequent treatment - and completely covered (because it was a 'big risk' item) and never had to wait more than a few days for any of his appointments. Other people I know report the same. It might be - as you say - unsustainable in the longer term because it is highly bureaucratic...but I have never heard mention here of people wasting time or going to the clinic unneccessarily (may be it's just less talked about? - although i can't help thinking that the upfront charge is a discincentive). I think that the system for children and OAPs may be different, I'm not sure Posted by: David at January 9, 2004 10:06 AMDavid You are working in BRUSSELS???
Frank, Inaccuracies + a porky...you really should know better!! 1) YES, on that 'other thread' (not 'site' as you state!) I stated that I would be posting no further comments on that particular thread. 2) YES you requested that I make another post on the 'other' thread - for reasons that I regard as purely fatuous. 3) NO, I have not yet declined your request to post and you have claimed that I have. A pure case of an ex-cop telling a porky, Frank. Rather, I decline now for the first and last time. By the way: as you have spelt Brussels in three different ways on this and the other thread, may I point out the accurate spellings? Brussels (English) To infer that all inhabitants of Brussels - no matter what their political views and professional activities - hold 'neo-Gramscian' views is as silly as saying that all British men hold the same kind of uptight views on sexual orientation as have been posted by a few men on the 'other' thread. In other words, a silly and inaccurate generalisation. Posted by: David at January 11, 2004 01:53 PMDavid Yes, I found the spelling quite confusing last time I was there, every sign seemed to spell it differently. The people who live and work there obviously haven't made up their minds about who they are or what they are. But the bureacracy that operates from the City seems very keen on telling us what we should be and how to run our country (particulary the Gramscian social engineers). BTW, it was my first visit to Bx and as I was robbed of all my possessions within 5 or 6 hours of arriving there, so it was also very definitely my last; you'll no doubt be pleased to hear that. But I can recommend a good restaurant: Le Truite D'Argent, not to far from the fishmarket, adjacent to the 'smallest hotel in Brussels'. Really good food and not too expensive. As for the rest of your post - learn to chuckle, for Pete's sake, it's good for your diaphragm and don't forget to eat your Bruxelles sprouts. And stop going on about being queer, then nobody will care, except you. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 11, 2004 09:58 PM I've only just realised that these postings can continue long after the arival of Melanie's next article! The debate between David and Romulus on the subject of health care is one that interests me. Frank, "it was my first visit to Bx and as I was robbed of all my possessions within 5 or 6 hours of arriving there, so it was also very definitely my last" I am very sorry to hear this. I can understand your reaction but please do not let this put you off re-visiting. Thanks for the recommendation - I don't know the restaurant in question although I know the 'smallest hotel' and the fish market square as I used to live 3 minutes walk from there. If you do return, which I think you should, so that you can enjoy the city properly, I highly recommend the restaurant 'Bij den Boer' (Flemish for 'At the Farmer's House') which is actually a misnomer because it is a fish restaurant! It does some of the best fish dishes in Brux with a great accompanying wine list (including some nice whites with no hint of acidity). If you go,try the lobster bisque to start followed by the 'cabillaud a la facon du chef' ('chef's special cod') which is cod baked in garlic with onion and tomato...great! Warning: you'll smell heavily of garlic afterwards...so if you're with your wife/girlfriend, you should both have it so that neither of you notice it on eachother! Posted by: David at January 14, 2004 12:11 PM Frank, "I highly recommend the restaurant 'Bij den Boer'" I should have added - this resto is in the fish market square! Posted by: David at January 14, 2004 12:13 PM |
