Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Socialist Libya and the BBC: What is the point of Conservative M.P.s – or another one for Ian B. to rub his hands about.

On Monday morning (repeated in the evening) the main BBC radio propaganda show is called “Start the Week”. Presented by the lifelong man of the left, Andrew Marr (who also presents the main BBC television politics show on on Sunday morning), it deals with both cultural and current affairs matters with studio guests plugging their books and public talks – and the guests (by some strange chance) tend to be mostly from the left.

This week the discussion was mostly about Libya. The guests were one historian (whose name I can not remember – nor can I remember anything the man said), the “ex” representative of George Soros (an ex British government minister, and United Nations person, by the name of “Maddox-Brown” – an upper class establishment leftist, straight from Central Casting) and socialist Baroness Kennedy. And a fouth guest – a Conservative party Member of Parliament.

Barroness Kennedy explained that the problem with Libya, indeed the world, was greedy capitalism – a selfish desire for business gain, rather than seeking the “common good”. And that this wicked obsession with material advantage prevented world government (or governance) which (of course) Baroness Kennedy treated as an automatically noble objective and leading to respect for “human rights”.

In a show of balance, Andrew M.  turned to the forth guest – a Conservative MP who had just written a biography of the dictator of Libya. “You may not agree with all that….” said Andrew M.

And what did the Conservative Member of Parliament say? Did he point out that the definitions of “human rights” in both the world and European conventions are a hopelessly confused mess, combining both restrictions on government power (so called “negative rights”) and excuses for MORE government power (so called “positive rights” – such as “anti discrimination” principles and welfare benefits)?

Did he stand for national independence against the evil of such concepts as the “international community”?

Did the M.P. even point out that the dicator of Libya was a life long (indeed fantatical) socialist as committed as Baroness Kennedy is to “the common good” above any reactionary property rights?

No – the Conservative Member of Parliament said “I agree with Helena Kennedy”.

What a total waste of space – no wonder the BBC allowed a Conservative MP on to the show, they could pretend it was “balanced” whilst (in practice) it was just yet another leftist disinformation and propaganda exercise.

“But Paul – the Conservative M.P. had pointed out earlier in the show that dictator of Libya had based himself on Nasser of Egypt”. Trouble with that is that the Conservative MP had not explained that Nasser was a socialist.

So all the people listening at home would get from the show is….. one dictator models himself on another dictator, no doubt this one (Nasser) was also a tool of big business and the rich just like Baroness Kennedy explains……

I am not Ian B. – I do believe that some Conservative M.P.s (some of the time) do some good (for example it will only be a few Conservative M.P.s who will denounce the despicable increase in government “overseas aid” this afternoon). But this Conservative M.P. at this time, was a waste of space. The BBC might as well have had an empty chair – as, I suspect, they worked out in advance.


  1. Robert Edwards says:

    I have proved – empirically – that listening to Radio 4 is actually bad for the blood pressure. It can also cause nausea first thing in the morning. I occasionally dip into the iPlayer if (rarely) there is something worth hearing.

    But the prospect of hearing a Tory MP sucking up to Radio 4 (and particularly Start The Week) would break my nerve completely. So thank you for the precis.

    It is explicit in the BBC agenda that leftism is inherently benign and virtuous; the fate of the hundreds of millions of its casualties is ‘an inconvenient truth’ as the rotund ex-VP might put it.

  2. Sam Duncan says:

    Bah. Stole my thunder, Paul. I had a post all ready to go about this, that I’d have put up yesterday if the string between here and Zanzibar hadn’t broken.

    Mind you, yours is better. Not least because I only caught a couple of minutes, and thought it was Today. The world could do with a lot less Baroness Kennedy. My post was really about one thing she said in particular (that being pretty much all I heard), bemoaning the “introduction of business values into the public sector”.

    Daft socialist bat. As I shouted at the time, to no avail.

    What’s been introduced into the “public” sector is what are fondly imagined to be business values by people who’ve never been anywhere near a functioning business in their entire working lives, and have a bizarre 19th Century Marxist idea of what one is. This was betrayed in Kennedy’s case by her constant repetition that it’s all about how much you get paid. Well, ye-es, but it’s also about how you earn that pay. In business, you do it by providing a better service. In the “public” sector, you get paid whether you’re any bloody good at what you’re supposed to be doing or not. And the best way to increase your wealth isn’t to work harder or better, it’s to stab your “friends” in the back, claw your way to power, and vote yourself rich.

    I don’t suppose the Conservative bloke said any of that.

  3. Ian B says:

    Paul, I think my own view on this would be that from my perspective, whatever the Conservative Party once was, it no longer is, and it is now just another Progressivist Party, albeit containing a remnant rump of various Thatcherites, classical liberals, old Tories and what have you.

    I don’t know what these people should do, since there don’t seem many options open to them. They can leave this party, and sink into “independent” obscurity, or they can stay and support a party with which they now have no common cause, in the hope of at least having some platform from which to speak.

    I have a general feeling that, from a historical perspective, we have not yet reached that point in history at which a general reaction can occur, and we have no real idea when that point is going to be reached. As such, if I were a non-leftist Tory MP, I would probably just keep my head down and keep buggering on for now, until such time as the necessary reactionary social formation can arise.

  4. Ian B says:

    Sam, we’ve had a few occasions when more than one CCinZ blogger has posted on the same issue with various perspectives. Even very different ones. I’d like to read your post. I think you should post it.

  5. Sam Duncan says:

    Well I pretty much did just then, Ian. Most of that comment, from “Today” until the second-last sentence, was lifted straight from it. There was a bit of general ranting about the BBC to start off with, but nothing that would be missed.

  6. Paul Marks says:

    Ian – I agree with every word you say here, accept the bit about keeping one’s head down.

    No – “do not go gently into that good night – rage, RAGE, against the dying of the light”.

    Who knows, if a few Members of Parliament denounce what is happening loud enough, perhaps the people will be warned.

    The odds are against it (agreed), but it is better than doing nothing.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: