I'm glad that my blog yesterday has provoked a good debate about the rights and wrongs of the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage of cash for honours. I note that . Allow me to note delicately that this does reveal where he's coming from and, working for the 91Èȱ¬, I would not be permitted to take that view or, indeed, the opposite one!
Jump to more content from this blog
I'm Nick Robinson. Welcome to Newslog, my blog about what's going on in and around politics.
For the latest updates across 91Èȱ¬ blogs,
visit the Blogs homepage.
|
Nick Robinson: |
 |
|
Douglas Fraser: |
 |
|
Brian Taylor: |
 |
 |
|
Richard Black: |
 |
|
Jonathan Amos: |
 |
You can stay up to date with Nick Robinson's Newslog via these feeds.
Nick Robinson's Newslog Feed(RSS)
Nick Robinson's Newslog Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
91Èȱ¬ © 2014 The 91Èȱ¬ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
Comments
The key concern by those who suggest the political centre is dead and uninspiring ground seems to be with mediocrity and evasiveness. Indeed, this quality may be found at the dramatic extremes. Looking beyond both, I believe, the centre ground is where the real action is, and that by clearing the fog this may be more easily seen.
In my mind, this neatly reconciles the philosophical differences between East and West, the all action individualism versus the restrained consensus. Looking deeper, I think, the unstable obsession with achievement and stability is unhealthy, and a difficulty politicians, media, and public are aware of, as evidenced by Steve Richard’s article.
By developing a calm and positive consensus, more simple, clear, and effective law may be developed, and minds may be more properly focused on quality versus quantity. Instead of the banality of the rat race, a more sublime politics may have space to emerge. Developing this dynamic is counter-intuitive but more effective in the long-term.
By patience and gentleness, one may correct the most wayward child.
"AYE" for to see us,as others see us
I shouldn't worry Nick. There is no danger of anyone who has heard even just one of your broadcasts not knowing "where you are coming from" on any party political topic.
Cash for honors? Isn't that how the aristocricy got started in the first place, those with the most money and power became the aristocrats and everyone else became their slaves? Why change things now?
Nick, regarding Steve Richards, and your comment on "where he's coming from". I suppose you mean that he is coming from an anti-91Èȱ¬ position, as evidenced by his criticism of the Beeb recently.
And in regard to your "not being permitted" to take his view on the "deranged" loans for peerages police enquiry, (or indeed the opposite view) I thought the arguments centred around the tone that the 91Èȱ¬ reports were taking and those tones WERE interpreted as "taking a position".
Anyway, I expect you and other 91Èȱ¬ journalists will have a chance within the next month or so to display your neutrality in the good old-fashioned 91Èȱ¬ way, when the police report goes to the CPS.
If the case is insubstantial then it will presumably be dropped and the Beeb will stop looking for the "unknown unknowns". I hope so anyway.
Nick
I've found it quite laughable to see Blairite commentators suggesting that the whole loans scandal is some political frippery which can be laughed off. This while Downing Street is apparently in panic, with senior advisors enlisting the services of personal lawyers in order to ensure that they don't end up with the blame. As for your tone, you keep up the good work. You've shed light where other political journalists have simply gone along with the spin.
Dear Nick,
Unopposed immigration, this is planned, it is not just happening, it is what the socialists want.Ethnic change by immigration, to influence the attitudes of "The British," to thin out the vote on Europe, which will happen, the Federal Super State is on us, it is an issue and a policy we have never voted on.( DEVOLUTION BY TRICKERY,AND ---REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES.)) There is the clue, the more immigrants we take in, the less of an obstruction when passing legislation, this was planned in 1954, by the socialists of Europe, so that never again would we go to war, we would be too multinational, and interrelated.The European Super State will be fact by 2010.
Dear Mr Robinson,
Having heard your interview with this morning with Gordon Brown on Radio 4, I was interested to hear your pointing out (on of!) his mantra, "new world order". I feel very uncomfortable with what may be meant by this phrase; not least due to the fact that - during the height of the first Iraque invasion - I remember seeing a disturbing television clip of George Bush Snr using this exact same phrase. The 'disturbing' aspect for me was that whilst he was saying this there were two men in robes standing on either side of him (priest-like, but NOT priests; well... certainly not in the Christian sense!) making strange synchronised hand signals toward the crowd. The other disturbing factor was that, though this was shown during a news bulletin in the dead of night, it was NOT shown again during daytime/ evening tv; I wonder why? My thoughts are that, AT THE VERY LEAST, the spectacle would have looked very strange to your bog-standard viewer. However, to those that might be considered amongst the more thoughtful (if not 'paranoid' as I was at the time!), it seemed to smack of something more sinister. I just wonder what is at the bottom of this interesting 'mantra'/ phrase and whether there is a commonality between those who are using it? Certainly, the common circumstance appears to be the 'coallitionised' west and invasion of Iraque. What more, I wonder?