ChatterBank1 min ago
Is Britain run by the 'Left'
34 Answers
Even though we have a Tory led government in power, it seems that the 'Lefties' and 'Luvvies' still run Britain.
http://tinyurl.com/5s6alyr
I think Quentin Letts has a point, do others agree or disagree?
http://tinyurl.com/5s6alyr
I think Quentin Letts has a point, do others agree or disagree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
i think the majority of people in this country are naturally liberal or centre (ie nothing exercises them very much)
i don't really understand what point the article is hoping to make though - the country isn't "run" by one person on twitter, nor is it "run" by channel 4 (which i didn't realise was a public body - why have ads then?)
the country is run by the government, which has to be both conservtive AND liberal, as it's a coalition
i don't really understand what point the article is hoping to make though - the country isn't "run" by one person on twitter, nor is it "run" by channel 4 (which i didn't realise was a public body - why have ads then?)
the country is run by the government, which has to be both conservtive AND liberal, as it's a coalition
-- answer removed --
I think Mr Letts has taken an at best nebulous concept and spun it into some kind of 'left-ist' conspiracy theory.
The notion that famous people gave voice to their concerns is almost as old as fame itself, and with the ever increasing outlets for such opinions, it can be perceived that they have far more sway than is actually true.
The key is perception. At one end of the scale, people who think Eddie Izzard is funny, and Stepeh Fry is wise arfe unliely to be swayed in their political opinions by such views.
Similarly, at the other end of the scale, people who think that Katie Price or Ant & Dec are movers and shakers at the seat of power are equally unlikely to take their opinions as gospel.
Why? because the public are not, despite the chattering classes ( of whom Mr Letts is a senior figure) as gullible as all that.
It is the likes of Mr Letts who pass ludicrous comments of the like that Shilpa Shetty should fund the Asian network because she is rich enough. using that logic, Mr Cameron should fund the BBC!
This is simply designed - as is so much of the Mail's opinion pieces - to whip up the froth on the Notting Hill cappucinos - the vast majority do not bother to read what Mr Letts says - and would be less than impressed with his faulty logic if they did.
The notion that famous people gave voice to their concerns is almost as old as fame itself, and with the ever increasing outlets for such opinions, it can be perceived that they have far more sway than is actually true.
The key is perception. At one end of the scale, people who think Eddie Izzard is funny, and Stepeh Fry is wise arfe unliely to be swayed in their political opinions by such views.
Similarly, at the other end of the scale, people who think that Katie Price or Ant & Dec are movers and shakers at the seat of power are equally unlikely to take their opinions as gospel.
Why? because the public are not, despite the chattering classes ( of whom Mr Letts is a senior figure) as gullible as all that.
It is the likes of Mr Letts who pass ludicrous comments of the like that Shilpa Shetty should fund the Asian network because she is rich enough. using that logic, Mr Cameron should fund the BBC!
This is simply designed - as is so much of the Mail's opinion pieces - to whip up the froth on the Notting Hill cappucinos - the vast majority do not bother to read what Mr Letts says - and would be less than impressed with his faulty logic if they did.
Bear in mind this is the Quentin Letts who only last week thought it was a good idea to go onto BBC national radio (R2 I think) and argue that buying works of art should take precedence over dialisys machines.
There is an influential socio-economic group who hold a majority in significant professions such as law, the arts, the media, education etc
They are predominantly liberal. I think that 'leftie' or 'left wing' are terms that are often inaccurate and always unhelpful. The Chinese govt are 'left wing' and I don't think they would get along with Eddie Izzard or Helena Kennedy.
This group is predominantly 'liberal' because - as is well documented - education and the broadening of people's minds tends to create 'liberal' values and attitudes regardless of class.
I think it's a very good thing. Contrary to Quentin, I think it does reflect the overall preferences of the British people who are inherently not 'illiberal' or intolerant of other people, other ideas or other approaches to life.
.
There is an influential socio-economic group who hold a majority in significant professions such as law, the arts, the media, education etc
They are predominantly liberal. I think that 'leftie' or 'left wing' are terms that are often inaccurate and always unhelpful. The Chinese govt are 'left wing' and I don't think they would get along with Eddie Izzard or Helena Kennedy.
This group is predominantly 'liberal' because - as is well documented - education and the broadening of people's minds tends to create 'liberal' values and attitudes regardless of class.
I think it's a very good thing. Contrary to Quentin, I think it does reflect the overall preferences of the British people who are inherently not 'illiberal' or intolerant of other people, other ideas or other approaches to life.
.
While we're indulging in wild generalisations, let's remember Harold Wilson, who advised protesters to join the establishment.. A lot of them did.
Even better, let's dig up the Reds under the beds (if you're old enough to remember...
http://www.dailymail....bour-politicians.html
Even better, let's dig up the Reds under the beds (if you're old enough to remember...
http://www.dailymail....bour-politicians.html
Point in the article is that he quotes Eddie Izzard from Twitter? So is he saying that no one can have a personal opinion if it differes from his own.
As Zeuhl states, given Letts statement last week, which I never read, can any one seriously trust his judgement on anything.
It should also be observed for whom Letts writes, we are constatantly bombarded with the idea from the the right wing press that the BBC is run by "lefties", however we never hear how the press is, in the main, run by righties, who never try to conceal thier loyalties lie.
It suits certain agendas to look for "reds under the beds".
If your looking for any sort of extremis in the British media looking at the press would be the first place to look.
As Zeuhl states, given Letts statement last week, which I never read, can any one seriously trust his judgement on anything.
It should also be observed for whom Letts writes, we are constatantly bombarded with the idea from the the right wing press that the BBC is run by "lefties", however we never hear how the press is, in the main, run by righties, who never try to conceal thier loyalties lie.
It suits certain agendas to look for "reds under the beds".
If your looking for any sort of extremis in the British media looking at the press would be the first place to look.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
koode
Totally agree, but I cannot see the rest of the present Tories, voting no confidence in him, which they should now be considering.
He is the most unpopular Tory PM we have had, he was hardly any true Tories choice when he appeared out of the wilderness.
Regarding voting reform, it is time that the British people voted in their Prime Minister, and why leave it there, we should also vote in the whole Cabinet.
Totally agree, but I cannot see the rest of the present Tories, voting no confidence in him, which they should now be considering.
He is the most unpopular Tory PM we have had, he was hardly any true Tories choice when he appeared out of the wilderness.
Regarding voting reform, it is time that the British people voted in their Prime Minister, and why leave it there, we should also vote in the whole Cabinet.
