Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

crashmonitor

Peter Hitchens Takes On The ''urban Elite''

Recommended Posts

I suppose he has got a point, there are things that are pretty much censored topics and not open for debate. Whether you agree with him or not it was an amusing encounter with the rest of the panel who were establishment urban elite including Dimbleby himself.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TrNDuocOYTU

"Well represented here tonight.....and largely incompetent" :lol::lol: I flagged this rant up a couple of days ago when I saw it on the night, thought he was being given a lot of free reign for QT? Further strengthens my view that the media are trying to deal with the new groundswell in opinion against the system (if that is what is happening) by allowing this type of rant + the Brand rant to go out as some sort of "release valve" for the sheeple, giving the impression that these views are being given a fair airing before we ( the elites hope) carry on as before. IMO the whole concept of QT is to pretend that there is a forum on the MSM for question and discussion involving the little people, there isn`t though, it is heavily edited and scripted as far as I can see. I feel the PTB/media overestimate the reach and influence these sorts of programmes have nowadays, are there really that many sheeple watching this for anything other than entertainment value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There certainly appears to be a very clear opening up on 'out there's health and food issues recently as well.

The reasons for it are another thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't watched a complete episode of either for years but from the clips I'm seeing, Question Time is the New Have I Got News For You, and Have I Got News For You is the New Question Time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Hitchens is making the same point as Russell Brand, the current UK political system offers no choice at all and there is a barrier to any alternatives.

Everyone else on that panel has massive self interest in maintaining the status quo.

Owen Jones often makes good points but is living in a fantasy that the Labour party will wake up, see sense and return to its roots. It won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well represented here tonight.....and largely incompetent" :lol::lol: I flagged this rant up a couple of days ago when I saw it on the night, thought he was being given a lot of free reign for QT? Further strengthens my view that the media are trying to deal with the new groundswell in opinion against the system (if that is what is happening) by allowing this type of rant + the Brand rant to go out as some sort of "release valve" for the sheeple, giving the impression that these views are being given a fair airing before we ( the elites hope) carry on as before. IMO the whole concept of QT is to pretend that there is a forum on the MSM for question and discussion involving the little people, there isn`t though, it is heavily edited and scripted as far as I can see. I feel the PTB/media overestimate the reach and influence these sorts of programmes have nowadays, are there really that many sheeple watching this for anything other than entertainment value?

... a year or two back I argued (not without some opposition) on this board that Have I Got News For You (yes, I have a hang up with that program) was, just that, a release valve which allowed people to see some of their frustrations played out on screen without any risk of effecting real change; ably crewed by popular(?), state-sanctioned dissenters (ho ho) such as Ian Hislop and Shami Chakrabarti.

A year or two on, does anyone still fancy sticking up for these characters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Hitchens is making the same point as Russell Brand, the current UK political system offers no choice at all and there is a barrier to any alternatives.

Everyone else on that panel has massive self interest in maintaining the status quo.

Owen Jones often makes good points but is living in a fantasy that the Labour party will wake up, see sense and return to its roots. It won't happen.

Well if Scotland voted for independence, and UKIP took a massive slice of the vote (it is obvious the threat of UKIP is influencing how the Cons are running their campaign just now) that would certainly shake things up a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... a year or two back I argued (not without some opposition) on this board that Have I Got News For You (yes, I have a hang up with that program) was, just that, a release valve which allowed people to see some of their frustrations played out on screen without any risk of effecting real change; ably crewed by popular(?), state-sanctioned dissenters (ho ho) such as Ian Hislop and Shami Chakrabarti.

A year or two on, does anyone still fancy sticking up for these characters?

I agree completely. Most things on the Idiot Lantern are just trying to sell you something (the editing pace of ads now could be said to be trying to bludgeon us into a "buy" state, they are that intrusive) or create a "narrative" that is to the benefit of someone higher up the tree. I understand the need for some cohesion in society, and back in the day some chap with a plummy accent saying "it is under control" and "we can all carry on safe in the knowledge blah blah" was no doubt comforting, and arguably necessary to keep things ticking along, but of recent years the Box in the Corner (that is all it is, although it rules many people`s lives) has gone too Farenheit 451 for my tastes, and switching off or recording what you want to see seems the best bet. As you said on another thread, how the media tries to assimilate and eventually crush dissent is an interesting concept to keep an eye on.

What I do wonder though is how far some of the presenters take their understanding of their job - are they Just presenting a TV show, or Taking part in a worthy effort to keep society gelling together by presenting simple narratives that people can relate to and understand, or is it something more sinister, I know what Icke might think, and maybe that goes too far, but you have to wonder what goes on in the head of someone who reads the "news" day in day out from a teleprompter, or presents vacuous bilge every morning to the nation (if they are still watching?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Das Hitch responding to some of the flak he received over his QT appearance here...

Do try a bit of Deep Thought, Michael

Even though I don't agree with many of Hitchens views and occasionally drift away half way through his postings I do keep his blog on my RSS feeds. He really does run it like an old school personal blog; occasionally writing rambling posts (I'm guessing in his PJs), getting into spats with commentators, that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... a year or two back I argued (not without some opposition) on this board that Have I Got News For You (yes, I have a hang up with that program) was, just that, a release valve which allowed people to see some of their frustrations played out on screen without any risk of effecting real change; ably crewed by popular(?), state-sanctioned dissenters (ho ho) such as Ian Hislop and Shami Chakrabarti.

A year or two on, does anyone still fancy sticking up for these characters?

Seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. The BBC continues to prove itself to be little more than a government mouthpiece (not party political, just pro-establishment). Any real political dissent being voiced above and beyond gentle mockery along the lines of "all politicians/bankers are liars/thieves, ho ho" would be dealt with in the edit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. The BBC continues to prove itself to be little more than a government mouthpiece (not party political, just pro-establishment). Any real political dissent being voiced above and beyond gentle mockery along the lines of "all politicians/bankers are liars/thieves, ho ho" would be dealt with in the edit.

Exactly, don`t know why they are still around. I was hoping the Saville thing would bring them down, but it seems not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do wonder though is how far some of the presenters take their understanding of their job - are they Just presenting a TV show, or Taking part in a worthy effort to keep society gelling together by presenting simple narratives that people can relate to and understand, or is it something more sinister

A few people at the top will have an understanding of how the system works.

Most of the folk underneath them will either be self-censoring because they know what's expected of them or they were filtered through and selected by the system because they genuinely see the world in the 'right' sort of way.

I suspect that most large institutions develop their own self-regulation/ inertia naturally. Not that much conscious tweaking required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what's more false than a third-stringer from the Daily Mail posing as a champion of the downtrodden? The BBC is a model of integrity and fair play by comparison with Rothermere's scabrous hate-sheet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what's more false than a third-stringer from the Daily Mail posing as a champion of the downtrodden? The BBC is a model of integrity and fair play by comparison with Rothermere's scabrous hate-sheet.

I cast my mind back to recent wars and attempted wars and the BBC rates way lower than Hitchens impo.

Hitchens, for example, was pleading with people till he was blue in the face to do whatever they could to influence the parliamentary vote on Syrian intervention...

Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

(that's when something like 80%+ of the population was reportedly (not by the BBC) against intervention and yet the vote for intervention was defeated by only a handful of votes from their 'representatives')

That's not me sticking up for Hitchens, and certainly not the Mail, in general. I'm just not sure there's much point in debating which is the least offensive smelling log in the cesspool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key common factor in Hitchens and Brand is that they both are talking about the current system needing change, that's what sets them aside from the normal letting off steam pundit who invariably recommends supporting the opposition party.

Polly Toynbee, Owen Jones, Melanie Philips, Richard Littlejohn are all pundits constantly reinforcing the status quo with hints of dissent. 'If you agree with my views than the best thing you can do it vote x'

Question time is the same old faces supporting the same ideas.

The presenters do believe the current system works as it clearly does for them their family and their social circle. Thats the indicators most people look to. Hence Paxmans defence of democracy even though I fail to see how any British adult could have lived through the last 30 years and believe that we have a working healthy democracy, we have neo liberal economics, whoever is in power just supports that. Anything else is detail and froth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As best as I can make out, Melanie Philips can't see any problem in the world that bombing Iran wouldn't solve.

There was a brilliant moment when she appeared on QT a few months ago and started ranting at the audience for laughing about the threat from Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Even though I don't agree with many of Hitchens views and occasionally drift away half way through his postings I do keep his blog on my RSS feeds. He really does run it like an old school personal blog; occasionally writing rambling posts (I'm guessing in his PJs), getting into spats with commentators, that sort of thing.

I think you highlight half the problem there. Expressing your thoughts in more than a soundbite is now considered "old school".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you highlight half the problem there. Expressing your thoughts in more than a soundbite is now considered "old school".

I read recently that Twitter might do away with the 140 character limit

... so that it can fit ads in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presenters do believe the current system works as it clearly does for them their family and their social circle.

The most insidious aspect of politics is that those that benefit by the status quo have managed to stifle debate by making certain topics off limit. Immigration probably benefits me, it probably benefits Peter Hitchen, but there are losers, pretty much anybody under 40 imo.

Peter Hitchens may be urban elite too, but at least he is altruistic enough to realise that certain members of society are being shafted to support the likes of him and the Polly Toynbee's of this world. Urban elite, but definitely not establishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brand and Hitchens really are unlikely bedfellows. The poster child for smug leftie cool and the go to man for supercilious social-conservative disdain suddenly find themselves singing from the same sheet. Didn't see that one coming, I always thought they were both pretty appalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brand and Hitchens really are unlikely bedfellows. The poster child for smug leftie cool and the go to man for supercilious social-conservative disdain suddenly find themselves singing from the same sheet. Didn't see that one coming, I always thought they were both pretty appalling.

The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible, or something like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few people at the top will have an understanding of how the system works.

A good point. I think this is where it starts. Within our political system and with party whips, dissent is soon snuffed out. Anyone faintly radical (Robin Cook, Claire Short) is ejected if they don't resign by themselves.

But then in a party system of democracy, I suppose this is the way it has to work. Up to a point.

Everyone else on that panel has massive self interest in maintaining the status quo.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think it's more along the lines of the above. A kind of "herd compliance mentality".

Seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. The BBC continues to prove itself to be little more than a government mouthpiece (not party political, just pro-establishment). Any real political dissent being voiced above and beyond gentle mockery along the lines of "all politicians/bankers are liars/thieves, ho ho" would be dealt with in the edit.

I'm not sure why people hold this view. Although I don't watch QT much, I have never had any sense that Dimbleby exerts any particular bias. Within the confines of the programme I think he's a good chair. You could then go on to argue about the confines and extent of the programme itself.

There was a brilliant moment when she [Melanie Phillips] appeared on QT a few months ago and started ranting at the audience for laughing about the threat from Iran.

I saw that.

And what's more false than a third-stringer from the Daily Mail posing as a champion of the downtrodden? The BBC is a model of integrity and fair play by comparison with Rothermere's scabrous hate-sheet.

And, the same as above with Melanie, as soon as someone presents themselves as writing for The Daily Mail they lose a certain amount of credibility with me immediately. I also recall Ken Livingstone's exchange with the Jewish reporter who worked for them and think he was absolutely right to say what he said.

My sense is that Hitchens struggles with change. Any change. That if only we could return to those halcyon days (whenever they were) everything would be just lovely.

I actually agree with many of the points he makes. Or, raises. And he is right to raise them. Though I do detect a theme of "All that we need to do is to force everyone to call themselves Christian, get rid of the immigrants, and impose a 7pm curfew". In other words, "everyone must be just like me. Then the world would be a better place".

He appears to argue for greater democracy, or perhaps real democracy, but actually I don't think that's his true agenda, and in implying or asserting that there's some kind of malevolent evil at the heart of Westminster out to destroy the country deliberately is to ignore human nature and how that leads us where we are.

Politicians always seek the "quick fixes". Like Quantatative Easing and Help to Buy for example. Whether or not they are in the interests of the people of this country viewed as a whole doesn't really figure. It's what is good for "the system". The system demands these sorts of actions and viewing the actions of the Conservatives since the formation of the coalition, I sense that the party - as an "organism that wants to survive" is more interested in victory at the next election than what is necessarily good for the country.

The system does need a shake-up but I think that what's required is to look again at what Government is for, constitutionally enshrine limitations to its power (which would for example have prevented QE and Help to Buy) and force politicians to work within that system. To actually solve problems rather than cross bridges when we come to them, and endlessly seek sources of money (or to pick up one of his themes - cheap labour) to throw around like confetti at any problem which rears its head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   218 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.