« Previous | Main | Next »

PM Glass Box

Post categories:

Eddie Mair | 17:49 UK time, Monday, 12 July 2010

glasstree1.jpg

Every night at 6pm, the PM production team gathers in a large glass box to talk about how the programme went.

THIS is your opportunity to do the same. Please leave your comment for tonight's editor Rupert Allman to read.

Comments

  • 1. At 6:05pm on 12 Jul 2010, MoC wrote:

    Lansley says that GPs will lead the NHS from the bottom up. But what about the elbow?

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 6:07pm on 12 Jul 2010, newlach wrote:

    I am disappointed that Roman Polanski will not be extradited to the USA from Switzerland to be sentenced for the serious sex crime on a 13 year old girl that he has admitted committing.

    How would those who support Polanski feel if it were their 13 year-old daughter who was plied with alcohol and drugs and then subjected to all sorts of sexual acts by an old man?

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 6:09pm on 12 Jul 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    MOD,
    Would they know the difference?

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 6:10pm on 12 Jul 2010, Galahad wrote:

    Would Facebook be performing a public service if they provided NHS mental health services with the names and addresses of all of the 10,480 followers of the "RAOUL MOAT YOU'RE A LEGEND!" facebook page?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 6:11pm on 12 Jul 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    What message does the polanski judgement send out to the wider world. If your rich and famous come to Switzerland and...

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 6:12pm on 12 Jul 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    #4 For what middle class purpose?

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 6:13pm on 12 Jul 2010, Galahad wrote:

    2 - Newlach:

    I completely agree.

    I'm also struck that Switzerland reserves the right not to extradite its citizens to the US on demand, which is one of the many rights given away by our government.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 6:19pm on 12 Jul 2010, Galahad wrote:

    6 - fjd:

    Its not ALWAYS about class, Joe! As my very working class parents often told me when they came down on me like a ton of bricks for what I thought was a minor mistake: There's some things as need nipping in the bud!

    I can't help but think that many of those Facebook followers could benefit from some help/advice/support of some sort...

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 6:20pm on 12 Jul 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    PM team. I would like to congratulate you on inviting the professor person on to talk about the whys and wherefores over the sympathies many northern working class people seem to have had in the area where Mr Moat died. He seemed to have areal grasp of why the relationship between some working class and the police is how it is. the majority of the middle class do not understand this complex relationship and how the working class feel often that they are treated differently. In this case by the police.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 6:35pm on 12 Jul 2010, Jonathan Morse wrote:

    4, 6, 8 if you join it you can see who is a member. Currently there seems to be an argument going on about people joining it then critizising it and traditionists (or the administrator) asking why they joined.

    Perhaps journalists are joining.

    People will start joining this for fun.

    I'm part of a group calling on McDonalds to do home deliveries.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 6:47pm on 12 Jul 2010, Redheylin wrote:

    Some notes on Peter Mandelson, who gave his initials to this wonderful programme.

    It turns out he was "outed" as homosexual on TV by Matthew Parris (Conservative also non-heterosexual) in 1998 and appeared publicly with his partner from 2000. His status as a famous gay man is not the outcome of anti-homosexual action.

    Now, as far as the exploitation of this fact in humour and common abuse goes, how does it differ from Tony Blair's ears, Margaret Thatcher's squint, Dennis Healey's eyebrows or Edward Heath's voice? Presumably because none of the above (by some oversight) has been condemned as criminal, immoral or irreligious.

    Yet it might reasonably be argued that such exploitation in itself shows that the modern cultural perception is that homosexuality is no more than the above, a personal characteristic that invites caricature. I do not think, at any rate, that Mandelson's career or personal life have been adversely affected, and wonder if it is not too much to expect that, having won broad public acceptance, homosexuality should be set beyond ridicule in a way that public servants' heterosexual pecadilloes never has achieved nor will achieve? Does this not, rather, perpetuate the image of homosexuality as untouchable and other?

    Particularly in the UK, there's a perception that public schools produce homosexuals - and that they also produce many "leaders": this has to be set against the claim of anti-homosexual prejudices wrecking careers. Just as it is human nature to deride the "other", so it is to open doors to one who is perceived as "one of us" - and this fuels public perception of a public-school homosexual mafia, particularly in media and the diplomatic corps, for instance, that is intelligible and thwarts acceptance of claims of discrimination in the public eye, which perceives itself as being "run by upper-class nancy-boys".

    In view of this, claims by the homosexual lobby that all homosexuals are born that way, that animals are homosexual in the wild and so forth, and that dissent from these opinions is "homophobic", can be viewed as arrogant and unscientific as they are counter-productive in terms of the "normalisation" of homosexuality. It is understandable that such arguments, in the light of commonly perceived realities, be perceived as low-level hypocrisy comparable to the "anti-semitic" accusations levelled at critics of Israel.

    When a group identifies itself as a group it will be judged as a group - and you are already halfway to prejudice. Just carry on insulting others with hostility while claiming for yourself the "right" to live without hostility and insults - and you'll soon have brought upon yourself just what you said you did not want.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 6:53pm on 12 Jul 2010, Redheylin wrote:

    9 He seemed to have areal grasp of why the relationship between some working class and the police is how it is. the majority of the middle class do not understand this complex relationship

    This is quite right, and it was perfectly clear the other week when talking with magistrates here about sentencing. Many people perceive society, to some extent, as a crime inflicted upon them at birth. Their teachers, doctors, lawyers are aliens. They have no data on which to conclude that the social contract benefits them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 6:57pm on 12 Jul 2010, Alan_N wrote:

    Joe - You seem to be suggesting that the people attached to that murderous thug are working class, although I can't see why that should be. Unless of course you are suggesting that working class people are likely to admire a 'man' who beat the living daylights out of his partner on a regular basis and was eventually jailed for beating up a child. Real role model for the downtrodden masses.
    Perhaps it’s that you want them to be working class, but again I simply can’t fathom why it would be desirable to associate perfectly respectable members of society with Moat.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 6:58pm on 12 Jul 2010, rupertthebear wrote:

    So today, and quite by chance, we found out that it is the first day of the Annual Conference for the British Society of Criminologists ( this year held at Leicester University ). What a cast list - would someone / anyone be willing to talk about how the public has reacted to the death of Raoul Moat? Err no.

    Still others were. Some unhappiness that we had returned to the story, but I think the views of those we heard from Newcastle merited some considered discussion on the programme.

    I can exclusively reveal that our head hunter has not offered any of us a part time role as Chairman of one the leading FTSE 100 companies.

    And good to know that I am not the only one who remembers the work of Sugar Minott ( admittedly it is a small club )

    Thanks for your comments so far,

    Rupert

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 6:59pm on 12 Jul 2010, sonia60 wrote:

    The item that you covered today on GPs and NHS commissioning missed six important points.

    1 Many GPs do not want this responsibility and did not take up the fund-holding option when offered by another Tory Government

    2 GPs may therefore call in private firms to provide this service(?from the USA) and it will result in the slow privatisation of the NHS

    3 The private firms can then commission private hospitals to provide treatment even though it has been shown to be substandard in the past compared to NHS teaching hospitals

    4 GPs in group practices will waste time arguing with colleagues about treatments and will have to tell patients that they cannot have something deemed by the group to be too expensive or ineffective

    5 Patients will find that they swap a postcode lottery for a GP lottery where the doctor down the road may offer treatments unable from their own doctor

    6 Finally, the UK is not the USA where hundreds of thousands are not covered by health insurance. Lets keep it that way

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 7:07pm on 12 Jul 2010, Alan_N wrote:

    14 - Rupert - I found the bit on Moat to be fascinating, in a horrifying, deeply depressing way, but keep up the good work.

    Minott? Err, never heard of him, but every day's a school day!

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 7:14pm on 12 Jul 2010, Jonathan Morse wrote:

    12 Isn't society a crime inflicted at birth? If you don't have the right parents you don't get the easy life, usually subsidised by the poor. I'm not surprised they don't get it.

    Someone on the AM blog seemed to believe that Mandelson was pushing his homosexuality to advance his cause, which maybe why there was so much support for homosexuality. I did not realise that there had been an association between homosexuality and priveledge, which may have explained this asumption. Do you have reason to believe it isn't natural, as you seem to imply in your post 11, para 6?

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 7:15pm on 12 Jul 2010, Jonathan Morse wrote:

    15 Choose a GP that doesn't have any expensive cancer patients.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 7:41pm on 12 Jul 2010, Jonathan Morse wrote:

    Will this mean, when your cancer doctor tells you you need a drug he knows the NHS can't afford, perhaps because it saves him from telling you he can't help you, it will be your GP who gets to tell you it can't be afforded.

    I forsee battles between cancer docs and GP's and less junior docs wanting to be GP's. Perhaps docs avoiding being GP's and foreign docs being brought in to be GP's like the ones who did so well in the night services and spotting Baby P.

    When we had GP Fundholding there weren't these expensive cancer drugs to upset the system.

    Do the Tories assume that GP's will willingly take up out of hours work again?

    When Boris got elected Mayor of London he got rid of the then Met Police Commissioner. I thought then that it was pay back for support he got for getting elected. Perhaps this is payback for being left alone by those who campaign against PCT's and the decisions they have had to make to protect NHS funds for all at the expense of pushy cancer victims who may have been told they could be cured with a miracle drug because the cancer doctor couldn't tell them there was nothing that could be done. 'Miracle drug' in the sense of the guy in the sky that most who comment here don't believe in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 8:00pm on 12 Jul 2010, Lady_Sue wrote:

    "58. At 09:57am on 12 Jul 2010, Looternite wrote:

    52. Big Sister

    Thanks for your description of your experiance of the 11+.

    As I have said before,and been disbelieved*, I never sat the 11+ because the headmaster considered me not to be grammar school material. Perhaps it was my secondhand clothes, scuffed shoes and scabby knees."


    Looter, I read this comment (which I had seen before) again today, and have to ask whether or not, now that you are an adult, you might consider that your headmaster felt perhaps you simply were not up to it and did not want you to be horribly disillusioned as a youngster? Nothing at all to do with your second hand clothes, merely that, in his opinion, you would be better suited looking elsewhere for career prospects? It may have been a kindness on his part and subsequently misinterpreted on yours?

    Did you ever take yourself off to higher education later, as I did aged 29 and others on this blog did also?

    *I certainly did believe what you said - I merely question the reasons behind it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 00:18am on 13 Jul 2010, GotToTheEnd wrote:

    This government is now proving that despite its claims to be reformist and democratic, it has little idea of either concept.

    Two current matters clearly demonstate a complete lack of grip by the government on basic prinicples of democracy.

    First, it doesn't matter what party leaders in the HoC say of their arrangements, a government is only in power and its passing legslation only possible when it commands a majority in the House.

    The Lib Dem Con men, qua two parties, may be in a majority but that does NOT mean this pair have a majority in the House and country on issues like those being mangled by the failing schools minister.

    They cannot expect the Civil Service to draft legislation that is not enjoying the supporting spirit of those majorities. And cuts to school refurbishment and rebuild programmes do not have a heartfelt majority in either the House, the country, or in terms of the electoral percentages at the last election.

    Ministers like Gove can bludgeon their Civil Servants as much as they like, they will get no coherence from them until they, sweet old fashioned things that they are, believe that what they are being asked to do has, in spirit rather than whipped bare fact, a majority of the heart in the House and in the country.

    Secondly, the obvious weaknesses of PR systems like d'Hondt and STV are that very small minorities can wind up with no representation at all, despite that 'very small' support being worth in pure terms at least one seat in the Assembly.

    The NI riots prove the point. But the government doesn't understand it. For the NI Office briefings claim that Nationalist dissidence cannot be the cause...... since dissent has no support...... because the PR system in NI gave it no representation!!!! Which closed mind circular thinking can only be the work of political advisors who understand nothing, at the direction of a Minister who understands less.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 3:42pm on 13 Jul 2010, lucien desgai wrote:

    11 Redheylin
    That's just group-think.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC 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.