The Tale Of A Politician And Two Magnates

Scotland's First Minister is certainly under fire this week over his relationships with two of the western world's business tycoons.

The faux fury of opposition leaders was rather pathetic - a generous description - at FMQs yesterday when they questioned Alex Salmond about his tea drinking and dining habits in the company of Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump. (To call Donald Trump 'The Donald' is a misuse of what is normally regarded as an affectionate style of nickname by the media).

Rupert Murdoch is displayed as a tyrant these days although it's not so long ago he was wined and dined by the great and good - and not so great or good - of British politics.  Today these same politicians are depicting Murdoch as singlehandedly ruining British politics.  Of course it's true that Murdoch is influential, as would be expected of a person who owns The Times and the best selling Sun, but surely his influence is overestimated.  Murdoch didn't destroy British politics - the leaders of British politics, by default, made Murdoch influential. Murdoch is only as powerful as politicians have allowed him to be.
He's not the first - and won't be the last - newspaper proprietor to gain influence in Britain.

Now British politics wants Murdoch banished from Britain's shores, but will his removal improve British political life?  Of course not, because so many politicians have been cosying up to media owners/editors for years and have alienated themselves from the public. It's so much easier to meet with a media boss than to face a room full of voters who have no hesitation in voicing their everyday concerns.

Today's leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg consider themselves 'people friendly' when their advisors organise the media's presence at one of their public Q & A sessions. But the voters recognise just how staged managed these events are. Remember when Mandelson was caught on film 'directing' one of Tony Blair's 'public' meetings? No politician today has the skill to communicate directly with the public without the use of umpteen press officers who distribute press releases daily to Britain's media.

Certainly Alex Salmond's association with the media mogul has created world news and gaining international attention can do little harm to the First Minister when he insists his actions were all concentrated on keeping jobs in Scotland. Can the opposition parties prove otherwise?  No. 

One of Murdoch's staff acted immorally and Murdoch is aware his empire will never fully recover from the justifiable fall out. If he decides to sell the Sun and The Times there's little doubt the new owners will also meet with political leaders. It's the skill of the leaders which will establish the level of these relationships but I would suggest that offering a cup of tea during any meeting is not recommended.

As for Donald Trump's petulant, contradictory performance at Holyrood this week, it's hardly worth mentioning. His response, when challenged to provide evidence that building thousands more wind farms would destroy Scottish tourism, must have made his PR office shudder with embarrassment: "I am the evidence. I  am considered a world-class expert in tourism."

Will Trump's brash outpourings affect overseas investment in Scotland?  I think not, but he can be given a little credit for bringing the serious issue of windfarms back to the top of the Scottish political agenda.

Tweet

Should Scotland Have Its Own Honours System?

Last week the false indignation from the various political parties about Alex Salmond's association with News International was entertaining.  Johann Lamont in Newsnight Scotland gave a excruciating performance when attempting to defile the First Minister's association with Rupert Murdoch and Willie Rennie was no better.

All credit to the SNP for making public the list of all the First Minister's meetings with members of News International along with copies of correspondence with Rupert Murdoch.  I could see nothing in the letters denoting impropriety, on the contrary, the FM shows his determination to talk up and for Scotland.  The prompt publications rather took the opposition parties by surprise and left them floundering around in a desperate attempt to score a hit on Alex Salmond.  Their plans backfired.

The accusation that the First Minister was involved in the nomination of the Stagecoach owner Brian Souter - the SNP's biggest financial backer - is more serious. Mr Souter was given his award for services to transport and the voluntary sector in June following a request from the Edinburgh administration the UK Cabinet Office stated.

The Labour MP, Cathy Jamieson, investigated the nomination through UK government channels and the response she received last week stated the nomination 'came from the Scottish Government'. A spokesman for the First Minister said the SNP ministers had nothing to do with the nomination, saying the process had been handled by non-political officials. A spokesman stated:

"When nominations are received by the Scottish Government, the honours group in our civil service supports the permanent secretary in putting forward nominations to the UK Cabinet Office Honours Committee.

"Under this system, honours announced in June would have been submitted six months in advance.

"Ministers make no nominations, and are only told of honours shortly before they are announced, so they can welcome those being recognised."

The UK peerage system is distasteful in its present form. Currently the Scottish government has an Independent Honours Committee which consists of civil servants led by the permanent secretary and it makes recommendations to the UK Cabinet Office Honours Committee.  Is it necessary to have such a committee in Holyrood? Why do nominations need to pass through Holyrood?

If Scotland wants to honour citizens who have acted for the good of their fellow man then let us have our own system for acknowledging their contributions. The prize, instead of a seat in the House of Lords, could be the freedom of their town/city. Any other suggestions will be welcomed.

Tweet

Can We Wait That Long?

We’ve had the NOTW and now we’ve had the tragedy in Norway. We’re living in an economy, which has at best stalled, and depending where you live is in recession. We have a Chancellor telling us he’s doing a wonderful job and the UK is a safe haven (for whom and from what?). He also claimed he’d brought interest rates down with the only evidence being he’d reduced the interest rate being charged to Ireland for the loans he gave them. That’s the loans we can’t afford to make. Not to mention the £9.4 billion he signed away to the IMF, which is money we don’t have and which we have to borrow.

During all of this the MSM have been at their best. Very little criticism, little if any real reporting and jumping on the bandwagon galore. They have grabbed the extreme right wing link of the mass murderer in Norway and are already speaking about bringing forward additional legislation to gain the powers they deem necessary to further restrict legitimate views along with extremist views, which of course are the legitimate target.

The left wing MSM march forward emboldened by their apparent triumph over reducing Murdoch’s power whilst maintaining and developing their influence. Where is the voice of reason? Where is the voice that argues for debate? The BBC will reduce the input from AGW sceptics based on last weeks convenient and contrived report no further debate there either.

The Chancellor. The Government. Have they the slightest idea of the seriousness of the state of the UK economy? 0.2% growth in the economy is shocking, disgraceful and wasteful. The deep cuts? What deep cuts? The government continues to borrow more money.

The EU faces ruin. We have to rely on the German people, and the French to a lesser degree to wake up to the money being provided by their governments to keep the EU show on the road. They must call a halt or continue to pay into the greatest pyramid scheme ever. Who will be left holding the parcel when the music stops?

Perhaps the greatest need is for democracy to actually work. It would seem that the world has become bereft of democracy. Democracy in name only is there for us all but democracy, which allows us to feel that we have opinions, which count, and mechanisms in place which allow the majority to see their views carried but at the same time allow the minority to be able to voice their concerns.

Perhaps things will have to become much worse before they become even a little better. Can we wait that long? 

petem

Tweet

Press Controls

Apparently, Ed Milliband is suggesting that Murdoch, or anyone else for that matter, should be restricted to owning no more than 20% of the press? This is so predictable. Politicians, or to give them their technical name headless chickens, try to be seen to do something with meaning whilst showing responsibility. Of course they actually achieve the reverse.

Complete yawn time. Reach for the legislation. Several new laws designed. Tiresome voting required. Job done. Move on. The next overhyped crisis will be along shortly. Bank on it, especially if it’s a financial crisis but that’s another story entirely.

You can second guess what they will actually do. They’ll come up with something, implement it and then months later we’ll find out that it affects us more than it affects the people it was supposed to. Of course there will be absolutely no chance, no chance at all that they will then change it or ditch it. Once it’s there it’s there forever.

For goodness sake.

And… and… we sit back and take it. Everytime! Will we ever learn?

How about they do the following -a.  Bring all the UK newspapers into the scope of the inquiry.b.  Also include the BBC and all the other UK broadcasters.c.  Do not consider, plan or layout any new legislation until the inquiry has fully and finally reported.d.  Do not increase privacy laws, which will damage democracy by allowing the creeps, who tell us what not to do getting away with doing it them selves.e.  Split up the BBC and immediately remove the license fee.

f.  Give every license fee payer an equal share of the money raised after selling off every single bit of the BBC. g.  Re-enforce the requirement on all press and broadcasters to ensure balance at all times regardless of subject etc.

Will it happen?

Of course not.

Well at least not soon.

But maybe.

Just maybe sooner than the politicians etc. expect?

Let’s hope.

Petem

Tweet

Hypocrisy

The Sun broke the story of Fraser Brown's cystic fibrosis shortly after he was born in 2006.

This week in parliament, the soap opera continued when Gordon Brown vented his much-delayed fury on News International for publishing the story, 'reducing the family to tears' and intruding on their private grief. Rupert Murdoch's organisation was part of a 'criminal media nexus' Brown ranted in a performance which confirmed he should never have held the post of Prime Minister.

Back in 2006 the Browns were good friends with Rupert Murdoch and his family. Any normal person would have contacted their friend and let them know how unhappy they were about having a private matter exposed, but not Gordon Brown.  He said nothing.  His distress was so great he continued to invite the Murdochs to his private parties and neither Gordon or Sarah looked unhappy being photographed with Wendi and Rupert Murdoch at Mr Murdoch's annual summer party in London in 2007 (picture).

Rupert Murdoch has refuted Brown's allegations and intends to use his appearance before MPs next week to address the 'total lies' told in parliament.  He will appear alongside his son James and News International CEO Rebekah Brooks.

It's been interesting to watch the game play between senior Westminster politicians and News International the past few days. Every politician cosied up to Murdoch and his senior employees yet it's now clear they've known for years what was going on at NI - an organisation which had become part of the government. Who was responsible for NI gaining so much power?  Our politicians.  They're to blame for this mess, much more than Murdoch.

When Rupert Murdoch entered the British media scene in the 60s, he was welcomed as a force for good. He alone took on the print unions, which were crippling the industry, and won. He introduced a choice of broadcasters for us and the BBC wasn't happy when Sky appeared on our screens. By courting Murdoch our politicians bestowed more and more power upon him.

Let's look at the behaviour of our leaders in the past few days.  Cameron and Clegg weren't prepared to move from their position on the fence until Ed Miliband, who had nothing to lose since Murdoch withdrew his support for the Labour party at the last general election, decided to condemn the actions of NI employees. Suddenly Cameron and Clegg, noting the approval of the public, jumped on the bandwagon. It was only this solidarity which gave Brown the platform to vent his spleen against Murdoch for what he saw as his betrayal at the general election.

We now have political coherence against News International's dubious professional practices but will our leaders be so unrestrained in their criticism of Murdoch after he challenges the 'total lies'?

I have little doubt grubby - and probably illegal - practices occur in other parts of the MSM and I wasn't in the least surprised to learn about the police corruption. The old adage 'everyone has their price' is as true today as it was a hundred years ago. We can only hope that the inquiry instigated by David Cameron will look very closely at other media organisations.

Next Tuesday will be interesting.  Murdoch is a clever man and he knows where the bodies are buried. Thanks to the stupidity of our feeble, inadequate and spineless leaders stuck in their Westminster bubble.

Update 10.20am:  Rebekah Brooks has resigned. Will that make any difference?  Only to David Cameron's house party guest list.

Tweet

Murdoch and Microsoft

The Microsoft Corporation has had talks with Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation about a tie up which would involved News Corp getting paid to take its news websites off Google Inc.

News Corp, which owns such papers as the Wall Street Journal and the Sun, started the discussion, which were at an early stage.

Rupert Murdoch has said he wants to make people pay for access to his news websites. Other publishers including the New York Times are also searching for ways to charge for news online, convinced that they must not give news through search engines such as Google and Yahoo Inc.

Microsoft has also talked with other online publishers about removing their sites from Google, according to the Financial Times, which first reported the development.

"This is all about Microsoft hurting Google's margins," the FT quoted a website publisher who had been approached by Microsoft.

Microsoft, which relaunched its search engine as Bing this year, has been looking for ways to challenge market leader Google.

Earlier this year it signed a 10-year global web search partnership with Yahoo, a deal that UK and European anti-trust regulators are evaluating. Source: Reuters

Although recently it was reported Rupert Murdoch had given up on the idea that we pay to view his websites it appears he's quietly determined. If he manages to achieve his aims will people pay or go elsewhere?

Tweet