I've probably traveled the world more than most (>25 countries): the BBC is not a common subject of conversation, but nearly always mentioned positively when it comes up, by contrast to CNN, Russia Today, etc., which are seen as too slanted to domestic assumptions. I've also seen polls in Britain showing it still very highly-rated. Like most familiar institutions, there are things most people dislike about it, but it fills a gap: a service which has the stated aim of being comprehensive and impartial, even when we think it fails to achieve it. Nobody else even tries, though curiously Al-Jazeera is making some progress in being seen as offering a different angle without being wildly biased.
Nick, I've travelled to over 70 countries over the last 5 decades. The BBC World News used to be mentioned, always in a positive light, up to about the 1980s. I have not heard any non-Brit mention it to me unsolicited in at least 20 years. BBC period pieces, cop shows and comedies do get mentioned, usually by the liberal elite in cringingly positive terms.
As a 50+ country traveller and someone who lived in 4 in the 90s/2000s, I agree with MTimT. BBC World Service runs so many bleeding heart leftie pieces that it is much less well regarded or listened to. It was a wonder why the Foreign Office should have been funding it.
He is by far the most interesting Labour politician around at the moment and there are several hints in the interview that his relationship with Miliband is cool at best. He acknowledges that Osborne effectively abandoned austerity half way through the Parliament (I seem to recall at the time of the 2012 budget commenting that Osbo was taking a year off deficit reduction) and that it was, in his view, the right thing to do.
His differences with Osborne are not so much on what he has done, where it is hard to see a difference, but on what Osborne wants to do in returning to austerity in the next Parliament.
What is not clear to me is how he proposes to deal with the unacknowledged structural deficit he played such a large part in creating without Osborne's cuts. What is the alternative? I suspect that he and Miliband simply cannot agree one, hence the confused silence on the issue.
He is by no means everyone's cup of tea but IMO he would have been a much, much better choice for leader than Miliband.
I idly speculated years ago on here that the whole 'too far too fast' shtick was part of a conspiracy between the 2 (Balls/Ozzy) to create an impression of austerity for the media and global investors and thus avoid the real harsh cuts needed to get the deficit gone. I recall Ozzy child-sat for Balls kids whilst they took turns being interviewed some time ago and just wondered if it was all 'for show'.
I fully agree. It made absolutely no sense for Osborne and Cameron to exaggerate the 'cuts' the way they did. No political sense.
'Nick, I've travelled to over 70 countries over the last 5 decades. The BBC World News used to be mentioned, always in a positive light, up to about the 1980s. I have not heard any non-Brit mention it to me unsolicited in at least 20 years. BBC period pieces, cop shows and comedies do get mentioned, usually by the liberal elite in cringingly positive terms.'
As a fellow 70+ country traveler i completely agree. The BBC World News used to be a big deal but no longer, too many more interesting competitors.
I get the impression Ed Balls is a reason you may just be able to consider Labour in the GE. The fact he is well regarded by many Conservatives on here is probably doing Labour no favours at all in Scotland mind.
I wouldn't go that far Pulpstar but I do want leadership which is smarter and more competent than me. It is not a particularly high bar but a disappointing number of our politicians fall below it. Ball is not in that category, not by a long shot.
He is by far the most interesting Labour politician around at the moment and there are several hints in the interview that his relationship with Miliband is cool at best. He acknowledges that Osborne effectively abandoned austerity half way through the Parliament (I seem to recall at the time of the 2012 budget commenting that Osbo was taking a year off deficit reduction) and that it was, in his view, the right thing to do.
His differences with Osborne are not so much on what he has done, where it is hard to see a difference, but on what Osborne wants to do in returning to austerity in the next Parliament.
What is not clear to me is how he proposes to deal with the unacknowledged structural deficit he played such a large part in creating without Osborne's cuts. What is the alternative? I suspect that he and Miliband simply cannot agree one, hence the confused silence on the issue.
He is by no means everyone's cup of tea but IMO he would have been a much, much better choice for leader than Miliband.
I idly speculated years ago on here that the whole 'too far too fast' shtick was part of a conspiracy between the 2 (Balls/Ozzy) to create an impression of austerity for the media and global investors and thus avoid the real harsh cuts needed to get the deficit gone. I recall Ozzy child-sat for Balls kids whilst they took turns being interviewed some time ago and just wondered if it was all 'for show'.
I fully agree. It made absolutely no sense for Osborne and Cameron to exaggerate the 'cuts' the way they did. No political sense.
It did make some political sense in that it satisfied the deficit hawks. It also, and rather more to the point, satisfied the markets. We simply would not have been able to borrow at anything like the rates we have over the last 5 years if the markets thought we had a government which did not take the deficit seriously.
Making Balls a part of the conspiracy theory is a bit of a stretch for me but on one view he was at least partially vindicated when Osborne throttled back on structural deficit reduction in 2012 with a view to getting growth going. He should have gloried in that vindication rather than continuing to pursue the too far too fast line for too long, damaging his credibility.
He is by far the most interesting Labour politician around at the moment and there are several hints in the interview that his relationship with Miliband is cool at best. He acknowledges that Osborne effectively abandoned austerity half way through the Parliament (I seem to recall at the time of the 2012 budget commenting that Osbo was taking a year off deficit reduction) and that it was, in his view, the right thing to do.
His differences with Osborne are not so much on what he has done, where it is hard to see a difference, but on what Osborne wants to do in returning to austerity in the next Parliament.
What is not clear to me is how he proposes to deal with the unacknowledged structural deficit he played such a large part in creating without Osborne's cuts. What is the alternative? I suspect that he and Miliband simply cannot agree one, hence the confused silence on the issue.
He is by no means everyone's cup of tea but IMO he would have been a much, much better choice for leader than Miliband.
I idly speculated years ago on here that the whole 'too far too fast' shtick was part of a conspiracy between the 2 (Balls/Ozzy) to create an impression of austerity for the media and global investors and thus avoid the real harsh cuts needed to get the deficit gone. I recall Ozzy child-sat for Balls kids whilst they took turns being interviewed some time ago and just wondered if it was all 'for show'.
I fully agree. It made absolutely no sense for Osborne and Cameron to exaggerate the 'cuts' the way they did. No political sense.
It did make some political sense in that it satisfied the deficit hawks. It also, and rather more to the point, satisfied the markets. We simply would not have been able to borrow at anything like the rates we have over the last 5 years if the markets thought we had a government which did not take the deficit seriously.
Making Balls a part of the conspiracy theory is a bit of a stretch for me but on one view he was at least partially vindicated when Osborne throttled back on structural deficit reduction in 2012 with a view to getting growth going. He should have gloried in that vindication rather than continuing to pursue the too far too fast line for too long, damaging his credibility.
I agree that Balls is probably the best on what is a deeply unimpressive Labour front bench. He does however have the disticction of being wrong on every call he has made about the economy.
Comments
'Nick, I've travelled to over 70 countries over the last 5 decades. The BBC World News used to be mentioned, always in a positive light, up to about the 1980s. I have not heard any non-Brit mention it to me unsolicited in at least 20 years. BBC period pieces, cop shows and comedies do get mentioned, usually by the liberal elite in cringingly positive terms.'
As a fellow 70+ country traveler i completely agree.
The BBC World News used to be a big deal but no longer, too many more interesting competitors.
Making Balls a part of the conspiracy theory is a bit of a stretch for me but on one view he was at least partially vindicated when Osborne throttled back on structural deficit reduction in 2012 with a view to getting growth going. He should have gloried in that vindication rather than continuing to pursue the too far too fast line for too long, damaging his credibility.
I agree that Balls is probably the best on what is a deeply unimpressive Labour front bench. He does however have the disticction of being wrong on every call he has made about the economy.