Are you a lonely beacon of light in the blackness of the forum?

Economic Left/Right: 1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.10

That's pretty balanced isn't it?

Matt.

 

I'm also on the left/libertarian quadrant:

Economic Left/Right: -6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38

slightly more 'extreme' than Ganhdi. Now where did I put those sandals?

 

I'm somewhat surprised that, despite my obvious neocon foreign policy preferences, I'm actually:

Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

- which is roughly where I was last time, if memory serves.

So, instead of my kids having to 'get their ball back' from the back yard of Tony Blair or George Bush, it turns out that we'll be having tea with the Dalai Lama (which is nice).

 

I always said you woz a nice chap

 

nope,you are not alone

 

So far everyone's a leftie except Matt.

 

I'm a brown rice-n-quiche tree hugger mate

 

Well, now that I've demonstrated my Centerist-Libertarian credentials ...

What we know is that what's been going on in Iraq is not what they (the BBC) are saying that it is.

And bearing in mind that most of us in the UK trust the BBC and it is the political compass by which we define neutrality, I think it's an absolute disgrace.

Two example from the last 2 days ...

1. On Friday evening's news from Iraq, they showed the scene outside one of the many polling stations (a school), where a car bomb had just gone off and a car was in flames.

No doubt most people watching would have taken this exactly how the BBC had intended it - that Iraq was a country with bombs, explosions and gun-fire on almost every street corner.

I thought that it was a little suspicious that the BBC just happened to have its camera man and reporter on that spot in such a timely manner. Later research on the Internet revealed that the same shots had been shown on American television and in many newspapers around the world.

Just out of shot, were several other camera teams taking the exact same pictures.

The only plausible explanation for this is that the car fire was set up for the world's media and the BBC (amongst others) had been phoned up and invited to attend a fire.

How f*cking dare they try to manipulate us in this way. :inferno:

2. Also on Friday's 10pm BBC News, John Simpson reported that its Panorama investigative show would air a report on Sunday citing "confidential" records from Iraq's health ministry to support the contention that US-led and Iraqi forces (and not the insurgents) were responsible for the deaths of 60 percent of Iraqi civilians killed in conflict over the last six months.

Iraq's health minister immediately responded saying that the BBC misinterpreted the statistics it had received and had ignored statements from the ministry clarifying the figures. Not only that, but this had been the subject of several conversations with the BBC before the report was published.

In other words, the BBC had deliberately lied to us.

The minister further denied that this conclusion can be drawn from the figures relating to 'military operations'

On Saturday the BBC 'apologised' with a small, out of the way item on its web site:

"The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports yesterday."

A BBC spokesman said the statistics would not feature in the Panorama show on Sunday.

BBC apologises for misinterpreting Iraqi death stats - Reuters

I watched the BBC 10.00pm News on Saturday night and there was no apology, no retraction, NOTHING.

The BBC has certainly succeeded in getting its message across in Friday's news item.

But what exactly is its agenda?

I'm suspect that some people here will be angry that I've posted this item (shoot the messenger and all that) but I believe that this view should be aired. We're being duped.

 

Economic Left/Right: -9.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.54

-- Ian

 

Naturally, I've always denied it.

 

Economic Left/Right: -2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67

Don't have any real interest in politics, but would like to undertsand what defines someone's views as either left or right wing as I'm sill non the wiser.

 

I'd like to see how the questions break down into scores. No offence to Steve or Matt but if they can only get scores close to the centre of the graph then you'd really have to be extremely right-wing to get a significant positive score on either scale.

Michael.

 

Economic Left/Right: 0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

But I'm a literalist. I don't see the difference between 'agree' and 'strongly agree'. It's a binary choice. Crap survey IMO.

Paul

 

The Socialists and the Iraq Election by Alan Johnson

Extract:

"When John Pilger says the left 'should not be choosy' but should back the fascistic Iraqi 'resistance', we refuse. When the left says 9/11 was simply 'blowback' for the crimes of US imperialism, we refuse. When Michael Moore asks us to believe that pre-war Iraq was a country of happy kite-flying children, we refuse. When Michael Moore writes 'there is not terrorist threat, repeat after me, THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT', we refuse. When a warm welcome is extended by the 'left-wing' Major of London, Ken Livingstone, to the Fundamentalist cleric, Dr Al-Qaradawi, an anti-semite, and a proponent of the killing of homosexuals and wife-beating, we refuse. When the left fails to rouse itself to oppose Crimes against Humanity in the Balkans, or in Zimbabwe, or in the Sudan, or in North Korea, because to oppose 'the resistance' of Slobodan Milosevic or Robert Mugabe or Kim Il Sung is to support 'imperialism', we refuse. When the left apologises for the suicide bombers who blow up Jews in coffee bars in Tel Aviv on the grounds that the 'resistance' must be supported, and the 'Zionists' opposed, we refuse (even as we seek a secure Palestinian state). And when a leader of the Stop the War Movement (and the SWP) John Rees, argues that 'Socialists should unconditionally stand with the oppressed against the oppressor, even if the people who run the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute minorities, like Saddam Hussein', we say enough is enough."

 

It did make me wonder Michael i.e. I thought I might come out a little more to the right.

However, when I think about it, although I’m all for private enterprise, I do think companies have far more responsibility than just to that of the shareholder. I’m also all for freedom of choice and am very much an atheist. Even on the crime and punishment thing – I want punishment to be hard (which it often isn’t) but still think rehabilitation more important than punishment.

So, yes, the questions and the wording are a bit iffy IMO and not only did I find myself rarely agreeing or disagreeing strongly with anything, I also think I would have answered ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ had that option been available.

Anyway – as the person nearest to the centre of the cross I declare myself the most balanced and fair member of the forum.

Actually, the fact that I’ve been proved fairly central when many of you thought I would be over on the right only goes to prove how the BBC and New Labour spin/smearing have slowly and gently brainwashed you into believing anyone who doesn’t read The Guardian is as right wing as Alan B’Stard

Matt.

 

When Alan Johnson asks us to read his reactionary and simplistic article about "the state of the left" we refuse. When he points to all the reasons that the left have no grasp of any world situation we refuse to listen, because Mr. Johnson has only used his tiny knowledge of extreme left do-nothingers as an illustration. Not only that, but he only puts rhetoric into his "argument", because there's no point letting facts getting in the way of a good rant!

 

Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

Defintely a libertarian lefty here, but I have to say a number of these questions made no sense to me in terms of a left/right economic axis or an authoritarian/libertarian axis. What your attitudes to morality and religion, abstract art or astrology have to do with either of these I don't know. If you ask me - if you believe the non religious are immoral, real art must be a picture of something and that there is something to astrology then you are most likely bigoted, ignorant and stupid ... in that order. (with apologies to the bigoted, ignorant or stupid on this board.

 

Leonard,

I think you may be missing the point here.

Alan Johnson is not saying that the left has no grasp of any world situation.

He is joining the increasingly widespread debate that's taking place amongst the left wing itself.

Many on the left believe that some views which have been associated with the left are doing them no favours, either in terms of their morality or their credibility and 'electibility'.

 

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.87

 

The debate needs to happen - I have to say though its a problem that has affected politics across the spectrum - people spout this view or that view left or right - without thinking of the moral or philosophical consequences of those views. Largely I think because poltical debate is not - as perhaps it ought to be - a search for the right course of action, but an exercise in trying to win or trying to put the other side in a tricky position - like on the one hand claiming that those who were against the invasion were supporters of Saddam and/or Al Qaeda or on the other that support for the war made you and idiot and a dupe. Both positions are clearly wrong, but at times it felt like the only ones we were supposed to feel.

Left wingers and right wingers all spout complete shite and too many people don't think hard enough about what is actually being said. People become polarised and may find themselves holding positions purely because of which side they stand. If they calmly stepped back and analysed these positions they might soon seem untenable. If only people saw beyond politicians rhetoric - they might find themselves despising the politicos left and right both equally for the lying manipulators they are (rant over).