More Moore More

[Helen Thomas]

Director Moore to focus on Blair

In a recent interview he said he holds Blair "more responsible for this war in Iraq than I do George W Bush".

"Blair knows better. Blair is not an idiot. What is he doing hanging around this guy?" Moore told Reuters.

"I struggled with it because, I think, what I decided is that I need to make a separate film about Blair. I need to do something about Blair and Britain."

And he has his defense sorted.

"You come at me with anything, we come back with the truth," said Moore.

[Mapraputa Is]

Nothing to say, really.

----------------

"I'm a bit confused as to where Slovakia is anymore. Poland was never part of the Czechoslovakia" -- Helen Thomas.

[Helen Thomas]

Well, Map, I think Brits may be interested to see what Moore has to say on Blair. Seeing as most of them accept and agree with Fahrenheit 9/11.

[Helen Thomas]

Director Moore denies Blair film

But he isn't, or is he ?

Anyway by the time it comes out Blair will either be re-elected or spending his time on e-bay with cherie boo - her handle.

[Arjun Shastry]

Will British people elect Tony Blair again as their Prime Minister?

[Helen Thomas]

Big Question, Arjun.
Blair/Labour wasn't that popular at the Euro elections recently. But not many turned out to vote.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Arjun Shastry:
Will British people elect Tony Blair again as their Prime Minister?

Technically no, because we don't elect the Prime Minister (officially the Queen appoints the Prime Minister, usually as the person most likely to form a government with a majority ie normally the leader of the party with the most seats), but will he still be Prime Minister after the next election?

Well possibly. The lack of WMD found in Iraq has caused a lot of damage to his reputation. The vote in Parliament to go to war was swayed by the claim that WMD could be launched in 45 mins. Now that that has been shown as false, there are a lot of Labour members who think that we shouldn't have gone to war.

Probably a more influential effect on the vote will be the issue of Europe. Opinion about Europe is quite split in the UK at the moment. News papers like the Daily Mail and the Sun have wipped up a large amount of paranoia that we are about to join the United States of Europe and unfortunately a lot of readers are believing it. This has caused some fringe parties like the UK Independence Party to gain some support. The anti-Europe views of the Tories has also managed to rescue them from the brink of extinction. Labour now has to attempt to convince the UK that Europe isn't really that bad.

This is all highly frustrating for Blair, because the economy is doing really well but this issue is not being reported because of all the attention on Iraq and Europe.

Another problem Labour has is that it is moving more to the right. Policies like variable rate tuition fees, partial privatisation of the NHS and tube system and opposition to the trade unions have made a lot of traditional Labour voters unhappy. The problem for them is that there isn't really an alternative - the only other non-right wing and non-lunatic parties are the Greens and the Lib Dems. Many people wouldn't vote for the Greens because they're not sure about their policies on non-environmental issues. The Lib Dems pick up a lot of "protest" votes (people voting for them because they don't like the other parties and want to send them a message) in local and European elections, but don't normally pick up as many votes in the "more serious" General election.

The key factor that will probably give Labour and Blair victory is the First-past-the-post election system. This means that parties can receive more seats then that have received a share of the vote. In the last election Labour gained something like 60% of the seats in the Commons with approx 40% of the vote. Under proportional representation Labour's position would be a lot weaker, but under the current system they could probably sustain some losses and still be able to form the next government.

[Helen Thomas]

More claims like these from Opposition Party and Blair will surge to victory.

Lord Tebbit blames buggery for fatness

[Arjun Shastry]

{
This means that parties can receive more seats then that have received a share of the vote
}
This happens many times.With less than 50% of total votes,paties can be in power bcos of they win more than 50% of seats.As per your info,Britishers have the choice of voting for one of the 3/4 political parites.
What are the policies of other parties regarding Iraq war?How much imporatnce will people give to these international issues over their daily problems?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
Well, Map, I think Brits may be interested to see what Moore has to say on Blair. Seeing as most of them accept and agree with Fahrenheit 9/11.

Of course they do. That surprises nobody.
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Helen Thomas]

M. Moore is close to being venerated by the Europeans.
Not only because he is fat and wears a baseball cap but he is blunt.
A leading French journalist has a book out that says pretty much the same thing that Moore does about America but it's Moore that dominates the best-seller lists and walks off with the grand prize at the Cannes Film Festival.

The qualities in Moore that appeal: He is an American and he's anti-Bush. And he's the hero in his own films. His America fits in with European stereotypical views of America : gun-slinging and money grabbing.Cowboys and capitalists. Moore has blue collar credentials to boot.

[Helen Thomas]

They like Bill Clinton, too. Expect record viewings as Bill Clinton is interviewed on Panorama at 10:35 tonight.
Right after Bollywood Star, a current favourite at 9:00. Do pick their slots carefully.

Bill Clinton , a man of soft power masculinity which so appeals to the Europeans.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
Moore has blue collar credentials to boot.

Huh? The guy was a newspaper reporter and then a film maker. Now he's a multi-millionaire film maker living in an exclusive neighborhood in the richest part of Manhattan. Where exactly did he get his "blue collar credentials"?

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:

The qualities in Moore that appeal: He is an American and he's anti-Bush. And he's the hero in his own films. His America fits in with European stereotypical views of America : gun-slinging and money grabbing.Cowboys and capitalists. Moore has blue collar credentials to boot.

I want to report that this image you draw is a little distorted, at least concerning the situation in Germany.
Moore has his mostly quite young fan crowd, but the overwhelming mayority sees him as a clever salesman who knows to sell his stuff.
There's a lot of exagerated, populistic and highly emotional anti-americanism, but in my view it has more to do with fear about future in a world with more competition & "capitalism".
America as the only remaining super power has just become a symbol for this new environment in Europe, even if american economy is under a similar outsourcing pressure.
Its more inside society than among oficial politics.
And its not very rational.

Axel
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Helen Thomas]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:


I want to report that this image you draw is a little distorted, at least concerning the situation in Germany.

In a German edition of his book he writes " France and Germany are America's great friends because they worked to keep the US out of this war. They were trying to say the truth about the folly of this war.It's time for German readers to respect themselves again. They are after all leaders of the coalition and the unwilling." He praised Old Europe."When one of you gets sick, other people help him. When one of you bleeds the others suffer too."

If anything Germany would feel good about Moore. The young ones especially. In Berlin Moore was Meatloaf screaming "Thank you, Berlin" to packed halls.

He seems to be linked with the anti-globalisation movement. Supporting
the voice of America's downtrodden by joining film-strikers while he was in Cannes. Guess these are where the blue-collar credentials stem from.

Fahrenheit 9/11 will not be screened here until July but since journalists in Cannes gave it a 20 minute standing ovation,should think the film will be a success here unless something really extra-ordinary happens.

Moore isn't as much of a success in Britain as he is in Europe. At one of his one man shows , he tried to cross the 9/11 tragedy with his book "Stupid White Men" which raised quite a few criticisms in the press. His book sales still out did sales of David Beckham's autobiography.

Moore - A Balanced Critique
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Interesting article. Probably the only non-hysterical and non-sycophantic piece about him I've seen.

I've often found him amusing but also a bit exploitative. There's something I can't put my finger that makes his shows uncomfortable viewing and not just because of the issues. I saw that episode of the Christmas carolling outside Phillip Morris and remember just feeling sorry for the lobby staff. When I saw the Columbine film and his 'Walmart victory', I was thinking, "Hmm, yeah, big deal". I liked his theories about the fear factor and the role of the media in that film, but it was ruined by all the stuff he made up and implied through editing. He should probably just stick to exposing companies and stuff and leave the big politics to more capable journos.

[Helen Thomas]

British TV had a reporter who was confrontational like Moore but much much more effective. You could practicaly see the people he was doing the expose on crumble at the end.

Got the name now (Alzheimers hasn't set in yet) - ROGER COOK.

the highly artificial �investigations� of the Roger Cook style of TV exposure also appear uncritically, although these programmes� commercial appeal can depend less on the public interest than on the entertainment value of targeting populist hate figures � cowboy builders; Spanish fishermen; or small-time drug dealers. If a show of this type can�t end with a stagy confrontation between the heroic presenter and the villains, then it does not get made. Just as a News of the World investigation that does not end up visibly skewering some wretched cocaine-snorter simply doesn�t get written. Self-respecting investigative journalists ought to be encouraged to carry a moral compass as part of their equipment, along with their hatchet (for the hatchet jobs) and a box of matches (for inflammatory writing).

from a book on Investigative Journalism techniques.

Moore fails a lot of the time because he does not get people to admit/look like that they were wrong. So the viewer ends up wondering what the keffafle was. Moore , of course , has now moved onto bigger plots in politics where it's even less certain where the line gets drawn between right and wrong..

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
British TV had a reporter who was confrontational like Moore but much much more effective. You could practicaly see the people he was doing the expose on crumble at the end.

Thought you were going to plug Mark Thomas there, the poor man's Moore.

I remember Roger Cook. I used to watch hoping there'd be a shakily filmed scuffle at the end. They were always the highlights. Usually though it'd just be some huge Laahndon "geezer's" palm in the camera lense and lots of bleeped out audio. Or a pikey
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Arjun Shastry:
What are the policies of other parties regarding Iraq war?

The main opposition party, the Tories, broadly supported the war. Its highly likely that had they been in charge instead of Labour that they would have made the same decisions about the war. Rather than concentrating on the issue of if the UK should have gone to war or not, they are concentrating on if the government lied about the likelihood of there being WMD present.

The Lib Dems were against the war before it started and since it finished, but had a policy of supporting the war while it was in progress. Their theory is that its ok to argue that a war should not be started, but while a war is in progress everyone should support the country. Since the war finished they have gone back to questioning if it was justified.

The fringe parties mostly don't have a view on the war apart from Respect which is a party newly formed from various anti-war movements.

How much imporatnce will people give to these international issues over their daily problems?

I expect that the main election fight will not be over the war. Although it will be in the back of a lot of people's minds, the Tories are unlikely to use it much in their campaigning as they would probably have done the same as Labour - they are more likely to focus on things like public services, which is a bit of a sore point for the government. The Lib Dems will probably mention the war a bit, but are far more likely to be campaigning on local issues than the other parties who concentrate on nation issues more, and on economic plans.

Respect will campaign on the basis of the war, given that they have no policies other than complaining about it. UKIP will be campaigning to get the UK out of the EU. BNP will be doing their normal racist campaigning. I doubt if any of these parties will have a significant amount of the final vote.
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:

Moore isn't as much of a success in Britain as he is in Europe. At one of his one man shows , he tried to cross the 9/11 tragedy with his book "Stupid White Men" which raised quite a few criticisms in the press. His book sales still out did sales of David Beckham's autobiography.
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]

The trouble about Moore is that although he is doing a good thing by trying to uncover possible corruption in the current government, he does take it a bit far. If he were to present his investigations in a more neutral and less opinionated way then he may get a lot more respect as an investigative journalist. Given that people know he hates Bush, it makes them question how much of the films are true. In a way he'd be a more influential critic of Bush if he didn't come over as being so anti-Bush.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Joe King:
The trouble about Moore is that although he is doing a good thing by trying to uncover possible corruption in the current government, he does take it a bit far. If he were to present his investigations in a more neutral and less opinionated way then he may get a lot more respect as an investigative journalist.

But, Michael Moore is a multi-millionaire. It is hi style that made him famous and rich. Given the choice betweeen being a middle of the road investigative journalist or an extremely wealthy entertainer which would you choose?

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
But, Michael Moore is a multi-millionaire. It is hi style that made him famous and rich. Given the choice betweeen being a middle of the road investigative journalist or an extremely wealthy entertainer which would you choose?

I couldn't live with deliberately spreading lies in order to make another million.
Apparently Moore can.

but then, most journalists are no better except for the lower income...

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
But, Michael Moore is a multi-millionaire. It is hi style that made him famous and rich. Given the choice betweeen being a middle of the road investigative journalist or an extremely wealthy entertainer which would you choose?

That gives the impression that he either wants to discredit Bush and doesn't realise that he's not doing it in a good way, or isn't really that bothered about discrediting Bush and wants to make a lot of money. :roll:

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:


I couldn't live with deliberately spreading lies in order to make another million.
Apparently Moore can.

but then, most journalists are no better except for the lower income...

A bit like most politicians then :roll:

[Helen Thomas]

Fahrenheit 9/11 was deemed a success at the Washington Premiere. That, I find surprising.
Blair seems to be making a come-back now that Iraq doesn't dominate the headlines.In time for the election - rigamarole, most other European countries favour their EU leaders over their national leaders apart from Britain who view them about the same. i.e equally bad.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:

most other European countries favour their EU leaders over their national leaders

pls explain

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Joe King:
That gives the impression that he either wants to discredit Bush and doesn't realise that he's not doing it in a good way, or isn't really that bothered about discrediting Bush and wants to make a lot of money.

I would say that Moore's main goal is to make money and his secondary goal is to discredit Bush. He hates Bush but he loves money a lot more.

[Helen Thomas]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

pls explain

Private focus group polling shows that many Europeans trust Brussels more than they do their own leaders.
Source : EUROBAROMETER

 
 Percentage saying they trust
   Country      National govt.        EU   
   Belgium             34           49  
   France              29           42 
   Germany             23           35 
   Ireland             39           56 
   Italy               26           54
   Netherlands         39           39
   Portugal            34           60 
   Spain               42           58  
   U.K.                19           19  
   EU Average          30           41  
 
 

[ June 24, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]

[Thomas Paul]

My respect for the British just went up considerably. How anyone can trust any government is beyond me.

[Helen Thomas]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
My respect for the British just went up considerably. How anyone can trust any government is beyond me.

The Brits think that public services under Labour have got better, signs that Blairs investments in health and education are paying off, but they just don't trust him.
The Queen doesn't trust him. She has civil servants keeping her informed on what's up in Government. This is supposed to be one of Blair's duties as PM.

[Axel Janssen]

Because of sluggish economy a lot of people are angry with their government.
Generally there is much less interest in EU elections than in national elections.
The countries in the south are receiving considerable subventions.
Italians seems to have stoped their love affair with their very special Prime Minister.
Ireland attracted lots of american companies and they are selling stuff to rest of Europe. So we are market.
I stopped watching german news. Outlook is too negative.
Countries which do quite well (I think Sweden and Denmark) do not appear in the list.

[Bert Bates]

Thomas -

You are a cagey guy aren't you?

[Helen Thomas]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Countries which do quite well (I think Sweden and Denmark) do not appear in the list.

Jean Monnet,(the Father of the European Community) Robert Schuman, Aristide Briand dreamed of a European Union for one reason mainly - peace and prosperity.
Sweden and Denmark already have that in good measure. They'd probably show lower figures than the UK. Poorer countries like Portugal and Turkey will have higher confidence in the EU.

Besides the Swedes and Danes use a curious mixture of English and American English. Perhaps they should have their own Nordic Union.
They use words like pantyhose and diaper. Instead of tights and nappy.
[ June 24, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]

[Robert Miller]

[post removed-MH]
[ June 24, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

[Jeff Langr]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
My respect for the British just went up considerably. How anyone can trust any government is beyond me.

!

+1

[Max Habibi]

Robert,

First the good news: welcome to the 'Ranch!

Now the bad news: we have standards of behavior we expect posters to comply with. Your post was out of line, so it's been removed. If you want to try posting again without the rhetoric, please do.

Thanks,
M

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
The Queen doesn't trust him. She has civil servants keeping her informed on what's up in Government.

This reminds me of a Cold War slogan for our dealings with the USSR... trust, but verify.

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


Besides the Swedes and Danes use a curious mixture of English and American English. Perhaps they should have their own Nordic Union.
They use words like pantyhose and diaper. Instead of tights and nappy.

They do have their own Nordic Union... It's in part replaced by the EU now but the cooperation between the Scandinavian countries is very close.

[Helen Thomas]

A tiny Mexican village has elected a mule as it's mayor. Their priest said in church one Sunday "It's better to have a honest donkey as mayor than a dishonest man." Everyone trusts Senor Pickles known for his honesty and good nature. Theprevious mayor had been arrested for bribery along with the Chief of Police.

On another note:
A hundred years ago Churchill defected to the Liberals to fight for free trade and oppose the aliens bill restricting Jewish immigration. He rejoined the Tories 20 years later saying that anyone can rat but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.

Politicians these days are more tribalistic despite major internal disagreements over Europe. Party allegiance has increased so much you wouldn't find members crossing the floor for political issues, let alone political leaders. Which I think is a shame. Gladstone and Disraeli crossed the floor at least once: Tory to Liberal and Liberal to Tory. Politics would be more exciting. It would have to be for a space of 10 years at least. 20 years seem too long for today's politicians.
[ June 25, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]

[Mark Fletcher]

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


The Brits think that public services under Labour have got better, signs that Blairs investments in health and education are paying off, but they just don't trust him.
The Queen doesn't trust him. She has civil servants keeping her informed on what's up in Government. This is supposed to be one of Blair's duties as PM.

It also doesnt help that we have politicians in place like this -

Frank McAveety - Porky Pie Gate

and

Frank McAveety - Fearing for his life

Say what you will about George Bush, but I cant remember anyone criticising him about his punctuality!