´óÏó´«Ã½

Hello Shaminder.You could finish off the programme by linking some of the items that you mention above, and asking whither democratic control and accountability throughout the world? Mugabe's treatment of his people continues, yet he's allowed to swan around the world. Burma's junta proceed as before and nothing is done. Bill Clinton lectures us on integrity in the media, having brass-necked his way through Whitewater, Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky etc. and numerous episodes of bare-faced lying. Mr Olmert is still being treated as a world statesman, as corruption allegations rise around him yet again. And our very own dear unelected Gordon Brown talks about sticking to his principles, while the "unlawful" (his description, kind moderator) payments made to his Party remain safely in the long grass of the Enquiry he set up, and we can whistle for our promised referendum. You could play out to a showing of Peter Tatchell's brave efforts to arrest Mugabe, or Bertie Ahearne having the integrity to resign.

It gets phenomenally tedious hearing people talk about 'unelected' Gordon Brown. He WAS elected by the people of his constituency in exactly the same way that every other MP was. We don't vote for a PM specifically and never have done. You might as well complain that Darling is an 'unelected' chancellor because that wasn't put to the vote either.

Both Major and Churchill were also 'unelected' according to your criteria but for some reason thats apparently different. At least Blair had the grace to name a succesor before the last election. Major came out of nowhere to stop John Redwood getting into number 10!

Might you think about expanding the Clinton comments to transatlantic media. Compare and contrast etc.

Clinton is a former President (I am a non-American) who might well be considered to have crossed the line of probity in support of his wife and used VERY questionable tactics in pursuit of their aims. So pots and kettles. Personally I think the coverage looks to have been fair and from this side of the water I actually want to see more of Obama but feel I have seen too much of Clinton. Is that because of Clinton "links" over here.

How does the media attain its objectives of balanced reporting and objectivity when they have opinions and dare I say personal allegiances that may test professionalism? It would be interesting to get the "inside story". Gilligan? Campbell? To people cut deals?

If you added to the pot in the UK "cultural" no go areas it might also reveal the land better. If I understand it correctly it would be illegal for me to write and publish a book on English Republicanism. Thats medieval. Coverage of the Queen does not require the correspondent to grovel but .... Just for the record for the Royalists you would win any public vote - but because of bias not facts.

If I have my facts straight, and apologies to MI5 if there are other facts, but the Mosely husband and wife caper was reported and then got wiped. But if MI5 say it was nought to do with them then they can't claim National Security. National Interest would be stretching credibility. There are legitimate questions for the public to consider about the performance of the security service in this context - like the wifes occupation.

Wilson had Alzeihmers and credible people like Shirley Williams think his fears of MI5 were due purely to that. But as a kid I heard an ex-MI5 officer saying that "They had got Wilson!". Maybe he meant an autograph?

Your excellent report by Paul Mason the other night gave you hard examples of how people in the police can feed stories and then use them to manipulate public opinion and probably policy.

Come on down Ms. "42 Days" Jacquie Smith perhaps the next Labour leader as Nick Robinson discusses!

thegangofone: Harold Wilson gifted 100 Rolls Royce Nene engines to the Soviet union in 1947. At the time this was the best jet engine in the world. The soviets reverse-engineered it and produced it as the Klimov RD-45, subsequently incorporated into the MiG-15. 3 years later MiG-15's were shooting down British aircraft over korea and menacing British transports flying food into Berlin.

This is one of the reasons why MI5 felt Wilson was a soviet agent. I don't know if they were correct but I do agree its the simplest explanation for why we gave vital miltary info to our enemies.

The long and demanding US primary campaign gave all an opportunity to see both candidates under pressure and their qualities became evident to all.

That the media reported favorably on Obama reflects observation, rather than bias.

Perhaps we should distinguish fair comment and observation from "bias"?

Meetings to resolve the food "crisis" are a bit like the blind men analyzing the elephant.

In our increasingly globalized, specialized and interdependent world, balancing and rationalizing needs and production exceeds the human capacity of statemen/politicians.

We need, and quickly, econometric models of national and the global economies.

We know how to do this. The questions involve how much it will cost, who will do it, and who will coordinate it.

Why not get some experts in and sound them out?

Then, ask MIT and Bill Gates!

Re: Burma

Is boycott and blockade an effective political policy?

Or, does it rather shut off any hope of influence?

If our political policy should be to interfere in another nation's internal affairs (and this is NOT at all certain),

then, how would a marketing-oriented organization seek to implement such a policy?

Why not ask some international consumer industry leaders and consulting firms?

Olmert is a symptom of a societal malaise. Israel has changed its character since 1967 and public faith in politicians is low.

One could talk about the potential successors to Olmert, but it would be more useful to look at the society

and see what could get the secular majority more active in the political process.

ASK NOT WHAT YOU OR YOUR COUNTRY MIGHT DO, THE ONE FOR THE OTHER. ASK: 'WHO WROTE THIS SPEECH?'

David Cameron was, today, on Radio 4 extolling the virtuous nature of Conservative politics and politicians. He went on to illustrate his point saying: 'The first speech I ever wrote for so-and-so . . . ' Hmmmmm. I used to discover Blair truths by analysing his speech transcripts, but was always haunted by the possibility that I was analysing some fluff-bespeckled eminence grise behind the sofa. I leave to you the relative culpability of the forger and the front-man; Cameron it seems is both! When we mortals chat, do we not build understanding of each other by noticing choice of words and how they are delivered? If your mate is speaking second-hand, crafted - hence crafty - words, would your association prosper? This is just one politicians’ deception, among many, regarded as acceptable in the world of politics; I need not point up the others. What is at stake is honour and integrity. Do they know? Do they care?
Kennedy’s immortal words were (repeatedly) written FOR him. How many speeches from Hillary or Barak tell the world anything of either? WW IV anyone?

#4 If our intelligence services have an equal poverty of analysis it would explain a lot!

He didn't leave the plans for the engines in an envelope in a park at the dead of night. It was public.

If people think that that made him a Soviet spy then why not prosecute? Would a judge find for the prosecution?

Was it a matter for the electorate or for those people (where real spies may lurk) who were prepared to go beyond the law and their roles to smear Wilson.? Did they thereby undermine the democratic process and set a precedent - that would favour any incumbent Burgess in their ranks rather than hinder such a person.

In my world a real spy would keep his head down not overtly take an action that might give him or her away.

OH I MEANT TO SAY

Chums help each other surely? UK and US get Mossad to knobble Mugabe. US renders him to oblivion. UK supplies proof they didn't. Job's a good'n.

#4

PPS

If Wilson WAS a spy and the engines were handed over in 47 then by 71/72 they still, after 25 years of shenanigans had not "got him".

If they have the evidence then maybe the thirty year rule would allow its publication?

By the way I was never a Labour voter so I am not pro-Wilson - or pro Commie by the way.

Vroom vroom MI5.

#2

'I know a man with a rosette called Labour.'

'What is the rosette-stand called?'

'Gordon Brown'

"#4 If our intelligence services have an equal poverty of analysis it would explain a lot! He didn't leave the plans for the engines in an envelope in a park at the dead of night. It was public."

Of course he didn't. He didn't need to! He was Prime Minister! Why else would a British Prime minister GIVE 100 of the worlds best jets to the soviets at the start of the cold war? It gave the Russians virtual parity with the USA in the air overnight.

if you can come up with a better theory than his wish to aid the russians please post it... I'm open minded enough to consider any valid theory.

#13 DELETE AND INSERT

I know a Prime Miinister with a wooden leg called Labour'

'What's his other leg called?'

'Nothing to stand on.'

Follow up to 14: Wilson was president of the board of trade when he gave the engines to the Russians, not PM. My earlier post may suggest I thought he was in No 10.

Re-#2.
You may or may not find it tedious that PM's are referred to as 'unelected.' It usually happens when they're unelected, as in the examples that you gave. The norm is for the electorate to know which party leaders are likely to become PM following a General Election. But don't expect me to defend this lousey system-I want it reformed. This Govt., like so many others, was 'elected' on a minority of the popular vote, and has changed its leader, keeping this as an internal matter, there not even being a rival candidate; and has subsequently seen its support, and its finances, collapse. It could have retained credibility and popularity by simply holding the manifesto-promised referendum on Lisbon, or holding the General Election that Brown spent 3 weeks of his time hinting at, before bottling out of. But I'm pleased to note that you're so happy with the existing system, Govt. and Prime Minister.

#14.

My history is poor and to be honest I am not going to book up on it to prove my point. But my recollection is that he was very stupid in handing over the engines but it was part of the early Cold War feeling about for better relationships.

You are suggesting that maybe MI5 had a case and their actions were legitimate. Did their number not include Guy Burgess by then? Did the KGB not tend to favour secrecy and stealth?

If you were the KGB then the engines would have been useful but if you drew attention to yourself then you might not be useful to them anymore. Would a future PM not be more useful? Did any other secrets head the way of the Russians? Would you not have instructed your man to actually be ANTI-Russian?

Angleton thought Wilson was a spy (and Olaf Palme who was shot). He was actually pally with Philby before it became evident that he was a spy.

How do you know that they did not compromise Angelton?

Peter_Sym can I ask whether you believe that MI5 due to the nature of their role have the right to act outside the law?

Also when you say Wilson didn't need to leave the plans covertly - I did not hammer home the point. If he had done then smart analysts like you would not have cottoned to the solid "evidence" that was not used to prosecute such an important agent.

Also to be fair Stella Rimmington said in the Dimbleby Lecture in 199something "there never was any conspiracy against Wilson". I can't prove what I heard in 71 or 72 but it does not sit well with her statement. The guy was an "ex-MI5" officer though and I could not prove he had actually been an officer.

But I did not hear Rimmington in the 90's say "He was a spy for sure, he gave them jet engines!" - why not with all due respect? Maybe we turned him and ran him against the Russians?

The KGB weren't that subtle. They'd do whatever it takes to win and if that includes sticking an icepick in one of Stalins enemies head they'd do it. Ask Trotsky about Russian subtlety!

At the time Wilson was president of the board of trade- the chances of him making PM in 1947 must have seemed pretty slim and (from a Russian point of view) the prospect of taking on B29's carrying nuclear bombs escorted by F86 sabres when you only have propellor driven fighters to defend moscow would make those engines priceless.

Well worth losing an agent for, although as MI5 WAS unquestionably riddled with KGB agents itself the chances of getting away with it were very high.

God alone knows what other secrets headed to Russia. The Rossensteins went to the electric chair about then for passing the plans to the A-bomb to Stalin.

#20.

This is fun!

I am no fan of the Russians of that period (do like Abromovich at Chelsea FC, do miss Mouriniho).

I do understand about the ice pick - and more recently Litvinienko (hope I spelt that correctly).

Did they not take a long term view? Cambridge 5 recruitment - well before entering into the establishment? Did they tell them to go around with placards proclaiming their beliefs?

The point you still won't answer is WHY publicly hand over the information when he could wither presumably have passed over the plans secretly or arranged for some other agent to get access to them as a proxy? What would it gain them to be overt?

Also you won't say why if the intelligence was so solid the state did not prosecute?

If the Russians had infiltrated us would it not be desirable to create discord and mayhem between the politicians and the intelligence services?

I was being flippant about Angleton - but that would have been a smart move and its not impossible.

hi gangoffone.

We know WW3 didn't happen at the end of the 40's but in 1947 the US had nukes and had used them just two years before. Russia didn't quite have them. There's no long term view if you believe Moscow will be glowing in the dark in 2 years time so I believe air-defence would be of critical concern to Stalin (who was increasingly paranoid by then).

1947 was the year of Churchills iron curtain speach and just a few months before the Berlin airlift. At that time RAF bombers were flying intruder missions into Soviet airspace planning bomb runs. Things were getting very nasty very quickly.

Thats why they wanted 100 engines as with them they could have jet fighters in weeks. Getting the plans for an engine is only useful if you have a jet engine factory.

I agree that it suited the Russians to create discord between the security services and the politicians and they certainly did take a long term view with some people (like Philby) but it is equally possible that they ALSO took the short term view when needed. We can all name 6 famous soviet agents but god knows how many went undiscovered.