Posted on 09/10/2005 5:16:37 PM PDT by jmc1969
We need to remember...this isn't the British people, this is the British Media...the equivalent of the NYT and CBS.
Or just another branch of Al-Jazeera
Yes it is. The Times is not exactly leftist but rather, centrist. Many would classify it as centre-right but I think it is a little bit to the left than that characterisation.
I have talked to some Brits and other European in some other online forms on Katrina and federalism and basically tell them
The best analog for a European to understand given the way the EU is headed in a few years.... If the UK had something that devastated Britain, would Brussels be able to order in a Federal European Army even if not asked and in fact be responsible to take control from the git go?
The light does seem to go on at that point and they start to get it...Quite frankly they better start to get it because they are now facing the same question as they form the EU as the US has for the last 200+ years or so
They have no concept of such. This is not a Left vs Right issue but rather, America vs Britain. In fact, I think most British (like New Zealanders and Eastern Canadian, but not necessarily Australians), whether they are conservatives or leftists, consider much of the American founding principles garbage in the sense that they think federalism means creating competing poles of authority.
Look at New Zealand as a contrasting example with the United States, a "New World" country with the most British characteristics. There is no question that the police is a national force - the Auckland District divisions consult but not answer to the mayor of Auckland City. The Auckland City Council has very few power apart from picking up rubbish, running the library, and making some road markers. When disaster strikes the central government in Wellington takes charge. We have democracy, but it means here that the central government is answerable to the people not meaning that local people runs all local affairs.
This is the world of which these Britons live in.
Brits waste money on a queen with no power, says blake6900
__________________________________________________________
Incorrect. She has massive pulling power for tourists and actually brings far more money into the country than she costs. A a diplomatic tool they are far superior to any of our bend-over-backwards-and-take-it-like-a-girl-diplomats.
Nah still owned by Murdoch (of Fox News)
You live in Auckland? I totally envy you. Auckland is a beautiful city with lots of sailboats and natural parks.
Thanks. Murdoch established The Australian - that's where I live - we get a mix, both sides of the story, aussies get to choose. (We report, you decide, in action.) It works fine here.
Murdoch's two papers have different editorial slants. He is a clever bloke (or chaps for you British) who knows Australia and Britain are two different markets. On world affairs The Australian runs Mark Steyn while he is far too conservative for the London Times (and instead you will read the Daily Telegraph if you want a steady dose of Steyn in Britain).
It shows that the London Times is centrist, or very moderately centre-right, while The Australian is clearly on the centre-right side.
Yes, I live here in Auckland. I wouldn't vouch for many people's politics though. Auckland has its shares of metrosexual rich Left and welfare-dependent minorities but traditionally we do elect conservatives in about 45% of all the Auckland-wide parliamentary seats. In my electorate we have a centre-right party and a free-market conservative party that combined would get 75% of votes and the major centre-left party gets only 12% support.
Unfortunately many other Auckland-based electorates do elect leftists, although not as extreme as Wellington, the capital.
Brits waste money on a queen with no power, says blake6900
Ironically one of the most knowledge Britons on the subject of American founding principles and federalism and its difference from Canadian federalism, let alone unitary state systems in the United Kingdom, is the Queen's husband the Duke of Edinburgh. This is personally witnessed by Mark Steyn (who has met Prince Philip in person).
Too bad that most ordinary Britons aren't as knowledgable as Prince Philip on this.
They think they are entitled a say just because you were once their colonies. Of course this is old-fashioned London-is-the-centre-of-the--civilized-world redux.
According to whom...or what? Buckingham Palace may bring in tourists. The Beefeaters may bring in tourists. But they could remain a tourist draw without the cost of supporting a monarchy that, while it does much charity work, really serves little purpose elsewhere except as a live soap opera for its' royal subjects.
If you've got facts and figures please present them cuz that "pulling power" stuff is news to me.
Very cool. When are you going to make the immigration?
I'm happy to stay here or move to Australia. Australia is a key US ally and I like them on this point alone.
There is nothing more outraging to "moderates"/leftists here than hear immigrants that they like the United States. A typical such person demands migrants to assimilate, which means adopt socialist NZ sentiments, eat meat pies, play rugby, go to vote, be a law-abiding citizen, respect other people's rights to speak. Some are good, some have gone too far (for Americans, assimilations don't mean ditching Chinese food for steaks or else descendents of German immigrants today would not still be eating potato salad). I have seen New Zealanders whining that immigrants come in and criticize New Zealand, and then they visit America and b**** about the United States. First degree of hypocrisy.
They make us money, do tremendous amounts of charity work and are vital as diplomatic tools. The Queen costs the average brit 61 pence a year(about a dollar). For what she does I consider that a bargain. The majority of her income is not from taxpayers at all but from her estates. The money we pay her is for her to perform her royal duties, not for lining her pockets. It is these duties that help promote the country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/249845.stm
I have always preferred the Telegraph. The Times is just not for me, although I think their recent move to Tabloid size paper is brilliant.
I confess the only Murdoch paper I ever read is the Sun. It is an amusing, if improper, paper. I hate giving Murdoch more money than he already has and resent his grip on the British Media but the alternatives are not much better (Guardian, Independent, Mirror etc).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.