Interesting to see this newly re-branded and re-financed right wing think tank currently all over the media. HJS "experts" on law, the NHS, international affairs etc. have been pushing each other aside to offer analysis, frame debate (usually pitched against centrist opposition - who says British politics aren't drifting steadily to the right?) and beguile the public through clever yet empty appeals to emotion.

The BBC (which never ceases to remind the public that it doesn't "do ideology"icon_wink.gif is currently awash with them. Co-incidence? WHO decides which of these think tanks should be on the approved list of experts? If the BBC is as impartial as it claims shouldn't it be ringing up some of the traditional left wing and/or pro-labour organisations?

More importantly, shouldn't the BBC at least [imention[/i the fact that the Henry Jackson Society is not just affiliated with radical US Neo-Conservatives such as Richard Perle and William Kristol but actually receives funding from them (Henry Jackson himself was one of the original group of rabidly anti-communist Neocons who defined themselves opposing Jimmy Carter's presidency)? Perhaps the electorate may then join up the dots between the kind of savage public sector cuts Perle and his chums foisted on America and the [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20324346very same[/url introduced by one of the Henry Jackson Society's most prestigious members - Michael Gove.

Reading through an old copy of Ken Livingstone's [i"If Voting Changed Anything They'd Abolish It"[/i I was fascinated by rumours during the 60s and 70s of one or more politicians (on both sides of the house) being in "Washington's pocket". It's a measure of the public's terminal indifference to politics that today politicians such as Gove practically flaunt their servitude to the business end of US power.

IMO, far too little is said about the considerable influence wielded by shadowy, unaccountable groups such as these. After all, Margaret Thatcher didn't map out her economic reforms on the back of a packet of fags six months before the election - they were carefully crafted years in advance by people we know very little about. Ditto Tony Blair and the radical face-lift that was forced upon Labour.

I have noticed more and more often that the BBC will ask an individual "expert" about something on the economy and it is blindingly obvious they are to the right of the debate. There is often no other expert with differing views around. So when they say they whatever is the correct way to do something it is taken as the only way and indeed the correct way by the presenter. It is rare these days for the presenter to get a pundit on and then even play devils advocate never mind actually challenge the views put forward.

I think it's wise to remember the old maxim, [i"Whenever you're hearing two sides of an argument you can be sure you're not hearing ALL sides of an argument".[/i

To the right - and going further to the right. Whereby once you'd expect such debates to be contested by the likes of a traditional social democrat and an old school Tory, such as Tony Benn and maybe a moderate voice like IDS, - now it's increasingly common to find IDS pitched as the voice of the left* with people like Gove (who would have been drummed out of even Thatcher's cabinet for being too radical) opposing them and Benn, aside for the odd appearance on the Beeb when they need an anti-war voice that won't say embarrassing things, consigned to Democracy Now and the wilderness. And let's not forget that during the 60s and 70s Tony Benn hardly represented the radical left wing of the Labour party. If Militant Labour were about today they'd probably be outlawed as bomb-chucking anarchists.



Whilst it's true to say the decision making strata of the Labour Party has pretty much disowned its socialist upbringing for various get-rich-quick-and-then-bail-to-the-city wheezes (reason enough to dissolve the party completely and start again, IMO) - it does retain more than vestigial elements of its quasi-Marxist principles. Especially among older members. And there are plenty of progressives completely outside the party. The problem is one of resources and money. HJS and other mainstream think tanks are bankrolled to the tune of millions by big business looking to wrap the extortion of public money in government legislature.

People have this weird notion that think tanks are benign groups of academics who sit about in tweed jackets whilst hashing out new and innovative ways by which governments can enrich all our lives.

Anyone who has paid even cursory attention to America where think tanks such as the Rand Corporaton, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Business Round Table wield enormous influence knows the "common man", foreign or domestic, ranks pretty low on their list of priorities. The truth is they exist to promote big business and hector government into codifying laws that give them free reign to stiff the public. They employ thousands of academics, PR consultants and pundits who at the drop of a hat will appear on TV, radio etc. to promote ostensibly beneficial policies which, when adopted by legislature, seem always to benefit the top 5%.

Traditionally think tanks have been less influential but things are changing. Thatcher was the first to really pay attention and ever since we've seen representatives of such sprouting up everywhere. The Henry Jackson Society has been in existence for some time. But recently they've attracted some heavyweight patrons and the Tories are positively chummy. I wouldn't mind so much if it weren't for the obvious American Neo-Conservative factor. It's never mentioned when one of their representatives pops up in the media and it should be. After all, I'm pretty sure quite a few people would smell a rat if it were widely known they are in bed with the notorious war profiteers of George W. Bush's presidency.



I think the big problem is time. Radio news slots especially have been getting shorter and shorter for years (which is ironic given that we've never had as much news hurled at us). So any guest whose politics differ substantially from the status quo gets barely enough seconds to disagree with established thinking and is then cut off before he has the opportunity to back it up with evidence, facts etc. (or not). Even if the listener agrees with the opening argument (let's say some negative critique of government spending) - the lack of contrary evidence is likely to put him off.

* Yes, I felt dirty typing those seven words.

Indeed, the likes of Humphries on R4 can't be fully briefed on absolutely everything and can't be expected to be capable of acting as Devil's Advocate on every topic.
So, in the absence of a counter voice, the "spokeperson" can easily just keep talking and repeating the message until the alloted three minutes or whatever has expired.

As for Naughtie, he might as well fall back on "Do you have anything to tell us Minister?", he's so soft.

Slightly different but similar. I was listening to the debate about Gaza on Five Live and they had this Zionist guy on who said, "The people in Gaza have the highest living standard of any Arabs in the area." Nicky Campbell said nothing in response to that. Nothing. Never questioned or challenged a straight foward lie. You do not need to be a professional journalist to know how deliberate a lie that is.