The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Teflon Tony – A Rogue’s Guide To Keeping Slippery As A Greased Piglet
It’s not because he took Bill’s advice on non-stain clothing, but his uncanny knack of coming out of controversy without taking the blame that earned ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair his latest nickname.
But there’s more than spin to Tony’s masterful manoeuvring, so just how does he always come up smelling of roses?
---You Can Lead A Horse To Water, But It’s Not Your Fault If It Drinks---
We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45 minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45 minutes.
Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption, when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
---Muck Hitting The Fan? Hide Behind A Fat Man---
They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the equipment and funding available to armed forces.
Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s an art form. And a spectator sport.
---I Know Something You Don’t Know---
In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as bad as it’s likely to get.
And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital proof? Hide it.
Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody is allowed to see it.
This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be allowed to challenge that crutch.
---Principles Can Hold You Prisoner, Semantics Can Set You Free---
The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you find a loop-hole to escape through.
Where’ve we seen this recently?
Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a couple of them.
Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
So there you have it, a comprehensive guide to getting away with it. If you ever find yourself as prime minister of some country maybe these techniques will work for you too. But remember, there’ll be at least one ageing nerd complaining about you on the internet :^)
It’s not because he took Bill’s advice on non-stain clothing, but his uncanny knack of coming out of controversy without taking the blame that earned ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair his latest nickname.
But there’s more than spin to Tony’s masterful manoeuvring, so just how does he always come up smelling of roses?
---You Can Lead A Horse To Water, But It’s Not Your Fault If It Drinks---
We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45 minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45 minutes.
Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption, when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
---Muck Hitting The Fan? Hide Behind A Fat Man---
They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the equipment and funding available to armed forces.
Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s an art form. And a spectator sport.
---I Know Something You Don’t Know---
In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as bad as it’s likely to get.
And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital proof? Hide it.
Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody is allowed to see it.
This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be allowed to challenge that crutch.
---Principles Can Hold You Prisoner, Semantics Can Set You Free---
The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you find a loop-hole to escape through.
Where’ve we seen this recently?
Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a couple of them.
Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
So there you have it, a comprehensive guide to getting away with it. If you ever find yourself as prime minister of some country maybe these techniques will work for you too. But remember, there’ll be at least one ageing nerd complaining about you on the internet :^)
Page:
It's amazing that you can comment on everybody thinking the media gives us the truth, when you quite clearly believe that politicians give us the truth. One belief is as naieve as the other.
The good result of all of this business is it has shown that nobody trusts the government any more, regardless of how they try and clear their name.
Nobody wanted them to go to war, they did anyway, and if public opinion is anything to go by, they HAVEN'T gotten away with it.
The good result of all of this business is it has shown that nobody trusts the government any more, regardless of how they try and clear their name.
Nobody wanted them to go to war, they did anyway, and if public opinion is anything to go by, they HAVEN'T gotten away with it.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Remember Alister Campbell's main concern over the dossier?
> "What will the headlines be tomorrow?" Turns out that the
> headlines were '45 minutes from doom' and so on - but nobody sought
> to correct that, nobody sent a letter pointing out the mistake. When
> this government is criticised by the press, it cries like a little
> girl. When this government gets what it wants from the press, it's
> happy - and never mind the facts. When it comes to war, that just
> isn't good enough.
But the point is that the public itself is to blame because it tolerates and nigh encourages the media to act as it does. Take the Hutton enquiry, the government has sought to correct the BBC and others, but despite millions being spent a vast majority of the population does not believe in the findings because the media has thrown doubts on the authenticity of the findings. Too many people expect the media to give them the truth, but that isn't what the media is about any more. Take the idea that Iraq could hit the UK in 45 minutes.
Not one person who believed in it could have taken to time to read about it elsewhere other than in the media, not one of them could have thought to see if it was likely to be true. People believed in it. But then, mostly those same people, heard Gilligan claim it was untrue, and then they believed him. But Gilligan wasn't even talking about the same thing, and what he was saying was largely made up fiction.
You claim the government cries when it gets criticism, but look at how many are now doing similar crying because the Hutton report did not give them what they wanted? It works both ways and it is all a big game... because that is what the interaction of politics and media has become, and it has only done so because a majority have let it.
I'd stand by my claim that Bush has given Blair a lifeline by beginning an inquiry in the US because he has allowed Blair to frame the reasons for it. It's not being justified in the context of there being public pressue (whipped up by sections of the media) but because America is doing likewise and because it involves the collection of intelligence. All of a sudden Blair isn't trying to justify reasons for war, he's seen as trying to ensure the accuracy of future intelligence vital to national security. There are more reasons but that is the essence of it.
> Remember Alister Campbell's main concern over the dossier?
> "What will the headlines be tomorrow?" Turns out that the
> headlines were '45 minutes from doom' and so on - but nobody sought
> to correct that, nobody sent a letter pointing out the mistake. When
> this government is criticised by the press, it cries like a little
> girl. When this government gets what it wants from the press, it's
> happy - and never mind the facts. When it comes to war, that just
> isn't good enough.
But the point is that the public itself is to blame because it tolerates and nigh encourages the media to act as it does. Take the Hutton enquiry, the government has sought to correct the BBC and others, but despite millions being spent a vast majority of the population does not believe in the findings because the media has thrown doubts on the authenticity of the findings. Too many people expect the media to give them the truth, but that isn't what the media is about any more. Take the idea that Iraq could hit the UK in 45 minutes.
Not one person who believed in it could have taken to time to read about it elsewhere other than in the media, not one of them could have thought to see if it was likely to be true. People believed in it. But then, mostly those same people, heard Gilligan claim it was untrue, and then they believed him. But Gilligan wasn't even talking about the same thing, and what he was saying was largely made up fiction.
You claim the government cries when it gets criticism, but look at how many are now doing similar crying because the Hutton report did not give them what they wanted? It works both ways and it is all a big game... because that is what the interaction of politics and media has become, and it has only done so because a majority have let it.
I'd stand by my claim that Bush has given Blair a lifeline by beginning an inquiry in the US because he has allowed Blair to frame the reasons for it. It's not being justified in the context of there being public pressue (whipped up by sections of the media) but because America is doing likewise and because it involves the collection of intelligence. All of a sudden Blair isn't trying to justify reasons for war, he's seen as trying to ensure the accuracy of future intelligence vital to national security. There are more reasons but that is the essence of it.
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> So realistically, the possibility that there were no WMDs = the
> possibility Blair shafted everyone.
As far as I can tell there are three possibilities:
Blair is a liar.
Blair is a fantasist.
Blair is incompetent.
And another one that I read on another site: intelligence has become so politicised - justifying rather than informing policy - that doubts about the accuracy of intelligence never even reached Blair/JIC.
> So realistically, the possibility that there were no WMDs = the
> possibility Blair shafted everyone.
As far as I can tell there are three possibilities:
Blair is a liar.
Blair is a fantasist.
Blair is incompetent.
And another one that I read on another site: intelligence has become so politicised - justifying rather than informing policy - that doubts about the accuracy of intelligence never even reached Blair/JIC.
Belldandy wrote:
> No. My rationale is that the media has a responsibility to report
> what it believes to be true and to have the evidence to back up those
> claims if they are challenged about them.
But why would a government challenge one thing and not another?
Going to war with Iraq was a huge decision, one that has cost thousands of lives - we live in a democracy and I think that the government has a responsibility to make sure that the intelligence (right or wrong) that only it has access to is reported accurately.
Remember Alister Campbell's main concern over the dossier? "What will the headlines be tomorrow?" Turns out that the headlines were '45 minutes from doom' and so on - but nobody sought to correct that, nobody sent a letter pointing out the mistake. When this government is criticised by the press, it cries like a little girl. When this government gets what it wants from the press, it's happy - and never mind the facts. When it comes to war, that just isn't good enough.
> No. My rationale is that the media has a responsibility to report
> what it believes to be true and to have the evidence to back up those
> claims if they are challenged about them.
But why would a government challenge one thing and not another?
Going to war with Iraq was a huge decision, one that has cost thousands of lives - we live in a democracy and I think that the government has a responsibility to make sure that the intelligence (right or wrong) that only it has access to is reported accurately.
Remember Alister Campbell's main concern over the dossier? "What will the headlines be tomorrow?" Turns out that the headlines were '45 minutes from doom' and so on - but nobody sought to correct that, nobody sent a letter pointing out the mistake. When this government is criticised by the press, it cries like a little girl. When this government gets what it wants from the press, it's happy - and never mind the facts. When it comes to war, that just isn't good enough.
Belldandy wrote:
> Ha ha, you think so? more like thrown him a lifeline... Bush is very
> clever doing this...
>
> Think about it. Properly.
I'm not convinced.
Blair publically and repeatedly said he was *certain* there were WMDs.
Unlike Bush, I think he's gone too far to be able to simply say 'oh well, we were wrong'. That's why we're seeing (eg, newsnight) politicians now saying 'Saddam deceived us into thinking he had...'
But people won't swallow that. If the public's reaction to hutton shows us anything it's that people will tend to believe what they want to believe, and I don't think anyone particularly 'wants' to believe a brand new government line about Saddam pretending to have stuff!
So realistically, the possibility that there were no WMDs = the possibility Blair shafted everyone.
Bush's suspicion that there never were any clearly undermines any trust of Blair. Not that I'm blaming him, why would he put himself on the line just to save Blair's face? But it nods to the true nature of the 'special relationship'.
Anyway, any increase in suspicion that Blair was wrong about WMDs has to weaken his position.
Also, Bush calling an inquiry looks to have been the final straw that'll force Blair to do the same.
He may still get out of such an enquiry quite lightly again, but he always had the choice whether to call one before. Now he doesn't.
> Ha ha, you think so? more like thrown him a lifeline... Bush is very
> clever doing this...
>
> Think about it. Properly.
I'm not convinced.
Blair publically and repeatedly said he was *certain* there were WMDs.
Unlike Bush, I think he's gone too far to be able to simply say 'oh well, we were wrong'. That's why we're seeing (eg, newsnight) politicians now saying 'Saddam deceived us into thinking he had...'
But people won't swallow that. If the public's reaction to hutton shows us anything it's that people will tend to believe what they want to believe, and I don't think anyone particularly 'wants' to believe a brand new government line about Saddam pretending to have stuff!
So realistically, the possibility that there were no WMDs = the possibility Blair shafted everyone.
Bush's suspicion that there never were any clearly undermines any trust of Blair. Not that I'm blaming him, why would he put himself on the line just to save Blair's face? But it nods to the true nature of the 'special relationship'.
Anyway, any increase in suspicion that Blair was wrong about WMDs has to weaken his position.
Also, Bush calling an inquiry looks to have been the final straw that'll force Blair to do the same.
He may still get out of such an enquiry quite lightly again, but he always had the choice whether to call one before. Now he doesn't.
Belldandy wrote:
> A few blips?
Popularity wise, like a a slight rise in violent crime, the Top-Up fee's issue, the railways.
> A few blips?
Popularity wise, like a a slight rise in violent crime, the Top-Up fee's issue, the railways.
unknown kernel wrote:
> So your rationale is:
>
> The government should correct stories in the press that might damage
> its reputation.
>
> But the government should not correct stories that it knows to be
> false if they happen to happen to back up the government argument.
>
> Is that right?
No. My rationale is that the media has a responsibility to report what it believes to be true and to have the evidence to back up those claims if they are challenged about them. It is not the role of government to exercise total control over the media in every respect but the government does have a right to defend itself when targetted. Kind of the whole point of a free press...a point Blair himself has made this morning...
> So your rationale is:
>
> The government should correct stories in the press that might damage
> its reputation.
>
> But the government should not correct stories that it knows to be
> false if they happen to happen to back up the government argument.
>
> Is that right?
No. My rationale is that the media has a responsibility to report what it believes to be true and to have the evidence to back up those claims if they are challenged about them. It is not the role of government to exercise total control over the media in every respect but the government does have a right to defend itself when targetted. Kind of the whole point of a free press...a point Blair himself has made this morning...
Belldandy wrote:
> You mean the headlines in an independent media? You mean like the
> BBC, y'know where the government complained about inaccurate
> reporting and was ignored and that set in motion a large chain of
> events in the process. The fact is no one was tricked into war.
> Misled by large sections of the media? Yep, but not the government.
So your rationale is:
The government should correct stories in the press that might damage its reputation.
But the government should not correct stories that it knows to be false if they happen to happen to back up the government argument.
Is that right?
> You mean the headlines in an independent media? You mean like the
> BBC, y'know where the government complained about inaccurate
> reporting and was ignored and that set in motion a large chain of
> events in the process. The fact is no one was tricked into war.
> Misled by large sections of the media? Yep, but not the government.
So your rationale is:
The government should correct stories in the press that might damage its reputation.
But the government should not correct stories that it knows to be false if they happen to happen to back up the government argument.
Is that right?
Belldandy wrote:
> Ha ha, you think so? more like thrown him a lifeline... Bush is very
> clever doing this...
>
> Think about it. Properly.
bush,clever?
oh dear god!
> Ha ha, you think so? more like thrown him a lifeline... Bush is very
> clever doing this...
>
> Think about it. Properly.
bush,clever?
oh dear god!
Ha ha, you think so? more like thrown him a lifeline... Bush is very clever doing this...
Think about it. Properly.
Think about it. Properly.
Page: