 |
| John Simpson? |
John Simpson, the BBC's World Affairs Editor, is astride his hobby horse at the moment - though whether he's wearing his famous burqa or not I cannot say, alas:
- When I was the BBC political editor, in the early 1980s, I was shocked by the ignorance of most MPs about the way the outside world worked. Judging from today's proceedings in Parliament, things don't seem to have changed much.
- Some people replying to me think the problem lies with MPs having no experience outside politics. I disagree. I think it springs from a lack of knowledge and lack of interest in the way the countries close to us think and operate. The world has changed; too many of us haven't.
- I think MPs can get too bound up with the business and pantomime of Parliament, and believe it's all that matters. Far too many are depressingly ignorant of the world beyond Dover. That drove me crazy in the 80s. Today it's utterly unforgivable.
And the great man has now found a specific MP to loads his general reflections on, and I doubt either Paddy Power or William Hill would have been troubled by large-scale betting on the type of MP John would inevitably land on.
It just had to be a pro-Brexit right-winger.
And one such landed, like a soft, ripe peach, in his lap this weekend:
It just had to be a pro-Brexit right-winger.
And one such landed, like a soft, ripe peach, in his lap this weekend:
Is that a photo of John Simpson? - looks more like Chris Patten to me! Maybe ageing Remainiacs, suffering from BDS, come to resemble each other!
ReplyDeleteThey all tend to Ted Heath...a kind of glutinous mass of bile and ill will of indeterminate gender.
DeleteHarsh! :-)
DeleteSometimes you have to be - for the good of the country! lol
DeleteSo, John Simpson, which part of Daniel Kawczynski's tweet falls into the category of utter ignorance? John Simpson and Chris Patten not only look the same, they produce identical gobbets, on demand, of BBC groupthink.
ReplyDeleteDaniel K. is a bit of a twat. The UK got 25% of the Marshall Plan. He might be thinking of our loans. We had loaded ourselves with debt in order to prosecute WW2, not least to the USA. So I guess the Marshall Plan can be seen as enlightened self-interest: keeping us afloat so we could repay the loans.
DeleteI don't know who started this running gag about Simpson looking like Patten. He doesn't, other than both having silvery locks. Does everyone with black hair look the same? Everyone with...oh you know how 'they all look the same'. Specsavers!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - Who started it? - the first comment provides a small clue.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Craig put the question mark after the 'John Simpson' caption precisely in order to suggest that Simpson and Patten are out of the same Beeboid mould.
For what it's worth, I cropped the caption earlier tonight and asked a couple of friends to identify the man in the photo - both said 'Patten.' Hope you manage to get an early appointment at Specsavers - I should go by taxi! ;-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSisyphus, You may need a taxi to catch up! First comment where and when? This likeness claim has been made before.
DeleteAnon. Sorry, didn't know that! Anyway, the photo of Chris Patten, by Andrew Crowley, was used by the Telegraph to illustrate a dispatch from Reuters dated 9.7.2014, announcing that his Lordship was to head a committee to advise Pope Francis on media strategy.
DeleteIronically, one of the big issues with Marshall Aid was that the mainland European states invested it (as intended) to rebuild their war damaged infrastructure and rebuild their industries. In the UK, however, the Attlee government treated it as though it was a Christmas cheque from a benevolent relative and frittered it away on current spending. Effectively, Marshall Aid bought us the myth of universal healthcare, free at the point of need, much to the chagrin of the US donors who knew that they couldn't afford to provide for their own people....
ReplyDeleteWe spend far less on our health services than do Americans on theirs. A large proportion of theirs goes into insurance administration. The NHS is not particularly costly as health services go, although you can argue it doesn't deliver the best quality services, because of a lack of competition.
DeleteOn the other hand, the French Health Service does deliver top quality service & competition doesn't appear to come into it. Their secret appears to be to employ adequate numbers of well-trained GPs & nurses - I think I'm right in saying they spend 10% of GDP on it.
DeleteI read that many observers think the Belgian system (compulsory insurance plus competition between insurers). I thought the strength of the French system was that the GP is not a gatekeeper. If you think you're going deaf you can refer yourself to a hearing specialist without having to go through the totally unnecessary GP.
DeleteIn my (alas, fairly extensive) experience of French hospitals, you need a referral letter to get to see a consultant. Having said that, I think French GPs are judged, in part, by the alacrity with which they make referrals. The other criterion by which the French (hypochondriacs to a man or woman) judge their GPs is the number of medicines they prescribe for each illness; it is rare to come away with fewer than three pills or potions!
Delete