Jack Straw Out Over Iran

According to reports, Jack Straw was "relieved" of his position as Foreign Secretary because of his stance on attacking Iran.

JACK Straw was sacked as Foreign Secretary because he opposed an attack against Iran, it was claimed yesterday.

He said last month attacking the country to stop its nuclear programme was "nuts". But Tony Blair later told MPs that while "nobody is talking about a military invasion" now was "not the time to send a message of weakness".

George Bush was reportedly furious at Straw.

Yesterday friends of Mr Straw said his fate was sealed in a phone call from the White House.

Mirror.co.uk

How worrying, Blair allowing Bush to pick and choose who stays in his government. I'd be annoyed, if I was surprised.

There was also an accusation that Blair called Straw a "Tart" over his trip with Condi Rice Typical Tabloids, but I won't dismiss this story just because it is from the Daily Mirror (A Labour tabloid at that).

[edit on 8-5-2006 by chebob]

Originally posted by chebob
According to reports

- Well I suppose if it said so in a tabloid paper like the Mirror then who are we to question the truth of those "reports" or not, hmmmmm?

I won't dismiss this story just because it is from the Daily Mirror (A Labour tabloid at that).

- By what definition is the Mirror a Labour paper?

Simply 'not being a tory supporting paper' hardly makes them a particularly "Labour tabloid" cos from what I see of it they and their featured writers are often very hostile to this Labour government.


[edit on 8-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


Simply 'not being a tory supporting paper' hardly makes them a particularly "Labour tabloid" cos from what I see of it they and their featured writers are often very hostile to this Labour government.

Do you read the Mirror often? If you seriously deny that, besides the occasional disgruntled or outspoken columnist, they are very pro Labour, then you have poor judgement.

Do you think they are "not a Labour paper" because they cover the Scandals (or in the case of Prescott / Charles Clarke, hide the worst by making a big deal out of the trivial)? I can't see why else, as every day there are stories of the Tories/Lib Dems that are so much "spin" you could get dizzy reading them. The editorials usually tow the same line, the "Labour has made a mistake. But let's not forget how much we hate the Tories, and let's remember how good Blair really is, and forget these latest mistakes". Make no mistake, come election day, the Mirror will let you know in no uncertain terms who you should be voting for, I seem to remember last time round they had the paper full of little comments from celebrities saying "Why they will vote Labour". Not a Labour paper? Pull the other one.

I don't get the view that "If it's in a Tabloid, it's not true". Isn't that just being arrogantly ignorant? Would your view be any different if it had been reported by a Broadsheet?

Originally posted by chebob
Do you read the Mirror often?

- I see it fairly often, a couple of times a month.

If you seriously deny that, besides the occasional disgruntled or outspoken columnist, they are very pro Labour, then you have poor judgement.

- OK, then you disagree.

But I say Routledge, Maguire and Parsons regularly tear into Blair and 'New Labour', week in week out.

come election day, the Mirror will let you know in no uncertain terms who you should be voting for

- That's about as convincing as The Sun's claim to 'support Labour'.

A single edition on election day is hardly a sustained degree of support (particularly when in the case of The Sun it is absolutely and only because they can't bring themselves to support their true party of choice - going by their content at every other point).

Not a Labour paper? Pull the other one.

- Not supporting the tory party and even disliking the tory party is hardly 'Labour support'.
Sorry but it isn't.

If you like then why not back your point up with a few examples of the Mirror running sustained campaigns in support of particular Labour policies or proposals?
That's what I would call actual and real 'support' and simply being anti-tory is not it.

I don't get the view that "If it's in a Tabloid, it's not true". Isn't that just being arrogantly ignorant?

- No.
It is a view that is not so 'green' as to refuse to recognise that British tabloids have a habit of taking any story that matches their agenda and making big headlines out of them no matter how 'thin' the evidence.

Would your view be any different if it had been reported by a Broadsheet?

- I would take a proper multiply sourced story over a single source claim any day of the week.


[edit on 8-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

But I say Routledge, Maguire and Parsons regularly tear into Blair and 'New Labour', week in week out.

I say Routledge, Maguire and Parsons regularly tear into all 3 parties (and the UKIP et al). Thats part of the reason I continue to read it, they try speak out against any political figure in the wrong, as they should.

But think of this: It's reaosnable to assume that a large percentage of The Mirrors readers rarely read those columns, and instead read columns such as Fiona Phillips. Now there's someone who can give Alistair Campbell a run for their money. No matter the scandal or failing, she is there to remind people that "When I met him/her, they were absolutely wonderful, charming, and I don't think we should be so harsh to him/her". She's not the only one, but possibly my least favourite of "them"

She's actually quite Nauseating. I worry that people take more heed of "those" kind of columns, the "soft" ones, than the "biting" comments of Routledge, Maguire etc. But I will admit that is speculation, and I have nothing to back up such wild claims.

A single edition on election day is hardly a sustained degree of support (particularly when in the case of The Sun it is absolutely and only because they can't bring themselves to support their true party of choice - going by their content at every other point).

The Mirror isn't the Sun though, is it? I didn't say that those "election" issues are the only time they show obvious favouritism in Labours favour, and I certainly don't believe that, having read the paper daily for a good few years.

If you like then why not back your point up with a few examples of the Mirror running sustained campaigns in support of particular Labour policies or proposals?
That's what I would call actual and real 'support' and simply being anti-tory is not it.

I appear to have mislaid my enormous back catalogue of past Mirrors, but going from my own memory, they consistently back Labour over all other parties, they even "backed" the Dave the Chameleon "party political broadcast (pitiful)" a few weeks back. Many a time they will either fail to report a government failure, or give it a single 6 inch column while filling the first 4 to 6 pages with something "conveniently" controversial, like a football player in a sex scandal etc.

Well, this wasn't supposed to be a "Mirror: Is it Labour or not" thread, I apologize for veering off topic.

With that said, Unless downing street deny the report, I am perfectly willing to believe it. We know that both Bush and Blair refuse to count out Military action, and Jack Straw was of a different opinion. Makes sense to me that Blair would use this reshuffle as an opportunity to take any potential barriers between the UK-USA relations away, before they put further strain on the rest of his "reign".

[edit on 8-5-2006 by chebob]