Andrew Marr is paid £600k to spout his pseudo-communist nonsense on the BBC

[longfingernails]

Sorry I've been away for so long, but we had a family illness... thankfully all is OK now.

Anyway, I was outraged to learn that Andrew Marr is paid such massive sums of our money to read out Guardian editorials on the BBC - and we are not able to do anything about it. A fair salary for his job would be more like £60k.

If he wants to earn more, he could go and work for a private broadcaster.

All BBC salaries should be disclosed, in full, as soon as possible. Then, all BBC salaries should be capped at a maximum of £100k.

I do hope no-one missed me too much .

and claig your sweeping claim that neocons are ex trots is completely unfounded. rumsfeld is not, wolfowitz is not, w bush is not, cheney is not. kissinger was not, reagan was not and they are/were neocons. the movement's genesis was rooted in anti communism. so stop chatting fart that impressionable people could actually believe.

have you read wikipedia? Bush and Reagan weren't neocons, they were surrounded by neocons. Everyone knows that the neocons have their roots in Trotskyism.

www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0304/0304neocontrotp1.htm

Stop reading Trotskyist lies and start reading the Daily Mail, to stay informed.

so hold on as i'm lost, andrew marr does get £600,000 pa? and why is that a good thing??

kust google it george, it's no secret, it's everywhere. George Orwell would have looked behind the newspeak to see the truth, not believed what the Trotskyist Ministry of Truth said, as they shredded the truth to print their lies.

claig,I agree the lot surrounding Bush were hardly Conservatives in th UK sense.

A lot of them were so far to the right that they would have imposed a military/CIA government and suspended the constitution if they could have following 9/11. The Patriot Act shows the direction they wanted to take the USA in.

it's rubbish that neonconservatism has its roots in trotskyism and that link you provided refutes just that so you should at least read the articles you cite and not limit yourself to the title. Neoconservatism is rooted in anti communism ok? talk about double speak.

Yes I did see him on question time, he was the only one who gave a straight answer! Vince Cable did not seem to be able to answer a straight question, Yvette Cooper "did not know, what the deficit was" when they were kicked out, Heseltine bumbled away, did he mention Empire or was it the Common Wealth? The audience was far better than the panel! I always watch it if I can.

Here's your beloved Guardian. Ian Williams spells it out. He doesn't mention it in the main article, but he mentions it in the comments section in answer to a learned poster.

"And I have stressed the difference between Palaeocons (such as John Bolton) and NeoCons often before. Neocons, being ideologically descended from exTrotskyists, are not that conservative on social and domestic issues, but are activists internationally. Palaeocons are only interested in the rest of world insofar as it benefits the USA, and are deeply conservative domestically.

It is the tragedy of New Labour that some of its slimiest acolytes have adopted the Neocon foreign policy and Goldwaterish domestic policies, which makes one wonder what the hell they are doing in even the watered down Labour Party."

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/14/swiftboatingacrosstheatlantic

Real conservatives believe in the sovereignty of nations, they don't believe in pre-emptivbe strikes and "humanitarian" wars like Blair and the leftist neocons do.

comp, he only gave one answer which started with the EU blah blah blah. He probably blames the EU for bad weather :)

Thank God he is your "leader" as he will take UKIP to the oblivion it deserves :o

Georgeorwell. Neocons are Trots, Trots, Trots, OK?!!

Many are very 'impressionable' on this site!

newwave get your tongue out of claig's sphincter a minute please. of course bush wasn't a conservative in the uk sense. that's cos he was a neocon.

I didn't have time to read that link. I'm trying to inform you of their Trotskyist roots, because it is common knowledge. I'm surprised that a politically aware leftist like you, who wants imminent revolution, had never heard of it. I'm surprised that a Prodi supporter in the heart of communist Bologna, had never spent any time to look into who these neocons really are.

are you all related to andrew?

the more i see of this section the more i'm convinced there's a group mentality at play with comp and clegg (sorry, claig) appointing themselves as the guardians (PUN!) of truth. whereas actually your arguments are tired and borne out of pregudice or selective googling.

george, Bush wasnt a Neocon he didnt have the brains to be a neocon he was however a puppet for the likes of Rumsfeld, Libby etc.

As for you other comment, please fuck off, I rarely agree with claig but I am not so close minded as not to agree with him on the rare occassion he is correct.

Newwave. I would agree with you, but he has led them to get 900.000 votes at the last election. Farage is quite knowledgeable and most can't beat him in an argument. He replies and thinks about what he is saying, unlike Vince Cable, he actually replied to some woman that "a space programme, doesn't cost much" Dozy bastard!

Prodi supporter? who dat den? don't think so but i will tell you that the more i come on here the gladder i am to be in italy and far from ukippers.

georgeorwell, George Orwell was interested in the truth, he didn't believe the spin and the lies.

I haven't got time to show you every article and book explaining why they are from a Trotskyist background. It's old news, it's been known for years, even wikipedia explains it in detail. Please google it and a whole new world of truth will open up to, one that your comrades never told you about.

Conspiracy theory alert.

The range of opinions in "Politics" is very wide from LFN who is from right wing la la land to quite a few lefties although their is no hard left posters AFAIK.

and i haven't got time to show you every article and book explaining why they are from an anti communist background. (that link you gave par example). if a few of them happened to flirt with some form of leftism in their youth for 5 minutes that hardly constitutes the roots of their neoconservatism does it? whereas being anti communists was their beginning and the means to their end.

they were Trotskyists, they were anti-Stalin

Comp, I am more disappointed in Vince than any other LD, the toerag needs a backbone transplant.

He has lost so much credibilty if he walks now no one will notice.

This is from teh Washington Post, showing Trotsky as the root. Leo Strauss was their mentor, Wolfowitz studied under him.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.html