...and any other matters that take our fancy
What lies ahead? Someone on BBBC was predicting that, with the local elections out of the way (with UKIP having put in a poor showing), the BBC would be focusing on ripping into Farage and the Brexit Party...I think there may be something to that. The BBC and the MSM could be said to have "overshot the runway" with their support of the Brexit Party over UKIP. I don't think they were intending to destroy the two party system.
Tommy Robinson physically attacked three times, on camera, while campaigning for public office. Police response? Nothing. https://www.votetommy.co.uk/And how do our lovely media-political elite react?Extreme Republican and Mirror journalist Kevin Maguire approves of the milkshake attack. Ian Dunt, supposedly responsible journalist and self-confessed Remainiac loved the attack.
Now Police, who have refused to act on clear evidence of assault against him, tell Tommy Robinson (whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon in case you're wondering and haven't that before) that there is a credible threat of assassination against him and want him to sign an indemnity reliniquishing the Police of any responsibility for protecting him unless he basically stops campaigning. Welcome to the dual system of law operating in the UK. https://twitter.com/AltNewsMedia/status/1124978349477068800
Yes, funnily enough I've heard that too as someone keeps putting it about but being really real for a moment, his real 'real' name is Stephen Yaxley. Get it right, BBC!
Saint Greta's latest decree: "It’s 2019. Can we all now please stop saying “climate change” and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?"We'll need an abbreviation for that as Guest Who points out on BBBC. We could call it CBCCCEEBECEE - but perhaps "CBeebies" would roll off the tongue better or we could just settle for "Crackers".
According to her mother, Saint G can 'see' carbon dioxide - not bad, considering it's a colourless and odourless gas! Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That?) is entertaining on this & so are readers' comments: I particularly liked this one: "If GT can see the 400 PPM of CO2 in the air, then the 4% (40,000PPM) of CO2 in her exhaled breath must be opaque and render her incapable of seeing beyond her nose."I am reminded that a considerable number of saints suffered from visual and auditory hallucinations - some of them were burned as a result. Lest the climate activists ban me from the Internet, I would point out that I am not, for a moment recommending incineration in Ms T's case - I mean, think of all that CO2! :-)
It's odd that she seems so concerned about the alleged environmental degradation caused by CO2 (biomass is actually increasing thanks to the warmer and wetter conditions and the extra CO2 that plants crave). But she doesn't seem to care at all about the appalling increases in human population that are doing the real damage.
Just heard a bit of virtue signalling on TWTW with Mark Mardell wittering on about the need for us to plant 2 billion trees to get out net carbon emission down. OK...Then I wondered about this. It normally feels warmer in a forest to me, certainly in winter it does. So I checked that out and found this which confirmed my suspicion:https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/news/release/forest-temperature-influence-latitudeNorth of 45 degrees (I think that's all of the UK) a forest is warmer than the surrounding area. So all those virtue signalling Mancunians featured in the programme planting trees in their area are actually ADDING to global warming!!! Likewise George Monbiot who wants us to reforest our sheep-nibbled uplands - he too wants to make global warming worse. :) Weird eh?
If one of the candidates for the European Parliament from Labour were to announce that they had been advised by Police to stop campaigning because of a credible assassination threat, do you think that might possibly make the BBC News Politics page? Hmm..I'm thinking yes. But because it's Tommy Robinson - sorry, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - who's been so advised it ain't news for the BBC.
Is it possible that the police have been told that there ain't going to be any European elections, so they are avoiding unnecessary campaigning (as they might see it) and the subsequent trouble. Any reason that might prompt the police to refuse protection to a prospective MEP is indefensible.
Ha-ha - interesting theory, Arthur!
Given the apparent reason given for Mr. R’s police advice to stay indoors is a ‘credible threat’, does one presume that all others gadding about still claiming threats are in fact ones that are not credible?
Yes. They seem pretty relaxed and unstressed...unlike TR who has been assaulted on camera three times and three times the Police have chosen not to charge anyone, or even arrest them. They did give one of the assailants a lift to the station, though - just to show they do care. Are any of our MPs up in arms about this double standard of law enforcement in the country? Er - no, not even the high minded Jacob.
Nige has definitely got his Mojo back...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RNsQRjLRXQNo doubt in their wine bars and at their dinner parties Beeboids are going to be discussing how they deal with this rising threat...expect a deluge of Anti-Faragism from the BBC over the coming weeks. Been some discussion on BBBC about UKIP/Brexit Party How do you vote? Certainly the most important thing now is to get the biggest possible vote for the populist parties. But I do agree as some say on BBBC that long-term UKIP is more important. The Brexit Party as it stands is not a internally democratic party and it doesn't seem to have an ideological underpinning. Does sound like Nige is going full on to break the two party system...glad to hear him calling out the biased polticised civil service (it truly has become that).
4:40 - very good comment from Tucker Carlson. You might think he's just a Trump Groupie but he's calling out the Trump White House on its failure to protect free speech from the assault of the big tech companies like Facebook (Nick Clegg at the helm) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jztcdIWL12khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jztcdIWL12k
Excellent video about FascistFacebook:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1ALPemzOI
This is a good video on the Climate Fraud being perpetrated by the coalition of lunatics, liars and life-deniers:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9sw_HfLejg
Is saw this George Orwell quote in Nick Cohens Guardian article today. Very apt for May and her BRINO. It also applies to the BBC and their bias for undermining Brexit .“Do remember that dishonesty and cowardice always have to be paid for. Don’t imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist of the Soviet regime, or any other regime, and then suddenly return to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore.’ ”
Cohen's got a cheek using that quote. This is the guy who wants to overturn our democratic vote and cancel out the 17.4 million votes cast on terms that everyone understood at the time. The idea that Leave voters weren't aware of the alleged downside given they were subjected to a 3 month Project Fear barrage is risible! He also tries dishonestly to tie Farage to the making of death threats to MPs when we all know Farage has been subject to multiple death threats - some very serious. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/16/brexit-extremism-is-going-nowhere-now-the-moderate-millions-must-act
Gavin Esler, ex BBC and biased broadcaster par excellence (well known on this blog) has given an interview to HuffPost. Worth a read if only to see how deluded he is. He’s the village idiot, no doubt about it but the irony is lost on him.https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gavin-esler-tv-news-must-stop-giving-airtime-to-the-village-idiots-of-brexit_uk_5cc5c36fe4b0fd8e35bda67d?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9iaWFzZWRiYmMub3JnL2Jsb2cvMjAxOS8wNS8wNS9zdGFydC10aGUtd2Vlay1vcGVuLXRocmVhZC02LW1heS0yMDE5Lw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJzAY8_QFogT1Z7KW5_GaFuSmqJoMTOYA-zIvvvOABaLbgYvjndjBzJovTqOn0ywViLDoZTGJviqrNo1LDH2AKLrxCvkciyu1nAF5MD8SsjWjh-VofiUaNCTJqGN0Yrgso7SL0v-iXeI0PSHCO9VqrXyzdwVFtlgIVFQC4HwZ_6U
Full of fibs and distortion...so convinced of his own virtue he can't see how obvious it is to someone looking at him from the outside...Esler claims to be, as an individual, "aspiring working class". Wikipedia tells me his dad was the manager of a building company and Esler was educated at one of the best private schools in Scotland. Then he makes a vile comparison of Farage with Narrrzees in Germany complaining about betrayal of the German Army in 1918 because Farage talks correctly of "betrayal" of the Leave vote. This is outrageous:1. The German army never was stabbed in the back. All historians agree it was the Army leaders clamouring most loudly for peace, for armistice, knowing that otherwise the army would be completely destroyed. The record is clear. 2. The record is equally clear that the whole electorate was told by the HM government and all (all including Soubry, Allen, Umuna and all the rest) party political leaders that the decision of the EU Referendum would be implemented. This was after over 500 MPs had approved the legislation for the Referendum. David Cameron said he would stay on and implement the decision if we voted to leave. It was made clear by nearly all Remain and Leave spokespeople that a decision to leave meant withdrawing from the Single Market and Customs Union. Parliament then voted for Article 50. But we are still in the EU and Esler wants to reverse the democratic vote, while continuing to spout Project Fear lies. We have every right to say we have been betrayed, because that is what has happened.
I've posted an ever-so-slightly sarky piece about this tonight.
Craig & M.Brains.... Did you see Nicholas Witchell's Live verbal seizure on tonight's Bank Holiday News.My comment is further down 'It's A Boy'....The Royal baby.John.....N. London.
John,I didn't see it live, but I've seen it now. I've not seen anything quite like that before.I also saw Paul Royall - the BBC editor responsible for BBC One's main new bulletins - tweeting this tonight:"For those asking about Nick Witchell - he’s absolutely fine. Highly unusually for Nick he lost his train of thought on the BBC News at Ten and decided to hand back to the studio. This can happen sometimes even to the most experienced and respected in busy live news broadcasting."And the BBC's Jeremy Bowen tweeted:"I’ve seen some snide comments about Nick Witchell. Please stop, they’re not deserved. He’s a respected and experienced broadcaster, doing his job. I don’t know what happened tonight but it’s certainly no reason to be nasty."Defenders, critics, mockers and worriers about his health are certainly out in force tonight on Twitter.
I am firmly of the belief that the BBC only keep him in that role because they know it annoys Prince Charles who can't stand him (remember the "horrible little man" comment?). Maybe Witchell's mind short circuited when he thought of Charles's comments.
Glad you caught it. What did Prince Charles once say about Nicholas..... "Oh it's that awful man."John.......N.London.
I didn't see the Witchell broadcast mishap but I did see an article on the BBC website by someone I've seen described as the Royal Correspondent which made me conclude he is as bad a writer as he is a broadcaster. Jonny Dymond. Come back Witchell, even if Prince Charles would not be pleased.'So what's going on with the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's first child?Buckingham Palace announced some weeks ago that there would be no information given out about the birth, beyond that it was happening. And so it was that shortly before 14:00 BST on Monday, a brief statement from Buckingham Palace announced that Meghan had gone in to labour, followed 40 minutes later by confirmation of the baby's arrival - a boy, weighing 7lbs 3oz.That meant the strange British circus of journalists, photographers, royal superfans and bemused passers-by gawking at a hospital door for days on end would not happen.Instead, we have an arguably stranger British circus of the same group of people positioned at the end of Windsor's Long Walk, close to the Sussexes' new home.This is on the presumption that a birth is happening somewhere in the vicinity - but in the knowledge that nothing at all will be seen of mother, father, or indeed newborn child. ...' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48079417This is what now passes for news journalism at the BBC.
Jonny Diamond clearly doesn't like, understand or have any interest in the institution of the monarchy - perfect for the BBC role of Royal Correspondent.
Good point MB. If you look at his twitter feed he rarely makes positive statements about Royalty despite being Royal correspondent. It’s all retweet’s to give him a degree of separation. He is clearly a republican and despises the monarchy. I suspect that was a prerequisite of being offered the job. Par for the course with the BBC , they require people who have an unhealthy distaste for their specialism.
We can look forward to Simon McCoy taking over from Witchell, then!
😁 very good
The BBC is now promoting lifetimes bans from standing for public office for people who say things they disagree with... https://twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/1125691993139470336I have long thought this is how democracy will be finally sunffed out in the UK. The Electoral Commission will eventually be given powers to vet candidates and eliminate all who fail to meet core PC standards. We are at the stage now where the BBC is softening us up. They'll start with what seems "sensible" (e.g. banning people who are deemed to have threatened violence) but then move on to those who have shown themselves to be non-PC or discriminatory in some way e.g. arguing someone male TG women are not real women. Carl Benjamin is being persecuted and hounded for a 3 year old poor taste joke that was stupid and ill advised. With John McDonnell and his far more insiduous comments about wanting to assassinate Mrs Thatcher and supporting the IRA's "bombs and bullets and sacrifice" it's all "Let's forget about that shall we?"
Well done to Daniel Sandford...he managed a long report on "the London Bridge Attacks" this evening on the 10pm BBC TV news without once mentioning Islam or Jihad...this from one only too happy to talk about violent Far Right extremism at the drop of a hat. The rare mention of the London Bridge attack (necessitated by the Inquest) prompts recognition of how much these terror attacks are "disappeared" from our collective memory. Compare and contrast the constant reminders about the Grenfell Fire, the Windrush scandal, the Jo Cox murder and so on. Why? All these things should be remembered but there should be balance.
The inquest of the London Bridge murders was reported by BBC News tonight as lead story. They talked of attackers, vans, deaths and people being killed. No mention of motive, no mention of religion, no mention of terrorism. This is the real fake news by the BBC using bias by omission because viewers can’t be trusted with the facts. It was a totally sanitised piece of manipulative and downright dishonest journalism. The website report is exactly the same. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48185656
MB, you beat me to it! Thinking the same thing.
Yes indeed Arne - it was appalling Fake News. Fake News isn't just telling lies, it is also about leaving out so many salient facts that a misleading impression is given.
It's nice to hear Emily Maitlis, for a change,show extreme courtesy to an interviewee, listening intently and respectfully to their replies and allowing them plenty of time to put together their responses. It's Lord Heseltine she's interviewing, not Jacob Rees-Mogg, in case you were wondering.
Today I heard both Emma Barnett and Nick Watt from the BBC describe people who want to keep us in the EU Customs Union and Single Market (as they would have it) as "moderates" despite the fact that they are completely stymying the vote of 17.4 million people in a Referendum sanctioned by Parliament, the result of which HM Government and all major party leaders (including Lid Dems) assured us would be implemented.That ain't my definition of a "moderate". For me that's an extremist - an extreme anti-democrat one prepared to see this country become a vassal state, a rule-taker with no real input into the rules they are forced to accept. It's a kind of Petainist mentality and I don't think the BBC would define Petain as a moderate. Why do the BBC feel the need to apply the moderate label, like a primary school teacher awarding gold stars? Why? Because it is an effective method of mind control. Very effective. They will never give it up as long as it enables them to back the policies they support without having to admit openly and honestly their reporting is biased. I noticed another Emma Barnett trick...when she reads out the (no doubt carefully selected e mail comments to Radio 5 Live) she will thrown in some lightly negative pseudo-humorous asides after she's read comments she disagrees with (e.g. pro Brexit comments). She's quite subtle the way she does it...little "I'm not sure about that..." phrases with some ambiguous phrases/questions thrown in...so if you read it in the cold light of print, she could argue her away out of an accusation of bias...it's just she does do the same with the pro-Remain comments.
This is why "moderate" Jess Phillips is probably the most dangerous person in the UK today. This is what she thinks and is campaigning for:"The Electoral Commission should surely have standards about who can and can't stand for electionIf Facebook and Twitter can ban these people for hate speech, how is it they are allowed to stand for election?"So she wants the Electoral Commission to ban people from standing for Parliament on the same basis that the insanely PC Facebook-Cleggie nutjobs ban people from their (horrible) platform.That's basically calling for a political dictatorship on the Soviet or Nazi model. Horrific. I feel vindicated now in my previous observations (based on instinct as well as analysis) that people like Phillips, Cooper, Creasy and all the rest are NOT moderates but very extreme people who want to abolish democracy and free speech, and then lock up anyone who disagrees with them. I'd like to think that was a joke but it's actual a very sober and factual analysis.
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Imagine there was a party called the Yellow Party whose manifesto stated it wanted the country to embrace the benefits of a dairy diet, to convert arable land to dairy farming and double cheese production. Imagine this party claimed all sorts of scientific and historical evidence to show that there are huge benefits for society and individuals when milk, butter and cheese consumption increases and that vegetarianism poses a threat to the planet. Then imagine that all the while the Yellow Party are working hard to increase their vote, while there is active campaigning in these elections, the BBC gives over large amounts of its news, current affairs, food, farming and drama programming to Yellow themes, seen very much from the perspective of the Yellow Party. The BBC even strongly feature an impassioned teenager from Switzerland, Heidi Kuhliebhaber known as "The Milk Girl" who speaks of the impending eco catastrophe if we continue using vegetarian products like soy beans and palm oil, which are causing the world to be deforested. She demands that we abandon our fossil fuel economy and move over to cow pat incineration as the only eco-friendly form of energy. The ask yourself: wouldn't the Electoral Commission take some interest in whether this wall to wall propaganda favouring the Yellow Party was fair and legal? ****Of course it is the constant Green climatist propaganda that we have on the BBC which has actually been ramped up about 500% during this election campaign period that raised these thoughts.This morning on Radio 4 they had a programme billed as a kind of follow up to Berger's Ways of Seeing...it was nothing of the sort just another excuse for non-stop idiotic climatist propaganda that, nevertheless, can only help the Green Party in the elections. Why is the BBC so flouting the electoral rules in this way? I think it's because the Green Party is for the BBC the perfect repository for protest votes: it is pro-Remain, pro-BBC, pro-Left and pro-statism. The more room they create for Green propaganda, the less chance there is of a patriotic populist revolt.
I heard the intro to that programme and I thought it's odd, resurrecting that book, and wondered why they even thought of it. It seems like eons ago when it was around. I think I have a copy of it somewhere. Anyway I switched off the radio as I had no interest in hearing about it.
Berger was a Marxist and leading figure in various Communist front organisations. His book was influential at the time. Enough for the BBC to remember him but the programme itself seemed to have nothing to do really with "ways of seeing".
Perhaps it was one of their 're-imaginings'. This seems to be trend on the BBC. A series of Wilde plays turned out not to be the actual plays. This morning Woman's Hour's trailer mentioned Jude the Obscure but it turned out to be a re-imagining of Jude as a female Syrian refugee. I turned it off.
I'm looking forward to their reimagining of Brideshead Revisited as a critical Marxist analysis of Oxbridge privilege and oppression of the college servant class.
Ben Chu hitting his Guardian stride with a load of Fake News on Newsnight, presenting the Brexit vote as a vote from "the left behind", as Remainers like to say, out in "the regions" (there's a word to send a shudder through the metromob at Newsnight). Rubbish. The South Region and the East of England are very prosperous regions and both voted to Leave. One of the reasons the regions do so badly in the UK is that they are so far from the economic centre of the single market EU. That won't get a mention of course. Another political advert for Andy Burnham. On a humorous note, Ben Chu can't ride a bike properly. Riding like a 5 year old. One thing about getting older, you've heard the Liz Truss line "We're too centralised" line several times over. Eff me - Heseltine on Newsnight two nights running talking about our 19th century economy as though regionalism created growth...er no. McDonnell also given a free political advert. But looking like a bluffer. Radical devolution is the solution says Wise Man Chu...what does that actually mean? No grant money from central government to local authorities? Of course not...not that radical!!! Maitlis getting angry with the Conservatives over Brexit - she can see another RTS award in the offing...Oh well that was all very unilluminating.
I was looking for something to accompany me while cooking the other day, so decided to give "More or Less" a chance. I hardly listen to the poisonous BBC these days, but "More or Less" is supposed to be about statistics and numbers, so I thought give it a go.A very peculiar episode kept me listening. Tim H. decided to investigate whether halving the world's population, as in a recent sci-fi film, would be a good thing. There were two interviewees. The first looked back at the effects of the Black Death era and noted that living standards rose for hundreds of years after the plague, due to "increased economic opportunities" for the survivors and their descendants. The second interviewee, for balance, warned that halving the population could inconvenience some businesses and possibly lead to a house price crash. Well, said Harford, a house price crash might be welcomed by the Millennials.And that was it. Hmmm ... my suspicious reading between the lines here was that possibly Harford was challenging BBC dognma that mass immigration and an ever increasing population is only and always an economic benefit, but daren't say that explicitly. So he disguised his argument in a humourous study of a fantasy world. Anyway, I found I was able to listen to it for 30 minutes instead of switching-off in frustration after 5 minutes of BBC propaganda.
You know, I heard a bit of that and was having similar thoughts. When More of Less started out it seemed to be used as a political axe, as you might expect on the BBC (a bit like Reality Check), to chop away at populist sentiment. But I too have noticed a change...has someone had a damascene conversion? Has the producer changed? I don't know but it seems to have more of these "challenge the consensus" moments. Last week it was challenged the "all insects are becoming extinct" claims of the ecoeccentrics (although, counterintuitively, I have more sympathy with the claims of a dramatic reduction in insect populations, at least flying ones). If this is a trend, it's a welcome one. Just imagine - the whole of Radio 4 could be like that...challenging consensus where the consensus has a poor evidence base! How much more interesting that would be - I'd definitely be tuning in for more than the average 5 minutes that seems to happen these days as some absurd unsubstantiated claim gets given precious air time. Maybe the More of Less team have been told this is the last series?
BBC today passing on climate porn PR about flooding, somehow dodging what it could be that leads to 'building on ever more flood plains' sending the water elsewhere. The need for a BBC Ark becomes ever more pressing.
They all read the Guardian and the Guardian is spinning the absurd report as "whole towns may have to be abandoned". Er - no. We have the example of Netherlands across the water where large swathes of the country are several metres below sea level. The absurdity of the Environment Agency is on display here in the comment of its head Emma Howard Boyd who says: “We can’t win a war against water by building away climate change with infinitely high flood defences.” This has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever made by a public official. Not even the maddest of the mad econutters, not even St Greta or George Monbiot claims that global warming will deliver an "infinitely" rising sea level. Even if every shard of ice on the planet melted, the sea level would rise only 70 metres. But of course that is NOT going to happen. Current projections for accelerated sea level rise (I say accelerated because of course sea level is naturally rising as we continue to move out of the ice age back to more average temperatures) don't go much above 30 cms by the end of the century. Whether there is actually any accelerated rise is highly questionable - there is a lot of reinforcement of expectations going on in the way satellite data is processed for instance. By the end of the century fossil fuels will be a thing of the past and we will if necessary be extracting carbon from the atmosphere.
PM featured this latest ecoscare (all good for shoring up the Green protest vote). The odd thing was they split the story in two...The first half was standard issue alarmism: underplay the natural element in sea level rise, don't query the "stormier weather" thesis, don't dispute the dodgy data and treat the outlier estimates as the core ones. One of the pontificators given the usual easy ride was Lord Stern author of the dreadful Stern Review...which couldn't a single plus sign to go into the analysis of climate change - of course there would be thousands of such pluses e.g. much lower energy bills for the average household if it's 4 degrees warmer on average, fewer race meetings would be cancelled, more sea would mean more fish and so on...That was one part of the programme. The other though had to be segregated off...because this was addressing the situation in the Netherlands where much of the land is below sea level. The cheerful Dutch chap seemed to be saying everything is under control and the Netherlands will be fine even under the worst case scenarios. Not what you usually hear on Radio 4. Maybe it was inserted to provide the faux "balance" that BBC can reference if challenged on its pro-Green propaganda. Anyway, it was refreshing to hear.
The classic thing is that the places they usually say will get flooded..are things that were build on reclaimed land anywayeg Singapore Casino, Sydney Opera House etc.
The news headlines on Radio 4 this morning included an item that the government is to spend '£200m of taxpayers' money' on cladding... I was so distracted by this odd wording wondering who else's money would it be and why didn't they just say the government is to spend £200m on cladding that I didn't hear any further.Later on it became clear when I heard on Sky News that the money is for cladding on blocks of privately owned flats where developers or freeholders refuse to pay for cladding. So the BBC had a point to make - a pointy political point. Oh dear. Who writes this stuff? Is it the teenagers from Newsnight? It was not only pointed but clunky and ineptly done. I discounted the possibility that it was a sign of a new respect at the BBC for taxpayers' money.
On Radio 4 they said that it was "The Government was going to pay" at which my wfe and I shouted in unison "Its our f-k-g money".
Interesting on This Week. All four commentators - Andrew Neil, Tim Martin (whom I much respect), Michael Portillo and Liz Kendall all agreed, strongly, very strongly, it is incomprehensible that a UK government would side with Huawei and China against the USA. WTF is going on with out government. May seems entranced by these whacky civil servants around her - Olly Robins selling us out to the EU and wanting to become a Belgian citizen, while Mark Sedwill is kowtowing to the Chinese Communist dictatorship. This government is betraying the democratic vote but also betraying our interests in aligning itself with the Chinese dictatorship.Incidentally I think Portillo looked a bit like he'd had a slice of humble pie when Trump's name came up. Portillo said some unpleasant things about Trump but even Portillo now realises he is pursuing the right China policy.
The fly on the wall doc on the EU negotiations should shame us all. https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/09/cameras-caught-theresa-may-called-pathetic-insane-eu-brexit-negotiators-9459497/The EU staff treat our side with complete disdain and disrespect...but, sadly, they are probably right to do so. A member of a UK parliamentary delegation is dismissed as a "f**cker" needing to be shoo'd away because they want to have a serious discussion about the border issues. May is considered pathetic and insance. Olly Robins wants to apply for Belgian citizenship after the negotiations are over. They got us in the position of a colony. They've won hands down (they wanted Barnier to enter to The Winner Takes It All). It is really a damning indictment of the negotations and very sad for anyone who loves this country. And why has this happened? Because May is a Remainer surrounded by Remainer civil servants and watched closely by the Remainer Praetorian guard including Hammond and Rudd. Rather than play our cards (the millions of EU citizens living here, our air space, our security role in Europe, our leading finance role, our ability to walk away from a deal)May has retreated, genuflected and acquiesced at every turn. At the first sign of a snide tweet from Tusk or snarky remark from Guy V or a disrespectful remark from Barnier we should have suspended negotiations and demanded they act with civility. They would soon have changed their tune - Merkel would have made sure of that - and that would haev set the right tone for the negotiations. As for agreeing the EU timetable, for which there is no warrant in Article 50 and is in fact probably illegal, we should have flatly refused it and indicated we would withdraw on WTO terms. Would the EU have come round? probably. but to agree to the timetable was simply to hand over control of the outcome to the EU so either way we had no choice but to prevent the timetable being applied.
UK Growth was stronger than expected at 0.5% and the manufacturing sector grew at its fastest rate since 1988.As expected the BBC managed to turn all of this into a negative. Their report is downbeat and gloomy. They always talk this country down. It’s a very unattractive aspect of BBC reporting and they can be relied on to put a damper on any good news. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48225334
From his parallel universe, Andrew Adonis tweeted today;Question Time last night the most biased BBC political programme I’ve ever seen. Farage, in his 34th appearance, sidelined the chair, harangued & bullied his way to half the speaking time. No other MEP candidate on. An entire question & 15 mins on his Brexit Party. Utter disgrace.
Goodness. I thought he was quiet a lot of the time and I wondered if he was ever going to be asked to speak. But I did miss the beginning so maybe he had already spoken. I know these things are subjective but my impression was that Soubry tried to dominate, delivering her high-ground moral lectures and interrupting too. Farage did respond to some of her spiky comments. It was a good thing too. Short of counting, I don't know but Adonis is no guide to anything.
Farage was on fine form...and he did derail the chair, silence Soubry on a couple of occasions and fire up the audience. Full marks really. But given the bias is running 80% to Remain since 2016, I think it was time it was redressed a little. A short translation of Adonis plaint is "Didn't Farage do well?"
One observation from watching the Question Time broadcast from Northampton last night...It was interesting that while the audience were seemingly rather pro-Brexit, sympathetic to Farage and hostile to Soubry and Labour, when someone on the panel declared that he favoured migration and it had been very good for our country, there was an explosion of enthusiastic applause. What to make of that? I find it a bit of a puzzle. Are people really that enthusiastic about past, present and future mass immigration (still running at something like 600,000 per annum)? It seems a bit unlikely to me. Or are people in this country genuinely non-racist and want to send a message to that effect? Perhaps. If so it is rather concerning and shows just how effectively the Government, BBC, the MSM generally, schools and universities have managed to equate opposition to racism with support for mass immigration...surely one of the world's great non-QEDs of all time!I oppose racism but I have never fallen for the propaganda in favour of mass immigration. I've looked in detail at reports that allegedly provide detailed cost-benefit analyses of mass immigration. They do nothing of the kind. They all omit costs like FGM, cousin marriage disability, increased contact with the criminal justice system, and look at migration in the short term, avoiding the issue of later state subsidies for families and housing. We can point to some facts that must cause one to question the unproven "All Migration Good" thesis. Since the huge migration wave of the early Blair period, we have seen real wages fall or stagnate. Also our productivity has been stuck in a very deep rut. We have not yet paid the bill for mass immigration ie we haven't even begun to pay out for all the millions of new housing units that are going to be required to cope with our additional population. At a rough estimate we will probably need something like 1.3 million additional units every decade at a cost of something like £325 billion. That's just housing units of course - doesn't account for additional transport infrastructure, hospitals, new schools and so on. There's always been an argument for targeted migration...one thinks of the Dutch who came over to create canals to drain our countryside or the Huguenots with lace making skills or similar.
Stuff you BBC! “The UK economy picked up in the first three months of the year after manufacturers' stockpiling ahead of Brexit helped to boost growth”
Typical BBC. There is always qualification with any good news story in order to draw out a negative from a positive. They just can’t bring themselves to recognise the strength of the UK economy post referendum. It would destroy their carefully built narrative.
Surely, what manufacturers will have been stockpiling is materials or components which have to be imported from EU countries. It is, therefore, EU economies which should have been boosted, not the UK's.
Sisyphus - I've wondered about that before. Imports are excluded from GDP but that is to avoid double counting I think. So, to take the example of an imported can of baked beans, for GDP purposes they don't count the import, but the value of the baked beans is incorporated in "consumption" which forms part of GDP. So if the can is sold for 50p that appears as 50p of value in our GDP (of that 50p,maybe half will have been formed by the cost of purchasing the can of beans from another country). If you included the import cost of 25p you would effectively be double counting the 25p.
Thanks MB - I think I understand, sort of!
Why is the BBC suddenly interested in attacks on peaceful political campaigners by fascistic antifa thugs? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-48230438They've ignored them up to now. And why do they call these thugs "protestors" when they are engaged in criminal behaviour. We know it's a serious criminal offence that can lead to imprisonment because that's what happened to someone who attacked Jeremy Corbyn in this way.And why do the BBC show no interest in the presence or absence of the Police. I've seen footage of the Police present in Truro. But as always with UKIP victims, no arrests and no charges.
And why the ubiquitous reference to Tommy R whose real ... (you know the rest)? TR is standing as an Independent, not under the UKIP banner.
For those of you who think clumsy tweets are appallingconsider this :Political Greens are almost always #FakeGreen nutters... green is living frugally.. not having a second home .. Energy Minister Claire Perry claims for second home and £10K/year extra for her grown up kids living there as wellhttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9050900/mps-claiming-expenses-dependent-children-20s-university/
It's very true. How carbon was emitted in building that second home? I've yet to come across a prominent Green activist who lives frugally.
A programme on Radio 4 at 5 30 pm today: The InquiryHow can we feed 11 billion people?'The world’s population is set to grow from 7.7 to 11 billion by the end of this century. The challenge is to produce enough food to feed this number of people. In the 1960s the Green Revolution provided answers to similar problems – but the projected population growth of the future is on a much greater scale than before, and so new measures are required...'Good question, if we get to the end of the century and the doom merchants and extreme greenies haven't killed us off.
I forgot the linkhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00051kb
I suspect it will be a lot more than 11 billion.I have no doubt we can feed that many...large parts of the world still have v. inefficient agriculture. Add in polytunnel agriculture and plant-friendly global warming and I am sure we can "cope". But another 3.3 billion people with concomitant economic growth towards advanced standards means probably the death of trillions upon trillions of insects, hundreds of millions of birds, billions of fish and amphibians and hundreds of millions of mammals. Is that ethical?
BBC also keeping up bias in the regions, initial reports on the BBC Wales today of "huge" crowds at a pro-welsh-independence rally in Cardiff (something of a minority cause even among nationalists).Later reports downgraded this to "large" crowds. 150 protesters plus 1500 or so bystanders typical for a Cardiff Saturday does not a 2000 strong protest make (except at the BBC)
The BBC is pro-nationalist when it suits them ie when it's anti-England or anti-any other entity they don't like. But when the "nationalism" is against an entity they like, e.g. the EU, Canada, India or South Africa, they fall silent.
Brexit Party insurrection is going well if you believe the polls...no reason to disbelieve them in this case. Change UK down. Aahh, poor Anna. Happy days! :) Can only hope it is the beginning of a populist revolt that will lead to PR, break the two party system and allow us to express our will as a people.
It certainly seems like It! :) Which makes it all the more strange that the rise of the BP didn't get a mention in the 5-6 headlines just announced on BBC1 news (midnight). What they did mention, though, was a "hotel attack" in Pakistan (nasty, vicious things, hotels; you never quite know when one of them is going to grab a Kalashnikov & commit a massacre). Thus exasperated, I switched to Sky News - they ran the BP poll result early on & showed a bar chart which, I think, is the one used by Guido. It's almost as if the BBC doesn't want the BP to do well, isn't it?
I think those hotels have been radicalised by those cars carrying out their "car attacks"...I reckon the BBC are feeling a bit stupid...they were so determined to boost Nigel in order to destroy nasty UKIP-Tommy they kind of overshot the runway...People in the UK don't require much of a green flag from the MSM to get behind a populist movement. It's what they think - why shouldn't they vote for it?
I think you're right re: BBC stupidity - it'll be fun watching them trying to put the cork back in the bottle!The big danger for BP supporters is likely to be complacency: "We're going to win by a landslide, so there's no need to turn out to vote, is there?" Oh yes, there is!
I’d bet that the BP are further ahead than the polls suggest, everything. In the last few years every mainstream poll has been skewed to the left by at least a few percentage points. Probably because those on the right are less likely to sign up etc.
Tories everywhere today on MSM and Twittersphere saying the Euro vote is just a protest vote. It doesn’t count.Blair has been on too, but that a good thing, he just adds to the Brexit party vote.They still don’t get it. (to quote J H-B)It is incredible that they could be so completely out of touch in their Westminster bubble. They don’t deserve to survive.
Yes, more Blair, Soubry, Campbell, Adonis please...ideally, we need to get BP over the 50% mark! Bring on Mandelson...that might just swing it.
You're right, they really don't get it! For what it's worth, here's one habitual Tory voter who is looking forward to voting BP in both the Euro-elections & the next general election (If We're allowed to have one!)
I meant: "we're"! Does anybody know if Blogger has its own spell-checker or if it uses the checker of the Windows/Apple/Android device being used? I ask because mine has suddenly become an officious meddler, which is constantly making unnecessary, & usually inaccurate, corrections! Furthermore, if I mistype one letter, it takes a wild guess & comes up with nonsense like "planet Sarah" (MB!)One of these days, I shall find out how to turn it off!
The left-liberal MSM use a PC thoughtchecker which is why their analysis is so garbled.
We are starting to hear more clearly after Esler's debacle what Remainers really think:https://twitter.com/SirSocks/status/1126548579571642368... Referendum result being a win for people without GCSEs. Precisely the attitude that created British populism in the first place. ...
You should have read the hate mail on the Guardian website comments section after the Brexit victory in the Referendum. Leave voters were subject to such vitriol: aged, dementia sufferers, malodorous, stupid, obese,unemployed, unemployable, welfare-dependent, idnorant, uneducated, should not be allowed to vote, should just die off (or be helped to), should have benefits withdrawn, should starve, racists, fascists, etc etc. The Guardian was happy to let these hate comments stand.
To be pernickety - people of the age not to gave gained GCSEs are not yet ready to 'just die off. Thos who failed to gain GCEs or O Levels perhaps.
H/t PierrePendre on ConWoman comments who said;‘The question Marr needed to ask is how come a party conjured from a hat yesterday by Nigel could seize people's imagination and poll better than the two main parties of government combined. But then he would have received an answer composed of facts and truths that the BBC does not want to hear under any circumstances.’Which for me sums it up nicely.
Yes, a good point, well made.
I don’t normally believe this kind of stuff, conspiracies etc - but I’ve a feeling there’s going to be some kind of high profile news story in the new couple of weeks that will try to bring down the Brexit Party. Attack “inspired” by them etc etc. They are currently doing to well in the Polls.
I get that feeling too. The Marr interview gives an insight into current BBC thinking. They will try and take him down.
Indeed, it's already started. The BBC and MSM have miscalculated. By using Farage to destroy UKIP, they have given people the green light to express support for him. The disgraceful (but thankfully inept) attempted takedown of Our Nige on the Marr Show was meant to be the opening shot in an anti-Brext Party campaign I think. I am sure they (and the Hate, No Hopers) have got 50 researchers investigating every single MEP candidate (in particular every single tweet), every donation and every contact between anybody associated with the Brexit Party and any Russian (anyone will do).
While I am very happy to see The Brexit Party spread angst and terror across the PC landscape - striking fear into the hearts of Traitor Remainers, Conservatives, Labour, Civil Service, BBC, ITV, Sky, Mirror Group, all the bien pensant political commentators, Church of England etc etc...we do I think have to accept there are some problems... 1. I am not convinced Farage really wants to be Prime Minister. He's a great disruptor but I am not sure he really wants to lead the UK. 2. Which brings me on to the second point, even if hypothetically he does want to lead the UK, where does he want to lead it to? I think all his instincts are libertarian but because of the reality of British politics he has had to trim, trim and trim again. It's not great to have a PM who doesn't really believe in the policies they are implementing (as we know with May). 3. I would contrast Farage with Trump. Trump was a disruptor but he was also a guy with a very well thought out master plan as to how to lead the USA. Few in the UK media acknowledge that. I see no evidence that Farage thinks ahead like that. 4. Ultimately I think the idea of an undemocratic party (which The Brexit Party is - it is a private company run by Farage and his mates) doesn't sit well with democracy. I will be v. happy if Farage can prove me wrong and create a credible national party ready to fight a General Election and take power. I think there is a "natural" populist agenda to be discovered and presented to the people: abolish the licence fee, reindustrialise the country, a written constitution embedding free speech and popular referenda, abolition of the House of Lords and replacement with a democratically elected second chamber (but maybe with non-voting expert members from professions, trade unions, sport and so on), supporting traditional family values, decreasing welfare dependency, opposition to Sharia law and an end to the policy of mass immigration.
Guido takes an uneasy stance over the rise and rise of the Brexit Party and Nigel Farage. He has to date apparently supported the delivery of Brexit:https://order-order.com/2019/05/13/richs-monday-morning-view-294/#disqus_threadWhy this disingenuous cartoon? Comments suggest that to portray Farage in this way is inaccurate.
Never trusted Staines. Just a gossip journalist happy in the Westminster Bubble s far as I am concerned. On the (tiny) libertarian wing of the Conservative Party. The website's not what it was but is still worth an occasional peek.
Danny Baker: Does the BBC regard the 'jokes' of people like Frankie Boyle etc as less offensive than the Danny Baker joke? If so upon what criteria is this determined?
The BBC are doing a poll watch for the EU elections.And they have been ‘very BBC’ with their analysis and said the pro- Brexit camp is slightly ahead. Here is an example It will be interesting to add together the votes for anti-Brexit parties - SNP, Plaid Cymru, Lib Dems, Greens and Change UK - and compare the result with the combined score of UKIP and the Brexit Party.By this measure, the polls suggest it's pretty close between these two groups, with the pro-Brexit group slightly ahead on average.
If that doesn't work, they'll try some other matrix. While it is fair enough to describe Change UK as an "anti-Brexit party" that attracts Remain voters, the picture is more complex with the other parties. Some Scottish and Welsh nationalists will want to be outside the EU. Also Plaid is a bit of a protest vote for anti-Labour Mafia people in Wales. There are a lot of anarcho types who vote Green who want nothing to do with the EU. The Lib Dems have traditional support in areas that are strongly Leave (e.g. the West Country). If these "anti-Brexit" parties can muster say 32% I would estimate at least 4% will be from people still committed to Leave. I don't think the Brexit Party or UKIP will attract any people committed to Remain. So it's a false comparison.
MB, yes one might even speculate that SNP, Plaid Cymru, Lib Dems, Greens and Change UK voters, just don't know what they're voting for!
You read it here first...The BBC are focussing on what they an "infamous purge" in the USA 70 years ago. Expect this story to be given more than the normal boost. The reason? The BBC know - but they don't report it - that the Trump administration is now in a position to go after the Clinton-Obama-CIA-FBI-DoJ mafia that tried, using illegal and unconstitutional measures, to destroy Trump's candidacy, inauguration and presidency.
Wow! You Gov EU elections poll has Labour collapsing on 16% now. Brexit Party leading on 34%. Brilliant result. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/05/13/european-parliament-voting-intention-brex-34-lab-1Interesting that on Newsnight Christopher Blunt was calling for an electoral pact between the Conservatives and the Brexit Party in a General Election. Would make huge sense but I think should be linked not just to Brexit but also PR. We need to break the two party system.
If you were an "independent, non-political and much respected" think tank, like the IFS is allegedly, would you, in the middle of a national election campaign, publish a report on a contentious matter of political debate generally held to favour one of the two established main parties, or would you postpone publication until after the campaign is concluded? Well we know what the allegedly "independent" IFS has done - it has published its Corbynista-friendly report on "inequality" during the current election campaign, not caring if it's seen to be weighing in on Labour's side. The IFS can rely on the BBC to amplify its impact. Radio 4 have it at the top - yes the top! - of the news today and lead on it in the Today programme. This despite it emerging in the interview with the report's author - the grand sounding Nobel Laureate Sir Angus Deaton - that inequality in the UK is chugging along at the same level it has been for decades (whereas the headline made it sound like we had reached some new crisis level). Take a look at Deaton's Twitter Account. It's seriously barmy:https://twitter.com/deatonangus?lang=enHe fills it with Little Red Book Mao-style observations including this earth-shattering deduction:"Migrants who succeed in moving from poor countries to rich countries become better off than they were at home and their remittances help there families do better at home." No shit Sherlock! Deaton has some eccentric views: "Better health and better education could not be achieved by the amount of money being spent now nor could it be achieved with spending more." Really? Well that's not very BBC is it? So what could? "It is not about money, it is the chronic lack of state capacity to properly provide, run, monitor, and regulate public services." Really? What does that mean in any case? Corbynista nationalisation? He does not tell us.I was beginning to think he was a mad Maoist like Marr was...well he does seem interested in that area, though he criticises Mao for his "Great Leap Forward". He lays blame for inequality at the door of shareholders and executives taking too big a slice of the cake. Clearly such factors might be relevant. But Deaton is also a big fan of migration from poor countries to rich countries. Does he not realise how that contributes to our poor equality outcome? Importing maybe 200k people with low or no skills every year simply depresses wages at the low income level (as numerous studies have shown). But you are also importing cultural attitudes that keep people poor: orientation to extended families, informal intra community loans (something rarely discussed in the UK), oppression of women who remain economically inactive, welfare dependency and modern slavery. Mass migration also increases the tax burden on the rest of society (the German state is forking out about 30 billion Euros a year to deal with 2015 migrant wave) making middle and low income tax payers poorer.
Regarding this Angus Deaton guy, take a look at this interview:https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/angus-deaton-qa/518880/This guy is supposed to be a Nobel Prize winner in economics but you read this and it sounds like some bloke, half pissed talking to you down the pub!...half-remembered stuff he read somewhere, crazy affirmations (poor people in Bangladesh are better off than poor people in the USA!), maudlin stuff about a black Congressman, advocating for no borders and free immigration because cities with huge migrant populations like migration (whodathought it), anecdotes used as proof,weird confessions ("I don’t even know what a robot is..." - really? - you're supposed to be a top economist and you don't know what a robot is?), lurv for St Obama thrown in.Crazy stuff! But the BBC expects us to take him seriously.