Sunday 17 September 2017

Oh, Boris!

Andrew Marr certainly got himself a headline-making scoop this morning, getting Amber Rudd to agree that Boris was behaving like a "back seat driver", as well as getting her to talk about him as if he was an overexcited child, or dog. ("Aww, Andrew, he's soooo full of enthusiasm and energy, bless him! And he can be reeeally entertaining too!", she almost said - several times). 

Boris was certainly the main story this morning for AM's programme. Andrew's introduction began as follows:
It's strangely easy to forget, but as a country we are under attack. The Parson's Green bomb was the fifth terrorist attack this year and the police say they have foiled another half a dozen serious plots. You'd think that would dominate today's front pages - but no, Boris Johnson has lobbed a verbal firework into the Brexit debate and snaffled the headlines. Oh, Boris! 
Well oddly, today's front pages, contrary to what Andrew said, were actually dominated by the Parson's Green terrorist attack. The Observer, the Sunday Express, the Daily Star on Sunday and the Sunday Mirror led with it. The Sunday Times led with tuition fees, not Boris, but actually put the Parson's Green story first on their front page. The Sun on Sunday and the Sunday People went with their own stories. Boris only led the Sunday Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday. Oh, Andrew!


  1. Strangely easy to forget if you work for the BBC, used to head up a Maoist group at Uni and have always been a fan of mass immigration and multiculturalism.

  2. For once, Rudd must be regarding Boris as a godsend: he's distracting attention from the possibility that the terrorist was one of the over-aged child refugees unaccountably let into the country on her watch.

    1. Five o'clock shadow? Check. Sophisticated smartphone on person? Check. Willing to use extreme violence to get into UK? Check. Must be a child refugee...let 'em in.

      The late AA Gill, the alcoholic and acerbic critic, was her ex. One wonders what their shared interest was.

  3. BBC Reality Check playing politics again, in line with the general "Get Boris" campaign, supported so strongly by all BBC staff...

    Three odd features about this.

    1. It claims to be checking a claim made by Boris recently but instead dwells on another, similar, claim made during the EU referendum campaign. Why? Why does the BBC not dwell on the numerous claims by the Remain side that have been proven as lies - including the claim that the EU was not seeking to set up its own armed forces.

    2. Regarding the rebate it observes that the UK, like all EU member countries, has a veto over the long term budget and therefore can use that to prevent changes to the rebate. That's a bit like saying the USA has a huge array of nuclear weapons and can therefore prevent North Korea developing nuclear weapons. You can veto the budget, but the other 28 can make life extremely uncomfortable for you in all sorts of ways. Why is the BBC trying to make out the rebate is sacrosanct when it is not? Tony Blair already gave away a sizeable chunk in return for EU reforms to the CAP which were of dubious value to the UK.

    3. Nowhere does the article make clear that after we exit the EU we will immediately have an additional £146 million per week (or about £7.5 billion) to spend on whatever we like. That might include contributing to a number of European co-operation schemes, including a free trade agreement with the EU, but it will still leaving probably £5 billion or more left over (if you look at how much similar co-operation costs Switzerland and Norway proportionate to their population).

    You can do a lot with £5 billion. It's not to be sniffed at. You could fund 250,000 quality apprenticeships with that. You could electrify the GWR line (cost around £2.7 billion). You could build 6 general hospitals.

    It's not the main reason we are leaving but it will help us along.

    4. The poor analysis concludes that "when the UK leaves the EU the government can decide whether to continue funding those projects [the ones currently funded through EU mechanisms] or not". Well yes, but you would think they would mention the government has already made commitments about continued funding...and why this downbeat conclusion, when we will be getting an extra £146 million per week? Why wouldn't we continue funding them unless we felt they weren't justified - which just bringing us back to the truth of Boris's statement that we are "taking back control" over the money. The money will NOT be lost to the UK (something the article fails to make clear) even we decide to no longer fund the particular projects.


    Farage to stop paying the licence fee and demand a BBC apology re the disgraceful John Sweeney prog and other misrepresentations of the Harlow killing?

    This could become a very big thing. If there's one man who can bring down the leviathan that is the BBC, it's our man Nige. Even if he doesn't it will be a joy to see the BBC desperately trying to ignore the story, then laugh at it, then try and misrepresent it and then against its nature have to report "impartially" on it. He might even wring an apology out of them eventually.

    Whatever happens, it would be a brilliant move. The BBC have made a serious tactical and possibly strategic mistake.

  5. Ms Rudd complained about the timing of Boris's article, saying he shouldn't have published it on the same day as the latest Muslim attack. But in other speeches, we are not letting the terrorists win and we're going to carry on as normal.
    Errr ... which one is it?

    1. Rudd? she could single handedly destroy the Conservative Party. Not that I care about the Conservative Party - but I do care about a bunch of Mad Marxists and Maoists getting into power as a result.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.