Thursday 23 May 2019


(h/t MB)

Last night's Newsnight also contained another non-impartial gem from Emily Maitlis. During the closing panel discussion she said this:
What is extraordinary, and when you look at the kind of candidates that are coming through, is at one point, and it was only about two months ago, no deal was the position of a very small, what we thought of an extreme placing. I don't know whether, dare I say, the Overton window has shifted, but now no deal seems to be more acceptable, more people are including it in their options, right? 


  1. Yes, that's quite revealing isn't it? No "some say"...just a bald assertion for her own lips...not "unpopular" or "minority" but "extreme" which is undoubtedly in our political culture a value judgement.

    I also thought it interesting that after nearly three years of promoting resistance to Brexit (amongst other things, as Michael Portillo notes, through publicising at every opportunity the second referendum campaign, highlighting an alleged "divided Britain" and promoting Project Fear over Project Confidence), the BBC now bring on Lord Sacks to preach conciliation.

    It's a bit like the Imperial German Army in the second half of 1918. The multiple offensives have failed. Having done everything possible to roll over us and defeat us, they are now suddenly converted to pacific Wilsonian Principles.

    A referendum of course is not a war. It is a constitutional procedure for settling a contentious matter. Everyone understood that in the run-up to the vote. It is the Blair-Soros-BBC-EU coalition that turned it into a war after the vote went against them.

    The worst of it is, that they will not give up even now. This is simply a tactical withdrawal on their part. If Boris becomes PM they will then do everything in their power to destroy him and thus, they will hope, the Brexit project.

  2. I confess that, until last night, I had never heard of the Overton window. Discovery of this gap in my knowledge sent me scuttling off to Wikipedia, where I found this from Noam Chomsky:

    "The smart way to keep people passive & obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of debate."

    All of which worked well until the advent of social media and a few exceptional individuals, who have had the courage to fight the system. Maitlis is struggling to come to terms with the new 'rules,' Kuenssberg, a shrewder operator by far, is already learning to adapt.

    1. Also she should communicate in plain English instead of rattling off special theories or jargon. The BBC annoys with its love of jargon like 'the optics' and what's this being 'across' things about? Bah!

  3. I can't get over the bone-headedness and the malice of this characterisation. Has anyone put in a complaint about it? I do hope so. A dose of reality is much needed.

  4. The Overton Window was new to me until I saw it in a Extinction Rebellion presentation, along with a bunch of Alinsky quotes.

    That Emily is an apparent devotee of pushing windows seems no surprise.

    1. Our media's Overton window runs from full on Red or Green Communism with or without violence (Ash Sakar, Antifa, Greenpeace) through leftism, social democracy all the way to Ken Clarke...and that's it.

    2. Why would someone use a term like that instead of saying in plain words what she means? It's stupid. Live in a bubble trying hard to appear clever and serious but all you're doing is speaking Bubble.


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