Tuesday 16 July 2019

Newsnight gawn mad

Yesterday Rod Liddle plugged his upcoming appearance on Newsnight in the Speccie. He was a little apprehensive, and with good reason. 

Reinforcements had been brought in to back up Emily Maitlis. Rod is never as biting or quick-witted in person as he is in print, but here he was at a distinct disadvantage; two against one. Emily Mailtis made a particularly revealing onslaught on Liddle's writing midway through, which I'm sure will have antagonised every one of his fans. What was it she called it? Bile something or other?

“The bile that you spew up has to be who you are”

The case for a people's vote made by Tom Baldwin and his cohorts doesn’t make any sense to me.  In my opinion, it’s by no means ‘the only answer’.

First of all, surely a referendum is binary, like tossing a coin. Tails you lose, kind of a thing. The trouble arises when you fail to catch the coin and it lands on its edge and rolls off the table. When the result is close, but you’ve agreed to abide by it come what May, (sorry) you have to abide by it. 
“Oh, sorry, wasn’t ready’” doesn’t cut it.

Remainers argue that the peoples’ vote is the ‘answer’. How can this be? Despite all their claims that “Brexit has divided the country!!”, they now assume that this time the result will be decisive - for Remain.
But what if it turns out to be another half-and-halfie? Worse, what if ‘Leave’ still wins, even by a different (greater or smaller) margin? 
If it’s close, will the “Leavers” make a fuss and call for a third-time-lucky?  Unless Remain wins (decisively) we’re back to square one with all the difficulties of the WA, the backstop and the added obstacle of a slightly different cast of negotiating partners?
Even if they get the outcome they want, and we vote for Remain, can we really remain after all that acrimony?

It doesn’t seem at all logical to me, and Tom Baldwin just seems deluded by his own wishful thinking.


Yesterday the BBC was headlining with ‘Trump is a racist’. (Everyone’s a racist these days.) I must be one. 
The missing bit is that Trump was criticising the congresswomen (who ARE actually racists) for their anti-Americanism and racism, but the BBC could see no further than an opportunity for splashing out on a ‘Gotcha’ over Trump’s ‘gaffe’ in omitting to mention that all but one of the four ladies were born in the USA. (Somalia) 

Well, you can’t take Somalia out of the Somalian (or “Palestine” out of the Palestinian) can you? So to speak.

(We also had the spectacle of Jeremy Hunt’s absurd non sequitur about his half-Chinese (or Japanese) children. Has Jeremy Hunt’s wife ever influenced him to defend China’s totalitarian regime against Britain’s interests and has anyone consequently advised him and his wife to ‘go home and fix his own country’?’ )

I didn’t think so.
 like to get you on a slow boat to China


  1. When liberals in the West threw their weight wholeheartedly behind the notion that only white people could be racist (which in itself is racist), serious discussion of the subject ended. So too did any possibility of overcoming racism.

    1. 'that only white people could be racist' comes from the USA where white on black is the only form of racism understood there.

    2. Yes. One of the great unsayables of our time is to note that South Asians can be racist (they like their "wheaten skin" and they don't let their children marry out from their communities), Africans can be racist (hating and persecuting albinos or people from other ethnic groups), Arabs can be racist (esepcially towards dark skinned Africans), Chinese can be racist (probably are the most racist on the planet) and of course Japanese and Koreans are near the top of the league. Probably the least racist people on Earth are Europeans.

      As you rightly note Anon, until people accept this is a human problem found in all societies, not much progress will be made.

      The other problem with media coverage is that no attempt is made to distinguish between racism as an ideology, as practised by the men in the black uniforms in the 1930s and 40s and all other forms...There is clearly a point where racism shades into exclusive culturalism. But there are of course perfectly positive forms of culturalism. As far as I am concerned, liking and wanting to preserve your culture is a perfectly respectable way of life - in fact the UN Charter states that it is a human right. In Britain we have been very open to people from elsewhere adopting your cultural norms.

  2. Emily has being listening a bit too much to what her squad tells her, and only them.

    1. She's after (a) preserving her job which as a white woman with some Jewish roots and with a penchant for very short skirts would otherwise definitely be under threat at the modern BBC (b) getting another TV award to impress her peers - she got a previous one because of her pro-Remain rants.

      Maitlis is just following the herd as they drift towards the cliffs of a Marxo-Sharia future.

  3. There are 60 million people in this country
    How many watched Newsnight on Tuesday ?
    0.1% or something

    1. Average audience is 344K so about 0.6% I would say very roughly.

    2. I recall that Tuesday night stats were about 60K

  4. The People's Vote campaign is completely illogical. They say that a second referendum will be different because this time people will know what they are voting for. This is an absurd position to hold because:

    1. It involves a claim that all 34 million plus voters will understand the implications of their vote rather than simply voting on the basis of their perceptions. Do they have any evidence to support such an absurd claim? If you polled 100 about the May deal would even 1 person be able to give an accurate general description of its contents? I doubt it. Maybe 5 or even 10 might be able to mention one or two aspects if put on the spot. The rest wouldn't have a clue. This is clearly a disingenuous argument put forward by Alistair Campbell and his mates.

    2. Although the People's Vote campaign think people will fully understand a 400 page treaty (if it's the May deal) and its implications, they are determined that people will NOT be allowed to vote on a No Deal exit. Why? Surely the implications of that as spelt out by the Treasury, the BBC, the Guardian and all the rest are quite clear. Why won't they trust people to vote on that, having been given the warnings?

    3. Why would any Leaver accept the result of a Referendum that gave them a choice between (a) remaining and (b) an abject surrender deal? I know I wouldn't, and I am sure millions of others wouldn't either.

  5. She and the likes of Kay Burley are on borrowed time.

    Desperate harpieism may score with the elder sisterhood, but outside a revolving awards shortlist it wears thin fast.

    Kay clearly still has footage of her casting call.

    As a blonde, Emily can only rely on her gender at the BBC so long.

  6. "Desperate harpieism" - spot-on! ;-)


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