“Of all the Bank Holidays the Monday in August seems the most genuine. Whit Monday, like Easter Monday, moves with the compulsion of the moon. August Bank Holiday depends upon nothing but itself. It is a gift-day, out of, and generally under, the blue.” ~A.A.Milne
August Bank Holiday depends upon nothing but itself - and the whim of politicians?
"The summer bank holiday was introduced in the Bank Holidays Act 1871 and first observed in that year. It was originally intended to give bank employees the opportunity to participate and attend cricket matches. Exactly one hundred years later, the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 moved this bank holiday to the last Monday in August for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This followed a trial period from 1965 to 1970 of the new date. In Scotland, it remained on the first Monday in August."
Katya's bias has been off the scale. She's also been referring to the "poodleisation" of Boris by Trump. That is a Guardian-Steve Bell trope going back at least to the days when Blair was characterised by the UK Far Left as a poodle of Bush for wanting to neturalise Sadaam and Al Queda.
I sense desperation. I think Katya knows the game is up. Either we leave on No Deal and don't collapse into catastrophe (proving the BBC has lied) or Boris gets a reasonable deal despite all the propaganda about the Withdrawal Agreement being the final unrevisable offer from the EU (proving the BBC has lied).
Their only hope is that Parliament blocks Boris - so she is weighing in behind them.
Remember, this is the woman who - by her own admission - lied on her CV (about her knowledge of Spanish). She will lie about anything it would seem.
Typical Twitter comment \\ The BBC's EU "correspondent" Katya Adler is basically just a PR spokesperson for the EU. // 50% of tweeters praise her for her pro EU stance.
Oh oh...Robbie Gibb delivers his own lecture about impartiality - at the heart of everything the BBC does - and even displaying bias on twitter is in his sights. Well, that's a good one - see Mr Simpson and co. There's a sizeable list of 'and co'. But the real story is handbags: Gibb vs Byrne. Ofcom, come in please. Ol' Snow doesn't escape either. Rightly so. ( I am now agreeing with the BBC. Dangerous times.) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7396779/Channel-4-bosss-jibe-Boris-shows-broadcasters-bias-says-former-No-10-aide-ROBBIE-GIBB.html
We are way beyond rational argument. The BBC and Channel 4 won't be stopped from spreading lies and poison by rational debate. They have to be taken down as institutions. The only issue for debate is how we go about taking them down.
Simply commercialising them won't guarantee anything as we can see with Sky and ITV - which both broadly support the BBC narrative. Gifting the "BBC" brand to some PC billionaire would be an act of rank folly.
Remember that "Perfect Day" BBC ad with Lou Reed, Tom Jones, M People person and all the rest...? 22 years old now! And the pay off line at 3:45...you can only access these different musical styles via BBC? Sounds completely absurd now in these days of You Tube, Spotify and I Tunes...and about a billion radio stations on the internet.
Come on in BBC, your time is up!! It's the knackers' yard for you!!! :)
I just happened to catch a portion of the news channel yesterday. Carrie Grace interviewing Ben Bradshaw about the proposed axing of free licences to the over 75's. Lots of talk of "calling people (eg B Johnson) out", "impartiality doesn't mean not telling the truth", and so on. Mr Bradshaw thought the over 75's issue wasn't the BBC's fault and that it was the government's problem. "The BBC should not be an arm of the department for work and pensions". He was shown on TV as Former Cultural Secretary.....but of course not as his previous job as Former BBC Employee. BBC staffer talks to ex-BBC employee about BBC licence fee. Their contempt for the fee-payers continues unabated.
I listened to a part of a lengthy interview with George Alagiah on Radio 5 Live this afternoon. He has written a novel set in South Africa, so this is a free platform offered by the BBC to promote it. The BBC is now all about personality 'branding'. John Simpson was referred to in the interview as a 'true legend'.
George offered the usual reply when the question of bias came up. 'We are legally bound to be impartial through our charter'. But, in true Simpson manner he said it is the duty of the BBC to break down the tunnel vision of the populist far-right. With their access to social media, the far-right only read what they wish to and therefore have no access to differing points of view - real echoes of Simpson's "we didn't 'explain' the 2016 referendum issues well enough to the ignorant leave voters".
This personality branding and book launches need to be curtailed. What about the honest to goodness writers who have to compete with this hype?
Everyone working for the BBC now believe that anyone with right wing views must be labelled as far right and that only those on the right have tunnel vision. Far right populists -is that code for Brexit supporters? Utterly deluded.
Apparently there’s no sense of panic or crisis in EU regarding Brexit...including a no deal Brexit...(Odd that since, the EU argues a no deal Brexit will lead to a resumption of civil war in Northern Ireland...isn't that a bit remiss of them, to not view no deal as a crisis).
Apparently the EU think Johnson and Cumming are bluffing...and will ask for another extension. (Haven't they got the message by now?)
Apparently German industry (entering a period of recession) doesn't care about lost exports to the UK. (Since when have capitalist firms not cared about losing market share?)
I trust that Dominic Cumming has had a team working on every potential filibuster, arcane procedural ploy, challenge to the Speaker, resort to the Courts if necessary...etc etc. to ensure that the Remaniac plotters are finally unhorsed and bite the dust.
A straw poll up here in Yorkshire suggests that Boris MUST be doing the right thing based on the response / reaction from the BBC. It certainly has been delicious listening / viewing.
The BBC have misjudged the opinion of people outside London in their hostile reaction to Boris Johnson's resolve to deliver Brexit. The BBC News website vid shows a pathetic looking Owen Jones trying to stir up a group of teenagers. It's pathetic - wholly engineered by the BBC 'production' department. This narrow London view is not shared throughout the UK.
It's ironic that Owen Jones is featured today as an anti Brexit would-be rebel-rouser, but that he was equally welcomed by the BBC the other day as victim.
Yes the other day he was complaining about political violence and now he's threatening it by encouraging mass protest by the Far Left - that always ends in violence.
... 'Owen Jones: Three arrested over London pub assault' ..
.... Police have arrested three people in connection with an assault against journalist and activist Owen Jones.
The Guardian columnist says he was assaulted by a group of men in Islington, London, in the early hours of Saturday 17 August.
Three men, aged between 29 and 39, were arrested on "suspicion of violent disorder and assault occasioning actual bodily harm", the Met Police said.
The men are in custody after attending a north London police station.
A Met Police statement said that a man in his 30s was approached outside the Lexington pub in Pentonville Road at around 02:00 BST and assaulted by four male suspects.
"When the victim's friends attempted to intervene, they were also assaulted," it read.
"None of those injured required hospital treatment or London Ambulance Service."
Mr Jones, 35, is a prominent left-wing activist and political commentator.' ...
This story tells us that it's OK to be 'a prominent left-wing activist and political commentator'. because the police, the BBC and MSM will protect you, but it's not OK to be the right wing equivalent - you'll be arrested.
The Today programme managed to find somebody even more creepy-sounding than Barry Gardiner, namely Bob Kerslake, talking out of both sides of his mouth about the dedicated impartiality and duty of the Civil Service. What would he would know about it anyhow, being a local authority official and accountant who somehow got bumped up to be Head of the Civil Service, following G O'D. I wonder how that happened.
Kerslake is a walking constitutional outrage. He has deliberately undermined the impartiality of the civil service by becoming an official advisor to the Labour Party after retirement as Head of the Civil Service. GOD has also been an absoluted disgrace with his politicised comments. How can anyone ever believe in the idea that the Civil Service is impartial now we know that at the highest level they are ardent Remainers, seeking to stympie a democratic vote of all the people. They are an absolute disgrace to the honourable traditino of the British Civil Service.
Propaganda image...you know how the Remainer protests are hideously white to the extent that Jon Snow himself might be shocked...But the BBC just happen to have as their main pic illustrating the (pathetic) anti-proroguing street protest an image of three Black people protesting. That definitely didn't happen by accident.
Yes MB, I have been studying that image closely. It's disappeared now. It's still there on aedaily.net. [?] I think the image you refer to might be a stock photo. There is nothing to tie it into yesterday's news. The blue flags are smudged to give a suggestion of the EU flag, but on the clearer one there appears to be a lighter stripe at the top. There are no placards - most unusually for the BBC.
What struck me was the unmistakeable subliminal hint of 'anger against white supremacy' with this image. I've said many a time that all news photos should have photo credits with date, name of copyright owner (agency or individual) and location.
To add to the reasons that I think this image may be fake: There is a banner being held up by arm which doesn't appear to be connected to a body. The banner is indecipherable. Also there is a man by the blue flag on the right who appears to be too tall for the crowd. The blue flag on the left has a strange white globe beneath it, making it appear to have been placed into the frame rather than being carried.
Brexit has been a rollercoaster ride but the Leave side are certainly up at the moment. Really relishing the discomfiture of the Remainer Traitor element. Lewis Goodall on Sky had a v. good analysis (much better than the BBC underperformers) about why it's not so easy to legislate No Deal out of existence when you have a determined Prime Minister who is not going to play ball. As he pointed out the Traitor Remainers will in effect end up trying to say stuff like "You must accept any extension offered whatever the terms given you by the EU". How can that be portrayed as a patriotic and responsible? It's just another abject surrender.
I would also suggest there is nothing to stop the Prime Minister going to the Courts and claiming his constitutional rights are being trampled on by Parliament in attempting to make him act in an executive capacity against the decision of Cabinet. We do have a constitution. The Courts have never accepted that Parliament can pass any law it wishes despite what some people misguidedly think. The proper think for Parliament to do if it doesn't like the executive's actions is to dismiss the executive through a vote of no confidence. It is not constitutional to try and force the PM to be a programmed robot acting in his executive capacity against his judgement and his conscience. I think the PM would have a good legal case.
There's a confused choice of words from LK on the BBC News website: ... 'Laura Kuenssberg: Can the rebel alliance stop no-deal Brexit?' ...
For many months up until Boris became PM Laura always described the ERG as 'Tory Rebels' - rebelling against May's WA, and therefore threatening to procure Brexit come what may. But today she describes rebels as:
... 'This is a big, powerful and diverse group, rather than a handful of experienced backbenchers doing their best to get huge numbers of MPs on side.
The strange political rainbow that is the loose rebel alliance now ranges from Conservatives like Philip Hammond at one end, all the way through to Jeremy Corbyn on the other - from dark blue to dark red, taking in yellow, green and all sorts of other shades in the middle.' ...
She has never described anyone in the Conservative Party as 'Conservatives like Philip Hammond' - only as Toree this or Toree that. Her traditional barbed comments can now be directed at the subject of her real hate - Boris and the genuine Brexiteers. Hammond may join other turncoats like Grieve and Ken Clarke as friends of the BBC.
Bogdanor notes: "They have had three years to come up with an alternative approach". Says it all.
The only hope of the Treasonous Rabble Alliance aka The Remainiacs is in the courts. It only takes one secret Remainiac judge to derail everything. We have seen what damage the Speaker has done through his partisanship.
Will the judges meddle in politics? Where will it end? What sort of constitutional mess will be end up with if the Legislature is allowed legislate that the Executive act in an executive capacity against its best judgement? The Legislature can remove the Executive at any time. That is what they should do if they don't like Boris's approach to Brexit.
Anyway, fascinating stuff! I am looking forward to seeing what other cards Dominic Cumming has up his sleeve...
Katya Adler (EU Press Spokeperson employed by the BBC to deliver impartial pro-EU bulletins) is changing her tune. Don't think people like me don't notice, Katya!
For the last year nearly Katya has been telling us that the EU is fundamentally united, that it views things from a legal perspective and that there can be absolutely no change to the Withdrawal Agreement or the backstop. I never believed her once - she was simply relaying EU propaganda to the British masses. And now what is she tweeting? This:
"EU still divided roughly into two camps: 1) More politically-focused. Those that see possibility that maybe a compromise on the backstop could +should be found, considering no deal impact on EU. Germany is out in front in hoping for deal and being Germany that counts for a lot "
So the Withdrawal Agreement and Backstop are potentially up for revision after all and all that stuff from Katya about unity and legality was total bollurks!
Amazing how all these "controversial" (to use a BBC word) trials end on a Friday afternoon...it's almost as if they are hoping people soon forget about them.
Sure enough, this story was removed from the BBC News website earlier this evening. It was only there for a few hours at the most. There is a good chance that on a Friday evening this important story will have been missed by many.
Good point Arthur - "blink and you miss it" bias...whereas their favourite stories (anti-Trump nonsense, the blessings of Islam and female sportspeople) sometimes stay up on the website for literally months.
The victims of these crimes must be the most underrepresented group in the UK. They have been systematically targeted by a specific ethnic group. Isn't that racism? Just imagine if this situation was reversed and a BAME group had been the target!
The victims are in effect an ignored underclass existing without the representation that anyone should be entitled to.
In most cases they have been made especially vulnerable owing to the policy of supporting the creation of single parent families (backed by all parties)ie there is no male around to help protect them. One of the first things these gangs do is establish if the child has any male protectors in the home. My daughter told me about the intrusive questioning she's received in certain take away etablishments...as well as the "free can of coke"...another standard ploy to gain trust.
Now that the BBC reporters have had to admit the protest numbers were pathetic (probably that embarrassing Fuhrer Oath, led by Paul Mason, didn't help) - less than 400 now - they are desperately trying to talk up the anger, as if the emotional pitch makes up for the lack of numbers.
1. If numbers for a demo in support of something they approve of are huge, that shows that whatever it is the BBC wants done should be done.
2. If numbers for a demo in support of something they approve of are pathetic, that is of no importance. Whatever it is the BBC wants done should still be done.
In case you think PM had lost its mojo - far from it...the next item was about Basketball...interesting, I thought...I like basketball...doesn't normally get coverage on Radio 4...but of course it wasn't about basketball it was just another "PMS" (positive migrant story).
(Actually he was born in Athens to Nigerian parents, so it's not really even a proper PMS story...in fact you have to wonder what the hell the point of the story is. He was born in Athens and was good at basketball...anything else to report?)
It included some "racist" stuff about some races having innate ability to play some sports better than others. I say racist because I recall Roger Bannister getting in trouble for saying Africans had a genetic advantage in sprinting owing to some muscle formation around the heel. But it's OK for Radio 4 to broadcast that Africans have natural ability to play basketball!
10 minutes on Radio 4 News 6.05-6.15pm on the protest without a single pro Brexit balancing item to counter it. A full 3 minutes rant from Benn the Remain MP making disingenuous comments about no deal. A complete lack of balance and reporters saying that numbers were relatively small but the feelings very strong. No 3 minute counter rant from the pro-leave side, and no questioning of Benn as to what exactly he wants other than eliminating no deal as an option.
If feelings were so strong how come numbers were so pathetically low? A few thousand in London isn't a mass protest forecast with glee by the BBC, but a damp squib.
This is a new form of bias...emotion making up for lack of numbers for causes the BBC backs! Call it "Emoter" bias...they are very, very, very angry, so that means their protest is important.
Ah yes. As per my Andy Marr post, Andrew Marr was keen on conveying the anger of the crowds - though he rather overestimated the size of the crowds and their representitiveness of the nation as a whole.
You heard it first here..."Peterloo Derangement Syndrome". That's what I think people like Owen Jones and Paul Mason are suffering from.
I think they really do believe they are engaged in a mass struggle of the people to win democracy from a cruel capitalist class prepared to deny them the vote and send their children down the mines...whilst at the same time selling their latest book and making £5 on every sale. 20,000 sales, £100,000...nice little earner. Add to that speech fees.
In fact of course they are by their anti-Brexit actions supporting a globalist capitalist elite in their attempt to deny and destroy what was a democratic vote of all the people.
Someone really should write a sitcom - or a comic novel - based on Paul Mason, Owen Jones, Ash & Co. 'Citizen Paul' could be its working title. His ranting at this weekend's Waitrose Customers' Revolutionary Posh People's Rally of Judea against Boris could be added to the script almost word for word.
Episode 1. Paul Mason does a "Who Do You Think You Are?" prog...goes back to his Lancashire miners' village...discover his great-grandad was a blackleg who broke the streak in 1905. Ash phones him to offer consoling words: "Don't worry - my great grandad was a Maharajah."
You know how the BBC projects an image of the UK as 20% African or African-Caribbean, 20% "Asian" (Chinese need not apply), 20% mixed race, 10% Hijab...and not only that, actually points the finger on frequent occasions at organisations that it considers are failing on diversity and equality...?
Well, I was just doing a bit of research on the BBC and couldn't believe how "hideously white" the Executive Committee of the BBC - its top management body - is! Even the token Asian guy looks white...
So not just "hideously white" but "hideously hypocritical".
Aren't they just! Tim Davie, evidently due to a very heavy sun tan, is the only one who approaches being a person of colour there. All they need is for Jon Snow to move over from Channel 4 and join them to achieve a complete 'whitewash'.
Here's my ten point action plan for a populist government to reform the BBC without destroying it or alienating that large part of the public that likes a lot of its output.
1. Revoke the BBC Charter and replace with an emergency charter which will allow for the following actions.
2. Introduce elections to the BBC Executive Committee. These would be similar to building society and trade union elections. All household members covered by Licence Fee payment would have a vote. Subsequently subscription payers would have the right to vote.
3. Introduce strict statutory limits on the percentage of BBC staff who can earn over £70,000, £100,000 and £150,000. This would effectively slice off the top heavy management layer at the BBC.
4. Legislate that if the BBC fails to meet its Charter broadcasting requirements for more than one week in one year, it will be dissolved. That will prevent any long running strike action in opposition to the new policy.
5. Announce a 5 year programme for reduction and eventual abolition of the Licence Fee.
6. Announce a 10 year programme for moving towards a full subscription service for the BBC (with some central government support over this time period). Allow the BBC to accept sponsorship for its programmes - but keep them ad-free. In return all households are automatically enrolled on to the subscription service unless they opt out. The subscription to be limited to 50% of the current licence fee. BBC would have to pledge not to axe popular programmes in reaction to this new financial dispensation.
7. Privatise all BBC local radio stations.
8. Abolish the BBC Asian Network and Radio 4 Extra. Merge Radio 1, Radio 1 Extra and Radio 6 Music. Create a wide-ranging online digital archive for the BBC.
9. Create Independent Appointment Boards for all BBC Staff whose salary exceeds £50,000. These boards to include representatives from all national newspapers, major local newspapers, private radio and TV companies, relevant academics and government appointees.
10. New Charter for BBC to clarify its role. Its charter would require it to, for example (a) promote British values (b) not promote totalitarian ideological systems (whether political, religious or otherwise) (c) not exclude the views of any bona fide scientists (persons with relevant qualifications) on the grounds that science is “settled” (d) ensure it undertakes objective analysis of programmes, especially news and current affairs, to ensure they are balanced and publish the analyses and (e) ensure its presenters and all persons who appear across its programmes reflect accurately the make-up of British society.
There would be a Charter Commissioner to ensure the BBC meets its Charter requirements. There would be an Independent Complaints Service to deal with complaints from subscription payers. This would be totally independent of the BBC and could require the BBC to publish prominent apologies if they are found to have been at fault. There would also be a fast track mechanism by which petitioners (maybe set at 100,000) could demand the Charter Commissioner deliver a formal report to Parliament if they feel the BBC has failed to meet its charter requirements.
Hope it's OK with you MB, but Kathy at 'The Conservative Woman' and David at 'News-watch' would like to post your comment as a post at 'TCW'. Spreading the message!
Feel free! It's time there was a debate about what we do with the BBC. The gross bias can no longer be denied. But what do you do with an organisation that is so embedded in our national life?
One of the plus points of the (slightly extended) poroguing of Parliament is that it has flushed out those faux-balanced presenters at the BBC. Paddy O'Connell on BH Radio 4 is no longer disguising his extreme Remainism.
He tried a gotcha ambush on Anne Widdicombe (using the tried and tested method of an old archive tape about parliamentary procedure being brought into play without notice) but failed (predictably perhaps since Paddy is a bear of slow brain) to put a dent in her, despite the years that have gathered about her.
I like it when Remainers give themselves away. The use of "crashing out" is a dead giveaway. Now, the latest tell-tale trope is "Halloween Brexit" used by PO'C and others as tool of ridicule and fear-mongering combined.
PO'C showed his bias as well by introducing Peter Hennessy as a "constitutional historian" and a "crossbencher peer". The very model of an impartial and authoritative voice on the constitution? Henessy has always been a political player, a self-described Remainer who has consistently voted for more EU integration. For most of his working life he was actuallty a left-leaning journalist. Then he morphed into a "historian" via a "visiting" professorship at Strahclyde Uni - not the most illustrious of academic institutions. Hyping him up as a constitutional authority is absurd. His views are no more and no less valid than any other commentator.
Yes, it was classic BBC poor attempt at a Gotcha! And it was preceded by one of their leading questions / suggestions: You must feel in the pit of your stomach... Blatant or what? To digress: I noticed a similar ploy by Edward Stourton on Any Questions? yesterday when he turned to the Conservative MP Therese Coffey with the leading question /suggestion something along the lines of Don't you worry about the legacy being divisive? This was quite unlike his approach to others on the panel in relation to leaving the EU. Should they not be concerned about / responsible for divisiveness, Ed?
Paddy O'Connell did sound rather dopey when he told the MP Merriman that he didn't understand after the MP had explained his reasoning and position on leaving the EU. It wasn't that hard to follow. But the BBC has a lot of mediocrities on its elevated platform and O'Connell does look a lot more professional and sharper than his occasional stand-in who seems like a chaotic loon. His name escapes me for the moment.
Forgot to mention about Hennessy chuntering on about good chap government.
Didn't he come out with some misleading statement to the effect that this proroguing / pogoing! hasn't happened before or has gone beyond what has been done before? Has anyone heard or has a transcript that could confirm what he did say about that?
'Some say' it has indeed been used before, not least Major. Funny that he wasn't mentioned. Soft interview by P O'C deferring to the oracle. There was even a quip about Bagehot at the end, to flatter Hennessy, if I'm not mistaken.
Besides it being 'bad form', Peter Hennessy didn't even begin to spell out WHY Boris's proroguement is so uniquely awful in his view.
Why does it put HM the Queen in so unprecedently tricky a position when other proroguements (such as the John Major amidst the cash-for-questions scandal) didn't?
I was waiting for Paddy to ask him to explain himself but Paddy failed to do so.
As for Paddy's pro-Philop Hammond Mr Merriman MP interview, that's just how it struck me too.
The MP was crystal-clear but Paddy was evidently expecting him to be much more hardline in his Remainerism (why 'BH' booked him?) and, thus, got completely caught off guard by him backing Boris to keep No Deal on the table. So 'caught off guard' that he said he didn't understand what Mr Merriman had said. Expectations well-and-truly upset! And a BBC presenter well-and-truly shown up!
The Ann Widdecombe interview is forming part of a pattern of BBC interviewing. Contrasting its interruption-filled, booby-trap-laden, hostile-toned style with that used later against the non-enthusiast-for-Brexit Mr Merriman, shows the 'Newsnight' Double Standard of Interviewing spreading ever wider at the BBC.
Anonymous - Yes it was noticeable PO'C, when interviewing Hennessy, didn't even attempt to reference previous proroguations such as Major's lengthy one designed to avoid the repercussions of the cash for questions scandal (now there's a constitutional crisis for you: MPs taking cash for influence).
Hennessy had to admit Boris had done nothing illegal or unconstitutional...but gave lots of quotable quotes suggested quite the opposite.
I didn't hear the exchange with Merriman but sounds like shades of the Ruth Davidson let-down. The sigh of disappointment at the anodyne and personal nature of her resignation speech across the MSM, totally lacking in anti-Boris bile was palpable. Polly Toynbee was particularly put out I am pleased to say. A bad day for Polly is always a good day for me.
Interesting question Craig raised about why BH booked Merriman - and quite likely because he voted Remain; I don't know whether it is relevant that he also chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the BBC.
BBC Comedy is really funny...the unintentional kind I mean. I'm thinking in particular of an interview on Radio 5 Live this morning (just after 10am)where some poor sap of a BBC presenter was doing his best in an interview with a florist (flowers will go up in price, flowers will wither and die, there will be a shortage of flowers, UK growers cannot subsitute for Dutch growers etc etc). Only problem was the lady florist concerned was from the Geoff Boycott school of obduracy (didn't catch where she was from, biut she sounded Yorkshire to me). He tried every way but couldn't get her to sign up to the official BBC Agenda of Gloom. Each time she replied with a variant of "We're British, we'll get through this." or "Why are you asking me what will happen in the future - no one knows, but we'll deal with it...but I'm not giving up. We'll get through."
While channel hopping came across a "history" programme on BBC TV - "The Rise of the N*az*is". There were so many "parallels" being drawn it would put to shame a sheet of graph paper.
If I say that two of the moralising pontificators were Helena Kennedy and Ash Sarkar, I think you'll get the flavour of what was going on.
Remember Ash Sarkar is a "literal Communist" by her own admission and Communism has clocked up anywhere between 50 million and 100 million unnecessary deaths, depending on your definitions...plus deep wells of human misery for billions over the last 100 years. She seems an odd choice for someone to deliver a "warning from history".
I didn't see much of the programme but it seemed weirdly ahistorical. There was no sense that fascism can be seen as a reaction to the rise of Bolshevism.
I saw it listed and read the programme notes... Oh, oh, I thought, why would they be doing this at this time, quickly followed by the thought that I have no intention of sitting through this piece of undoubted BBCThink - and that was without knowing about those two being involved. Glad to have given it a miss.
Things not covered on Newsnight - the BBC's sinking "flagship":
1. Why, if Tony Blair as PM could advise the Queen against giving Royal Assent to bills, can't Boris do the same when it comes to the Remainer-Traitor Bill?
2. If Labour refuse to agree an election, Boris could resign and ask the Queen to replace him with Dominic Raab, who could make clear he would only be a caretaker until the General Election. Labour could not possibly vote for Raab, neither could the extreme Remainer Conservative MPs. They would have to pass a VONC. But then it would be extremely unlikely the Rabble Alliance could agree on a PM.
I stumbled upon your point 1 on the Jeremy Vine Radio 2 show yesterday whilst driving. Jeremy was interviewing 'my colleague political journalist Andrew Marr'. Marr made much of his 'jaw-dropping moment' when Gove had refused to be clear on the entirely hypothetical question of adhering to the law - if such a law passed through parliament. Gove was somewhat evasive. Now I understand that he was keeping his powder dry., because a pro Brexit Conservative MP (I didn't catch his name) came on and brought up the question of Royal Assent, and whether the government as executive could request that it was not given. He cited a Tam Dayell bill which Tony Blair blocked by using this tactic when he was PM. Marr was not there to respond, but my guess is that he wasn't up to speed.
As they like to tell us about the referendum some things are 'advisory' so new 'law' won't necessarily tie the governments hands and if it did perhaps the courts would strike it down? The whole 'no deal' thing would be stupid if they were really being truthful as a 'deal' requires the agreement of the EU which might never happen. How can the commons possibly forbid the government to act unless a foreign power agrees, surely that could be sucessfully challenged in court?
I agree Anonymous...it could and should be challenged in the courts. There must be limits on Parliamentary power - constitutional limits and limits of logic. The judges can strike down laws. Many a Lord Chief Justice has made that clear.
The Executive (PM and Cabinet) is clearly part of our constitution. To hollow out its role "on the hoof" as it were is to my mind unconstitutional. There must be limits to what Parliament can command. According to the Grieves of this world Parliament can turn the whole Cabinet in to remotely controlled robots. That is an constitutional absurdity. They will no longer be Ministers of the Crown.
If Parliament wants to rewrite our constitution, then that if of course in their gift...but it's pretty clear that if they put it all down on paper they would end up with something like the current set up...an executive chosen by Parliament.
The concept is called Queen's consent. If a proposed bill has the effect of modifying the effect of a prerogative power, such as the power to make treaties, the speaker should ask for Queen's Consent before third reading in the Commons. The government of the day can advise the sovereign to withhold consent which she will then do. If this happens the bill may not be given a third reading in the Commons and it falls. That is what happened to Tam Dalziel's bill to prevent military action in Iraq which was stopped by Tony Blair. This constitutional convention relies on the proper behaviour of the Speaker of the House of Commons and with Bercow in position that does not seem to be guaranteed.
Erratum: Think my reference to Royal Assent above in no. 1 should be Royal Consent to debate (Blair stopped a couple of bills proceeding by advising the Sovereign to deny consent for the bill to be debated)...
Whether Boris could use the same device here, with the Remainer-Traitor Bill, I don't know.
Like I've always said...the so called "Institute for Government" is actually a full-on Remainiac organisation funded by arch remainer and friend of Blair Lord Sainsbury, yet another Remainer Billionaire (there are so many, a fact that always seems to escaped Paul Mason!).
Was it any surprise to see Remainer-in-Chief (Macron's high representative to the UK), Tony Blair give his Sermon on the Make to the nation with the IfG logo emblazoned behind him? No.
But still the BBC presents the Institute for Government as a neutral and authoritative think tank.
BBC bias: Christian Fraser says "some" opinion polls have Conservatives ahead of Labour...then adds but that was the case in 2017 and look what happened - May almost lost. Er - Christian, ALL polls have Conservatives ahead of Labour. BBC Fake News.
Some other observations:
I am not hearing full throated support from the Conservative benches for Boris. Shameful. Of course those back benches are stuff full of Remainers and Cameronites, so only to be expected.
The BBC seem reluctant to address what happens if Labour deny Boris an election should he be defeated. The assumption appears to be that that is a tenable position... really? I don't think so.
In ancient times when a Pharaoh was deposed for having disregarded the gods of the Nile and promoting an alien faith, his name was effaced from all monuments, so that he might be rightly forgotten.
May I suggest that when we finally achieve a pro-Brexit government that sees the thing through, then after having deposed Bercow as Speaker, the MPs agree to remove his name from all parts of Parliament. Let his memory be carried off down the Thames like a piece of malodorous flotsam, never to find its way back to the Westminster shore.
1. It is internally incoherent. It seeks to bind the executive, when the whole point of an executive is that it needs freedom of movement. It seeks to stop a no deal Brexit, but it cannot agree on the way forward to a deal. Most of the Rabble Alliance parties Lib Dems, SNP, Greens and Plaid don't in fact want a deal. Some of them are hiding their intentions behind a Rigged Rerun of the Referendum where voters will be given a false and restricted choice.
2. Boris and the Government should first attempt to delay the Bill in the Lords and then, if it passes, go to the Court and refuse to have it enacted unless the Court rules it to be constitutional. Parliament may be prorogued by the time a ruling is given.
According to Guido, the Bill's passage through the House of Lords will be delayed. The shadow leader has introduced a business motion intended to speed progress of the Bill, but as a business motion, it has attracted 86 amendments have been tabled - all of which need to be dealt with before the Bill itself.
- Dominic Grieve multi-millionaire, second home (and second career in France) and receipient of the French State's highest award - the Legion d'Honneur. Very 'umble I'm sure.
- Richard Benyon...richest man in Parliament and that's saying something.
More than that, I predict these Remainiac traitor MPs will now be rewarded very handsomely for their work. Expect to see them popping up heading various think tanks, charities, lobby groups and so on, whilst receiving huge salaries funded very non-transparently through these front organisations.
Having watched PMQs and seen just how ugly parliament has become, I would advise Boris, that if he's holding back from using whatever tactics are at his disposal through a misplaced sense of decency, he should forget parliament's finer feelings. He needs to block this rebel Bill by whatever means (House of Lords), call an election having banished the traitors from the Conservative Party, and now set the date for sometime in November - after Brexit has come into effect. 'Cometh the hour etc'.
Sadly, it's not in his power to call an election owing to the appalling Fixed Terms Parliament Act. However he might be able to manouevre the Remainiacs into one.
When directed at pro-Brexit MPs the questions are structured along the lines of "You're just a lying toad aren't you?"
When directed at pro-EU MPs the questions are structured as "You're just a lying toad, so Boris Johnson says." (Said with a sceptical frown, rather than conviction.)
Judges rule Boris prorogation lawful...expect that to go down the BBC memory hole in a micro-second.
Meanwhile Nick is showing that he couldn't be more biased even if he tried a little harder. He accuses Boris of being a liar but as far as I know has never gone to town on the lies of Jeremy Corbyn (lying about wreath laying for terrorists, his interest in Northern Ireland peace, his wish for an immediate General Election, his earnings received from the Iranian regime or his attitude to the Soviet Union).
Or how about Ken Clarke's lies e.g. standing on a manifesto he never had any intention of fulfilling - lying to his voters. Ditto Anna Soubry and Heidi Allen (who also both said they would respect the result of the Referendum during the 2017 election campaign).
I was v. impressed by Lord Forsyth on WATO. Firstly for not taking any shoit from Sarah Montague and secondly setting out cogently why it was constitutionally necessary to oppose an unprecedented guillotine being imposed in the Lords.
There seems to be a strong possibility that the Lords could block the bill by (justifiable) filibuster.
Now, is that part of the Cummings plan? Or is it more about embarrassing the Remainer tribe? Making them look ridiculous??
What would happen if the Bill didn't pass the Lords. Would the Commons use the Parliament Act to bring it into law? I think they may be able to do that...but it will look v. bad.
So maybe that is the plan.
Or is Boris banking on the Remainiacs creating a Government of National Unity that will further sow division in their ranks?
Apparently there’s been a cock up with the 2nd bill passed tonight in that it still includes mention of Mays failed agreement - I didn’t fully understand the details but John Mann MP is referencing it on Twitter and seems to think it will cause issues.
I was watching the news when that happened. The commentators were as confused about it as anyone else. There was a suggestion the Government deliberately didn't provide tellers and so Stephen Kinnock's amendment passed by default, I think. I think the intention is to embarrass the Rabble Alliance since the Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid are definite Remain-or-Die and won't vote for May's deal.
A less sanguine view would be that BJ wants that option to get him out of a fix at some point, but I discount that.
The Anti-Boris propaganda is back to fever pitch on Peston, Newsnight, ITV News, Sky and nearly all MSM outlets - it's back to the levels prior to him assuming the Prime Ministership.
Appalling. Double standards. Snidey remarks. Ill disguised glee at his defeats.
Right, I'm off to watch the Parliament channel to see how the Patriotic Few in the Lords are doing in blocking the Bill...I would love them to succeed...can you imagine the reaction among the Remainiac Savages? Would be like knocking down their totem pole.
Not sure it's going to be lively viewing. The Senile v. The Senescent. We shall see! :)
I'm puzzled as to why Boris has allowed the Bill to pass through the Lords without the use of the delaying tactics which had been expected.
I am reminded of the boxer (Boris) who is on the ropes taking a series of near-knockout blows. He is absorbing the best punches his adversary can direct his way. Boris knows however that he has the stamina and the wherewithal to make a spirited, decisive and successful counter attack, once his opponent has given his best shot and is exhausted.
What Boris has been able to do is expose the duplicitous self-serving sham of those MPs in the romantically named (by the BBC) Rebel Alliance. The electorate can have no doubts about their objectives - to Remain in the EU in defiance of the majority who voted to leave in 2016. That the UK should leave with no deal as a concept is just a smokescreen. Guido, who has been consistently informative about the thrust and counter thrust in the HoP is suggesting that Boris can still get his motion for a GE through. I hope so.
Yes...likewise puzzled Arthur. Was supposed to be a quid pro quo for an early election, I believe. But can Corbyn and his fellow Marxist leadership deliver on his promises against the Starmer-led faction (backed by Blair and Soros)?
I am full hope but also trepidation...
Boris is receiving only weak backing from the still mostly Remainer MPs sitting behind him. The very fact that there is so much weeping and wailing about a bunch of chancers who have made common cause with a totalitarian Marxist, Corbyn, a Full On Revoker like Jo Swinson and separatists from the SNP and Plaid who want to destroy the Union, should be enough for Conservative MPs to see that they must be cast into the outer darkness. To talk of their loss as some great catastrophe for the party is nonsense.
The only person of quality among them is Ken Clarke - a great orator, explainer and purveyor of jollity. I disagree with his politics but I did like him. He should have resigned the whip himself of course, since he stood in the 2017 election falsely on a Manifesto he plainly did not accept. But I do regret his premature departure.
As for the rest, they are a completely disingenuous bunch who have posed (like Soubry and Allen before them) as ready to accept the Referendum result while secretly doing everything in their power to prevent its implementation in any meaningful sense.
Of course there's no reason to feel sorry for Clarke or the others in the normal human way at being cast out - the one thing about politicians at that exalted level is that they are all supremely egotistical and can survive just about any misfortune that comes their way. They don't really have friends either - so it's not as though they are losing friends. And as Powell said, all political careers end in failure.
There's a good explanation on Guido - sorry it's late, I've been out all day:
... 'Downing Street are saying that it’s not for the lords to fight this bill. They told the Lords to stand down as in their view the House of Commons has to take responsibility for their “surrender bill”. Number 10 want elected MPs to have to explain to to the electorate their decision to delay Brexit.' ...
Personally I would have preferred Boris to allow the Lords to filibuster. If successful you would still have Labour and the Rabble Alliance fighting for the surrender bill - the public would see that - but it wouldn't have been enacted.
Now it's been enacted, and Corbyn is reneging on his commitment to go for an election.
Regarding Bogdanor's comments, I wouldn't disagree, but it's a viewpoint not a constitutional point. The opposition are under no constitutional obligation to accept the challenge of an election. Indeed, the thrust of the legislation is that Parliaments should cover the full 5 year period before the next regular election.
There was a suggestion on Newsnight that the Labour whip lied in telling the Conservative whip they had a deal on calling an election if the Conservatives let the Bill go through the Lords. Kirsty thought it most amusing "Labour's little wheeze" she called it, laughing...nothing about lying or a "constitutional outrage".
If the election does get called...my prediction is that the BBC and the rest of the MSM will be seeking to boost Farage and TBP in order to split the Leave vote. They did that before the European Parliamentary elections because they were I think hoping to get May out of the way (they succeeded), destroy Boris (didn't they have a go during the Conservative Leadership campaign and before!) and engineer a Left Wing Conservative success (remember how the whole of the MSM pushed the absurd Rory Stewart!) who would then deliver a rigged Second Referendum and keep us in the EU. The way the MSM treated Farage compared with when he was UKIP leader was amazing.
So the MSM has to make a calculation: do they boost TBP in the hope it harms the Conservatives? Or do they suppress it (as they have suppressed UKIP before) because it might harm Labour?
My guess is they will think on balance it will harm Boris more than it harms Corbyn and so give Farage a fairer wind.
What next? Presumably Bercow will enable a bill to come forward which will allow Parliament to prevent the Prime Minister from resigning except on a day specified by the Rabble Alliance!
I think we can forget the idea that Cummings had a master plan...it was always pretty clear that the Remainiac Non-Conservatives in the Conservative Party were going to strike at some point. The idea that they would not have, had prorogation not been tried, is frankly absurd. Prorogation was an attempt to improve the odds, but it failed.
Not sure where we are now but clearly Boris cannot and will not go to Brussels as a supplicant with his hands tied behind his back by Parliament.
1. The gross, relentless bias of the BBC, Sky, ITV and virtually all the MSM has been confirmed once again. Boris will have to accept that he will be obliged to fight this election surrounded by a howling media mob kicking at his shins while he takes on his political opponents.
2. The globalists are playing with fire. We've seen that already, how they are prepared to support out-of-control mass immigration and destroy nation states that have been centuries or millennia in the making. Now they are prepared to gamble on an extremist Marxist regime coming to power in the UK as by-product of their insane policies. They probably think they can destroy it at a time of their own choosing. But as we have seen across the world in China, Vietnam, Cuba and Venuzuala, Marxist regimes are very difficult to remove once they get a grip on power. And the UK is a key nation in what used to be called the Free World - it's a very dangerous game.
I guess every Leaver will have to assess the position in their own constituency in order to inflict maximum damage at the ballot box on the Anti-Democratic Remainer Rabble Pro-Hamas & IRA Crypto-Communist Alliance.
Time to start praying, even for ye or us of little faith. Can't do any harm.
Our nation is certainly in great peril. This could be the last tipping point after which we go down the great pan of history, the first large nation in history to commit cultural suicide, beating the Swedes to it by a couple of decades.
Alternatively this could be the start of a healing process, which will begin by demonstrating in reality that the Remainer-Media Big Lie about a "catastrophe" following a no deal Brexit was just that - a lie from the lips of Hammond and Grieve oft repeated.
If you want to see what a catastrophe looks like, look at the poor Bahamas after that huge hurricane. That's a catastrophe.
Got to say Farage is hitting the mark more than Johnson at the moment...He makes some very, very compelling points. We are definitely heading for a very, very dark place as things stand:
The BBC whinge on about "constitutional outrages" but the biggest outrage is that the Remainer Rabble have thrown away the principle of "loser's consent" as Farage observed. The anti-Leave coalition has been coddled, cuddled and cooed over by the BBC ever since 24th June 2016. The BBC have been grossly complicit in this attempt to overturn the principle of Loser's Consent.
I think Boris may get there eventually and, in fairness, we have to accept he has the burden of being a minority party PM assailed on all sides by a media that hates the masses. But at the moment he is not making the impact he should. Of course Farage has looked ropey at times when under stress in the past. It's not easy being at the top of politics especially if the media is engaged in a 24/7 hate campaign against you.
I am coming round to the idea we do need some sort of accommodation between TBP and the Conservatives. A formal pact would be unproductive. Some sort of "understanding" might be possible. Tricky but then again, losing such a vital election will be "tricky". Perhaps:
- TBP agree to not stand against committed Conservative Leave MPs.
- Conservatives agree not to pour central resources into constituencies where they think TBP have a better chance.
- Conservatives permit local candidates to stand down where they think TBP have a better chance.
- Conservatives commit to introduce a PR element into Parliament as part of manifesto.
This ITBBCB? site is all about BBC bias. There can't be any longer a shred of doubt that the BBC have sided 100% with the Rebel Alliance as they fancifully call the proponents of this constitutional outrage over Brexit.
Most-likely, the BBC are anticipating another champagne moment, where, in amongst the discarded empties in the corridors, the old guard Dimbleby, Simpson, Marr etc are telling the newbies: "watch and learn colleagues! You have unrivalled power to influence or even dictate the course of history. Don't waste this gift. We can all look forward to a new golden age of liberalism. We, the elite, are entrusted with the responsibility of guiding the UK -a country dogged by far-right nationalism, bigotry and tunnel vision. We must never tire in our mission. We must push the values of diversity, inclusivity and tolerance, so gloriously exemplified in our capital, to all parts of the UK. Now that we have secured our position at the heart of Europe, let's celebrate".
Still no details from the BBC about the "little wheeze" (Kirsty Wark's description) pulled by Labour - deceiving the Government into thinking they would agree an early election date if the Conservatives dropped their Lords filibuster ie lying, in defiance of constitutional norms.
BBC are also misleadingly referring to a "snap poll"...an election had already been rejected once by Parliament! There can be nothing "snap" about this as it is not in the power of the PM to call an election!!
When Gina Miller succeeds in a court action, then the Government is found to have acted unlawfully. When Gina Miller fails in a court action, her "bid" is "rejected". It's not that the Court find the Government to have acted lawfully, in conpliance with constitutional requirements. Moreover, the BBC linger lovingly over Miller's expensive lawyer's arguments and give her whinge quote huge space.
I knew this challenge had absolutely no legal merit whatsoever. The only issue was how corrupt and left wing our judges have become. Parliament's remedy if they don't like the proroguing was simple: kick out Boris and vote in a new PM.
Meanwhile in other BBC Bias...
Mugabe apparently was a "strongman"...oooh - that almost sounds good doesn't it? Presumably they'll be referring to "Strongman Mussolini"and "Strongman Franco" in their history programmes...
May I suggest and alternative title: "Persecutor of His People"...which could also serve for Dominic Grieve.
Agreed on both points MB. ... Parliament's remedy if they don't like the proroguing was simple: kick out Boris and vote in a new PM. ... Little has been made by the BBC political reporters of the terminal decline of the Labour Party. They are haemorrhaging support from their traditional heartlands. Corbyn doesn't dare to prompt an election because Labour would in likelihood come some way down after the Conservatives, TBP, and now the reinvigorated Lib Dems, who would have picked up plenty of former Labour anti-Brexit votes.
Do we now have a dictatorship? Parliament is now the government yet has no mandate. It can't be voted out. In theory it can hang on for three years, but why not push through another quickie act, The Fixed Parliament Act? We can then sit in Article 50 limbo and become the founder region of the 'no nations' EU!
I do hope you are right about terminal decline...my view is that Labour has a hardcore 25% vote for General Elections and they also benefit (to the tune of about 50 seats) from having their vote concentrated in constituencies with below-average numbers of electors. This "rotten borough" aspect of our current Parliament is never, or hardly ever, mentioned by the BBC or the many left-leaning "analysts".
Anyway, the upshot I think is that Labour are not going to be wiped out, or even driven into fourth position, however much I would like that to happen. The EU Elections are very misleading as regards likely TBP performance. Farage is a brilliant communicator but it seems impossible for him to get above the 15% mark in a General Election. A very loose pact beteen the Conservatives and TBP seems the best way to go.
I am worried about Boris. He can still work magic in the street but what to make of his latest pronouncement that he "will go to Brussels and get a deal"...? A couple of days ago he was saying Parliament had cut the legs from under the negotiators. How does that square...? Mixed messaging is never good.
Personally I think he needs more focus:
1. Ram home that Labour is now led by a dangerous unpatriotic cabal who have supported the IRA, Iran and Hamas. Remind the public at every turn about the past activities of Corbyn and McDonnell and their sick jokes about terrorism.
2. Underline that Jo Swinson has said she will not even accept the result of a second referendum, let alone the first.
3. Point out the absurdity of Emily Thornberry's position (negotiate a better deal, get it approved in Parliament and then campaign AGAINST it in a referendum!). Refer to her as Lady Nugent of course.
4. Double down on the Rebel Rabble. Note that Dominic Grieve is a recipient of the Legion d'Honneur for his services to the French State...unelected Tony Blair has been conducting parallel negotations in Brussels (even Theresa May got p'd off about that!)...remind people that Anna Soubry and Heidi Allen both told their electorates they in 2017 they would respect the result of the 2016 Referendum and implement Brexit - both liars.
Re. your point Anon. Do we now have a dictatorship? A dictatorship would suggest a single person at its head, but in parliament at the moment we have a self-appointed ad hoc committee comprising disparate pro EU MPs who have usurped the democracy of this country in defiance of the majority - formed with the single purpose of keeping us in the EU. The events of the last few days must taste sweet.
I agree with Anon, another little tweak here and there and we will have ... Parliament is now the government yet has no mandate. It can't be voted out. In theory it can hang on for three years, but why not push through another quickie act, The Fixed Parliament Act? We can then sit in Article 50 limbo...
Do we have a dictatorship? No, but I think we are long way down the road to a GDR (East Germany) style system. You may recall Corbyn admired the GDR and toured it with his then girlfriend Diane Abbott.
There are a number of parallels I see:
1. Mass monitoring of the population. We already have that. UK Police pay particular attention to any comments deemed to offend against PC values, even if not illegal.
2. Fake political parties. In the GDR there were several authorised parties in addition to the SED (Communist) party. These fake parties were designed to pose as Christian Democrat, Liberal and even one supposedly appealing to ex ThirdReichers but in reality they all followed the Communist policy. We have been travelling in that direction with all parties following pro-PC, pro-EU, pro-mass immigration policies.
3. All the media following essentially the Communist line.
Just to add to the above, Jess Phillips has suggested we should have vetting of all political candidates by the Electoral Commission...it's clear that Labour "moderates" (yes, we're supposed to believe she's a "moderate") are thinking along those lines.
Oh yeah we can also add "non-personning". We have that in effect now. The days when you might see people like Tommy Robinson or Katie Hopkins on national TV are long gone. Even people like Tom Holland and Richard Dawkins have largely been written out of the record.
That "article" was by Will Chalk. Thought I'd check out Mr Chalk's twitter account.
First up? A retweet of a tweet by our old favourite, "literal Communist" Ash Sarkar. targetting both Boris and Momentum Hate Figure Laura Kuennesberg, suggesting they'd had an affair:
I suppose Mr Chalk is thinking about his future career when one of Corbyn's commissars marches in to take over the BBC. His dissing of his fellow Right Clique (! - yes Momentum are that mad) BBC colleague will no doubt save him from the firing squad.
The question of jurisdiction has not been addressed fully. The Rebel Alliance Bill when it becomes law will only apply within the borders of the UK. Once Boris steps outside the UK - if he were to travel to Brussels - then, EU law will take precedent - Article 50 was an EU instrument.
Boris will probably just refuse to obey the new law if it is flawed in this way.
Would be nice if it worked like that but I think many UK laws have effect overseas e.g. arms sales laws, anti-corruption laws...I can't see the Supreme Court allowing that defence...
The jurisdiction question has something to do with Queen's Prerogative, armed with which Boris must be in order to represent the UK in Brussels? I've no idea really - it's just something I read. It's no use expecting the BBC to investigate and explain matters such as this. They're too busy partying.
I read that because Bercow certified the Bill as not requiring Royal Consent, it cannot affect the Royal Prerogative. But in relation to Brexit I am pretty sure the original Miller judgment put Parliament in the driving seat on Brexit, setting aside the Royal Prerogative.
We definitely need a written constitution! - but it needs to be written by sensible people not a bunch of Grieves and Chakrabatis with help from Paul Mason.
How did we get here? Answer: with a lot of help from the BBC...
1. The BBC worked tirelessly for the Remain cause during the Referendum campaign. By not focussing on the Remain campaign's lies (about the European Army, Turkey's membership application, supported by Cameron, Osborne lying "predictions" about a Brexit vote's impact, future EU funding arrangements and so on) it helped divert criticism away from Remainers.
2. Immediately after the election the BBC analysts went to work to undermine the legitimacy of the vote - claiming a huge differential in the voting patterns of young and old people and backing the notion that young people's votes were more valid.
3 Then the BBC, following the Guardian promoted the false idea that it was only "left behind" communities - reservoirs of ignorance and poverty - that voted Leave. They never explained why the South region, the most prosperous in the country - voted to Leave or why Scotland, with some of the worst "Left Behind" communities in the UK voted to Remain.
4. In further efforts to delegitimise the vote, attempts were made to prove Russian interference and dodgy interventions by wealthy men - this was linked in with the Anti-Trump hysteria.
5. The BBC campaigned hard against Boris in the Conservative leadership election of 2016 and so helped secure a victory for a Remainer candidate (May).
6. Then began a huge propaganda operation - programme after programme promoting feelings of dread and inadequacy. We were encouraged to doubt our own judgement, to value expert opinion, to feel dread about the future, and to doubt our mental health. This propaganda offensive went on for over a year. It was very subtle.
7. The BBC then gave huge and friendly airtime to all those MPs working to overturn the Referendum. This is when we saw the rise of Anna Soubry and Heidi Allen.
8. The BBC failed to investigate May's duplicity in conducting parallel negotiations with the EU while her chief negotiator thought he was doing the negotiating.
9. Having done its best to further divisions in the nation, the BBC then harped on how divided the nation was, despite a lack of proof. The truth is there was only ever a hardcore of about 10-20% determined to overturn the Referendum result. The rest of the country were either indifferent or prepared to accept the result even if it was not their choice.
10. The BBC worked tirelessly to associate Brexit with hate crime and the Far Right. We can all recall John Sweeney's lying report associating a tragic death in a street fight with Farage's campaiging for Brexit.
This isn't the whole story by any means...but when you look back you can see how influential the BBC has been in setting the agenda and influencing events.
Yes I agree C, it's of Boris I think at the farm where he was seen leading a bull. He is scowling with downturned mouth - very unflattering - Oh and the normal dark background for folks the BBC pic editors don't like.
Quite agree. The photo has a prominent bar across the front presumably to signify him scowling in prison. Irredeemably and unashamedly biased as usual.
Looks like we might see the formation of a rival Conservative Party - a sort of Nick Robinson-approved Conservative Party. They won't have any shortage of funding and will receive the enthusiastic backing of the BBC.
M.B. Watching The Andrew Marr Show this morning, I couldn't help noticing that Marr gave John McDonnell a right ol' easy time. But Savid Javid got quite a grilling with lots of interruptions.
"MAJOR POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT: Party Chairman Richard Tice announces today in the Sunday Express that The Brexit Party will abolish the most unpopular tax in the UK - Inheritance Tax."
Roland Deschain on Biased BBC describes this as a major error. I agree entirely! Tyce - who up till now I thought of as a very savvy operator - just gifted Corbyn a guaranteed TBP vote loser in Labour heartlands where few end up leaving much if anything and don't pay tax most of the time if they do. At a time of national crisis it is the last thing the TBP should be banging on about. Definitely a huge tactical error - let's hope not a strategic one.
Not at all. It is a very bad tax which doesn't even do what it was meant to do but catches many people who were never meant to be caught. Thanks to the holes in it for some but not others and the Osborne ruse of not raising the threshold over too many years it is now by stealth used purely as a selective or punitive-for-some revenue raiser and tinkering with it in the partial way he did only compounded the unfairness and rottenness of it. It is a perverse tax and perverse to retain it. There are plenty of ways in which the poor, low-paid or without inheritance can be helped - as they have been already, for instance through the tax personal allowances threshold - although that Clegg-claimed manoeuvre was also done badly. Osborne or Clegg, take your pick. I'd take neither of them, thank you.
Ian Dale has published a Craigometer-style breakdown over who got most time on QT. Surprise, surprise...Remainers on the Panel got something like 50% more time to speak (even though for once there was an equal Remain v Leaver balance on the Panel). Even worse when it came to the audience members.
I'm not surprised. I noticed on a few occasions that Bruce played school ma'am a lot faster when the initial speaker was a leaver. She allowed Blackford a lot of verbal rope before stepping in and Donut got all the time in the world to profess her love of the common people.
Re Amber Rudd...no one in the media is querying whether she was a deliberate plant in government by the Remainers. Remember Sarah Wollaston - an extreme Remainer - pretended to be pro-Leave before announcing her strategic resignation from the Leave campaign, just before the Referendum took place. It strains credulity to believe that SW was ever pro-Leave and it strains credulity to believe that Amber Rudd was ever genuinely prepared to countenance no deal.
Were I on twitter I would have said: "Don't want to sound crabby but I don't like what I'm herring - this isn't the plaice to make light of such tangs. This is no time to be koi, it's time to salmon up our courage."
Think I am beginning to understand the Queen's consent issue now re the Corbyn-Swinson-Sturgeon-Starmer Surrender Bill (soon to be Act). They couldn't word the Act to intrude on the Royal Prerogative (which would mean Boris could have advised the Queen to deny Consent) - and the Speaker confirmed (by not stating otherwise) that the Bill did not relate to Royal Consent.
So Boris is free to use the Royal Prerogative powers...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDXQ5drXTMc
That means he might be able to cancel out the effect of the Act by using Royal Prerogative powers to indicate that he as the Queen's appointed Prime Minister will not accept what Parliament has compelled him to do...
All to play for perhaps!
Incidentally, this guy's video has been demonetised by You Tube. As usual, no explanation given.
If you consider that YouTube is basically a method to sell advertising space, and that advertisers have become sensitive to the content of the videos to which they're connected, and that We Have A Problem uses the terms 'spunk trumpet' and 'f*ck weasel' among other colourful epithets on a minute by minute basis, I think the demonetisation mystery may be solved.
MB, well yes but the problem you indicate also means that the bill was flawed as passed because of the inconsistency. Now being flawed is a valid reason for advising the Queen not to give Royal Assent. Shame that it has waited until just before Parliament is prorogued! Well one can dream.
Because YouTube sells itself to us with the facade of 'free speech' while actually being at the mercy of advertisers who have been encouraged to keep an eye on Tuber content by the new left - by Google ! Though the censorship is blatantly obvious, they can't actually admit it. It's a vicious circle which I'm sure you're aware is creating a mad dash to alternative streaming services, direct funding from viewers and direct sponsorship by companies unafraid of 'progressive' criticism so as to avoid the problem of de-monetisation altogether.
Tom Harwood compares the voting records of Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson. Which of the two would you think was more worthy of the far-right label? H/t Guido
The Rebel Alliance is a wafer-thin façade - structurally unsound because of the widely differing political beliefs and backgrounds of the main players, assembled for one reason only ie to stop Brexit. The old motto 'time tests the truth in all things' is never more apt. Boris has time on his side.
Arthur T - You're right of course. I noticed in the Sunday papers there's a lot of disquiet bubbling under about Remainers inadvertently letting in a Far Left Marxist Government under Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and Mason, with the Momentum Mob rampant on the streets.
The problem with the people who operate at these high political levels is that (a) they are gamblers and poker players ready to bluff while playing for high stakes (b) there is a lot of influence from multi-billionaires who themselves would be relatively unaffected by a Far Left government and who ensure all Remainer "Martyrs" will get handsomely rewarded for their obstruction of the democratically expressed will of the people and (c) they sometimes make mistakes. We have the historic example of Kerensky who fatally underestimated the power and willpower of the Bolsheviks, so allowing the October Revolution.
Been to the local dump this morning...which is why I ended up listening to "Egregious Emma" Barnett on Radio 5 Live on the car radio. There seems to be a competition between her and Maitlis to see who can be the most biased.
Today I heard her give her opinion (her "advice") to a Conservative MP to "stop throwing mud at Labour" because this was being counterproductive.
Prompts me to wonder whether she has ever offered similar advice to Labour who do nothing but throw mud at the Conservatives alleging they are liars, racists, sexists, not seeking a deal with the EU, prepared to break the law, ready to surrender to all Trump's trade demands and wanting to privatise the NHS - among 100 other mud-covered calumnies. Presumably Emma thinks those are all rational critiques...I've never be aggressive to Labour except on the issue of anti-semitism.
Emma's definition of "throwing mud" is simply claiming that Labour don't want a deal and have been blocking a deal for 3 years. That's no allowed according to her. But of course that is easily verifiable as fact given Emily Thornberry and other key Labour figures have said they will campaign to Remain in a rigged rerun of the Referendum. They have also never published any details of the sort of deal they would be prepared to accept (apart from offering some bogus "tests"). The EU have made clear that only the WA is on the table and they will not negotiate another agreement, but Labour never address that point.
Still, Emma thinks you shouldn't be nasty to Labour, only to the Wicked Tories.
Also, Emma was off the scale on the "interruptometer". Not just that. But she was also doing the annoying Cathy Newman "so what you're saying" thing and offering a summation completely at variance with what the interviewee has just said. She was furthermore cutting answers off if she didn't like them and trying to move on to another question, not just interrupting for clarification. All questions were framed in terms of pro-Labour talking points.
Finally there is another annoying aspect to Egregious Emma's interview approach. At the end, after a thoroughly biased and aggressive interview replete with unnecessary interruptions and loaded opinions, she ends up all smiles with a fake jolly "must have you back", "most informative" sort of thing, designed to suggest you had just heard a relaxed, balanced and illuminating exchange, rather than the equivalent of a heretic having nails driven through them by some sort of Medieval tormenter.
Of course it's probably unfair to Syrians since the likelihood is 95% aren't from Syria in the first place but rather Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran.
Because we don't follow a sensible Australian-style policy of sending them somewhere like St. Helena, Tristan da Cuhna or South Georgia for lengthy and detailed processing. Our "judges" (politicians in charge of legal interpretation) wouldn't allow it. Instead we give them free money, a free flat and a sense of entitlement.
Excitable Norman was probably reading from Sopel's crib-sheet when at lunchtime on the BBC News channel he said that "'some MPs' are calling for the PM to be impeached". I daresay that clip will be down the memory hole by now.
Also down the BBC memory hole is the clip when VaradKar said that he didn't want an extension to the Article 50 notice period but wanted Brexit completed by 31st Oct.
Arthur - I think that Varadkar comment is part of a Blair-Macron sprung trap. They are going to try and pressurise Boris into accepting something like May's Withdrawal Agreement - but with probably the Backstop heavily amended.
The EU will make it clear that the only extension on offer will be a long one - maybe as long as two years.
Once Boris agrees a WA, the Remainer Mob in Parliament will switch to a Referendum and require him to put the WA to a Referendum against "Remain" - a "lose-lose" rigged rerun as far as most Leavers are concerned.
I think this has all been worked out with Blair.
Boris should indicate he will not accept a further extension and at the election will seek a mandate to take us out of the EU.
Varadkar will be under pressure because without the UK's contributions to the EU, Ireland as a net contributor of late, will be expected to help find the shortfall.
The Rebel Alliance has no answer to the motion for a GE. What better an outcome would there be than that Jeremy Corbyn as the newly elected PM take the letter and ask for the extension? Of course that won't happen - Corbyn would run a mile.. They might have Boris cornered in the Hoc for the rest of today, but once Parliament is prorogued all bets are off.
The Rebel Alliance doesn't have to have an answer to the GE motion...it just needs to wait till after 31 October. By then the EU will have offered a lengthy extension which Parliament will have agreed. The only way that won't happen is if Boris can somehow get the Act reviewed by the Supreme Court in a way that gums up the works... I don't hold out much hope on that.
If Dominic Cummings has found some way round this, I will be the first to cheer him to the rafters.
If Boris does find some roundabout route then the Rabble Alliance will simply replace him with a Government of National Unity using the VONC resolution procedure plus perhaps a letter to the Queen from majority of MPs saying they will vote in X as PM. It might be John McDonnell as a temporary PM, just to agree an extension with the EU.
Macron-Blair-Varadka are scared that the UK might escape the EU on no deal...that's why they are ploting for a long extension well beyond the 3 months disingenuously suggested by the Rabble Alliance (who are in on the plot).
It's all about getting us into a rigged rerun of the Referendum.
MB you make this sounds like the day that the 17.4 million Leave voters were told to accept that, in the biggest democratic exercise the country has known, their votes have been ignored. I hope you are wrong.
I am liking the talk from Boris of a Canada Plus FTA which is what any patriotic Conservative PM prepared to accept the Referendum result (ie not May) should have gone for. I am happy with the idea of special arrangements for agriculture on the island of Ireland if the DUP are (and I suspect they will be).
There is an outside chance that Boris might just wangle a deal by persuading the EU that he will definitely win the (November) election and then make their lives hell if they have managed to lock in the UK to the EU. I can see that prospect, of a disruptive UK within the EU, a UK not prepared to play the game but exposing the EU for what it is at every turn could give Merkel and Macron pause to think.
I certainly think we should all pray that Boris can pull this off - that goes for the atheists among as well. :)
I hope Boris returns with a thumping majority, sacks Bercow's Mini-me successor, takes away Bercow's pension, launches a Court of Inquiry into the treasonous behaviour of Grieve, Blair, Mandelson, Adonis and several others, abolishes the House of Lords, reforms 50 Labour constituencies out of existence and reaches an FTA with Trump within weeks. I accept that not all these things will come to pass.:)
I refuse to sign up to BBC Sounds so I am sorry that I can't give a link/time but today, 9/9/2019, Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 took a call from Dale Aston of Pontyprydd. Regular listeners will know that he is a caller of many years' standing but his comments never change. Basically he hates Tories, young, old, ancient and modern, they have no redeeming features whatsoever. One could imagine the same words being applied to anyone of any religion, any race or any colour and their call wouldn't last half a minute and they would never get past the switchboard ever again, yet because it is the 'bloodee torees' he gets to play the same record unchallenged for at least the last six years. (Do a 'Google'!). At least the tame Muslim caller, (called-up?), from Northampton fits his party piece to the story of the day, unlike our Dale, who is always, "[insert name]? bloodee toree! What can you expect?".
It's not clear to me why religion is a "protected characteristic" but politics isn't (personally I don't think we should have any "protected characteristics", just reasonable laws). One's politics like one's religion is often inherited from one's parents.
I don't like 'protected characteristics' either and politics, religion and while we are at it, national characteristics, should be up for criticism. But what comes out of this man isn't reasoned argument it is just pure hatred and yet he is never challenged let alone cut-off. I rather suspect that it is the BBC that calls him!
Try "All [Jews/Muslims/Blacks/Pakistanis/Tories] are lying scum bastards".
It's a fair bet Mr Aston inherited his politics. For him the Abefan disaster, albeit under a Labour government, Labour local authority and nationalised ownership was all the fault of the 'bloodee torees'. That sort of hatred must be almost genetic.
For some people the Tories are likes Sprites in Elizabethan times...who curdled the milk? the bladdy Tooreez!!!
This is one of the reasons I object to the BBC and MSM generally referring to "Tories" since it is a title like the American "Limey" for Brits which can range in implied tone from affection to utter detestation. The media folk know that which is why they so frequently use "Tory" rather than "Conservative".
The BBC keeps telling us not to believe in conspiracy theories. They're bad for you, they say. But the problem is that reality points in the opposite direction:
"Olly Robbins - the architect of Theresa May's disastrous Brexit In Name Only deal - gets rewarded for his efforts with a senior job at key donor of the Remain campaign and banking giant, Goldman Sachs. Makes sense...!"
[I've had to divide this reply into two parts - it's too long for acceptance.]
Sorry - your view that 'politics is 50% conspiracy and 50% cock-up' is surely very wide of the mark. Views based on personal experience often miss the most important things. To give just one illustration, during the Northern Irish troubles, someone feels that he's been treated unfairly by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He happens to know other people who say they've had similar experiences. He concludes, based on his experience, that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is rotten, the British state is rotten, protest against the British state is justified, armed struggle against the British state is justified, killing members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British army is justified. Personal experience here doesn't supply the wider context, which surely includes this: during the Second World War, Ireland was protected by British military power and has been protected by British military power ever since. The Republic's defence spending has always been pitifully low. It should be obvious that if Irish nationalists had used the slogan 'Stop arming Britain' during the Second World War, it would have been idiotic - as idiotic as the slogan used so often now, 'Stop arming Israel.' The Israeli Defence Force protects Palestinian territory against invasion. An independent Palestinian state would be militarily weak, unable to deter or oppose aggression. In the unstable Middle East, Israeli power is a massive, decisive advantage but it isn't one that Palestinian personal experience would be likely to reveal.
Military action, like politics, is so often complex, vulnerable, subject to cock-ups. British and American military action in the Second World War included some spectacular examples. They don't in the least show that the British and Americans were always incompetent, let alone that they were'just as bad as the Nazis.' To give an example from the First World War, the Gallipoli campaign. Churchill's involvement in this disastrous campaign doesn't in the least show that Churchill's political career was '50% conspiracy and 50% cock-up.' Churchill's strengths vastly outweigh the weaknesses. I won't give more objections to your view here. I'd rather use the space to give some information about one particular cock-up (in the second part of the reply.) If I did give more detailed criticism of your view here, it would co-exist with appreciation of your strengths, MB, your insights and your incisive comments.
Obviously, the weaknesses exposed by a cock-up aren't always outweighed by strengths. This is the address of the Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East site, the first page of the list of 'current parliamentary supporters.'
https://www.lfpme.org/supporters
The LFPME Website claims that 'Currently, 131 MPs support our work in Parliament' and gives information about the MPs, their name and constituency and in all cases but two, a photo.
The MP's on the Website's current list include Michael Meacher, constituency, Oldham West and Royton. But Michael Meacher isn't currently an MP. He died in 2015! (His entry is one of the two without a photo. The other is Diane Abbott.)
Simon Danczuk, suspended by the Labour Party in 2015 after sending explicit messages to a 17-year old girl, banned by Labour from standing as a Labour Candidate, replaced as MP for Rochdale by Anthony Lloyd in 2017 is claimed to be the current MP for Rochdale!
Other people falsely claimed by Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East to be currently MP's and supporting the organization (they may support the aims and objectives of the organization but they aren't MP's): Sadiq Khan (Tooting), who left parliament in 2016 to become Mayor of London, Steve Rotheram (Liverpool Walton)who left Parliament in 2017 to become Metro Mayor of Liverpool City Region and Andy Burnham (Leigh) who left Parliament in 2017 to become Mayor of Manchester. The site lists a whole group of other MP's who left parliament in 2017.
Anyone who uses the membership pages of the site to find out if a particular MP is or isn't a member will find that it's not at all straightforward. The list of MP's seems to be random, with no organizing principle at all. In fact, there is an organizing principle, a ridiculous one. Anyone interested in solving this particular puzzle, a challenging one, perhaps, is welcome to take a look at the Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East Website.
I don't claim that all Labour MP's are incompetents or that all the Labour MP's who support LFPME are incompetent in every way, but some views are decisively falsified by evidence of incompetence and other evidence, such as the view that there's a socialist utopia or near-utopia ready to become a reality if the country has a Labour Government. Utopias and near-utopias are dealt with very harshly by reality. They're vulnerable to attack and if non-utopian socialist states are incompetent, without the wide-ranging skills needed for successful management of the economy then of course their schemes can't be financed.
I think LFPME are part of a conspiracy to destroy Israel - along with a lot of other groups supported by Corbyn.
An example of both conspiracy and cock-up was Israel's support initially for Hamas which to begin with posed as a religious, pious, social aid network. Israel thought it was being clever doing down the PLO. In a sense it was but Hamas soon reverted to type and got involved in the armed terrorist attempt to destroy Israel, eventually replacing the PLO in Gaza. That part was a good example of a cock-up by the Israelis.
Dear Craig, Sue, MB and other ITBB Gurus – Am I right to assume that the dearth of bias commentary here is due to the original question posed by the site’s title is now no longer questionable but rather a ‘given’? I am involved in a long-running (20+ years) project to measure the size of radio audiences, where, each week, different communities are asked to keep a record of what they listen to. When I have to go to ex-coal-mining villages I emphasise the fact that the survey is for commercial stations and only add, if pressed, as a quiet caveat that the BBC is also involved so as not to offend. I regularly get told to f-off in those villages – anyone who is vaguely associated with the BBC is persona non grata – they have long memories and it all goes back to the miners’ strike. However I was shocked recently when I was in a council estate in West Yorkshire where there was the same very hostile reaction. I wasn’t expecting it and so enquired (of some of them) ‘why’. I was looking for some historical moment, such as the miners’ strike, but there was none. All I got was ‘they’re biased; they lie’. And the bottom line was - they won’t even tune in to Pop Master.
I think you are probably right...less time is spent now discussing the details of bias since it has become so obvious. In fact we have more and more examples of what I call "gross bias" where presenters don't even try to hid their bias under a cloak of claimed impartiality.
We are now faced with a power struggle. The BBC has accumulated huge power and refuses to share it between shades of opinion. We need a populist government that will rein it in, reform it and if necessary break it up.
I think one of the things people hate most about the modern PC BBC is that if you dare to protest against it you are immediately labelled a "conspiracy theorist", "Far Right" and not "progressive" - a kind of Catch 22.
But is PC progressive? PC policies have produced modern slavery, FGM for tens of thousands of girls, Scottish and Welsh separatism, domestic terrorism targetting teenagers at a music event, grooming gangs, religious restriction of free speech, an Electoral Commission that favours the Left, young couples left with no hope of owning a home with a garden, people being arrested for expressing legitimate views about gender, an anti-semitic Labour Party and the possiblity of a Marxist totalitarian taking power in the UK. Nothing "progressive" about any of that.
The PC ideology of which the BBC are such worshipers pervades every walk of life. Especially it represents an entry key into parliament, civil service, academia, art and architecture, the church, charities and public sector such as education, NHS, police - in fact everywhere but in traditional workplaces such as farming, building trades, manufacturing, independent shopkeeping etc.
Anyone seeking a job in a PC ideological environment MUST comply with energy and commitment to the PC code, otherwise there would be little hope of gaining employment there.
Gradually, generations of like-minded people are picking up the plum jobs offered by the same clones - like hoards of terracotta soldiers marching under the PC banner. PC ideology has become so ingrained now that any off-message remark is greeted with howls of indignation.
I should add that so many of these jobs have become politicised from the smallest of schools upwards. Staff from anywhere will be briefed to replay the message in a parrot-like manner. On the other side of the coin, the independent voices are always belittled and/or patronised - indicating low intelligence, bigotry etc. Business views are passed on by the likes of the CBI (I should have included them in the list above) - hardly ever from a Dyson or a Bamford.
The Institution of Engineering & Technology has gone that way too. It is fantastic when all the prizes go to the girls! Women are the same as men but they bring something different to the job so they are better! But then the job has to change to something that the girls like to do, so how does that work? My experience as an engineer was that (certainly British) managements don't like engineers because they point out problems, (spotting the problem is the first step in finding a solution). Girls do what they are told at school, they follow the rules. That is exactly what managements want, we followed the brief, we did what was asked for, now pay us! Oh, it doesn't work? New brief, new contract, more money but lousy engineering!
So far, we haven't heard from the BBC what the Newspeak version of recent events in parliament will be. It will be something like 'Parliament exercised their authority over populist Government'.
LK like all the Beeboid Remainers suggests that it is Boris's "errors" that have got him to this point...
"That "long shopping list" of errors, according to one member of the cabinet, means the prime minister's self-imposed Halloween Brexit deadline looks further out of reach than a few short days ago."
This is nonsense. Boris isn't stupid. He knew the arithmetic. He knew the Traitor Tories in the Rabble Alliance would move before the 31 Oct deadline. He was never going to be able to slip no deal past this Parliament. His prorogation simply flushed out the Rebels a little early. It does help him that they are now out of the Party in the Commons. He should keep it that way in my view. I dont think Grieve and Hammond ever expected to be kicked out like that.
I don't know what Boris's end game is now. I have speculated that perhaps he is seeking to terrify the EU into believing (a) he will definitely win a General Election and (b) that he will then become a majorly disruptive influence within the EU.
It's possible that the EU might decide to cut its losses and let the UK go, and offer no further extensions if it calculates that the Remainer parties are never going to get to the Referendum.
There are more contradictions than you can shake a stick at. It looks as if the Johnson plan was to take them on head on in the manner of Trump - May appeasement was simply disastrous and besides, Johnson carries a sort of template of Churchill the maverick, the bold, the one who stood up and stood out, worked against the odds, often suffering defeats and setbacks but ploughing on. The hero of the hour would be the defiant blond destroyer. One of the most contradictory things is that this heroic figure who is gambling on turning everything upside down, from the Conservative MPs, the Speaker, the Junckers and Tusks (even Barnier hasn't been so visible or so full of himself lately), is from a family that is LibDem at its core even when Conservative and he himself is the same and has some of the worst ideas for example, about open borders, letting illegals and players of the system in and give them amnesty. Anything else he says about tough immigration is merely a sop to the electorate in my opinion. He is contradictory and untrustworthy on many things, he throws out silly statements that he has to retract, his understanding of some subjects is superficial and I'd never want to underestimate the ability of clever people to be stupid or say or do stupid things. Yet he has the capability out of that superficiality and mutability to come up with something unusual or original and do something that previously seemed impossible or hadn't even been formed as an idea let alone a way forward. They will make him or break him and so far it has been defeat all the way and they've stitched him up like a kipper. Yet we hope against hope that he will somehow spring free and we will be free. Maybe something will come out of it because of the kippering - it went too far and that itself will bring about a breakthrough and a result they hadn't foreseen.
“Of all the Bank Holidays the Monday in August seems the most genuine. Whit Monday, like Easter Monday, moves with the compulsion of the moon. August Bank Holiday depends upon nothing but itself. It is a gift-day, out of, and generally under, the blue.” ~A.A.Milne
ReplyDeleteAugust Bank Holiday depends upon nothing but itself - and the whim of politicians?
Delete"The summer bank holiday was introduced in the Bank Holidays Act 1871 and first observed in that year. It was originally intended to give bank employees the opportunity to participate and attend cricket matches. Exactly one hundred years later, the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 moved this bank holiday to the last Monday in August for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This followed a trial period from 1965 to 1970 of the new date. In Scotland, it remained on the first Monday in August."
“EU leaders see Boris Johnson as a bit of a chancer and a populist” says Katya Adler tonight on BBCs main news.
ReplyDeleteDo they? Where has she heard that?
I think she heard it in her own imagination or read it in the Guardian or overheard it in the BBC canteen.
Her anonymous EU sources are always impeccably informed along the lines of BBC groupthink.
Katya's bias has been off the scale. She's also been referring to the "poodleisation" of Boris by Trump. That is a Guardian-Steve Bell trope going back at least to the days when Blair was characterised by the UK Far Left as a poodle of Bush for wanting to neturalise Sadaam and Al Queda.
DeleteI sense desperation. I think Katya knows the game is up. Either we leave on No Deal and don't collapse into catastrophe (proving the BBC has lied) or Boris gets a reasonable deal despite all the propaganda about the Withdrawal Agreement being the final unrevisable offer from the EU (proving the BBC has lied).
Their only hope is that Parliament blocks Boris - so she is weighing in behind them.
Remember, this is the woman who - by her own admission - lied on her CV (about her knowledge of Spanish). She will lie about anything it would seem.
Typical Twitter comment
Delete\\ The BBC's EU "correspondent" Katya Adler is basically just a PR spokesperson for the EU. //
50% of tweeters praise her for her pro EU stance.
Oh oh...Robbie Gibb delivers his own lecture about impartiality - at the heart of everything the BBC does - and even displaying bias on twitter is in his sights. Well, that's a good one - see Mr Simpson and co. There's a sizeable list of
ReplyDelete'and co'.
But the real story is handbags: Gibb vs Byrne. Ofcom, come in please. Ol' Snow doesn't escape either. Rightly so. ( I am now agreeing with the BBC. Dangerous times.)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7396779/Channel-4-bosss-jibe-Boris-shows-broadcasters-bias-says-former-No-10-aide-ROBBIE-GIBB.html
We are way beyond rational argument. The BBC and Channel 4 won't be stopped from spreading lies and poison by rational debate. They have to be taken down as institutions. The only issue for debate is how we go about taking them down.
DeleteSimply commercialising them won't guarantee anything as we can see with Sky and ITV - which both broadly support the BBC narrative. Gifting the "BBC" brand to some PC billionaire would be an act of rank folly.
So we need to be cleverer than the opposition.
Remember that "Perfect Day" BBC ad with Lou Reed, Tom Jones, M People person and all the rest...? 22 years old now! And the pay off line at 3:45...you can only access these different musical styles via BBC? Sounds completely absurd now in these days of You Tube, Spotify and I Tunes...and about a billion radio stations on the internet.
ReplyDeleteCome on in BBC, your time is up!! It's the knackers' yard for you!!! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfddYDRIFGY
I just happened to catch a portion of the news channel yesterday. Carrie Grace interviewing Ben Bradshaw about the proposed axing of free licences to the over 75's. Lots of talk of "calling people (eg B Johnson) out", "impartiality doesn't mean not telling the truth", and so on. Mr Bradshaw thought the over 75's issue wasn't the BBC's fault and that it was the government's problem. "The BBC should not be an arm of the department for work and pensions". He was shown on TV as Former Cultural Secretary.....but of course not as his previous job as Former BBC Employee. BBC staffer talks to ex-BBC employee about BBC licence fee. Their contempt for the fee-payers continues unabated.
ReplyDeleteJust read that the BBC is preparing to launch a rival to Amazon’s Alexa called Beeb, with a pledge that it will understand British accents.
DeleteWhat a waste of our money. How on earth is chasing Amazon within their remit?
More than 350 people were arrested at Notting Hill Carnival with 30 cops injured during the celebrations on the hottest summer Bank Holiday ever.
ReplyDeleteThis story was hidden deep in the BBC website, no chance of prominence for news like this.
I listened to a part of a lengthy interview with George Alagiah on Radio 5 Live this afternoon. He has written a novel set in South Africa, so this is a free platform offered by the BBC to promote it. The BBC is now all about personality 'branding'. John Simpson was referred to in the interview as a 'true legend'.
ReplyDeleteGeorge offered the usual reply when the question of bias came up. 'We are legally bound to be impartial through our charter'. But, in true Simpson manner he said it is the duty of the BBC to break down the tunnel vision of the populist far-right. With their access to social media, the far-right only read what they wish to and therefore have no access to differing points of view - real echoes of Simpson's "we didn't 'explain' the 2016 referendum issues well enough to the ignorant leave voters".
This personality branding and book launches need to be curtailed. What about the honest to goodness writers who have to compete with this hype?
Everyone working for the BBC now believe that anyone with right wing views must be labelled as far right and that only those on the right have tunnel vision. Far right populists -is that code for Brexit supporters? Utterly deluded.
DeleteJeffrey Epstein accuser urges Prince Andrew to 'come clean' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49486590
ReplyDeleteRead this, who knows what’s true but Clinton seems to come out of it a lot better than Trump...
The Official Media Spokesperson for the EU, Katya Adler, sounds even more like the EU's Official Media Spokesperson when she's on twitter.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Apparently there’s no sense of panic or crisis in EU regarding Brexit...including a no deal Brexit...(Odd that since, the EU argues a no deal Brexit will lead to a resumption of civil war in Northern Ireland...isn't that a bit remiss of them, to not view no deal as a crisis).
Apparently the EU think Johnson and Cumming are bluffing...and will ask for another extension. (Haven't they got the message by now?)
Apparently German industry (entering a period of recession) doesn't care about lost exports to the UK. (Since when have capitalist firms not cared about losing market share?)
It's the BBC website...they never can have too many Muslim-angle stories presented with earnest (duplicitous) positivity.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-latin-america-49499322/celebrating-islam-in-predominantly-catholic-mexico
This time it's Muslims in Mexico. I'm sure Trump is on the case.
I trust that Dominic Cumming has had a team working on every potential filibuster, arcane procedural ploy, challenge to the Speaker, resort to the Courts if necessary...etc etc. to ensure that the Remaniac plotters are finally unhorsed and bite the dust.
ReplyDeleteA straw poll up here in Yorkshire suggests that Boris MUST be doing the right thing based on the response / reaction from the BBC. It certainly has been delicious listening / viewing.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC have misjudged the opinion of people outside London in their hostile reaction to Boris Johnson's resolve to deliver Brexit. The BBC News website vid shows a pathetic looking Owen Jones trying to stir up a group of teenagers. It's pathetic - wholly engineered by the BBC 'production' department. This narrow London view is not shared throughout the UK.
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic that Owen Jones is featured today as an anti Brexit would-be rebel-rouser, but that he was equally welcomed by the BBC the other day as victim.
DeleteYes the other day he was complaining about political violence and now he's threatening it by encouraging mass protest by the Far Left - that always ends in violence.
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49515313
Delete... 'Owen Jones: Three arrested over London pub assault' ..
.... Police have arrested three people in connection with an assault against journalist and activist Owen Jones.
The Guardian columnist says he was assaulted by a group of men in Islington, London, in the early hours of Saturday 17 August.
Three men, aged between 29 and 39, were arrested on "suspicion of violent disorder and assault occasioning actual bodily harm", the Met Police said.
The men are in custody after attending a north London police station.
A Met Police statement said that a man in his 30s was approached outside the Lexington pub in Pentonville Road at around 02:00 BST and assaulted by four male suspects.
"When the victim's friends attempted to intervene, they were also assaulted," it read.
"None of those injured required hospital treatment or London Ambulance Service."
Mr Jones, 35, is a prominent left-wing activist and political commentator.' ...
This story tells us that it's OK to be 'a prominent left-wing activist and political commentator'. because the police, the BBC and MSM will protect you, but it's not OK to be the right wing equivalent - you'll be arrested.
DeleteThe Today programme managed to find somebody even more creepy-sounding than Barry Gardiner, namely Bob Kerslake, talking out of both sides of his mouth about the dedicated impartiality and duty of the Civil Service. What would he would know about it anyhow, being a local authority official and accountant who somehow got bumped up to be Head of the Civil Service, following G O'D. I wonder how that happened.
ReplyDeleteKerslake is a walking constitutional outrage. He has deliberately undermined the impartiality of the civil service by becoming an official advisor to the Labour Party after retirement as Head of the Civil Service. GOD has also been an absoluted disgrace with his politicised comments. How can anyone ever believe in the idea that the Civil Service is impartial now we know that at the highest level they are ardent Remainers, seeking to stympie a democratic vote of all the people. They are an absolute disgrace to the honourable traditino of the British Civil Service.
DeletePropaganda image...you know how the Remainer protests are hideously white to the extent that Jon Snow himself might be shocked...But the BBC just happen to have as their main pic illustrating the (pathetic) anti-proroguing street protest an image of three Black people protesting. That definitely didn't happen by accident.
ReplyDeleteYes MB, I have been studying that image closely. It's disappeared now. It's still there on aedaily.net. [?] I think the image you refer to might be a stock photo. There is nothing to tie it into yesterday's news. The blue flags are smudged to give a suggestion of the EU flag, but on the clearer one there appears to be a lighter stripe at the top. There are no placards - most unusually for the BBC.
DeleteWhat struck me was the unmistakeable subliminal hint of 'anger against white supremacy' with this image. I've said many a time that all news photos should have photo credits with date, name of copyright owner (agency or individual) and location.
To add to the reasons that I think this image may be fake: There is a banner being held up by arm which doesn't appear to be connected to a body. The banner is indecipherable. Also there is a man by the blue flag on the right who appears to be too tall for the crowd. The blue flag on the left has a strange white globe beneath it, making it appear to have been placed into the frame rather than being carried.
DeleteBrexit has been a rollercoaster ride but the Leave side are certainly up at the moment. Really relishing the discomfiture of the Remainer Traitor element. Lewis Goodall on Sky had a v. good analysis (much better than the BBC underperformers) about why it's not so easy to legislate No Deal out of existence when you have a determined Prime Minister who is not going to play ball. As he pointed out the Traitor Remainers will in effect end up trying to say stuff like "You must accept any extension offered whatever the terms given you by the EU". How can that be portrayed as a patriotic and responsible? It's just another abject surrender.
ReplyDeleteI would also suggest there is nothing to stop the Prime Minister going to the Courts and claiming his constitutional rights are being trampled on by Parliament in attempting to make him act in an executive capacity against the decision of Cabinet. We do have a constitution. The Courts have never accepted that Parliament can pass any law it wishes despite what some people misguidedly think. The proper think for Parliament to do if it doesn't like the executive's actions is to dismiss the executive through a vote of no confidence. It is not constitutional to try and force the PM to be a programmed robot acting in his executive capacity against his judgement and his conscience. I think the PM would have a good legal case.
There's a confused choice of words from LK on the BBC News website:
ReplyDelete... 'Laura Kuenssberg: Can the rebel alliance stop no-deal Brexit?' ...
For many months up until Boris became PM Laura always described the ERG as 'Tory Rebels' - rebelling against May's WA, and therefore threatening to procure Brexit come what may. But today she describes rebels as:
... 'This is a big, powerful and diverse group, rather than a handful of experienced backbenchers doing their best to get huge numbers of MPs on side.
The strange political rainbow that is the loose rebel alliance now ranges from Conservatives like Philip Hammond at one end, all the way through to Jeremy Corbyn on the other - from dark blue to dark red, taking in yellow, green and all sorts of other shades in the middle.' ...
She has never described anyone in the Conservative Party as
'Conservatives like Philip Hammond' - only as Toree this or Toree that. Her traditional barbed comments can now be directed at the subject of her real hate - Boris and the genuine Brexiteers. Hammond may join other turncoats like Grieve and Ken Clarke as friends of the BBC.
I urge everyone to read this unusually balanced piece from Vernon Bogdanor in the Guardian:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/29/parliament-brexit-prorogue-mps-alternative-no-deal
'Parliament had failed on Brexit long before this prorogation'
The writer, Professor of government at King’s College London, sets out the position with unbiased clarity - we're not used to that.
Bogdanor notes: "They have had three years to come up with an alternative approach". Says it all.
DeleteThe only hope of the Treasonous Rabble Alliance aka The Remainiacs is in the courts. It only takes one secret Remainiac judge to derail everything. We have seen what damage the Speaker has done through his partisanship.
Will the judges meddle in politics? Where will it end? What sort of constitutional mess will be end up with if the Legislature is allowed legislate that the Executive act in an executive capacity against its best judgement? The Legislature can remove the Executive at any time. That is what they should do if they don't like Boris's approach to Brexit.
Anyway, fascinating stuff! I am looking forward to seeing what other cards Dominic Cumming has up his sleeve...
Katya Adler (EU Press Spokeperson employed by the BBC to deliver impartial pro-EU bulletins) is changing her tune. Don't think people like me don't notice, Katya!
DeleteFor the last year nearly Katya has been telling us that the EU is fundamentally united, that it views things from a legal perspective and that there can be absolutely no change to the Withdrawal Agreement or the backstop. I never believed her once - she was simply relaying EU propaganda to the British masses. And now what is she tweeting? This:
"EU still divided roughly into two camps: 1) More politically-focused. Those that see possibility that maybe a compromise on the backstop could +should be found, considering no deal impact on EU. Germany is out in front in hoping for deal and being Germany that counts for a lot "
So the Withdrawal Agreement and Backstop are potentially up for revision after all and all that stuff from Katya about unity and legality was total bollurks!
It's Friday afternoon, so as per usual, this story will appear briefly on the Sheffield and S Yorkshire backwater of the BBC News website 3 hours ago:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-49522660
'Rotherham child sex abuse: Five jailed for exploiting girls'
'Five jailed'? Yes - Five MEN jailed and yes, you can join up the rest of the dots without any help from the BBC.
Amazing how all these "controversial" (to use a BBC word) trials end on a Friday afternoon...it's almost as if they are hoping people soon forget about them.
DeleteSure enough, this story was removed from the BBC News website earlier this evening. It was only there for a few hours at the most. There is a good chance that on a Friday evening this important story will have been missed by many.
DeleteGood point Arthur - "blink and you miss it" bias...whereas their favourite stories (anti-Trump nonsense, the blessings of Islam and female sportspeople) sometimes stay up on the website for literally months.
DeleteArthur 7 men, cos 2 are to be sentenced at "a later date"
DeleteThe victims of these crimes must be the most underrepresented group in the UK. They have been systematically targeted by a specific ethnic group. Isn't that racism? Just imagine if this situation was reversed and a BAME group had been the target!
DeleteThe victims are in effect an ignored underclass existing without the representation that anyone should be entitled to.
In most cases they have been made especially vulnerable owing to the policy of supporting the creation of single parent families (backed by all parties)ie there is no male around to help protect them. One of the first things these gangs do is establish if the child has any male protectors in the home. My daughter told me about the intrusive questioning she's received in certain take away etablishments...as well as the "free can of coke"...another standard ploy to gain trust.
DeleteIf you want a clean break Brexit then sign the petition...
ReplyDeletehttps://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/254329
Fake News on Radio 4 PM - suggesting that Parliament has been "suspended". BS. It has been prorogued, a perfectly normal procedure.
ReplyDeleteNow wasting licence fee money on reporting nationwide on tiny, meaningless protests by anti-democratic extreme Remainers.
Now that the BBC reporters have had to admit the protest numbers were pathetic (probably that embarrassing Fuhrer Oath, led by Paul Mason, didn't help) - less than 400 now - they are desperately trying to talk up the anger, as if the emotional pitch makes up for the lack of numbers.
DeleteBBC Logic:
Delete1. If numbers for a demo in support of something they approve of are huge, that shows that whatever it is the BBC wants done should be done.
2. If numbers for a demo in support of something they approve of are pathetic, that is of no importance. Whatever it is the BBC wants done should still be done.
In case you think PM had lost its mojo - far from it...the next item was about Basketball...interesting, I thought...I like basketball...doesn't normally get coverage on Radio 4...but of course it wasn't about basketball it was just another "PMS" (positive migrant story).
DeleteIt was about this guy known as the "Greek Freak".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giannis_Antetokounmpo
(Actually he was born in Athens to Nigerian parents, so it's not really even a proper PMS story...in fact you have to wonder what the hell the point of the story is. He was born in Athens and was good at basketball...anything else to report?)
It included some "racist" stuff about some races having innate ability to play some sports better than others. I say racist because I recall Roger Bannister getting in trouble for saying Africans had a genetic advantage in sprinting owing to some muscle formation around the heel. But it's OK for Radio 4 to broadcast that Africans have natural ability to play basketball!
10 minutes on Radio 4 News 6.05-6.15pm on the protest without a single pro Brexit balancing item to counter it. A full 3 minutes rant from Benn the Remain MP making disingenuous comments about no deal. A complete lack of balance and reporters saying that numbers were relatively small but the feelings very strong. No 3 minute counter rant from the pro-leave side, and no questioning of Benn as to what exactly he wants other than eliminating no deal as an option.
DeleteIf feelings were so strong how come numbers were so pathetically low? A few thousand in London isn't a mass protest forecast with glee by the BBC, but a damp squib.
This is a new form of bias...emotion making up for lack of numbers for causes the BBC backs! Call it "Emoter" bias...they are very, very, very angry, so that means their protest is important.
DeleteAh yes. As per my Andy Marr post, Andrew Marr was keen on conveying the anger of the crowds - though he rather overestimated the size of the crowds and their representitiveness of the nation as a whole.
DeleteYou heard it first here..."Peterloo Derangement Syndrome". That's what I think people like Owen Jones and Paul Mason are suffering from.
ReplyDeleteI think they really do believe they are engaged in a mass struggle of the people to win democracy from a cruel capitalist class prepared to deny them the vote and send their children down the mines...whilst at the same time selling their latest book and making £5 on every sale. 20,000 sales, £100,000...nice little earner. Add to that speech fees.
In fact of course they are by their anti-Brexit actions supporting a globalist capitalist elite in their attempt to deny and destroy what was a democratic vote of all the people.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Someone really should write a sitcom - or a comic novel - based on Paul Mason, Owen Jones, Ash & Co. 'Citizen Paul' could be its working title. His ranting at this weekend's Waitrose Customers' Revolutionary Posh People's Rally of Judea against Boris could be added to the script almost word for word.
DeleteEpisode 1. Paul Mason does a "Who Do You Think You Are?" prog...goes back to his Lancashire miners' village...discover his great-grandad was a blackleg who broke the streak in 1905. Ash phones him to offer consoling words: "Don't worry - my great grandad was a Maharajah."
DeleteThe streak? That must have been my attempt at a Lancashire accent - streak = strike...
DeleteYou know how the BBC projects an image of the UK as 20% African or African-Caribbean, 20% "Asian" (Chinese need not apply), 20% mixed race, 10% Hijab...and not only that, actually points the finger on frequent occasions at organisations that it considers are failing on diversity and equality...?
ReplyDeleteWell, I was just doing a bit of research on the BBC and couldn't believe how "hideously white" the Executive Committee of the BBC - its top management body - is! Even the token Asian guy looks white...
So not just "hideously white" but "hideously hypocritical".
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/exco
Aren't they just! Tim Davie, evidently due to a very heavy sun tan, is the only one who approaches being a person of colour there. All they need is for Jon Snow to move over from Channel 4 and join them to achieve a complete 'whitewash'.
DeleteHere's my ten point action plan for a populist government to reform the BBC without destroying it or alienating that large part of the public that likes a lot of its output.
ReplyDelete1. Revoke the BBC Charter and replace with an emergency charter which will allow for the following actions.
2. Introduce elections to the BBC Executive Committee. These would be similar to building society and trade union elections. All household members covered by Licence Fee payment would have a vote. Subsequently subscription payers would have the right to vote.
3. Introduce strict statutory limits on the percentage of BBC staff who can earn over £70,000, £100,000 and £150,000. This would effectively slice off the top heavy management layer at the BBC.
4. Legislate that if the BBC fails to meet its Charter broadcasting requirements for more than one week in one year, it will be dissolved. That will prevent any long running strike action in opposition to the new policy.
5. Announce a 5 year programme for reduction and eventual abolition of the Licence Fee.
6. Announce a 10 year programme for moving towards a full subscription service for the BBC (with some central government support over this time period). Allow the BBC to accept sponsorship for its programmes - but keep them ad-free. In return all households are automatically enrolled on to the subscription service unless they opt out. The subscription to be limited to 50% of the current licence fee. BBC would have to pledge not to axe popular programmes in reaction to this new financial dispensation.
7. Privatise all BBC local radio stations.
8. Abolish the BBC Asian Network and Radio 4 Extra. Merge Radio 1, Radio 1 Extra and Radio 6 Music. Create a wide-ranging online digital archive for the BBC.
9. Create Independent Appointment Boards for all BBC Staff whose salary exceeds £50,000. These boards to include representatives from all national newspapers, major local newspapers, private radio and TV companies, relevant academics and government appointees.
10. New Charter for BBC to clarify its role. Its charter would require it to, for example (a) promote British values (b) not promote totalitarian ideological systems (whether political, religious or otherwise) (c) not exclude the views of any bona fide scientists (persons with relevant qualifications) on the grounds that science is “settled” (d) ensure it undertakes objective analysis of programmes, especially news and current affairs, to ensure they are balanced and publish the analyses and (e) ensure its presenters and all persons who appear across its programmes reflect accurately the make-up of British society.
There would be a Charter Commissioner to ensure the BBC meets its Charter requirements. There would be an Independent Complaints Service to deal with complaints from subscription payers. This would be totally independent of the BBC and could require the BBC to publish prominent apologies if they are found to have been at fault. There would also be a fast track mechanism by which petitioners (maybe set at 100,000) could demand the Charter Commissioner deliver a formal report to Parliament if they feel the BBC has failed to meet its charter requirements.
Hope it's OK with you MB, but Kathy at 'The Conservative Woman' and David at 'News-watch' would like to post your comment as a post at 'TCW'. Spreading the message!
DeleteFeel free! It's time there was a debate about what we do with the BBC. The gross bias can no longer be denied. But what do you do with an organisation that is so embedded in our national life?
DeleteOne of the plus points of the (slightly extended) poroguing of Parliament is that it has flushed out those faux-balanced presenters at the BBC. Paddy O'Connell on BH Radio 4 is no longer disguising his extreme Remainism.
ReplyDeleteHe tried a gotcha ambush on Anne Widdicombe (using the tried and tested method of an old archive tape about parliamentary procedure being brought into play without notice) but failed (predictably perhaps since Paddy is a bear of slow brain) to put a dent in her, despite the years that have gathered about her.
I like it when Remainers give themselves away. The use of "crashing out" is a dead giveaway. Now, the latest tell-tale trope is "Halloween Brexit" used by PO'C and others as tool of ridicule and fear-mongering combined.
PO'C showed his bias as well by introducing Peter Hennessy as a "constitutional historian" and a "crossbencher peer". The very model of an impartial and authoritative voice on the constitution? Henessy has always been a political player, a self-described Remainer who has consistently voted for more EU integration. For most of his working life he was actuallty a left-leaning journalist. Then he morphed into a "historian" via a "visiting" professorship at Strahclyde Uni - not the most illustrious of academic institutions. Hyping him up as a constitutional authority is absurd. His views are no more and no less valid than any other commentator.
Yes, it was classic BBC poor attempt at a Gotcha! And it was preceded by one of their leading questions / suggestions: You must feel in the pit of your stomach...
DeleteBlatant or what?
To digress: I noticed a similar ploy by Edward Stourton on Any Questions? yesterday when he turned to the Conservative MP Therese Coffey with the leading question /suggestion something along the lines of Don't you worry about the legacy being divisive? This was quite unlike his approach to others on the panel in relation to leaving the EU. Should they not be concerned about / responsible for divisiveness, Ed?
Paddy O'Connell did sound rather dopey when he told the MP Merriman that he didn't understand after the MP had explained his reasoning and position on leaving the EU. It wasn't that hard to follow. But the BBC has a lot of mediocrities on its elevated platform and O'Connell does look a lot more professional and sharper than his occasional stand-in who seems like a chaotic loon. His name escapes me for the moment.
Forgot to mention about Hennessy chuntering on about good chap government.
DeleteDidn't he come out with some misleading statement to the effect that this proroguing / pogoing! hasn't happened before or has gone beyond what has been done before? Has anyone heard or has a transcript that could confirm what he did say about that?
'Some say' it has indeed been used before, not least Major. Funny that he wasn't mentioned. Soft interview by P O'C deferring to the oracle. There was even a quip about Bagehot at the end, to flatter Hennessy, if I'm not mistaken.
It was very odd.
DeleteBesides it being 'bad form', Peter Hennessy didn't even begin to spell out WHY Boris's proroguement is so uniquely awful in his view.
Why does it put HM the Queen in so unprecedently tricky a position when other proroguements (such as the John Major amidst the cash-for-questions scandal) didn't?
I was waiting for Paddy to ask him to explain himself but Paddy failed to do so.
As for Paddy's pro-Philop Hammond Mr Merriman MP interview, that's just how it struck me too.
The MP was crystal-clear but Paddy was evidently expecting him to be much more hardline in his Remainerism (why 'BH' booked him?) and, thus, got completely caught off guard by him backing Boris to keep No Deal on the table. So 'caught off guard' that he said he didn't understand what Mr Merriman had said. Expectations well-and-truly upset! And a BBC presenter well-and-truly shown up!
The Ann Widdecombe interview is forming part of a pattern of BBC interviewing. Contrasting its interruption-filled, booby-trap-laden, hostile-toned style with that used later against the non-enthusiast-for-Brexit Mr Merriman, shows the 'Newsnight' Double Standard of Interviewing spreading ever wider at the BBC.
Anonymous - Yes it was noticeable PO'C, when interviewing Hennessy, didn't even attempt to reference previous proroguations such as Major's lengthy one designed to avoid the repercussions of the cash for questions scandal (now there's a constitutional crisis for you: MPs taking cash for influence).
DeleteHennessy had to admit Boris had done nothing illegal or unconstitutional...but gave lots of quotable quotes suggested quite the opposite.
I didn't hear the exchange with Merriman but sounds like shades of the Ruth Davidson let-down. The sigh of disappointment at the anodyne and personal nature of her resignation speech across the MSM, totally lacking in anti-Boris bile was palpable. Polly Toynbee was particularly put out I am pleased to say. A bad day for Polly is always a good day for me.
DeleteInteresting question Craig raised about why BH booked Merriman - and quite likely because he voted Remain; I don't know whether it is relevant that he also chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the BBC.
DeleteProroguing not pogoing or whatever it was I typed...
ReplyDeleteBBC Comedy is really funny...the unintentional kind I mean. I'm thinking in particular of an interview on Radio 5 Live this morning (just after 10am)where some poor sap of a BBC presenter was doing his best in an interview with a florist (flowers will go up in price, flowers will wither and die, there will be a shortage of flowers, UK growers cannot subsitute for Dutch growers etc etc). Only problem was the lady florist concerned was from the Geoff Boycott school of obduracy (didn't catch where she was from, biut she sounded Yorkshire to me). He tried every way but couldn't get her to sign up to the official BBC Agenda of Gloom. Each time she replied with a variant of "We're British, we'll get through this." or "Why are you asking me what will happen in the future - no one knows, but we'll deal with it...but I'm not giving up. We'll get through."
ReplyDeleteEd Stourton - BBC journalist - promoting his book "Blind Man's Brexit" on Sky News.
ReplyDeleteIs Ed impartial? Does the Pope go bungee jumping? Er no...
He explicitly states that the central theme of "take back control" put forward by Remainers was proven to be false by the negotiations.
Whoops - done it again - Remainers = Leavers
DeleteBeen listening/watching too much BBC?
DeleteDrip, drip, drip...!
While channel hopping came across a "history" programme on BBC TV - "The Rise of the N*az*is". There were so many "parallels" being drawn it would put to shame a sheet of graph paper.
ReplyDeleteIf I say that two of the moralising pontificators were Helena Kennedy and Ash Sarkar, I think you'll get the flavour of what was going on.
Remember Ash Sarkar is a "literal Communist" by her own admission and Communism has clocked up anywhere between 50 million and 100 million unnecessary deaths, depending on your definitions...plus deep wells of human misery for billions over the last 100 years. She seems an odd choice for someone to deliver a "warning from history".
I didn't see much of the programme but it seemed weirdly ahistorical. There was no sense that fascism can be seen as a reaction to the rise of Bolshevism.
I saw it listed and read the programme notes... Oh, oh, I thought, why would they be doing this at this time, quickly followed by the thought that I have no intention of sitting through this piece of undoubted BBCThink - and that was without knowing about those two being involved. Glad to have given it a miss.
DeleteThings not covered on Newsnight - the BBC's sinking "flagship":
ReplyDelete1. Why, if Tony Blair as PM could advise the Queen against giving Royal Assent to bills, can't Boris do the same when it comes to the Remainer-Traitor Bill?
2. If Labour refuse to agree an election, Boris could resign and ask the Queen to replace him with Dominic Raab, who could make clear he would only be a caretaker until the General Election. Labour could not possibly vote for Raab, neither could the extreme Remainer Conservative MPs. They would have to pass a VONC. But then it would be extremely unlikely the Rabble Alliance could agree on a PM.
3. Also, the position of Labour "rebels"...
DeleteKate Hoey has tweeted tonight that no MP should in conscience support the Rabble Alliance bill.
I stumbled upon your point 1 on the Jeremy Vine Radio 2 show yesterday whilst driving. Jeremy was interviewing 'my colleague political journalist Andrew Marr'. Marr made much of his 'jaw-dropping moment' when Gove had refused to be clear on the entirely hypothetical question of adhering to the law - if such a law passed through parliament. Gove was somewhat evasive. Now I understand that he was keeping his powder dry., because a pro Brexit Conservative MP (I didn't catch his name) came on and brought up the question of Royal Assent, and whether the government as executive could request that it was not given. He cited a Tam Dayell bill which Tony Blair blocked by using this tactic when he was PM. Marr was not there to respond, but my guess is that he wasn't up to speed.
Delete... could request that it was not given ... could block the progress of the bill so that it never became law...
DeleteAs they like to tell us about the referendum some things are 'advisory' so new 'law' won't necessarily tie the governments hands and if it did perhaps the courts would strike it down?
DeleteThe whole 'no deal' thing would be stupid if they were really being truthful as a 'deal' requires the agreement of the EU which might never happen. How can the commons possibly forbid the government to act unless a foreign power agrees, surely that could be sucessfully challenged in court?
I agree Anonymous...it could and should be challenged in the courts. There must be limits on Parliamentary power - constitutional limits and limits of logic. The judges can strike down laws. Many a Lord Chief Justice has made that clear.
DeleteThe Executive (PM and Cabinet) is clearly part of our constitution. To hollow out its role "on the hoof" as it were is to my mind unconstitutional. There must be limits to what Parliament can command. According to the Grieves of this world Parliament can turn the whole Cabinet in to remotely controlled robots. That is an constitutional absurdity. They will no longer be Ministers of the Crown.
If Parliament wants to rewrite our constitution, then that if of course in their gift...but it's pretty clear that if they put it all down on paper they would end up with something like the current set up...an executive chosen by Parliament.
The concept is called Queen's consent. If a proposed bill has the effect of modifying the effect of a prerogative power, such as the power to make treaties, the speaker should ask for Queen's Consent before third reading in the Commons. The government of the day can advise the sovereign to withhold consent which she will then do. If this happens the bill may not be given a third reading in the Commons and it falls. That is what happened to Tam Dalziel's bill to prevent military action in Iraq which was stopped by Tony Blair.
DeleteThis constitutional convention relies on the proper behaviour of the Speaker of the House of Commons and with Bercow in position that does not seem to be guaranteed.
Erratum: Think my reference to Royal Assent above in no. 1 should be Royal Consent to debate (Blair stopped a couple of bills proceeding by advising the Sovereign to deny consent for the bill to be debated)...
ReplyDeleteWhether Boris could use the same device here, with the Remainer-Traitor Bill, I don't know.
Like I've always said...the so called "Institute for Government" is actually a full-on Remainiac organisation funded by arch remainer and friend of Blair Lord Sainsbury, yet another Remainer Billionaire (there are so many, a fact that always seems to escaped Paul Mason!).
ReplyDeletehttps://order-order.com/2019/09/03/institute-government-hope-rebel-bill-passes/
Was it any surprise to see Remainer-in-Chief (Macron's high representative to the UK), Tony Blair give his Sermon on the Make to the nation with the IfG logo emblazoned behind him? No.
But still the BBC presents the Institute for Government as a neutral and authoritative think tank.
BBC bias: Christian Fraser says "some" opinion polls have Conservatives ahead of Labour...then adds but that was the case in 2017 and look what happened - May almost lost. Er - Christian, ALL polls have Conservatives ahead of Labour. BBC Fake News.
ReplyDeleteSome other observations:
I am not hearing full throated support from the Conservative benches for Boris. Shameful. Of course those back benches are stuff full of Remainers and Cameronites, so only to be expected.
The BBC seem reluctant to address what happens if Labour deny Boris an election should he be defeated.
The assumption appears to be that that is a tenable position... really? I don't think so.
BBC Bias - Outside Source is amplifying Momentum propaganda on social media (pic of reclining JRM).
ReplyDeleteIn ancient times when a Pharaoh was deposed for having disregarded the gods of the Nile and promoting an alien faith, his name was effaced from all monuments, so that he might be rightly forgotten.
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest that when we finally achieve a pro-Brexit government that sees the thing through, then after having deposed Bercow as Speaker, the MPs agree to remove his name from all parts of Parliament. Let his memory be carried off down the Thames like a piece of malodorous flotsam, never to find its way back to the Westminster shore.
Reflections on the Revolution in Parliament:
ReplyDelete1. It is internally incoherent. It seeks to bind the executive, when the whole point of an executive is that it needs freedom of movement. It seeks to stop a no deal Brexit, but it cannot agree on the way forward to a deal. Most of the Rabble Alliance parties Lib Dems, SNP, Greens and Plaid don't in fact want a deal. Some of them are hiding their intentions behind a Rigged Rerun of the Referendum where voters will be given a false and restricted choice.
2. Boris and the Government should first attempt to delay the Bill in the Lords and then, if it passes, go to the Court and refuse to have it enacted unless the Court rules it to be constitutional. Parliament may be prorogued by the time a ruling is given.
According to Guido, the Bill's passage through the House of Lords will be delayed. The shadow leader has introduced a business motion intended to speed progress of the Bill, but as a business motion, it has attracted 86 amendments have been tabled - all of which need to be dealt with before the Bill itself.
DeleteThe few Remainer lords should all feign heart attacks, in succession! lol
DeleteHow hypocritical for the BBC to carp on about privilege and equality.
ReplyDeleteAnd then I hear at least three times every hour: "but it WINSTON CHURCHILL'S GRANDSON!!! "
To whom you can add:
Delete- Dominic Grieve multi-millionaire, second home (and second career in France) and receipient of the French State's highest award - the Legion d'Honneur. Very 'umble I'm sure.
- Richard Benyon...richest man in Parliament and that's saying something.
More than that, I predict these Remainiac traitor MPs will now be rewarded very handsomely for their work. Expect to see them popping up heading various think tanks, charities, lobby groups and so on, whilst receiving huge salaries funded very non-transparently through these front organisations.
Having watched PMQs and seen just how ugly parliament has become, I would advise Boris, that if he's holding back from using whatever tactics are at his disposal through a misplaced sense of decency, he should forget parliament's finer feelings. He needs to block this rebel Bill by whatever means (House of Lords), call an election having banished the traitors from the Conservative Party, and now set the date for sometime in November - after Brexit has come into effect. 'Cometh the hour etc'.
DeleteSadly, it's not in his power to call an election owing to the appalling Fixed Terms Parliament Act. However he might be able to manouevre the Remainiacs into one.
DeleteSubtle form of bias noted on VD show.
ReplyDeleteWhen directed at pro-Brexit MPs the questions are structured along the lines of "You're just a lying toad aren't you?"
When directed at pro-EU MPs the questions are structured as "You're just a lying toad, so Boris Johnson says." (Said with a sceptical frown, rather than conviction.)
Judges rule Boris prorogation lawful...expect that to go down the BBC memory hole in a micro-second.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile Nick is showing that he couldn't be more biased even if he tried a little harder. He accuses Boris of being a liar but as far as I know has never gone to town on the lies of Jeremy Corbyn (lying about wreath laying for terrorists, his interest in Northern Ireland peace, his wish for an immediate General Election, his earnings received from the Iranian regime or his attitude to the Soviet Union).
Or how about Ken Clarke's lies e.g. standing on a manifesto he never had any intention of fulfilling - lying to his voters. Ditto Anna Soubry and Heidi Allen (who also both said they would respect the result of the Referendum during the 2017 election campaign).
All liars - but Nick don't give a damn.
BBC Bias.
ReplyDeleteLaura K intro on Politics Live - no mention of Scottish judge's ruling.
Jo Corbyn (sic) tells Leave supporter not to talk over Remainers - doesn't do the same the other way round?
Boris is a "divisive figure"...but not pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, and Marxist extremist Jeremy Corbyn!
I was v. impressed by Lord Forsyth on WATO. Firstly for not taking any shoit from Sarah Montague and secondly setting out cogently why it was constitutionally necessary to oppose an unprecedented guillotine being imposed in the Lords.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a strong possibility that the Lords could block the bill by (justifiable) filibuster.
Now, is that part of the Cummings plan? Or is it more about embarrassing the Remainer tribe? Making them look ridiculous??
What would happen if the Bill didn't pass the Lords. Would the Commons use the Parliament Act to bring it into law? I think they may be able to do that...but it will look v. bad.
So maybe that is the plan.
Or is Boris banking on the Remainiacs creating a Government of National Unity that will further sow division in their ranks?
So quite clear now that up till now the BBC, Sky, ITV, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and all the rest have been lying about no deal leading to a hard border.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49587610
It always was BS but our Remainer MSM made out it was some sort of impossible problem with no solution.
Apparently there’s been a cock up with the 2nd bill passed tonight in that it still includes mention of Mays failed agreement - I didn’t fully understand the details but John Mann MP is referencing it on Twitter and seems to think it will cause issues.
ReplyDeleteI was watching the news when that happened. The commentators were as confused about it as anyone else. There was a suggestion the Government deliberately didn't provide tellers and so Stephen Kinnock's amendment passed by default, I think. I think the intention is to embarrass the Rabble Alliance since the Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid are definite Remain-or-Die and won't vote for May's deal.
DeleteA less sanguine view would be that BJ wants that option to get him out of a fix at some point, but I discount that.
The Anti-Boris propaganda is back to fever pitch on Peston, Newsnight, ITV News, Sky and nearly all MSM outlets - it's back to the levels prior to him assuming the Prime Ministership.
ReplyDeleteAppalling. Double standards. Snidey remarks. Ill disguised glee at his defeats.
Right, I'm off to watch the Parliament channel to see how the Patriotic Few in the Lords are doing in blocking the Bill...I would love them to succeed...can you imagine the reaction among the Remainiac Savages? Would be like knocking down their totem pole.
Not sure it's going to be lively viewing. The Senile v. The Senescent. We shall see! :)
I'm puzzled as to why Boris has allowed the Bill to pass through the Lords without the use of the delaying tactics which had been expected.
DeleteI am reminded of the boxer (Boris) who is on the ropes taking a series of near-knockout blows. He is absorbing the best punches his adversary can direct his way. Boris knows however that he has the stamina and the wherewithal to make a spirited, decisive and successful counter attack, once his opponent has given his best shot and is exhausted.
What Boris has been able to do is expose the duplicitous self-serving sham of those MPs in the romantically named (by the BBC) Rebel Alliance. The electorate can have no doubts about their objectives - to Remain in the EU in defiance of the majority who voted to leave in 2016. That the UK should leave with no deal as a concept is just a smokescreen. Guido, who has been consistently informative about the thrust and counter thrust in the HoP is suggesting that Boris can still get his motion for a GE through. I hope so.
... That the UK should leave with no deal as a concept is just a smokescreen. .. shouldn't.
DeleteYes...likewise puzzled Arthur. Was supposed to be a quid pro quo for an early election, I believe. But can Corbyn and his fellow Marxist leadership deliver on his promises against the Starmer-led faction (backed by Blair and Soros)?
DeleteI am full hope but also trepidation...
Boris is receiving only weak backing from the still mostly Remainer MPs sitting behind him. The very fact that there is so much weeping and wailing about a bunch of chancers who have made common cause with a totalitarian Marxist, Corbyn, a Full On Revoker like Jo Swinson and separatists from the SNP and Plaid who want to destroy the Union, should be enough for Conservative MPs to see that they must be cast into the outer darkness. To talk of their loss as some great catastrophe for the party is nonsense.
The only person of quality among them is Ken Clarke - a great orator, explainer and purveyor of jollity. I disagree with his politics but I did like him. He should have resigned the whip himself of course, since he stood in the 2017 election falsely on a Manifesto he plainly did not accept. But I do regret his premature departure.
As for the rest, they are a completely disingenuous bunch who have posed (like Soubry and Allen before them) as ready to accept the Referendum result while secretly doing everything in their power to prevent its implementation in any meaningful sense.
Of course there's no reason to feel sorry for Clarke or the others in the normal human way at being cast out - the one thing about politicians at that exalted level is that they are all supremely egotistical and can survive just about any misfortune that comes their way. They don't really have friends either - so it's not as though they are losing friends. And as Powell said, all political careers end in failure.
There's a good explanation on Guido - sorry it's late, I've been out all day:
Delete... 'Downing Street are saying that it’s not for the lords to fight this bill. They told the Lords to stand down as in their view the House of Commons has to take responsibility for their “surrender bill”. Number 10 want elected MPs to have to explain to to the electorate their decision to delay Brexit.' ...
Also, good informative unbiased comments via Guido from Vernon Bogdanor - again:
Deletehttps://order-order.com/2019/09/05/prof-vernon-bogdanor-parliament-can-achieve-nothing/#disqus_thread
Personally I would have preferred Boris to allow the Lords to filibuster. If successful you would still have Labour and the Rabble Alliance fighting for the surrender bill - the public would see that - but it wouldn't have been enacted.
DeleteNow it's been enacted, and Corbyn is reneging on his commitment to go for an election.
Regarding Bogdanor's comments, I wouldn't disagree, but it's a viewpoint not a constitutional point. The opposition are under no constitutional obligation to accept the challenge of an election. Indeed, the thrust of the legislation is that Parliaments should cover the full 5 year period before the next regular election.
There was a suggestion on Newsnight that the Labour whip lied in telling the Conservative whip they had a deal on calling an election if the Conservatives let the Bill go through the Lords. Kirsty thought it most amusing "Labour's little wheeze" she called it, laughing...nothing about lying or a "constitutional outrage".
DeleteIf the election does get called...my prediction is that the BBC and the rest of the MSM will be seeking to boost Farage and TBP in order to split the Leave vote. They did that before the European Parliamentary elections because they were I think hoping to get May out of the way (they succeeded), destroy Boris (didn't they have a go during the Conservative Leadership campaign and before!) and engineer a Left Wing Conservative success (remember how the whole of the MSM pushed the absurd Rory Stewart!) who would then deliver a rigged Second Referendum and keep us in the EU. The way the MSM treated Farage compared with when he was UKIP leader was amazing.
ReplyDeleteSo the MSM has to make a calculation: do they boost TBP in the hope it harms the Conservatives? Or do they suppress it (as they have suppressed UKIP before) because it might harm Labour?
My guess is they will think on balance it will harm Boris more than it harms Corbyn and so give Farage a fairer wind.
Back to the Slough of Despond...
ReplyDeleteWhat next? Presumably Bercow will enable a bill to come forward which will allow Parliament to prevent the Prime Minister from resigning except on a day specified by the Rabble Alliance!
I think we can forget the idea that Cummings had a master plan...it was always pretty clear that the Remainiac Non-Conservatives in the Conservative Party were going to strike at some point. The idea that they would not have, had prorogation not been tried, is frankly absurd. Prorogation was an attempt to improve the odds, but it failed.
Not sure where we are now but clearly Boris cannot and will not go to Brussels as a supplicant with his hands tied behind his back by Parliament.
Some thoughts on recent events:
ReplyDelete1. The gross, relentless bias of the BBC, Sky, ITV and virtually all the MSM has been confirmed once again. Boris will have to accept that he will be obliged to fight this election surrounded by a howling media mob kicking at his shins while he takes on his political opponents.
2. The globalists are playing with fire. We've seen that already, how they are prepared to support out-of-control mass immigration and destroy nation states that have been centuries or millennia in the making. Now they are prepared to gamble on an extremist Marxist regime coming to power in the UK as by-product of their insane policies. They probably think they can destroy it at a time of their own choosing. But as we have seen across the world in China, Vietnam, Cuba and Venuzuala, Marxist regimes are very difficult to remove once they get a grip on power. And the UK is a key nation in what used to be called the Free World - it's a very dangerous game.
I guess every Leaver will have to assess the position in their own constituency in order to inflict maximum damage at the ballot box on the Anti-Democratic Remainer Rabble Pro-Hamas & IRA Crypto-Communist Alliance.
ReplyDeleteTime to start praying, even for ye or us of little faith. Can't do any harm.
Our nation is certainly in great peril. This could be the last tipping point after which we go down the great pan of history, the first large nation in history to commit cultural suicide, beating the Swedes to it by a couple of decades.
Alternatively this could be the start of a healing process, which will begin by demonstrating in reality that the Remainer-Media Big Lie about a "catastrophe" following a no deal Brexit was just that - a lie from the lips of Hammond and Grieve oft repeated.
If you want to see what a catastrophe looks like, look at the poor Bahamas after that huge hurricane. That's a catastrophe.
Nick Robinson channels Katty Kay with a "Wow" to react to Jo Johnson's resignation ...
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1169558919808786432
It would be better if they all put "Bow-wow" given these are Pavlovian reactions from unthinking beasts of the media.
Got to say Farage is hitting the mark more than Johnson at the moment...He makes some very, very compelling points. We are definitely heading for a very, very dark place as things stand:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1169011085241925632
The BBC whinge on about "constitutional outrages" but the biggest outrage is that the Remainer Rabble have thrown away the principle of "loser's consent" as Farage observed. The anti-Leave coalition has been coddled, cuddled and cooed over by the BBC ever since 24th June 2016. The BBC have been grossly complicit in this attempt to overturn the principle of Loser's Consent.
I think Boris may get there eventually and, in fairness, we have to accept he has the burden of being a minority party PM assailed on all sides by a
media that hates the masses. But at the moment he is not making the impact he should. Of course Farage has looked ropey at times when under stress in the past. It's not easy being at the top of politics especially if the media is engaged in a 24/7 hate campaign against you.
I am coming round to the idea we do need some sort of accommodation between TBP and the Conservatives. A formal pact would be unproductive. Some sort of "understanding" might be possible. Tricky but then again, losing such a vital election will be "tricky". Perhaps:
- TBP agree to not stand against committed Conservative Leave MPs.
- Conservatives agree not to pour central resources into constituencies where they think TBP have a better chance.
- Conservatives permit local candidates to stand down where they think TBP have a better chance.
- Conservatives commit to introduce a PR element into Parliament as part of manifesto.
Why are the BBC and ITV not reporting US aid to the Bahamas? More Trump-Hate I would say.
ReplyDeleteThis ITBBCB? site is all about BBC bias. There can't be any longer a shred of doubt that the BBC have sided 100% with the Rebel Alliance as they fancifully call the proponents of this constitutional outrage over Brexit.
ReplyDeleteMost-likely, the BBC are anticipating another champagne moment, where, in amongst the discarded empties in the corridors, the old guard Dimbleby, Simpson, Marr etc are telling the newbies: "watch and learn colleagues! You have unrivalled power to influence or even dictate the course of history. Don't waste this gift. We can all look forward to a new golden age of liberalism. We, the elite, are entrusted with the responsibility of guiding the UK -a country dogged by far-right nationalism, bigotry and tunnel vision. We must never tire in our mission. We must push the values of diversity, inclusivity and tolerance, so gloriously exemplified in our capital, to all parts of the UK. Now that we have secured our position at the heart of Europe, let's celebrate".
DeleteStill no details from the BBC about the "little wheeze" (Kirsty Wark's description) pulled by Labour - deceiving the Government into thinking they would agree an early election date if the Conservatives dropped their Lords filibuster ie lying, in defiance of constitutional norms.
DeleteBBC are also misleadingly referring to a "snap poll"...an election had already been rejected once by Parliament! There can be nothing "snap" about this as it is not in the power of the PM to call an election!!
BBC Bias:
ReplyDeleteWhen Gina Miller succeeds in a court action, then the Government is found to have acted unlawfully. When Gina Miller fails in a court action, her "bid" is "rejected". It's not that the Court find the Government to have acted lawfully, in conpliance with constitutional requirements. Moreover, the BBC linger lovingly over Miller's expensive lawyer's arguments and give her whinge quote huge space.
I knew this challenge had absolutely no legal merit whatsoever. The only issue was how corrupt and left wing our judges have become. Parliament's remedy if they don't like the proroguing was simple: kick out Boris and vote in a new PM.
Meanwhile in other BBC Bias...
Mugabe apparently was a "strongman"...oooh - that almost sounds good doesn't it? Presumably they'll be referring to "Strongman Mussolini"and "Strongman Franco" in their history programmes...
May I suggest and alternative title: "Persecutor of His People"...which could also serve for Dominic Grieve.
Agreed on both points MB. ... Parliament's remedy if they don't like the proroguing was simple: kick out Boris and vote in a new PM. ... Little has been made by the BBC political reporters of the terminal decline of the Labour Party. They are haemorrhaging support from their traditional heartlands. Corbyn doesn't dare to prompt an election because Labour would in likelihood come some way down after the Conservatives, TBP, and now the reinvigorated Lib Dems, who would have picked up plenty of former Labour anti-Brexit votes.
DeleteDo we now have a dictatorship? Parliament is now the government yet has no mandate. It can't be voted out. In theory it can hang on for three years, but why not push through another quickie act, The Fixed Parliament Act? We can then sit in Article 50 limbo and become the founder region of the 'no nations' EU!
DeleteI do hope you are right about terminal decline...my view is that Labour has a hardcore 25% vote for General Elections and they also benefit (to the tune of about 50 seats) from having their vote concentrated in constituencies with below-average numbers of electors. This "rotten borough" aspect of our current Parliament is never, or hardly ever, mentioned by the BBC or the many left-leaning "analysts".
DeleteAnyway, the upshot I think is that Labour are not going to be wiped out, or even driven into fourth position, however much I would like that to happen. The EU Elections are very misleading as regards likely TBP performance. Farage is a brilliant communicator but it seems impossible for him to get above the 15% mark in a General Election. A very loose pact beteen the Conservatives and TBP seems the best way to go.
I am worried about Boris. He can still work magic in the street but what to make of his latest pronouncement that he "will go to Brussels and get a deal"...? A couple of days ago he was saying Parliament had cut the legs from under the negotiators. How does that square...? Mixed messaging is never good.
Personally I think he needs more focus:
1. Ram home that Labour is now led by a dangerous unpatriotic cabal who have supported the IRA, Iran and Hamas. Remind the public at every turn about the past activities of Corbyn and McDonnell and their sick jokes about terrorism.
2. Underline that Jo Swinson has said she will not even accept the result of a second referendum, let alone the first.
3. Point out the absurdity of Emily Thornberry's position (negotiate a better deal, get it approved in Parliament and then campaign AGAINST it in a referendum!).
Refer to her as Lady Nugent of course.
4. Double down on the Rebel Rabble. Note that Dominic Grieve is a recipient of the Legion d'Honneur for his services to the French State...unelected Tony Blair has been conducting parallel negotations in Brussels (even Theresa May got p'd off about that!)...remind people that Anna Soubry and Heidi Allen both told their electorates they in 2017 they would respect the result of the 2016 Referendum and implement Brexit - both liars.
Come on Boris - charge!!!
Re. your point Anon. Do we now have a dictatorship? A dictatorship would suggest a single person at its head, but in parliament at the moment we have a self-appointed ad hoc committee comprising disparate pro EU MPs who have usurped the democracy of this country in defiance of the majority - formed with the single purpose of keeping us in the EU. The events of the last few days must taste sweet.
DeleteI agree with Anon, another little tweak here and there and we will have ... Parliament is now the government yet has no mandate. It can't be voted out. In theory it can hang on for three years, but why not push through another quickie act, The Fixed Parliament Act? We can then sit in Article 50 limbo...
Do we have a dictatorship? No, but I think we are long way down the road to a GDR (East Germany) style system. You may recall Corbyn admired the GDR and toured it with his then girlfriend Diane Abbott.
DeleteThere are a number of parallels I see:
1. Mass monitoring of the population. We already have that. UK Police pay particular attention to any comments deemed to offend against PC values, even if not illegal.
2. Fake political parties. In the GDR there were several authorised parties in addition to the SED (Communist) party. These fake parties were designed to pose as Christian Democrat, Liberal and even one supposedly appealing to ex ThirdReichers but in reality they all followed the Communist policy. We have been travelling in that direction with all parties following pro-PC, pro-EU, pro-mass immigration policies.
3. All the media following essentially the Communist line.
Just to add to the above, Jess Phillips has suggested we should have vetting of all political candidates by the Electoral Commission...it's clear that Labour "moderates" (yes, we're supposed to believe she's a "moderate") are thinking along those lines.
DeleteOh yeah we can also add "non-personning". We have that in effect now. The days when you might see people like Tommy Robinson or Katie Hopkins on national TV are long gone. Even people like Tom Holland and Richard Dawkins have largely been written out of the record.
More disgraceful bias from the BBC News website making JRM the butt of their jokes. Why never Agent Cob?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-49604745
You're not wrong!
DeleteThat "article" was by Will Chalk. Thought I'd check out Mr Chalk's twitter account.
First up? A retweet of a tweet by our old favourite, "literal Communist" Ash Sarkar. targetting both Boris and Momentum Hate Figure Laura Kuennesberg, suggesting they'd had an affair:
https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1169885722142105600
I suppose Mr Chalk is thinking about his future career when one of Corbyn's commissars marches in to take over the BBC. His dissing of his fellow Right Clique (! - yes Momentum are that mad) BBC colleague will no doubt save him from the firing squad.
I like this guy Mahyar Tousi... very cool analysis of what is going on:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8gZSbHhX90
He uploads a lot of videos, so a good way to keep track of what's going on...
The question of jurisdiction has not been addressed fully. The Rebel Alliance Bill when it becomes law will only apply within the borders of the UK. Once Boris steps outside the UK - if he were to travel to Brussels - then, EU law will take precedent - Article 50 was an EU instrument.
ReplyDeleteBoris will probably just refuse to obey the new law if it is flawed in this way.
Would be nice if it worked like that but I think many UK laws have effect overseas e.g. arms sales laws, anti-corruption laws...I can't see the Supreme Court allowing that defence...
DeleteThe jurisdiction question has something to do with Queen's Prerogative, armed with which Boris must be in order to represent the UK in Brussels? I've no idea really - it's just something I read. It's no use expecting the BBC to investigate and explain matters such as this. They're too busy partying.
DeleteI read that because Bercow certified the Bill as not requiring Royal Consent, it cannot affect the Royal Prerogative. But in relation to Brexit I am pretty sure the original Miller judgment put Parliament in the driving seat on Brexit, setting aside the Royal Prerogative.
DeleteWe definitely need a written constitution! - but it needs to be written by sensible people not a bunch of Grieves and Chakrabatis with help from Paul Mason.
How did we get here? Answer: with a lot of help from the BBC...
ReplyDelete1. The BBC worked tirelessly for the Remain cause during the Referendum campaign. By not focussing on the Remain campaign's lies (about the European Army, Turkey's membership application, supported by Cameron, Osborne lying "predictions" about a Brexit vote's impact, future EU funding arrangements and so on) it helped divert criticism away from Remainers.
2. Immediately after the election the BBC analysts went to work to undermine the legitimacy of the vote - claiming a huge differential in the voting patterns of young and old people and backing the notion that young people's votes were more valid.
3 Then the BBC, following the Guardian promoted the false idea that it was only "left behind" communities - reservoirs of ignorance and poverty - that voted Leave. They never explained why the South region, the most prosperous in the country - voted to Leave or why Scotland, with some of the worst "Left Behind" communities in the UK voted to Remain.
4. In further efforts to delegitimise the vote, attempts were made to prove Russian interference and dodgy interventions by wealthy men - this was linked in with the Anti-Trump hysteria.
5. The BBC campaigned hard against Boris in the Conservative leadership election of 2016 and so helped secure a victory for a Remainer candidate (May).
6. Then began a huge propaganda operation - programme after programme promoting feelings of dread and inadequacy. We were encouraged to doubt our own judgement, to value expert opinion, to feel dread about the future, and to doubt our mental health. This propaganda offensive went on for over a year. It was very subtle.
7. The BBC then gave huge and friendly airtime to all those MPs working to overturn the Referendum. This is when we saw the rise of Anna Soubry and Heidi Allen.
8. The BBC failed to investigate May's duplicity in conducting parallel negotiations with the EU while her chief negotiator thought he was doing the negotiating.
9. Having done its best to further divisions in the nation, the BBC then harped on how divided the nation was, despite a lack of proof. The truth is there was only ever a hardcore of about 10-20% determined to overturn the Referendum result. The rest of the country were either indifferent or prepared to accept the result even if it was not their choice.
10. The BBC worked tirelessly to associate Brexit with hate crime and the Far Right. We can all recall John Sweeney's lying report associating a tragic death in a street fight with Farage's campaiging for Brexit.
This isn't the whole story by any means...but when you look back you can see how influential the BBC has been in setting the agenda and influencing events.
Why can't we have a Sky News UK like Sky News Australia...?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpWJNtKByY
Prime example of bias by photo on the BBC app at the moment.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the photo?
DeleteYes I agree C, it's of Boris I think at the farm where he was seen leading a bull. He is scowling with downturned mouth - very unflattering - Oh and the normal dark background for folks the BBC pic editors don't like.
DeleteSaw the photo - also being used, less prominently, on the Website. Deliberate bias indeed.
DeleteQuite agree. The photo has a prominent bar across the front presumably to signify him scowling in prison. Irredeemably and unashamedly biased as usual.
DeleteSo Agent Rudd has broken cover...joy will be unconfined in the Rigby, Maitlis and Robinson households.
ReplyDeleteLooks like we might see the formation of a rival Conservative Party - a sort of Nick Robinson-approved Conservative Party. They won't have any shortage of funding and will receive the enthusiastic backing of the BBC.
ReplyDeleteM.B. Watching The Andrew Marr Show this morning, I couldn't help noticing that Marr gave John McDonnell a right ol' easy time. But Savid Javid got quite a grilling with lots of interruptions.
DeleteJohn.... N. London.
Interesting interview with Peter Hitchens on New Culture Forum:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUeao2sCbvo
"MAJOR POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT: Party Chairman Richard Tice announces today in the Sunday Express that The Brexit Party will abolish the most unpopular tax in the UK - Inheritance Tax."
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1170607704353624066
Roland Deschain on Biased BBC describes this as a major error. I agree entirely! Tyce - who up till now I thought of as a very savvy operator - just gifted Corbyn a guaranteed TBP vote loser in Labour heartlands where few end up leaving much if anything and don't pay tax most of the time if they do. At a time of national crisis it is the last thing the TBP should be banging on about. Definitely a huge tactical error - let's hope not a strategic one.
Not at all. It is a very bad tax which doesn't even do what it was meant to do but catches many people who were never meant to be caught. Thanks to the holes in it for some but not others and the Osborne ruse of not raising the threshold over too many years it is now by stealth used purely as a selective or punitive-for-some revenue raiser and tinkering with it in the partial way he did only compounded the unfairness and rottenness of it.
DeleteIt is a perverse tax and perverse to retain it. There are plenty of ways in which the poor, low-paid or without inheritance can be helped - as they have been already, for instance through the tax personal allowances threshold - although that Clegg-claimed manoeuvre was also done badly. Osborne or Clegg, take your pick. I'd take neither of them, thank you.
A revealing article by James Harding ex head of BBC News.
ReplyDeleteIt tells you a lot about BBC groupthink. He doesn’t like populist Boris who he says has trashed parliamentary democracy.
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/09/07/david-cameron-190906/content.html?sig=4RyLIRuSWXOKjy2iEdmthW3XJgDCFOATxAjBY7pUfGY&utm_source=Guido
H/T to Guest Who over at Biased BBC:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Adrian_Hilton/status/1170759285975990272
Ian Dale has published a Craigometer-style breakdown over who got most time on QT. Surprise, surprise...Remainers on the Panel got something like 50% more time to speak (even though for once there was an equal Remain v Leaver balance on the Panel). Even worse when it came to the audience members.
I'm not surprised. I noticed on a few occasions that Bruce played school ma'am a lot faster when the initial speaker was a leaver.
DeleteShe allowed Blackford a lot of verbal rope before stepping in and Donut got all the time in the world to profess her love of the common people.
Re Amber Rudd...no one in the media is querying whether she was a deliberate plant in government by the Remainers. Remember Sarah Wollaston - an extreme Remainer - pretended to be pro-Leave before announcing her strategic resignation from the Leave campaign, just before the Referendum took place. It strains credulity to believe that SW was ever pro-Leave and it strains credulity to believe that Amber Rudd was ever genuinely prepared to countenance no deal.
ReplyDeleteA punathon to cheer you up...thanks Emily...
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/maitlis/status/1170786804779405312
Were I on twitter I would have said: "Don't want to sound crabby but I don't like what I'm herring - this isn't the plaice to make light of such tangs. This is no time to be koi, it's time to salmon up our courage."
Think I am beginning to understand the Queen's consent issue now re the Corbyn-Swinson-Sturgeon-Starmer Surrender Bill (soon to be Act). They couldn't word the Act to intrude on the Royal Prerogative (which would mean Boris could have advised the Queen to deny Consent) - and the Speaker confirmed (by not stating otherwise) that the Bill did not relate to Royal Consent.
ReplyDeleteSo Boris is free to use the Royal Prerogative powers...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDXQ5drXTMc
That means he might be able to cancel out the effect of the Act by using Royal Prerogative powers to indicate that he as the Queen's appointed Prime Minister will not accept what Parliament has compelled him to do...
All to play for perhaps!
Incidentally, this guy's video has been demonetised by You Tube. As usual, no explanation given.
If you consider that YouTube is basically a method to sell advertising space, and that advertisers have become sensitive to the content of the videos to which they're connected, and that We Have A Problem uses the terms 'spunk trumpet' and 'f*ck weasel' among other colourful epithets on a minute by minute basis, I think the demonetisation mystery may be solved.
DeleteMB, well yes but the problem you indicate also means that the bill was flawed as passed because of the inconsistency. Now being flawed is a valid reason for advising the Queen not to give Royal Assent. Shame that it has waited until just before Parliament is prorogued! Well one can dream.
DeleteAnonymous the First - Well yes he does and you might be right - but why don't they tell him so?
DeleteAnonymous the Second - Our dreams are Remainer nightmares!
Because YouTube sells itself to us with the facade of 'free speech' while actually being at the mercy of advertisers who have been encouraged to keep an eye on Tuber content by the new left - by Google ! Though the censorship is blatantly obvious, they can't actually admit it.
DeleteIt's a vicious circle which I'm sure you're aware is creating a mad dash to alternative streaming services, direct funding from viewers and direct sponsorship by companies unafraid of 'progressive' criticism so as to avoid the problem of de-monetisation altogether.
Tom Harwood compares the voting records of Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson. Which of the two would you think was more worthy of the far-right label? H/t Guido
ReplyDeletehttps://freemarketconservatives.org/the-hypocrisy-of-philip-hammond-and-the-remainer-commentariat/
The Rebel Alliance is a wafer-thin façade - structurally unsound because of the widely differing political beliefs and backgrounds of the main players, assembled for one reason only ie to stop Brexit. The old motto 'time tests the truth in all things' is never more apt. Boris has time on his side.
DeleteArthur T - You're right of course. I noticed in the Sunday papers there's a lot of disquiet bubbling under about Remainers inadvertently letting in a Far Left Marxist Government under Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and Mason, with the Momentum Mob rampant on the streets.
DeleteThe problem with the people who operate at these high political levels is that (a) they are gamblers and poker players ready to bluff while playing for high stakes (b) there is a lot of influence from multi-billionaires who themselves would be relatively unaffected by a Far Left government and who ensure all Remainer "Martyrs" will get handsomely rewarded for their obstruction of the democratically expressed will of the people and (c) they sometimes make mistakes. We have the historic example of Kerensky who fatally underestimated the power and willpower of the Bolsheviks, so allowing the October Revolution.
Been to the local dump this morning...which is why I ended up listening to "Egregious Emma" Barnett on Radio 5 Live on the car radio. There seems to be a competition between her and Maitlis to see who can be the most biased.
ReplyDeleteToday I heard her give her opinion (her "advice") to a Conservative MP to "stop throwing mud at Labour" because this was being counterproductive.
Prompts me to wonder whether she has ever offered similar advice to Labour who do nothing but throw mud at the Conservatives alleging they are liars, racists, sexists, not seeking a deal with the EU, prepared to break the law, ready to surrender to all Trump's trade demands and wanting to privatise the NHS - among 100 other mud-covered calumnies. Presumably Emma thinks those are all rational critiques...I've never be aggressive to Labour except on the issue of anti-semitism.
Emma's definition of "throwing mud" is simply claiming that Labour don't want a deal and have been blocking a deal for 3 years. That's no allowed according to her. But of course that is easily verifiable as fact given Emily Thornberry and other key Labour figures have said they will campaign to Remain in a rigged rerun of the Referendum. They have also never published any details of the sort of deal they would be prepared to accept (apart from offering some bogus "tests"). The EU have made clear that only the WA is on the table and they will not negotiate another agreement, but Labour never address that point.
Still, Emma thinks you shouldn't be nasty to Labour, only to the Wicked Tories.
Also, Emma was off the scale on the "interruptometer". Not just that. But she was also doing the annoying Cathy Newman "so what you're saying" thing and offering a summation completely at variance with what the interviewee has just said. She was furthermore cutting answers off if she didn't like them and trying to move on to another question, not just interrupting for clarification. All questions were framed in terms of pro-Labour talking points.
Finally there is another annoying aspect to Egregious Emma's interview approach. At the end, after a thoroughly biased and aggressive interview replete with unnecessary interruptions and loaded opinions, she ends up all smiles with a fake jolly "must have you back", "most informative" sort of thing, designed to suggest you had just heard a relaxed, balanced and illuminating exchange, rather than the equivalent of a heretic having nails driven through them by some sort of Medieval tormenter.
never [heard her] be aggressive to Labour...
DeleteH/T to Cassandra on Biased BBC - huge Syrian "Refugee" crime wave in the UK...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/695066/Police-arrest-900-Syrians-in-England-and-Wales-for-rape-death-threats-and-child-abuse
Of course it's probably unfair to Syrians since the likelihood is 95% aren't from Syria in the first place but rather Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran.
Also North Africa. And the further likelihood is that most aren't refugees either.
DeleteWhy do they come here? Because they can.
Because we don't follow a sensible Australian-style policy of sending them somewhere like St. Helena, Tristan da Cuhna or South Georgia for lengthy and detailed processing. Our "judges" (politicians in charge of legal interpretation) wouldn't allow it. Instead we give them free money, a free flat and a sense of entitlement.
DeleteIt's called 'France'!
DeleteExcitable Norman was probably reading from Sopel's crib-sheet when at lunchtime on the BBC News channel he said that "'some MPs' are calling for the PM to be impeached". I daresay that clip will be down the memory hole by now.
ReplyDeleteAlso down the BBC memory hole is the clip when VaradKar said that he didn't want an extension to the Article 50 notice period but wanted Brexit completed by 31st Oct.
DeleteArthur - I think that Varadkar comment is part of a Blair-Macron sprung trap. They are going to try and pressurise Boris into accepting something like May's Withdrawal Agreement - but with probably the Backstop heavily amended.
DeleteThe EU will make it clear that the only extension on offer will be a long one - maybe as long as two years.
Once Boris agrees a WA, the Remainer Mob in Parliament will switch to a Referendum and require him to put the WA to a Referendum against "Remain" - a "lose-lose" rigged rerun as far as most Leavers are concerned.
I think this has all been worked out with Blair.
Boris should indicate he will not accept a further extension and at the election will seek a mandate to take us out of the EU.
Varadkar will be under pressure because without the UK's contributions to the EU, Ireland as a net contributor of late, will be expected to help find the shortfall.
DeleteThe Rebel Alliance has no answer to the motion for a GE. What better an outcome would there be than that Jeremy Corbyn as the newly elected PM take the letter and ask for the extension? Of course that won't happen - Corbyn would run a mile.. They might have Boris cornered in the Hoc for the rest of today, but once Parliament is prorogued all bets are off.
Arthur - Not following your logic here.
DeleteThe Rebel Alliance doesn't have to have an answer to the GE motion...it just needs to wait till after 31 October. By then the EU will have offered a lengthy extension which Parliament will have agreed. The only way that won't happen is if Boris can somehow get the Act reviewed by the Supreme Court in a way that gums up the works... I don't hold out much hope on that.
If Dominic Cummings has found some way round this, I will be the first to cheer him to the rafters.
If Boris does find some roundabout route then the Rabble Alliance will simply replace him with a Government of National Unity using the VONC resolution procedure plus perhaps a letter to the Queen from majority of MPs saying they will vote in X as PM. It might be John McDonnell as a temporary PM, just to agree an extension with the EU.
Macron-Blair-Varadka are scared that the UK might escape the EU on no deal...that's why they are ploting for a long extension well beyond the 3 months disingenuously suggested by the Rabble Alliance (who are in on the plot).
It's all about getting us into a rigged rerun of the Referendum.
MB you make this sounds like the day that the 17.4 million Leave voters were told to accept that, in the biggest democratic exercise the country has known, their votes have been ignored. I hope you are wrong.
DeleteArthur, I am praying for a miracle...
DeleteI am liking the talk from Boris of a Canada Plus FTA which is what any patriotic Conservative PM prepared to accept the Referendum result (ie not May) should have gone for. I am happy with the idea of special arrangements for agriculture on the island of Ireland if the DUP are (and I suspect they will be).
There is an outside chance that Boris might just wangle a deal by persuading the EU that he will definitely win the (November) election and then make their lives hell if they have managed to lock in the UK to the EU. I can see that prospect, of a disruptive UK within the EU, a UK not prepared to play the game but exposing the EU for what it is at every turn could give Merkel and Macron pause to think.
I certainly think we should all pray that Boris can pull this off - that goes for the atheists among as well. :)
I hope Boris returns with a thumping majority, sacks Bercow's Mini-me successor, takes away Bercow's pension, launches a Court of Inquiry into the treasonous behaviour of Grieve, Blair, Mandelson, Adonis and several others, abolishes the House of Lords, reforms 50 Labour constituencies out of existence and reaches an FTA with Trump within weeks. I accept that not all these things will come to pass.:)
I refuse to sign up to BBC Sounds so I am sorry that I can't give a link/time but today, 9/9/2019, Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 took a call from Dale Aston of Pontyprydd. Regular listeners will know that he is a caller of many years' standing but his comments never change. Basically he hates Tories, young, old, ancient and modern, they have no redeeming features whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteOne could imagine the same words being applied to anyone of any religion, any race or any colour and their call wouldn't last half a minute and they would never get past the switchboard ever again, yet because it is the 'bloodee torees' he gets to play the same record unchallenged for at least the last six years. (Do a 'Google'!).
At least the tame Muslim caller, (called-up?), from Northampton fits his party piece to the story of the day, unlike our Dale, who is always, "[insert name]? bloodee toree! What can you expect?".
It's not clear to me why religion is a "protected characteristic" but politics isn't (personally I don't think we should have any "protected characteristics", just reasonable laws). One's politics like one's religion is often inherited from one's parents.
DeleteI don't like 'protected characteristics' either and politics, religion and while we are at it, national characteristics, should be up for criticism.
DeleteBut what comes out of this man isn't reasoned argument it is just pure hatred and yet he is never challenged let alone cut-off. I rather suspect that it is the BBC that calls him!
Try "All [Jews/Muslims/Blacks/Pakistanis/Tories] are lying scum bastards".
It's a fair bet Mr Aston inherited his politics. For him the Abefan disaster, albeit under a Labour government, Labour local authority and nationalised ownership was all the fault of the 'bloodee torees'. That sort of hatred must be almost genetic.
For some people the Tories are likes Sprites in Elizabethan times...who curdled the milk? the bladdy Tooreez!!!
DeleteThis is one of the reasons I object to the BBC and MSM generally referring to "Tories" since it is a title like the American "Limey" for Brits which can range in implied tone from affection to utter detestation. The media folk know that which is why they so frequently use "Tory" rather than "Conservative".
'Conservative', aren't those the people that stone to death anyone that holds the koran the wrong way up?
Delete(Those self-same people become an oppressed but protected minority once they move over here!)
Totally impartial Nick "Indabubble" Robinson doesn't like Boris, despite him riding high in the polls...
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1171148886959894528
The BBC keeps telling us not to believe in conspiracy theories. They're bad for you, they say. But the problem is that reality points in the opposite direction:
ReplyDelete"Olly Robbins - the architect of Theresa May's disastrous Brexit In Name Only deal - gets rewarded for his efforts with a senior job at key donor of the Remain campaign and banking giant, Goldman Sachs. Makes sense...!"
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1171168395213070337
I mean - he hasn't gone to work for Aaron Banks, The Brexit Party or the Institute of Ideas has he? Join the dots, BBC!
My own view, based on personal experience, is that politics is 50% conspiracy and 50% cock-up.
[I've had to divide this reply into two parts - it's too long for acceptance.]
DeleteSorry - your view that 'politics is 50% conspiracy and 50% cock-up' is surely very wide of the mark. Views based on personal experience often miss the most important things. To give just one illustration, during the Northern Irish troubles, someone feels that he's been treated unfairly by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He happens to know other people who say they've had similar experiences. He concludes, based on his experience, that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is rotten, the British state is rotten, protest against the British state is justified, armed struggle against the British state is justified, killing members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British army is justified. Personal experience here doesn't supply the wider context, which surely includes this: during the Second World War, Ireland was protected by British military power and has been protected by British military power ever since. The Republic's defence spending has always been pitifully low. It should be obvious that if Irish nationalists had used the slogan 'Stop arming Britain' during the Second World War, it would have been idiotic - as idiotic as the slogan used so often now, 'Stop arming Israel.' The Israeli Defence Force protects Palestinian territory against invasion. An independent Palestinian state would be militarily weak, unable to deter or oppose aggression. In the unstable Middle East, Israeli power is a massive, decisive advantage but it isn't one that Palestinian personal experience would be likely to reveal.
Military action, like politics, is so often complex, vulnerable, subject to cock-ups. British and American military action in the Second World War included some spectacular examples. They don't in the least show that the British and Americans were always incompetent, let alone that they were'just as bad as the Nazis.' To give an example from the First World War, the Gallipoli campaign. Churchill's involvement in this disastrous campaign doesn't in the least show that Churchill's political career was '50% conspiracy and 50% cock-up.' Churchill's strengths vastly outweigh the weaknesses. I won't give more objections to your view here. I'd rather use the space to give some information about one particular cock-up (in the second part of the reply.) If I did give more detailed criticism of your view here, it would co-exist with appreciation of your strengths, MB, your insights and your incisive comments.
[Part 2]
DeleteObviously, the weaknesses exposed by a cock-up aren't always outweighed by strengths. This is the address of the Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East site, the first page of the list of 'current parliamentary supporters.'
https://www.lfpme.org/supporters
The LFPME Website claims that 'Currently, 131 MPs support our work in Parliament'
and gives information about the MPs, their name and constituency and in all cases but two, a photo.
The MP's on the Website's current list include Michael Meacher, constituency, Oldham West and Royton. But Michael Meacher isn't currently an MP. He died in 2015! (His entry is one of the two without a photo. The other is Diane Abbott.)
Simon Danczuk, suspended by the Labour Party in 2015 after sending explicit messages to a 17-year old girl, banned by Labour from standing as a Labour Candidate, replaced as MP for Rochdale by Anthony Lloyd in 2017 is claimed to be the current MP for Rochdale!
Other people falsely claimed by Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East to be currently MP's and supporting the organization (they may support the aims and objectives of the organization but they aren't MP's):
Sadiq Khan (Tooting), who left parliament in 2016 to become Mayor of London, Steve Rotheram (Liverpool Walton)who left Parliament in 2017 to become Metro Mayor of Liverpool City Region and Andy Burnham (Leigh) who left Parliament in 2017 to become Mayor of Manchester. The site lists a whole group of other MP's who left parliament in 2017.
Anyone who uses the membership pages of the site to find out if a particular MP is or isn't a member will find that it's not at all straightforward. The list of MP's seems to be random, with no organizing principle at all. In fact, there is an organizing principle, a ridiculous one. Anyone interested in solving this particular puzzle, a challenging one, perhaps, is welcome to take a look at the Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East Website.
I don't claim that all Labour MP's are incompetents or that all the Labour MP's who support LFPME are incompetent in every way, but some views are decisively falsified by evidence of incompetence and other evidence, such as the view that there's a socialist utopia or near-utopia ready to become a reality if the country has a Labour Government. Utopias and near-utopias are dealt with very harshly by reality. They're vulnerable to attack and if non-utopian socialist states are incompetent, without the wide-ranging skills needed for successful management of the economy then of course their schemes can't be financed.
I think LFPME are part of a conspiracy to destroy Israel - along with a lot of other groups supported by Corbyn.
DeleteAn example of both conspiracy and cock-up was Israel's support initially for Hamas which to begin with posed as a religious, pious, social aid network. Israel thought it was being clever doing down the PLO. In a sense it was but Hamas soon reverted to type and got involved in the armed terrorist attempt to destroy Israel, eventually replacing the PLO in Gaza. That part was a good example of a cock-up by the Israelis.
Things you won't hear from the BBC discussing Mugabe's "legacy" (aka "criminal record").
ReplyDeletehttps://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/09/09/exclusive-video-legacy-of-torture-and-murder-zimbabweans-dance-to-celebrate-death-of-tyrant/
Dear Craig, Sue, MB and other ITBB Gurus – Am I right to assume that the dearth of bias commentary here is due to the original question posed by the site’s title is now no longer questionable but rather a ‘given’?
ReplyDeleteI am involved in a long-running (20+ years) project to measure the size of radio audiences, where, each week, different communities are asked to keep a record of what they listen to. When I have to go to ex-coal-mining villages I emphasise the fact that the survey is for commercial stations and only add, if pressed, as a quiet caveat that the BBC is also involved so as not to offend. I regularly get told to f-off in those villages – anyone who is vaguely associated with the BBC is persona non grata – they have long memories and it all goes back to the miners’ strike. However I was shocked recently when I was in a council estate in West Yorkshire where there was the same very hostile reaction. I wasn’t expecting it and so enquired (of some of them) ‘why’. I was looking for some historical moment, such as the miners’ strike, but there was none. All I got was ‘they’re biased; they lie’. And the bottom line was - they won’t even tune in to Pop Master.
I think you are probably right...less time is spent now discussing the details of bias since it has become so obvious. In fact we have more and more examples of what I call "gross bias" where presenters don't even try to hid their bias under a cloak of claimed impartiality.
DeleteWe are now faced with a power struggle. The BBC has accumulated huge power and refuses to share it between shades of opinion. We need a populist government that will rein it in, reform it and if necessary break it up.
I think one of the things people hate most about the modern PC BBC is that if you dare to protest against it you are immediately labelled a "conspiracy theorist", "Far Right" and not "progressive" - a kind of Catch 22.
But is PC progressive? PC policies have produced modern slavery, FGM for tens of thousands of girls, Scottish and Welsh separatism, domestic terrorism targetting teenagers at a music event, grooming gangs, religious restriction of free speech, an Electoral Commission that favours the Left, young couples left with no hope of owning a home with a garden, people being arrested for expressing legitimate views about gender, an anti-semitic Labour Party and the possiblity of a Marxist totalitarian taking power in the UK. Nothing "progressive" about any of that.
The PC ideology of which the BBC are such worshipers pervades every walk of life. Especially it represents an entry key into parliament, civil service, academia, art and architecture, the church, charities and public sector such as education, NHS, police - in fact everywhere but in traditional workplaces such as farming, building trades, manufacturing, independent shopkeeping etc.
DeleteAnyone seeking a job in a PC ideological environment MUST comply with energy and commitment to the PC code, otherwise there would be little hope of gaining employment there.
Gradually, generations of like-minded people are picking up the plum jobs offered by the same clones - like hoards of terracotta soldiers marching under the PC banner. PC ideology has become so ingrained now that any off-message remark is greeted with howls of indignation.
I should add that so many of these jobs have become politicised from the smallest of schools upwards. Staff from anywhere will be briefed to replay the message in a parrot-like manner. On the other side of the coin, the independent voices are always belittled and/or patronised - indicating low intelligence, bigotry etc. Business views are passed on by the likes of the CBI (I should have included them in the list above) - hardly ever from a Dyson or a Bamford.
DeleteThe Institution of Engineering & Technology has gone that way too. It is fantastic when all the prizes go to the girls! Women are the same as men but they bring something different to the job so they are better! But then the job has to change to something that the girls like to do, so how does that work?
DeleteMy experience as an engineer was that (certainly British) managements don't like engineers because they point out problems, (spotting the problem is the first step in finding a solution). Girls do what they are told at school, they follow the rules. That is exactly what managements want, we followed the brief, we did what was asked for, now pay us! Oh, it doesn't work? New brief, new contract, more money but lousy engineering!
Yes Anon, engineering has traditionally been the preserve of white males. PC ideology would suggest a shake-up is overdue.
DeleteSo far, we haven't heard from the BBC what the Newspeak version of recent events in parliament will be. It will be something like 'Parliament exercised their authority over populist Government'.
ReplyDeleteOr, ... 'Parliament stamped their authority over populist far-right Government'...
DeleteLK like all the Beeboid Remainers suggests that it is Boris's "errors" that have got him to this point...
Delete"That "long shopping list" of errors, according to one member of the cabinet, means the prime minister's self-imposed Halloween Brexit deadline looks further out of reach than a few short days ago."
This is nonsense. Boris isn't stupid. He knew the arithmetic. He knew the Traitor Tories in the Rabble Alliance would move before the 31 Oct deadline. He was never going to be able to slip no deal past this Parliament. His prorogation simply flushed out the Rebels a little early. It does help him that they are now out of the Party in the Commons. He should keep it that way in my view. I dont think Grieve and Hammond ever expected to be kicked out like that.
I don't know what Boris's end game is now. I have speculated that perhaps he is seeking to terrify the EU into believing (a) he will definitely win a General Election and (b) that he will then become a majorly disruptive influence within the EU.
It's possible that the EU might decide to cut its losses and let the UK go, and offer no further extensions if it calculates that the Remainer parties are never going to get to the Referendum.
There are more contradictions than you can shake a stick at. It looks as if the Johnson plan was to take them on head on in the manner of Trump - May appeasement was simply disastrous and besides, Johnson carries a sort of template of Churchill the maverick, the bold, the one who stood up and stood out, worked against the odds, often suffering defeats and setbacks but ploughing on. The hero of the hour would be the defiant blond destroyer.
DeleteOne of the most contradictory things is that this heroic figure who is gambling on turning everything upside down, from the Conservative MPs, the Speaker, the Junckers and Tusks
(even Barnier hasn't been so visible or so full of himself lately), is from a family that is LibDem at its core even when Conservative and he himself is the same and has some of the worst ideas for example, about open borders, letting illegals and players of the system in and give them amnesty. Anything else he says about tough immigration is merely a sop to the electorate in my opinion. He is contradictory and untrustworthy on many things, he throws out silly statements that he has to retract, his understanding of some subjects is superficial and I'd never want to underestimate the ability of clever people to be stupid or say or do stupid things. Yet he has the capability out of that superficiality and mutability to come up with something unusual or original and do something that previously seemed impossible or hadn't even been formed as an idea let alone a way forward.
They will make him or break him and so far it has been defeat all the way and they've stitched him up like a kipper. Yet we hope against hope that he will somehow spring free and we will be free. Maybe something will come out of it because of the kippering - it went too far and that itself will bring about a breakthrough and a result they hadn't foreseen.