As MB notes on the "Pheeww!" thread, the BBC's Daniel Sandford went rather above-and-beyond on Twitter the other day:
Two thoughts on Labour’s devastating defeat. 1) Labour voters need to join the party in large numbers in order to get the leader and policies they want, otherwise the party will keep on offering only what the current membership advocate. 2) It is not enough to tell voters what they want. You have to listen to them. If they don’t agree with you, you have to win the argument or possible alter your policy. Do not shout at them and call life-long Labour voters Tories.
He then tweeted a like-minded article by Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian.
As MB says:
He then gets into a twitter spat with the online Corbynistas. With some justice they can say this proves reporters at the BBC are actively opposed to Corbynism.
Surely Sandford is well outside the impartiality guidance with his comments?
Even if not, his comments give the lie to WATO's claims of BBC impartiality. Sandford is here espousing what I think is the true political position of most BBC staff: a kind of left wing Blairism. Blairism without the pro-Americanism.Here's a taste of that Twitter spat:
BobSmithWalker 45%: Quick note to BBC. If voters didn’t like social democratic politics why did they vote for the SNPs landslide victory? The notion that left wing parties can’t win is disproved.Daniel Sandford: Corbyn and SNP are poles apart. And by the way “Hands off Venezuela”’? You really have no idea about the real world.BobSmithWalker 45%: At least you’ve no pretence at objectivity and impartiality. So far we’ve established you’re an expert on the nuances of SNP and Labour policy without understanding either - and you’re pro regime change in Venezuela. You’ll go far.
