Is Andrew Marr pandering to the Prime Minister and his pro-Europe stance or has Marr just lost his cutting edge as a journalist?
Watching Marr this morning and you have to ask why the BBC put up Nick Robinson against the pro-Britain Kate Hoey…is Nick pro-Europe then as he seemed to be putting the case for the Inners?
Here we have a rather patronising piece from Robinson in which he tells us how important the referendum is for us…really?…He comes up with a clever ‘Heads I win, tails you lose’ scenario as he explains the referendum to us…
There won’t, of course, be any space on the ballot paper to say, “I’d like to stay if only there was less interference from Brussels or bureaucracy or immigration, or if only there was more democracy”.
There won’t be an opportunity to say “I’d like to leave if I could be sure the EU won’t make it harder or more expensive to sell our goods, or force us to allow Europe’s people to move here freely if we want our goods and services and money to move freely there”.
One choice he gives us is for staying, the other is disaster if we leave…..both lean towards staying…..Robinson says the choice is black and white…out or in…Boris thinks not…
‘…significantly he suggested that a no vote might not necessarily result in the UK pulling out of the EU altogether instead, creating a “new relationship based upon trade and cooperation”.
Curiously, or not as the BBC always does it despite allegedly hating the Mail, Robinson chose to concentrate on the Mail’s frontpage claiming to have exposed a secret plot between Boris and Gove….why not concentrate on Boris’ ‘secret’ plot with Cameron which was on the frontpage of the Times as Robinson actually noted in passing?
Why has Boris not declared his position on Europe yet? Robinson has worked it all out He asks if it is due to a process of careful consideration, or one of pathetic procrastination, or one of cynical calculation as many Tories Robinson says he knows have told him?
Hmmm….’pathetic procrastination’? Very perjorative comment. As for those Tories feeding Robinson the anti-Boris poison…any chance they are from the pro-Europe camp?….Robinson didn’t bother to reveal his sources.
Hoey said that Boris was touring the UK visiting constituencies talking to the locals…Robinson decided that this showed Boris was more interested in currying favour for his leadership bid…coldly calculating…..never mind contradicting that immediately by quoting Boris himself saying he was ‘veering all over the place like a shopping trolley’ in regards to his decision….doesn’t really sound like a cold, calculated process does it? That is backed up by his announcement that he is on the ‘Out’ side in which he said it had been an ‘agonisingly difficult’ decision to make and one made with a ‘huge amount of heartache’. [Just heard Pienaar say Johnson not a man for detail …(isn’t that just a well known public persona?)…and this is all about Johnson’s bid for party leadership….not going to credit him with making an informed and reasoned decison then.]
We heard that the core of the referendum would be about ‘control’ or sovereignty…oddly Marr finished off by then interpreting this as the Brexit campaign being based on a ‘visceral, emotional appeal’. No…This time it is a cold, practical calculation…people want to take control of their country and lives back from the faceless bureaucracy that is Europe.
Marr went on to interview Farage who pretty much wiped the floor with him as Marr kept coming up with inaccurate claims about Europe and what would happen on Brexit. Marr then moved on to interview Cameron and told us that Cameron had been doing ‘important work’ as he negotiated with the EU monolith. That’s of course not the view of most people from Corbyn, to Sturgeon, to Farage, to Gove, to Boris, to, well to many many people. Cameron was engaged in smoke and mirrors negotiating about very little but trying to generate as many headlines as possible giving the impression he was bravely battling the EU bureaucracy. The real issues such as immigration and control were left unresolved.
Most of the interview was pretty anodyne with Cameron allowed a free run as he claimed Britain would fall apart economically, that we would not get cooperation on crime and terrorism from Europe, and our firms would suffer discrimination if we left Europe…no challenge from Marr at all.
Marr then came up with this ...’David Cameron may go down in history as the man who saved Britain’s membership of Europe…..’
Really? Saved us from leaving the EU?
Marr told us that Cameron had busted a gut on these negotiations, he’d worked very, very hard on them….Marr asked if the PM felt that he was being stabbed in the back, betrayed by a very carefully coordinated Brexit campaign out to get him?
No taking sides there then…curious how the Brexit campaign is now a ‘carefully coordinated’ one when the BBC spent the weeks before the EU negotiations painting the campaign as a disorganised rabble ….’rats in a sack’ I think was the actual phrase.
Watch the news clip on Marr and note how the Brexit ministers are described as ‘slipping out the back of No 10 and heading immediately to banks of phones at the Brexit campaign HQ’…..no sly dig there then?
So now the Brexit campaign is some slippery, sinister operation out to do down the heroic PM who ‘bust a gut’ for the UK?
Marr asks what if Brexit happens, these are dangerous times economically and otherwise, what will happen to Europe?
A leading question feeding the PM the chance to paint a bleak picture of a Europe in ruins with the UK not being there to stabilise the emotional, hotblooded Continentals.
He finishes with a pro-EU note….’Let’s take us back to the unhappy prospect of Britain leaving Europe and everything is on a knife edge…..’
So to wrap up…Marr thinks Cameron could ‘save us from leaving Europe, an unhappy prospect which would lead to dangerous times and a Europe in ruins.’
No bias there then.
Both Marr and Robinson are clearly not the “full euro” after recent tribulations health-wise.
I do wonder if the BBC retains them for the Blue Badge vote.
For neither have added to the wealth of information we need to make an informed choice now since…well, 1998 and 2004 respectively.
Be ready for the stump waving cast of casualties to be coming soon…only Heather McCartney exempted…but there`ll be plenty of wheelchair tracks on Stephens Green in the next few months.
Being a lefty-an Islamist-and now we can add an anti-Britain suckup for Satan that is the IN Clown movement-would normally get you the Blue Badge with an accompanying Care in the Community nurse…mental elves the lot of `em!
Call Me Dave certainly prattled on uninterrupted, as did the unfortunately arsehole-like mouth of Ms Sturgeon, but Marr managed to stem Farage’s flow in regulation Beeb-style – without, of course, reducing the common-sense facts emanating from the gent in question.
Took this from Wikipedia
‘Marr lives in Primrose Hill, North London, with his wife, the political journalist Jackie Ashley of The Guardian, whom he married in August 1987 in Surrey. She is a daughter of the Labour life peer, Lord Ashley of Stoke (1922–2012).’
Of course he’s biased , he’s a tree hugging lefty, he always has been. One of the worst, he once took out an injunction against Private Eye from publishing his extra marital affair.
A complete toerag. Can’t stand the wimpy patronising pathetic Scottish fool. Get rid.
Known as ‘Red Andy’ at university, incidentally.
After his extra marital affair how about
Red Randy Andy
Online Guardian comments re Marr as Editor:
“In the roll call of its editors, I was the most radical…”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/13/the-independent-gave-me-some-of-the-most-exciting-times-of-my-career
Say no more?
..
The stayers seem to worried now. We need to be careful not to accept their terms for argument. It looks as if they are going to appeal to the innate reasonableness of most English . One of our cultural traits that sometimes can be our undoing. Sorry to the Scots but they are going their own way now and that is that.
Time for us who wish to leave to be unreasonable at all times. Declare it to be an existential matter and one in which businessmen and the like have no part to play. And as for the luvvies they should be laughed at and given short shrift.
Resolve to be uncompromising and see just how liberating it really is. Give your MP a hard time at all times even if he or she seems sympathetic. If you have the good or perhaps ill fortune to be interviewed by the media be as forthright and firm as possible. Morale is all important and we need to do everything to weaken theirs.
Al Beeb announces Borris’ support for Brexit.
Some call ‘Bo Go’ a traitor ? But who is the real traitor ?
This great nation fought two world wars at great sacrifice. It’s history is steeped with its success in defending its shores from the jealous European despots and now our supine used car salesman wants to hand its sovereignty over to a bunch of crooks who haven’t had their accounts checked for years .
Now just who is the real traitor ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35626621
OT but in complement:
Seems BBC-style decisions on what gets ‘quoted’ and what there is no room for, is the order of the day.
An excellent piece of analysis by Alan. I wish my stomach was strong enough to sit through these programs and reveal the bias, subtle or otherwise, but thanks to him I don’t have to-more of the same please ! Incidentally, Jo Coburn on the Sunday Politics had a severe attack of interviewee interruptus with Chris Grayling. I can only commend him for his grace when faced with such a dim, hormonal rotweiler.
“Dim Hormonal Rottweiler”
What a sublime description, cap doffed !
Thank you for the appreciation and apologies for the omission of a second “t”.
The problem here – and it’s not confined to the BBC – is the dearth of good journalists and good journalism generally. Maybe I’m misremembering the journalism of my youth (the 50s and 60s) but it seems to me in retrospect that the “serious” papers (Times, Telegraph, Manchester Guardian) gave you the facts: then the columnists gave their take. There wasn’t (or, at least, it wasn’t apparent) that the facts and opinion were mixed up in a political piece by the reporter concerned. Furthermore you gathered what the paper’s opinion was by reading the editorial. But, of course, the BBC doesn’t have an “editorial”. Apparently, it’s “impartial” and is statutorily forbidden from having a political line.
Accordingly, you get Marr, Robinson, Smith, Kuenssberg, Adler etc all furiously conveying their right-on opinions through the facts they mention (or, significantly, fail to mention or fail to mention in full or in context) and the methods they use in interview. I recall that Popper wrote, when he wanted to demolish, for instance, the marxist case that he would put forward the strongest arguments possible in favour of marxism backed up by those facts favourable to such arguments. Having then made the case for the “opposition” he proceeded to attempt (and succeed) in demolishing that case. However, unlike those matters out of line with the BBC Narrative at no time were you ignorant of the arguments which Popper opposed.
Unfortunately BBC journalists rarely, if ever, bother with acknowledging that there might be a strong case for the line they disagree with let alone describe it it. Moreover, they rarely allow those making that case the freedom to do so uninterrupted by spurious “objections” or – particularly with Humphrys – spurious repeated and insistent demands for “clarity” or further “explanation” until the listener gets bored and/or the interviewee is defeated in conveying the clear thread of his argument. Typically the interview dissolves in journlaist-induced confusion. Then, of course, a BBC “expert” (eg Kuenssberg) is brought on to explain to the ignorati what really was said and what it really meant. But, as I’ve written before, BBC journalists are propagandists pure and simple: they wouldn’t recognise, let alone practise, genuine journalism even if they knew what it was.
Very well put.
At risk of banging the drum heard rather frequently around these parts, the most obvious example of the point you make about the partiality of BBC journalists is the Corporation’s coverage of the current immigration crisis. ‘Empathy’ seems to be the sole object of their ‘reporting’ with facts and (some rather disturbing) questions cast aside in favour of virtue signalling.
Well put indeed. This is the major problem with the BBC. It and it’s employees are just not up to it . The result of many years of hive recruiting and hive mindedness.
It`s STILL on Andys Theme!…
Heard the execrable “Start The Week” (and Let me Die).
This morning some Wee Wee Wong of a Chinese poppet held forth on the “Far Right” and “Angry White Trash” type of t`ing.
Let me count the words…”populist”, “bitter” “Trump”…do I need to go on?
Course not!
Yet listening to her, it`s like the BBC provides a sheep dip for the dippies who “feel themselves to be outsiders” and “victims of racism”….yet well able to blag a grant, a green room at the Beeb and a chance to fly the worlds circumference a few times over to get the love and ferrapee required.
(Wasn`t global warming or air miles this week though, so no issues there for today…phew!).
Poor lady lost loads in translation…she seemed to avoid Islam in Luton(well done you dear!)-and Paul Mason gallantly helped us with the loss of Vauxhall cars there being the racist flashpoint that made whitey bitter in Beds.
See-capitalism DOES have a point ?…to pay for social cohesion, even if the cars cause global…er…yeah…
Utter competing disability scooter crash…trikes , reliant robins , spastics money dolls , zimmers and vantalin inhalers…old callipers and injunctions, meds in the wreakage this morning.
Chinese lady conflates Islam with Muslim, sees the danger of the rise of the far right…but not the creepy coronation that`s already been done for the Far Left…which Marr and Mason personify.
The lady noo nuffink-which is why she`s a race rabbit on the BBCs dog track of non-issues…she got Tommy and Pegida so wrong that you`d not have thought he was assaulted lately by the Leftizlambs-and that Pegidas lad in Dublin ehded up in hospital the week beforehand.
Utter Lefty crap…but what else from Marrs Commode…or is that the film critic who thinks he`s Marty Wilde?
Oh-I did learn one thing…I`m a member of the Precariat!….bet you are too!
I do love sub-Marxist class groupings….especially when they fear and hate us….populist,toriscumm, precariat, racist and Islamofauxbist-the last REReactionary…keep em coming and I claim each one as a badge, lefiwankazz!
Nobody has stepped forward to lead the Brexit campaign. And I have to say, I am glad. This is a people vs the corrupt, anti-democratic establishment. Having a lame duck Boris lead from the back, without taking parts in debates and without sharing the stage with other Brexiters, is a recipe for disaster. Brexit is actually better served by it being a flat, level, equal campaign lead by all of us in our own individual ways, because the votes of each individual are of equal worth. As Cameron steps up to lie to us all, he is not facing a single figure. He is facing an army of people. The British people, campaigning with all our diverse, eccentric, yet effective and purposeful determination. From Kate Hoey to Farage, From Galloway to David Davis, from Gove to Carswell, the campaign is widespread, diverse and covers all sections of society. But the debate will be won by the London Cabbies, the hairdressers, the barmen, the accountants and the bricklayers of this country. From ALL of us talking to someone new each day and convincing them that the only safe vote is out. whether it be by showing how we cannot vote out bad law, whilst we are in the EU, because we cannot vote out the EU commission, to educating them about TTIP and the danger that poses to our NHS. For example, ask someone Who will they vote for if in 2021, a consortium of American health insurance companies take the British Government to court under rules imposed by the EU under TTIP and force that government to privatise and sell off the NHS?
The simple fact is this. IF we vote to leave, and the resulting outcome is awful… Guess what? We can still vote to change it. We can elect a new government and change the laws and structures of this country to adapt and overcome whatever difficulties this nation faces. THAT is what sovereignty means. That is why suffragettes campaigned so hard for the vote for women. That is why millions risked their lives in 2 world wars to fight FOR sovereign democracy, here and across the continent of Europe. So that WE, THE PEOPLE could vote to change governments that we believed had failed.
BUT, if we vote to remain in the EU and the outcome is terrible… We are screwed. We as a people will be unable to vote out the incompetent “leaders” who screwed it up.
This is why a vote to LEAVE really IS the safest, most secure vote. Get out there and tell everyone.