the widespread criticism of Wednesday’s Snooznight Special interview of David Cameron (see posts below), asserting that If BBC reporter Stephanie Flanders speaks for Britain, I’m a gnu – flaying Stephanie Flanders for her patronising response to the idea of a marriage tax-break. Here are a couple of excerpts:
“Have you ever met anybody who gets married for £20 a week?” she sneered. “If I decided to go home and get married, you’d give me £20 a week just for getting married.
“I’m not sure I’d need it. Why is that a good use of scarce public resources?”
(Have you noticed how “public resources” are always “scarce” on the BBC?)
Her petulant outburst tells you an awful lot about the “liberal” mindset.
It’s not about you, pet. I don’t suppose she does need an extra £20 a week (though her cleaning lady probably wouldn’t turn her nose up at it). Not on a six-figure salary from the BBC and a partner who presumably pulls in a few bob, too. But she chose deliberately to miss the point.
And, for good measure:
I can only assume that while she was studying at Harvard, she didn’t stumble across the work of the eminent economist Arthur Laffer, who asserts that people will always be poor if you pay them to be poor.
Miss Flanders is symptomatic of the whole BBC/Guardianista/New Labour mindset – patronising, statist, nanny knows best.
She exemplifies the way the self-appointed “liberal” elite have imposed their own values and prejudices on society – and to hell with the consequences.
And still they don’t get it. What’s good for Stephanie Flanders is not necessarily good for Vicky Pollard or for society as a whole.
Do read the rest!
Wow, very enjoyable-that was a real hatchet job. The BBC/Guardianista/New Labour mindset Littlejohn is read by millions. The insipid nature of Biased BBC has a very powerful hitter here in the MSM. The fluency of his style is astonishing, it’s rather like Christopher Hitchens lite.
“It’s not about you, pet.”
Everything is here, how she must have squirmed reading this. You can almost here the expletives rolling off her freshly glossed lips.
Actually, on a serious note, she has been seriously damaged- her journalistic credibility is in shreds. Littlejohn exposed the bias ad hominem. We await her next pronouncements on Conservative fiscal policy with bated breadth. From now on the slightest hint of bias will be trounced upon. And this is how it should be, the so called BBC guidelines are worthless, in fact a form of journalistic anarchy is widespread right now.
I hope Littlejohn gets his teeth soon into one of the other BBC fantastic four on Newsnight, the one who holds Manchester United Football Club shares and lives with his mother.He appears to be a law unto himself.
Insipid?
Fabulous article. But our friend anon, above, says “….How she must have squirmed reading this. You can almost here the expletives rolling off her freshly glossed lips.”
I take issue with this. One of the key traits of the wealthy liberal elite is their complete and utter belief that they are right.
Criticism like Littlebum’s – though bang on the money – will be dismissed as “the right wing Daily Mail..what do you expect?” and in fact she will wear this article as a badge of honour, the way a yob might show off a tagging device to his mates. I would imagine there’s a lot of back-slapping going on right now..”ohhh look Steph, you’ve wound up the Mail…well done love…lunch is on me…”
Far from being upset by this she may be pleased that she has provoked such a furore over what she will regard as perfectly legitimate questioning.
The fact that she is supposed to be a journalist, and keep her domestic arrangements to herself, not introduce them as part of the “story” is neither here nor there. In fact she may even have started a new trend.
So I look forward to hearing Paxman introduce little snippets of life chez Paxo next time he gets Gordon Brown in his sights.
Criticism like Littlebum’s – though bang on the money – will be dismissed as “the right wing Daily Mail..what do you expect?” and in fact she will wear this article as a badge of honour, the way a yob might show off a tagging device to his mates.
Spot-on, Alan-a-Gale. To them, Littlejohn is completely beyond the pale. Far from making them think, criticism from the likes of him simply proves they’re right.
You could say the same about “the right” and someone like Polly Toynbee, but you only need to take a look at the blogosphere to see that her articles are argued with, refuted, fisked; at the very least, engaged with. Among those pleased to call themselves “liberal”, it’s an article of faith that Littlejohn is of sub-human intelligence, doesn’t think, and is therefore not worth arguing with.
Brilliant article by Littlejohn as Ms Flanders basically took the typical anti-family line you’d expect from a BBC type.
Alan-a-Gale and Sam Duncan are right – Littlejohn is a man they love to be hated by (and who they love to hate). Witness the response to Littlejohn’s brave expose of rising anti-Semitism in this country on C4. (auntie of course wouldn’t touch it). Got dismissed out of hand as the work of a bigot – even though it was very well and accurately researched. La Toynbee by contrast is media royalty who gets ludicrous deference. The fact that Littlejohn was spot on will make no odds – the truth doesn’t interest these people. What can be done?
The BBC disparages the right wing tabloids but I think it is still afraid of them. Where did much of the criticism about the Queen documentary distortion come from? Not the Guardian.
These comments have been invaluable to me as is this whole site. I thank you for your comment.