Poor old Boris Johnson. The Conservative Party’s candidate for the Mayoral election in London is much unloved, according to a report the BBC ran this morning on “Today.” The item started out by saying that whilst the race between Boris and Red Ken (The Jihadist’s friend) “was close” (i.e. Boris was ahead but the BBC just can’t quite bring itself to admit that) the influence of the minor parties could be significant in terms of where second preferences go to. Guess what? Yes – none will be going to Boris.
The BBC interviewed the Green Party (Free insulation for all!) candidate who urged voters to support Livingstone after voting Green, The BBC then interviewed the Respect Party candidate who urged “Muslims and ethnic minorities” to support Livingstone after voting pro-Jihad. So far, so bad for Boris. Then there was the BNP and guess what? – yes, THEY are urging people to vote Conservative second. (Damned with faint praise?) The only caveat is that the BNP candidate himself ISN’T urging voters to support Boris so even that is lukewarm support. The UKIP candidate wouldn’t endorse Ken or Boris nor would the Christian Choice candidate. All in all – a desert of support for the Conservatives. Of course I am sure that the BBC is entirely neutral as to who it would like to see elected to this influential position – aren’t you? I am equally sure that the BBC would never dream of seeking to influence the second preference vote in a desperate attempt to save Livingstone. Aren’t you?
This is exactly the sort of thing we can expect at a general election – BBC bigging it up for anyone but the Conservatives.
So why doesn’t Cameron see this and declare war on the vile BBC? It’s no use sucking up to them.
The Tories don’t need to. McLiebour under McBean are on the final flush down the toilet pan. Nothing the BBC will do can brainwash people into voting McLiebour, when people are paying double for their mortgage.
When the Tories do get in, we have to put pressure on them to get rid of the licence fee. No more freebies for the BBC.
Scrapping the BBC outright would be too big a thing for the Tories to do (even the two or three who have spines). But redirecting a large slice of the TV tax into private broadcasting for public interest programmes could force the BBC into seppuku.
This was desperate stuff. The equivalent of the BBC faithful cuddling a comfort blanket consoling themselves that everybody hates Boris – except the BNP. They have their fingers firmly in their ears determined to drown out the bad news with ‘la la la’. Literally – they live in lala land. Sadly it’s a lala land they are foisting on the nation who get a dangerously distorted version of events.
libertus:
Scrapping the BBC outright would be too big a thing for the Tories to do (even the two or three who have spines). But redirecting a large slice of the TV tax into private broadcasting for public interest programmes could force the BBC into seppuku.
————————————————
I very much doubt if we will see any change in the way the BBC is run or finanaced, should the boy Cameron and his playmates get in at the next election, whatever noises they may be making now.
I see so little evidence Cameron would do anything about the BBC at all.
In fact in many ways his response merely seems to be to go over to their agenda.
I would support a party promising abolition of the license fee and removal of the BBC as the state broadcaster, I definitely do not see any such commitment from the conservatives in any way shape or form, nor do I believe they currently have any intention of doing so – more fool them.
As another poster pointed out.
Cameron has implied change in the funding of the BBC.
If elected he could take that as a manifesto commitment, call for consultation, then conclude he can reduce the funding of the BBC, or set it on the road to privatisation.
Which is what I hope he does.
But people have to put pressure on their MP (if a tory) to demand reform of the BBC. I think most Tories know the BBC hates them and their policies.
In the past it was difficult to find a way to finance the BBC other than through the TV tax.
However, with the switch to all digital it should be possible to make the BBC a subscription service with the basic monthly fee the same as the monthly licence fee. Those that don’t want it simply get thier digital TV supplier ot block all BBC TV and radio channels. Those that want it pay for it.
What could be fairer than that? If the BBC want to carry adverts on their channels then those would be free to view.
Cameron and the Tories could propose this as the technology to do it now exists.
I don’t see what Beeboids fear. If they believe that they offer good value for money, then we will all happily pay our £13 a month. Won’t we?
Tories should scrap the BBc as an environmental measure – and before Brown et al do.
– One less broadcaster using electric and roducing CO2
– £140 for each householder to offset rising costs.
– several £Billion worth of publi-owned BBC assets to fill financial black holes.
Such a bold environmental measure could not be criticised in any way by a green Beeb.
Better to go as a green sacrifice than an international laughing stock if/when AGW turns out to be bunkum.
They could not possibly survive then.
“why doesn’t Cameron see this and declare war on the vile BBC? “
Yes, How dare the BBC actually point out the potential importance of second choices in the London elections. How dare they accurately summarise the state of other parties’ endorsement, or otherwise, of the leading contenders.
What they should do is fiddle their report so the Conservatives come out looking better. It won’t be accurate or responsible, but at least it’ll appease a few pseudonymous commenters at Biased BBC. After all, that’s what’s important.
The BBC seems to think that promoting one candidate and smearing another on purely ideological grounds is acceptable?
Where is the BBC trust in all this? The BBC must know full well that Johnson is well ahead but like the Italian election they are spinning a very close race?
A corrupt state broadcaster that is rigging elections in favour of its own prefered candidate? are we talking about a dirt poor African hellhole?
The voter will have seen through this blatant propaganda as the BBC have tried it on too many times now!
Ken Leavingsoon is er leaving soon and so are his ill assorted gang of chancers, bigots,anti democrats,race baiters on the make,terrorist sympathisers,anti semites and crooks on the take! Bloody good show and perhaps london will be able to get off its knees again and start to builld itself up into the City it should have been.
No Scott NO!
What the BBC did was was dead wrong and it was the BBC that fiddled their ‘report’ and it was the BBC that tried to pervert it to favour their candidate, so get your facts straight please.
Coming on here and lying through your plainly partisan teeth is not acceptable to the majority of posters who can plainly see your kneejerk propagandist blame shifting for what it is!
Major decisions about London are taken by national politicians in London, not local politicians in London. Local politicians all over the UK have very little power, which presumably is why the BBC hardly covers local election campaigns. So why are they making an exception for the London Mayoral election? That many BBC staff think that the world stops outside the M25 is probably the reason. This is just another example of BBC bias, lack of perspective and proportion and their blinkered parochial, attitudes.
Cassandra: Scott is a Beeboid. They float in and out with “pretend” names, but they are all the same.
For an example of bias you really should listen to the interview that Colin Murray just did with Paddick.
The BBC don’t give Boris a fair crack of the whip, especially as all the recent polls show him ahead of crazy Ken.
Of course the BBC hope that Paddick might save red Ken’s bacon and uphold the leftist view.
Mirray didn’t read out a single negative comment or email to Paddick. Not one. Why am I not surprised?
You haven’t done this very well David.
Two out of five minor parties support Ken, one supports the Conservatives but not Boris, and two support nobody at all. And we’re supposed to be outraged that the BBC reports on two out of five minor parties supporting Ken, one supporting the Conservatives but not Boris, and two supporting nobody at all.
In this case it looks less like the BBC is biased and more like the facts are biased. Sorry!
Yes, How dare the BBC actually point out the potential importance of second choices in the London elections. How dare they accurately summarise the state of other parties’ endorsement, or otherwise, of the leading contenders.
What they should do is fiddle their report so the Conservatives come out looking better. It won’t be accurate or responsible, but at least it’ll appease a few pseudonymous commenters at Biased BBC. After all, that’s what’s important.
Scott | Homepage | 17.04.08 – 1:40 pm
Now, if this chump had said something along these lines on BBC Question Time he’d have had the (not selected at random) studio audience applauding like a lot of sea lions.
Trouble is this isn’t Beeboid-friendly territory. Anyone here knows that the BBC is so far up the arse of Ken Leninspart that they can tell what he had for breakfast.
Others had to do the digging on Red Ken and his court of clowns – Channel 4’s Dispatches, Gilligan and the Standard. The £3bn/yr BBC didn’t fancy using its ample number of staff and resources to do any investigating.
Pete says: “Major decisions about London are taken by national politicians in London, not local politicians in London. Local politicians all over the UK have very little power, which presumably is why the BBC hardly covers local election campaigns. So why are they making an exception for the London Mayoral election? That many BBC staff think that the world stops outside the M25 is probably the reason.”
The other reason, of course, is that if Livingstone does happen to win, this can be spun as a great Labour triumph, the Great Cluncking Fist is back on course, everything’s well with the world, etc., etc.
It’s likely Labour will win Liverpool from the LibDems, it’ll be interesting to see how the Beeb spin that if it happens.
“Major decisions about London are taken by national politicians in London, not local politicians in London.”
Not massively true in London’s case. The mayor certainly takes major decisions about London. Congestion charge, big important planning applications, oyster cards etc etc – stuff we deal with every day.
The issue with second preference votes is that because of the way the system works it’s of absolutely key importance. If your first choice doesn’t get in the top two but your second choice does, then that vote counts as a whole vote towards that candidate (no weighting – so Green/Ken or BNP/Boris holds as much weight as Ken or Boris. Which is why it’s important when parties express a preference for their voter’s second choices.
Btw I wouldn’t worry about the Beeb’s spinning as the Standard (read by everyone in London) has pretty much already won the thing for Boris.
The BBC has truly massive resources to mount big investigations and uncover any amount of crookedness and sleaze doesnt it? I mean the BBC could have torn apart red Ken Leavingsoon and his gang of scoundrels and charletons ages ago couldnt they? Er well they could IF they wanted to but they chose to protect him instead! Alex you dumbass, B-BBC is a blog and it does not get state funding to the tune of billions and the BBC is a lavishly funded organ. Can you see the difference?
The B-BBC are trying to uncover and monitor bias and they get no lavish funding and yet the bias is easy to spot, if you want to see it!
Dave is an ex-ITV man and I bet he will have no love for the Beeb.
I hope he will be remembering all of this, storing it up for if and when he wins.
Then it will be pay-back time.
Long overdue, Dave. Stick it to ’em.
“Alex you dumbass, B-BBC is a blog and it does not get state funding to the tune of billions and the BBC is a lavishly funded organ. Can you see the difference?”
I see the difference loud and clear, but I don’t see what this abusive rant has to do with my post. Maybe you should take to reading things before reacting to them.
Martin:
Cassandra: Scott is a Beeboid. They float in and out with “pretend” names, but they are all the same.
By ‘Beeboid’, do you mean works for the BBC? Not true. Or do you mean takes the deluded and deranged rantings of Biased BBC commenters with a huge silo of salt, and laughs at the apparent ease with which said commenters seem to be in danger of bursting a blood vessel in their apoplexy, so desperate are they to feel like what they have to say is important? I’ll freely admit to that one.
Nor is mine a “made up” name – an accusation that’s far more appropriate to level at “Cassandra” and his/her ilk.
Scott,
Don’t take things so personally. A lot of commenters get carried away and post stuff they would not dream of saying face to face.
Sometimes this detracts from the thrust of the blog which is to expose the BBC’s bias. If we cannot get he BBC to abandon its bias, then at least we can open people’s eyes so they see it.
What are your own views about the BBC ? Do you see it as providing impartial news coverage and content that covers a range of views and reflects the views of those who pay for it ?
Or do you agree that a lot of its coverage is cock-eyed. For example its approval of and deference to islam. Or its hatred of supermarkets. And 4x4s. And now plastic bags.
How about the BBC’s own reports into its biases ? The latest was about an anti-business bias. It listed dozens of examples of anti-business bias, and only one example of pro-business slant. The conclusion was the usual weird contradiction that everything is already perfect, but staff must try harder.
Scott,
Cassandra is my real name, thankyou!
Thanks for the ill aimed invective and it only helps my case that you smear and insult without responding? Well thats your right but if you had anything worth listening to I would listen but your boring and empty style cannot be answered, so I wont!
I am so very frustrated by the unfairness of a bigoted and biased BBC and a so called trust that is blind to it all. But hey if you are a senstive soul then why not try one of your beloved socialist blogs? They would suit your delicate senses better I think?
Alex,
Responding to your posts is like trying to nail jello to the wall!
The point was clear I think, in that the BBC employees are highly paid to spout their propaganda OK? On the other hand B-BBC posters monitor this propaganda unpaid as best we can with no help or special trianing, do you see the difference now? Its a real David and Goliath type struggle and we do the best we can OK? You may well hate B-BBC but its still a free world where people can express their views uncensored by the media OK? People post here to share their own findings of bias OK? Can you imagine a monolith like your BBC involving itself in such democratic debate? You and Paatooc and that miserable softy Scott may hate and despise free and ucensored dialogue but here its our bread and butter!
Post script regarding Scott.
Scott doesnt like free debate and Scott isnt used to his sacred cows being critisised and Scott is shocked by forthright views and real world anger? Oh dear me!
All the above are watermarks of a socialist I think? They seem to labour under the illusion that their beliefs and prejudices are immune to any form of critisism whatsoever?
Pretty soon these self absorbed leftists are going to find out that their politics are no longer required by the electorate!
“deluded and deranged rantings of Biased BBC commenters” – just a bit rich, coming from a beeboid …
“the boy Cameron” – yes, the sort of infantile sneer we can expect to hear from a beeboid.
“The point was clear I think, in that the BBC employees are highly paid to spout their propaganda OK? On the other hand B-BBC posters monitor this propaganda unpaid as best we can with no help or special trianing, do you see the difference now?”
And my point was that in this case, it is quite obviously the facts and not the reporting that has a pro-Ken bias. But you chose not to engage with that point and just make excuses for Vance’s rage-plus-free-association style.