. Despite all the apparent economic gloom, I am sure you will have been pleased to listen to the upbeat economic assessment provided by Hugh Pym and the gang on the Today programme this morning just before 8am. It seems everything is coming up roses and excuses were generously offered up for the Great Leader – we were even told directly that the government “could not be blamed” for several of the factors afflicting our economy. Funny thing is, during the boom years, I can’t recall the BBC informing us that growth “could not be blamed” on Prudence – can you? The BBC seems determined to make us think that the sun is going to shine again and that the dear leader will benefit from these happier times. Now back to the Olympics and the big question – Sharon Davies – can you really get enough in-depth interviews from her?
BRING ME SUNSHINE
Bookmark the permalink.
The economy is doing swimmingly, why tractor production has reached record levels…
And let us not forget the wheat yield has set a new record..Hugh Pym will be covering it in detail later…
Very interesting item on Guido’s site, highlighting beeboid excesses in covering that favourite lefty hobby horse, the US ( well, actually, democrat !) conventions. In a nutshell, utterly absurd levels of staffing, irregardless of cost, in a manor that no commercial entity could even begin to consider.
The comments show we are not alone in considering the bbc a) laughably biased towards labour, b) outrageously cavalier with the taxpayers money.
A number of diferent solutions for dealing with the bbc problem were proposed, some of them quite radical. The interesting thing is that politicians are known to regard this blog as a reliable indicator of public opinion , so expect the bbc problem to move higher up the political agenda in comming months.
Sharon Davies?
Ugggghhh, Boris Karloff with tits.
Many politicians read Guido’s blog but they are well aware of the fact that most of the commentators are Tory or UKIP supporters and are not representative of the general public.
Re the Olympics, can’t anybody on the BBC team ask an interesting question? (I don’t expect an interesting answer – these guys are obsessives after all). The questions posed to the active participants are either “How do you feel now you’ve won/almost won/lost?” or “What’s your excuse for losing?”. The multiple choice answers are “fantastic”, “gutted” or “it’s heat/cold/humidity/jet-lag/muscle strain [or similar]”. I don’t think I’ve ever learned anything new or gained any insight into the sport or sportsman concerned from the endless interviewing.
If, instead of acting as the state-sponsored cheer-leader, the BBC just showed us the events, gave us the results and covered the occasional medal presentation I reckon 99.9% of viewers would be more than happy. As someone commented earlier Eurosport apparently gets the same feed as the BBC and there are no interviews, just sport. (Yes, there are ads but, hey, that’s what pays for the transmission: on BBC we still get moronic and loud background music and “links” during the broadcasts together with ads – for other BBC programmes – between programmes). Moreover, and I know it’s difficult to believe, but “Team GB” (why not Team UK BTW?) is not the only group competing. There are sports where Team GB is not represented (or not represented very well) which may be just as interesting to viewers. Unfortunately the daily hour summaries on BBC are either obsessively UK centered (with mandatory interviews (as above) wasting time which could be devoted to covering sport) or, wonder of wonders, concentrated on whether Phelps (an American!) can garner 8 golds: who cares (except Phelps, of course)?
BTW why does the “News where you are” have journalists reporting from Beijing? The coverage of “local” London news is, in general, appalling anyway (much of it doubling up with national news especially if there’s a bit of knife crime by individuals of no ethnic origin or Watford Tories have had a pillock as their next Parliamentary candidate foisted on them or – perenially – Boris can be made to look foolish). Local news isn’t improved by non-news coming to us from the new paradise which is China.
And how do you know how commenters on Mr Fawkes’ blog vote, Edward?
It seems more likely to me they accurately reflect the utter contempt with which the political class in this country is held.
And that includes the BBC’s role in politics.
I have long believed that politicians, civil “servants” and journalists have a biased view of the political inclination of the British public, and all for the same reason; they have never had a real job. If you mix only with people from a certain, very narrow, background you are not likely to meet the broad spectrum of views in the wider population. If you have a “proper” job you will mix with Lawyers, Accountants and Engineers, and with people with absolutely no qualifications at all, and people at all levels in between. I would guess (from experience) that these people are slightly further to the right politically than the Law, PPE and English graduates populating parliament, the civil “service” and the BBC. This is one reason why, for exsample, Cameron tries so hard to appeal to a fictitious left leaning “centre” while ignoring 40% of voters’ concerns.
That`s funny I was talking to a newspaper bloke today who thought everybody was feeling an economic chill.Houses and cars are the main advertising revenue for local newspapers ,and selling spaces in their editions are getting harder.So how come everthing is rosy in BBC land ?
Oh I forgot, they are not subject to market forces.
MarkE | 12.08.08 – 5:10 pm
If there really are so many people whose views are to the right of David Cameron – as you appear to claim – how come Labour have been in power for eleven years?
anonymous wonders: “If there really are so many people whose views are to the right of David Cameron – as you appear to claim – how come Labour have been in power for eleven years?”
Four (main) reasons: 1/ People were conned and battered by relentless propaganda (much of it from the BBC)
2/ ZaNuLabour talks like a Right of centre party (more so than Cameron’s pasty-faced Conservatives).
3/ ZaNuLabour didn’t win the 1997 election. The Tories lost it.
4/ ZaNuLabour is kept in power by the Celtic fringes – notably the source of so many of its cabinet minsters: Scotland.
MarkE: Any sitting Government has the upper hand. If you look at the last few elections the traditional Tory vote has held up well.
It’s the floating voters that decide an election and as others have mentioned Governments lose them, oppositions don’t win them.
Nu Liebour has the stench of rotting flesh just like Major’s Government had in 97.
The PM prog invites a Guardian propagandist Bill Emmott on and he gets a prime spot to lecture the proles about just how good the economy is doing, how the housing market is great ie lots of cheap housing for the masses, he said lower prices are good for buyers,if you are a home owner with no mortgage then things are great, altough I think he forgot the part about the lack of mortgages! Hey things are great according to comrade Bill, so you proles get out there and spend more money on cars and holidays etc, or else you proles might actually cause a recession, you naughty proles, its all your fault and of course the worlds fault! Comrade Bills line seems to be there isnt a problem with the UK economy and even if there were which there isnt, its not Labours fault. Employment up, exports up, prices falling soon, fuel prices coming down soon,food prices coming down soon, everything is fine! Altough I dont think the Guardian is the best example of economic competence is it? Its a money loser kept afloat with a backdoor subsidy from central government in the form of advertising fake gravytrain nonjobs(only socialists need apply)and a fake charitable status(just like the Smith Institute)so I would think(and this is just me thinking)that the Guardian and comrade Bill are not the best choice of guest to examine the health and future prospects of UK PLC?It must be just a happy coincidence that Comrade Bills glowing report about the UK economy just happens to compliment Gordon Brown and NuLabour perfectly? Of course no hated right winger was invited on or no independent(not the paper)economist was invited, but they might have given the wrong answers and may have even critisised the ‘party line’, heaven(sorry workers paradise)forbid! In fact the whole PM prog was given over to NuLabour support, Hmmmm is this the much talked about Nu impartiality? where Labour gets a fair 99% of positive airtime and the Tories are given a more than fair(considering how evil and cruel they are)share of 1% also taking into account impartial BBC polls that show Tory support among the peace loving working masses and the united workers proletariat is almost non existent!
I feel like singing the ‘keep the red flag flying here’ and all that load of old malarky!
Sharon “How do you Feel?” Davies.
That`s a point Cassandra, the BBC (subsidised by a telly tax) and the Guardian (subsidised by sales of Autotrader ) think the economy is rosy. Provincial newspapers (not subsidised )are feeling worried.
Original Robin,
Yep, anyone not on the state sector gravytrain subsidy is getting the shitty end of the stick alright! But then again from NuLabours perspective, anyone not fully signed onto and enjoying the state sector gravytrain by now is an enemy of the state/enemy of the people and they are getting their just rewards as class enemies! NuLabour have shown themselves to be lying, petty,vindictive,corrupt,shallow and self interested crooks of the first water!
Hugh Pym eh? What a good ol’ BBC name.
Wonder whos ‘fag’ he was at Oxbridge.
Cassandra. Word to the wise. The paragraph is your friend.
Anonymous: “If there really are so many people whose views are to the right of David Cameron – as you appear to claim – how come Labour have been in power for eleven years?”
Apathy, low turnouts and our voting system, surely?
1997: Blair got less votes than John Major in 1992 on the lowest turnout since the war.
2001: Blair gets less votes than Kinnock in 1992.
2005: Blair gets the support of just 22% eligible to vote, and 36% of those that did vote – the smallest share of the vote of any winning party in any British general election. The conservatives get 33%.
I wouldn’t have said that that evident lack of enthusiasm was well reflected in the Beeb’s coverage at the time.
Anonymous: Hague, Howard and the other bloke (you know, the really charismatic one) all tried to emulate Blair by appealing to a left of centre “middle ground”. Cameron is now doing the same but with two advantages they lacked; he is pretty enough for the cameras (like Blair) and, as you correctly say, Labour are on target to lose the next election. I will say here however that although the Conservatives may well achieve an ample majority, they will do so with about 40% of the votes cast in a turn out below the feeble 60% of 2005. Of the 40% who do not vote some are as apathetic as politicians and commentators say they are. The remainder are the slightly right of (true) centre who would love to have a voice but have had no one representing their interests since 1989.
If the current duopoly could be broken and this 35% of the electorate were to be mobilised by a new (or existing) party they could change the face of British politics the way the “gang of four” and the SDP almost did, and for the same reasons; the SDP offered a less left leaning alternative to Labour until John Smith moved Labour to the right. UKIP offer a less left leaning alternative to Cameron’s “Conservative” party, but lack the benefit of BBC support. If they could achieve critical mass, such a party would then start stealing votes off the Conservatives and could realistically expect to form a government. Unfortunately the Conservative party will probably survive in the same that Labour survived the SDP, from voters remaining loyal to parties that have long since moved away from teh policies that first won that loyalty.
The tradegy of teh Conservative party is that every time they have had a leader with conviction they have enjkoyed great success, but such leaders are not immortal. When the leader falls and the Conservatives are soundly beaten, instead of looking for another strong leader they look for a clone of the victorious Labour leader. Heath was a grammar school “meritocrat” like Wilson, and was an unmitigated disaster for teh Conservative and for the country. Cameron is a clone of Blair. I doubt he will be much better than Heath.
Mark E,
Basically, is the question
If there was not a Conservative Party in excistence, would you make one in the mould of what this party is under the spiv Cameron ?