All about Gordon

I do recommend the BBC’s reporting on Gordon Brown’s statement of angst. It’s a merciful sight shorter than the Guardian’s version.

Quite why we need to be subjected to Gordon’s musings on his public persona I don’t understand. There seems to be some suggestion that Gordon deserves a right of reply against his critics. It’s as if the BBC thinks that all the British public has been viewing is the coverage of one Guido Fawkes Esq. It’s really a terrible situation. The BBC and Guardian seem to think Gordon’s had a hard press. In fact, he’s had a risibly easy one. The BBC and Guardian seem to think that the scrutiny of his personality has been too intense. In fact, Gordon has been waging personality politics and character assassination cabinet throughout his unelected tenure- unimpeded until the aforementioned Fawkes exploded a bomblet under Damian McBride.

Even the article which they are now using to promote Gordon’s version of events only draws upon Labour sympathisers as sources. Tony Wright (Labour) MP is given the final word, saying that “any PM” who had to preside over Britain through the economic crisis would be unpopular. I strongly disagree- there are many examples of crisis hit countries with popular PMs- but where is the dissenting voice against the Brownian emotional appeal? I think Gordon is extraordinarily lucky that no major media outlet is linking up the dots between the 40% of the world’s o.t.c derivatives trade that Gordon boasted was in British hands in 2006, and the economic crisis which the collapse in credit and demand has caused world-wide (helpful article here). I think the public can join up the dots, but our media has too many interests entwined with presenting the economic crisis as originating elsewhere (the USA if pressed to be specific). This applies in spades to the BBC, whose commitment to the NewLabour project has been unimpeachable since Broadcasting House was littered with empty champagne bottles in 1997.

THE RISING TIDE….

Crashing sea on shore
Wonder what you make of the suggestion carried by the BBC this morning that “One in six homes in England is at risk of flooding, says the Environment Agency, and climate change will raise that number without better protection”

The agency calculates that funding for projects that protect communities from flooding from rivers and the sea needs to double to £1bn annually by 2035. Without that, it says, economic damage worth £4bn per year could be the norm. The agency’s report uses data from the government’s projections of UK climate impacts, published on Thursday.”

The BBC just loves this sort of climate alarmism and never provides a voice to those who challenge the wild claims emanating from The Met Office and the other organs of eco-wackery. In this way bias is consistent and never challenged. What worries me is that the power and presence the BBC has in so many homes throughout this land gives this insidious propaganda a real menacing aspect- brain-washing so many into accepting the radical environ-mentalist agenda.

QUESTION TIME LIVEBLOG

Just a reminder that tonight is Question Time night and we will be liveblogging it so please come over for the hour of good natured (!) debate!!!

“David Dimbleby will be joined in Sunderland on Thursday 18 June by Lord Falconer, Kenneth Clarke, Edward Davey, Polly Toynbee, and Esther Rantzen.”

Ester Rantzen – oh my god, what did we do to deserve this? Bet Clarke will be used to open Tory wounds on the EU….

WE ARE ALL HIZBOLLAH NOW?


Do you recall the very sympathetic treatment the BBC gave those loutish trash who used the Israeli defence actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon to trail through the streets of London and proclaim that “We are all Hezbollah now”? Funny how the BBC are subdued on the news that Hezbollah and Hamas are supplying thugs to put down the insurrection against the Mullah’s? Cat got their tongue??

The audacity of distraction

On the day when the unemployment figures surpass those of any time since “things could only get better”, the BBC have found the perfect story to fill the space and relegate jobs to a lower position on their UK news webpage: racism in Belfast. Normally this would be somewhere tucked into the N. Ireland backwater pages, but somehow this time it’s really critical.

What was fascinating, as I took a glance at the ONS June update on employment was a rather startling figure concerning employment of “British borns” versus overseas workers. I don’t pretend to be able to contextualise this thoroughly, but it does bring perspective on the Romanians in Belfast story. Here goes:


“The number of UK born people in employment (not seasonally adjusted) was 25.28 million in the three months to March 2009, down 451,000 from the three months to March 2008. The number of non-UK born people in employment (not seasonally adjusted) was 3.81 million, up 129,000 fromthe three months to March 2008.”

Needless to say, this was not in the BBC report on the jobs news, which was stuffed with “not as bad as expected” voices.

Establishment

It seems to be the word here at the moment, but it most certainly applies to this “profile” of the new Head of M16 Sir John Sawyers. So boring, from the Pierce Brosnan comparison through the description of him as “astute”, “effective”, “effusive”- sorry that last one describes the tenor of the article rather than the man- it is simply nothing more than p.r. Embarrassing stuff from Laura Trevelyan.

On a related note, the BBC’s chief Sir Michael Lyons is fighting against the proposal to share BBC funding. I think this proposal at this stage is just a ruse to put off the evil day when the BBC has to manage with less or none of the Licence money. The Labour party and the BBC are never really off the same song sheet. This story is reported by the Times, which has its own agenda against BBC exceptionalism, but hypocritically also against the free internet, as is shown by its vicious campaign against the blogger NightJack, among other things.

Lacking perspective: who here is establishment?

I read with interest a BBC article about Lord Rogers’ anger with Prince Charles for an apparent intervention into an architectural tendering process for Chelsea Barracks. He alleges abuse of position which calls into question the constitutional position of the Monarchy. Kind of an overreaction one might have thought, from a man surely aware of the undemocratic vagaries of planning processes.

Having only a fragmentary knowledge of architecture I did a bit of looking round and found, lo and behold, that Rogers A) is one of NuLab’s favourite architects, B) was responsible for the Pompidou centre (knew I knew him from somewhere; the only good thing about the PC I understand is that it is in Paris, and mercifully remarkably well hidden), and C) had a long-term feud going on with the classical architect, Lady Thatcher’s favourite, Quinlan Terry. According to Roger Scruton, “No one has been more malicious in the attempt to deprive Terry of work than the great guru of modernism, Richard Rogers”, and “When at last Terry fought his way through to a public commission in London — the new infirmary at the much-loved Royal Hospital in Chelsea — and had obtained all the necessary consents, Rogers had the impertinence to write to the Deputy Prime Minister asking him to call in the plans.”

Let’s be clear about this: Lord Rogers is the establishment man in this story; any other perspective is studiously ignored. The Prince is branded, Terry is ignored. Rogers’ own ideology and associations are unexamined. The BBC could scarcely be more biased. They must think it is all ok.