ANTI-CONSERVATIVE DAY IS EVERYDAY

Cracking morning for Tory-bashing on Today.  At 7.35am Nick Robinson got stuck into what he sees as David Cameron’s inconsistency on Libya. The idea that a UK PM might talk about possible military intervention in the form of an air-inclusion zone outrages BBC sentiment and this was not the last of it. Then, at 7.42am, the BBC runs an item where it brought “Big Society” Minister Nick Hurd to a small charity to see the awful impact of those dreaded Tory cuts! I thought Hurd answered the BBC trap questions pretty well but even so the BBC meme that the “voluntary” sector is under mortal threat was repeated time after time. Skipping past ANOTHER thought for the day from the fragrant Mona Siddique, our favourite Professor of Islamic studies, we arrive at the first cuckoo of spring – or Paddy Ashdown as he is technically known.

Ashdown was on to further discuss the Libyan situation – although I am unsure quite why his Balkans “experience” qualifies him. Ashdown was quick to point out that without the blessing of the UN security Council, ANY prospect of ANY sort of military action in Libya is not possible. Naturally, a tribune to Mr Moon at the UN will always be well received on the BBC.

Given the daily diatribe against the Conservative Party on Today, I fail to see why Cameron continues with accommodating the BBC. It will hollow out his policies and ensure Labour is santised. It will do everything possible to destroy the Coalition. The BBC is the enemy of a sovereign patriotic Britain and it despises anything and anyone who dares assert our national will. But if we prostrate ourselves to the will of the International Communinty – Labour policy – then the BBC will laud us.Listening to this daily dross is not good for me.

Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to ANTI-CONSERVATIVE DAY IS EVERYDAY

  1. NotaSheep says:

    It’s very simple David, stop loistening!  I only listen to the Today programme for an hour or so a week now, I find that my blood pressure has dropped and that my mood has improved; I am also oddly now better informed as to what is happening in the world – I strongly recommend it.

       0 likes

  2. Adman says:

    I’ve stopped listening too, but we have to remember that the vast majority of those who do have no other source of information and are being steadily brainwashed by the BBC. 

    DV performs a vital service bringing the drip-drip-drip of statist anti-Conservative propaganda to our attention.

       0 likes

    • Foxy Brown says:

      Listening or watching any BBC programme is a bit of a quandary,  why do we do it?  Well it has the monopoly, and there isn’t an alternative in terms of news and current affairs.  I used to feel proud of the corporation when going abroad, as it was a byword for excellence in its production values with its mission statement to inform, educate and entertain, as well as being a symbol of the nation.  It still is the latter but for all the wrong reasons.

      BBC delenda est.

         0 likes

      • London Calling says:

        …”We love the BBC in this country. We trust it, we respect it. It feels so wrong that our biggest news broadcaster, which makes so many of us proud to be British, is shrinking its internet presence….The long term effect of these cuts (to BBC websites) will make the BBC less relevant, especially to younger people …”

        Mathew Mitchell, via email. Star Letter , Web User magazine 10th February 2011, £25 winner.

        So, if there were any doubt, you now know what a BBC brainwashed thinker  “thinks” he is getting from the BBC: trusted news. That is the damage that BBC news abuse does. If you “trust it” there is no need to question it or to think for yourself. Merely consume what the BBC offers. Result? Contentment.

           0 likes

  3. Dick the Prick says:

    Very little analysis of the religion of peace and its communicants accidently executing the Pakistani cabinet member but…back to the evil cuts.

       0 likes

  4. Umbongo says:

    If Cameron and other “Conservatives” are not prepared to do anything – or say anything – about the BBC then it’s because they agree with the sentiments behind the bias.  Looked at through that explanation, matters become much clearer: Osborne is no more interested in “cuts” than is Balls: Cameron is no more an EU sceptic than Baroness Ashton: Hague is no more interested in a lasting peace in the Middle East (to include the survival of Israel) than is Hamas. 

    We already know that the coalition has bought into the AGW construct hook, line and sinker.  The coalition is prepared neither to limit further immigration from outside the EU (particularly from Asia and, more particularly, if the immigrants are Moslem) nor deal with the results of the post-1997 immigration.  The “free school” movement, cut off from the ability to make profits (a la Sweden), is hopelessly crippled.  The Coalition is happy to see a continuation of the 50% rule in respect of those entering university at the cost of ruining tertiary education in the UK completely.  The Coalition is prepared to allow the parasites in the NHS and local government to implement “cuts” which have no effect on the parasites’ control of their dysfunctional and money-wasting operations.  The Coalition intends to keep throwing money down the drain of “aid”.  The Coalition is happy to sacrifice our defence capability so that it can spend £billions on “climate change” crapola.

    And on it goes.  The “Conservatives” and the BBC agree on more or less everything.  The only thing they disagree on is that the BBC would prefer to see present policies carried out by Labour rather than the Conservatives/LibDems.  Otherwise everything’s just fine and dandy at Broadcasting House and at CCHQ.

       0 likes

    • hippiepooter says:

      Umbungo, I think they’re just cowed by the huge propaganda guns the BBC can turn on them.

         0 likes

      • Umbongo says:

        HP

        Possibly that as well but – were the “Conservatives” so minded – there are other ways of combatting the BBC.  For instance, why deliver the BBC into the hands of another icon of the political class: Patten?  His politics and beliefs are just what the BBC ordered.

        However, the “Conservatives” haven’t the stomach for any kind of fight because, as I wrote originally, they do not disagree with the BBC line in any significant way.  The only point of disagreement is which one of the three machines representing the political class gets to rule.  Whichever it is – and the BBC prefers Labour – we little people out here, not only get stuffed, but are forced to consume the avalanche of bias doled out (at our expense) by that class’s very own broadcasting system.

           0 likes

        • hippiepooter says:

          I see where you are coming from.  All three main parties subscribe to cultural Marxism.  Cameron looks for pats on the head from the BBC and a more level playing field.  He just gets contempt, which is what he deserves for being so craven before such a threat to the future of our country’s freedom.

          I still live with the hope that Melanie Phillips might get a political realignment off the ground to stand up for British values.  ‘Independent Democratic Party’ I think has a ring to it.

             0 likes

        • Craig says:

          “The Coalition is happy to see a continuation of the 50% rule in respect of those entering university at the cost of ruining tertiary education in the UK completely.”

          As an instance of this point Umbongo, please check out the latest blogpost by Mark Easton, advancing the case for this high intake, and quoting David Willetts in support of his argument. The value of Easton’s post lies not in the post itself but in the comments field below it where thoughtful dissent is gathering and a good deal of sense being written (so far).

             0 likes

          • Umbongo says:

            Craig

            Good points are being made in the comments but, unfortunately, these commenters are representative of the little people who Easton – and the BBC and the coalition – will ignore or, if not ignore, patronise.  I notice that, as usual in these blogs, Mark Easton doesn’t engage.

            The problem remains that it doesn’t matter who is in office, the mindset is the same.  Accordingly, we get the same policies (except for a few minor differences round the edges).  If the Conservatives were really interested in setting education free from the dead hand of the education establishment, they’d go the Swedish route.  For God’s sake the Conservatives are taking enough punishment from the BBC, unions, benefiterati etc already, why not take the punishment for a reason?  The answer to that is in my original comment: because their heart’s not in it.  They actually believe (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that the man in Whitehall knows better.

               0 likes

            • Craig says:

              We’re undoubtably in a bind, with the three main parties, the BBC and some other parts of the media disagreeing with the bulk of the public on issues such as immigation, as well as marginalising/mocking that large well of conservative public opinion, as you say. 

              Traditionally, we’re a pretty phlegmatic people, I think, so we tend to simmer rather than boil. (The only people who’ve boiled in recent decades are precisely the sorts of people the Left has a soft spot for.) Hopefully we’re still capable of rousing ourselves, as we’ve done before, but it’s hard to be sure about that. There are a lot of very lazy people out there, and a lot of very apathetic people out there too!

              As it is, the parties and the BBC will go on regardless until things blow up in their faces. (And, given the threat we face, that might unfortunately happen literally). Even that Populus poll which showed that a majority of British people think that “Muslims create problems in the UK”, that most people think immigration as a whole has “been a bad thing for Britain” and that a significant minority of people (especially British Asians) want a half on immigration, at least until the economy fully recovers, won’t make the blindest bit of difference to how the parties behave.

              That’s the disturbing thing. We can win the argument, but they are in power. They might make a few quiet noises (as Ed Miliband did the other day – which the BBC ignored because they went too far for them), but Baroness Warsi will keep on telling us we’re “islamophobic”, as will the Guardian and Mark Easton, and the BBC will go on producing documentaries about the benefits of immigration and proposed caps will have a negligable effect – if they ever get put into practice. And the country will keep on simmering and get ever closer to boiling.

              The public’s trust in the BBC is still disturbing strong, but we could win that argument too. More and more people do seem to be seeing it, but we are still a minority. Even if we became a majority, would politicians dare to do anything about it? Would they even want to? Would they just ignore us, as they ignore us over so many other things?

              I would love to see Hippiepooter’s dream come true (and will be glad to help him if he succeeds), but it’s hard to see how it could come about under the present electoral system, or under the proposed AV system that might replace it. A realignment of the Right into a powerful bloc is urgently needed, but how is it going to come about before things boil over? It’s hard to see.

                 0 likes

              • Umbongo says:

                Craig

                Spot on, particularly your point about “simmering” rather than “boiling” which is why those who publicly “boil” per recent (and upcoming) violent demonstrations appear generally disapproved of by the public at large.  However, while the lights remain on, food is available, petrol is available (even at unreasonable prices), telly provides sufficient pap we, ll keep on simmering.  Nothing will disturb the slumber of the vast majority until something horrible occurs, then you’ll see a brutal boiling over by the aquiescent classes.

                Unfortunately there’s no guarantee that the anger will be directed at those responsible.  I fear that, if and when the boiling does occur, it won’t be politicians or bureaucrats hanging from lamp-posts, it’ll be the innocents – particularly the immigrants welcomed here by cynical governments (if nobody else) – who’ll bear the brunt of public rage.  After all they are visible and everywhere and the first lot to become “invisible” will be those members of the political class who deserve such condign punishment.

                   0 likes

              • hippiepooter says:

                Craig, join me in sporadically hassling Melanie Phillips to get an ‘IDP’ off the ground.  The recent ruling effectively outlawing Christian couples from fostering/adopting because they dont regard homosexuality as normal is a great peg to hang an appeal to her on.

                I dont see a political realignment in terms of realigning the Right as such, I saw it drawing together the various strands of conservative opinion from across the democratic spectrum, from sections of Labour and LibDem support alike, who more for tribal reasons than anything dont vote Conservative.  Politically, I guess you can call it a ‘right wing social democrat party’ that I’m envisaging.  Or to put it another way, certainly in terms of a military commitment to defend democracy, ‘JFK meets Reagan’.

                   0 likes

                • Craig says:

                  An anti-party party? There’s no harm in trying Hippiepooter!

                  It’s striking though how resiliant the party system is. During the expenses scandal of May 2009, when disillusionment and anger looked to be about to boil over, it seemed for a moment as if something momentous was about to happen. Small parties rose, the major parties looked as if they were in serious danger. Then things quickly went back to pretty much how they were before and how much further are we on now? Our friends at the BBC were instrumental in putting that fire out. They couldn’t wait to move on and kept trying to do so. 

                  Maybe a broad-based movement needs to come first, a new party later? That I certainly could pester Melanie about!

                     0 likes

  5. hippiepooter says:

    “Listening to this daily dross is not good for me.”

    That is why when I lived in the UK I defected as a political refugee to Radio 5!

    Give yourself a break DV and give Nicky Campbell and Shelagh Fogarty a whirl – it would be fascinating to get your take on what difference (if any) you perceive.  You already know the difference I perceive.

       0 likes

  6. Andrew says:

    The perverse part of me hopes they succeed and hand Labour an election victory in the very near future.  Then they’ll have to sort out the mess themselves and won’t any longer be able to pretend on their theorecical approach to resolving this.  Once that happens there won’t be a damn thing the BBC can do to pretend the riots on the street aren’t happening because the people will see them for theirselves.

       0 likes

    • Umbongo says:

      Andrew  
       
      Not perverse at all.  It would have been appalling but better in the long run had Labour won the 2010 election outright or entered a coalition with the LibDems.  That way Labour would have had to sort out the mess for which it was responsible – no excuses, no Tory “cuts”,   A Labour victory would also have had the seriously important benefits of seeing off Cameron and (perhaps) the return of a “Conservative” to leadership of the Conservative Party.  Even the BBC would have found it difficult (although it would have tried) to spin that the ruined economy was not substantially the fault of Labour and, particularly, Brown.   
       
      However, what we got is the worst of all possible worlds: a self-styled “Conservative” government with Labour/statist policies.  BTW don’t kid yourself – I’m sure you don’t – that the greenie/liberal/social justice nonsense spouted by Cameron and friends is a sop to the LibDems.  It isn’t.  It’s what they believe. However,  it’s politic to to leave an impression with the Conservative voters that this crapola is the price being paid for “genuine” Conservative policies elsewhere (which, in reality, are non-existent).

         0 likes

    • NotaSheep says:

      If labour win the next election then all the economic and social woes of the country will be blamed on the four or five years of conservative rule and will have nothing to do with the preceding 13 years of labour misrule.

         0 likes

  7. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I love it when the BBC criticizes someone for not demanding an illegal invasion and regime change sooner.  I remember when they weren’t so encouraging.  Let’s hope the Beeboids continue to support future US-led wars.

       0 likes

  8. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Ah, now I get it:  The Beeboids are really attacking Cameron now because their beloved Obamessiah is backing off again.  All that human rights stuff they were whining about earlier is out the window now that The Obamessiah is urging caution or whatever.  Brilliant.

       0 likes

  9. Bupendra Bhakta says:

    Mr Moon at the UN

    ********************************************

    Mr Ban acherly.  Ki-moon is his given name.

    Just trying to win a pedant award here. 😉

       0 likes

  10. Cassandra King says:

    I must comment on the line below:

    “The BBC is the enemy of a sovereign patriotic Britain and it despises anything and anyone who dares assert our national will.”

    This could and does apply perfectly to David Cameron and his gang of Quislings and sellouts. They truly deserve each other, in short order a great many people are going to suddenly be presented with a truth and reality so disturbing and indeed heartbreaking it will induce a kind of systemic mass shock which will give way to mass anger.

    This time is not far away, a betrayal and treachery so great in scale and so carefully hidden for so long will be presented to us to digest.
    Everyone of us is going to be forced to make a decission on where to stand and what stand we make.

    Cameron and hs lickspittle helpers like Fox and Hague know the truth of it and so does the BBC and the establishment as a whole, we are presented with a little side show of faked differences and petty hair pulling while the common project is advanced.

    The BBC and Mr call me Dave? Imagine if you will the problem of how to hide an alliance and divergence in a common purpose until it is deemed to late for it to be opposed or stopped. Now take a fresh look at the petty digs and squabbles and specious arguments and compare it to the nearly identical greater shared narrative, we see that much of the supposed conflict of political ideals simply has no substance to it, yet the show goes on and on but to what end we ask ourselves?

    We are being played by the establishment they are playing a magicians trick of bait and switch, what we are supposed to see is diferent political ideals battling it out when the reality is a single united allied common purpose. We are being fooled by experts in the art of political deception, we are taken in with the Punch & Judy foolery blinded to the common aims being hidden in plain sight.

       0 likes

  11. dave s says:

    I had a note from my Tory MP today .He seems to think Patten will shake up the BBC. He is normally sensible but on this he is delusional. At least that is my opinion.
    However he does admit to a problem with the beeboid behaviour .
    Which at least is a start.

       0 likes

  12. RCE says:

    This is a great thread. I’ve posted before that it’s in the Tories’ interests for the BBC to continue as it is. The BBC bias is so obvious that anyone with half a brain dismisses or ridicules it (as per this blog); the thickies (Guardian and Mirror readers) who do fall for it will always vote Labour, no matter what. But socialism goes hand-in-hand with idiocy and incompetence, and this suits Cameron and Co in the way it would suit anybody to face an inept adversary: it’s a question of calibration, and the BBC does a sufficient job of undermining itself to stop it being a threat.

    But – just imagine if there was a UK TV/radio broadcaster that was in-line with the views of the majority of British people (see recent Populus survey). This would allow these views to coalesce into a political movement (Tea Party, anyone?)… that would be the end of current ruling elite – and the end of the Conservative Party.

       0 likes

  13. Ian E says:

    ‘The BBC is the enemy of a sovereign patriotic Britain and it despises anything and anyone who dares assert our national will.’

    So does ScamCam : do you not yet see that Cast-Iron Dave is just as socialist, anti-UK and pro-EU as the bBBC?  Of course Dave will do nothing about the BBC when they share all his core values. Chris Patten’s latest job should be enough to make that clear!

       0 likes