‘Guest Who’ points out this article in the Mail in which the Tories complain about Flanders being the Voice of Labour:
‘BBC host accused of ‘peeing all over British industry’: IDS fury at ‘carping and moaning’ broadcaster as report casts doubt on jobs boost
- Iain Duncan Smith has made a formal complaint to the BBC over its coverage of employment figures
- The Work and Pensions Secretary accused Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders of showing a pro-Labour bias
- Claimed the BBC seizes every chance to ‘dump on the Government’
- BBC said it was confident coverage of the figures was impartial and fair
Is Flanders the ‘Lady Haw Haw’ of out time, broadcasting propaganda? Strangely not only did she have relations with the two Eds but is distantly related to George Osborne with some very posh ancestors….
‘Probably less good news for Ed M and Ed B is that they are also linked to the Chancellor of the Exchequer via Stephanie, whose rich vault of ancestors includes Sir Thomas Osborne, the ninth baronet, and George’s great-great-great… well, you’d need Steph’s phenomenal grasp of figures to work that one out.’
HRPissan’steff…
Those of a certain age will twig.
At last a Conservative minister says openly what we all know about BBBC “impartiality.” It exists only in the minds of the Beeboids. Well said IDS!
Better late than never I suppose!
Does Stephanie Flanders still think that there “are no signs of inflation” in the UK? Or that Greece “will get nowhere near default”?
This Stephanie Flanders?
She has very poor taste in the men she beds.
Every programme should include a scrolling ticker indicating which politicians hacks have screwed or are related to, just as MPs are required to declare their connections in the register of members’ interests.
Could it be that biased BBC is inspiring Conservative ministers to say what is being documented here day after day. Next step should be a parliamentary enquiry to investigate whether the BBC is repeatedly contravening its charter obligations.
This enquiry is urgently needed and should be wide ranging in scope
That snooty, privileged woman epitomizes the upper-class, rich-kid left-winger who , as a result of her exemption from the day-to-day grind and graft which us mere mortals have to endure, can fart about preaching humanity, fraternity and sandal-wearing probio-yoghurt love.
The perceived post-Olympic boost with which the BBC have congratulated themselves has brought about a big increase in the institution’s arrogance and their presumption that we are all ‘socialists together now’. And this has been demonstrated in last week’s Newsnights, which have been some of the most aggressively biased and diversity-pushing editions I have seen.
Regards the economic propaganda by the BBC, I am glad that IDS has picked up on this. The more high-flying recognition we have of BBC Left-wing bias, the better!
I wonder if he reads this site? Maybe he should start… perhaps the Conservatives should make this site compulsory reading; it could just save them from electoral oblivion!
Quick! Sunday Morning Live’s just started on Al-Beeb 1 and complete leftie crackpot comedian Owen Jones is on it.
Phew, thanks for the tip! I managed to turn it off just in time. Why would anyone want to listen to this little tossers view on anything? He hasn’t been on this planet long enough to know anything.
Well as I said, he’s a comedian, and i’m always up for a laugh, so..
One of OJ’s first side splitters – and completely uncontested by the presenter – was that Bahrain was invaded by Saudi Arabia last year! – which was far from exactly accurate and would certainly be new news to the Bahraini government.
Owen Jones is one of the BBC’s licensed left wing liars – unless appearing on the Andrew Neill show.
(Sorry to repeat what I’ve just written in the Open Thread, but this seems a better place for it.)
IDS should know he’s dealing with The Untouchables and his complaint is futile.
Why do so many lefties and hippies seem to come from faily posh backgrounds? My theory is that having rich parents to fall back on when it all goes wrong insulates rich socialists from economic reality, and gives hippies somewhere to go when it gets to cold for a yurt.
A few leftie pop singer types come from money easier to take the risk forming a band when the bank of mum and dad are there if it does not work out.
The guilt of unearned privilege is washed away by concern for the under-priviledged. It is a form of narcissism: “see what a good person I am?”.
Well said mate. I attended an arts college back in 2000 with the intention of doing a music degree and was astounded by how many upper-class, rich-kids were there, driving around in BMWs etc., when I could hardly afford a tin of spaghetti hoola-hoops. I left after a year because I found the snooty, massively opinionated lefties there unbearable; you know the types, they grow huge beards, where scruffy wooly jumpers and big hobnail boots with some choosing to live in caravans… but I was always charmed to note that although they lived under these false pretenses of being ‘homeless’ they always had loads of disposable money, lovely guitars and nice mobile phones. I remember one lad, who on first sight you’d think he was an unkempt homeless poet-type, met his parents one weekend to get some food and money… they turned up in a £80, 000 Jaguar!!! It is these types who saturate the Occupy, UAF and socialist workers’ movements. They are all upper-class, spoiled scum who have never had to live in the real world.
Needless to say, I left the course!
They sound like Student Grant. I met the same sort of people at university, ordinarily our paths would never have met but then you’re thrown together with these insufferable lefties and they’re fucking loaded. I’m just an ordinary working class type so I had no money – just enough for beer – but they were wadded and do you know what? I never got a pint out of it.
They are socialists because they can afford to be.
with these socialists types it doesn’t matter if they are upper class, middle class or working class none of them have no class.
….none of them have any class.
or
…they all have no class.
“They are socialists because they can afford to be.”
…and the rest of us will be all the poorer for it. The ‘equality’ agenda is a race to the bottom.
Indeed – ‘Excellence for all’.
Just to be difficult. How should rich kids act? If they act rich – they are snobs. If they act poor – they are pseudo socialists.
How does one act middle-class?
This has often irked me. My take of this is that these people are told from a very young age how special they are and they can soon see it for themselves. At the age of 6 or 7 they mix with people of their own social standing and no other (just like most people) and they get a great boost of self-worth. They have the best toys, their dads drive the best cars and their mums are of suitable trophy vintage. Their lives are sweet.
But then they get to big school and start to mix with the really rich – and they are all Tories. Suddenly their toys are not the best, Daddy’s Audi is a Lada compared to Twistelton-FFuch-Rabbits Daddy’s Roller and mummy maybe hot but she doesn’t have the charm and manners of a real lady.
So how do they react? With hate and jealosy and the desire to rid the world of those ‘better’ than they. They become the sort of rich socialists you describe so well.
It’s certainly not because they have any love or understanding for the working class!
I’d say at least 95% of socialists are jealous of their betters. Most lefty’s now don’t seem to breed and thats not just the homosexual ones.
Supplementary.
‘Telegraph’:
“Iain Duncan Smith in attack on BBC over jobless figures.
“Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has accused the BBC of ‘carping and moaning’ over jobless figures.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9485510/Iain-Duncan-Smith-in-attack-on-BBC-over-jobless-figures.html
‘Sky News’:
“Tory Cabinet Minister Accuses BBC Of Bias.
“Iain Duncan Smith claims BBC coverage of the latest employment statistics showed a pro-Labour bias.”
http://news.sky.com/story/974294/tory-cabinet-minister-accuses-bbc-of-bias
I honestly thought at first that this bit was a joke written by somebody here:
A BBC spokeswoman said: “BBC News is confident our coverage of this story was impartial, fair and balanced, reflecting a wide range of views. Indeed Mr Duncan Smith expressed his position on several BBC outlets.
In other words, “Two Eds” absolutely was giving the view from the Left, which is why the BBC can claim that their reporting of IDS’s statements was the “balance”. But the “wide range of views” is utter BS because there are only two views on offer. I know it’s boilerplate and they don’t really mean it, but, I mean, this means that they don’t really mean it. Why is this acceptable?
In the interests of accuracy and honesty, the rest of it:
“Stephanie interrogated numerous aspects of the figures in her analysis. She echoed questions raised by many experts, including the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England as well as noting the rise in the number of people in work was good news.”
Sure, but the Deputy Gov. of the BofE is surely not advocating Ed Balls’ pseudo-policy. There’s a huge difference between questioning the full package of one policy and saying it’s all no good. As for “noting” that the rise in employment is a positive, that should be the whole effing point and not an aside. Unless, of course, one disagrees with what it means, in which case the charge against Flanders of bias is accurate.
You make a very good point. it appears that in the BBC’s eyes, allowing somebody on to give a view different from the BBC view (or, which is the same thing, a considered take as stated by a BBC journalist/analyst) is “impartial”. In other words the BBC admits by implication that there is a “BBC view” and, in this case (as in most of the others as it happens) the BBC view is – where it is not precisely identical – separated from the Labour view by the thickness of a cigarette paper.
You also make the good point that allowing airtime to only two views (“for” and “against”) is not by definition “impartial”. For instance discussion on Today on some aspect of government policy is usually restricted to a relaying of that policy by some hapless government supporter/member and a criticism (either from the official opposition or a carefully chosen “independent” such as, say, Will Hutton) from the left. On such occasions criticism from the right of any particular policy rarely gets a look in.
I know it’s boilerplate and they don’t really mean it, but, I mean, this means that they don’t really mean it. Why is this acceptable?
It isn’t, but as stated above, if IDS is on a hiding to nothing, and all know it… the solutions seem to extend beyond BBC CECUTT.
I’m just amazed it didn’t read..‘BBC News is confident in its belief that our coverage of this story was impartial, fair and balanced..
BBC-NUJ: Blairs and Brown.
BBC-NUJ used to so support Blairs and Brown when Labour was in power; but now it seems BBC-NUJ censors its reports on them out of political embarrassment:
1.)
“Cherie’s £75m private health empire based in a tax haven… which she’s setting up with a Right-wing friend of Sarah Palin”
By PAUL SCOTT.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2189982/Cherie-s-75m-private-health-empire-based-tax-haven–s-setting-Right-wing-friend-Sarah-Palin.html#ixzz23z3hAh43
2.)
“Gordon Brown claims £20,000 for flights to London.
“Gordon Brown has spent nearly £20,000 of his parliamentary expenses on flying between London and Edinburgh, despite rarely appearing in the House of Commons.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/9483222/Gordon-Brown-claims-20000-for-flights-to-London.html
And just to rub it in, another Labour Party Political Broadcast on the mid-day R4 news. Alastair Darling, hailed by the newsreader as he who saved us from a full-blown depression (I kid you not), has written an open letter to George Osborne in today’s People telling him he needs a Plan B (yawn) with Labour claiming (so the BBC tell us) they have a far better plan for the economy than the Tories, and here’s their shadow Business Secretary to tell us a bit about it………. but he didn’t. Instead he muttered and mumbled something about how the Tories never had a credible alternative for banking regulation when they were in opposition. In other words, a total non-sequitur and a distortion of the truth as in fact it was Labour who changed the regulatory framework with disastrous consequences.
In summary, around a minute’s worth of Labour spin and deceit with no challenge from the BBC or right of reply for the Tories.
Well done, BBC – The New Untouchables – yet another shining example of balance and impartiality!
A message on Keynesian economics for BBC-NUJ’s Ms Flanders:
“A message from the 1970s on state spending:
‘We used to think you could spend your way out of recession and increase employment by boosting government spending,’ boomed the Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, at the 1976 Labour Party conference.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/9484414/A-message-from-the-1970s-on-state-spending.html
Is Labour’s Alistair Darling now BBC-NUJ’s political proxy for Stephanie Flanders as critic of UK Government?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19310258
Seen as Flanders was something of a Labour Party bike, I’d say ‘Lady Haw Haw’ was close enough.
Top precision bombing IDS!!
“Tories to closely monitor BBC for left wing bias ahead of party conference season.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190766/Tories-closely-monitor-BBC-left-wing-bias-ahead-party-conference-season.html#ixzz244CkV0iT
There still seems to be concern, at least enough to show how unconcerned everyone is…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-complaining-dance.html?
While such a comment might inspire smug smiles and knowing winks amongst all within the 4th estate around the bar, and especially the Westminster bubble subsidised ones, ordinary licence fee payers, especially any moved to share concerns with the entity they are compelled to fund, may be less impressed that this is all simply considered a game where ‘form’ templates are shunted about to look like things are happening when the main aim is ensuring nothing does.
The BBC default cookie cutter response to any complaint is a disgrace.
It prides itself on holding power to account, but moves heaven and earth to ensure that the same does not apply back.
So no, from where I look it is not ‘good stuff’.
One area where Stephanie Flanders does seem to have had some success is in negotiating her holiday allowance with the BBC. There are often long gaps between her online blogs. Does anybody know how long her holidays are?
All paid for from a licence fee from people that her and her Cowardly IBBC Socialists, coke snorting, rentboy using comrades hate with a passion.
Whatever they are, they seem shared by a few fellow ‘editors’, from Mason to Robinson, whose blog threads and twitter posts are shall we say, ‘gathering dust’ as the BBC’s market rates also enjoy periods of (one presumes paid) leave on par with those oppressed teachers from the local comp I have seen all day dragged in to moan about down-grades.
That said, at least she has yet to ‘phone one in’ as Our Nic did a while back to trash George B and fluff Balls.
Made for one of the better CECUTT exchanges, where they ended up conceding he had written about something he actually didn’t at the time know anything about, but this didn’t matter as he was ‘experienced’ enough to know what it was about even when he didn’t.
That was worth it for the laugh I had alone.
Sadly wiped as their reply to mine was neatly timed while I was away on my hols, and their deadline managed to expire before my return, so the complaint was abandoned.
Everything is very open with a very clear
clarification of the issues. It was really informative.
Your site is extremely helpful. Thanks for sharing!