Remarkable thing isn’t it? Boris, foreign secretary and cheer-leader in chief for Brexit isn’t allowed to comment on progress and what Brexit should look like but all the Remainers in cabinet are able to not only comment but actually try to hijack the process and make up policy whilst May was on holiday? What’s more remarkable is that the BBC’s finest political stooges for Remain don’t notice the hypocrisy.
Amber Rudd appears on Marr and the BBC headline with Brexit: Boris Johnson ‘back-seat driving’ over Brexit, says Rudd.…never mind that it was Marr who put those words in her mouth. What the BBC doesn’t tell you is that Rudd is an ardent Remainer and anti-Boris fanatic who is hoping to be Party leader….so many reasons for her to put the boot in to Boris…but the BBC doesn’t notice as it happily quotes her bashing Boris about his article.
Oh hold on….that article that Rudd is castigating Boris for…she hasn’t actually read it…..’Asked if she had read his article, Ms Rudd said: “Unfortunately not. I had rather a lot to do on Friday. There was a bomb that nearly went off in Parsons Green.’
What is also remarkable of course is that she and the BBC didn’t hyperventilate so much and sensationalise about a real intervention when Phillip Hammond actually tried to change Brexit policy whilst May was on holiday. Do you remember all the fuss and excitement from the BBC and the likes of Rudd when he did that? No…because he was doing what they wanted….backseat, or was it frontseat, driving Brexit in the directon they wanted…ie no Brexit….Rudd in fact jumped into the frontseat with him…as Sky reported….
Theresa May departed for her annual hiking holiday in the Swiss and Italian Alps on Monday – but if you thought that might lead to a pause in politics, think again.
Leading Remainers in her Cabinet are using her absence to draw up a Brexit plan.
Chancellor Philip Hammond seized on his position as caretaker prime minister last week to spearhead a pro-business Brexit policy – arguing there should be no immediate changes to immigration or trading rules when Britain leaves the EU in March 2019.
Meanwhile, fellow arch-Remainer Amber Rudd pledged Britain would not close the door to European workers after Brexit, telling employers they will have up to three years of transition to adjust their recruitment practices once Britain has left the bloc.
The BBC also gives us this on Boris’ article….
Meanwhile the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority has written to Mr Johnson, questioning his decision in the 4,000 word article in Saturday’s Telegraph to refer again to a disputed figure used by Leave campaigners during the referendum about the UK’s EU budget contributions.
“I am surprised and disappointed that you have chosen to repeat the figure of £350m per week in connection with the amount that might be available for extra public spending when we leave the European Union,” Sir David Norgrove said.
“It is a clear misuse of official statistics,” he added.
Trouble is it is more that Sir David Norgrove is abusing his position and misusing offcial statistics when he criticises Boris because Boris is in fact right as we’ve noted in a previous post. Boris says we will ‘take back control of £350 million’….and that figure is correct if the rebate is included. The point is is that the rebate is still the EU’s to give or take back…it can revoke that privilege and indeed, as we noted, seems intent on doing so….thus ‘taking back control of £350 million’ should rightly include the rebate figure. Perhaps Sir David Norgrove should sit down and actually read and understand what is being said instead of involving himself in the politics. Perhaps the BBC should also sit back and take a more critical look at what he says…but then as he is voicing the Remain narrative why would they do that?
Note Norgrove also that Boris doesn’t take into account the fact that payments that come back to the UK to pay for projects here will probably still have to be paid for….that proves the point that Norgrove doesn’t understand Boris’ point…it’s about who decides what that money is spent on not the actual amount. Perhaps someone in such an obviously important and influential position should be more careful about their interference in politics.
Not only should Brexiteers get more proactive promoting Brexit and Britain’s glorious future but maybe should also be more active and critical in judging how the BBC is reporting Brexit…the BBC clearly cannot be trusted one inch to bring us an honest and accurate picture of events.
For instance here’s their analysis….
In his article, Mr Johnson had said the UK should not be giving the EU any money to gain access to the single market after Brexit and said he would like to see a lot of the money recovered from Brussels going to the NHS, repeating the disputed referendum claim that exit could provide an extra £350m for the health service.
Except he did not say anything like that…he said some of the money could go towards the NHS, he did not say all of that £350 million could go on the NHS. The BBC report it in this way so that they set Boris up for later interviews in which they will claim he did say that and he will have to spend his time denying what is a BBC lie rather than giving the good news about Brexit. It is a deliberate misinterpretation of his comments that the BBC knows is wrong…he does not think there is £350 million extra to spend as the BBC says he says…his point is that we should decide how to spend it not Brussels. The BBC, and it seems Norgrove, deliberately or otherwise, misreport that.
Norgrove is not a statistician.
Just another fat cat, literally from the photos I have seen, on a gravy train.
“a clear misuse of official statistics”
Well Norgrove, very few people believe Government Statistics, official or unofficial.
Not just in the UK, Governments, worldwide have a large, still growing, credibility gap.
Because they are untrustworthy.
The BBC didn’t like Boris’s article because he called them out when he said – words to the effect – that did you notice every time something good in the UK happened on the BBC it was ‘despite’ Brexit.
I wonder how many people really read his article especially the £350m as he actually said “roughly £350m” and “it would be fine thing if a lot of that money went on the NHS” – not all of it and he put caveats around it.
I think the article was quite balanced….clearly the BBC’s sense of balance is skewed..What happened to Andrew Marr? He used to be a good presenter – willing to wade in on either side to get an answer..alas not now
Marr, a good presenter?
I remember now. I was next door, mowing the lawn for my elderly neighbour, between 9 and 10 AM on Sunday 12tth September 2004. I must have missed this unique occasion when Marr was a good presenter.
What’s hard for the BBC to understand?
You have £350 million a week extra ( or £276 net if they prefer ) to spend .
You can spend it on the NHS or defence or road building or housing or ice cream or. ….anything .
And you don’t have to spend it all on one item , you can spend it on two items , or three , or six , or 276 or …. more
And you don’t have to spend it the same way every week . You can … well , vary it over a period of time if you like .
Perhaps before I lose the will to live , I’ll put it in Janet and John simplicity for BBC personnel.
Beeboids, when you get your wages , do you spend it all on only one thing and that one thing every week for ever ?
Why has Sir David’s letter been made public?
Does he not have to abide by the Civil Service Code?
In particular:
“ensure you have Ministerial authorisation for any contact with the media”
and
“act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers, while at the same time ensuring that you will be able to establish the same relationship with those whom you may be required to serve in some future government”
Jim,
Well If he didn’t disclose his letter he might be left off the Christmas party list of some of his liberal left chums. In fact getting more invites may have been the main reason he wrote the letter in the first place. Signalling ones virtue is de rigeur in fashionable circles these days you know
PS. There are lies , damn lies and statistics. This chap is the high priest of statistics so you know that he is likely lying through his teeth.