Well, I was on the BBC this morning to make some points in support of Lord Young. It was the Nolan Show. Unhappily it was a fact free zone other than those I tried to make but with Stephen interrupting and challenging me whilst allowing Maguire a free run it was frustrating. The meme is that Conservatives = heartless and evil. It’s a pity that Cameron has thrown Young to the wolves but one could ask who was it that appointed Young to the job? Young gives them a line of attack into Thatcher so they love that. As I did point out, Public Sector workers have never had it so good. Don’t think that went down well. It’s true though but truth gets in the way of Coalition bashing, the BBC’ s main preoccupation.

An Irrational Fear of God at the BBC

The BBC, along with the rest of the Left-leaning media, has from almost the very start tried to portray the Tea Party movement as a far-right, extremist movement. At first, their main Narrative was that racism was the primary motivating factor behind the movement, with a generic anti-government theme as window dressing. When the movement which the BBC at first ignored, then played down, kept growing far beyond their expectations, the next Narrative was that it was a primarily Christianist movement. This of course was intended to lead the audience into thinking that the Tea Party supporters were clearly off the deep end, as all good Liberals know that anyone who self-identifies as a Christian is halfway towards extremist beliefs anyway. The recent offerings from various BBC-enabled comedians on such programmes as Have I Got News For You and Radio 5 are proof of this mindset.

As we got closer to the mid-term elections in the US (to which the BBC reacted as if it was the second-most important election in human history), the BBC made all sorts of efforts to portray the Tea Party movement as extremist and Christianist as possible. The staggering number of times they mentioned Christine O’Donnell and the fact that the BBC only once mentioned Marco Rubio and Col. Allen West until about a week before the election (and then only in passing, with no features at all) betray the BBC’s biased agenda for what it was.

A few days before the election, the World Service’s “Heart and Soul” programme gave us an installment entitled “God and the Tea Party” (Oct. 27 podcast). Here, Matthew Wells went to Kentucky to speak to a number of Tea Party supporters. Without exception, no matter how much they professed their Christian beliefs and their attitude that the US was a “Judeo-Christian country”, based on Judeo-Christian values, all of them equally expressed their desire for government to stay out of people’s lives and stop the taxing and spending (Note to bigots at the BBC: If someone makes an effort to include the Jews, they’re not the bogeyman you’re looking for). Yet, Wells kept pressing each of them to express their Christianist goals anyway, as if they all harbored a secret desire to turn the US into the Christian equivalent of Saudi Arabia. Then Wells gave a good portion of the segment to far-Left journalist and think-tanker, E.J. Dionne, who said that yes, they’re all extremist Christianist, but don’t worry because the far-Right Christian movement is not going to last long.

At one point, despite what the people themselves told him, Wells stated that conservative, Christian social issues are “at the heart” of the Tea Party movement.

In August, Mark Mardell had the same thoughts, wondering if the Christian Right wasn’t really at the heart of the Tea Party movement. Again, he asks this in spite of everything they keep telling him. It’s as if he suspects it’s all a big smoke screen. Mardell could always be counted on to find the outlier that fits this agenda and let that color everything.

Then, of course, there’s Glenn Beck, whom the BBC kept trying to portray as being a leading light of the movement, even though he’s actually a social conservative who tried to jump on the bandwagon, and did not come from the heart of the movement itself. There is a wide overlap between conservative Christians and supporters of the movement, but that’s all it is. Beck’s big rally in Washington, DC was for the former, not the latter. And let’s not forget Sarah Palin. The Beeboids sure haven’t. I’m sure the screener of her new reality show is already making the rounds, and they’re having a great laugh while at the same time being slightly afraid.

With this whole Social Conservative Christianist Narrative in mind, how does the BBC explain the fact that now several Tea Party organizers have written an open letter to the Republican Party leaders in Congress, telling them to lay off the social conservative issues and focus on stopping the taxing and spending?

I’m reproducing the full letter below. Read it, and decide for yourselves whether or not this matches the BBC Narrative across their spectrum of broadcasting, or what I’ve been saying for the last 18 months.

On behalf of limited government conservatives everywhere we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement.

Poll after poll confirms that the Tea Party’s laser focus on issues of economic freedom and limited government resonated with the American people on Election Day. The Tea Party movement galvanized around a desire to return to constitutional government and against excessive spending, taxation and government intrusion into the lives of the American people.
The Tea Party movement is a non-partisan movement, focused on issues of economic freedom and limited government, and a movement that will be as vigilant with a Republican-controlled Congress as we were with a Democratic-controlled Congress.

This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue, nor should it be interpreted as a political blank check.
Already, there are Washington insiders and special interest groups that hope to co-opt the Tea Party’s message and use it to push their own agenda – particularly as it relates to social issues. We are disappointed but not surprised by this development. We recognize the importance of values but believe strongly that those values should be taught by families and our houses of worship and not legislated from Washington, D.C.

We urge you to stay focused on the issues that got you and your colleagues elected and to resist the urge to run down any social issue rabbit holes in order to appease the special interests.

The Tea Party movement is not going away and we intend to continue to hold Washington accountable.

Here’s a link to a PDF file of the letter, with all signatories.

After more than a year of careful observation, the BBC has figured out that the Tea Party movement has mostly been busy trying to transform the Republican Party (Scott Brown in MA was an anomaly to them, a sign of nothing to come, apparently). But their bias makes them think it’s for an entirely different reason. Why, it’s almost as if they had a story they wanted to tell and went out there and told it, in spite of everything they learned from the very people about whom they were supposed to report.


Sorry it’s taken me until now to catch up with you all but I’ve been engaging with the BBC this morning. Sort of. Let me explain. The Nolan Show was covering the CSR this morning and had invited representatives of local political parties on to discuss it. Except mine. We were treated to student grant “Smash the Tories” gibberish – including a vox pop that contained those ready to follow the Marseilles Model of street protest. I eventually was allowed on after complaint. I was gifted about 2 minutes during which I spoke up for private business, criticies the establishment class, demonstrated a half £billion saving that Nolan instantly rejected, and was then promptly dispatched. When you’re saying that which they do not want to hear you get the exit treatment from Labour’s broadcasting arm. Nolan even raved about the Conservative Secretary of State Owen Paterson, stirring up the Smash the Tories Trot line even more. Appalling stuff.


Anyone catch this interview on Today? John Humphrys versus Theresa May. As ever, our intrepid BBC impartial interviewer (it’s in his DNA) was out to grill the evil Conservative and I think he gave the game away when at one point he claims “your job is to protect police jobs”. No, her job is to provide us with an efficient and affordable Police Force. In the BBC world view, the role of the politician is to protect Public Sector jobs at all costs. Humphrys all too evident hostility towards May is simply the manifestation of BBC outrage that the scale and size of the State can be directly challenged.  However rather than cut back on Police numbers, I would prefer the Government to get us a cool £3bn per annum saving by cutting the parasitic BBC from the public purse.


It’s going to be a crunch week for the Coalition and the BBC is out to ensure maximum damage, as one would anticipate from such a biased leftist broadcaster. So, take the news this morning that the leaders of 35 of the UK’s most successful large companies have come out supporting Chancellor Osborne’s approach to making the necessary cuts. It’s good news for wee Georgie but Robert Pesto (He who speaks in an odd voice) isn’t impressed. As he puts it...

“However, some people would point out that these bosses may be experts at running businesses but that does not make them experts at how best to manage the economy, our correspondent adds.”

Great point, Robert, Oh, and some of them are are “widely viewed” as ..gasp, supporters of the Conservative Party. Where will it end? Who needs Labour when you have the BBC to oppose the Coalition?


I bring you this via the Libertarian Bulldog…

“The BBC has made available on its website a 54 minute recording of the discussion in Parliament about the quangos situation. The page is headlined:

Quango reform will cost jobs, warns Maude

No, really? Wow, who would have thought it.

I’m not watching the entire discussion so cannot say whether Frances Maude did or did not make such a warning. What I’m pretty sure of though is that he probably said something more interesting in his speech than the obvious. In fact the article quotes him saying:

For too long we have had quango pay spiralling out of control so that seven people in the Audit Commission are paid over £150,000 a year at a time when the average civil servant’s pay is £23,000.

Would it be too cynical to suggest that the publicly funded BBC didn’t want to bring too much attention to the positive sides of cutting government spending on non-government jobs?”

No, not cynical. 100% accurate


Listen to this interview by Sarah Montague and in particular focus on her tone when she engages with Conservative Francis Maude. The glacial edge is so obvious, hostility barely disguised when she gets going. I can’t understand why the Conservatives indulge the BBC, treating it as some sort of benign national treasurer when in fact it is an international malignancy.  


Interesting piece of analysis sent to me by a Biased BBC contributor…

“I have looked at the BBC Website Politics Home Page stories for the 3 weeks covering the party conferences. The analysis was done by reading the headline of the story where possible since this is the impression any reader of the page first gets. If unable to allocate the story I clicked on the story to read it in order to categorise it as good(in favour) or bad(adverse). 

The categories were good and bad for each of the 3 parties and the rest were allocated to Other.

Over the 3 weeks there were 496 headlines, 35% related to the Conservatives, 37.5% to Labour, 13% to the Lib Dems and 14.5% to Other.
The ratio of good stories to bad were: Conservatives – 3 good for every bad story. Labour – 6 good for every bad story. Lib Dems – 8 good for every bad story.
The coverage figures were reasonable since they equate roughly to the size of each party and/or to the current % vote in Opinion Polls.
But the content of each story was twice as likely to be adverse for the Conservatives compared to Labour and nearly 3 times as likely to be adverse for the Conservatives compared to the Lib Dems.
I would call this BBC bias against the Conservative party.”


Brought to my attention by another eagle-eared B-BBC Reader, Ryan.

“Have a listen to the 10-11PM hour on 5 Live from yesterday. A reply of a “live” debate “from the Conservative Conference”. Several observations —

1. The Conservative debate was the only one to not be broadcast live but shunted to the late evening schedule at short notice and with hardly any publicity because of the Ryder Cup. What is 5Live SPORTS Extra for?

2. Listen to the first 30 minutes and you will be hard pressed to find a more feral bunch. Much worse then any Question Time audience. Was there any audience moderation? I suspect not.

3. Despite repeatedly being misled that this was “from the Conservative Conference” — hmm, you do wonder why a Tory audience was so anti Tory policies — you have to listen for quite a while to hear it was being recorded “just around the corner” from the ICC. Ahh. I began to wonder if it was held at the TUC HQ?”