The 8.10am item on BBC Radi 4 Today is a wonderful example of the BBC doing everything possible to defend the previous Labour government’s many follies – in this case the poorly negotiated PFI schemes that now cause so much misery in the NHS. Humphrys was on top form and before we even got to the interview with Andrew Lansley, there was a set up interview with  John Appelby of the Kinh’s Fund who insisted that in the “greater scheme” of things, the “few” billions added by PFI “investment” were nothing to worry about. Cue Lansley and an onslaught from Humphrys which demonstrated both a woeful lack of economics (unsurprising coming from a denizen of State largesse) and a real determination to try and defend Brown and Balls. It would be touching were it not so blatantly biased. Oddly enough, although I have waited for almost 4 hours there is STILL no link to this part of their programme, the inefficiency is staggering.

Following on from this, a Biased BBC reader notes;

“The BBC are going big on the disastrous PFI contracts which will cost us Billions extra. I looked at the comments on the story but was surprised at the comment which was the ‘Editors Pick’. 

9. Tony
“I have huge admiration for our health service, to my mind one of the best in the world. We can argue and complain about the past funding issues for ever more. I as a tax payer would love to pay a little more tax to keep it out of private hands but whilst it remains a political issue regardless of political colour, nothing will change. Lets all pay a bit more for something we all rely on.”

This was in vast contrast with the main body of comments.

Another Labour Luvvie

The BBC began election year with a new topical comedy show hosted by a Tory-hating Labour supporter. What next, Labour luvvie Dermot O’Leary presenting election coverage? Actually, yes:

X Factor host Dermot O’Leary told of his “excitement” at the prospect of fronting a political show in the run-up to the general election.
The 36-year-old told the Radio Times he is obsessed with politics – but said the show would not be “particularly serious”.
The magazine said O’Leary is in talks with the BBC about presenting a political programme.
O’Leary said: “I won’t be the man with the swingometer, but politics is a huge obsession with me, so I’m incredibly excited about it.

Here’s O’Leary talking to the Guardian in 2003:

Labour, Tory, Liberal or Socialist Workers?

I suspect that these days I’m politically closest to the Socialist Workers, but they’d take all my money so it’s still Labour.

And from an article in the Independent in May 2005:

Shortly before the general election, O’Leary was branded a Labour luvvie after inadvertently suggesting at a Make Poverty History rally that Tony Blair should become head of state.

That rally, which took place during the 2005 election campaign, was covered by Ben MacIntyre in The Times:

OH, LUVVIE, I can’t tell you how marvellous it was; truly, darling, an unforgettable performance. There we were at the Old Vic Theatre — just twelve hundred of Labour’s closest friends — waiting for Tony and Gordon to do their matinee double act, when the whispered word went round the audience that the greatest political performer of our times would be making a cameo appearance — none other than old blue eyes, schmoozer in chief, the trouser president: Bill Clinton himself, via live satellite link.

The occasion was a rally — the biggest of the campaign so far — to mark World Poverty Day and held by the Make Poverty History coalition. Everybody who was anybody was there, le tout Labour: there was Dermot O’Leary, Big Brother presenter, and Alastair Campbell, Big Brother enforcer, and June Sarpong, the Channel 4 presenter.

The announcement of Ms Sarpong’s addition to the BBC election team can only be a matter of time.

"You can’t be racist towards white people"

Here’s BBC favourite Jo Brand during an interview with stand-in host Phil Williams on Radio Five Live’s Simon Mayo Show yesterday:

Jo Brand: My personal opinion is that you can’t be racist towards white people. You can be prejudiced about them but being prejudiced isn’t an illegal act whereas being racist can be.

Phil Williams: Don’t you think racism is just being derogatory about a race, regardless of the colour?

Jo Brand: No I don’t. I think the definition of racism also encompasses political power. So you can’t be racist towards a race that’s politically more powerful than a minority. That to me is the correct definition of racism. I think you can be prejudiced towards a group of people who are more powerful than you, but I don’t think you can be racist towards them.

Have at it.

(The guest immediately before Labour Party luvvie stalwart Jo Brand was Labour Party luvvie stalwart Patrick Stewart. Both just happened to have signed a letter condemning the Tories for their links to the Polish Law and Justice Party. Coincidence?)


It doesn’t matter if they are Conservatives, Labour, Lib-Dems – whatever. The fact is that the sheer greed of the political caste at Westminster is truly monstrous. Playing within the rules that they set, and that they policed, the enthusiasm with which they have ripped US off knows few limits. But how do you think the BBC is covering the issue? With The Telegraph providing us with details of how Conservative MP’s have had their snouts in the trough of taxpayer funded largesse, do you detect a difference in BBC reporting?

When this news broke last week and it was Labour’s dirty little expense secrets that were revealed, the BBC narrative was all about how this damaged our confidence in politicians. Instantly the issue became outward looking and was presented in terms of lost public respect for politicians. But now it is Conservative expenses the spotlight is all about the Conservatives – firmly fixed inwards. The other aspect is there is a tone difference in how this is reported. Don’t you think there was a sense of dismay when the Labour skeletons fell out of the expenses closet, whereas this last few days there is an evident delight at being able to expose the folly of the Conservatives – with a dash of class war envy thrown in.

The Labour Defence Team

The Labour Defence Team Newsnight

Michael Crick and Newsnight did a smear job on Friday on the Government’s abuse of power in arresting Damian Green, in a programme flagged up by John Reith spins in his grave in the comments.

Crick begins his report (20 mins into the BBC broadcast ) by talking of the “mystery” of Damian Green’s leaks, and how this may run and run. Of course, the question (not mystery, as motives are not lacking) of why he was arrested and held for questioning for 9 hours at all is one which needs to be fully and swiftly explained, but this angle the BBC ignores. They wish to imply that the Government’s actions are above suspicion.

At the beginning of the item we are treated to a sinister close up of Green’s eyes- the suggestion being that there must be some sinister underlying issue. We were given a short clip of David Cameron’s response to the arrest, and a short clip of Clegg doing the civil liberties bit, and then we were fully into the Nu-Lab love in. Jacqui Smith worded herself carefully in claiming that the arrest was not authorised by ministers (how about “suggested”, with “suggested” guarantees, Jacqui?). The fact is that the Government is answerable for the actions of the police, and in this case more so than usually, but this angle too was lost. Martin Salter (Lab) backed up the action, making great play of the wording of the accusations against Green of not just receiving but “actively conspiring” to get the leak. This follows Crick’s own use of the word “procuring”. But what does this mean? These locutions are simply smears- leaking is active, and information must be gained. Does it mean the information was paid for? Are they talking of bribery (bribing a public official)? If so, they had better say so. The BBC not only lets a Labour politician smear Green, it participates in advancing that smear.

Then Crick segued into a historical perspective. It seems promising when a young Gordon Brown is shown in archived footage defending his own mole in the then-Conservative Government. Crick though immediately cuts to another Nu-Labour figure, Geoffrey Robinson. Robinson refers to Winston Churchill getting (or procuring?) leaks from Chamberlain’s hapless administration! Genius. Brown and Winston in the same breath- it’s a running BBC joke played on the public.

All the time that they build this picture of noble leaking- to Brown and Churchill- however, they are carefully implying that there is more to it in the case of Green. Crick’s final comment seals it:
“last night it looked like it [the Green arrest] could badly embarrass the Government, but tonight it is less clear, with some Labour sources saying the Home Office leaks didn’t just go to Damian Green, but to other Tories too”

How does it alter the situation that colleagues of Green were involved? In fact it would make it even more likely that the leaks were conventional if they were shared among Green’s colleagues (I don’t know what an unconventional leak might be, actually, but I am sure the BBC/Nu-Lab can come up with something). To the viewer however it suggests conspiracy, and dark forces at work (maybe the vast right wing conspiracy?) in the Green “mystery”. There’s something they’re not telling us, the BBC imply, warming to their theme. But surely it is for the Government (not the Conservatives, or Green) to answer for its arrest of a Member of Parliament? The BBC (and Crick) forgets its place, if it ever knew it.

It’s necessary to reiterate the real issue: Green was arrested over an apparent leak. This was a wholly exceptional response to a normal state of affairs in which many politicians have participated. The question is why this Government is so authoritarian, why it holds such antipathy towards its political opponents, and, for us, why the BBC is so wedded to the Government’s point of view. Smith, Salter, Robinson, and Crick himself are all Labour loyalists (Crick joined Labour aged 15 and intended for many years on a career as a Labour politician)- Crick wheeled out his comrades to peddle a Government perspective. The BBC is biased.


Following on from Nick Robinson’s onslaught against the Conservative Party tonight, (see previous post) I now see that the offensive against Caroline Spelman led by the BBC continues. It alleges that some (un-named) Tory MPs are calling for Pparty chairman Caroline Spelman to be sacked, after further evidence emerged about her payments to her nanny. Mrs Spelman’s secretary complained in 1999 that the Meriden MP was using Parliamentary allowances in this way, BBC Two’s Newsnight has learned. Well, it MUST be true then. Hey, look like we’re gonna party like it’s 1999 again – with the BBC remorselessly pursuing Spelman for her decade old alleged sins whilst the likes of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, not to mention the blessed Wendy Alexander, get a sympathetic hearing for their totally understandable financial accounting misunderstandings.


It’s been quite interesting reading the lead stories in most of the Sunday press today concerning the alarming prospects for PM Gordon Brown and then comparing these with the BBC. With gloom and doom everywhere as tales emerge of plots and intrigues, Gordon Brown can at least gain small comfort in the re-assuring BBC headline that there is “No appetite to oust Brown as PM.” From Jabba the Hut (Prescott) to Postman Pat (Johnson), the BBC has helpfully provided a forum for those selected to calm Brown’s nerves. It looks to me that the BBC wants to see Brown survive, but only if he moves to the left.


; Another day and another piece of steaming Labour propaganda served up by the BBC, this time in its grovelling report of Mr Broon’s “Global moral vision” (Cough Splutter) speech at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh. Note that the BBC uses this as an opportunity to attack Margaret Thatcher – who, unlike Mr Brown, was a three times winner much to their eternal chagrin.


I listened to an outrageous item on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning around 7.20am concerning the forthcoming Crewe by-election. As you know, the portents suggest Labour may well lose this rock-solid seat held until her recent death by Gwyneth Dunwoody and it seems to me that the BBC is absolutely determined to bail out poor Gordon. The Great Leader is due on in about 15 minutes time to discuss his long term “vision” for Britain – myopic I would suggest and I can’t stomach listening to it but this earlier item has set it all up very nicely for Mr Brown. It took the form of interviewing people in Crewe and oddly enough – the majority of those the BBC found indicated they would, albeit reluctantly, be voting Labour! The BBC even managed to find Liz Dawn – Vera Duckworth of Coronation Street – urging voters in Crewe to vote Labour. Apparently voters are keen to get the “long-term” vision from Labour which nicely dovetails into what Brown will drone on about shortly. It’s my view that this item was constructed entirely to set up the later Brown interview in a way which accommodates the PM and it gave no sense of the mass dissatisfaction that every other opinion poll has found in Crewe. It’s a remarkable insight into how the BBC operates, biased in favour of it’s BBC pimp and shilling for a Labour victory even though WE know that a defeat is MUCH more likely. I can’t wait until the result of this election becomes known although the BBC also got in the pre-emptive strike that by-elections are by no means indicative of the result of a general election. I suggest that the BBC – like Labour – is in full-on denial mode – and it is a pleasure to watch.