THE SHAMBLES..

Interesting to read the BBC’s lead story in their UK news this morning – namely the Labour assertion that the Coalition “u-turn” on hot pasties and caravan tax proves what a “shambles” Government policy is. Labour’s Rachel Reeves is given some very impressive headlines which certainly must make Miliband happy and which will keep the momentum going that may help Labour return to power in 2015.

Now I do agree that the Coalition is showing complete ineptness, and Osborne in particular has left the Government wide open on these fronts, but let’s not do a BBC and forget that had Labour not plunged this country into massive Debt then there would not be such an urgent need to try and rebalance the National Budget.

Through the BBC prism, 2010 was year zero and what happened between 1997 and 2010 has now been erased. This contrasts with how the treated things in 1997 and the subsequent decades when “Thatcher” was still brought up at every opportunity to prove why things were less than perfect in the sunny uplands of New Labour. Cameron got the reverse treatment – and in a small degree, I feel a bit sorry for him. The revisionism that has taken place since 2010 is quite shocking. I fully accept that Labour want it to be that way – who can blame them for seeking to erase their toxic fingerprints from the scene of the economic crime but WHY would the State Broadcaster collude?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to THE SHAMBLES..

  1. Old Goat says:

    Because they is a labour stooge, innit….

       25 likes

    • The General says:

      “The British Broadcasting Company……Your National Labour Activist !!!!”

         22 likes

  2. Roland Deschain says:

    Cameron got the reverse treatment – and in a small degree, I feel a bit sorry for him.

    Sorry, I can’t even muster a small degree. The BBC boil should have been lanced in 2010, but the Tories have shown practically no appetite for it, thinking that if they suck up to the bully they might be left alone. It hasn’t worked that way, will never work that way and still few of them ever come out and say it, so they deserve everything they get.

    To his credit, Boris Johnson alluded to it, and eventually we get this “we’ve looked at it and decided we got it about right” piece but it won’t be followed up. Until the Tories are prepared to do that, they get no sympathy here.

       37 likes

    • As I See It says:

      Further to your point about the Tories not standing up to the BBC, we saw Blair at Leveson yesterday explaining how when he came to power he failed to take on the Murdoch press. I do hope Cameron was watching.

         16 likes

      • john in cheshire says:

        What Mr Blair failed to explain is that during his and labour’s reign of terror, the press, the politicians and the police all colluded against the ordinary people of our nation. I doubt taking on Mr Murdoch and his newspapers ever passed through Mr Blair’s scheming mind.

           19 likes

        • Fred Bloggs says:

          I like the description ‘reign of Terror’, one aspect that does not get aired is the lack of evidence. Blair did not have a mobile, his expenses were shredded before 3 years were up. No paper trail of any kind has been found.

          He is either very lucky or ‘leaving no written evidence’ was a calculated plan right from the beginning. That is why the ‘Andrew Neather’ comment will never be proven, unless someone talks.

             22 likes

    • Backwoodsman says:

      With you on that one, my dear. My ex MP is one of DC’s ‘inner circle’. Various right minded local party members have lectured him at every oportunity on the problems they would face if they didn’t deal with the bbc problem urgently.
      May as well have talked to the wall for all the good it did ! Prat still sends me begging letters, asking me to get my cheque book out for the party.

         10 likes

    • Exactly, Its not as if Cameron is a conservative. He has gone so far left that he more akin to Livingstone.
      Yet the BBC still hate him. Any sensible person would put two and two together and see that appeasing the BBC does not work. The only thing Cameron can try now is to re-brand the Conservatives – maybe the “EU Pink Party” may just sway the BBC enough to let one of Camerons A-Listed untalented career politicians to finish a sentence on the Today programme.

         6 likes

  3. Jake says:

    Don’t any of you get it? The Tories don’t want to stand up to the BBC, it’s all smoke and mirrors. It’s an illusion perpetuated by the people who are really in charge. As long as people keep voting Tory/Labour/Liberal and moaning and paying their taxes, the powers that be, whoever they are, will achieve their goal i.e. total globalisation and a world population dependent on the state. There is absolutely no difference between Labour and Tories, the only reason Labour were removed (not by the voters but by the people at the top) is that G Brown had gone partly mental and actually thought he was the one at the top. You can moan on and on about the BBC but it will never change.

       20 likes

  4. uncle bup says:

    Amazing, no, how the tories let the complete non-events that were pasty/granny/caravan tax be blown up to the size they were by the Labour Party and its in-house television station.

       15 likes

    • Demon says:

      To be fair Bup, Sky are following the BBC lead on this as they always seem to do these days. They are minor things that should have been mentioned and then passed over to real news.

         8 likes

      • Michael White says:

        Although of course Sky are not obliged to be impartial, and do not charge a TV tax.

           11 likes

        • Demon says:

          I agree, but my point is that the media all seem to regard this bit of nothing as all important and that the BBC were no different to any of the others.

          My suspicion in that the others all follow the BBC line as it is the most influential media organisation.

          It’s frightening that we only get the BBC (Labour) spin from all television outlets. We need a counterbalance for democracy’s sake and we ned it NOW!

             13 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        In 2 years’ time the pasty tax, granny tax, charity tax and any other vile Tory policy the BBC see as an imposition on the Left’s inalienable right to spend, spend, spend on every undeserving cause in our blighted island, will be but a fondly-remembered dream, for it will be then that the true meaning of austerity is understood – Greek style.

           9 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        So much for the Murdoch press being in bed with Cameron, then.

           6 likes

        • Yoshitatsu says:

          Keighley Super Sundays Sunday Novermber 29th and Sunday December 6th. Join us either or both for fun and friitlioves. Meet 35 Devonshire Street at 11am

             0 likes

      • Guest Who says:

        ‘Sky are following the BBC lead’
        SKY need to fill dead air space and garner eyeballs.
        Making something into nothing does that.
        So a bimbo peroxide sink with an iPad will ask a bald git standing outside Westminster what the bubble is in a froth about this hour, and he will oblige with ‘sources say’ all day.
        They know it’s twaddle. Any with a brain knows it’s twaddle.
        However, it is also dangerous too, as those on the sofa at 11am or 4pm don’t know it’s twaddle.
        However, I can hold SKY to account, with DD or eyeball removal.
        The BBC does it purely to sway policy and get those that suit its agenda, and influence, in and back on track.
        They are also unaccountable, by any means. Ever.
        That’s the difference… and infinitely more dangerous.
        Form Levenson’s witch hunt show trial skew to Cameron et Al’s touchy-feely love-in disasters, the net result is a UK being flushed down the sewer of history… using the compelled funding from those who will be shafted first and most.

           1 likes

  5. alan says:

    Cameron’s biggest mistake, and why he didn’t get a majority, was bowing down to the BBC and trying to transform the Tory Party into the ‘Nice Party’.

    Which of course begs the question why has the vastly powerful and influential BBC managed to evade any censor so far at Leveson?

    Then you might ask why Campbell and Blair have been given a free pass and allowed 13 years of media manipulation and corruption to go unchallenged.

    Back to Cameron….perhaps he should take a few hints from the Muslim Brotherhood whose dictionary doesn’t have the words ‘compromise’ or ‘sell out’ in it…..

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100160657/revolution-what-revolution-asks-egyptians-but-the-liberals-lost-for-a-reason-we-can-all-learn-from/

    ‘This blog is, I guess, directed at people with an interest in Egyptian politics, but as I said before, this election has lessons for us too.
    The three losers appealed to people who like to argue about politics and ideas, and have “messages”. But they were essentially dilettantes. The Brotherhood and the ex-regime spoke directly to the concerns of ordinary Egyptians, and said what it could do for them.
    The Brothers frighten the West with their Islamism. But their campaign talked about education for the poor, and defending traditional values. They came out strongly in favour of free market economics, and while it would be wrong to say Hayek won the election, in most of provincial Egypt, the imam, the teacher, the engineer and the local shop-keeper make more sense than semi-Marxist rhetoric coming out of Cairo; think of Britain and France in the 1950s, captivated by Angry Young Men and Sartre respectively, but voting Tory and Gaullist, and you get the idea.
    Shafiq had one message: Mubarak was Mubarak, but security is security; two years ago you could walk the streets safely, and now you can’t. For communities traumatised by crime, that speaks loud.’

       9 likes

    • alan says:

      meant ‘censure’ although a bit of censoring wouldn’t go amiss at the BBC.

         1 likes

  6. chrisH says:

    Thatcher was still being used as an excuse by Labour well into 2006 as I recall…16 years after the poor soul had left politics.
    How come thirteen years that turned this country into an EU Landfill site for the worlds psychopaths and Islamic nutjobs is not given any consideration for being the cause of much of what we`re seeing now then?
    Couple of examples…the run up to Ken Clarkes bit on Today glossed over the names of “prominent people” getting sued over rendition to Libya….might one of those be Jack Straw by any chance? They`d namecheck him if he was shafting the Tories-so why no mention of him in this case.
    And another-apparently the “U-turn” by Ken Clarke on secret trials was thanks to the work of “civil rights activists”…on the 8am news item.
    But only ten minutes before,Nick Robinson said that the “climbdown” on this issue was due to the Tories having to get the Daily Mail back onside with a little red meat for their readers-in other words, the Daily Mail can claim “credit” for the Tories turning round on this issue.
    But no-the news says it was due to “civil rights activists”…so when I buy my Mail tomorrow I can claim to be one of these BBC pet people from now on.
    Might at least get me onto Question Time as undercover anyway.
    F*** the BBC!

       12 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      And of course the banking crisis was all her fault as she was the one who de-regulated the financial sector. Funny it took 18 years, then, to unravel.
      In actual fact, it was the supervisory role which Brown removed from the Bank of England which did the damage. Had the B of E still been responsible Northern Rock would have been brought to book immediately its balance sheet looked like getting out of kilter.
      Have B-BBC ever made this distinction? I think not.

         14 likes

  7. dez says:

    “Through the BBC prism, 2010 was year zero and what happened between 1997 and 2010 has now been erased.”

    Yes such as in 2007 – when George Osborne said he agreed with Labour spending plans for the next three years:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

    Or in 2004 – when Oliver Letwin (then Conservative shadow chancellor) was calling for *less* regulation of the banking sector:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2889945/Letwin-promises-Tories-will-abolish-FSA.html

    How convenient that you don’t seem able to remember these things…

    I blame the BBC.

       0 likes

    • Reed says:

      You managed to drag up two stories that prove to be beneficial to Labour – strange choice when trying to refute the idea that the BBC is pro Labour.

      …and of course you miss the point entirely. The “2010 as year zero” theme alludes to the BBC’s CURRENT news reporting, not it’s past efforts.They seem to have deliberately forgotten (since the last general election) or are incapable of referring to any negative apsects of Labour’s 13 year legacy. All the bad stuff began in 2010, and that’s the way they’ve reported the news since that date….get it?

         8 likes

      • Span Ows says:

        Worse than that, his whole comment, links and all, has absolutely nothing to to with the first quoted sentence that he seems to think he is dissing.

           4 likes

    • Passersby says:

      You forget that Labour went on a further spending spree in late 2008.
      .

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3563520/George-Osborne-Our-reckless-PM-is-leading-us-down-the-road-to-ruin.html

      .
      As for bank regulation , the tories were against Labours tripartite regulatory system which Labour started to introduced in late 1997.
      .

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo971111/debtext/71111-06.htm#71111-06_head1

      .
      A long read , but interesting to refresh memories of the times and of the arguments of the day.
      .
      BTW
      Macro-prudential regulation has been or is about to be stripped away from the FSA and placed within the BoE. I believe the FSA is now a financial consumer rights regulator.

         4 likes