What is it about Marx that Stephanie Flanders finds so appealing? Marx told us that ‘What the Communists might be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce an openly legalized community of women.’ …. that is, a system where one person can have multiple partners in replacement of marriage. Hmmm.
Stephanie Flanders, the girl who just keeps on giving. I could almost retire from writing about BBC Bias if Flanders jumped ship and openly went to work for the Labour Party.
Stephanie has dreamt up another scheme to advance the cause and is presenting ‘Masters of Money’ on BBC2 (Mon 17 Sept)…until then you will have to make do with her trail blazing write up in the Times today (No link as £).
As you may have guessed it’s entitled ‘Come back Marx, all is forgiven.’
Now all those millions of people who have been slaughtered by the socialists in the great leap forward in the name of Progress may take issue with that.
She has chosen three ‘Masters’….Keynes, Hayek and Marx. No Adam Smith…one of the most influential economic thinkers of our time…but then probably because, although capitalist friendly she couldn’t find anything to discredit him.
Keynes is of the Left, Marx, well you know about Marx. Hayek is to the Right…but why choose him not Smith? Could it be that he was one of Thatcher’s favourite economists…..it also allows her to connect him to the ‘bad’ US Republican Party via Ron Paul…and the Tea Party….all dog whistles for the Left. Something else though, something more sinister? Hayek was Austrian and contributed to the Austrian School of economic thought….Flanders keeps mentioning ‘Austrian’ rather than ‘Hayek’……finally she makes the connection you are meant to make obvious saying ‘In an environment where the usual policy tools don’t seem to be working, you can also understand why some would be turning to Austrians such as Hayek for a different kind of answer.’
What is odd about that and her constant thread through the piece? Hitler was Austrian, and of course labelled ‘Right Wing’, he was the ‘different kind of answer’ in the 30’s to economic disasters.
Is Flanders trying to associate ‘Right Wing’ economic policies with Hitler? We know that the Left are constantly alerting the world to the ‘fact’ that the European economic problems are ‘enabling’ the Far Right….Is Flanders saying that if we continue down the road of Austerity we will get Austrians goose stepping down the Mall?
Whilst she subtly derides Hayek and tries to damn him by association she bigs up Keynes saying even the Governor of the Bank of England has now ‘got’ his theories….she goes on of course to write glowingly of Marx.
Marx did indeed sum up the essential nature of Capitalism…its inherent flaw in that it grows and grows and then collapses spectacularly…..however that’s just as in Nature and the cycle of life…food plentiful and animals overbreed until they eat everything and their population collapses.
The thing is…there is always a recovery…because it is natural….capitalism will always recover because it is in human nature to trade….the BBC should love Capitalism…it is organic…..it is not a ‘system’, it is not an ideology or something written down in a little Red Book or Manifesto…it is what happens naturally in society where people congregate and have needs and desires.
Communists wish to crush the ‘Human’ and replace it with an ideological ‘machine’ which churns out tractors and tanks and labels everyone as mere numbers.
Capitalism is in fact the only true Communism…who pays for the NHS, the welfare system, the roads, the police, the fire service, the schools, to empty your bins, to light the streets? Capitalism does. Capitalism brings civilisation….‘drawing all, even the most barbaric, nations into civilization’…and cheap flights to the Algarve.
When you want to buy your house or a flash motor do you save up for twenty five years the money you make from your Capitalist job? No…you borrow from the bank…which transfers money from the rich into your pocket as a loan….which you pay back but in the meantime you have a roof over your head for 25 years by which time you own the house.
So ‘redistribution’ is a Capitalist idea….enabling you to live comfortable lives you couldn’t afford otherwise and puts all that wealth to effective use.
Communism is International?
Capitalism is of course the only true ‘international’ system…not caring about borders if business is to be done…even Marx acknowledges this…‘Products consumed in every quarter of the globe…products of distant lands and climes…..no more local and national seclusion…we have universal inter-dependence of nations…national one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become impossible and a world literature arises…the cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls (or Berlin Walls) with which it forces the barbarian’s intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate’.
Flanders tops off her praise of Marx by saying that ‘In hundreds of pages of dense prose about capitalism, however, Marx spent surprisingly few describing what would come after it.’
Well that’s just not true is it. The Communist Manifesto spells out exactly what is intended…the smashing of the Family and all other established Institutions of state and Society to be replaced by the Communist State…no more private property, the abolishing of borders and nationality, along with the Church and ‘all morality’…the state control of banks and finance and all means of communication and transport.
All at the point of a gun wielded by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ ..if you don’t conform and rebel you will be shot. One cow good, two cows greedy and dead.
We can see why Flanders might like to skirt round that…..it’s somewhat inconvenient for the Marxists of the BBC that we have 70 years experience of the Communist experiment to judge just how it works….and many millions of East Europeans voted with their feet when the Wall came down….they liked Capitalism.
Still the BBC have never let the People’s wishes get in the way of their own agenda. A bit of a paradox when you consider Communism is all about putting the People into power.
Excellent blog, Alan. One small point that the left ignores is that reducing income tax is the most Keynsian action that can be taken. After all, cutting income tax means you are spreading more wealth to more people so all taxpayers have more to spend on other goods and services, and that sounds like Keynes to me.
There’s no link to the article being discussed but I think you’re seeing demons where none exist with your Hitler thing. It’s not unusual to describe the Austrian school of economists as Austrians.
Quite.
she subtly derides Hayek and tries to damn him by association’
Truly hilarious. Hayek’s the pin up boy for the Austrian School; flanders’ shorthand is commonly used. And the big debates in economics are between Neo Keynesians and followers of Hayek. Thatcher of course was heavily influenced by the latter
I read the article. Flanders says that Marx understood markets. No he didn’t. He wanted to replace them with central planning. Every time his ideas have been implemented the results have been catastrophic. Because she is a Socialist Flanders fails to register this (to everybody else) rather obvious fact.
She says Hayek is out of fashion in Britain. Hayek never was in fashion with Labour Party supporters such as as herself.
She says that free markets have failed and so we ought to do something different. That is a bit like saying the laws of physics have failed, and so we ought to create a new set of laws.
As everybody (except Socialists) have noticed, the failure is the claim that politicians know best how to run an economy.
As a democratic socialist BBC employee (and Gordon Brown supporter) Flanders thinks that the solution to every problem is more power to politicians.
You yourself use the correct term “Austrian School” , not “Austrians”.
BBC-NUJ: long-standing, and continuing advocate of ‘Cultural Marxism’:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/PoliticalCorrectnessQuotations.htm
Political correctness is the straitjacket that denies free speech and open debate. ‘Alternative’ comedians were its stormtroopers in the early 80s. New Labour then enshrined it in law. It has been enforced since through just about every public body you can name, including (Labour) government funded charities.
Result? A perpetual socialist state, even when Labour aren’t in power.
What a brilliant link George, long but interesting throughout.
If this line is a direct quote, it’s prima facie evidence of bias:
In an environment where the usual policy tools don’t seem to be working, you can also understand why some would be turning to Austrians such as Hayek for a different kind of answer.
First, this is written as if Hayekian – or even center-Right – policies have never been tried, or have never been part of a government’s toolbox. The “usual policy tools” of whom, sweetheart? Your mentor Larry Summers? One of your ex-boyfriends? The US President?
Second, the latter half of the statement is condescending, and presents Hayek’s ideas as little more than some kind of quack alternative medicine that people seek out in moments of desperation.
“Two Eds” is a biased über-Keynesian, and it couldn’t be more obvious.
The problem is that Leftists and their assorted hedonists and moral degenerates have to fill the vacuum left by rejection of Christianity. Thus, we see mere mortals imbued with ethereal qualities and apotheosized as much as any character in the Bible. Leftists despise faith preferring to espouse their beloved rationalism and yet they still yearn to invest their hopes in systems of ideology penned by fellow man. Personally, I believe that we humans are puny organisms in a celestial dance so complex and beyond comprehension that any subservience to another’s system of belief is a waste of time. In light of this, I prefer to believe that there is an intelligent design behind this pantomime… thus, I’ll never be a socialist like Steph and the rest of the self-absorbed know-it-alls.
Oh! Thou speaketh true. Pray continue, pray more wisdom!
Verily. And a hearty ‘Well said, mate!’ to “both” of you!
Brother Duquette, you are Frankie Howerd and I claim my five pounds.
I was in Austria only a month ago.
Plenty far left bookshops, coffee places and the like that reminded me of Liverpool back in the 80s( but better coffee and cakes of course these days).
Marx this and Engels that…much as you`d expect from herbivores over the right side of the border who didn`t have to scramble over barbed wire to show solidarity at any personal cost to themselves.
Just go to Hungary, Poland or the Czech Republic-and it`s John Paul Squares and Ronald Reagan Roundabouts-Palach`s and Walesa`s too!
And my point-those who suffered under Stephs new pals ,despise the patronage and indulgence of flabby decadent self loathing white guilt trippers on perpetual sinecures .They bleat revolution wearing Marc Bolans hat, Wolfie Smiths DMs and posing with Woodys ciggies-but never inhaling-ever!
Why are we taxpayers being made to stump up for these fatuous fools to preach a revolution that cost them nothing-and never would either. Privilege brings protection-and her dad would be ashamed given what he thought of how the world was becoming a hell hole before he went.
He didn`t write “Handbags and Gladrags”….but he could have I`m sure!
The one Flanders Field that`s been ploughed way too often by Labour lefties now pressing their noses to Lenins glass coffin-and they tell US that Rupert is dumbing us all down?
Compared to Mason, Flanders, Penny, Hari, Jones, Bragg, Alibiah Brown and Toynbee…I`d settle for Spit the Dog and Bob Carolgees!…really would!
Stephanie does not have the courage to stand against the BBC Groupthink. BBC presenters are to a man or woman left wing and green. It provides the safety and comfort of being in with the in-crowd. One BBC journalist who expressed doubts about climate change received a turd through the internal BBC post. These people are vile, make no mistake. There is no friendly “Auntie”. They are a cesspit of students union bar International Socialists, cultural Marxists, and straight freeloaders.
Elsewhere Dez had the brass neck to post a link to ‘Echo Chamber’ on wiki.
Irony is another thing the left don’t do.
What makes you think she’d want to? La Flanders has never shown any sign of being anything other than a fully-fledged socialist.
Stephanie’s dad, Michael
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdY1Y5XNJBY%5D
Some people miss the point he’s actually taking the mickey out of English arrogance really. He had quite left-wing views and Swann even more so.
Swan was a pacifist, but there is no evidence for what you say about Flanders.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/feb/20/stephanie-flanders-bbc-economics-interview
“My father [the singer and songwriter Michael Flanders] was probably quite traditional, left-of-centre, public-school Labour.”
And on her mother’s side there are many extremists, including uncles who are also “journalists”.
I have to add that I am a great fan of Flanders and Swann.
Excellent posting. I know it’s been mentioned on here before, but the recent Reith Lectures by Niall Ferguson were very good. Talked about how it was always easier for the youth to get a following for the left than the right. Even though the leaders of the left were the ones that were screwing them in the first place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/reith
Perhaps because the Right promote hard work and personal responsibility.
Wonder how many JFK-worshipping students subscribe to his ‘Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’? Assuming they understand it, of course.
The lethal legacy of communism/socialism
140m Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag)
200m Soviet Bloc: late Stalinism, 1950-53; post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag)
34m Ethiopia, 1962-92: Communists, artificial hunger, genocides
We havnt even considered the shattered lives of the survivors, or the moonscape of environment degradation left behind by the communist/socialist method of industrial production.
You do realise that the Derg didn’t come to power until 1974, don’t you?
Whenever I point these numbers out to a lefty on Twitter, they disappear for a while and when they return it is as if I had never given them these numbers.
Your figures are out by 320 million.
It should read:
1. 40,000,000 Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag)
2. 10,000,000 Soviet Bloc: late Stalinism, 1950-53; post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag)
3. 4,000,000 Ethiopia, 1962-92: Communists, artificial hunger, genocides
Since the population of the Soviet Union on its collapse was about 290m hard even for Stalin to have killed 210m people. Curious that none of the 23 people that liked the post picked up on that rather obvious fact.
http://conflict.colorado.edu/pacs2500-s09/war-dead-since-1950.shtml
Looks to me that the numbered points came into play, certainly on 1 and 3.
That said I’ve never been able to figure why Communism gets such an easy ride, people still call themselves Communist and aren’t embarrassed by being/having been members of assorted Communist parties; yet Nazism is rightly reviled. Why is communis ‘let off’ like this? ( honest question)
Quite right. Like Dez, Nicked Emus is rather ond of picking on the low hanging fruit rather than addressing substantive points.
Nicked Emus is rather ond of picking on the low hanging fruit
I am rather fond of dealing in facts, not conjecture and opinion.
When you make a substantive point, let me know. I have yet to see one (actually that is not true. There was a good post about the choice of guests on some show or other — dateline I think it was. Those were facts, and the case was well made.)
You can hold whatever opinion you want. You can’t hold whatever facts you want.
If you want to believe that not reporting on a Labour policy launch is prime facie evidence of bias towards Labour then there is nothing I can say to drag you ouf of the Alice in Wonderland world in which you live.
And if it makes you happy to think that, or to believe that there is an enormous conspiracy at work and that anyone who does not follow the party line on this blog works for the BBC, believe away. As I have said before, the only person getting money from the BBC round here is David Vance. Maybe this whole site is just a conspiracy by the BBC to make it appear there is opposition to them, and then pay DV to appear on their programmes to show how impartial they are.
But if you start to produce facts that are so obviously wrong, and no one spots it, and indeed 23 people like them, it does tell us something about the author of that post, and the 23 people who liked it.
And no, NotaSheep, pointing out that Stalin did achieve the slaughter of 210 million people (did no one actually think about these numbers?) is not to condone the murder of 10 million; as well you know.
And no, David Pressier, it isn’t. It is showing the source of where DP111, and presumably NotaSheep (and the other 23 who liked it — were you one?) and how he managed to accept these figures without stopping to think about how likely they were. Instead you were all too happy to have something that confirmed your view of the world, however nonsensical both are.
That’s showing “a source”, not “the source”. And it’s only half a source, as it focuses on only a certain time frame.
Then show me the source that shows Stalin was responsible for 200 m deaths, or China was responsible for 140m.
Were you one of the 29 who liked it?
I have no idea where DP111 got those numbers. I’ve “liked” it now because of the larger point, not the specific numbers. But please let’s keep this smokescreen going so we don’t have to debate the actual issue at hand.
On second thought, it’s not a smokescreen: it’s a will-o’-the-wisp argument.
Well thank you for being so honest about your approach to facts. As long as they purport to show your argument let’s not worry if they are actually facts at all. Why let accuracy get in the way of prejudice?
So you like something you know to be wrong and pointing out that it is wrong is a smokescreen. Well that explains the tortuous logic you have to put yourself through to argue that not reporting something by the Labour Party is evidence of pro Labour bias.
This site is truly the gift that keeps on giving. Keep ’em coming boys.
“I am rather fond of dealing in facts, not conjecture and opinion.”
Like the fact that almost everything which Marx predicted turned out to be (disastrously) wrong?
The fact that nobody can be sure of the exact number of people who died in the various Communist persecutions and famines but that the figure is in tens of millions?
Where are the figures for the Ukraine in the 30s? The numbers Nicked provides start only at 1950. Why don’t those 35 million+ count? And how about Pol Pot (1,870,000, according to Nicked’s link)? North Korea is a mere 400,000 or so. Pikers.
A selective set of figures isn’t the full picture. But that’s cherry picking, innit?
Are you happy with the murder of 40 million Chinese, 10 million Soviets and 4 million Ethiopians by Communist, or similar, regimes?
From where NE stands, the old debating trick, if you can be shown to be out by one body count your comment is “incorrect” and the substance is sidelined. Shameful, really.
The way to deal with Tricky Nicky is to understate the number of deaths atributable to Marxism, and wait for him to jump in to increase them. Mind you you may have a long wait on your hands.
Did anyone notice if he was including the 22,000 poles, including virtually the entire officer class of the Polish army, murdered in Katyn forest. The Russians claimed it was the Nazis right up until 1989.
Seems such a small number really. Unless of course you were one of them.
I will tell you what is shameful. Inflating deaths by a factor of 7 to make your point. Notasheep claimed 370 million people were killed. The figures are 54 million.
It is also shameful that 23 people have such a lackadaisical attitude to facts and fact checking (to say nothing of a a disturbing lack of numeracy) that they would take any old nonsense fed to them as long is it fitted with their preconceived view of the world.
That is what is shameful around here — not the fact that I called out NotaSheep for talking bollocks.
I will tell you what is also shameful — that he doesn’t have the decency to admit he was wrong. Instead he tries all manner of deflections. He is the one trading in death.
Grow a pair.
talking bollocks?
trading in death?
Hmm seriously nickers elbow you need to calm down or seek help as the hyperbole is starting to effect you !!!
He is talking bollocks – absolute total bollocks. His figures are out by 320 million — a factor of 7.
So NotaSheep at least admit you made a mistake. No one will think any of less of you.
There was a mistake in the way the numbers were presented, the point numbers being conflated with the figures. The actual figures are rather shocking, no. Yet the BBC and other lefty types rail (quite correctly) against the evils of Nazism and the millions killed but are someahat more reticent about the millions more killed by communist states.
There was a mistake in the way the numbers were presented, the point numbers being conflated with the figures
THat would be true if you had said 210m people had been killed by Stalin. But you quoted 200m. So your explanation doesn’t hold.
someahat more reticent about the millions more killed by communist states.
More bollocks.
From the BBC website
Joseph Stalin (1879 – 1953)
“One of the most powerful and murderous dictators in history, Stalin was the supreme ruler of the Soviet Union for a quarter of a century. His regime of terror caused the death and suffering of tens of millions, but he also oversaw the war machine that played a key role in the defeat of Nazism. ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/stalin_joseph.shtml
Marxism “caused the death and suffering of tens of millions” and to talk about Marx “understanding markets” without mentioning that fact is deeply shameful.
There is much debate over the number of people killed by Stalin and Mao’s communist regimes, unlike the Nazis they didn’t keep such detailed records. My point is one of scale.
As to your finding of that reference, well done. Of course the BBC have reported Stalin and Mao’s crimes. However, and it’s a big however, whilst the BBC correctly point out the evils of Naziism, they are less consistent with their views of Communism. Communists are given BBC airtime and the benefits of Communism are on occasion presented as real. I am not saying that Nazis and Naziism should be given positive coverage, obviously and definitely they should not. However Communists killed far more people than Nazis, why is Communism not as beyond the pale?
Your point isn’t one of scale. You were out by a factor of 7x. The point was you found some big numbers and didn’t stop and think if they could be correct. You just accepted them because they fitted in with your pre-determined narrative.
It comes back, once again, to the sheer intllectual laziness of this site. Why bother with facts when just making some crass statement about “all lefties” or “all Muslims” or “the BBC thinks” will get the rest of them all fired up. It’s a heck of a lot easier than doing any work isn’t it?
“Why bother with facts when just making some crass statement”
Except of course he is right to draw attention to the literally tens of millions who starved to death as a direct consequence of Communist economic policies.
If you had digested the implications of that fact I might be a little more impressed with your outrage about the accuracy of the figures he quoted.
Your figures are underestimates, but it reminds me of disputes about how many Jews died in the Holocaust. If you think questions about whether it was 3 million, 4 million, or 6 million is what is at issue then it is you who has the problem.
Wild. You are quite right that quibbling over 5 or 6 million Jews is to miss the point. However if someone came on and claimed that Hitler had killed 42 million Jews, then you might just think that that peron didn’t know what they were talking about.
If 30 people then agreed with him, and he didn’t have the integrity to admit he was wrong, you might start to question not only that person’s grasp on reality, but also the company he keeps.
It is wholly in keeping with the integrity and standards of this site that such a casual disregard for facts goes uncommented.
If you ever wonder why this site lacks any credibility, and why it is seen as a joke, then have a look at this thread.
But much easier to ignore actual facts and integrity and even just thinking. Once you start down that road this whole conspiracy-driven, all lefties are, I-hate-Muslims, everyone else is brainwashed and we alone can see the truth, site will crumble.
And then what would you all do? Where would David Vance get his holiday money and where would I find such great entertainment?
If you are capable of understanding why your point is irrelevant, you are capable of understanding why people liked the post.
QED
The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are not capable of understanding why your point is irrelevant.
Christ, Nick, you should just listen to yourself sometimes.
I think the trouble is that we do listen to him. It’s really not worth it, he only engages when he spots a mistake (honest or otherwise) whilst ignoring the main point or the numerous examples of BBC bias pointed oyr on this site. I will stop feeding him now.
As the audience rushed towards the exits, scattering chairs as they went, Dr. NotaKiosk rose to his full height and boomed “Do not feed the trolls!”
And in the ‘Today’ programe this morning (and all over the BBC since), the outgoing head of the TUC, Brendan Barber, was heard to demand that the government ‘learn the lessons’ of the Olympic and Paralympic Games – and just throw more money at the public sector (where the vast majority of the TUC’s Union members now reside, obviously.)
But, of course, the left-wing BBC interviewer conveniently failed to point out the utter hypocrisy of this zealot – after all, wasn’t it his members who were queueing up on an almost daily basis, prior to the start of the Games, to threaten mayhem in London if they weren’t paid huge bribes or hush money to simply do their job in the same way as they had done the previous day ! Now that’s a lesson we should not forget in the future.
Newspeak lives on in the realm of the BBC.
To be fair, Humphrys did remark that public sector workers had threatened strike action and were paid off accordingly. Barber responded with some bromides about “hard-working families” and “700,000 public sector employees are going to be fired tomorrow” and the discussion – it wasn’t an “interview” in any meaningful understanding of the term – on the evils of non-Labour government continued. Compare Humphrys attitude to his studio guest to the later interview by Webb of Michael Fallon the new business minister. Webb was his usual aggressive self (well, he had a Conservative as interviewee) and the earlier Barber assertions – which were given a lengthy quote on the news – constituted the agenda for the interview. Game set and match then to Labour and its paymasters.
Thanks for that, I must have missed that particular exchange during the interview.
Actually, quite a lot of lefties (and on some things you can include me) set an excellent example regarding animal rights, banning of hunting, anti-vivisection, being vegetarians and loving children.
A wonderful example is a certain A Hitler; so was he Left or Right?
A Hitler “National Socialist” Why the need to ask?
H Himmler was something sim’lar…
For all that he was in charge of the SS and had overall charge of the camps, (and had once been a chicken farmer) I believe he was also a veggie.
Himmler was also anti-smoking.
None of those things are ‘left wing’. THe right equally love thir children – far more than the left usually, who would rather they sat on welfare than had a job.
I am right wing and a staunch supporter of animal rights , banning hunting. Heck, I’ve stood down charging horses. Being vegetarian means you’re left wing and holy? More like a silly arrogant little boy.
No, being right is the viewpoint of those who would see themselves and their children free from tyranny, oppression and statist control. It is the free market, opportunity, reward for effort and merit. The left oppose all such things.
I’ve found that left-wing people usually have as many children as gay people do.
Leftys don’t seem to have children. Probably because they are to selfish to do anything that doesn’t advance the Socialist cause
Good post I am of a similar mind ! this does reinforce what I know about some of my mates who think they are of the left ! I as a righty I like variety and choice where as most of my left thinking mates believe in control and conformity they all to a man they all dislike Tory’s, hate Israel ,love the BBC/NHS hate the Daily mail ,believe asshinge is a real life ‘Neo’ and vote Labour [though not because the missus is a teacher nope !!] and all think they are ‘new men ‘ yet are the most sexist ,race obsessed ,conspiracy theory tin foil hat lot !
Truly some days they make me cry !
Didn`t here the bed-in between Humph and the retiring nomark Brendan Barber…can anyone tell us exactly what the man actually DID…now I recall Murray, Feather and Evans etc….useless to a man, but at least they`re remembered for something…what the hell was Brendan actually FOR?
Reminded me of a dad from the Liver Birds…useless!
And was Humphrys happy ot evade the tricky issue of Barber “cutting”( get it?) millions from TUC affiliations and membership…or would this have been “bad form”?
Barber has presided over unions becoming the last rump of state “employment opportunities for life”…and there are no other workers outside schools and council offices and the Beeb , as far as I can see.
But no mention of this eh I`m sure! No percentages in precipitous decline in union membership available then?
Am happy to be corrected anyway…dum spiro spero!
And just in case we missed Brendans Blather on the Today show…why, here`s another chance to hear the message on the World At One.
Martha Kearney more than happy to allow the incoming TUC leader to tell us why there are so few women in positions of power in the unions…and they`re all decided that there`s no issue to see-so look at the boardrooms and Camerons cabinet instead.
Soon after, some Government spokesman is called upon to answer Barbers message that the Paralymix represent the unions at their best, and we need lots more velodromes please…tax, borrow and spend…please…it`s what Gordon would have wanted!
And Kearney gives us what St Brendan says-verbatim-and dares this Lord Green to gainsay her…him…the unions…the BBC…all righ-thinking people goddammit!
The revolution never sleeps does it-is there an off switch to these Commie commodiers?…or are on perpetual alert that we`ll not get the Beebs take on anything unless its droned on about 24/7, as they`d say .
Give it a rest Beeb…if we`re as dulled and as thick as you imply with your propaganda…then the next elections already in Steven Byers taxi…so why the fuss?
Question: Who should run the BBC?
NUJ Answer: The NUJ.
-Excerpt from NUJ Gen Sec Ms Stanistreet’s message to TUC:-
“As George Entwistle takes up his post as director general of the BBC, the corporation faces 2,000 job losses, following 7,000 job cuts since 2004. It is all the fault of Mark Thompson, the previous DG, who agreed to a licence fee freeze while allowing the BBC’s coffers to be plundered to pay for projects including the roll-out of superfast broadband and the funding of the World Service.
“Our motion notes that the deal was struck ‘in the political context of significant pressure from News Corporation’. The NUJ has called for the licence fee deal to be reopened and conducted with genuine transparency and consultation.”
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2621
Of course, all the BBC-NUJ branches nationally (just how many of these are there?) are affiliated to the TUC.
Wait? Someone in the BBC sent a colleague a turd in the post?
I know and that’s how Richard Bacon was born !
Nicked, you surely understood that I hit “like” just to wind you up after you demanded to know if I had already done it. Save your BS about how I treat facts for your next fisking of one of my posts. There’s one waiting for you now, in fact.
Well is there no end to your honesty tonight. Not only do you demonstrate a casual disregard for the facts (to say nothing of a troubling lack of numeracy) but now admitting to petulance as well. Truth will out.
I’m the lone rightie amongst all my leftie progressive friends. When I point out to them about communist ideology based unnecessary deaths (and I’m going for 150m as a fair bodycount for both soviets and chinese) compared to unnecessary nazi inspired deaths (let’s say 60 million ‘cos they’re meant to be at fault for starting WWII) then wtf aren’t they preaching yay heil hitler! – if they were really that bothered about ‘injustice’.
My brother recommended I might like this website. He was once totally right. This publish actually made my day. You cann’t imagine just how much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!