Interesting post here over on Guido’s site that is well worth a read. In essence, BBC Newsnight favouring the Green Party over UKIP for the Mayoral debate this evening. Shame on them, again. Well done to Guido for flagging up this blatant bias.
WATERMELONS ON NEWSNIGHT
Bookmark the permalink.
Guido is great, but until Cameron gets a grip and decides that something must be done for the sake of proper democracy the BBC will carry on regardless.
Problem is, Cameron is spineless, is scared of the BBC and will do nothing.
It’s worse than that. I think Cameron actually agrees with the BBC.
The BBC will just dismiss this by saying that the Greens have an MP.
Upon doing a bit of snooping, the Greens game 4th in the last Mayoral election, and UKIP 7th.
This time round the UKIP candidate is standing under the party banner of ‘Fresh Choice for London’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_mayoral_election,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_mayoral_election,_2012
Even so, I’m doubtful UKIP would be getting equal billing with the 3 main parties had they finished 4th.
Even so, UKIP is essentially a one-note party. Not that EU immigration laws don’t have a negative effect on London, of course. But still, the BBC will be asking about transport policy and whatnot, not the legitimacy of Van Rumpouy.
Sorry David, but I am sick and tired of hearing the patently false charge that UKIP are a one issue party.
Do me a favour and actually read their manifesto and then tell me which of UKIP’s costed and detailed policies from the following:
The Economy:
Tax…
Budget & Regulation…
Jobs…
Enterprise & Skills…
Immigration & Asylum…
Law & Order/Crime…
Defence…
Healthcare & the NHS…
Education & Training….
Pensions…
Welfare & Social Security…
Foreign Affairs & International Trade…
Energy & the Environment…
Transport…
Housing & Planning…
The Constitution & How We Are Governed…
Culture & Restoring Britishness…
Food, Farming & the Countryside…
Fishing…
And lots of Other Specific Policies…
Is the single issue to which you refer?
Hey, fair point. It’s too bad they can’t get on air to discuss any of this in public. In my own defense I’ll just point out that the party name doesn’t exactly speak to a broader palette.
Guido also conveniently omits the fact that the Greens have Assembly seats and UKIP don’t. All the BBC have done is to invite the candidates of the four parties that actually have seats.
2/10
don’t the BNP have one seat, why weren’t they invited?
No they don’t. One BNP member was elected but left the party and now sits as an independent.
Green Party 4th:
Constituency Seats: 0
Additional Member Seats: 2
BNP 5th party:
Constituency Seats: 0
Additional Member Seats: 1
“don’t the BNP have one seat, why weren’t they invited? ”
I guess they couldn’t invite one of ‘those’ without also inviting the oh so brave Bonnie Greer to repeat the Question Time Pantomime, – Boo-hiss – “Where’s the spectre of right-wing extremism – it’s behind you” – or in the BBC’s view – all around us and under every bed, waiting to strike!
Bonnie is still basking in the glory of her victory…
Except of course the fact that the BNP are left wing socialist extremists.
True in many respects, Doggywoggy. Just don’t expect to ever hear that characterisation on the BBC – doesn’t fit with the script.
And because it’s bullsh1t
Careful, talk like that rather contradicts any reputation for civilised debate or, in this case, any sensible attempt at debate at all. Masks do slip when stressed, don’t they?
Hmm, a tiny bit of ‘language’ slips in from both sides of debate from time to time. Seems rather unfair to single out Dandy for such a rarity on his part.
Unfair?
As the Samantha Brick of debate might write, conflating opinion with fact and often presuming the former adds anything to an exchange.. per the substance of my point not addressed… no, it isn’t:)
Extreme right wing socialists. Extreme left wing is the SWP.
Ms Greer – here at least – seems to concede that there is not much more mileage to be got from victimhood and appears to want to point the youngsers in the direction of socialism.
Whilst that is a fair criticism, what do you think the BBC’s election coverage will be in the run up to the European Parliamentary elections? Will they give UKIP fair coverage based on their result in the last EU election? If so, they will have to give UKIP more coverage than labour. UKIP got more votes and a greater share of the vote than Labour and now have more MEPs too.
Oops, never thought of that. Need to get a team to work on an excuse to not give UKIP any publicity at the next European elections.
Actually, as UKIP take votes away from our enemy – the nasty Tories – we should give them the coverage that their previous results suggest they deserve. It’s a very flexible policy isn’t it, and we can spin it as ‘adjusting to the ever changing political landscape’. Clever, init.
Can I have a raise?
That’s worth a £65,000 bonus. Lucky that we’re not bankers, we don’t have to account for our bonuses to the stupid plebs (I mean the licence-paying public).
Like the L’Oreal ad says – “We’re worth it”.
OMG – did I just advertise ?!?!
Oops – let my identity slip 🙁
The standing candidate aspect is relevant.
This could also be raised for discussion on the Newsnight blog: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2012/03/this_blog_is_now_closed_-_foll.html
Ah.. no, sorry, you can’t. But there is FaceBook, or twitter, where in addition to a defensive nugget on this issue, I also noted this:
@BBCNewsnightNewsnight understands the body that represents PR industry will tomorrow clear Bell Pottinger of breaking its own voluntary code of conduct
I wonder if Newsnight can be invited to understand how the compelled funding public broadcast monopoly’s complaints system works in exactly the same way.
Me, I am a wee bitty more concerned about the impartial news than some silly PR company’s moral straying.
Paxman was twice worsted last night – by Galloway and Lord Bell. Normally it is only once a year that the great man is betrayed.
Is this a new trend of attacking BBC interviewers for their bias and silly under-researched views?
Tim Bell will always be a target for the BBC – he was a close advisor to Maggie Thatcher
Just about every article I visit in the Telegraph and Mail has hordes of commenters espousing UKIP, and vowing to vote for them – yet they are still below the water line. What’s happening? is there NO chance of getting off this merry-go-round of the same old suspects and giving someone else a chance?
Can you imagine the rout at the BBC if there was a UKIP government?
Pollsters are ignoring and trying to minimise UKIPs support. They refuse to list UKIP as a specific choice, and include only them in others and often do not even allow UKIP to be selected even as others.
They are more often only allowing tory, labour or libdem as the choices.
In addition, there is an enormous amount of constant social conditioning (brainwashing) by the mainstream media and the big parties’ supporters, that you MUST vote for party X to stop party Y. Regardless of the fact that party X and Y are now both merely identical puppets of the EU and corporate elite. On a massive majority of their policies all three main parties are the same.
All in all, there is no significant difference between any of them on a whole raft of policies:
They are all:
pro-surveillance state,
pro-EU subservience,
Pro immigration,
pro high taxes,
pro climate change taxation and control,
pro big government,
pro ECHR,
pro terrorists and criminals rights,
pro corrupt corporate lobbying,
Pro-big banker,
pro high debt,
pro-politically correct divisiveness,
pro-merging our defence with that of France,
soft on crime and law and order,
soft on welfare…
Even on deficit reduction there is now less than 1% difference between Osborne’s current level of debt reduction and the plan outlined by Alistair Darling in 2010.
Even the electronic snooping laws are being implemented by an EU directive which all three parties favour. Nick Clegg voted for the measure in the EU Parliament when he was an MEP!
All the recent hype over the pasty tax is B.S. as all three parties cannot revoke that VAT because of EU law.
There is no difference between them AT ALL!!!
Voting for X to stop Y will only get you a continuation of exactly the same policies and no change in direction, only a change in rhetoric and the colour of the rosette in power. The same political philosophy will be dictated from Brussels without change.
Until people wake up and realise that the only real choice we have is that you can only vote for pro-surveillance state,
pro-EU subservience,
Pro immigration,
pro high taxes,
pro climate change taxation and control,
pro big government,
pro ECHR,
pro terrorists and criminals rights,
pro corrupt corporate lobbying,
Pro-big banker,
pro high debt,
pro-politically correct divisiveness,
pro-merging our defence with that of France,
soft on crime and law and order,
soft on welfare… LIBLABCON
OR you can vote UKIP. Until then, we will never get any change from “third way corporatist, politically correct, climate conning new/blue labour” policies.
It is impossible to vote for a “mainstream party” AND vote against the “third way corporatist, politically correct, climate conning new/blue labour” policies.
All three are implementing the agenda set by the EU. That is why all three are exactly the same.
ONLY UKIP offer a national party offering a decent alternative on ALL the above identi-policies of the three main parliamentary parties. UKIP are the only way to vote for a common sense, centre-right alternative to the Pro-EU status quo favoured by LIBLABCON.
IF anyone disagrees, then please tell me HOW to vote for ANY of the top three AND by so doing, vote against centre-left, politically correct, climate conning, big-government, big taxing, big spending corporatist Europhiles?
Because the ONLY way I can think of to do that is to vote UKIP!
never mine empty bottles of wine on the floor, empty bottles of poison if UKIP became government.
WE CAN ONLY DREAM….
Of relevance to this story is the clear bias shown by the BBC in favour of Labour’s Red Ken over Boris as evidenced also yesterday in the following story. (copied from previous Open Thread)
The Telegraph ran this story yesterday
Boris Johnson brands Ken Livingstone a liar in furious mayoral race bust-up
There is no doubt that Livingstone is the liar, and he tried to imply that Johnson used the same kind of tactic to avoid paying tax as he did. The worst part is this element which Boris identifies about Red Ken as
…the hypocrisy of a man who for years has railed against those who use special arrangements to reduce their tax and who has then been caught – bang to rights – doing the very same thing himself.”
To understand the true relevance of this statement you would have to read this article in the New Statesmen from a few weeks ago
Sorry, Ken — own up or accept the consequences
The most damming part of this article as far as Ken is concerned, besides the fact that if the New Statesman is critical of him it must be serious, is this paragraph
The big problem for Livingstone is that he has been a vocal supporter of UK Uncut, which campaigns against not just (illegal) tax evasion but also (legal) tax avoidance – by Vodafone, Topshop and other big companies. “These rich bastards just don’t get it,” Livingstone wrote in 2009. “No one should be allowed to vote in a British election, let alone sit in our parliament, unless they are paying their full share of tax.” The former London mayor called for everyone to “pay tax at the same rate on their earnings and all other income”.
The word “hypocrite” is being whispered – and not just by the usual suspects on the right. “I think it’s bad for him,” says a former adviser to Livingstone who worked with him at City Hall. “People expect more from Ken.” If he was a Tory or, say, Tony Blair, this wouldn’t matter – but it is an axiom as old as party politics that left-wing politicians are, rightly, held to higher standards. Principles matter.
So what does the BBC have to say about this recent episode? You might think it was a party political broadcast for Livingstone, with the article ending with this statement from him
“Those of us who are leading candidates in this election have a duty to the electorate to rein it in and direct it to the issues at stake for Londoners,” he wrote.
“We must take account of Londoners – the people we are trying to talk to. We need to afford them the respect to have a decent discussion about how we address their concerns, their quality of life, the squeeze on their living standards, the future direction of their neighbourhoods and home city.
“I suggest to Boris Johnson therefore that he and I work together to raise the tone and spirit of this election.”
A real ‘paragon of virtue, and of course, no mention either of his hypocrisy. They still continue as they did in their last article simply allowing Ken to deny he was using this kind of tactic, when it was clear to everybody not relying on the BBC for news that he was.
Here’s the current one
Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone in on-air tax row
Just imagine the BBC editorial policy meeting: Do we invite UKIP or the Greens? Er…UKIP or Greens, Greens or UKIP…. erm…?
What are their policies? Fervently pro-EU versus fervently anti-EU. Strongly pro-mass-immigration against strongly anti-. High taxes and high public spending/Low taxes and low public spending. Government knows best versus private enterprise.
Now remind me where our are pensions are invested? And how much did we receive in Euros for certain special services?
Do we need to bring Lord Patten in on this one?
No, I think we have a decision. Next item….
Quite frankly neither the Greens or Liberals have a hope in hell of being elected mayor and should not be even invited on panels with Ken and Boris. Otherwise invite all the other no-hopers as well.
If there is a panel for the London Assembly that is where they should be interviewed
It reaches the point though, as in Australia, where the lapdog media actually become counterproductive for “their” side of politics.
The red-blue dichotomy is part of the socialist agenda to destroy Anglosphere culture, and the greens are of course just another Hegelian “alternative”.
People may not be able to express it in those terms, but they know something is horribly wrong with the control systems imposed on them.
By blatantly misrepresenting normal people’s attitudes the lapdog media sow seeds of their own destruction.
Test
There’s an interesting video that was linked to in my regular e-mail from UKIP, which shows the importance of having a genuinely Euro-skeptic party to vote for. No other party seems willing to highlight these kinds of issues, which are silently eroding our nation’s democratic sovereignty. Someone on a previous thread referenced the ‘Boiling Frog’ analogy in relation to immigration and multi-culturalism. It also clearly applies to our relationship with the increasingly undemocratic EU. Hopefully we will feel the heat before it’s too late and get the hell out, but when/if we do there needs to be a platform for us to gather on. Thankfully, we have UKIP.
“This video aims to highlight a sample of just 8 local issues upon which the EU Parliament has usurped the control of central and local government in the UK – often to disastrous effect. Some appear scandalous, others farcical, but all illustrate that the EU is the hidden local issue. http://www.hiddenlocalissue.co.uk”
If you want to receive a regular e-mail update from UKIP, then sign up in the ‘Keep Up To Date’ box on their main page…
http://www.ukip.org/
A counter-analysis to that of BBC-NUJ- Labour-Islam nexus:
“Ken4London: Divide and Rule politics from Bradford to London”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1065/ken4london_divide_and_rule_politics_from_bradford_to_london