The BBC’s ‘Anti-Labour’ Bias



The Guardian indulges itself with a long, cerebral and somewhat overthought piece on why Miliband crashed and burned….The undoing of Ed Miliband – and how Labour lost the election.

No need for such tortured introspection….Miliband was ‘weird’, too intellectual, he was ‘Red Ed’, a chip off the Old Bloc of his Marxist father, the voters didn’t like him nor his failure to come clean about Labour’s part in the economic crash and its immigration policies.  He wasn’t Statesman-like enough…..even today his reappearance in Parliament was about Himself…being ‘famous once’….a mistake he continuously made in the election campaign.  Miliband also had pick’n’mix policies designed to catch eyes and headlines with no real central theme that grabbed the voter and convinced them Labour was a solid bet….mostly Miliband seemed to want to soak the rich and give handouts to selected groups of the poorest….presumably the most telegenic.

One passage did stand out in the Guardian piece.  Miliband forgot to mention the deficit and immigration in his conference speech in September 2014.  The two most explosive issues for Labour and ones he had to address if he was to convince voters that Labour could be trusted.  The Guardian looks in depth at the failure to mention the deficit….Curiously the Guardian forgets that Miliband also forgot to mention immigration.

Here is the standout passage…….

Miliband knew the story of his “forgetting the deficit” would prove devastating. “He was really upset,” the speech writer recalled. “He pushes himself very hard – he was very, very angry with himself even before he knew it was going to be the main story out of the speech. We tried to cheer him up, but even then he was too upset. He did not come to the celebratory party, he just did not want to come out of his room.”

Miliband was so distraught that he shut himself in his hotel room, where a series of people, including his wife, Justine, joined him and tried to offer some reassurance – pointing out that the omission had not featured prominently in the BBC political editor Nick Robinson’s report on the Six O’Clock News.


Miliband ‘forgets’ to mention the deficit, a subject absolutely central to Labour’s election campaign and the BBC barely mentions the omission?  How unusual for the BBC to ‘misplace’ a crucial piece of information that undermines Labour’s credibility.  Still good to know that the BBC’s coverage is ‘reassuring’ for Labour here.


One other main talking point for the Guardian is the SNP/Labour double act that was likely to occur if Miliband headed a minority government which seemed the most likely prospect for many….the BBC allowing the Polls to lead the news, a decision perhaps more often based upon wishful thinking than solid evidence by the BBC….the ‘evidence’ conveniently matching the outcome that the BBC wanted…so why rock the boat by questioning the polls or taking a more independent and detached approach to events?  The BBC’s Director of News admitted that this was a failure on the part of the BBC….‘we and all other media organisations allowed the poll numbers to infect our thinking: there was too much ‘coalitionology’ as a result.’

Labour complained about the BBC’s massive amount of airtime it gave to the prospect of such an alliance however that worked, either as a formal coalition (denied by Miliband) or as an issue by issue set of agreements but seems to have forgotten that most on the Left had resigned themselves to the prospect of a minority Labour government.

‘Biased BBC’ noted the BBC’s fascination with this and divined it as a pro-Labour stance by the BBC….the BBC presenting the possibility of a Labour government as almost de facto and therefore possibly altering how people might vote….perhaps they would be convinced to vote Labour if they thought Labour were now going to win, even if as a minority government, when previously they may have thought a vote for a Labour Party that was going to lose was a waste and therefore would vote tactically to suit another agenda.

Labour didn’t see it in this way.  Here is an email they sent to the BBC…

Labour was so desperate that on 22 April, Lucy Powell, the campaign chair, wrote to the BBC’s director of news, James Harding, to complain about the broadcaster’s coverage. In an email obtained by the Guardian, she alleged:

“Your bulletins and output have become disproportionately focused on the SNP and Tory claims that Labour would enter into a deal which would damage the rest of the UK … We strongly object not only to the scale of your coverage but also the apparent abandonment of any basic news values, with so much reporting now becoming extremely repetitive.

“The BBC’s relentless focus on Scotland is potentially of huge political benefit not only to the SNP but also to the Conservative party. Indeed, it is becoming apparent that this has become the main Tory message in this election and you have regularly shown images from their posters and advertising designed to reinforce this attack. But the BBC has a responsibility not only to reflect what the Conservatives are saying but also to reflect on it.

“For instance, if the BBC has ever asked David Cameron and his colleagues why they are spending most of the energy talking up the SNP, I have missed it … The BBC includes growing amounts of commentary in its news bulletins. But you have barely ever reflected our view – and that of many commentators from across the political spectrum – that the Conservatives want the SNP to win seats from Labour in Scotland because that represents their best chance of remaining in Downing Street.”


The BBC certainly did spent a vastly disproportionate amount of time on a Labour/SNP partnership but as said this was a pro-Labour narrative that fed the voters the lie that Labour had the election in the bag.

As for the BBC not noting the idea that the Tories would benefit from a Labour wipeout in Scotland….“For instance, if the BBC has ever asked David Cameron and his colleagues why they are spending most of the energy talking up the SNP, I have missed it’ …that’s nonsense…it was a prospect repeatedly mentioned….here is one quote on the BBC from Labour’s Scottish Party Leader…

Mr Murphy said Mr Cameron was “desperate” for the SNP to beat Labour so that his party would have a chance of clinging on to power.

Speaking from the Scottish Gas training academy where he was visiting apprenticeships, Mr Murphy explained: “In every election, going way back to 1924, the biggest party has gone on to form the government.

“So David Cameron is desperate for the SNP to beat Labour and he’s talking up the SNP in the hope that Scots go out and vote for them, to reduce the size of the Labour party in parliament so that he can cling on to power.”

And more of the same here.

It’s not as if no one else on the Left was talking of Labour as a minority government…Labour itself expected such an outcome so can hardly complain that the BBC also concentrated on that possibility.

Here the New Statesman explains…

For a majority, Labour and the Tories will need to look elsewhere: to the SNP, the Northern Irish DUP and, in extremis, Ukip.

It is this foreboding arithmetic that explains why Britain is increasingly likely to be led by a minority government after the election. To their principled objections to another coalition, Tory backbenchers can now add a pragmatic one: it wouldn’t give them the numbers anyway.

Most of Labour’s shadow cabinet have long believed minority government is preferable if the party falls short of a majority. It is also the option privately favoured by Ed Miliband.

So Labour would run as a minority government and not as a coalition….it would then rely on doing deals with the other parties….the biggest of which, Tories aside, would be the SNP in which case you might ask, as the Guardian did…Will the SNP run Britain under a minority Labour government?’

So not just the BBC investigating an SNP/Labour bloc…the right wing Guardian, and the fascist New Statesman, were also subverting democracy by pushing a Tory narrative.

Labour likes to paint the BBC as right wing but the BBC’s election coverage proved that it was absolutely the Left’s most willing fellow traveller.




Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to The BBC’s ‘Anti-Labour’ Bias

  1. Guest Who says:

    ‘Curiously the Guardian forgets that Miliband also forgot to mention immigration’

    If one thing defines the ‘news’ coverage of such as the Graun and BBC, it is ‘editorial by omission’.

    They think they are being sly, as proving it (certainly raising it with CECUTT would be pointless) is nigh on impossible, but people do notice and it does get raised, as here. And that can be a slow burner in damnation.

    How can a Flokker deny what has not been mentioned by the Graun, or what has been reported and hardly looks too good about BBC turning a blind eye to a howler from the pol who they wanted in as he’d stated they were safe with him, even if it didn’t occur to the author or editors when committed to print?


  2. Owen Morgan says:

    I never tire of seeing the hapless Lucy Powell’s interviews with Andrew Neil. She’s like the wildebeest, struggling to cross that flooded watercourse, beset by crocodiles – except that the actual wildebeest tends not to turn around and try to patronise the crocodile.

    I suppose that counts as a plus point for the beebyanka, but only thanks to the fact that it still employs one competent interviewer.


  3. Charlatans says:

    I am so much more reassured about the decency and common sense of the Great British people who can mostly see through the BBC ‘lefty liberalism’ indoctrination attempts, particularly after the elation of that ‘exit poll’ on 7th May, (so thoroughly enjoyed that moment and have been smiling a lot ever since).


  4. Flexdream says:

    Millibrand, a decent cove, actually increased the Labour share of the vote, but that was mainly thanks to the collapse of the Lib Dem’s vote.

    The BBC is blatantly pro-Labour, but like some in the Labour Party it is not fond of the working and middle classes or their values.

    Labour will survive but not thrive. With boundary reform and a strong SNP it may well be locked out of power.


    • Essex Man says:

      And Bloody Good , Labour have done, (along with the BBC) ,fuck all for anyone who is English , except as a cash cow for their evil socialists projects. If Labour crash & burn , who cares ? .Apart from Scott , Dez , & the Busman with the Clap , who worship at the altar of Socialism .


      • Sharon on the ferry says:

        Except that Labour wasnt Socialist under Blair and especially under Miliband. A considerable of folks on this site believe in a free market. Well thats exactly what you people got leading to the crash in 2008 where about 60 extremely wealthy individuals managed to wreck the worlds economy. It was then down to State intervention to the free market mess out.
        Whatever government was in at the time would have had to carry out the same mopping up operation.


        • Charlatans says:

          Sharon..”Except that Labour wasnt Socialist under Blair and especially under Miliband.” …..”leading to the crash in 2008″

          Google reveals thousands of academic papers from around the world telling us exactly how the 2007/2008 world financial crisis germinated in the USA, infiltrated the world and who is to blame.

          In the UK Labour, (and only LABOUR), let the city of London become a lax regulated world ‘dodgy dealing’ financial hub, that facilitated greatly to the onset of the world’s financial crisis we still recovering from.


        • Stu says:

          Some evidence please Sharon of those 60 wealthy people. Seems a very round number, why not 59 or 63? Would they be Free Masons, Illuminati, Gliterati, Champagne Socialists, George Soros that well known piece of commie filth. What no evidence I’m shocked!
          When you remove your tin foil hat do post again lmao.


        • Expat John says:

          “Labour wasn’t Socialist under Blair and especially under Miliband.“. My emphasis added.

          So you think Milliband was to the right of Blair?
          And you are surprised you lost?


        • Deborah(another) says:

          Yes all true.But the fact remains Labour was in power and racked up billions in borrowing to bloat the public sector. They even proclaimed no more boom and bust.

          They left UK with no money to fall back on when the going got very tough.

          They gained power by pretending to be like Conservatives ,but without the fiscal responsibility.

          What we had then and still do to an extent is Corpratism ,not capitalism.


        • johnnythefish says:


          Uncontrolled immigration (hidden agenda)
          Massive expansion of public sector
          Class war
          Massive increase in welfare spending
          Attack British culture through education system and BBC
          Pacify unions (unreformed public sector pay and pensions)

          All sounds pretty damn socialist to me apart from Blair/Brown realising in order to spend, spend, spend you need to create some wealth as well as borrow.


    • 60022Mallard says:

      “…actually increased the Labour share of the vote,..”

      Indeed “he” did, but you are comparing it with the guaranteed Labour 2010 defeat figure. Indeed the defeat was so guaranteed that even the BBC spared no effort to “big up” the Lib Dems. In the run up Vince Cable was on every 5 minutes as an economic guru.

      Compare and contrast their coverage on the BBC in 2015.

      So Labour, even with the largest media machine in the country giving it every help it could, managed a modest vote share increase.

      As you say the immediate future may not be too bright, but 24 hrs is a long time in politics, and who knows what is waiting to burst upon us – the fallout from a Greek exit from the Euro?


    • John Anderson says:

      It appears that the Tories won substantial support from “ethnics” – the Hindu and Sikh communities especially. And Labour also lost a lot of the Jewish vote.

      Labour is tending to look like the Party for the benefits recipients, for some extreme “victim” groups – and for Muslims. And that tends to alienate all the rest of us ? Over the years it was Labour rather than the Tories that pushed for devolution to Scotland and Wales so they have been hoist by their own petard there. And for normal “lefty” policies people can vote LibDem – or Green and the Nationalist parties if they want extreme leftie policies.

      Liz Kendall appears to be the only candidate for the Labour leadership who might appear less isolated. But of the many people – 7 or 8 – who had said they might stand – ALL of them were Oxbridge arts graduates. ,


      • Expat John says:

        I confess to the occasional wry smile at the idea that a party led by someone of Jewish extraction so manages to conduct itself as to lose Jewish votes because of its pandering to another ‘militant’ group.
        Ah well, Disraeli was a Tory…


    • Roland Deschain says:

      I don’t buy the line that a strong SNP locks Labour out of power. Who else are the SNP going to support in the UK Parliament? It certainly wouldn’t be the Tories, which gives them nowhere to go as bringing down a minority Labour administration might usher in a Tory majority government – something that would be poison to their supporters up here. Labour could more or less ignore the SNP.

      The SNP are, in my view, strong because they never get held to account for their actions. Since the election I’ve taken much more interest in the output of Radio Scotland and the SNP seem to get away with murder. Questioned why A&E waiting times are worse here than south of the border, I’ve more than once heard the answer along the lines of “they’re not as good as they should be, but we’re working on improving them”. Not once has the interviewer pointed out that the SNP have been in charge since 2007 to have sorted this. John Swinney has been allowed to burble that Scotland voted against austerity, so should be spared the cutbacks announced by the UK government, without being asked to quantify how much he believes the rest of the UK should pay to exempt Scotland from this authority. I was glad to hear George Osborne finally telling the SNP they have the power to raise Scottish Income Tax if they don’t want the austerity, but it’s something that should have been asked of the SNP long since, and still hasn’t by anyone on Radio Scotland, as far as I heard.


    • Arthur Penney says:

      A report out suggested that half the Labour membership live in London.

      Presumably the numbers dropped considerably when the BBC moved to Salford.


      • Framer says:

        Most didn’t move. They commute.


        • TheLeftHunter says:

          At our expense, again.
          Anyone know how many/how they commute?
          First Class train?
          Plane and Taxi?
          The above plus plush apartment/hotel room on expenses?

          Any FOI on this?


          • D1004 says:

            Don’t need any FOI, just go to Manchester Piccadilly in the mornings and count them off the train, you will recognise them by the folded up copy of the Guardian and their noses being pointed firmly up in the air.


  5. DP111 says:

    Immigration was one issue that was not mentioned by all in any detail, except UKIP, as it is too “sensitive”, and likely to lead to accusations of racism. Thus even the public kept quiet about it for fear of being labelled racist, but nevertheless, voted accordingly.

    There is the possibilty we might end up in elections, where the vote was decided by policies that are never mentioned, as they are too “sensitive”, but still at the centre of people’s concerns.

    So how does a pollster question people on their voting concerns? How do politicians address issues that cannot be mentioned?


    • dez says:

      DP111, an articulate British commentator at such websites as Jihad Watch, Little Green Footballs and Fjordman blog, points out that as Muslim families are very large, a single wage earner will find it hard to support all. They will need to supplement this by getting considerable benefits from the state… …As poster DP111 says, this world war may very well be in the form of a global civil war, where you get a succession of civil wars instead of countries invading other countries. Multiculturalism and uncontrolled mass-immigration destroy the internal cohesion of the decadent West…” (Anders Breivik, 2011)

      Are you proud of yourself DP111? Do you sleep well?


      • Innocent Civilian says:

        Did you sleep well when over 3000 innocent people including Muslims were killed on the 11th of September 2001. Or on the 7th of July 2005 when Muslims killed in this country. Stick your head back up your arse where it belongs. BBC employed dickhead.


        • dez says:

          Innocent Civilian,

          Did you sleep well when over 3000 innocent people including Muslims were killed on the 11th of September 2001…

          I’m not aware of any of the perpetrators quoting something I’d said in order to justify their disgusting killing spree.

          If by chance they had, I would suffer endless nightmares for the rest of my natural life.

          What do you think “Innocent Civilian”?

          Would you simply carry on posting the same incendiary comments online as you had before, as if nothing had happened; without even a cursory examination of your own conscience?


          • I Can See Clearly Now says:

            I’m not aware of any of the perpetrators quoting something I’d said …

            dez, maybe you’d enlighten us as to where DP111 was wrong in what was quoted? It all seems reasonable to me. Breivik’s actions are his own responsibility. If you say ‘The sky is blue’ and some psycho quotes you to justify his killing, are you responsible?


      • JTF, Maam says:

        Bloody hell. That’s genuinely jaw dropping. How do you sleep at night DP111?


        • johnnythefish says:

          Multiculturalism and uncontrolled mass-immigration destroy the internal cohesion of the decadent West…”

          I concur with that view but it doesn’t make me want to commit mass murder. Can you provide evidence to prove the statement wrong?

          (Still waiting for that apology, dez, after your BBC researcher fed you a duff quote from Today. Remember?)


          • dez says:


            Multiculturalism and uncontrolled mass-immigration destroy the internal cohesion of the decadent West…’

            I concur with that view but it doesn’t make me want to commit mass murder. Can you provide evidence to prove the statement wrong?

            The Battle of Cable Street wasn’t caused by Jewish immigration; it was caused by a minority of the native population who had decided that they hated the immigrants.

            Still waiting for that apology, dez, after your BBC researcher fed you a duff quote from Today. Remember?

            If, as you say, my quote was wrong; then I am genuinely sorry. I try to be honest at all times; so if I’ve made a mistake I humbly apologise and hope that one day you can find it in your heart to forgive me.


      • lmda says:

        Dez, your bullying smear of the commenter DP111 which designed to silence him is precisely in accordance with Breivik’s declared (in 2014) wishes – (ie to silence the moderate islamocritical voices that for him distracted from his idea of nordic racial purity and were too much influenced by jewish thinkers). I am sure you sleep soundly in the manner of moral imbeciles.
        You also forget that Breivik also cited, among others
        Bernard Lewis, Roger Scruton, Ibn Warraq, Mark Steyn, Theodore Dalrymple, Daniel Hannan,Daniel Pipes, Diana West, Lars Hedegaard, Frank Field, Nicolas Soames, Keith Windschuttle, Edmund Burke, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Friedrich Hayek, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Ghandi, George Orwell, Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain and the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

        “Those new “hate speech” codes the Left is already clamoring for might find it easier just to list the authors Europeans will still be allowed to read.”

        Read more at:


        • dez says:


          Dez, your bullying smear of the commenter DP111…

          You have a strange definition of “bullying”. Revealing though, that you think quoting DP111’s own words is a “smear” against DP111…

          You also forget that Breivik also cited, among others…

          And if any of those others who became part of Breivik’s inspiration for murder were posting here I’d ask them the exact same question.


          • lmda says:

            The smear was implication that DP111 was jointly guilty with Breivik of murder. The bullying was thus implying that all who were cited by Breivik should be shamed into silence. I don’t believe you are unaware that you were doing this so your last paragraph is unsurprising, though not an argument, merely a declaration of the continuation of your disingenuous tactics.
            DP111 imagined the future and saw bad things likely to happen. The global political situation being what it is, had he looked into the future and seen only universal brotherly love breaking out hither and yon, – whilst, on the up-side, Breivik would not have cited him, – he (our commenter) would have left truth and reason well behind. – But I guess that is what you wish us all to do.


  6. Gunner says:

    It seems appropriate somehow that Mr Murphy was “Speaking from the Scottish Gas training academy”. All this laughable guff about BBC undermining Labour will no doubt be brought into sharper focus at 19.30 on the 18th June when the Grauniad Live debates the question “Do we still need the BBC ?”. I confidently predict the answer will be a resounding “Yes”. Where else would Grauniad hacks on the move find their second home?


    • chrisH says:

      And who else would buy “en bloc” that sorry anti-Semitic rag of theirs?
      Basically only welfare spongers, public sector shills like the BBC and Unite…and the “cheridee” sector, advocacy do-good nothings like Owen Jones and Jack Monroe will ever vote Labour again.
      So the Guardian will be gone along with that crap rag the Mirror-Piers will be brought down with it and its hacker knackers like Kevin Maguire.


      • Demon says:

        Also that Coleman air-head from Dr Who who is now being linked with Prince Harry.


  7. dez says:


    Still good to know that the BBC’s coverage is ‘reassuring’ for Labour here

    Excellent piece of tautology Alan. Labour figures try to reassure Miliband about a report on the Six O’Clock News, becomes; BBC’s coverage is ‘reassuring’.

    …and the BBC barely mentions the omission?” – Erm, according to a few of Ed’s friends trying to be optimistic about one single news report…

    And you’re using that as objective evidence? Really??

    Ed Miliband forgets deficit and immigration in speech

    Ed Miliband: How I forgot sections of conference speech

    Miliband says deficit is priority despite speech leaving it out

    The BBC certainly did spent a vastly disproportionate amount of time on a Labour/SNP partnership but as said this was a pro-Labour narrative that fed the voters the lie that Labour had the election in the bag

    Erm, that’s just nonsensical drivel;

    [“as said” = “Biased BBC noted…”, LOL!]

    Labour could hardly be said to have “the election in the bag” whilst also saying that they could only win by doing a deal with the SNP.

    From the first days of the campaign; “Vote Labour – get SNP”, was the favoured narrative of Tory HQ. But you’ve just said; “The BBC certainly did spent a vastly disproportionate amount of time on a Labour/SNP partnership”.

    Or in other words; “The BBC certainly did spent a vastly disproportionate amount of time on the favoured narrative of Tory HQ”.

    Which apparently, in your strange, alternative version of reality, proves that the BBC election coverage was; “pro-Labour”.

    Brilliant Alan, truly outstanding.


    • Cerberus on the ferry. says:

      “election that we, er you, lost”

      Remember that little slip dez?
      If not, you can read about it here on BBBC. This demonstrated the truth, the BBC regarded, and almost certainly still regards, itself as the Marketing department of the Labour party.

      Some might argue, as you have done, that the BBC did a poor marketing job for Labour. This would surprise few people on BBBC, the BBC has long demonstrated both its bias and its incompetence, which is why many on BBBC are assisting its dissolution.

      But this is a different argument and your attempt to muddy the waters failed.

      Nobody on BBBC claims that The Daily Telegraph is a socialist leaning paper. The bias is there for all to read.

      The BBC IS biased and has been biased since 1945: its bias is left, sometimes very left, leaning.

      We know, you know it. We are telling the truth about the bias, you are lying about the bias.

      We also know why you are lying, there is a faint hope, you believe, that if you and others claim every day that the BBC is neutral; that if the BBC keeps pretending, and claiming, its neutrality, that we will believe this to be so.

      Wrong again dez.


  8. oldartist says:

    These endless autopsies into Labour’s failure have reached levels of pure comedy. Much funnier that anything the BBC calls comedy.


  9. Flaxen Saxon says:

    From the perspective of an exiled Englishman living in relative ideal in the land of the Kiwis I feel justified in giving my totally uninformed opinion on matters which have no interest to me, at all. Anyway, being ‘away’ and unconcerned gives me unique perspective. The Labour leader was uninspired, lacked charisma and frankly looked like a ‘gypo’. Labour’s policies pleased the party no end but were not in tune with the electorate. The electorate is really concerned with economic viability and unrestrained immigration. The people have lurched to the right and sensible politicians should pander to this or face annihilation. So to gain perspective and possibly lose your sanity, you should visit my place: . Come for pizza and leave with profound wisdom (not really).


  10. Doublethinker says:

    If Labour couldn’t win in England with the decades long help of the BBC , a Lib Dem collapse, the help of electoral boundaries , and the votes of the millions of grateful immigrants that they let in, they are in a sorry state. Thank goodness. It must mean that few people who are actually English by birth ( you all know what I mean) must have voted for Labour.
    I hope that the Tories do create something like an English Parliament before the next election. That would truly lock Labour out of power.


    • Vengeance is mine says:

      they are in a sorry state.

      Yes and let all us ensure that they stay that way, or, if possible, get weaker.


  11. John says:

    Today’s Sunday Politics.

    “Polly Toynbee, Nick Watt and Janan Ganesh are on the political panel”

    That would be Nicholas Watt, Guardian chief political commentator, and Jaman Ganesh – labour activist (coincidentally also a Guardian contributor).

    Good balance.


    • GCooper says:

      Well spotted. Yet more conclusive evidence which will be ignored by the usual suspects (dez, Scott, Manon etc) when they try to preach the BBC is unbiased.

      It is why our trolls have no credibility. Much like the BBC, in fact.


      • If you say so says:

        In yer face Dez!

        Ganesh has been pro-Tory for years though, stopped being a Labour activist around 2002 and hasn’t written for the Guardian since then either. John’s facts are a bit out of date.

        He writes for the FT now.

        GCooper deserves an EPIC FAIL! Give him a round of applause.


        • John says:

          My apologies.

          Two current Guardian contributors, one former Guardian contributor.

          As I said, Good balance BBC style.


          • by looney left says:

            An honest mistake, and an honest apology.

            The enemy never apologise. They either deny their errors or disappear. To reappear under another name.

            Showing the superior ethical standards observed here.
            Not that we have much to beat, the Beebophiles who support the nasty party (Labour) have the integrity and morals of a bubonic plague bacillus.


            • Wild says:

              “Polly Toynbee, Nick Watt and [former Labour Party supporter] Janan Ganesh are on the political panel”

              Why if I was not a Labour Party voter would I want to hear a political discussion between those three? Will next week be a discussion between John Redwood, Douglas Carswell, and Jacob Rees-Mogg?


              • desperatedan says:

                and for the third time ive seen an mp try and defend the 10% pay rise and for the third time its been a tory

                can they really not find just one of the other parties who agrees with it, im pretty sure they will all trouser it though despite their obvious disgust


              • If you say so says:

                They aren’t journalists. The programme features journalists. The three people you mention are MPs.

                And Janan Ganesh is a Tory and Andrew Neil’s a right-winger.

                It’s called ‘balance’.


                • Wild says:

                  “They aren’t journalists. The programme features journalists. The three people you mention are MP’s.”


                  Fraser Nelson, Matthew Parris, and the Centrist Dan Hodges (or any other combination of TWO pro-Conservative Party journalists and one centre-left journalist).

                  You know it is not going to happen because BBC panels of more than two people almost always (I would say ALWAYS but there may be one in a million exceptions) have a majority of political commentators from the Left.

                  The BBC stack the deck – and in the same political direction (Hint not UKIP).


          • If you say so says:

            Good apology.

            Two current Guardian contributors. One very-much-former, now-Tory Guardian contributor (in 2002).

            Two right-wingers, Janan Ganesh (centre-right) and Andrew Neil (right), v two left-wingers, Nick Watt (centre-left) and Polly Toynbee (left).

            As you said, Good balance BBC style.


            • Laska says:

              Andrew Neil “right”? Really. He is the fig leaf that allows the BBC to say that it is not left wing. What a survivor. Admittedly, he’ll call out out some obvious issue when it sits up and begs with its absurdity, but in the main the left politicians have no fear going on his show as all is underarm bowling. It only stands out because our supine media allows so much leftwing dross. So against the current of BBC groupthink he looks a bit edgy. Usually he leaves the dirty work to his sidekick – whatever her name is but whose face shouts out her visceral distaste – but occasionally he will rage against some “right winger” like some demented monkey. Watch him when the enemy is in sight and he glowers red faced like an alpha gorilla when a creature of the right moves into view. I even think that throwing peanuts wouldn’t put him off.


            • Laska says:

              Yesterday Mr Neal was furious that a Liberal Democrat was insufficiently supportive of homosexual rights. He was livid and was the usual bullying Monkey Man. In Monkey Man’s world Big Gay can never have enough support. Right wing? Give me a break. I don’t mind if somebody wants to support an idea if they have a dog in the fight, but not on the BBC shilling that we all pay for.


              • GCooper says:

                Never forget that to creatures of such shrunken intellect as ‘If you say so’, “Right” means anything a bit less screamy than Owen Jones.


  12. Merched Becca says:

    Our trolls are persistent trolls who I suspect, have an ulterior motive?


    • by looney left says:

      Not true, you do not suspect they have an ulterior motive.
      You know they have an ulterior motive, and what that motive is.

      Love the petition, keep reminding them about it, it irritates them.
      Hopefully they will develop suicidal tendencies.


      • Merched Becca says:

        by looney left.
        Your assumption could be correct ?
        The ‘troll patrol’ will be ever watchful and dilligent.


  13. chrisH says:

    Yet again Janet Daley in the Sunday Telegraph nails it for anybody who cares about the nations future.
    Basically she`s saying that the Left will not-never will-give up and will subvert and create agitprop campaigns under the Marxist Leninist notion of “popular fronts”.
    The people have spoken-but the Left won`t settle for that at all.
    Hence their infiltration of any “alliances” “campaigns” and all other weasel words that describe small bunches of unemployed nutjobs with hate and arrogance to fuel them.
    And SMS is a gift-witness the cybernats and trans lobbies( with maybe a few hundred people in each) can harry and scorn , scare and threaten anybody who`s not as virtuous as they are.
    UK Uncut, Occupy, Brand and Charlotte Church…and their minions.
    Daley was once of the Left herself-as I was-but she says it all so much better than I could…Labour are just the Trojan Horse, as they were for Militant Tendency.
    Nowadays there`s far more quangos, public sector bandwagons and human rights cover for the scum to derail what the British people voted for…and the BBC are fully engaged in the subversions as we all know.
    Well worth a read…she always is


    • Glen says:

      Ex-lefties usually are worth a read or listen to as they speak from a position of complete understanding of the warped ideology that their former comrades constantly push onto people who simply don’t want to know, people who, simply for having a differing opinion on what they want for their country, find themselves being branded racist, sexist, islam hating, etc,etc.

      One of the greatest orators of our time was Christopher Hitchens, a complicated and brilliant man who started out as a staunch lefty, who realized that, despite holding on to his marxist beliefs, the socialist left had become a basket case and moved away from much of their political thinking. He is sadly one of a few.

      The lefties are antagonizing scum, they are never wrong in their outlook as long as they hold on to it. They bully, they abuse, they defame, they attack, they destroy lives and then blame their actions on everyone else, like the ‘right wing’…you know, those rampaging hordes of racist thugs that have stalked the streets of the UK beating up innocent immigrants thus forcing the left into action to save us all.

      The left are the one’s who shout loudest at a gathering, you only have to tune into QT or the unbelievably puerile Big Questions to see that, they are forever victims always having some pathetic cause to fight for, they are NEVER happy and that’s the problem, they want a fight, if they haven’t got a righteous cause then life isn’t worth a shit..that will only last so long, something will eventually give, the silent majority have started to rise already as we saw with the election, and hopefully will see with the EU referendum, but the more normal people fight back the nastier the fascists will become, and so it escalates…where it ends is anyone’s guess.


      • desperatedan says:

        tried this and was scared too find out i was somewhat libertarian and tiny bit leftie, yet by the current (bbc) concensus im a fascist bigot

        it would appear i could move way more radically right and still be just a plain old fascist bigot


    • Essex Man says:

      Funny how the left embrace , everything invented by freemarket capitalists , Twitter , Facebook , the Internet , Smart phones , 3G , 4G . Without these tools , the trolls on here Dez , Scott , Clapped out busman etc , would still be in there own sad bedsits , finding a way to end it all .Maybe they are , anyhow .


  14. Free-thinker says:

    I used to come here a lot but gave up after seeing how badly the site was being hit by trolls, not least Scott Matthewson, Albaman, and another one who just kept changing his name yet was too stupid to change his content so he/she wasn’t fooling anyone. Sadly, months down the line it appears the likes of ‘dez’ (who appears to be a new troll, unless gormless boy realised he needed to try harder to trick people) are still managing to degenerate this site into a left/right pissing contest while ignoring what’s actually been written in the article. It’s a shame as I’d like to visit this site more regularly, especially since you would see genuine heated debates between people who actually had respect for each other and their views, instead of immature liberal apologists obsessing over what they delude themselves is an inconsequential minority.

    Until this gets sorted, I’m staying away. I just came to post a link to Dominic Casciani’s latest racist tirade.

    I urge anyone who isn’t racist to report this article immediately for blatant stirring of racial tension.


    • Neighbourhood Watch says:

      “I urge anyone who isn’t racist to report this article immediately for blatant stirring of racial tension.”

      As a white man living on a South London council estate I find your attitude laughable. A few weeks ago I was mugged by a black youth on a bike who zoomed off with my phone and wallet. The police were brilliant, arrived instantly, took me on a drive round the area looking for them, but without success. They were all white, in a part of London that is largely poor and black. What hope do they have of investigating a crime when black residents are almost universally hostile to white coppers?

      Personally I will welcome the day when there are plenty of black PCs on the beat round here. It would hugely improve relations between estate residents and police and mean that if I am robbed again there might be a vague chance of catching the bastards.

      That Dominic Casciani article points out that a third of London is black, while only a tenth of its police force is. Can you not see why that might be a problem? Every crime committed against me, ever, was committed by a black man. More black officers would make it easier to catch them. The only racist round here is you, pal.


  15. Merched Becca says:

    The ‘morning meeting’ must be over , the trolls have come out for their coffee break.


  16. stuart says:

    they still dont get it do they,the reason why the labour party lost the last election is because 5 million working class ex labour voters voted for ukip,the labour party,the guardian and the left wing press are still in total denial about there election defeat and to try to suggest that the bbc was indulging in anti labour bias just proves that they have all lost the plot big time.


    • Merched Becca says:

      The press and media all claimed that UKIP was right wing, but UKIP is popular with a wide spectrum of the public.
      They still don’t get it, which may be a good thing .