We had yet another version of Groundhog Day yesterday, this time produced by the BBC in their ‘Leaders’ debate’ with the format of QT. The ‘leaders’ were actually asked about Brexit amongst other things. it was all so predictable.
Before I delve into my own ‘debate report’ there are two snippets of Brexit news which I dug out, and there was also the launch of TBP’s ‘Contract with the People’ -not a ‘manifesto’. Nigel Farage said right at the start of that launch that ‘manifesto’ has now become so discredited that it’s synonymous with ‘lie’. You can watch the whole thing here, starting at the five-minute mark. The Times, in their report on the launch (link, paywalled), simply had to quote ‘Hope not Hate’ on TBP’s immigration proposals:
“Matthew McGregor, of the campaign group Hope Not Hate, said that the Brexit Party’s immigration stance was rooted “neither in reality or feasibility — it’s just a device by which to say there are too many foreigners.”
Clearly, TBP is ‘racist’. ‘Tis a bit strange though that the Tories’ immigration policies of using a points system like they do in Australia, is now no longer deemed not be racist – it only was racist when it was proposed by UKIP these many years ago. How times change …!
The first of the EU snippets is here, confirming that the EU expects the post-Brexit talks to go on for a long time. No surprise there, nor is it surprising that our ‘Leaders’ as well as our MSM generally always disregard what EU officials say. The other snippet is a remark by Lord Tebbit who believes that, once Brexit is ‘done’, the EU will become conciliatory (link). Sorry, Lord Tebbit – that was then, this is now, with the hardest of hardcore negotiators sitting across the table from our hapess lot.
And now – ‘the event’, that TV debate. For my sins, I watched it – in the company of friends. It’s eminently reassuring to note that our observations during the debate have been picked up by various MSM observers in this morning’s papers. Here is a non-paywalled report while this one stops at the Corbyn performance.
None of us expected to hear anything new except the usual soundbites, but some stunning remarks did creep out. Corbyn for example, asked about his Brexit shilly-shallying, had the audience laugh when he said that he’ll negotiate a better deal and then have another referendum, and that he’ll take ‘a neutral stance’ in this referendum should he be PM. He did let the cat out of the bag when he said that the referendum question would be about a ‘trade deal with Europe or Remain in the EU’. This is the ‘better deal’ he wants to negotiate, within three months? I suspect he may well achieve this since this is just what the EU wants.
Our first suspicions about the audience having been very carefully selected by the BBC arose when a member actually attacked, verbally, those who had asked about Labour’s antisemitism. He loudly declared that only Labour is non-racist and therefore not anti-semitic and therefore Corbyn must be supported. The prize for a totally unbiased, erudite call to support Labour has to go to a member of the audience who declared that only Corbyn can get rid of ‘the legacy of Thatcher and Blair’, followed by howls of approval. This wasn’t a question, but a statement: blatant Labour propaganda.
There were an amazing number of Scots present in this Sheffield audience, interrogating Corbyn about a ‘deal’ with Ms Sturgeon and the SNP, giving them a 2nd Scottish IndyRef. As Ms Sturgeon was up next they probably came from Sco’land to support her, but they were very quiet when she was on – as was the audience who wasn’t really that interested in Scottish politics.
Why Ms Sturgeon was there at all when she isn’t standing in this election and when the SNP is only standing in Scotland – well, it’s the BBC … no need to ask why another Party leader couldn’t possibly be on that programme, for example Ms Arlene Foster DUP …
Before the LibDem leader Ms Swinson came on the verdict amongst friends was already in, for example: “It’s ‘plant central’ tonight and it’s so bad we are recognising faces.” Indeed so – the presence of one BBC actress was even confirmed by the BBC. Here’s the non-paywalled report in the DM:
“Viewers were left outraged after discovering that a BBC Question Time audience member, that grilled Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson, is an actress that has appeared in BBC productions. Kate Rutter played Sister Betty in His Dark Materials on BBC One and the character of Ann in 2016 film I, Daniel Blake. The film was co-produced by the BBC’s film production arm, BBC Films.” (link)
Read the whole thing, there’s more evidence for the unbiased, selected audience. Here’s another comment on the BBC’s selection practice:
“‘The best TV audiences are designed to give ordinary people the opportunity to challenge and question politicians. However many of these questioners are clearly political activists and trade unionists. Spoils the programme.’ The BBC insisted the audience of 150 people in Sheffield was a ‘roughly equal’ split between Labour and the Conservatives, with a ‘smaller number’ of Liberal Democrats and SNP supporters. It also claimed there were more Leave voters than Remain in the audience to reflect the Brexit referendum result.” (link)
Funny then that we heard from only one Leave voter – all other ‘questioners’ were self-confessed Remainers. Here’s a nice little compilation of some reactions by other watchers.
One prediction amongst friends was that Johnson would be given the hardest time of all, and lo and behold, that’s exactly what happened:
“A rough tally from a senior Tory source suggested Mr Johnson was interrupted by the audience and Miss Bruce four times more often than the Labour leader. The interruptions tally was 11 for Mr Corbyn, fifteen for SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon, seventeen for Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson and 45 for Mr Johnson, who at times was unable to get a word in. Last night critics accused the BBC of choosing ‘political activists and trade unionists’ instead of ordinary voters.” (link)
I shall draw a veil of pious disregard over Ms Swinson’s performance except to say that she wasn’t wearing a Libdem-yellow dress. And so to Boris Johnson. He was booed as he came on and he got questions which were simply amazing in their inanity.
How one can go from ‘climate crisis’ to therefore ‘abolishing the nuclear deterrent’ in one sentence is beyond me to decipher. Why the non-publication of that report on alleged Russian interference agitated the questioner so much – after a reasonable answer from Johnson – that he went on and on and on, so much so that even Ms Fiona Bruce had to tell him to stop: no idea!
NHS: oh yeah! The audience seems to have been packed with GPs and doctors – but neither Johnson nor anyone else dared mention that the slight problem of mass immigration just might have something to do with the state of the NHS. In case you didn’t know: it’s the evil Tories who make people die – under Labour we all had eternal life, it would appear. Oh, and the Tories are also making it rain so much that they’re guilty of the flooding in Yorkshire.
The audience, encouraged by Ms Bruce, went on about that article where he mentioned letterboxes in connection with burqas. Ms Bruce had stacks of quotes handy to throw at him, culled from articles Johnson wrote. Needless to say that she didn’t have similar ones for the other three contestants. And, as if to show that ‘the sisterhood’ of TV presenters are of one mind, she also talked over Johnson’s concluding remarks, just as her sister chairing the ITV debate did.
If you still believe in the impartiality of the BBC and ITV, I have news for you. They are doing their utmost to squash a Johnson victory. Why they welcome socialist Corbyn who would certainly take away lots of their ever so hard earned income – that is beyond my ken. Perhaps they have very good accountants …
Let me conclude with an observation by Tim Stanley in the DT:
“One solution, as I say, would be to have no audiences at the debates: I’m not sure what they bring to the process apart from heated rhetoric that distorts and in some cases might even mislead. There’s a lot of talk about fact checking the candidates. How about we start fact checking the public? Another answer would be to stop debates altogether. This is not America. Ours is not a presidential system. We don’t need this theatre of personality.” (paywalled link)
Just so! But then again, the BBC would be unable to tell us what to think about the ‘leaders’. It surely is time now to abolish the ‘TV Tax’. Why should we pay the BBC so we can be inundated with their biased, lefty Remain propaganda?
By now there can’t be any doubt that the deck of cards is stacked against Leave, with blatant lies being spouted unabashedly, not just by the politicians and MSM but by audiences who are not ‘the public’ but well-trained activists.
It’s up to us, again, to show the establishment that we’re not going to be bamboozled by them. To paraphrase the Labour slogan: we are the many, they are the few. So let’s
KBO!
Not only is TBP correct to promise to phase out the BBC licence tax, but this propaganda machine should have its gargantuan dominance of the electronic media reduced, too. Whatever happened to Conservative Woman magazine – the philosophy NOT the party – crowdfund to take the BEEB to court? It has all gone rather quiet.
Vivian. Please do your research in relation to the NHS. Immigration has nothing to do with the decline in standards in our health service. I have mentioned these facts before:
England NHS beds 2002: 350,000
England NHS beds 2019: 135,000 (yes if necessary I can attribute these figures to an unimpeachable source.)
Under the PFI Blair agreed to exorbitant rentals to private American companies payable out of NHS Trust’s budgets. Hospitals worth £400 million have had to be rented from private companies at £6 billion over 10 years. Several Trusts are in receivership and more are on the brink of bankruptcy. Even if we had not taken in a single immigrant since 2002 the natural increase in our indigenous population would still have led to increasing waiting lists and patients sleeping in corridors.
If you are going to make statements do your research and get your facts right otherwise it’s difficult to take you seriously. This is the problem I have with Remainers – they have a dislike of facts.
Colin: 1) I was reporting what was said that debate, questions and replies. that’s all. I was not writing an essay about the NHS.
2) As you are capable of writing rather lengthy comment posts, perhaps this particular subject – the NHS – might be a good theme for you to write an article for INDEPENDENCE Daily. How to go about it is described in “Submissions”.
Here we go again.
Statistics.
Since 2002/3 our NET immigration has been around 3.75 million. Read that again, 3,750,000.
It doesn’t matter how many billions we feed the NHS with – management will find ways of spending it.
And immigration will make sure that it adds to the burden.
(I won’t mention schools, housing, jobs……no, I won’t mention those trifles!)
God alone knows how many of those had serious infections when they arrived – and, of course, NOBODY can tell you.
Because NOBODY knows.
Interbreeding produces grave numbers of genetic problems and diseases.
NOBODY DARE count them (You racist kelb – I hear you cry!)
Muslim birth rate compared to OURS? On average about four or five to one.
Now….let me think…..
Er, I visit my fabulous NHS hospital pretty regularly……
Yep, a stranger in a strange land………………! (How can you say that you racist!)
Not to mention African immigrants with HIV. 50% of twenty somethings in Swaziland are HIV positive with up to 15% in some other South African countries. Nigeria is 7% HIV +. It costs the NHS 100,000 pounds a year to treat HIV+ patients.
Colin Most research relies on funding (corporate, charitable or government). Political correctness is so deeply entrenched in all of the aforementioned that it may dissuade any organisation from entering into research. Individual medical professionals who have spoken out on this issue are routinely ostracised putting their careers at risk.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392217/Muslim-outrage-professor-Steve-Jones-warns-inbreeding-risks.html
On this occasion I am delighted that you disagree with me – were you given a vote as to allowing millions of unidentifiable-border-crossing Muslims into Europe?
They are simply ‘cannon-fodder’ for the already sickly rich large Corporations.
As welll as establishing their Islamic Laws and Rules, which of course they firmly believe supersede our ‘decadent’ ones. Sharia et al.
Sure, send them in here, OUR taxes will cover them.
IMO They need to remain in their OWN countries living under the Religion of Peace with all of the advantages of their Social Services, under threat of death if they don’t happen to agree with their ‘peaceful’ regimes. If any of the above is devoid of fact – PLEASE REVERT, in detail.
Colin – At last someone who is interested in facts. Well now –
1. Inbreeding results in homozygousity i.e Not conducive to building any kind of a viable culture – 2. The problem is that genetic deficiencies from consanguineous marriage, rife not only in Pakistani families, is taxing ALL European healthcare systems. The Saudi Arabian problem is even a greater problem.
3. In the U.K. And many other European countries, there is a monumental cost in ‘servicing’ the offspring – and, of course, it ain’t getting any cheaper – simple equation? The more Pakistani (for instance) families here then the greater the burgeoning costs. Not so?
4. Do have a quick ‘shufti’ at http://www.intellectualtakeout.org
There are many professional references to the problem, but of course, NOBODY wants to talk about it. Why? Once they start a riot – it really IS a classic riot of Muslim proportions, under the guidance of course of the ‘Religion of Peace’.
Re the BBC “leaders” debate yesterday, I anticipated the format would mean that watching would be agony, so, although having steeled myself, five minutes was all I could bear.
The fundamental problem is that the format is totally wrong. Surely the point is to hear what the politicians have to say in response to audience questions. Ms. Bruce’s method of allowing three questions before allowing an answer, on the basis that more question is “good”, is idiotic.
While it is one thing to query the politician’s answer it is not the purpose of the programme to allow the audience to promote their ideas, especially if the politician is denied a right of reply.
Incidentally, Ms. Bruce’s BBC one-to-one interview of Nigel Farage earlier in the week was very good, and the half-hour flew by – I wanted more. And that was because the format worked and you actually learn things without distracting noises off: whether or not you agreed with what you heard is, of course, entirely another matter, but you did have something substantial on which to decide.
Colin- I would be pleased to direct you to irrefutable medical references in relation to interbreeding. In fact, would it that interbreeding were the least of our immigration problems…….strange, I was aware of this seventy-six years ago – and I was classified as a ‘Geordie Simpleton’ at the time.
We wanted to rid ourselves of the shackles of the EU…..
Nigel masterminded it.
We want to get rid of the pompous, bloated, biased, BBC and their grotesque salaries?
Let Nigel mastermind it.
The only way to beat the EU Master Plan?
Have a Master Plan of OUR Own.
Re the BBC, correct to say that there is much wrong, daft to advocate what should change on the basis of their current affairs programmes.
Further, the BBC is to some extent as moulded by government. For instance, the recent row over who should have to pay the licence fee came about because of the Conservative Government pressurising the BBC at the time of the last Charter Renewal process; it could reasonably be argued that where the BBC got it wrong was in caving in to that pressure.
If you did not object at the time of the Public Consultation then you are partly to blame.
On the topic of picked audiences. Didn’t hear a single local accent.
Was everybody bussed in from miles away?
The Brexit Party’s pledge is to ”phase out the BBC licence fee”.
https://www.thebrexitparty.org/contract/
Well worth a close read.
Didnt bother to watch the TV ‘debates’ but i did happen to drive near past the venue . Counted at least 12 police mini buses plus top of the range land rovers and squad cars everywhere. Always find it strange that huge numbers of police are employed protecting VIPs but vast areas of the country where the rest of us live see no police presence from one year to the next.
Yes, it really is time to scrap the BBC licence fee. Even Paxman states the licence fee it is an ‘absurd mechanism’.
Not sure if what the BXP position on the BBC licence fee is but UKIP policy is to scrap the licence fee and has been for some time.
Jake, simply acquire a copy of TBP ‘Contract with the People’,
How long have we ALL been complIning about Manifesto Promises? (Manifesto Lies)
Cameron was the worst of all liars…..
Let’s hope Johnson has not listened to the ‘men in grey suits’ who traditionally control the Tories…….and who put together the catalogue of lies.
Cameron was Common Purpose
Cameron? ‘common’ ? Come, come – there is NOTHING common about Cameron. Fake news?