Boris "bigged up" by the BBC

Boris Johnson is standing for London Mayor. Yesterday the BBC had right leaning pundits on the radio extolling the virtues of Boris. As I drove home last night I predicted to my wife that the BBC would "big Johnson up" for a few days so he could become the favourite for the Conservative nomination and then start the "Tory buffoon" attacks. It looks as though they couldn't wait "Boris Johnson's media scrapes". "Conservative MP Boris Johnson, who has announced he is running for London mayor, has created plenty of headlines. Here are a few of the controversies: ..."

I presume that for balance the BBC will also dedicate a page to "Shagger" Norris's indiscretions both personal and business; they probably will if he gets the Conservative nomination. Will the BBC do the same to "Cuddly" Ken Livingstone though? There's a lot there: the anti-Semitic remarks, the associating with terrorists and terrorist supporters, the junkets to (and support of) Socialist Dictatorships etc., but somehow I don't think the BBC will choose to list them.

This contest will be portrayed as the experienced, hard working, cheeky chappy, Ken against the ETON educated, POSH TOFF, Boris. Boris's formidable intellect will be ignored as he is painted as a buffoon. I am afraid that the media (and especially the BBC) will try to make mincemeat of Boris. You can expect much to be made of Boris's middle name "de Pfeffel" sounding like piffle. When Boris makes a gaffe, and he will, he will be pounced upon. The Labour left hate the Upper Classes and an old Etonian, sitting for the seat of Henley with a middle name of de Pfeffel who looks and sounds like a toff will be a target for all the bile they can produce. Ken will win easily as his frequent anti-Israel comments will endear him all the more to the ever increasing Muslim vote in London.

UPDATE:
I have just visited Boris's website and he writes "I suppose I will be pilloried for being a "toff", for representing a small section of society, and all I can say is, be my guest. I have in my 16 great-grandparents Muslims, Jews, and all manner of Christians, and speaking as a one-man melting-pot, I am convinced that in 100 years we will look back at the racism of our age and wonder, "what the hell was that all about?" just as we find it hard to understand the mindset of those who used to put "No Irish" on boarding-house doors." As ever Boris writes well and in an easy to read way BUT I am afraid the dogs of left wing righteousness are soon to be unleashed upon him, be ready Boris.

Labour return to "class war"

I read on Ian Bone's blog claims that :

"Labour work and pensions minister ANNE McGUIRE has called Cameron ‘A FUCKING TOFF’ to his face after Thursday’s expenses vote in the Commons. Labour MP IAN AUSTIN followed this up by shouting at GEORGE OSBORNE ‘YOU FUCKING TOFF ‘ minutes later. Theres no doubt that after Boris Johnson’s fuck ups the posh prep school chums of th Tory party are being exposed as the useless toffs they are. I warmly welcome this conversion to CLASS WARSPEAK by Labour MPs!"

Let's see, one typo, one missing apostrophe - not bad for a class warrior. Do take a trip over to Ian Bone's site and wallow in nostalgia, it's like 1985 all over again.



Benedict Brogan reports the same story in today's Daily Mail.

Stand by for a nasty week

Now watch the Labour attack dogs as they pour on the bile over the next week. Gordon Brown is desperate to hold the election before the economy's collapse becomes too advanced for even the BBC to ignore, but he needs the security blanket of a large poll lead. Personal attacks on the Conservative party leadership will be the order of the day, the keywords will be Eton, privilege, wealthy parents, silver spoon and toff. Will the tactic work? It has in the past but I think a "time for a change" mood is building.

Beeb Bias Craig holds Andrew Marr to account and marks his card for next week

Beeb Bias Craig analyses Andrew Marr's interview of Gordon Brown:

"Today's 0.8 figure for Brown shows that it was a somewhat softer interview this time than it was last time (the interview with the eye-sight question!). Indeed, 15 of those 25 interruptions came in just 10 minutes, as the topic turned to the economy - leaving only 10 interruptions for the remaining 20 minutes (and 3 of those were used on 'the playing fields of Eton', where Marr got the chance to say that Cameron was a 'Tory toff' and repeat that there are too many old Etonians at the top of the Tory party!!). This is not unusual when Marr interviews a senior Labour politician. Brown, therefore, got plenty of time to talk, without much interruption, for a large part of the interview, while only facing a few minutes of concentrated fire. He also got a lot of time to project himself as an international statesman. If Cameron becomes prime minister, what will he do about Yemen, or Somalia, or Afghanistan? Will Marr ask him about this next week? Or will he not give Cameron the chance to pose as an international-statesman-in-waiting, and stick to questioning him almost exclusively on domestic issues instead (cuts, cuts, cuts, Eton, cuts)? "

And then warns Andrew Marr for next week's interview with David Cameron:

"We'll see next week what happens to David Cameron this time round & whether or not this will provide further proof of pro-Labour bias on Marr's part - a bias previously displayed most keenly prior to the June 2009 elections and during the party conferences seasons i.e. when it most matters. We're now at the beginning of the year of the general election, so it matters again.
*
Over to you then Andrew Marr! I will be watching (and counting) next Sunday. Behave yourself, score an I.C. somewhere around 0.8 & you'll prove me wrong!!! "

Beeb Bias Craig is only six months old (the blog not the man) and is already one of my must read blogs. The blogs analysis quantifies some of the bias that many of us knew was there but couldn't prove. More power to you Beeb Bias Craig, keep it up.

What will it take for the BBC to declare anyone but Gordon Brown the victor of tonight's leaders' debate?

No seriously, what could possibly happen at tonight's debate that would convince the BBC 'pundits' that Gordon Brown had not 'won' it? If Gordon Brown started to shout "I am right, I am always right, he went to Eton, Lord Ashcroft, Lord Ascroft, Lord Ashcroft..."? If Gordon Brown started to weep quietly into his water and had to be lead away by Ed Balls? If Gordon Brown leapt across the stage and attacked David Cameron declaring "let me at the Tory toff"?

No it would take more than that...

Shoot the messenger

From Labourhome this morning comes this attack on Martin Bright. No denial of the facts just an attack on Martin Bright. Do read the comments that follow the article - they just don't understand how a socialist could ever criticise another socialist - "I read the article as well. Its deplorable, especially from Martin, supposedly a socialist, providing ammunition to the Tories." and "Disgusting. Everyone on the left should be right behind Ken. Otherwise we get that pretencious toff running our capital into the ground." However one correspondent does get the point"Someone we might expect to support Livingstone attacks him. I assume that his concerns are genuine. How about dropping the ad hominem and addressing the issues? Sorry: silly question." Thanks "jerryc".

Oh Mr Balls

How Ed Balls loves to call David Cameron and his front bench Tory toffs and allude to their membership of elite drinking clubs. So I was intigued to be pointed by Biased-BBC to a Daily Mail story that had passed me by. It's the story of a privately educated toff who wore a "German officer's uniform (whilst) staring at the crotch of a (male) fellow student wearing comedy plastic buttocks." and who "was a founder member of the Steamers, an all-male Oxford drinking club so called because they enjoyed 'steaming in' to chat up girls." Apparently the Steamers

'used to rate women on their physical appearance. It was immature nonsense, and some of the women in college found it ridiculous.

'I thought it was stupid rather than malicious. But it was sexist, and showed a lack of respect for equality and diversity.'

Here's some photos of Ed 'Eddie' Balls at University: one enjoying the view of his male friend's crotch and one of him removing the face mask from a female friend who seems to be wearing fake breasts...



As Eddie himself would say - "So What" and I agree, so what. He was young and foolish and that's the point, so were David Cameron, Boris Johnson and the rest of the Bullingdon Club BUT whilst the BBC, Channel 4 and the rest of the media love to pass comment on David Cameron's membership of the Bullingdon Club, this is the first and only time I have seen anything about Ed Balls's exclusive Oxford club past...

The Sun finally catch on

The SUN quite sweetly declare that

"A SUN investigation has unearthed an alarming BBC bias against the Tories in the run up to the Election.

Covert smears on David Cameron's Conservatives are being made right across the state-owned network - sparking hundreds of viewers' complaints.

News coverage, chat shows and even kids' TV are guilty. We found:
#

BBC News gave disproportionate coverage to the row over Tory donor Lord Ashcroft's tax status;
#

LABOUR panellists were given more time to speak on flagship political show Question Time;
#

A POLL on The One Show ignored issues with Gordon Brown to ask only, Is David Cameron too much of a toff to be PM?
#

THE Tory leader was stitched up when footage of him adjusting his hair was sneakily fed to all broadcasters;
#

THE Basil Brush Show featured a school election with a cheat called Dave wearing a blue rosette."

OK I didn't know about the Basil Brush incident but the rest have been covered here, at Biased-BBC and at Beeb Bias Craig. The latter site being quite possibly also responsible for this section

"The Sun's analysis showed Labour politicians on Question Time were allowed to speak for a full minute longer than Tory counterparts.

On March 11 ex-Labour minister Caroline Flint got SIX minutes more than Tory Justine Greenings.

And on February 18 Labour veteran Roy Hattersley spoke for nearly three minutes longer than Tory Rory Stewart."

Well who cares who broke the stories so long as the news about BBC bias gets spread beyond us bloggers and into the real world. Would be nice if The Sun had linked to us though...

Monday morning catchup

The usual story; too many open Firefox tabs and too little time.

1) The LA Times reports that some investors in Bernard Madoff's ponzi scheme will not get their money back as:

'This week, a federal appeals court ruled that much of the lost money is irretrievable because it never really existed to begin with. The ruling helps clarify the protection that federal law provides investors against unscrupulous brokers and dealers. In short, they're protected if their accounts are drained surreptitiously, but not necessarily if they're filled fictitiously. It's a tough message for many of Madoff's victims, who were in no position to see through his sophisticated deception. But given that investing in the stock market is by its nature speculative, it's the right one.'

2) John C. Goodman at Town Hall wonders 'Are the por really poor?' Here's an extract:

'To most Americans, the word "poverty" implies significant material deprivation, including inadequate food, clothing and shelter. The actual living conditions of America's poor are very different, however. According to the government's own survey data, in 2005:

• The average household defined as poor lived in a house or apartment equipped with air conditioning and cable TV.

• The family had a car (a third of the poor have two or more cars).

• For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, a DVD player and a VCR.

• If there were children in the home (especially boys), the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

• In the kitchen, the household had a microwave, refrigerator, and an oven and stove.

• Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone and a coffeemaker. '

I wonder if the problem is the use of 'relative poverty' as a measure, a measure that the poverty industry like for obvious reasons.


3) Ales Masterley wonders how good one set of traders are:

'2 years ago BarCap hired a team of gold traders from JP Morgan, offering them £30 million in cash and shares. Now we hear that Todd Edgar and his team of nearly a dozen commodities traders are to leave "as part of a stream of cuts designed to shed overheads and put the UK bank on target to hit profit targets".

Well it's hard to see how anybody lost money while trading in gold for the last 2 years. At JPM Edgar's team turned in a profit of $250 million in one year on a risk limit of $2 billion, an apparent return of 12.5%. Not bad.

But 2 years ago, I could have bought gold at $900/oz, which today would be worth $1800/oz, which would have been a return of 42% compounded for 2 years. Is there really more than $30 million of value addded in the team?'

He has a point!


4) USA Today have some questions about Barack Obama's patriotic photo.


5) World Net Daily have some questions regarding a Barack Obama land deal. They mention the phrase 'tax fraud'.


6) The Scotsman reports that:

'KAYE Adams, the BBC broadcaster, has been accused of being unfit to present a top current affairs programmes after she tweeted that Boris Johnson "should p*** off back to boarding school".

The former presenter of Loose Women, the ITV talk show, who presents a popular Radio Scotland show, was on holiday in Tuscany when she made a series of expletive-filled Tweets about London's mayor. She has now apologised and deleted the comments from her Twitter site'

Of course at the BBC insulting a 'Tory toff' for being 'posh' is probbaly a reason to get a bonus.


7) Great Lakes ForEx have a fascinating piece about the gold market, including a prediction of the gold price moving back to $850. I am not so sure!

Jacob Rees Mogg pwns David Dimbleby over 'Eton' jibe

How lovely to see the sanctimonious David Dimbleby try to point out that Jacob Rees Mogg went to Eton, via a textbook playing of the Labour you're a toff card, only to have his snideness blow up in his face.

Absolutely delicious!

The BBC in full ant-Conservative mode this morning

Andrew Marr's interview of David Cameron and most of The Politics Show showed how the BBC/Labour alliance will play the game from now on. Attack the Conservatives from the left and the right, try and get the word "extremist" associated with the Conservative party and portray David Cameron as a rich toff.

Labour's new hate figure - Lord Ashcroft

One of the reasons that Gordon Brown cancelled the planned general election was that Deborah Mattinson's private pollings showed bad news from the marginal seats where Lord Ashcroft's targetted funding had boosted Conservative votes. Gordon Brown will not allow this state of affairs to continue so new party funding rules will be used to end this source of funding. Gordon Brown and his cohorts will cry foul and claim that Lord Ashcroft's funding is anti-democratic and that he is trying to "buy" seats and has started a financial “arms race”, however the truth of the matter is that "trade unions donated twice as much to local parties before the last election as the wealthy Tory businessman, Lord Ashcroft".

Analysis by the Times shows that "while Lord Ashcroft gave almost £850,000 during the last Parliament to Tory seats, unions collectively gave £1.58 million directly to constituencies. Other wealthy Tory businessmen gave a further £470,000, meaning the Tories’ marginal seats received £1.38 million, broadly comparable with the unions’ constituency donations."

Somehow I doubt that the above will be given much publicity on IzvestiaBBC news. Their chosen message will be, as always, about corrupt Tory toff funding and the gallant fight by our glorious leader Gordon Brown to ensure perpetual Labour rule freedom and liberty for all.

Gordon Brown - the great pretender

Take a read of Mark Lawson in the Guardian with a piece on Gordon Brown's interview with the ever fawning Andrew Marr. Read the whole article but here is an excerpt:

"But the fascination of the encounter lay in body language. The paradox of Brown's short time in office is that a leader whose champions promised an end to the Blairite obsession with presentation has been forced, by falling approval ratings, to watch himself as assiduously as a man in a hall of mirrors.

There was a sense that hours of thought had gone into every minute of screen time. Brown sat in right profile, keeping from the camera the rugbydamaged eye which can make him look cold and unresponsive . And someone seemed to have addressed the most common criticism about the PM's style - his tendency to twitch when uncomfortable - by deciding that he would It was 'fiscal arithmetic' that led Brown to believe that MPs must accept a pay rise of less than 2% keep as still as possible. The two mannerisms which get the Bremners and the Culshaws instant recognition - the mouth stretching like a competitor in a toff ee-eating contest, and the forehead furrowing as if in sudden fury - were absent during most of the half-hour .

As Brown listened to the questions, his features were so motionless that you wondered if Sarah had given him Botox for Christmas. And, presumably because of the newspaper coverage given to a hand that seemed to shake on the despatch box during one of his parliamentary reversals, Brown's left paw was often employed as a clamp to keep the right in place."

Unblocking the credit blockage

Take a watch of Thursday's Newsnight and see how you feel it goes. Angela Eagle for the Labour "government" complete with stock phrases and digs at Conservative "cuts", Vince Cable for the Lib Dems and the BBC world view and John Redwood for the Conservatives and common-sense. Oh and I nearly forgot the Labour insider Kirsty Wark on-hand to see "fair play".

John Redwood does his best despite being heavily outnumbered and comes over far better and convincing than George Osborne. Here is John Redwood's take on the interview. Angela Eagle seems, understandably, not to have alerted her constituents to her Newsnight appearance. Vince Cable hasn't mentioned his appearance either, but since he is hardly off the BBC I suppose mentioning every appearance might seem excessive.

Maybe John Redwood could become Shadow Chancellor and George Osborne something more suited to his TV-unfriendly "toff" image in a pre-election Conservative re-shuffle.

Time to set loose the attack dogs, Gordon?

I have previously predicted here that Labour's attacks on David Cameron's "privileged background", as I said the keywords will be Eton, privilege, wealthy parents, silver spoon and toff. In an attempt by Gordon Brown to turn the tide of opinion polls I think that another wave of attacks on the suitability of David Cameron for the role of Prime Minister is on its way.

Will the tactic work? It has less chance than it did last Autumn - there is a mood for change in the country and I don't know if the Labour party and the BBC can reverse it.

The second strand of the attempted Labour party recovery will be to try and improve the Liberal Democrats standing so as to diminish the gains the Conservative party has made from them. Will this tactic work? That depends upon how well Nick Clegg performs over the next few months and whether David Cameron can up his game again.

The BBC making a mountain out of a molehill

On wednesday I blogged about how the BBC were giving undue prominence to a nothing story, giving it massive coverage so as to get Labour back on the front-foot and boost some anti-establishment sentiment following an incredibly popular Diamond Jubilee. Yesterday it emerged that the Labour/BBC story was not all that it seemed and the the Daily Mail printed a rather more balanced view:

'Around 80 unemployed people were driven to London on Sunday from Bristol, Plymouth and Bath. But the coach company mistimed the length of the journey and dropped them off at 3am instead of 5am. Instead of staying, the drivers left the drop-off point.

One volunteer, Robert Cooke, 30, from Plymouth, said: ‘A couple of people have complained about things that weren’t controlled by CPUK – the coach drivers who insisted on leaving, and the weather.’

...

The complaints were reported at length by The Guardian, which quoted two unnamed jobseekers claiming they were forced to camp overnight under London Bridge before they started work on the river pageant.

They were then picked up by BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, becoming the subject of its main interview slot at 8.10am, and again by The World At One at lunchtime.

Labour’s former Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott also weighed in, demanding an inquiry in a letter to Home Secretary Theresa May.

He said: ‘Not only was it under the bridge, but they were then sent to a camp which they described as “swampy and wet” after this event, almost becoming a development of labour camps. Is this going to be the circumstances for the Olympic sites?’

Labour’s deputy chairman Tom Watson wrote on Twitter: ‘Young people as commodities with few rights in a show of opulence by state elites? Isn’t there a powerful symbolism to that?’'

The Mail also has some direct quotations from people willing to be quoted, unlike The Guardian/BBC alliance who relied upon anonymous comments and the bluster of John 'does anyone take this individual seriously' Prescott:

'Among the volunteer stewards defending Close Protection UK yesterday was Robert Cooke, 30, from Plymouth.

He pointed out that the company could have done nothing about the cold weather, or the coach drivers’ decision to leave after dropping off the stewards two hours early.

He added: ‘Organisers found somewhere for us to shelter, and said that if any of us wanted to get into our sleeping bags to keep warm, then we could.

‘Most of us just stayed up chatting. It was a good laugh, and we had access to the portable loos the whole time.’

Mr Cooke, who hopes to work for CPUK during the Olympics, added: ‘They have paid for all the training for my licence and an NVQ in crowd safety.

‘They gave us boots worth £80, and a uniform. We worked out that what they’ve spent is the equivalent of us being paid £45 an hour.’

In a message to the company, Kirsty Nicholls, 23, also from Plymouth, said: ‘I would like to thank CPUK for the amazing experience I was a part of this weekend.

'I am extremely grateful for this opportunity. We were treated with the utmost respect and highly praised for the work we had done.

‘I personally volunteered to do all three days work as I found the experience incredibly pleasurable. I look forward to a long career with CPUK.’

Markus Hanks, another volunteer, said: ‘Thanks for a great time at the Diamond Jubilee. Brilliant company to work for, great staff, brilliant atmosphere between everyone, looking forward to working with Close Protection UK again at the London 2012 Olympics. I’m supporting you and the Close Protection UK 110%.’

One text message to CPUK’s operations director Danny Sheehan said: ‘Just wanted to say thanks for the weekend, had a great time, got some good experience. Look forward to working with you in the future.’

Another said: ‘Thank you for the chance of the work experience in London’, adding that it had stood them in good stead of getting a job.'

The BBC have dropped the story as far down their news website as they reasonably could bearing in mind it was headline news 48 hours earlier. But the damage has been done, the story has been established in the public mind and no doubt one or more lefty 'comedian' will be opining on the return to Dickensian labour conditions under a Tory toff lead government on Friday's News Quiz.

The BBC gave huge airtime to the SWP last year in order to publicise their campaign against such work experience schemes. The BBC long ago ceased to have any claim to be an impartial news organisation, for a while they have been a campaigning organisation on many subjects and a real Conservative Prime Minister would address the problem, I leave it to you to decide why David Cameron has done nothing.

Meanwhile the BBC who went with this attack have been caught out. The Telegraph reports that:

'Documents released under Freedom of Information laws show that 6,283 people have worked for the Corporation (BBC) for free since 2007.

Asked what rights interns had, the BBC stated: "Volunteers do not have any employment rights," adding that it had “no budget” for paying them a wage or expenses.

A BBC source said last night: "These interns do a valuable job - they really help out with any number of projects and they do it all for nothing in the hope of getting a job at the end of it. '

The BBC's hypocrisy is staggering but predictable. What is also predictable is that our CINO