"This Young Lady Perfectly Explains The EU Debate"

Well not perfectly but well enough to disgust Diane Abbott

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!

BBC One - Question Time, 18/06/2015

According to the BBC the guests on tonight's Question Time are:

'... former leader of the SNP Alex Salmond MP, Conservative former shadow home secretary David Davis MP, Labour's shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint MP, editor of the Financial Times Lionel Barber and columnist Melanie Phillips.'

Two thoughts, first that it's nice to see two right of centre guests on the panel for a change. In fact maybe a majority with Lionel Barber as well. But as ever with the anti Conservative party BBC, there are reasons: Lionel Barber is the editor of the very pro the UK staying in the EU Financial Times, David Davis is very civil liberties and Melanie Phillips is forthright on Islamic extremism. All three are there to allow Tory splits (whether on the EU or Human Rights legislation) to be the story or for a right winger to be attacked (and therefore the Conservatives) for being insufficiently multi cultural sensitive. 

The second thought that strikes me is why is a SNP spokesman on the panel for an English set programme? The SNP are a Scottish separatist party, surely a representative of the third biggest party in the UK by votes received in the recent general election would be more representative of the national mood. 

I rarely, if ever, watch Question Time these days. Labour Party propaganda being so easy to find elsewhere on the BBC at an earlier hour.

Is the Euro doomed, was it always doomed?

Nigel Farage tells the truth whilst Ken Clarke blathers on in favour of the Euro and dismisses the chances of the end of the Euro and then refuse to answer whether he'd like Britain join the Euro but instead make a stupid joke at Nigel Farage's expense. Even more ridiculous is Labour's Gloria de Piero stating with a straight face that "This is not a political project"; the architects of the EU have proudly stated that it was and is a political project, who is she to know better. Paddy Ashdown is another plitician who refuses to face facts or ever admit that he was wrong. I find it detesatable when people who have got so many things wrong become senior statesmen whose words have to be listened to.

Wednesday catch-up

So many open tabs and so little time...

1) Ken Livingstone on tax avoidance. Oh dear Ken, hoist by your own petard?


2) Daniel Hannan asks 'What makes Question Time audiences so Left-wing?'. A good question.


3) The BBC report that 'Up to 900 tropical bird species could 'go extinct'' - well they 'could' but then again they could not...


4) The Guardian reports that 'Labour minister and MI5 'briefed about phone hacking scandal' - Leveson inquiry hears Met police allegedly sent report to John Reid and security service, but it was not made public'


5) Bishop Hill reports that:

'Biofuels have been attracting a minor surge of media interest recently, after Friends of the Earth published a report claiming that they probably produce more greenhouse gases than they save. Maybe it was this that caused my attention to alight on one of Sharman's papers - the one entitled "Evidence based policy or policy-based evidence gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% target".
Sharman and Holmes 2010 (as the paper is more snappily known) is not publicly available (paywalled here) to the best of my knowledge, but Amelia Sharman was good enough to send me a copy, and I have to say it's pretty amazing stuff.
The paper examines the EU's mandatory 10% target for biofuel use and in particular the way in which scientific advice impinged upon the decision to introduce it. It's a murky tale, which Sharman has uncovered by means of interviewing key players in the policy machinery.
In 2009, when the target was introduced, it was far from clear that biofuels were a feasible approach to greenhouse gas reduction. But the 10% target was introduced nevertheless. As one of the interviewees explained:

The idea is that normally you should not propose legislation until you’ve got the evidence to justify it. But there, you had the prime ministers and heads of state signing up to a target that no-one had done any impact assessment at all . . . they got them to sign up to these targets, 20% renewables and 10% biofuels, and then only later in the year did they do the impact assessment. And basically they said they didn’t need to [properly] impact-assess the 10% because it had already been approved by the heads of state! . . .”

As Sharman and Holmes pithily comment:

The fact that the EC was endorsing a target without having seen a full impact assessment provides the first indication that motivations other than scientific evidence related to environmental sustainability and GHG emissions reductions played a part in the policy
decision to establish the 10% target.'

Anonymous re Question Time in Middlesborough

To the anonymous commenter who made some interesting points re seat allocation at recent Question Time in Middlesborough: that sounds interesting, have you more information and source for your allegations?

BBC Question Time - are they having a laugh?

'enable us to invite a balanced cross-section of people' - I wonder if a FOI request would shed some light on this balancing process?

Question Time tonight 26 January 2012 features David '13 points' Lammy

Labour MP, and former minister, David Lammy is on BBC's Question Time tonight. I wonder if David Dimbleby would remind us of David Lammy's most famous TV performance, I am sure he would were David Lammy a Conservative politician...


13 points on Mastermind

The incredible general knowledge round starts at 4:22, or 5:16 if you'd rather miss John Humphry's adoring chat.
Q1: So easy - he got it wrong
Q2: Didn't know but would guess Jamaica
Q3: So easy
Q4: So easy - he got it wrong
Q5: Tricky
Q6: So easy - he got it wrong
Q7: So easy - he passed
Q8: Easy
Q9: So easy - he passed
Q10: Easy
Q11: So easy - he got it wrong
Q12: Easy
Q13: So easy - he passed
Q14: Easy
Q15: Henry VII succeeded Henry VIII, that's unlikely!
Q16: Tricky
Q17: So easy - he got it wrong

'Those in charge of editorial content at the BBC have been exposed for their inability to provide a balanced debate on the issue of cuts. Could it be, as public service workers themselves, they have a vested interest that makes them incapable of being impartial?'

Andrew Griffiths, MP, has realised why the BBC might be biased and it was Question Time that made him see it:

'This week’s show plumbed new depths. On a day when three unions staged national strikes over a dispute about UK Government policy, Question Time fielded the most unbalanced panel that I can remember. Firstly, it decided that the Government’s position should only be represented by a single panel member, my colleague Philip Hammond.

Philip was up against John Denham, a former Cabinet Minister and current Shadow Business Secretary, Sir Richard Lambert the former Director of the CBI, who has no party affiliation as far as I know, Polly Toynbee, grand old doyen of the Left, and Christine Blower of the NUT whose union had seen thousands of its members join the strike.

That meant that on a day dominated by one of the most important issues we face – the issue of what should be done to bring the deficit back under control – the BBC’s flagship political programme had a panel with one Conservative, one Labour, a neutral, a left-wing journalist and a militant trade union leader. At which point did the producers think that represented a fair and balanced representation of views?

The only possible explanation for how this could have been allowed to go ahead on what is supposed to be a politically neutral channel is that the BBC’s default setting is a belief that the Labour Party represents the centre ground. How else could they believe that having two representatives from the Derek Hatton school of industrial relations is a perfectly acceptable way of organising things?

Those in charge of editorial content at the BBC have been exposed for their inability to provide a balanced debate on the issue of cuts. Could it be, as public service workers themselves, they have a vested interest that makes them incapable of being impartial?

This week’s programme ran a coach and horses through the credibility of the BBC. Frankly we should be able to expect better from such a highly-respected news and current affairs broadcaster, but the reality is that, in the months ahead, we can expect more of this kind of Leftist posturing.

It is time that what I believe are the views of the vast majority of the public are at least heard on the nation’s number one broadcasting channel, even if those producing the programmes disagree with them.'

Well done for finally realising it, now what are you going to do about it?
Will you raise the matter when you are next interviewed by the BBC?
Will you write a letter of complaint to the BBC?
Will you complain to David Cameron or Jeremy Hunt?
Or will you just forget about it and return to the quiet life, after all you don't want to risk your gold-plated public sector pension?

Bias on the BBC's Question Time, I am shocked

The Mail reveals that:

'The BBC has again been accused of political bias by ensuring Question Time has audiences ‘hostile’ to government cuts.

This week’s show was broadcast from the Labour stronghold of Middlesbrough, where 43 per cent of the workforce is employed in the public sector.

Many viewers were shocked at how much hostility was heaped on Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, during the show.

Next week the debate will be held in the Tory-free zone of Glasgow, while the following week it is due in Sheffield, where fury has raged since the election that an £80million government loan for a local steel plant, Sheffield Forgemasters, was cancelled by the Coalition.'

I recall reading on Biased-BBC a list of where Question Time had been broadcast from recently and there did seem to be a preponderance of Labour constituencies.

The part of The mail piece that really struck me was this:

'After the audience grilling, a BBC producer was overheard telling Sir Richard Dannatt, a panellist and the former head of the Army, that the show was held in Middlesbrough because the audience would be the most hostile to the cuts.'

If true this is a) unsurprising to those such as me but b) surely ground for the government imposing sanctions on the BBC. I note also that the Green's first MP has been a guest yet again, why so often?

Defending the indefensible

Yesterday I received a comment on my old post entitled '
The BBC/Labour relationship in one video clip'.

Here's the comment from 'Anonymous'

'What was it that we're supposed to be annoyed about? She said something to him, and he then interrupted IDS, but you can't say that one led to the other. All David Dimbleby does on that show is interupt and challenge the speakers - that's what he's there for. He does it to everyone - well, to all the politicians anyway, he usually gives journos and business types an easier ride.

By the way, Dimbleby is not employed by the BBC, he's always been a freelancer.'

And here's the video


So let's see: can you really watch that piece of video and not see Harriet Harman tell David Dimbleby what to do and him acquiesce? Check Beeb Bias Craig for figures detailing David Dimbleby's lack of bias. And as for David dimbleby not being employed by the BBC, so what? They pay him and they broadcast the programme.

Sadiq Khan - a question

The BBC are quite ecstatic that Sadiq Khan has been elected to Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet, their pen portrait of him runs thus:

'One of the most high profile Muslim MPs, Sadiq Khan was an early backer of Ed Miliband to be Labour leader and went on to run his campaign. Before becoming an MP for Tooting, in South London, in 2005 he was a leading human rights solicitor and chairman of pressure group Liberty. He is a former government whip, local government minister and transport minister, who was promoted to shadow transport secretary when Lord Adonis stood down after the 2010 general election. Leading light in Labour think tanks The Fabian Society and Progress. A supporter of Liverpool FC and Surrey County Cricket club, Mr Khan also turns out for the Parliamentary football team.'

Now almost every article I have ever read about Sadiq Khan refers to him being a Muslim and his Wikipedia entry includes this: 'In 2009, he became the first Muslim in British history to attend the cabinet when he was appointed as Minister of State for Transport'.

However I have also read a comment in the New Statesman that:

'Sadiq Khan is NOT Muslim. He's agnostic, with a Muslim background.

Question Time on BBC1, David Dimbleby turned to Khan and referred to him as a Muslim. Khan replied "Actually I'm agnostic" and carried on with his answer.'

Did this happen, is there video anywhere?

It is interesting as Muslim Aid and MPAC certainly regard Sadiq Khan as a Muslim.

So is Sadiq Khan a Muslim or an agnostic? I wonder about this because the Sharia Law punishment for a Muslim who leaves the faith, commits apostasy, is death.

So (assuming he did say it) was Sadiq Khan telling the truth when he said he was not a Muslim but an agnostic and if so why have the death threats from outraged Muslims not poured forth or was he not being entirely straight with Question Time, or is there another explanation?


UPDATE: Thanks to 'Anonymous' there appears to be another explanation: Sadiq Khan explains:

'Question Time
Friday, 23 July 2010 09:59

I really enjoyed my maiden appearance on Question Time in Hartlepool. I haven't seen the programme yet but got some really postive comments. However, I understand from my mum that I may have said on the programme that I was agnostic!

I certainly am not and can't recall saying that. I do recall getting into a heated exchange with Nigel Farage MEP about the idea of politicians telling women what they can and cant wear in the context of "banning the nikab". I think David Dimbleby asked my personal view as a Muslim. I meant to say (and thought I did say) I am agnostic about whether women should wear the nikab or not. My point was it's not for me, as a male politician, to tell women what to wear - let alone legislate to ban or criminalise it.

...

And for the avoidance of doubt, I am not agnostic about my faith!'

I would like to see the video itself to see what Sadiq Khan actually said, rather than read what he 'meant to say', any sources?

The BBC/Labour relationship in one clip

I have posted this piece of video several times but the more I watch it the angrier I get and the more disgusted I feel. Has anyone ever quizzed David Dimbleby about this extract and what was going on? How can he be made to account for his acquiescence to Harriet Harman's instructions?


For more on David Dimbleby's record of Labour bias take a look at Beeb Bias Craig's archive.

In a fairer world

So the Lib Dems have benefited hugely from Nick Clegg's appearance at the first leaders' debate. What he was doing there in the first place is beyond me but what might have happened had the party that came second in the most recent EU elections had also had a place? Here's Nigel Farage getting the exposure that he deserves...

Nigel Farage is wrong, there is one phrase that everyone will remember - Gordon Brown's "I agree with Nick"
Nice to see John Sergeant standing up for Gordon Brown's economic policies.

Question Time 4 March 2010

Just two questions: first how long on Lord Ashcroft and will David Dimbleby allow any comparisons with Lord Paul, Lakshmi Mittal, Sir Ronald Cohen, Sir Christopher Ondaatje, Sir Gulam Noon, William Bollinger or Mahmoud Khayami? Second will Lord Adonis be able to control David Dimbleby as neatly as Harriet Harman did back in last July? Here's a reminder of Harriet and her controlling of David Dimbleby

So do you think David Dimbleby looks like just the impartial person needed to moderate the last of the leaders' election debates?

Question Time 4 February 2010

George Galloway & Melanie Phillips and Charles Falconer & Clare Short on the same panel, could be interesting but unfortunately I must go to bed before I collapse. That also means that I can avoid having to watch Theresa May destroy another piece of Conservative Party credibility with a presumably woeful performance.

The Nick Griffin Show

So Question Time with the BNP as just one guest was actually the attacking the BNP and Nick Griffin show. The usual wide variety of topics was replaced by just immigration and race topics, apart from the Stephen Gately/Jan Moir story.

Key points:
Jack Straw's panicky and disingenuous way of answering the question as to whether the rise in the BNP is due to failings by the Labour party on immigration policy. Contrast his reply with Baroness Warsi's more honest one about resources. Baroness Warsi did fall into the trap that so many fall into of saying that we need "the brightest and best", this is what many argue by describing the benefits of allowing American bankers (maybe no more), French computer scientists etc. to come here but ignoring the sometimes workshy, violent immigrants from other cultures.

The question posed by the well suited gentleman to Jack Straw about Labour's culpability on the matter of immigration which was linked to Frank Field's comments as reported this morning. Listening to Jack Straw worry about "having to be authoritarian" was almost hysterical coming from just one of the sequence of authoritarian Labour Home Secretaries that have been inflicted on this country.

Nick Griffin did at least attack the BBC for being leftist, which is more than any Conservative MP or MEP has done on TV.

So what will the results of the Nick Griffin appearance be? I don't think it will be any sort of tipping point. The BNP may gain a little credibility but I don't think that much. Jack Straw's diminishing credibility has taken yet another knock. Baroness Warsi may be used even more on the media as she performed very well.

Peter Hain and free-speech

Peter Hain, that bastion of probity, has threatened the BBC over its decision to invite Nick Griffin onto Question Time on Thursday. He is reported to have said that

"If you do not review the decision you may run the very serious risk of legal challenge in addition to the moral objections that I make.

"In my view, your approach is unreasonable, irrational and unlawful."

Why is free speech so anathema to so many on the left of British politics?

Question Time - 24 September 2009 (update)

Unfortunately I could not watch this live last night, well past my midweek bedtime so this is as-live from iPlayer...

Fraser Nelson is editor of the "right wing" Spectator; are journalists like Kevin McGuire or any from the New Statesman or Guardian described as "left wing" or even "Left of centre"? Where is the centre in the BBC mind?

1st question is on the Obama snub and linking to al-Megrahi.
Why is it that when Harriet Harman speaks I get so irritated, it's an incessant whine of righteous indignation with scarcely a pause for breath. Fraser Nelson asks the questions that David Dimbleby should ask but Harriet Harman ignore them.
Lord Heseltine who has a great understanding of how things work seemed to put his finger on the al-Megrahi release factors and on the fiction of the "special relationship".
David Laws speaks sense on the reality of Libya.
Fraser Nelson again asks Harriet Harman the question about releasing al-Megrahi, David Dimbleby re-asks it, the audience demands an answer but Harriet Harman plays the UK government minister cannot comment card. Michael Heseltine points out the stupidity of that line but Harriet Harman sticks to her line despite having it pointed out that Ed Balls had done so. Michael Heseltine calls it a Labour split.

2nd question is on whether Baroness Scotland should lose her job
David Laws remind everyone of Harriet Harman's attempts to exempt MPs from FOI legislation and says yes she should go.
Lord Digby Jones agrees and spots the disconnect between the governed and the governers.
Harriet Harman tries to justify her colleague staying in post as it was just a "mistake", "no financial gain", "administrative error". "Lawmaker can be lawbreakers"? from DD?
Michael Heseltine has known Baroness Scotland for a long time but points out that she is the architect of this law, good point, and he is right that she should have gone for the purposes of accountability.
Fraser Nelson brings up the disconnect point.
Angry lady in audience and Harriet Harman shows she doesn't even know the fines for the crime, you might have thought she would have done a bit more research.

3rd question on whether Nick Clegg's conference speech has furthered Lib Dems prospects
Lord Heseltine lays into the "mansion tax" and points out that £1 million is not the cost of a mansion in London but a normal house.
David Laws makes a totally fatuous point about only paying only if over £1 million. But does then attack Lord Heseltine for the Council Tax.
Lord Digby Jones supports the taking out of tax of the low paid, quite right too; isn't that part of IDS's policy?
Harriet Harman despite being reminded of the question.
Fraser Nelson shows his speed of thought by replying to David Dimbleby's calling him "Nelson" by calling him "Dimbleby". DD takes it quite well.

4th question is on the closure of the Jungle camp and reducing illegal immigration into the UK
Question about what is being done about illegal immigrants already in the question and daring to mention the BNP. Harriet Harman evades the question and attacks the questioner for quoting the BNP favourably. Harriet Harman gets very indignant and refuses to have "any truck with the BNP" and so avoids answering what the government is doing about illegal immigrants already in the country.
Fraser Nelson makes the point that I made the other day.
Another question from the audience about the benefits given to immigrants.
Lord Heseltine points out the lack of effective border controls that exists and that the people are mostly economic migrants, much to the upset of David Laws who gets on his Lib Dem high horse.
Digby Jones knows what the French are up to in Calais area and he is right.

Question 5 the "funny one"
Or not...

Question Time tonight - 24 September 2009

Panellists tonight are:
Harriet Harman (Labour Cabinet Minister and potential candidate in any Labour leadership election)
Lord Heseltine (ex Conservative Minister and Euro-enthusiast, usually invited onto BBC programmes when mischief over "Tory splits" over Europe are required to take the attention off of the collapsing economy, Gordon Brown's latest PR disaster and/or the latest ministerial scandal/resignations)
David Laws (Lib Dem MP for Yeovil)
Lord Digby Jones (Ex Director of the CBI and one of Gordon Brown's GOATs. He was the man who said of his brief time in government that it was "one of the most dehumanising and depersonalising experiences" anyone could have, and that he had been amazed by how many civil servants he thought deserved the sack)
Fraser Nelson (Editor of the Spectator and one of the few journalists with the balls to ask Gordon Brown a difficult question and push the point)

When the Question Time panel has two right of centre politicians (if Michael Heseltine is indeed right of centre) then there is always a reason. Watch Harriet Harman and her occasional puppetDavid Dimbleby try and expose "Tory splits" so as to take the attention off of Labour's problems.

I wonder how the Question Time audience will be made up tonight...

Here's Fraser Nelson asking the difficult question and Gordon Brown answering a different question.



And here's Harriet Harman controlling David Dimbleby...