BBC Spread the Hatred 188

UPDATE Sign this Sack Laura Keunssberg petition. It put on 16,000 signatures in the last twelve hours after gaining just 25 in its first three months!

No matter how terrible the BBC is, it constantly manages to get worse. The BBC News this evening appears like an especially rabid Tory Party broadcast. Sarah Smith was just breathtaking, while I thought Laura Kuenssberg must be the Chairman of the Conservative Party.

Sarah Smith’s report from Holyrood was so astonishingly biased that a rather bemused BBC correspondent named Keane followed it with “But after Sarah Smith’s report let’s not forget that the SNP have won an historic third election”. Sarah Smith’s contribution was a voiceover of a photo montage of Ruth Davidson. Smith told us the election was all about Independence and the “stunning” Tory result was evidence that voters were firmly rejecting the idea of any second referendum. Cut to Ruth Davidson saying the Tories were firmly rejecting any second referendum.

Let us for a moment accept Sarah Smith’s contention that the Tories attracted those voters who do not want a second referendum. The truth of the matter is that just 1 in 9 of eligible Scottish voters, voted Tory. 21% of those who voted. So the proper conclusion should be that the Tories came a distant second and most people rather fancy a second referendum. Sarah Smith’s anti-independence tirade was gobsmacking, but then it was topped by some BBC pundit comparing Ruth Davidson’s Tories to Leicester City.

A foreign visitor would have had to be watching very carefully indeed to realise that the Tories had not won, and indeed got half the votes of the SNP. So the Tories are not Leicester, they are Newcastle. Yet the Tories in Scotland got four times the coverage of the SNP on the BBC news.

And so to the rest of the UK. Laura Kuenssberg seems to have a depth of hatred for Jeremy Corbyn which is more generally reserved for Fred and Rose West. She appears to be sponsored to say “anti-Semitism” as often as possible. She opened her report by saying that the results called Corbyn’s leadership into question.

The strange thing is that the results are near identical to Ed Miliband’s 2012 result at precisely the same Council elections. The net loss of Labour councillors is 12 out of over 2000, as I write. Miliband’s result was unanimously hailed in the media at the time as a triumph. Exactly the same result for Corbyn – including winning many councils in Tory Westminster constituencies in Southern and Midlands England – is a disaster.

An opposition party should make gains in council elections. But when that opposition party makes truly spectacular gains, but is still the opposition when they cycle comes round again, you can’t expect it to make further gains exponentially. Keunssberg stated directly that Labour has to be “piling on hundreds and hundreds of net gains” to have any chance. That is simply untrue. 2012 was Miliband’s high water mark. It was all downhill from there. Corbyn is exactly matching Miliband’s best ever performance, and doing so despite being tendentiously branded a mad anti-Jewish racist by the bitter Blairites in his own party. Plus under Corbyn, unlike Brown and Miliband, the London mayor is now Labour again

Miliband went downhill from 2012 precisely because, after his 2012 successes, the BBC and corporate media threw their entire firepower at Miliband. Corbyn has already weathered an even greater media barrage than Miliband ever suffered. It is by no means plain he will follow Miliband’s downhill trajectory from here. In England next year’s local election results – in a tranche of seats last contested when Miliband was already slipping back – will tell us a great deal more.

188 thoughts on “BBC Spread the Hatred

1 2 3 4
  • Debra Duce

    I had to stop watching as this woman was making me so angry. She is either being paid to do what she has done or she genuinlly dislikes Mr Corbyn. Either way, her reporting was atrocious and most definately was not impartial.

  • BrianFujisan

    I was furious at bbC bias during the indy ref.. and got to thinking that at least no one died of that bias

    But how many people are dead, and dying because of bbC war propaganda – Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Palestinians – millions

    But it’s not New, getting worse all the time for sure..An interesting take on it here

    The General Strike to Corbyn: 90 years of BBC establishment bias

    The 38 degrees petition is now at over 18.200…sky rocketing.. a reminder for the link

  • bernadette phillips

    This petition should not only target Laura Kuenssberg as a correspondent but those in senior positions in the BBC who clearly have a serious conflict of interests given their involvement with the Conservative party REMOVE – FIONA FAIRCHILD Chair of the BBC Trust and JAMES HARDING Director of News & Current Affairs

    • Ba'al Zevul

      It’s ok to be nice to Corbyn now the elections are over.

      BTW, on Any Questions yesterday, one of the questions concerned the Islamophobic Goldsmith campaign and the antisemitism smears aimed at Labour – explicitly. The panel, all of it, led by Ken Clark, simply did a reprise of its answers to the previous question. The words ‘islamophobia’ and ‘antisemitism’ weren’t even mentioned.


  • SaltheGal

    It’s easy to think one is going mad, such is the distance, now, between BBC and other press coverage and anything that is actually happening, but Craig, as ever, has nailed it. My sanity may be ok, then, but my rage is unabated!

  • Steve Hewlett

    2012 Mid-term Elections

    Net change for Ed Miliband’s Labour: +534 councillors …
    Net change for David Cameron’s Conservatives: -328 councillors.

    2016 Mid-term Elections

    Net change for Jeremy Corby’s Labour: -24 councillors …
    Net change for David Cameron’s Conservatives: -35 councillors …
    Net change for UKIP: +26 councillors …
    Net change for Lib Dems: +39 councillors.

    Regardless of what one thinks of the BBC coverage, your definitions of “near identical” and “exactly the same result” need some revision.

    “It is by no means plain he will follow Miliband’s downhill trajectory from here” – that is true, of course; but it is NOT therefore the case that “Keunssberg stat[ing] directly that Labour has to be ‘piling on hundreds and hundreds of net gains’ to have any chance … is simply untrue”. It might turn out to be inaccurate, but that does not make it “simply untrue”. One can reasonably expect that the Keunssberg’s assessment has its basis in historical precedent.

    • Derek Robinson

      ” NOT therefore the case that “Keunssberg stat[ing] directly that Labour has to be ‘piling on hundreds and hundreds of net gains’ to have any chance … is simply untrue”. It might turn out to be inaccurate, but that does not make it “simply untrue” ”

      Newspeak gibberish …. if something is inaccurate by definition it is untrue ……

    • Derek Robinson

      He was clearly referring to the end position, not Net gains or losses.
      Hence the paragraph, ” An opposition party should make gains in council elections. But when that opposition party makes truly spectacular gains, but is still the opposition when they cycle comes round again, you can’t expect it to make further gains exponentially. ”

      Are you deliberately misconstruing what was said ?

    • John Spencer-Davis

      2012 Mid-term Elections – England

      Labour councillors elected under Ed Miliband’s leadership: 1,188

      Triumph for Ed Miliband!

      2016 Mid-term Elections – England

      Labour councillors elected under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership: 1,164*

      Disaster for Jeremy Corbyn!

      That is what Craig is complaining about.

      * I can’t find a final figure. I’ve knocked 24 off Miliband’s figure.

      • Derek Robinson

        He was clearly referring to the end position, not Net gains or losses.
        Hence the paragraph, ” An opposition party should make gains in council elections. But when that opposition party makes truly spectacular gains, but is still the opposition when they cycle comes round again, you can’t expect it to make further gains exponentially. ”

    • craig Post author


      You are extremely obtuse. Miliband won 1314 councillors. Fighting the same seats Corbyn won 1293. That is near identical.

      That included winning many seats, and councils, in English Tory constituencies. the idea that you can infinitely advance when you are defending the results of an extremely good year is stupid. Labour is not going to start winning Woking and Windsor.

      • Steve Hewlett

        (Apologies for the delay in replying, Craig.)

        Of course, an “infinite advance” is not possible, I agree. But the simple fact is that almost all opposition parties – and every opposition party in the last 30 years – have GAINED seats rather than lost them, regardless of their starting point. The fact of last week’s election is that the status quo has been pretty much maintained, applying your own assessment; but this applies to the Conservatives, too. Indeed, their losses were mainly to UKIP, etc. While I can agree that Kuenssberg’s “hundreds and hundreds” was hyperbolic, it doesn’t change the fact that history reveals that, by and large, opposition parties DO have to make substantial gains AT THE EXPENSE OF THE INCUMBENT GOVERNING PARTY to have any chance of forming the next national government. The is not to say, of course, that history is infallible on its suggested trajectories, but in these matters it’s pretty reliable.

      • Steve Hewlett

        And, of course, we shouldn’t forget that these “metadiscussions” take no cognisance of turnouts, which can/will skew the issues.

  • Steve McEvilly

    The woman has actually reached the stage where she needs professional help. She is utterly biased. Had the genders between her and JC been the other way round it would be defined in misogynistic terms but as they aren’t and as she has no personal political adversary to contend with it must be a visceral issue that is best dealt with by professional help.

  • David

    Yes but as someone pointed out to me when I came to a not dissimilar conclusion about the BBC coverage… this election was only for some councils. and it appears the conservatives control more councils than Labour and overall have over a thousand more councillors than Labour… and since Thursday it’s a little worse. That doesn’t tell the whole story… The whole story is inordinately complex – Labour are ahead in some areas and lagging in others… however I think I’m right in saying Labour need to travel a good few percentage points to even form a coalition with the SNP in 2020. IMHO the way to do it is to stop bitching about the leader the membership elected, end all internal feuds and get to scoring goals in what appears to be a massively wide goal mouth requiring just a little spirited cooperation from all wings, nooks and crannies of the party.

  • Roderick Russell

    The MSM follows the establishment line on major contentious issues, and none more than the BBC and its close cousin – The Guardian. It has always been so!! But there are a few things that one could campaign for if one wants to see a free press develop – get rid of the outrageous libel laws for a start. If the legal system were freer some of the media might have more courage. And then one could look at measures to stop the secret security services from interfering with the media as they do.

  • David Ian Henry

    Yes the #BBC is a pro union pro Royalty British State broadcaster. It was obvious in Scottish referendum coverage it’s still obvious now. Only when there is an alternative non bias Scottish broadcaster will the #BBC effect be reduced.

    It’s time for

    • Phil the ex frog

      That’s right mate. A Scottish state broadcaster will be honest and true. Just like Scottish politicians are. It’s the evil English who are greedy liars and seedy whores.

      I really fuckin worry about the thinking of you nationalists.

  • Republicofscotland

    Signed with pleasure Craig, I do loathe that odious woman, the petition in now over 20,000 strong.

    Yes I had noticed that the media, has pushed the Tory result in Scotland ahead of the SNP’s historical third term, combined with an astonishing one million plus votes, remarkable.

    Ian Murray, who is in my opinion a Blairite in sheep’s clothing, blamed Labour’s demise in Scotland partly on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Yet South of the border Labour faired reasonably well, securing the London mayors position to boot.

    Back in Scotland, in my opinion, the Tories, will be in the SNP’s crosshairs for the next five years, and at FMQ’s Nicola Sturgeon will have plenty of ammuntion to fire at them on the likes of austerity and Trident etc.

    Labour in Scotland must now in my opinion, change course, and work with the SNP to keep the Tories rabid austerity policies at bay in Scotland.

  • Phil the ex frog

    Brian makes an excellent point. The BBC has always been a propaganda tool. Anyone who is outraged the “BBC is not what it was” are lacking perspective. Kuenssberg is nothing new. The BBC hasn’t changed. You might have.

    The same is true elsewhere. There is nothing new or especially evil about Blair. The Labour Party leadership has always been supportive of empires war. Britain has been at almost uninterrupted war since the birth of the Labour Party – has the Party unambiguously opposed even one of these wars? I can’t think of one.

    Politicians have always taken this country into wars and the BBC has always been a tool for propaganda. To think otherwise, to think any of this is new, is to deny reality and thus leave you liable to grasp for the wrong answers. If you really think that Blair was a unique problem then it is not unreasonable to think the solution is merely a different PM. If you really believe that the BBC has only become partial in the last few years then it is not unreasonable to think a change of correspondent will resolve the problem. However, a longer perspective suggests a new guard is not the solution.

    Fuck your petitions calling for Kuenssberg’s sacking. This type of drivel misunderstands the problem and calls for non solutions, thus dragging the charade on. Petitions like this are part of the problem.

    • Ba'al Zevul

      OTOH, if you think Blair, at least until he left office, wasn’t a unique problem, you might take a look at this:

      In which the process of subversion of the UK governance mechanisms to facilitate a presidential model is well described.

      He’s no longer unique: both Brown and Cameron have tainted themselves with his legacy.

      • Phil the ex frog

        To argue his uniqueness in respect to a governance issue is irrelevant to my simple point that he was not unique as a war monger. Especially considering the unusual concentration of power and that perogative permits war without consultation anyway. Brown actually promised to remove this but never mentioned it again once PM.

          • Phil the ex frog

            And you have it yours.

            Look, I applaud your one lizard vendetta against Blair but the truth is he is not reviled for a failed governance technicality. Not even THE governance technicality. No. Blair is known for the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and terror. Considering the context of my comment (propaganda and war) I am really not sure how your attempt to contradict my point with this can be anything except shoehorning.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            It’s not shoehorning. I was responding to a point you had made, that there was nothing new or especially evil about Blair. There was a lot new about him, and whether he was evil, criminally stupid, greedy or inspired by the voice of God, if the demos only remembers Blair for his wars, it’s not seeing the whole picture. He was unique in the damage he did to our political system, whatever its pre-existing demerits.

            I do, incidentally, try to keep the Global Oracle where he belongs, in the bowels of the blog, but I reserve the right to add my thoughts if his damned spirit is invoked using a misreading of the Necroblairicon.

      • Phil the ex frog

        Nope. Labour supported Suez and only later changed it’s maind when the yanks opposed it.

          • Phil the ex frog

            Well even that he changed his mind does allow me to stand my ground on my main point. Just about. Possibly. I am surprised to hear he turned as quickly as day two of hostilities. Did you actually listen to the broadcast? I get an error when I try.

          • Phil the ex frog

            So having a quick search it appears the leadership were right up for it in July, indeed Gaitskell led the drive to war by comparing Nassar to Mussolini, but by the beginning of November the party, largely convinced by the US, was opposing war days before the invasion. So I hold Suez does not disprove that Labour have never unambiguously opposed a British war.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            I said,’debatable’, and there’s your debate. Fine. The kicker is ‘unambiguously’ – and it could perhaps be stood on its head. Has any Labour party ‘unambiguously’ supported a war? Would it be possible for any democratic party to reach unanimity on desisions of this sort? I’d submit that unanimity within the Labour Party against a commercially-inspired war has become a lot less likely since Blair sold out, though. A question of degree, rather than of absolutes.

            Oh, and if Wilson had sent a pipe band, the VC would have surrendered in weeks.

      • Phil the ex frog

        Well I am asking if the Labour Party ever opposed a war waged by Britain. So not sure if Vietnam counts. However, having said that. Nope. Wilson friggin dug the Vietnam war.

        • Alex Birnie

          “Wilson friggin dug the Vietnam war.” – but not enough to bow to the President’s demands for British military involvement. He didn’t friggin dig the Vietnam war enough to do that………

          • Phil the ex frog

            Fair enough. But does nothing to contradict the assertion that is so simple and so shocking it must be wrong. Any suggestion?

          • Phil the ex frog

            And I’m no historian and not searching these responses so open to be corrected but isn’t there a strong case he lent support in many other ways, such as special forces.

          • Republicofscotland

            True but Wilson did send military hardware, and British forces trained US soldiers, in jungle warefare.

            British or ex-British soldiers did however fight in Vietnam, up to 2000 British soldiers resigned from the British army, and re-enlisted in the armies of Australia and New Zealand so they could fight.

            “Other documents reveal that SAS soldiers were recommended to be given civilian status in US units ‘so that their British military identity is lost.”

            Finally Wilson said of LBJ.

            “Lyndon Johnson is begging me even to send a bagpipe band to Vietnam’, Harold Wilson told his Cabinet in December 1964.”

            Of course LBJ really mean’t the Black Watch.


        • Grandma Dragon

          It would seem to me that all prime minsters instigate or join a war just for notaries and how much better they handled it. Nothing to do with what is right and just, all to do with out doing their predecessor. Such juvenile school playground behaviour, shame on them, put our people and country 1st, let the others fight it out

    • lysias

      Also, it was thanks to Labour that India got its independence after World War Two without a fight. That was a colonial war that didn’t happen, thanks to Labour.

      • Phil the ex frog

        “Also, it was thanks to Labour that India got its independence”

        “Also”? You haven’t provided a valid previous so there’s no “also” about it. And now you offer a (freakin spurious) case for a war that never happened. So this doen’t count either, o’lover of the Party. But as you bring it up.

        India got independence for a variety of possibilities: the struggle of Indians, threat of mutiny, lack of profit, post war British weakness, and many more reasons to be debated. But certainly not “thanks” to the Labour Party. Conference paid lip service but even in ’45 Labour policy was to seek “responsible self-government” – much the same as the tories led by the racist Churchill.

  • Laix

    The lead up to this weeks elections allowed the BBC News and Political reporters to at Corbyn and Labour like rabid dogs.
    None reported how racist and disgusting Tory slurs against Khan were. Just supported all Tory responses and dog whistles.
    Promoted as ‘fact’ that Labour as a party are anti-Semite despite the fact that individuals have been suspended and under going investigation. Where as there was no clammer by BBC to have Zac or Dave suspended for spewing untruths about Khan. Cameron visited his purile tirade against both Corbyn and Khan, protected by parliamentary privilege under the silent watch of the Speaker who allowed the unsubstantiated accusations go uncensored! This is not Democracy this is a mockery filled with hate rather than respect for leader of the opposition.
    Scary days and yet people still vote Tory!

  • Chris Rogers

    Finally got around signing the Keunssberg Petition, now can we have some more petitions calling for most of the Beeb’s propagandists to get fired.

  • Jane Clarke

    Yes she is appalling & has been for a while – – her commentary is so predictably biased – I have tweeted her numerous times about it- she definitely needs sacking

  • Tony_0pmoc

    More Fakery, complete with Fire engine from Northumberland County Council via The one man band Syrian Observatory for Human Rights who runs a clothes shop in Coventry. I have no idea if the BBC are involved with this one…but the quality is dire. Has it been on The Telly?

    “Syria: An “Airstrike” That Did Not Happen”

    • Tony_0pmoc

      I seriously am not that interested in some stuff being faked…amongst all the real horror where totally innocent people die in extremely large numbers.

      What concerns me, is that even though the standards of photography and the propaganda are so dire – almost everyone believes what is served up on Their TV Screens – without critical thought.

      Comment – from the American MOA thread

      “Thanks b for assiduously documenting this sort of crap. You have to wonder how much was paid to the bunch of retards who came up with this one.

      So, Deutsche Welle is no better than the BBC – but sooner or later – journalists will be held to account for aiding and abetting war criminals.”

      So far as I am aware, no one else has noticed The English Fire Engine – and asked the Question…

      wtf is it doing there??

      Don’t they have fires in Northumberland??

      I could give you a list of terrorist incidents that have been faked, but you won’t believe me, and even the new London Mayor’s speech writer got fired for questioning it.


  • W Stephen Gilbert

    I entirely agree. See the second edition of my book, ‘Jeremy Corbyn – Accidental Hero’, published by Eyewear. The new afterword has a good deal about the BBC coverage in general and Kuenssberg’s in particular of Corbyn’s leadership.

  • Patrick

    I would also like to point out that Corbyn has achieved the same result as Miliband without the compromise of his principles which the Blairites deemed necessary for ‘electability’

    • bevin

      And with the opposite end of the ‘anti-semitism’ controversy. It ought always to be recollected that the “Bacon Sandwich in Swindon” matter was always Jew baiting of the lowest kind.
      Funnily enough, though, I don’t recall any of the fascist likudniks, who are now so sensitive, protesting at the time.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

    This is just the tip of one of the lesser icebergs of undereported news by the media.

    While it goes on ad nauseam about what is happening in the elections, and how politicians and important people are responding to them, the globe is simply becoming a man-made wasteland.

  • Al Ogden-Steele

    This woman is an absotute disgrace..what on earth has caused her to be so venomous towards Jeremy Corbyn ? I have never seen such bias and venom from a political reporter on British Television as her… She should not have this job…

  • Abdul Aziz

    When oh when will people wake up to the fact that the BBC is a Zionist controlled state broadcaster, look at the corporations staffing structure to see how much Zionist influence the controllers have regarding news output.
    Zinoist lobbyists part fund the BBC, allied to this you have Zionist political support from inside parliament, who in turn receive party funding from Zionist doners.
    So at every opportunity they will use the BBC to disseminate a Zionist agenda, wake up to reality.
    Why did Milliband not receive the vitriol that Corbyn is getting is because Milliband is a Zionist supporter. If he had become prime minister then the Zionists would have had a puppet in their midst.

    • Shatnersrug

      Ed Miliband was savaged mercilessly by every news organisation including the BBC and Guardian

  • bevin

    “Wilson friggin dug the Vietnam war.” – but not enough to bow to the President’s demands for British military involvement. He didn’t friggin dig the Vietnam war enough to do that……”
    I hate to seem to agree with Phil the former frog but- like the famous stopped clock- he just happens to be right in this case.
    The book is “All The Way with JFK” by Peter Busch. And it entirely convincing so far as Wilson is concerned- he regarded the Thompson mission and BRIAM, the British Advisory Mission, in which all the ‘secrets’ of counter insurgency were confided to the Americans, as Britain’s major contribution. Bear in mind that Britain was heavily involved in SEATO, particulary in setting up Malaysia and dealing with the Indonesian response (Konfontation).
    Wilson’s real problem and that of the Labour party was that, it only had a tiny majority after the 1964 election and it would have disappeared overnight if British troops had been sent to Vietnam.
    Phil might be right about Labour governments being warmongering, it’s certainly true that the leadership has always been inclined to do what the US demands (Corbyn being an exception worth savouring while it lasts) . The rank and file, however, have generally been greatly opposed to foreign adventures and imperialism.
    I remember the time well, I was an active member of the Labour Party and of anti-Vietnam war campaigns. If it hadn’t been for us, and there were millions of us, including the great majority of young people, Wilson, Healey, Callaghan et al would have cheerfully joined in the war. They didn’t dare.

    • Phil the ex frog

      “They didn’t dare.”

      But they did dare, as you acknowledge. With military hardware, specialist jungle training and “holding on” to Malaya. What’s more, British troops fought in Vietnam in their thousands by simply transfering to Commonwealth armies.

      Course the Labour Party has a solid history of war mongering. And the BBC propagandising. I’ve just read that the 45 Labour Party was already dominated by lawyers and businessmen. None of this is new. Get a perspective and stop wetting yourselves over petitions calling for the resignation of an individual. Why not do something useful instead?

      • Ba'al Zevul

        Did the Brits in VN go because the government had told them to? Genuine question. I was in the UK forces during the period of the war, and I recall no invitations to volunteer , let alone compulsory postings to Saigon, appearing in orders at that time. Though I clearly remember the constant requests for volunteers for Porton Down. And I’ve met ex-Korea Brits, but never an ex-VN one. This certainly isn’t conclusive, but I’d appreciate some support for your assertion.

        Now, you’re saying that we shouldn’t wet ourselves over a petition, but should find something useful to do. I can see where you’re coming from, and I’m on record as not being too impressed by petitions and demos myself (I’m quite certain that the anti-Vietnam demos achieved no more here than they did in the US – Wilson’s decision having more to do with expediency and a belated recognition of what was in the national interest). But you have to start somewhere. If the national broadcaster, which asserts its impartiality at every possible opportunity, engages in blatant opinion-forming on behalf of a particular interest, it must be held to account. What do you propose doing that would be any more use than a petition which will be read by the offender? Seriously. It’s a necessary start. BTW last time I looked it was within 500 of its target of 25,000. One of those was mine.

        • John Spencer-Davis

          Is there any significance to the number of signatures, or is it just an aspiration?

          • Ba'al Zevul

            Dunno. Since, according to the .gov site –

            After 10,000 signatures, petitions get a response from the government.

            After 100,000 signatures, petitions are considered for debate in Parliament.

            my guess is that they’re going for a debate. But I suspect they won’t get there.

        • Phil the ex frog

          I’ve had a pint so will be brief.

          Yeah my claim that thousands went to Vitenam is nbased on a vague memory. Not compelled and mostly joined the Aussie forces. However, a quick search finds nothing so I have to doubt this. I have a historian friend who knows these things. Maybe he told me. I will ask but accept this might be utter bollocks.

          Doesn’t change my main arg that Labour have never consistently opposed a war. Speaking to a mate about this an hour ago he posed an even more startling possibility: The Labour Party leadership have never unambiguously supported a strike . Fuck me, that couldn’t be true, could it?

          “But you have to start somewhere. ”

          Yes, start by recognising the everyday. Stop pretending that a new face will make any difference. Sack this propagandist and you’ll get another. Hell it could even be one of you calling for her sacking. That’s how it works. The King is dead! Long live the King!

          • Ba'al Zevul

            So we just let it go? Kuenssberg is an historical inevitability, and the BBC has a remit to slant its programming? That’s fine, move along, nothing to see? Don’t think that would have played too well with the suffragettes. Or the ILP. My view is that the gains in equality and fair treatment that were made in the wake of WW2 have been steadily eaten away, not least because of the apathy of their beneficiaries. And that inaction is indistinguishable, in the mind of the politician, from apathy. No. If all you can do is sign a petition, sign the bloody petition. At least register your concern somewhere. I am still in a state of eager expectation to hear your feasible, and more effective, alternative. Which does not simply consist in saying the system is well evil and, er, we’ve gotta bring it down. Or if it does, how?

          • Phil the ex frog

            Yes, of course bring it all down. Happy to discuss but not right now. Need to sleep.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            I’ll leave this for when you wake up. Very uncomfortable reading for me, but it goes back to the basics of what is wrong with the Left, and justifies a transnational approach rather than asserting national solutions to the problems global structures have thrown up. It even offers some hints as to how it might be induced to happen, which is a distinct improvement on anything I have seen from Right or Left regarding the current state of world affairs. Enjoy.


          • Phil the ex frog

            I haven’t got time to read that now. I certainly will later. Yes the solution cannot be national. Thinking nationally will never understand what ails us. The nation state is doomed. Increasingly they can’t even collect taxes. What is a state if it can’t collect taxes?

            Should you just leave it? Well yes. If yuour choice is between leaving it or pursuing pointless action based on a delusion then leave it. Nothing is more soul destroying than doing what you know will fail. If this place has any point it is not as a talking shop for regulares. It could be a gateway for people who are just beginning to understand they are being cheated. That would be Murray putting his “authority” in the eyes of the newly troubled to use. But t6his requires not sending people off onto wild goose chases that only perpetuate what they wish to oppose. Instaed of a never ending shock at the entoirely predictable why not propose action that hasn’t been proven to fail year after year. Why not pause and be honest., This hasn’t worked before so it is unlikely to work now. Who’s got an idea of what we can do? That would be better than petitions to sack an individual.

            Anyway, in a rush. Won’t be back today. Cheers.

          • Phil the ex frog

            OK just read that article. A quick comment before I go out. Clare is waiting with the dog at the door. Hope I’ve understood in my rush. Let me know if I’ve missed the point.

            Nothing makes me uncomfortable about the analysis.

            If anything I suggest the author minces her words. What is happening on the borders of Europe? Desperate refugees of our imperialism have been driven to the bottom of the med. Today they are turned back at gun point by European soldiers. Turned back into the hands of those who will abuse them. This is our world? Our democracy? Our love? Not mine. Nor yours I am sure.

            Of course I disagree a bill to preserve social democracy is possible or desirable. The inefficiency of our wastefull way of life can be adjusted to feed and house us all. Yes it will be painfull. Yes it will involve loss but look at what we lose now. Our current trajectory is literally unstustainable and tinkering does not change the goal at the heart of our world: endless economic growth. Never mind the enless wars waged in the name of this growth.

            Reconfiguring our society is the answer. We must re discover our cooperative human roots – throw off the recent delusion that domination and ruthless competion are ineviatable and natural. Yes, down with patriarchal capitalism!

  • Tony_0pmoc

    I don’t watch TV, but what the hell is going on at Channel 4 News….??

    It seems They seriously do not like The Tory Party…

    and Even have Got The Police involved

    Does that mean their are still some Real Investigative Journalists left in the UK – and they even broadcast on TV?


  • Jim Dyer

    Superb analysis. Kind of what I’ve just about managed to figure out comparing 2012 with now (Labour lost Dudley by 3 votes), but was too inarticulate to write down. Scotland Labour has never recovered from the botched response to independence referendum, I think. And Wales lost one seat to Leanne Wood who has had a year of prime-time TV coverage!

  • Andrew

    The British power structure will do everything in its power to denigrate Corbyn and prevent him from coming to power, because he’s the first Labour leader to oppose imperialist wars abroad and neoliberal economics at home.

    That’s why he enjoys huge popular support.

    The military has already served notice that it won’t stand idly by if Corbyn comes to power and tries to change current defence arrangements. Washington would support an anti-Corbyn coup, if its record around the world in similar circumstances is any guide. The BBC is also playing its part.

    Here’s an interesting view of why Labour parties in Britain and Australia bought into the neoliberal economic agenda and how that’s ended up propelling Corbyn to the head of the UK party:

    “In Britain the minimum wage was set well below the poverty line and employers were free to offer zero hours contracts. A full week’s work could not keep a worker from penury, and only a range of welfare benefits enhanced by volunteer-run food banks prevented widespread starvation.

    The political consequence in Britain was the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, who rejected the entire Thatcher/Major/Blair settlement and carried a clear majority of Labour Party voters with him.”

    • John Spencer-Davis

      Yes, I hope that “senior serving general” has now been sacked, although not with any great optimism. I seem to remember Corbyn making a formal complaint, although I don’t know what happened to it.

      It is for Parliament, not some insolent self-important general, to take decisions on the size of the Armed Forces. If Corbyn wants to reduce the Army to a dozen people, he’s entitled to do it, provided Parliament authorises it and the Queen assents.

    • Hieroglyph

      The Labour Party in Australia is pretty much a hollow shell of a party, at state and federal level. And I have my suspicions that Rudd was given the Gough Whitlam treatment, albeit with more subtlety, for reasons that remain obscure. Never did buy the line that his unpleasant personality, and inability to work with his ministers, was the cause of the knifing. A factor, perhaps, but the only one we are allowed to know.

      They may win the next election, coz the current mob are so bent. But then Rupy Media has to be seen to be believed. They actually depicted Scott Morrison – a truly vile, hateful, incompetent – as Superman. They are relentless; the Liberals can do no wrong. We may mock, but some people (less now) get their news from these rags, and the propaganda works. I think, over time, We the People are getting inoculated against such propaganda, and it’s far less effective, but in a tight race, Rupy Corp might swing this one. Not that it matters much, Shorten hasn’t said much about the trade deals, or the wars, which marks him down as just much of the same.

  • Marjorie Jack

    Can’t bear Sarah Kuensberg.She is totally biased,completely in the Tory camp and has always treated Jeremy Corbyn with contempt. She should be sacked.

    • Hieroglyph

      There does seem to be a certain type who is happy to treat Jeremy with disdain. I recall the hustings, where the losers often treated Jeremy as though he was somehow beneath them, kind of as though their Butler had resigned, and stood against them as an MP. One can’t help but discern a status-snobbery at work. Jeremy, not good looking. Bright, but doesn’t have a 1st from Posh. Talks a bit like those awful socialist worker types at student demos. Isn’t part of our gang. If they actually thought ahead to his policies, they would see what he is: a moderate centre-left politician, and campaigner, who talks well, and engages people. Which is why he trounced these snobs. Utterly trounced and humiliated these snobs, I should say. Whupped their asses so bad they went home and cried to their mamma’s.

      Also, they say he doesn’t have ‘leadership’ skills. Leadership is entirely a crock, foisted upon us by conservative forces; your average business leader is a self-serving weasel, who utilises ‘leader’ language to persuade others of his\her right to the Big Bucks. I hear this leadership tripe every day, the concept has become part of the HR world, the Business world, the political world, and it’s clear to me it’s a heavily politicised and fraudulent concept. Talent, hard-work, sound ethics, I’ll take that in a political leader. Leadership Skills? MBA Baloney for empty-vessels.

  • john kierans

    listening to that women laura you are basically watching a conservative party election broadcast. you are being bombarded with anti corbyn smears .she is a disgrace to journalism

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.