Paxman Pushes 100% Tory Agenda 93

There are enough viewers for the televised questioning and interviews of Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May tonight to have some effect on the election. May finished with a very positive reaction from a substantial section of the audience to the repeated assertion that “No deal is better than a bad deal” with the EU. She was playing to her xenophobic, UKIP-leaning core support. Why this kind of deranged nonsense is apparently not alienating more urbane Tories in greater numbers, I do not really know. I presume they believe they can control her.

I think that Corbyn came over as calm, likeable and humorous, whereas May came over as tense and unpleasant. Again the tension and narrowing of the eyes when asked a hostile question was truly striking. But what struck me most was another quite stunning demonstration of media bias.

Paxman interrupted Corbyn while he was answering very much more often than he did May. But the true bias came over in the selection of questions asked.

It was widely reported in the Sunday press that the Tories were to refocus their failing election campaign on Brexit. So what did Paxman concentrate on in his interview with May? Brexit. He opened the short interview on the subject of Brexit, and crucially he returned to Brexit for the closing three minutes, allowing May to repeat again and again the slogan “No deal is better than a bad deal”, which obviously was going down very well with her supporters in the audience.

Paxman appeared to be asking for clarification of what it meant in giving her the chance to repeat it again and again, but made no argument as to why it is a fantastically stupid idea in this context.

By contrast Paxman spent the entire interview with Jeremy Corbyn on no subject at all except the Tory chosen subjects to attack Corbyn – alleged support for terrorism, reluctance to fire nuclear weapons or murder in drone strikes, lack of support for patriotism/the monarchy.

The equivalent treatment for May would have been to spend the entire time focused on the Labour preferred subjects – the NHS, education, benefit cuts for the disabled. In fact, Paxman only grilled May on security, immigration and Brexit, the chosen Tory subjects, other than a token reference to social care, on which Paxman let off May extremely lightly over her lying about the U-turn on the manifesto.

While Paxman’s questions were superficially hostile, by choosing only favourite Tory subjects he gave May an easy get-out. The equivalent fake-hostile question to Corbyn to allow him onto a favourite subject would be “You say you will abolish tuition fees. But surely the economy cannot afford that?”

There were nil such questions allowing Corbyn to move on to one of his favourite subjects. May received nothing else. Paxman is an openly acknowledged Conservative. That was very plain this evening. But despite all his efforts, Corbyn will still have shaded it with all except those primarily motivated by racism.

Liked this article? Please consider sharing (links below). Then View All Latest Posts

93 thoughts on “Paxman Pushes 100% Tory Agenda

1 2
  • Bobm

    Paxo persistently interrupted Corbyn.
    May was given a free pass, by comparison.

    Well done Corbyn for keeping cool, but I would have liked him to object to the endless interruptions.

    • Shatnersrug

      Tomorrow the polls will announce that the Tories have had a bounce. It’s all contrived. The only hope is that the younger generation are galvanised to kick back the older generation over Brexit and kick their beloved Tories out of sight.

      It’s pointless to believe the media will give JC a fair crack. Almost every large media corporation stands to lose an awful lot should he win. The media are trying to save their own skins at the expense of 30,000 deaths a year. We are now so far into a world of corruption that really I believe without a left wing government to bring things back we’ve all had it. It’s all gone to far.

      From the university of Oxford – 30,000 deaths a year just think about that for a minute.

      • Robert Crawford


        After reading that link to Digitas you posted, I learned that attempted suicides for various reasons use up 5% of NHS resources in England.


      • Cloudslicer

        30,000 avoidable deaths per year is the equivalent of 82 per day.

        That’s almost the same number of deaths as 4 Manchester bombings every single day!

        All because of deliberately viscious Tory slash and burn policies which are designed to affect the 95% not the privileged 5%.

        Where is the outcry and the condemnation in the M$M?

  • Sean Nilibud

    The bit at the very end where he just asked her repeatedly “so you are prepared to walk away with no deal” about five times after she clearly said “YES” was astonishing.

    Yes Jeremy she IS prepared to walk away with no deal and do you know how I know that ?


    Even then he still asked her again!

  • Brianfujisan

    That was Disgusting from Paxman.
    Corbyn and Labour spokes people should be Finally finished with him, who the Fk dose he think he is.

    Labour also should be out spitting Blood over Amber Rudd’s Comment that there would be more terrorism in uk if Corbyn wins the election, Serious Fighting talk that, not to mention an outright lie. Despicable Lot.

  • Habbabkuk


    I appreciate that your blog has now gone over fully into election mode to the exclusion of everything else and that you are spending all your airtime persuading people that they have to vote Labour.

    Fair enough but let me rebuke you on two points for the moment.

    1/. You should really drop this nonsense about Brexist equalling racism (your last sentence). That meme does not get more convincing no matter how hard you push it.

    2/. Despite your recent piece on negotiation (to which I note that your fellow former-ambassador Charles Crawford had devoted an article on his blog), it is nonsensical to condemn the idea that “no deal is better than a bad deal”. The opposite is true. In that connection, you may be interested to learn that your friend Yanis Varoufakis has written, in his latest book, that no one should enter into a negotiation if he is not prepared to break it off and walk away.

    • craig Post author

      Poor Charles Crawford is a sad case. His passing acquaintance with me is a desperate hook he uses to try to get people to listen to him. It is very sad, and I think it is unkind to refer to him.

      • Ishmael

        Jeez, you seem to have an incredibly important notion of yourself.

        How arrogantly patronising to anyone that attitude is.

        • John Spencer-Davis

          Ishmael, go and have a look at the midden of Establishment apologetics and frenzied self-promotion that Crawford calls a website. You may decide to come around to Craig Murray’s point of view.

          Crawford is, quite clearly, insanely jealous that Craig Murray’s output attracts such a large readership when the traffic on his own site is so dismal. He compensates for this by calling both Murray, and everyone who has the insolence to visit Murray’s blog instead of his own (that includes you, Ishmael), nutcases, and worse, at every opportunity.

          That is dirty behaviour, and Crawford is a contemptible human being. J

          • Dave Price

            Our posts came in at practically the same time. Completely agree with your description. I might still have advised Ishmael the same, even had I had the chance to read your post first 🙂

          • Ba'al Zevul

            You’ve probably doubled his hit rate by including his URL, John….and let us not forget that his own obsession with Craig probably sends his reader over here, if only to discover what the auld sod is on about.

        • Dave Price


          If you are allergic to self-importance, arrogance and patronising attitudes I advise you not to visit Charles Crawford’s website. Your head will explode.

    • Ball


      Let me refute your nonsense.
      spending all your airtime persuading people that they have to vote Labour.
      If you read Craig’s previous post it categorically states vote SNP. Or can you not comprehend words.

      it is nonsensical to condemn the idea that “no deal is better than a bad deal”
      When Ms May triggers an election on the basis ”it will strengthen my hand in EU negotiations”, it is illogical to then conduct a campaign with such a moronic mantra as “no deal is better than a bad deal”.

      To be blunt, she doesn’t seem to know her arse from her elbow right now.

      As for Yanis Varoufakis, it seems Greece has advanced quite well since his own departure from the negotiation table. Don;t waste your money on his book.

      • Habbabkuk

        Greece has advanced “quite well” since he departed from the negotiation table? There’s not too many Greeks who would agree with you.

        • Ball


          Obviously there are more that do (the majority) agree with me or the Government would have collapsed and each referendum they hold on continued negotiation results would not pass the democratic process.

          What are you basing your opinion, backed with no logic, on? The Mail?

          • Habbabkuk

            Firstly, the SYRIZA govt will only collapse if the SYRIZA vote in the Vouli (the Greek parliament) collapses. There is no sign of that at the moment; with opinion polls giving SYRIZA about 15% of the vote( if elections were to be called tomorrow), no SYRIZA MP is going to vote in such a way as to bring the govt down.

            The next general election is years away, so the govt is safe provided that its MPs continue to attach more importance to their salaries and terms and conditions than to keeping the party’s promises.

            As for referenda, you should be careful there. There has only been one – that of last year, when over 6O% of a high turn-out voted to reject the deal the government had brought back from talks with the Institutions. The government urged the people to vote to reject the deal – and a few weeks afterwards, went back to the Institutions and accepted it. So much for the will of the people 🙂

          • Shatnersrug

            ball if you engage with it it takes up a whole page and acheives nothing – scroll away from it

      • Mark

        Well said Ball! I have been saying repeatedly how can you be intent to walk away from a negotiation when you’re pushing this line that voting for you will strengthen your hand in said negotiation, so it’s good to see someone else has spotted the anomaly too, though I doubt the rabid Tories will spot it.

    • SA

      There is nothing wrong with stating that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’. However we must then be told the possible consequences of this ‘no’ deal. It may mean that we have no trade relationships with the EU that are tariff free, it may mean that the European court may rule against UK, it may mean that the UK becomes an international pariah if it is seen not to honour deals. The cost of all this needs to be factored in.

      The main objection to this call is that it has become a jingoistic device without any meaning. You don’t go into negotiations with 27 countries with an attitude that is extremely uncompromising and with total disregard for others. They cease to be negotiations.

      • Mark

        The trouble is they’ve performed NO RESEARCH WHATSOEVER into the consequences of ‘no deal’ – that’s why we’re not being told what they are, because they just do not know and are not prepared to even find out.

        • Ba'al Zevul

          The only way to find out is to do it. Unfortunate, perhaps, but if anyone were giving us clear undertakings there would be no need for negotiation. Come to that, apart from being assured the sky would fall in by the remainers, there wasn’t a great deal of solid fact from them, and for the same reason. It’s a known unknown, so to speak.

          Allow me to register my amusement at someone with Corbyn’s face as an avatar so enthusiastically supporting the corporatist, globalist mess that is the EU. Thanks for the laugh, and watch the bankers threatening to pull out if we leave.

  • Ian

    The ridiculous nature of Paxo’s question to Corbyn, nearly all tory talking points, and of historical interest only, was encapsulated by his absurd insistence on telling Corbyn what he thought about the monarchy and why wasn’t it in the manifesto. A complete irrelevance and utter non-point. If you wanted some answers about labour’s manifesto or economic and social policies you wouldn’t have got any, because Paxo was solely interested in digging up the agenda the press have over smearing Corbyn, mainly on questions of no interest to the electorate or their decision-making. It is solely designed to make some juvenile association with Corbyn and terrorists. It is a disservice to serious journalism. But even with the tory agenda nothing on earth could make May look or sound good. She is a limited, poor speaker and thinker way out of her depth, and if anybody thinks that robotically repeating slogans constitutes thought or an ability to handle complex negotiations then heaven help us. She is a car crash.

  • Andrew

    I think there’s quite a lot May could be asked regarding terrorism and security, and it’s frustrating that she isn’t given the absolute fixation the media have on her opponent’s supposed weaknesses on the issue

    I came across this article after reading about the apparent failings of the security services to act on warnings from the FBI at Manchester. This follows allegations that they helped Abedi and his family travel to Libya.

    The article was written by Cori Crider, a human rights lawyer who is representing a woman called Fatima Boudchar. She was kidnapped by MI6 and the CIA and delivered to Libya in 2004.

    Crider also refers to the dropping of the Yvonne Fletcher case in the article:

    “It looks like MI6 refused to cooperate with police, and so prosecutors, rather than persist in Fletcher’s name, threw up their hands. Whitehall sources admit “Number 10 was involved” in discussions before prosecutors pulled the case”

    I’m astonished there’s a credible allegation that, just one week before the Manchester bombing, May has effectively helped pardon a Libyan national who committed a murder in this country. Given that coverage of this election has been heavily focused on security matters related to events that happened up to 30 years ago, surely someone could ask May about something she’s alleged to have done 2 weeks ago? The suspect was also granted asylum by May when she was Home Secretary in 2011 – something else she has never explained to my knowledge. Does this qualify her as a ‘terrorist sympathiser”, or is that a term exclusively reserved for Corbyn?
    To a layman like me, the common characteristic of the Yvonne Fletcher case, the Fatima Boudchar case, and Manchester appears to be that M16 and M15 were able to act with no accountability, in a manner that was ethically questionable, and on each occasion ordinary people in this country have had to pay a price. Could the tragedy at Manchester not be seen as the latest episode in a questionable and murky policy towards Libya stretching back decades? Surely there are lots of security-related questions for the authorities to answer here, including the PM?

    • Hieroglyph

      Assange it was who brought to my attention that the spooks themselves have changed. They work for the private sector, essentially. Oh, they still serve Queen, but they don’t serve the country. I think they did at inception, or at least some of them tried to. Now, if the interests of the UK conflict with the interests of global capital – the spooks choose capital.

      I remain of the view that there should be much more anger over Libya. Syria and Iraq are also a disgrace of course – but we just destroyed Libya for no reason at all. It’s now being fought over by Jihadi head-choppers, and apparently nobody in the UK resigns, and nobody goes to jail. I agree that May should face questions – indeed, she should resign. These young men are being given passes to fight in Libya\Syria, what does anyone think they are doing there? Hospital duty? Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil war, but had the good grace to fight fascists. These clowns are too stupid to know who the fascists are (they are).

      Don’t think you can separate our foreign policy from terrorism. We are abetting terrorism, though it remains a little unclear if this is incompetence or malice. I suspect it’s both.

    • nevermind

      thanks Andrew, our MI’s are threshing about, and busting open doors to find more suspects, diverting the news threads away from their sheer complicity and lax assertions with regards to their handling of Libyan trained terrorists.
      And every time they bust open another door they are offering Amber Rudderless a chance to comment and spill her bile, praising the effort she failed to inaction and patting the Tory’s on the back for nowt.
      The MI’s have been played by so called Libyan renegades operating against Gaddaffi at first, but who are now trained by Saudi/Qatari payed AQ and IS losers looking for canon fodder.
      So much for reducing your base Mrs. May, for continually cutting eyes and ears out of your intelligence network will result in very little if any.
      I think that one young man in Norwich North will be very happy on June 9th.
      And NCFC has a German trainer now, onwards vorwaerts.

  • Keith Fletcher

    It is one of the more bizarre but sadly predictable aspects of our electoral process that we allow the agenda of these so called public debates to be controlled by the media and their always biased agendas. Electoral reform has never been more important!

  • Margaret

    I do agree. Things are now so stacked against anyone wanting to share the wealth of the country – and the media is totally doffing it’s cap to the owners! Paxman was shocking! He looked demented half the time when he was shouting at Corbyn. I think he’s lost it!
    I really do hope people can see that Corbyn is offering something really special that will help EVERYONE.
    Of course we can afford to give free education and build houses and support the NHS. These people are going to PRIVATIZE the NHS. Do they really trust May – to consult them about how much they should pay for their health needs from their homes?

    • Paris

      You know, I have to agree, leaving aside for a moment the fact that the televised debate was incredibly biased against Labour and towards the Tories – no one has mentioned the glaring “plant” in the shape of the Irish fella who appeared to think himself more informed about JC’s motivations as regards the IRA and Sein Fein than Corbyn himself, for example – I’d say that the individual who won the prize for “Most Deranged And Psychotic Personality” …was Jeremy Paxman!! Personally I was a little embarrassed for him.

  • Barry Morgan

    May keep telling us that it’s critical for the UK to get a good deal from Brexit. Fair enough, can’t really go against that. However she’ll also walk away *without* a deal then surely that’s as bad? As an aside, can *anyone* remember that last time a PM was openly laughed at in a debate (apart from the circus of PMQ’s)?

  • Ishmael

    But surely he should be impartial. sigh.

    “the world got so busy – how does anyone get anything done anymore!?” Chelsea.

    I’m going to indulge in some Tolkien. Keep chipping way at systems of power domination and control people.

    Peace out.

  • Sixer

    The whole “not in the manifesto” thing was a bit weird.

    If we’re all supposed to think “HELP! HELP! Reds of the hard left under my bed!” when we see Corbyn, what is the point of asking him why he has no hard left policies in his manifesto? Surely that’s reassuring?

  • Manda

    I didn’t watch it but at least those who did got a chance to see who Corbyn really is, not the phantom media creation shoved down their necks day in day out. He may well have changed some opinions even under the usual bias and verbal battering it sounds like he got. Thing is, the constant barrage is making him stronger!

    I scanned some the Labour right prospective MP twitter feeds and they all commented on May, not one of the six I scanned mentioned the party leader or his performance at all.

    • Manda

      I just came across this question apparently asked by Paxman to Corbyn last night.
      “You’ve stood for peace your entire career, how do we know you won’t do as Prime Minister?”

      It says everything we need to know about the British establishment views on war vs working for peace. They are terrified of peace.

  • Maureen Cooper

    Corbyn was shown, by his answers and his manner, to be a man of depth and experience who leads by listening and consensus not a bullying, one dimensional parrot.

  • Robert Crawford

    Best to have surgical voting?
    Take out the leaders of ALL parties to show the politicians we are the bosses, in fact, that would prove it. Vote them out!

    Others would carry on as usual, just as May is carrying on after Cameron.
    It would be more business for the shrinks massaging their bruised egos.

  • Hieroglyph

    As others have pointed out: if only Twitter users voted, Corbyn would win in a landslide. So, it’s best to be a little sceptical about Insta media responses. Still, Corbyn did well it seems, and May was being laughed at. Of course, in the real world, immigration is an issue (sorry Craig), and Corbyn may be deemed just too left wing, too outside the Overton window, by conservative-minded people. At the same time, though, May isn’t especially liked by anyone, even the die-hard conservatives, and their manifesto is, potentially, the second longest suicide in history; perhaps not even the second.

    Were I a betting man, I’d say May is soon to be ex-PM May. Much may lie in the hands of odious orange booker, Tim Fallon, who may insist on learning nothing, and propping up the Tories again. Actually, he’ll definitely do that, because he’s a clown. The question is: will it cost him his leadership? Possibly. And then the fun begins.

  • Leonard Young

    No surprises here. The Tory Trinity of biased reporting is in full swing. Paxman, Keunsberg and Robinson. All of ’em Tories.

    Add for good measure Andrew Neil (former Murdoch editor/henchman), Jo Coburn (husband Tory-lite Portland Communications mate of the ghastly Mandelson and Campbell), Dimblebore (need I say more) and various walk on parts. most of them rabidly anti Corbyn.

    What is encouraging is that members of the electorate are finally seeing through the PR nonsense at 4 Matthew Parker Street, but I fear not enough to compensate for the relentless media onslaught on Corbyn, the current mantra being he is a nice, honorable man, but that does not a leader make. Of course it does, but not enough people are going to be persuaded now. All you can hope for is that the Mary Whitehouse of politics, ie Tim Farron, finally bites the dust and at least some liberal voters will jump ship and boost Labour into being a decent opposition.

  • Sharp Ears

    I despair at what is happening in this fascist state.

    Afterwards in a discussion between Boulton and others on Sky News the jeering at Jeremy Corbyn continued.

    • Sharp Ears

      I meant to add that afterwards Sky’s Adam Boulton and another stooge interviewed the businessman from Manchester who had told Corbyn that his business and livelihood would be threatened if Labour’s plans to increase corporation tax and increase the minimum wage etc were instituted. He said he was a previous Labour voter.

      Also the elderly man who asked May about the dementia tax was allowed another go.

      Both said they would be voting Tory. A second bite at the cherry in other words.

      I couldn’t watch any more of it. I just hope that people twig what is going on.

  • SA

    Yes indeed. The obvious follow up question to the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ is : And what are the consequences of a no deal?

    • Loony

      Here are some consequences of a “no deal”

      No need to continue funding the border walls being constructed with EU money by Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. Good news surely given the opprobrium heaped on Trump for his desire to build a border wall.

      No need for the UK to be economically crushed like Greece. Good news for all of those people who identify existing poverty and economic discrimination in the UK

      No need for the UK to act as repository for the millions of Southern Europeans deemed surplus to German economic requirements.

      No need for the UK to provide funding to Nazi’s in the Ukraine.

      No need for the UK to provide economic subsidies to Germany an order of magnitude higher than existing overseas aid budgets.

      The reason no-asks what are the consequences of no-deal is that they do not want to listen to the answers. The oh so pure and oh so refined British have no wish to publicly acknowledge their funding of Nazi’s and their role in provoking Russia toward the final war.

      • SA

        I am so impressed. So you think that the Tories really do not want to finance these activities? Maybe they want to do it surreptitiously and not openly? Maybe they want to continue funding the White helmets and Al Nusra and support the Ukraine Nazi’s but without the publicity? Maybe we do not want to finance these walls because we already have the Channel?

        The economic consequences of a no deal will be dire and you know it. This is purely a jingoistic signal and has no substance.

  • SA

    Moreover Paxman lost the opportunity in flourishing the Tory manifesto which is uncosted and based on ‘future consultations’. The manifesto was May’s personal manifesto. Moreover the shifting of the targets for austerity to 2025.

  • Theresa Carswell

    So yet another party political broadcast for the conservative party. known to the wider world as the BBC.
    The BBC should declare itself to the electoral comission.
    Theresa is still afraid to go head to head with Nicola Sturgeon. The real reason for ducking the debates.

  • Dave

    Corbyn has been painted so badly that once people see him his ratings can only improve because he is so calm, reasonable and normal looking. He is pilloried by the deep state because he is viewed as a Palestine Labour rather than Israel Labour and thus no guarantor of more genocide for profit in the Middle East. But the Labour brand has always been strong and focusing on improving public services will revive their base if they can overlook his immigration views as in practice no worse than May’s.

  • Ishmael

    It’s so unshocking.

    This man likes his privileges, he’s had a lifetime full of them. Courtesy of the BBC and so many others, the important people.

    They will do anything to stop even imagining the chance of rubbing shoulders with the peasants, least it reveals the fatuous empty gaping hole they call a self.

    I mean just look at them. What a bunch of puppets. It would be nice to think of them as the joke they individually are, unfortunately they and their stage shows have very real consequences. And there complete immorality, acquiescence to the master they have chosen makes them just as serious as threat as those they back.

  • David Venables

    Maybe its time for labour to start fighting dirty too. Drag out the closet Maggies relationship with Saville, May’s failed VIP paedofile enquiries most of whom were in Maggies cabinet. Common labour stop playing such a victims game. Get out on the offensive with every dirty weapon in the book.

    • Ishmael

      The issue is with that approach (that without implying any specific events I agree with and don’t see it as dirty that people face the consequences of there actions) is that it would take most of the PLP with them. Also a good thing.

      They need their members and backers who are not tainted to bring in their support. That party needs a serious shake up.

      • Jo

        It is absolutely correct to highlight the role played by many in the PLP in all of this. They are a disgrace.

    • Robert Crawford

      Maybe it is time to remember that multiple terms in power is not good for the public.

      Remember what Thatcher and Blair did when they were given multiple terms in power.

      Beware folks, another 5 years of the Tories we will all be in need of FOOD BANKS!

    • Ishmael

      Also you don’t have to look very far to find open examples of consequences.

      There are people in the labour party who knew full well there actions would increase the terrorist threat. This was a price they were willing to pay. …….It’s really well past time they face the consequences of those decisions.

  • Stephen Allport

    How can a self confessed “One Nation Tory” be allowed to interview the potential leader of our country. There is no way that he can be unbiased as is required.

  • Made By Dom

    If the interviews had taken place last year Corbyn would have been accused of being a holocaust denying antisemite.
    For some reason that media accusation has now been brushed under the carpet. Perhaps this is because, If The Guardian want Labour to win then (using the same ‘guilt by association’ logic they used to attack Jeremy) they themselves would be holocaust denying antisemites.

    The problem with pretending to be deeply immoral to push an agenda is you just end up becoming deeply immoral.

    • SA

      I think this is being reserved as a backup if the polls continue to show labour gaining ground. I do not rule it out yet.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Should have heard the beasting Angus Robertson got this morning from some stroppy hackette* on the Today programme. Her instructions seemed to have been ‘ See if you can promote UKIP in Scotland’. Robertson finally stopped the harpy’s flow and got his position heard, though. Here, at 08.12 (scroll down)

    *Might have been Today’s token woman, Voice of Torydom and union scab Sarah Montague, Lady Brooke, whose title the BBC for some strange reason don’t ever mention. Didn’t actually catch the name, though – maybe it was just a clone.

  • Xavi

    Paxman and Neill are both Tories. Tells you all you need to know about Channel 4 and BBC that they chose these biased individuals to conduct the leaders’ interviews. The bias is so deeply-entrenched and obvious that it can no longer be legitimately commented upon.

  • Smiling Through

    Jeremy Paxman, in his “interview” with Jeremy Corbyn came across as a coked-up Victor Meldrew.

    That he and other principal leader interviewer Andrew Neil are Conservatives is fairly well known among those who follow politics closely, but probably not by most electors who see them performing in this election campaign.

    What is less well known about Paxman even among the former group, is his strong Atlanticism. This is something that puts him directly at odds with the worldview of Corbyn and whose second wife was a Chilean refugee from the Pinochet/Kissinger coup.

    A few years ago Andy Beckett teased out a little of Paxman’s US/UK network for The Guardian here:

    There’s more on the British American Project (BAP) here:

    Corbyn is challenging a very powerful transatlantic network, one that was formed under Reagan as a Cold War instrument and subsequently morphed into one serving the “war on terror”.

    John Pilger once referred to the BAP as a “causal freemasonry”. Paxman* would appear to be on its square.


1 2

Comments are closed.