The BBC try to make so many current affairs programmes a re run of the referendum debate

The BBC seem caught in a time warp. So often their idea of news is based on reheating old Remain stories and lines from the referendum debate. We have had to go back through the debate about early recession, late recession, property crash, loss of tax revenue and the rest that were exhaustively discussed during the referendum period itself. They still seem unable to grasp that there is no such thing as the Single Market detached from the full panoply of EU laws and policies which a state can belong to, nor that the debate is only about access to each other’s markets which should be relatively straightforward.

It starts early with Farming Today. That programme endlessly reviews Brexit despite there being no news as there are still no formal negotiations to report. The Today programme allows some positive economic news on, but even this is completely distorted by seeing it all through Brexit glasses. For example, when Burberry reported their figures the Today programme “expert” and the guest expert were unable to explain why the market had not responded more positively to the great news that Burberry’s UK sales were up 30% in the last quarter. It never occurred to them that Burberry is a global brand and sales elsewhere were disappointing, and the global licensing revenue is tailing off. When commenting on movements in sterling or interest rates it is usually seen through Brexit glasses, as if these things never moved before we decided to leave the EU!

The main driver of UK interest rates and sterling is often the policy of the Fed and US government, just as that is the main driver of moves in the Euro, yen and emerging market currencies. Markets are fixated by changes in Fed language on rate rises. In recent days bond yields have been going up both sides of the Atlantic and both sides of the Channel, and this has nothing to do with Brexit.

Can we have some commonsense and better based reporting, so listeners and viewers can be given a better understanding of what is going on in the world around them? The latest Chinese GDP figures, the oil price and the impact of the US election are all more significant to markets than the UK’s departure from the EU.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

151 Comments

  1. The Active Citizen
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 5:32 am | Permalink

    Eloquently and moderately put. Agree entirely.

    I remember as a child when Jack de Manio (Today programme) was on when I got up. These days I’m afraid I can rarely bear to listen to it.

    A re-education is required for all BBC news and current affairs editors and journalists, in the art of impartial reporting.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:28 am | Permalink

      I remember as a child seeing my sons off to university. (Now that the government has redefined ‘child’).

      • Hope
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

        The BBC is an extreme left liberal organisation that does not recognise its improper behaviour is against the charter that is set to regulate it. The consistent failure should be evidence that it should be privatised. If it is as good as it states then it should survive in the commercial world. There is no need for a state broadcaster in the 21 st century. It is against plurality that it continued to moan about Sky. It has an unfair advantage of assured financing by the tax payer irrespective of performance. It has become a law unto itself. I would prefer to watch TV without the BBC channel. Those who wish to watch it could pay to view. It has gone way beyond its original remit and is not fit for purpose. I do not want towatch the BBC and do not pay the TV licence. When is the govt going to act?

        • Chris
          Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

          Agreed, Hope.

    • bigneil
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:07 am | Permalink

      Listening to BBC Radio Sheffield breakfast show presenter is like listening to a variation of a famous line – his version is – foreign people and EU good – English people and UK bad.

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

      This morning on the Today programme they were making a fuss about Trump not accepting the democratic result of the US election.

      Funny that.

    • Brigham
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

      Re-education? It has been going on for so long what is needed is a clear out of all these left wing fools

    • Jerry
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 7:19 am | Permalink

      @The Active Citizen; “A re-education is required for all BBC news and current affairs editors”

      Oh very “Orwellian”, if not Stalinistic (etc.)! There must only be the one opinion, the parties…

      • getahead
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

        At the moment there is only one opinion, that of the BBC.

        • Jerry
          Posted October 21, 2016 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

          @getahead; What, has ITN and Sky News closed down (never mind the non UK based broadcasters)?!…

  2. Sam Stoner
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 5:33 am | Permalink

    “They still seem unable to grasp that there is no such thing as the Single Market detached from the full panoply of EU laws and policies which a state can belong to …”

    I know, I know! They have the same problem in Norway. Where they have for decades been living in a Single Market detached from the full panoply of EU laws and policies.

    Reply Norway is in the EEA, not the single market

    • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:02 am | Permalink

      @Sam Stoner: Norway is not at all detached from “the full panoply of EU laws and policies.”
      It has called itself a “fax-democracy”, receiving the EU regulations by fax and be bound by them, without having been around the table when these were made.

      • Chris
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:36 am | Permalink

        It has its OWN seat at the global organisation tables (unlike the UK which has given up its seat and is instead represented by the EU, holding a “common position” of 28 MS on issues, not necessarily in the UK’s interests) where regulations/plicy is first decided, before being handed down to supra national blocs, such as the EU. Norway was thus able to influence policy on fishing in the formative stage of that policy making, before it even got to EU level. Needless to say that meant Norway was able to protect its fishing industry. Look what happened to the UK’s fishing industry with a policy which was based on the concept of the EU being in fact one “country”. A disaster.

      • rapscallion
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:17 am | Permalink

        That is not correct. Norway pays an amount of money to the EU, but nothing like what EU members pay. Norway does not have to implement all directives like EU members do, and in fact only applies directives that apply to standards. It refused for example to implement the Post Office directive. Moreover, and this is something deliberately overlooked by EU apologists, is that Norway actually sits at the real top tables, like WTO, Codex Alimentarius and International Maritime Organisation, to name but three. It is there, where Norway gets to make or amend the rules. The UK does not sit at these tables, the EU does in our place. Once we are finally free of the EU we can take our rightful place at these top tables.

        • getahead
          Posted October 21, 2016 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

          Nevertheless raps, it’s not what we want.

      • APL
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:36 am | Permalink

        PvL: “It has called itself a “fax-democracy” ..”

        Can you not think up an original line?

        There are ‘pro European Union’ elements in the Norwegian establishment who like their counterparts in the UK will say any lie to further the European project of homogenization.

    • Sam Stoner
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:24 am | Permalink

      The EEA (ie EFTA plus EU) IS the single market!! – ie most of the economic substance of EU law but not the political trappings

      You really don’t know this?

      Reply The EEA is another legal construct which usually includes freedom of movement, financial contributions etc. Vote Leave recommended against trying to join this.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:57 am | Permalink

        If you seek reliable elucidation by looking at what the Norwegian government says about Norway’s position then it is this, at least on its “official site in the UK”:

        http://www.norway.org.uk/norwayandcountry/Current-Affairs/Norwegian-Politics/NORWAY-EU-AND-EEA/#.WAHqM_krKM8

        “The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement ensures that Norway can take part in the EU single market … ”

        Some would see a subtle distinction between “take part in”, and “be a part of”; moreover the single market is not described there as the “EEA single market”, of which Norway could be seen as a part as an EEA member state, but as the “EU single market”, of which Norway cannot be a part because it is not an EU member state.

        And then:

        “It gives our companies access to the single market and ensures that they can compete on the same terms as companies in EU countries … ”

        So Norway is not a party to the EU treaties and it is not a part of the EU or a part of the EU’s Single Market, but it is a party to the EEA Agreement and therefore it is a part of the EEA, and through that Agreement it has unrestricted access to the EU’s Single Market for those sectors covered by the EEA Agreement.

      • rapscallion
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:22 am | Permalink

        EEA rules include Article 112, which allow a state to prevent movement of people. Luxembourg has invoked it before, as has Liechtenstein. I refer you to http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/BrexitMonograph010.pdf

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:10 am | Permalink

          A red herring. There is no way the other EEA member states would allow the UK to stay in the EEA knowing that it intended to abuse Article 112 in the EEA Agreement.

      • APL
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 9:00 am | Permalink

        JR: “Norway is in the EEA, not the single market”

        “The Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, brings together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the “Internal Market”.”

        JR: “The EEA is another legal construct which usually includes freedom of movement, financial contributions etc.”

        ‘Just another legal construct’, a bit cavalier from someone who has made his living from constructing ‘legal constructs’.

        Freedom of movement can be restricted under the terms of the agreement by article 112 of the EEA agreement, can be and has been by Lichtenstein, in Lichtenstein case, on a permanent basis.

        Reply I am not a lawyer!

        • NoMoreEU
          Posted October 21, 2016 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

          Signing up to the EEA requires acceptance of the 4 Freedoms, including Free Movement of People.

          A TEMPORARY restriction on FOM of People can be applied for as a ‘safeguard measure’.

          This ‘emergency brake’ should never be mistaken for a tool for indefinite immigration suspension.

          It is unrealistic to believe the UK would be granted a temporary brake on FOM.

          It is completely fanciful, to suggest that the EEA/EU would agree to a permanent immigration control policy, along the lines of Lichtenstein…which is a totally different situation that the UK cannot emulate.

          • APL
            Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:05 am | Permalink

            NoMoreEU: “It is completely fanciful, to suggest that the EEA/EU would agree to a permanent immigration control policy, along the lines of Lichtenstein”

            This has been gone over quite recently, where it was demonstrated that, indeed the EEA agreement stipulates that a signatory to the agreement may ‘unilaterally‘ invoke article 112/113 and the grounds for so doing do not require prior agreement from the other parties too the agreement.

            So in fact the EEA agreement gives quite a lot more autonomy than you give credit for.

        • APL
          Posted October 21, 2016 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

          JR: “I am not a lawyer!”

          But you are, for want of a better term, a legislator. That is, someone who creates the laws, or in this case the treaties.

          Reply Yes, a legislator who voted against Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon and who voted againt the Treaty Of European Union as a whole on June 23

    • Timaction
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:44 am | Permalink

      Indeed. The BBC, Sky and to a less extent ITV report their propaganda as news. The ITV are influenced by their corporate sponsers. Unfortunately we are all forced to pay for the. BBC. I resent this as there must be a technical solution that we could be excluded from their channel or simpler still make it prescription so I can watch it go bankrupt. The leftwards would have to get a proper job or….report NEWs

      • graham1946
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

        Timeaction

        There will be no subscription on BBC. It is not technically possible to select who does and does not want to receive their programmes. It was made this way when Freeview/Freesat was set up. The Freeview boxes and TV’s are not capable of receiving a viewing card so unless the millions of viewers are willing to buy new boxes and/or tv’s it’s a non starter and no government is going to do that, which is why they keep on with the licence fee.

        A television engineer I used to know told me the BBC had the government set it up this way technically, although they could quite easily have made the boxes like the Sky ones, able to take a subscription as they foresaw a day when they would be forced to compete with satellite tv.

        The only way I can see it being done is for there to be a single standard so that all tv’s are capable of receiving subscriptions, according to taste, but you’d never get the satellite and cable and internet tv companies to agree as they don’t much like competition either.

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

        ‘Unfortunately we are all forced to pay for the. BBC’

        – As a moderate, centre-right Conservative voter the left-wing bias of the BBC’s political coverage annoys me although i find its reporting of Brexit pretty bland compared to ITV and Sky who seem more anti Brexit in their reporting (that’s my subjective experience at least).
        But in the bigger picture, the BBC provides great TV (original and innovative documentaries, drama, films, children’s TV, educational programmes, and so on, without being bombarded by adverts, and which other countries are envious of). If we lose the BBC then we will slide further into moronic / cretinous / banal TV overall that you see so much of in the USA (at least that’s my experience of TV in America after spending some time there working a few years ago), and psychologists have proved the negative effect of this on society, in particular on children.
        So can fellow Conservatives please see the big picture, and not knock the BBC overall, not forgetting how the BBC feeds the creative industry in general, and how the creative industry in overall plays an important role in our economy.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:53 am | Permalink

          ‘Unfortunately we are all forced to pay for the. BBC’ indeed and then they spend the money trying to indoctrinate everyone in greencrap, PC drivel, renewables, pro train/bike anti car, ever more regulation of everything, ever more government & tax, magic money tree economics and lefty pro EU drivel.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:33 am | Permalink

      “Where they have for decades … ”

      Not just an interim period of five or ten years, then, but decades … actually it’s only been two and a bit decades that the Norwegians have been in the anteroom for the EU but unable to summon up the popular will to enter it; but I am concerned that if we left the EU but stayed in the EEA then contrary to what is now being claimed that would not be treated just as an interim solution while we were on our way out from the EU to the wider world, and there could even be attempts to get us back into the EU.

      Interestingly only yesterday a dedicated advocate of a multi-stage withdrawal dropped a hint that we might never go beyond the first stage of the EEA:

      http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86251

      “Thus, should we take advantage of the EEA-interim solution – assuming we can – the divergence between the Single Market and any free trade agreement that we can broker is likely to increase. The idea then of using an interim arrangement to buy time to negotiate something worse then starts to look absurd.

      Without some serious thought, therefore, the idea of an interim solution isn’t going to fly. And one of the add-ons which we will have to secure in any end game is the full application of the mutual recognition principle.”

      • Chris
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:38 am | Permalink

        Very much agree with your thoughts on the dangers of an “interim” solution, and I have voiced these too on this and other forums, including eureferendum.

      • Peter D Gardner
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 12:33 am | Permalink

        Spot on. Every single one of the models or existing treaties the EU is designed with the aim of eventually transitioning the parties into full EU member ship. Accession states are obliged to move cart loads of EU law into their national laws and re-organise their state institutions and processes to facilitate eventual entry into full membership. Add to that the still prevalent mentality of EU thinking in the government and its advisers and a 180 degree about turn is almost inevitable unless UK makes a clean break and pauses for a good five years before considering any further entanglement.
        Both UK and the EU need that amount of time to reset their directions and speed of travel and adjust to the new order. Mrs May risks locking the UK into another long term entanglement to satisfy sectoral short term interests in UK but which is overall greatly against UK’s interests as a sovereign democracy.

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    Indeed the BBC do exactly that. Rarely more than one leave supporter against three remainers, plus of course the BBC presenter with the virtually obligatory BBC views.

    The sole exception being Andrew Neil who is reasonable balanced and fair. All the rest are way to the remainer, greencrap, big government left of him.

    The position is not helped though by the fact that well over half the current Tory MP are essentially Nick Clegg types thus wrong on nearly every issue. Anna Soubry, Clegg and even his wife seem to be everywhere on the BBC.

  4. Roy Grainger
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    I think the entire BBC news department institutionally left-wing and anti-Brexit, they have virtually admitted this themselves. This means they don’t set out to deliberately put an anti-Brexit spin on everything, it just happens automatically. This is a very difficult bias to overcome in such a large organisation.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

      Roy, it must be something to do with who is hiring in the first place. I think they deliberately go out of their way to recruit people with a certain mindset.

  5. Mark B
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    I long, long ago gave up watching the BBC and its biased reporting. The programmes are pretty much all the same in terms of format. ie “I am going on a journey”, States the narrator at the beginning of a 3-5 minute rant about what the program is on. All very boring and predictable.

    So to hear things such as the above does not surprise me. All these State employees, or in this case those funded via the TV Tax, live in a bubble. It is as if the real world does not exist.

    BBC = Not worth the tax.

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

      ‘BBC = Not worth the tax’

      – What?
      Are we Conservatives such barbarians that we would get rid of the BBC because of its imperfections. There’s enough banality in our culture / society as it is without getting rid of the BBC – the envy of the rest of the world. Come on, don’t be such a Scrooge .. Instead, why not do something more creative by writing into the BBC with programme ideas, for interesting art or historical documentaries for example (the BBC takes submissions from the public or at least they used to). But please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
      Regards.

  6. Jerry
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    But John your website has been a “re run” of the referendum debate since the 25th June! Not just the many dairy entries of yours on Brexit but the way you allow off topic Brexit comments even when you yourself wish to debate other issues.

    Also why pick on the BBC, other MSM are just as bad, just as pro EU. What the Pro Brexit side appear to dislike is the way the BBC and much of the rest of the MSM is picking pro Brexit arguments. Even if you silenced the BBC, even if you silenced all other broadcasters and the print media from publishing ‘anti Brexit’ comment and articles how are you going to silence the internet…

    • A different Simon
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      Jerry ,

      The BBC is funded from money extorted under threat of imprisonment from the general public .

      This and it’s charter mean it should be unbiased . The direction of it’s bias is irrelevant .

      Media which is funded by private money is entitled to be bias .

      • Jerry
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

        @ADS; You are entitled to your opinion, how ever 100% wrong it is, otherwise please cite the law that states one has to watch broadcast TV,. also kindly cite the law or regulation that permits broadcasters to be biased at times of elections and and referenda. As for extortion, if one chooses not to use a TV to receive broadcasts TV then one does not have to pay the TVL fee, but one still has to pay a contribution via the shop checkout to fund commercial television. Also try hacking a Sky subscription to obtain access to their encrypted channels, do you really think that if caught you would not face criminal charges too (that might or might not incur imprisonment) for defrauding Sky of their rightful income – but heck, don’t let the facts get in the way of yet another anti BBC rants.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:22 am | Permalink

      Not sure if you aware Jerry but the BBC is funded by an enforced tax on anyone who owns a TV and has a requirement to be politically neutral. These two facts make it different to any other MSM outlet which we can choose to pay for or not pay for as we wish.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

      Jerry – John Redwood is meant to be biased. He is meant to talk about politics every day – he is a politician.

      The BBC is not meant to be biased and does seem to continue as though the referendum is yet to be cast.

      I agree. It is frustrating that we are still arguing Brexit when we should be getting on with it.

      It’s also interesting that Donald Trump has said that he might want a re-run of the Presidential elections if Hilary Clinton wins – yet the same people who support a second EU referendum say that’s undemocratic !

      What happens when talking and voting fails ?

      • Jerry
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

        @Roy Grainger; See my reply to ADS

        @Anonymous; No one is asking for the same referendum to be re run, the issue is that there are unanswered questions that no one can claim to have a mandate for.

    • libertarian
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

      Jerry

      For many years the BBC was valued not just in the UK but across the world for its impartial, balanced and well informed news and current affairs. I’m afraid its just now a left wing version of Fox News and therefore no longer has any integrity or credibility . That will be its undoing , as someone who is a champion of the BBC you might want to ponder on that.

      • Jerry
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

        @libertarian; “you might want to ponder on that.”

        I do, but I see no reason to start chucking the babies out with the bath water so to speak, I want the BBC to regain that integrity or credibility, a strong BBC will not only hold politicos of what ever shade to account as it should but also keep the other broadcasters true (especially Ch4 News).

        I might be a champion of the BBC but I am also highly critical, I do not actually give a dam about the “BBC” per se, it is PSB that I care about, but without fundamental reforms of how commercial/subscription broadcasters are run and funded [1] there is no clear alternatives other than for the BBC to provide a strong PSB sector. Is the BBC to big -yes, and as such it needs reforms, not euthanasia like some advocate.

        [1] including what community radio stations are allowed to do

  7. Sir Joe Soap
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    The Conservative PPC for Witney assures me he voted Leave.
    Let’s see tonight’s results.

  8. fedupsoutherner
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    Totally agree John. Just how can the public weigh up a balanced approach on any subject where the BBC is concerned as they are biased over most things. They give their opinion on everything as if it is gospel. They should be just reporting and not judging everything by their standards. I only said to my husband the other day that I feel like we are still debating the referendum in preparation to go to the polls again. The BBC need reigning in on so many fronts.

  9. Mick
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    How very correct Mr Redwood, but it’s not just the BBC , Sky/channel 4 and I was watching a program on ITV on Tuesday evening with tom Bradby and on his panel of 5 he had one Brexit and two of the other remoaners were millipede and the annoying sourpuss, then there’s the MPs and rag media who won’t except the vote, well though we WON so get over it, as I’ve said in the past there’s buses/cars/boats/planes that will take you over to Europe to live if you carn’t except the will of the people. Bye bye you won’t be missed

  10. agricola
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    “Can we have some common sense and better based reporting”, No so long as the BBC is a verbal version of the Guardian. They are not batting for team GB, nor have they done for many years. I think they saw themselves as one of the tools of socialism in parallel with the teacher unions, the politicization of the police force upper echelons, and any other tool of persuasion that could be subverted.

    They are paid for by the general public and outside the realm of news and current affaires in the broadest sense they do a good job. One only has to experience TV out side the UK to fully appreciate this. The general public cannot control or influence the BBC other than through Parliament. Parliament should be our voice. While I do not advocate political control of what they broadcast as news I would like to see some control of who does the broadcasting and possibly more importantly those in the management team who run the news and current affaires department. I do not deny it is tricky to strike an acceptable balance, but we need to redress it’s left wing bias.

  11. SM
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:00 am | Permalink

    I would like to see the media being forced to take more notice of the fundamental political concept of the European Union.

    Of course economics matter, but they are consequent upon the basic ideology of ever-closer union, which has been the basis of my opposition since at least Maastricht.

  12. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    “can be given a better understanding of”

    Last night on the BBC World Service was the POTUS debate in Las Vegas. Well, it was for a while till the BBC cut it to run their new 1 hour long Childrens School at 3 am. If that was Tennis or Snooker they wouldn’t prematurely cut it off….would they? Digital cr*p again.

    So for the most of us listening to the debate on BBC WS we know not of the proceedings to judge much at all. Just who are these children anyway that need the silly UK play school stuff thrown at them? Play School was once quite good…this new stuff isn’t!

    • Jerry
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

      @Ex-expat Colin; Don’t blame the BBC for your own lack of understanding. You actually mean those listening to BBC Radio Four’s rebroadcasting the BBC WS. Perhaps it would be better if R4 simply shut down from 1am until 5:20 am bar their long standing PSB obligation to broadcast schools programmes at such pre-advised times. You can always use a digital TV to access the WS (or a DAB radio here in the UK). Those outside of the UK have local frequencies for the BBC WS.

  13. Peter VAN LEEUWEN
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    Isn’t this rather the consequence of your government not having triggered article 50? Your government still hasn’t started Brexit.
    So apart from hugs and kisses today there is nothing to discuss about Brexit in Brussels.
    So the BBC may have to look for other topics, like shining a light on those British who didn’t and still don’t want a Brexit

    • stred
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

      Peter. You do not seem to understand that, although the Commission can’t wait to get rid of us and carry on their Spinelli plans, there is a majority of politicians and metropolitan liberal remainers who wish to reverse the decision by people they consider uneducated fools.

      The first stage was to insert a Remain politician into the leadership and appoint a majority of Remainers to the government. Delay to issue A50 was important, as there had to be time to make a legal challenge and organise opposition in the Commons. Then a vote can delay A50 and in the meantime their friends in the BBC and other media can choose 75% Remainers to debate the issue and denigrate the decision. At the Bank the Remainers there can help by talking up the drawbacks and lowering interest rate which helps the pound to fall and puts up inflation. Then, in 3 years time, when the endless negotiations are getting nowhere fast we can vote again but this time with more young people and more ex- EU citizens with British passports.

      Yesterday we had a useful contribution from a well- fed German MP with hair like a cross between Boris and Trump. Sorry, forgot his name. He told the news that he had found out that British politicians had no plan to leave and he assured us that, unless we agreed free movement and to hand over the money, there would be no ACCESS to the single market. This was in case we thought access was different from’in’. We look forward to buying Jags instead of Mercs and DAFt cars and using plastic flowers. I will miss my favorite Gouda though.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      As opposed to shining a light on the disappointed majority who wanted Brexit and still haven’t got it. (We hear very little from their side during BBC items btw.)

      At least the Remainers have what they want at the moment in that they are still in the EU with the large body of the establishment on their side.

    • a-tracy
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

      I’d like the BBC to shine a light on a couple of statements I’ve read on Guido Fawkes blog that I’m not clear on.

      Why do the EU allow Japan to trade with the EU 164bn dollars, China half a trillion, US two trillion without having to pay in and sign up?

    • Timaction
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

      But the majority wanted out. It would have been far greater a result if the whole establishment, world leaders and every conceivable threat imaginable hadnt been said. Were getting out of your EU dictatership Peter!

  14. Graham
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately (but hopefully not by design) the lack of progress on getting us out and the continuing migrant situation just invite further similar sentiments. The constant propaganda left unchallenged will turn uninformed heads.

    Presumably we are going to help the Germans and others sort out their internal elections and then, suitably reinforced, they will then grind down our Brexit desires. Obvious really.

    Still wondering if we’ll make it across the finishing line!!

  15. Nigel
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    I sense in your article the frustration that I and many others have been feeling for a long time. But what can we do about it?

  16. Jims
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    What other taxpayer funded body is held to account by no-one?

    Apparently the proposed new Ofcom board is staffed mostly by ex-BBC people.

    Let the Guardian, Labour Party, Greenpeace etc ed of Britain fund it, at least that would be honest!

  17. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    The BBC is not alone in this respect. All the broadcast media seem intent on denigrating the idea of Brexit and trying to thwart the will of the British people on a daily basis. They are supported by many MPs who are determined to keep us in the EU. This was clear as soon as the result was announced and delaying implementing article 50 for 9 months was both unnecessary and gave them hope and additional time to pursue their undemocratic intent.

  18. Bob
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    I have been telling you this for years Mr Redwood.
    This is why I refuse to fund the BBC, because the government seem unwilling or unable to tackle this taxpayer funded £4 billion p.a. anti libertarian propaganda machine.

  19. Excalibur
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    Indeed. Is there no way legislatively to ensure that the BBC’s requirement for impartiality is enforced ?

  20. MickN
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    It’s all about timing John. Mr Whittingdale had a chance to address the partiality of the BBC but at the time Cameron needed them on side for his Brexit propaganda. It’s too late now and we are stuck with what we have until the next review

  21. Bob
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    o/t
    Brave New World

    Marriage has been redifined and the word “child” has been redefined.

    Now, infertility is to be redefined as someone who hasn’t got a “significant other”.

    the new standard suggests that the inability to find a suitable sexual partner – or the lack of sexual relationships which could achieve conception – could be considered an equal disability.

    The World Health Organisation sets global health standards and its ruling is likely to place pressure on the NHS to change its policy on who can access IVF treatment.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/single-men-will-get-the-right-to-start-a-family-under-new-defini/

  22. Oli B
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    Your comments seem to echo an interesting article in the Telegraph yesterday about the need for a new campaign for Brexit. Despite the clear result of the referendum those on the remain side who refuse to accept the result appear to be winning the propaganda war.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/19/why-its-time-for-a-new-campaign-for-brexit/

    At this rate Brexit will be so badly diluted that we will gain none of the benefits and all of the downsides.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

      Mrs May is already the voice for EU unity against Russia in Syria.

      I also take it that it is her government behind redefining what ‘children’ are.

      If we have done a deal with France to take in male adults then tell us so. But don’t insult our intelligence in such a gross way by insisting that they are children when it is patently obvious that they aren’t. Worse – I feel that we are being intimidated by the celebrigensia in not even being allowed to say that they look like adults without censure.

      For so many things British people must prove themselves – a CRB check for a job (paid or voluntary), tests for incapacity benefit. Newcomers are afforded immunity and are protected from such scrutiny. Indigenes are already presumed guilty unless proven innocent by the CRB system and have to prove they are not criminals before they can get close with children.

      Presuming these men are children then the authorities (and the BBC) will be keen to see them going to school.

      This is all beside the point.

      The signals from Mrs May (if not the rhetoric) indicates that she is working on behalf of the EU (and Remainers) against us.

      And as for Russia in Syria – the last thing we need is EU unity against them again. It is actually indicative of the establishmet mindset that the Islamists are freedom fighters and anyone who is white who stands up to them (including our soldiers) are criminals.

      When Mrs Clinton becomes President there is a serious risk of sparking WW3.

  23. Jane Moorhouse
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    I have friends that refuse to watch anything on the BBC anymore. Breakfast TV, 6pm and 10pm are so guilty. If there’s a positive to report they then bring on the political editor who comes up with a reason why the positive is really a negative because… They don’t report anything positive for Brexit which they cannot pull to bits. Question Time even has 3 against and 1 for Brexit. It really is brainwashing and has been going on for years not only on TV but in schools and Universities. When you know that people all over the world value the BBC it is extremely worrying. We all pay the licence fee and they are frustrating and undermining 17.5 million people

    • MickN
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      The Tory on tonight’s Questiontime offering will be Ken Clarke. I expect Soubry and Morgan need a night off

    • bob.cx28@mail.com
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

      “We all pay the licence fee”

      I haven’t paid the Licence Fee for many years, and I also have friends and relatives who refuse to pay it.

    • Juliet
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

      BBC gets £3.7bn from licence payers, it would interesting to know how and what they spend this on; very limited on new programmes or concepts

  24. oldtimer
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    The BBC approach to news management was exposed, despite BBC attempts to repress it in a court case brought by a private citizen, over its climate change reporting. Then the information the BBC sought to repress was the fact of a meeting held on BBC premises (back in 2006) to set the agenda for its climate change reporting. The BBC claimed it was a meeting of climate change scientists. In fact it was also attended by lobbyists and the heads of several BBC departments including the heads of news, drama and comedy. The implications were clear – all channels were to be advised (instructed?) how to promote the climate change agenda. That agenda was duly pursued whether on the BBC news, in BBC documentaries, in BBC drama productions, in BBC comedy shows. It was necessary to toe the line if you were a writer or performer otherwise you did not appear or got heard on the BBC. Inconvenient news could be suppressed; for example I have not seen any BBC weather reports of the first snowfall of the season in northern England or Scotland although it made a headline in at least one national newspaper this week.

    The most notable example of exclusion from all TV channels, not just the BBC, is afforded by Martin Durkin who directed a TV programme called the Great Global Warming Swindle some years ago. He has been shunned by TV channels ever since – as he says if you ask him. That did not prevent him, however, successfully crowd sourcing the funding of the film Brexit the Movie, in which you featured along with David Davis and Liam Fox among other prominent camapigners for Brexit.

    The BBC’s functionaries will carry on broadcasting this way because that is what they have been programmed to do; they will carry on doing so unless and until someone (presumably the Director General Lord Hall) programmes them to do otherwise.

    PS IIRC, Hall was also DG in 2006.

    • row the boat
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

      wow. Oldtimer
      Didn’t know that about the Brexit Movie man.
      Hope he’s working on his next step.

  25. acorn
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    All basically true JR, trouble is financial reporting is so poor. Economic experts paraded in the media, are just echo chambers for corporate and government press releases. The Radio 5 “wake up to money” programme, should really be on CBeebies; but, it has got better since more recently educated females have been presenting it. Alas, they still have no idea how a fiat currency system works, or the major difference between private sector and public sector debt. It would be a good idea to stop public funding of “economics”, unless it is part of a Fiat Currency Banking and Accounting qualification.

    There is a correlation in that “hard” Brexit sends the pound down; but, if a bit of “soft” is added, the Pound goes up a bit. Google: XE Currency Charts: GBP to EUR

  26. Row the boat
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Media controlled. Won’t change. Vast salaries. Minority groups prioritised.
    Therefore employees have no incentive to rock the boat.

  27. David Lister
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    “They still seem unable to grasp that there is no such thing as the Single Market detached from the full panoply of EU laws and policies which a state can belong to …”

    This is not quite right.

    EEA countries such as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein can access the Single Market without being restricted by the full set of EU law. For example, they are members of the EU Council, and have access the EU Research and Education program but are free to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with a respective third country.

    http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/norway/
    https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/norway/1631/norway-and-the-eu_en

    Reply The EEA is yet another legal construct with freedom of movement and financial contributions attached

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:48 am | Permalink

      “For example, they are members of the EU Council”

      You might care to check that.

      • David Lister
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

        Point taken, thankyou.

        They are members of the Council of Europe as per reference.

    • NoMoreEU
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:54 am | Permalink

      A few questions, for clarification, please:-

      Is the EEA governed by the EU?
      If so, how would that be “Leaving the EU”?
      …………………………………………………
      Do EEA members have to accept the 4 “Freedoms” including the Freedom of Movement of People?
      If so, how would that meet the UK desire to take back control of immigration?
      ………………………………………………………
      Do EEA members have to be part of the Schengen Area?
      If so, wouldn’t that make it more difficult to control immigration and UK borders?
      …………………………………………………………
      Many thanks.

      • David Lister
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

        Please see the references above as these answer your questions.

        To be clear, it is my view that it is inconcievable that the UK will complete an FTA with the EU in a 2 year period that is in the interests of the UK. This is evidenced on the recent collapse on FTA discussions with Canada which has already taken 7 years. And the UK FTA reqiurements are much more complex than that sought by Canada.

        Therefore, it is critical that we have a fall back option that is acceptable. A straight WTO agreement outside an FTA and without considering practicalities such as MRAs and BIPs would be a disaster for trade of goods with the EU (just 2 items of many that need to be addressed). This is what is suggested as the ‘cliff-edge’ by David Davis yesterday (20/10/16) in the HoP. Its impossible for us to walk away from the EU without there being trade agreements that address these aspects, otherwise trade with the EU becomes illegal.

        Nor should we breaking all links with Europe, as they are our most important trading partners.

  28. James Munroe
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    I rarely watch the BBC these days.

    My feelings on the BBC, are that their primary remit, is to service a large, platinum-plated Pension Fund Scheme, that has a very large deficit.

    The pension scheme deficit is being paid off, very kindly, by TV license payers, without their awareness or permission, because there was a fear the BBC would “go on strike”.

    The secondary remit of the BBC, is to broadcast biased political news and discussion programmes.

    The tertiary remit, is to make the occasional, good quality, drama or entertainment programme.

  29. Richard1
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    the debate is narrowing. Its all coming down to whether or not the UK can keep financial passporting. That’s the threat constantly made by the EU and the alarm sounded by those opposed to ‘hard Brexit’. There certainly is a lot of concern over this in the financial services sector, I think a well thought out fallback position is needed, should it not be possible to negotiate this.

    The Government should also make a proper evaluation of free trade as proposed by the economists Patrick Minford, Roger Bootle et al. This would presumably obviate the need for trade deals except with the EU itself.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      I don’t think so, I think the core of the debate is whether it would be right for a group of countries to agree to apply joint trade sanctions on another country just because it insists on having complete control over its immigration policy. Not because it is oppressing people, not because it is trying to develop nuclear weapons to attack a neighbour, not because it has invaded the territory of a neighbour and refuses to withdraw, but just because it wants to control its own immigration policy.

      • rose
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

        And will this soon apply to countries like Hungary and Austria.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

      Richard 1 – All it needed was a few minor concessions on freedom of movement and we would still be in.

      It is not Brexiters who have put road blocks in the way.

      • Richard1
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

        I agree the intransigence of the EU was extraordinary given the damage Brexit will do to the EU.

  30. James Neill
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    If it were all so clear about where we are headed then there would be no need for all of this speculation and rush to denounce the BBC and liberal politicians. As time goes by some of us can see that we have made a disastrous mistake for which mostly our young people will pay.

    The world has moved on now from a time of Empire and the Great Powers standing alone to a position of economic regionalism- In case you missed it Mr Putiin was in Berlin yesterday meeting with the German Government so who knows what is being cooked up now in an economic sense. Its all in a future for which we will now have little or no say.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

      Dear James–How can you possibly believe that we will have less say than the diluted, 28-to-one, always-over-ruled squeak that we have now? And what you say about Empire (Do you yourself apparently not just want a European Empire though I doubt you would see it that way?) and Great Powers (Is not one of the big fears of the EU that absent an EU we will not be a bloc with the power of the other blocs?) hardly rings true. No idea why you should assume that Putin being in Germany is necessarily a bad thing. Didn’t somebody say (or close) that it is not given to man to see what lies dimly at a distance, we must do what lies clearly at hand? And what that means is we should have triggered Article 50 immediately, as a PM no less (except that it was Cameron so doesn’t count) said. The present delay is two steps forward and three back. The other thing we need is modification to the Constitution to take account of Referenda, which in this digital electronic age are easy peasy, meaning that MP’s, with their myriad opinions, are much less necessary.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

        Postscript–Let’s face it, MP’s in the main are not very bright, certainly not necessarily very bright given that they do not need any qualification: in any event how could we begin to judge, apart from personal dealings which are few and far between and often solely after the event? MP’s get elected because they are telegenic, kiss babies, say all the right things, kow tow appropriately, have lots of stamina, are beautiful etc. Clarke’s informing us that he doesn’t agree with Referenda is fatuous–wonder what it is that makes him think MP’s know more than the rest of us. Some of the cleverer MP’s could perhaps discuss and agree questions for future Referenda but apart from that they can stick to any problems their individual constituents have and not bother to turn up in Westminster.

        Reply Most MPs are intelligent, have qualifications and put a lot into doing their job

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:24 am | Permalink

          Reply to Reply–On intelligence I wonder what your grounds are. For those that have qualifications at all I doubt they are qualifications for actually doing their job. I do agree many put a lot in. It is the system that is so wrong and unnecessary–and that’s just the Commons. There is no reason not to have many more Referenda. The Swiss get by.

          Reply Many MPs have good degrees from good universities, are qualified lawyers, or doctors, or accountants or investment specialists etc and have achieved well in other professions and walks of life before becoming MPs. Why disparage in such a general way?

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

            Reply–Because they speak for us for reasons that are purely historical and simply no longer apply and I for one see no reason to have to pay them heed. They do NOT know better especially on the subjects that all can understand. Any Questions today made me cry with the begging of the question who should decide on Capital punishment. Of course it should be the people–why on earth should MP’s decide on that–once there was no other way but not any more. A qualified accountant MP does not get elected because of his accountancy nor does he use his accountancy as an MP. How else to disparage? Not right to be specific when it is the whole out of date approach that is wrong.

          • rose
            Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

            I agree Mr Clarke is intelligent. He did a very good job as Health Secretary and as Education Secretary and he left the books in good order as Chancellor – or was that the achievement of the Chief Secretary? But he is making a fool of himself now and being insulting to boot. He keeps saying we voted Brexit because we don’t like the sound of foreign languages being spoken. Well, I have news for him: people I know who voted Brexit have foreign languages as their subject. Other people are foreign themselves. Yet others are Europhiles in the true sense of the word. Then there are the cosmopolitans. As for the rest, what evidence does he have that they don’t like foreign languages being spoken? They have been living with them for a lifetime now.

            To those who insult the English by calling them Little Englanders – when do you ever hear them calling other peoples Little Scotlanders, Little Irelanders, Little Walesers, etc? – I would suggest they look up what Little Englander means. It is historically redundant as a term now unless you are thinking of the very few dependencies left.

    • rose
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

      “we have made a disastrous mistake for which mostly our young people will pay.”

      I find this strange reasoning. Old people mostly have their houses and some have more than one. Old people have had their jobs and some still have them. Now old people have a pool of charming, educated, cheap labour to see them through thier old age. So why did they vote Leave? Because they were thinking of the next generations.

      If you bring in a city the size of Bristol every year and before long more than that, what future will there be for young people and those who come after them? We are already horribly over crowded in England with people being crammed into the existing towns and cities in appalling conditions. Even if we do build all those extra cities what about the environment and food security? What about water? This is before you even touch on the main question of national independence which is considered a normal state of affairs in the rest of the world.

    • LittleBlackCensored
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

      “…some of us can see…”
      O happy Some! The omniscience and supercilious tone denote the Guardianista.

  31. alan jutson
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    Afraid the LSE Students of past generations have since infiltrated our Universities, and brainwashed students for decades with ideas that a Socialist utopia can actually exist.
    They cannot outline one that actually works for more than a few years, because they all eventually run out of other peoples money, but the dream is still alive.

    Those students in turn have eventually achieved high positions in organisations of power and influence.

    Hence the problem we have.

    • Juliet
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

      I second that. They have certainly left their mark on changing the mindsets of today students

  32. Bert Young
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Whether its the income the BBC receives from the EU or its left wing influence that creates the bias we all can hear and see , I’ve no idea . I find myself watching other TV Channels now and paying little attention to its radio . The BBC has lost its way and popularity ; it is in serious trouble and has to re-invent itself .

  33. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Charitably, perhaps the BBC is trying to keep the nation whole. Attempting to soothe the hurt feelings of Remain voters showing them their views were valid though voted down and, mainstream media …, the nation’s body-politic, is with them.
    However had the vote gone the other way, it hardly seems plausible given the BBC’s historic reportages, that it would bellowing and bellyaching every day of how we should have voted Leave and what dire consequences await us.
    The BBC is like yesteryear’s open market meat and fish trader who when serving customers put his fingers on the weightscales when measuring out cowheel and tripe.

  34. Kenneth
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    The BBC is shockingly bad at business reporting.

    My impression is that the BBC does not understand this subject

    • Tad Davison
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

      Agreed. Even some foreign broadcasters do it better, and they don’t cost me a cent.

      Tad

  35. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    I have watched a Conspiracy-theorist’s take on the events on You Tube and even the footage shown..which has considerably less numbers than quoted at the time..even that footage has been doctored to show hundreds more than ever set foot in the Square.
    The statue of Saddam Hussein was in a fact a war memorial to the hundreds of thousands killed in the trenches of the Iraq/Iran war. It was what we in Christian terms would call sacrilege blasphemy and an insult to the dead to unceremoniously pull it down. Worse that it was done by foreigners with an tiny invited group of hooligans. Also the square was blocked off by American military vehicles preventing people from getting to work by car and truck and on foot.

  36. MartinW
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    The anti-Brexit bias in BBC broadcasting in both radio and television has been blatant ever since the referendum was called, and continues. The bias is not merely a ‘gut-feeling’, but has been demonstrated by careful and objective analysis of its broadcasts over recent months. It seems clear that this bias violates the terms of the BBC Charter and, although it has been recently renewed, I believe the government would be justified in declaring the Charter renewal null & void on the grounds that the BBC has consistently violated its terms, not only on the subject of Brexit but in many other areas of its broadcasting.

  37. Ursula
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    Yep.

    All good economic news….”despite Brexit”
    All bad news ( in almost every arena, not just economic)….” due to Brexit”

  38. Beeb
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    BBC business commentary is pretty weak. Of course they are broadcasting to viewers who on the whole do not favour in-depth analyses.All the more reason why they should be accurate and balanced in the odd maggots of information they cast out.

    The BBC picks Pound v US Dollar; FTSE100 v. FTSE100 two days ago; Customer Confidence in buying trainspotter memo-books v Customer Confidence in buying unabridged copies of Tolstoy’s War and Peace ( in Russian ) as a measure of whether Brexit which has yet to happen is successful.

  39. Lee Taylor
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Can we get a motion in the House to have the BBC made into a subscription service? That way people can pay to watch their product voluntarily rather than be compelled under pain of imprisonment to watch it. That might restore a bit of balance to their output.

  40. am
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    I would add to the fed the ecb. Even the qe policy of the ecb will cause movement in the pound. Likewise if the boe reduced qe then the pound would go up. This all takes place irrespective of brexit. But there has been a fall in the pound by brexit. Whether that is correct in the long run remains to be seen but in the short run, so far, not.

  41. The Prangwizard
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    It’s not just about Brexit. The BBC cannot be trusted to provide balanced coverage on anything. It’s a bit rich therefore to attempt to sanction RT.

    Your government had the chance to take action and ducked it.
    The BBC no doubt sees itself as untouchable and can and has abandoned all pretence of impartiality.

    It follows its own agenda subverting where it can and sowing seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of our history and cultural and religious beliefs particularly in England.

    The BBC must be broken up, it is incapable of reform.

  42. lojolondon
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    John, it is unacceptable that the BBC takes £6 Billion of taxpayers money to ram their view of the world down our throats. They are acting as the propaganda wing of anti-democracy forces, and I believe are therefore guilty of treason. We need to shut down the whole corrupt shop as soon as possible.

  43. ale bro
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    I don’t think this is an indication of BBC bias per se, rather more a reflection of London bias.

    In England, it was only London that voted to remain, and so I am not surprised that London based media reflect London opinions.

    Other London based media – e.g. ITN, Channel 4 news, – are showing the same biases.

  44. A different Simon
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    Quote “It never occurred to them that Burberry is a global brand and sales elsewhere were disappointing, and the global licensing revenue is tailing off. ”

    This is a classic example of economics “experts” who have no skin in the game .

    Many will be receiving unfunded defined benefits pensions and will not be used to researching companies with a view to declining or risking an investment to generate an economic return for themselves .

    Paper tigers .

  45. Roy Grainger
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Interesting that the Guardian is today horrified that Trump did not say he would accept the election result when they themselves don’t accept the Brexit election result. Typical hypocrisy.

  46. Antisthenes
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Like Labour’s recent takeover by Momentum the BBC as been taken over by lefty progressives but that was quite some time ago. The consequence is that programs where ever possible are given a left wing bias. A very unhealthy situation for a state broadcaster. It was always naive to think that a state broadcaster would always be unbiased and balanced as there would always be those who would choose to bend it to their will. If it is not an unscrupulous government doing so then others will step in.

    An easy target for the left the home for idealists and fantasists. The BBC are pedlars in fantasy producing fiction is what they do. They tack on real life in the form of news and current affairs programs but those who are employed to do so are hired by the fantasists so must hold the same views. This has led to the BBC being far from having balanced views and so not fit for purpose. A situation that is now irreversible. The only remedy now is it’s abolition.

  47. Voir dire
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    One feels disrespect for BBC journalists rather more than the BBC which is in a sense an inanimate object.
    One is absolutely, completely, one hundred percent certain that if as a young person flattered by becoming say a relatively speaking top journalist of a world-known TV and radio station, that on learning it was nothing but a propaganda machine against the interests of ones fellow British,one would forgo the large salary, other tit-bits of offered but refused benefits,- resign even knowing that one could be in danger, and look forward to a period of unemployment followed by a part-time job as a barperson and then , even go to the lowliest and worst paid job in a coalmine..a place one feared , was really very afraid. Working there rather than knowingly as BBC journalists do in telling lies directly against the interests of their fellow Britons and their Country.
    Any BBC journalist would possibly say to this accusation: ” I bet he wouldn’t!”. A top Sky News journalist may compare such a one to a part of a man’s anatomy as is their wont, and also remark with daft curly -lipped grin ” I bet he wouldn’t! ”
    Gambling/betting is something the BBC and Sky News journalists apart from keeping a civil tongue in their heads, should most definitely avoid. They should know their limitations.

  48. Nigel
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Just to underline what you are saying, Nick Clegg is the guest on Daily Politics today. I tried watching it, but have had to turn it off and return to my computer to post this in anger.

  49. Newmania
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    I have in the past felt the BBC was unreasonably inclined to the left, but I don`t think it’s fair to complain that it is unreasonably inclined to the centre. Brexit ultras have grabbed power on the back of a protest about immigration and the collapse of the Labour Party
    That seems to mean that the views of 48% of us are regarded as irrelevant in a process whereby our lives and our children’s lives will be blighted diminished and impoverished forever. That does not mean we don`t exist , inconvenient thought it may be .

    Sorry

  50. david01
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    The uproar accompanying Donald Trump’s refusal to accept ‘any result’ of his election challenge is deafening although he said he would’ wait and see at the time’.

    There are many parallels with the apparent refusal of people and media who voted or advocated to Remain in the EU to accept the validity of the ‘leave’ vote.

    The BBC are all over this since early this morning and they do not seem to find any difficulty with their two-faced stance.

  51. David Lister
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    ” The main driver of UK interest rates and sterling is often the policy of the Fed and US government .. ”

    The is absolutely correct the main driver has been, until the referendum, driven by international factors such as the Fed and US government.

    But this is no longer the case.

    Immediately after the referendum the £:$ devalued from 1.49 to 1.30, a drop of 13%.

    During, and immediately after the Conservative Conference the £:$ devalued from 1.30 to 1.24, a drop of 5%.

    This is a total devaluation of 17.5% since immediately before the referendum.

    This is wholly in our own making and completely detached from international events.

  52. ian
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    It all about control of the people where ever you go in the world, party politic and the media and like john says big institution like the FED, IMF and all the rest, there not a country i know of in the western world where the people are happy by the way their country are being run by the media and their political parties, a politician job has nothing to do with political parties, it all about looking after the people in your area and taking the people of that area vote to parliament on what they would like to see happen in their country and area and not about what institution and people think you should think from out side the country , most MPs run a meeting place for the public to go to with complains, about 12 to 16 day a year for may be two hours and at the end of the day that is what they are paid for looking after the people in their area which should be more like 3 day a week and four aday, not fighting each other inside their parties on the latest big institution ideology and who to go to war with because they do not like one person in that country, watching party politic in action is like watching lemmings going over the cliff lead by the media, have a nice landing

  53. David Lister
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    “.. the debate is only about access to each other’s markets which should be relatively straightforward. ”

    Mr Davis also states in the HoP today that “Article 50 implies parallel negotiation. We need to conclude this within the two years to avoid any cliff edge.”

    On the one side we have Mr Davis talking about a cliff edge, which seems inconsistent with the ability to trade successfully under WTO without trade agreements with the EU as claimed by Mr Redwood. Are we facing a cliff edge or not?

    If we are facing a cliff edge, what is our fall back if trade negotiations are not completed within 2 years which is by far the most likely outcome?

    Reply There will be no cliff edge. We will adopt WTO rules.

    • David Lister
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

      Thanks for your response. Will you please address the issues raised in previous comments regards legal access to the EU of trade without MRA’s and BIP’s – if this is what indeed you are proposing.

  54. Des16
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    J
    For what it’s worth I agree. Tend to take refuge in R4extra these days.
    An admission of defeat from me perhaps.
    KBO John!

  55. Richard Jenkins
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Same problem with the Financial Times, aka the Pink Guardian.

    • rose
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

      Pink Pravda round our way.

  56. James Matthews
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Your complaints are entirely justified, but will, as always, be entirely ignored.

    The BBC is as over mighty, arrogant and politically driven as the NUM were under Arthur Scargill, it is just a great deal more stealthy and sophisticated in pursuing its goals. Until the mainstream political right faces up to this and does something about it, nothing is going to change.

  57. forthurst
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Will there be radical change on Jan 1st 2017 when the new BBC Charter comes into force and if not why not?

    In the new Charter it says:

    “6. The Public Purposes
    (1) The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows.
    (2) To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage
    with the world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial
    news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all
    parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content should be provided to
    the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and
    content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the
    highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression,
    so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United
    Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as
    active and informed citizens. ”

    It is not clear what what purpose (1) serves (the document is full of twaddle like that), however, (2) could not be clearer, and…

    “(4) To show the most creative, highest quality and distinctive output and services
    : the BBC should provide high-quality output in many different genres and across a range
    of services and platforms which sets the standard in the United Kingdom and
    internationally. Its services should be distinctive from those provided elsewhere and
    should take creative risks, even if not all succeed, in order to develop fresh
    approaches and innovative content.”

    (4) means that the BBC will stop showing the sort of twaddle at which the commercial broadcasters are pre-eminent.

    Further,

    “(5) To reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United
    Kingdom’s nations and regions and, in doing so, support the creative economy
    across the United Kingdom: the BBC should reflect the diversity of the United
    Kingdom both in its output and services. In doing so, the BBC should accurately and
    authentically represent and portray the lives of the people of the United Kingdom
    today, and raise awareness of the different cultures and alternative viewpoints that
    make up its society.” etc

    Having driven through South London on Saturday, I was witness to the fact that we are very heavily enriched with diversity, different communities living different separate lives, English people living there in their own community to be proximate to the Tube and their work, other people living there in their own very distinctively different communities for other purposes. Consequently, I would anticipate that the programme ‘Eastenders’ which is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality will be replaced by one which does reflect the truth.

    Personally, I have left the BBC and I shall not be returning; life is too short.

  58. rose
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    The oddest thing of all about the pro EU BBC is that it rarely reports from the continent. American elections they love, and go over there in droves to give us their shockingly shallow and biased opinions; but continental elections? Just a cursory mention after the event.

    As for their latest obsession with the pound: I don’t remember their caring aabout such matters before.

  59. Tom William
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    What is also irritating is the amount of self congratulatory comment between BBC programmes, especially the news, about the BBC and what it does.

    Sky News has problems, but is better than BBC News, but the best non parochial (ie World) news service is Al Jazeera.

    • LittleBlackCensored
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      Exactly! The BBC self-advertisements are more annoying than the commercial ones on the other channels.

    • rose
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

      How do you get Al Jazeera? It used to be number 89 on Freeview but has disappeard now.

  60. BBC Mashed Remainers
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    The BBC and Remainers mysteriously act in unison. If you follow the dates and times of their silly pain in the neck outbursts, they coincide irrespective of possible causal utterances of MPs and those of the BBC.
    Does the Remain Camp and the BBC have pow-wows together? It’s quite believable they sit in a circle handing a smoking pipe one to the other in a group. Just listen to their gobbledygook.. “Hey man we’re doomed, we’re all gonna die, we’re cut off from other countries, drifting in outer space like Red Dwarf, man. Cameron was just like Rimmer the hologram. Yeah he was unreal, know whata mean?!

  61. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    It is lonely making, to think that one of the most numerous re-tweets in America is by a writer of a book about a wizarding academy, supporting the election of Hilary Clinton, and, the most reviled action of ISIL is that they demolished the village where Jonah ( the one who was swallowed by a whale ) was born.

  62. Handbags
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    I can’t think of a single instance where the BBC, Channel 4 or Sky has influenced me in any way.

    They’re broadcasting only to themselves and a very small bunch of metropolitan media types who all hold the same opinions and have the same world view.

    Real people can easily see through their bias.

    Use the Internet instead – RT and Fox are two extremes but they beat our media hands down.

    • rose
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

      They influence my sister and lots of other women I know.

  63. Sean
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    The BBC should be made to earn their own money.
    Why should we be forced to buy something we don’t want, I’m sick of subsidising those who want the BBC.
    Isn’t it against our human rights to be made to pay without choice.
    Make the BBC a subscription service and give me my democratic right to choose to buy or not.

  64. M.W.Browne
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    I think that the BBC news and current affairs staff are all hired through Guardian adverts, by managers who themselves were hired through Guardian adverts. They all have the same mind-set.
    Guests on Newsnight are always the same: Martin Sorrell, Vicki Price etc., etc.
    Decades ago, BBC had a series called The Money Programme, which was a 1 hour in depth and serious look at some aspect of business. Then it was shortened to 1/2 hour and completelt dumbed down. This is also the case with Panorama, and many other aspects of BBC news and current affairs.
    BBC news and current affairs is so blatantly biased and 3rd rate, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
    The above also applies to Sky, Channel 4, ITV, but I don’t have to pay a tax for those, unlike the state controlled BBC.
    Cameron’s government failed to sort them out, and I doubt that Mrs. May’s will either.

  65. a-tracy
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Instead of bleating, perhaps our Government should be making notes and then meeting with the Directors of the BBC to ensure that there is fair and even reporting on the positives as well as the negatives of Brexit as they want to give over so much time now. The BBC must remember that over 50% of the people voting in the referendum wanted to leave and they should get balanced representation to every negative apocalyptic message they are putting out, a positive economist for every negative giving the opposite point of view.

    We should be setting up University courses in some of our best Universities in; trade, marketing, world sales, negotiation skills and training people in these skills properly. We have put an emphasis this week on saving the History of Art and Archaeology fair enough but I feel that we forget to train people in the skills the Country needs and the students will be able to find well-renumerated jobs in.

  66. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    This would be amusing, if it wasn’t such a serious matter:

    http://order-order.com/2016/10/20/cleggs-single-market-delusion/

    “Clegg’s Single Market Delusion”

    Even when confronted with a series of clips of various politicians on both sides of the debate saying it, he still tries to deny that people were told that leaving the EU would (almost certainly) mean also leaving the EU Single Market.

  67. Lord na na
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    Off topic:
    Propaganda and Trump

    So, I am listening to Trump speaking to a massive rally in Delaware the day after the final TV debate with Clinton and I listen to the 6pm SkyNews simultaneously. The “narrative”
    as it is the fashion to say, does not marry.

    There is a massive problem on Free-Speech in America with pc language sovietesque and here in the UK. A huge problem with a totally biased and manipulated media in the UK and in the USA.

    I guess it all worked at one time during the Second World War but even then , even the civilian population ranked Lord Haw Haw or Lord Ha Ha as we said “Up North”, as we laugh less poshly, as only marginally less reliable than the BBC , though recognising him most certainly as the foe.

    It is sad when great nations and peoples such as the British and Americans are governed by an offshore elite who feel they must resort to out and out lies especially when telling the truth does not harm or obstruct some of their more bizarre actions. It seems like telling lies for lies sake.

    Possibly a time to end news coverage from the BBC and SkyNews. It is usually five items repeated throughout the day with any migrant chirping at ones side, “that’s not true, they’re not showing” such and such. You see, our soldiers see the reality abroad and the migrants forced upon us tell us the truth also. Just who does the UK media thinks it’s kidding?
    Is it some kind of in-joke for the overly-important lacking somber deportment to have their sons and daughters on telly telling porky pies to “the plebs”? They can go stuff their pheasants and, as a sloppy second, throat their oysters

  68. Margaret
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    and pigs may fly…….. this is not just the BBC it is rife everywhere .It is said that the Welsh think in spirals , at least they think!

  69. DaveM
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    If the government would just get on with it the BBC wouldn’t be able to keep trying to subvert the decision. Your party’s just as bad. It was obvious a large proportion of voters wanted to Leave because of immigration – EU and so-called refugee – and to show their utter contempt your party is now actually bringing then here. Presumably using OUR money! For God’s sake, what do we have to do exactly to get the point across?

  70. Iain Gill
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    MP’s are not much better.

    And they still seem to think they can keep the immigration flood gates open.

    What on earth are our political class thinking?

  71. MPB
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    Please , we need all need help/release from the long war of attrition that the BBC et al wages on us the average British citizen non EU compliant ….what can we do John …..please help !!!!
    Never imagined that I would legally be actually obliged to pay for this persecution of my viewpoint, even after a 52/48 majority saying .,,, Leave it !

  72. ferdinand
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    That sort of angle occurs in the language of remainers who can’t help saying that’s “because of Brexit” or “due to Brexit” avoiding all other influences. No remainer ever says “in spite of Brexit”.

  73. Simon Coleman
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    ‘…there is no such thing as the Single Market detached from the full panoply of EU laws and policies which a state can belong to.’ Do you really think the Leave campaign made this clear in the Referendum? The fact is you haven’t a clue what our new trading map will look like post-Brexit. Could it be that the BBC has picked up on the fact that a lot of people in many walks of life are very very worried. The other day on Newsnight you responded to most of the questions by describing them as ‘stupid’. Very reassuring. Why not just admit that the country has taken a huge gamble and nobody knows where it’s all going?

    Reply We made clear during the referendum campaign that we would leave the so called single market whilst having access to it. I dont accept we do not know where we are going. We set out detailed proposals.

  74. James Munroe
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    People often mention the “Lefties at the BBC”, and that their political stance, on any particular issue, is set from the Guardian newspaper.

    But, can anyone give an accurate assessment of the political agenda, the BBC pursues?

  75. Ronald Olden
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Here’s some interesting links.

    The Remainiacs are telling us now that when we voted ‘Leave’ we weren’t voting to ‘Leave the Single Market’. They say that this is something the Leavers have sprung on us at the last minute and it isn’t a ‘mandate’.

    I can assure all, that when I voted Leave I knew exactly what I was voting for, and so did everyone else. Although can’t speak for the Remainiacs themselves. They were so immersed in the whirlpool of lies they were disseminating, who knows what they were voting for.

    Here’s a clip showing David Cameron two weeks before the Referendum saying what we were voting for.

    The purpose of the remarks of course was to frighten us. The article reporting Cameron’s words at the time said as follows:–

    ‘David Cameron confirmed Sunday that he will pull Britain out of the single market if there is a vote to leave the European Union at the upcoming referendum’

    He said the BREXIT campaign had made it clear to voters that voting to leave also meant pulling out of the single market. The prime minister said he would accept the result as an “instruction” (to leave the single market).

    Cameron said, ‘ the Leave campaign has made it clear that in order to restrict immigration and strike trade deals with countries outside the EU, Britain would have to leave the Single Market’.

    The Prime Minister said: “WHAT THE BRITISH PUBLIC WILL BE VOTING FOR IS TO LEAVE EU AND TO LEAVE THE SINGLE MARKET.”

    Just for good measure and to counter further recent claims from the Euroliars that we weren’t told that Sterling would fall if we voted to ‘Leave’ the EU, the article gives Nigel Farage’s view on that subject as well

    The Ukip leader also risked controversy after blithely dismissing the threat of a collapse in the value of the sterling in the event of an Out vote. Asked about the consequences of a weakened pound, the Ukip leader said: “So what?”
    A lower pound was good for exports, he said.

    And yet we still voted for all of it. How much clearer could both sides, especially the Remainiacs themselves have been about what we were voting for.

    Notice the difference in the way the Brexiteers approach things as opposed to the Euroliars. We just confront the question, answer it and ‘risk controversy’. The Euroliars do what they always do, lie. Cameron’s ‘promise’ lasted two weeks. He didn’t in the end ‘accept the instruction’ (sic) at all. He just resigned and left it to others to pick up the pieces.

    In February 2016 Cameron said as follows (link in Comment Box)

    “If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, AND THE BRITISH PEOPLE WOULD RIGHTLY EXPECT THAT TO START STRAIGHT AWAY’

    There are umpteen other interviews from everyone on the Remainiac side saying the same as what Cameron said. It’s only now that the story has changed.

    Thank heavens for the Internet. These people are sinking faster than the EU’s own prospects.

    http://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-market-after-brexit-eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

    http://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/cameron-government-would-promptly-trigger-article-50-in-the-event-of-a-leave-vote/

  76. Juliet
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Rarely watch the BBC these days.
    Too many repeat programmes, dissected and re-hash
    Not enough coverage on business reporting

    BBC is overtly bias, they are in need of a culture change shake-up

  77. anon
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    Re: The BBC

    Stay legal, just opt out of using the TV (or other device) for live broadcasts and uninstall the iplayer.

    After that do not communicate with them at all.

    They will send you letters. Some may find them distressing. Feel free to forward them to your MP.

    Meanwhile at least the (on payroll) post worker is gainfully employed, delivering them.

    The license tax is a £4 billion pound tax cut waiting and an easy one.

    The money could be ring fenced for the NHS drugs not currently affordable or UK medical research.

    • anon
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

      Oh claim a refund if your entitled to one!

  78. NA
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    They are softening us up for another referendum and the general consensus will be the last one was a disaster and millions now regret it.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page