BBC Business correspondent increases value of Euro by one third – is this part of puffing the EU?

I awoke this morning to the Today programme telling me how difficult negotiating a better deal on fish will be than the dreadful system we currently suffer under. No surprises there then . We were told that a “pound will buy you 0.79 Euros!”

Do these people know nothing about EU/UK business? This morning a pound bought you around 1.26 Euros or 60% more than the BBC pro EU rate. Talk about selling the UK short again.

The BBC  went on to put the word “free” in front of single market. What exactly is free about all the contributions the UK has to pay and the rules we have to obey?

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


  1. hefner
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Ah ah EU/ UK or UK/EU 1.26 or 0.79, or is it the other way around? Sorry, I was still sleepy …
    But I would expect my chief editor to check for this type of stupid mistakes, before I get on air.

  2. Boudicca
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    The BBC is finding it extremely difficult pretending to be impartial about the EU Referendum.

    It’s the slightly more subtle propaganda that gives it away: using “Europe” as interchangeable with “the EU.” Calling the Single Market a free trade area. The patronising attitude the Today Presenters have towards spokesmen for Brexit and the fawning that goes on over Remain representatives.

    I guess we should give them 5/10 for effort…. and then deliver another 100 leaflets for the Leave Campaign.

    • Jerry
      Posted May 10, 2016 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

      @Boudicca; “The BBC is finding it extremely difficult pretending to be impartial about the EU Referendum. “

      At least the BBC are attempting to be impartial, something that can not be said about the much of the rest of the media industry, broadcast, print and web.

      • libertarian
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 9:41 pm | Permalink


        “At least the BBC are attempting to be impartial, something that can not be said about the much of the rest of the media industry, broadcast, print and web”

        Oh dear the rest of the media isn’t funded by taxpayers so they are perfectly entitled to be as biased as they like.

        The BBC is not , it really is very simple….

        • Jerry
          Posted May 12, 2016 at 6:42 am | Permalink

          @libertarian; You are allowed your opinion, like everyone else, but that alone doesn’t mean that your opinions are correct.

          Political bias is political bias, even more so in a period of elections and referenda, how the media company is funded is irrelevant, all are being funded by the public.

          Even if you do have a point with regards public vs. private/commercial funding of broadcasters why do you never rant on about the bias found on Ch4, a public corporation of the Department for Culture, Media & Sport – so not only funded in part by the tax payer but ultimately run by the DfCMS, just like the BBC.

          But best we don’t let the facts get in the way of bias political rants against the BBC, after all we all know that all the ills in the world stem from that building on the corner of Portland Place, W1A 1AA…

          Unlike you @libertarian et al, I want rid of all bias, not just the bias that goes against my (political) beliefs.

          • libertarian
            Posted May 13, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink


            Unlike you I actually read the posts I comment on and try to understand them .

            I didn’t make reference to wether the BBC are biased or not. I just addressed the fundamental issue, which still stands no matter how much you try to invent excuses for it the BBC is held to a higher standard in ALL things because it is funded by the taxpayer. All other out lets aren’t

            Accusing people of ranting while in fact …… ranting yourself about something I never said is typical of you Jerry. You really aren’t very good at this are you.

            Calm down dear, your beloved BBC has survived another 11 years

    • Hope
      Posted May 10, 2016 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

      After all the plurality guff the EBC made ove Sky, you would think it volunteered to reduce its 40 percent monopoly on news and current affairs propaganda. Alternatively, you might think the useless Hunt would have made them act within a proper remit for a state broadcaster before he went on to destroy the World Health Service. It is time the organsiation was brought to halt from sucking the public teat and made to stand on its own two feet.

      • Jerry
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 6:10 am | Permalink

        @Hope; Until other broadcasters step up to the challenge of providing a full PSB news and current affairs service like ITV used to do (in the days when ITV stood for ‘Independent Television’ and not just a commercial trade mark) the BBC are bound by their charter to provide such a service.

        ITV and Ch4 have not -mostly- given up on such content because of the BBC but because the commercial broadcasters are now competing for funding (diminishing advertising funds that are being spread to thinly since Subscription broadcasters), quality or minority interests have had to give way to maximising the ratings figures, especially in prime time slots.

        The problem comes when people like you accuse the BBC of competing for populist ratings against the commercial and subscription broadcasters (and I have some sympathy for those complaints I might add [1]) but then also complain that the the BBC has a monopoly of a genre that the commercial and subscription networks chose not to fill themselves in any meaningful way, thus the BBC appears dammed if they do and dammed if they do not – if they do provide PSB they are abusing their special status, if they do not then what is the point of the BBC! Thus opinions like yours just come over as ill-informed rants.

        The answer is not to neuter the BBC, by perhaps and in effect allowing the commercial and subscription channels to write the BBC’s schedule’s (as suggested by the DfCMS) but to place grater regulation on both the commercial and subscription broadcasters as far as their programme output is concerned.

        [1] there should be no placer for programmes like Strictly, Top Gear or East Enders in the BBC these days, at least as they are currently formatted.

        • Hope
          Posted May 13, 2016 at 7:59 am | Permalink

          The BBC acts beyond its remit and it certainly does not comply with the charter that is alleged to regulate it. No need for a state broadcaster in this age. It either stands on its own feet or it fails. It should not have the £3.4 billion support from the taxpayer irrespective of how it performs or does whatever it likes. Your other points are drivel.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 11, 2016 at 4:54 am | Permalink

      I think the BB are doing everything they can for remain, I would give then 10 out of 10 for bias on the issue. Mainly because virtually all the people who work for the BBC are essentially art graduate LibDims almost to a man or woman. Andrew O’Neil is perhaps in the centre and can see both sides but no one else seems to.

      They have this bias on the warming alarmism, every bigger government, ever more taxation, ever more immigration, ever more enforced “equality”, expensive green energy, ever more regulation, the nation minimum wage ……. When for example do you hear about all the jobs this will cost or export? When do we see Osborne attacked for his huge and incompetent tax increases and tax complexity increases or his IHT ratting?

      The BBC never ever criticises tax borrow and waste Osborne and Cameron from the right.

      • Dennis
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

        Andrew O’Neil? Is that O for Out?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

        Does the BBC ever criticise the Climate alarmism agenda for being essentially a religion, soothsaying and essentially not sound science, as it clearly is. Do they ever point out how wrong the climate models have been. Do they ever point out the absurd expense of renewables and point out that they save virtually no CO2 anyway after the back needed and the manufacturing energy costs. Do they ever point out how many people are killed by not being able to afford heating? Do they ever point out how limited and expensive electric cars actually are with current technology?

        Almost never is there any real discussion of this. They are just the same with the Brexit issues. Art graduate, dreamers almost to a person.

        • Jerry
          Posted May 12, 2016 at 6:46 am | Permalink

          @LL; “Does the BBC ever criticise the Climate alarmism agenda for being essentially a religion”

          Yes it has, unlike publicly owned and underwritten Ch4…

    • lojolondon
      Posted May 11, 2016 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      The BBC do not even pretend to try to be impartial about the referendum – they make a big deal about wanting other countries to be democrattic, but they actively suppress democracy in Britian – see

      “An expert report by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) revealed that of the 4,200 guests invited to talk about Brussels on the BBC Today show in the last 10 years, just 3.2 per cent were in favour of Brexit.”

  3. Iain
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    I trust that you have asked the BBC CEO to explain and to correct the errant statement on all BBC news broadcasts tomorrow

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 11, 2016 at 8:28 am | Permalink

      If he did that all the time he would be rather busy. The BBC political agenda in the UK hugely distorts the whole of UK politics to the Libdims, green crap, politics of envy, bloated state, high tax left.

  4. Know-dice
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    If that were true, our Exporters should be jumping for joy…

    Brexit works every which way…

  5. Iain Moore
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    The BBC is struggling to maintain any sense of impartiality, it just can’t help itself. This after noon we had the BBC ‘fact checker’ going over IDS’s speech, as he had been accurate, and rather than admitting it and leaving it at that, they decided to put his school figures into ‘context’ of spreading the immigrant numbers over the whole school population, basically saying ‘look the figures are very small’, and over the effects mass immigration was having on wages, they decided to take issue with the study he was referring to , which was done on non EU migrants, refusing to accept that the same couldn’t be said of EU migrants.

    Posted May 10, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    The Pound will sink and sink while Mr Cameron, the SNP , Plaid Cymru, the Labour Party, the Lib Dems and two days running the new Mayor of London Mr Khan insults the Leader of the Free World come November, Mr Trump. Is Mr a Trump a Londoner by the way? His name is mentioned in a derogatory way by Mr Khan daily on TV. No mention of Corbyn or Cameron or anyone at all on the London or national political scene.

  7. Jerry
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Looks more like a simple script-notes typo or miss-speak, currently (upon a quick and random on-line quote) 1 EUR buys GBP 0.78….

    • Edward2
      Posted May 10, 2016 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

      It’s the other way round Jerry
      If you have one euro you get 0.78 of a pound

      If you have a pound you get 1.26 euros

      • Jerry
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 6:15 am | Permalink

        @Edward2; Cough! Are you sure about that? Best you inform our host that he is wrong too then… 🙂

        Once again you allow your wish to try and belittle
        me to run away before the facts.

        • Edward2
          Posted May 11, 2016 at 9:16 am | Permalink

          Have a think Jerry
          Say you were to fly off to Spain for a holiday.
          When you get there you swop £100 for some Euros as spending money.
          You would get 126 Euros.

          • Jerry
            Posted May 11, 2016 at 11:25 am | Permalink

            @Edward2; You made the same mistake as the BBC did (transposing the exchange rates), have a think about what you actually said in your first reply to me above for goodness sake, all you are doing otherwise is showing yourself up to be argumentative (once again).

          • Edward2
            Posted May 11, 2016 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

            How odd!
            I am right, I think.
            If I went to Spain and walked into a currency exchange with £100 I would be given €126
            I would be unhappy with €78 but perhaps you would be happy.

          • libertarian
            Posted May 11, 2016 at 9:55 pm | Permalink


            You might try reading first JR’s post, then what the BBC actually said ( which was plain wrong) then tell us why you think Edward2’s post is wrong because it isn’t he is absolutely correct currently £100 buys you 126 Euros

            According to the BBC you would only get 79 Euros for £100

          • Jerry
            Posted May 12, 2016 at 7:02 am | Permalink

            @libertarian; Oh do stop trying to criticise me without having actually first read, better still understand, what I have actually said and the context into which is was said…

            Let me quote the sentence from Edwards first comment above;

            If you have one euro you get 0.78 of a pound

            Which he immaterially went on to contradict with the correct FX rate.

            Nor was I saying or implying that the BBC were correct, I was agreeing with our host and everyone else (and like some others) simply gave an explanation as to why the mistake might have happened – which was then ably demonstrated by @Edward2 in his original comment above above!

          • libertarian
            Posted May 13, 2016 at 9:44 am | Permalink


            Do grow up. If you are going to demand context I suggest you apply that to yourself

            You tried to argue with E2 for no good reason. I did read your post, It was wrong. End of.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 13, 2016 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

            I’m sorry and rather surprised to have to labour this Jerry but if you left Spain and travelled back to the UK and swopped your remaing holiday money of €100 for pounds, you would be given £78.

  8. oldtimer
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    It is what I have come to expect from the BBC. It is, first and foremost a propaganda organisation. And it is relentless in its execution of this role.

    We have yet to hear from the BBC a demolition of Mr Osborne`s claim that every family will be worse off by c£3000 as a consequence of Brexit – even though Fraser Nelson the editor of the Spectator did just that the day after Mr Osborne uttered the words. We have since heard Mr Cameron echo the refrain in his speech on Monday (predicting WW3) and even the Foreign Secretary, Mr Hammond, laughingly referred to the Treasury as “an independent source” without any correction by the BBC correspondent. And Mr Hammond, as a former Treasury Secretary, must know that the calculation was codswallop. I do wonder if they realise how silly they are making themselves look in the eyes of the public at large. At least we can thank the BBC for making it so obvious that they are complicit in this foolishness.

  9. Timaction
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    The BBC’s bias has been reported on Breitbart this evening with evidence of its statistically significant pro EU reporting over many years. It should be sold off and made to sink or swim on its on.
    I wouldn’t pay for it if I could opt out. Avoid their news and current affairs if at all possible!

    • Jerry
      Posted May 10, 2016 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

      @Timeaction; “The BBC’s bias has been reported on Breitbart this evening with evidence of its statistically significant pro EU reporting over many years.”

      Talk about bias being in the eyes of the beholder!

      A biased media company complaining about media bias, what ever next…

      • Edward2
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 7:25 am | Permalink

        The article showed some simple statistics that reports on this issue by the BBC were mainly pro EU and in favour of remaining.
        Something many of us feel when watching.

        You often call for facts and figures to be provided.
        Now when they are you say they are invalid because the report happened to be publicised in a pro Brexit news paper.

        • Jerry
          Posted May 11, 2016 at 11:42 am | Permalink

          @Edward2; Statistics can show what the publisher wants them to show, remember those infamous Tractor production figures from the USSR – they were simple statistics, thus you must be saying that the USSR was awash in Tractors!

          I’m sure that one could also claim that Canadian media companies are statistically “biased” towards the USA and against the Commonwealth simply because they are geographically more likely to report news from the USA rather than the UK or Australia – does that make them pro-US?

          But if Breitbart is not biased against the EU and the political left then please feel free to cite such articles that have either praised the EU, the European political left or the North American (US) political left…

          • Edward2
            Posted May 11, 2016 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

            They were just reporting a study by a well respected organisation.
            It wasn’t Briebart’s report and it has now been reported in other places.
            I have not seen any rebuttal by the BBC nor anyone else.
            They simply counted the guests on some BBC news programmes and only 3% were for Brexit.
            Current polls show a 50% support for Brexit.

      • Anonymous
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 7:47 am | Permalink

        Jerry – We’ve argued this out before, I believe.

        The BBC has a very special place in British media with special privilege, taking up much public court time protecting its revenue, therefore it must be an exemplar of impartiality.

        The printed media has no obligation to be impartial.

        • Anonymous
          Posted May 11, 2016 at 7:51 am | Permalink

          Ceefax, a typical example of referendum reporting today (which could as well apply to TV reportage):

          Headline: “Leaving the EU is unBritish – says Gordon Brown” followed by two sides of text and then a couple of lines for the Brexit response at the end of it.

          It’s the loud volume headline that grabs the masses and that loud volume headline is always pro Remain.

        • Jerry
          Posted May 11, 2016 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

          @Anonymous; I note that you make no mention of the many articles etc on the BBC highlighting what the Brexit side are saying, nor the real bias found on certain other broadcast channels, publications and web sites (both for and against EU membership).

          When you start condemning bias, from were ever, and not just perceived bias [1] from the BBC then I will start listening to any rational argument you care to put forward. But at the moment though you just come over as someone looking for an excuse to bash the BBC simple because you hate the idea of a publicly funded broadcaster, probably because it can not be ‘bought’ by vested political interests.

          This article from our host, and the comments than have followed, prove that some will use even the most obvious of miss-speaks or errors to use against the BBC, had Sky made the same mistake I just wonder how many would now be condemning then and demanding that subscription broadcasting should be shut down?

          [1] to judge from comments made on various political web forums the political right claim the BBC is biased to the left, the political left claim that the BBC is biased to the right whilst the centre complains that they get no coverage

          • Anonymous
            Posted May 11, 2016 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

            Jerry said: “you just come over as someone looking for an excuse to bash the BBC simple because you hate the idea of a publicly funded broadcaster, probably because it can not be ‘bought’ by vested political interests.”

            Ah. We’re getting somewhere. *Publicly funded* broadcaster – which must mean… a public service obligation to be neutral !

            The EU funds the BBC with millions of pounds (just google.) The organisation utterly reeks of bias. I can barely watch the tosh it puts out as drama because of its box ticking political correctness.

            I refer you to Lojolondon’s comment at 11.06 above – a mere 3.2% of guests on the subject of Brussels on the BBC Today Show were pro Leave in the last 10 years. Certainly seems like it.

          • Jerry
            Posted May 12, 2016 at 7:22 am | Permalink

            @Anonymous; You need to actually lean how broadcasting is funded, the ‘public’ pays what ever and who ever…

            But in times of elections and referenda ALL broadcast media has a duty to be neutral, it’s the law!

            Care to tell us what that “EU funding” was for, exactly, and when? Anyone can Google (possibly bias) headlines, it’s the facts that matter….

            “a mere 3.2% of guests on the subject of Brussels on the BBC Today Show were pro Leave in the last 10 years”

            First we need to see the methodology of those numbers, is mere criticisms of the EU classed as pro Leave or did the interviewee have to be a paid up member of UKIP or at least a member of the Tory ‘awkward squad”?…

      • Chris
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 12:57 pm | Permalink
  10. Sean
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    I’m sick of the BBC, I’m fed up giving them free money!
    Why should I have to pay for something I wish not to buy?
    The BBC Isn’t a public service today, it only serves the EU and it’s own agenda. Isn’t it time that they give up the Licence fee ( Tax ) and become a subscription service.

    • Jerry
      Posted May 10, 2016 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

      @Sean; “I’m sick of the BBC, I’m fed up giving them free money!
      Why should I have to pay for something I wish not to buy?”

      Yes and I’m sick of having to pay for commercial and subscription broadcasters who I do not watch, there are no free lunches when it comes to watching TV, the viewer pays – and at least with the BBC you only pay the TVL fee if you own and use a TV, with commercial and subscription channels you pay regardless, even those who have no use for a TV pay.

      So lets make all broadcasting in the UK either Pay-per-view or totally reliant on their subscription fees, whilst also banning the practice of bundling channels into a package, make it law that each channel has a stand alone subscription fee.

      • Edward2
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 7:31 am | Permalink

        Oh not that ridiculous argument again Jerry
        “I buy milk and bread and beans therefore I pay for commercial TV in the price due to adverts” appears to be what you claim.
        And this is the same as the BBCs licence fee.

        Only a very small number of companies and products advertise on TV
        All companies advertise and do marketing of their products and services to some extent.
        Larger sales can mean lower prices.

        • Edward2
          Posted May 11, 2016 at 9:23 am | Permalink

          I can give you a simple example of a company I helped a few years ago.
          They decided for the first time to do a radio advertising campaign to make themselves known to the public as up to this point they were almost trade only.
          Cost of radio ad campiagn £100,000
          Result, sales increased by nearly one million pounds.
          Being marginal additional revenue it was a very profitable outcome.
          Prices were unaltered.

          • Jerry
            Posted May 11, 2016 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

            @Edward2; “Only a very small number of companies and products advertise on TV”

            It is not the number but the market share, and from all the parent companies brands, as I’ve said in the past it is not just the profits from the big brand names that pay for adversing but secondary brands, own brands and even unrelated products. The profits from that cheaper, or industrial grade, soap powered that is goes unadvertised still ends up subsidising the advertising of the big brand names because they are made by the same company in the same factory – if not same production line.

            “Cost of radio ad campiagn £100,000”

            Radio advertising is a lot cheaper than TV advertising, which is after all what we are talking about – there has been no Radio Reception Licence since 1971 – do keep up!

            “Prices were unaltered.”

            But without advertising the prices could have been lower, perhaps by only a penny or two but lower all the same.

            Sorry but you do not have the first clue as to how the commercialised media and advertising industries work, you seem to think that a money tree is involved when nit comes to advertising campaigns, unless of course you are claiming that such advertising is subtracted from investors dividend rather than coming from factory gate price, but then people like you and me are still being forced to pay for broadcast channels and content we would prefer not to.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 13, 2016 at 8:07 am | Permalink

            I note you carefully avoid the point made that the cost of marketing, be it radio as in my example or on TV, can be cost neutral if sales and profits then rise.
            And the point that there are millions of products to choose from, the vast majority of which, do not advertise on TV or radio.
            It’s taken you several days to come up with a reply and it is still not convincing at all.

        • Anonymous
          Posted May 11, 2016 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

          Jerry pays for the Daily Mail too – through the advertising for plates with pictures of kittens on them, and mono-boot foot warmers.

      • libertarian
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 10:03 pm | Permalink


        You got a thorough kicking when you tried that I pay through advertising drivel last time. Do give up with your BBC fan boy crap

        The BBC is forced payment through taxation.

        I have recently advertised my products and services on TV and radio. The price of my product remains the same as it was prior to my advertising spend so you are quite wrong, I absorbed the extra marketing cost. However where the cost of marketing is added to the end consumer price there is no coercion to buy the product whatever it is. You talk twaddle. Your mind turns to jelly as soon as the BBC is mentioned. Have they still not given you a job?

        • Jerry
          Posted May 12, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

          @libertarian; “The BBC is forced payment through taxation. “

          That is an utter lie… Otherwise please cite the law that requires everyone to not only own a TV but use it.

          “I have recently advertised my products and services on TV and radio.”

          Were does your (company) wealth come from, a lottery win of some sort or from the sale of your products, who buys your products (and if another company, were do they obtain their wealth from)?

          • libertarian
            Posted May 13, 2016 at 9:54 am | Permalink


            You really are struggling with all this aren’t you?

            The BBC is funded through taxation that is NOT a lie you fool.

            I did not state WHO is liable to pay that tax or Why .

            Oh so you now need a lesson in basic business .

            My company INCOME ( not wealth Jerry) is derived from sales of products and services . Individuals and businesses buy my products and services with money they earned from selling their products or services. Its from the exchange of labour.

            You either dont have a point at all or you seem to be implying that all money is government money. You really do go to jelly as soon as the BBC is mentioned

    • Vanessa
      Posted May 11, 2016 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

      Sean – I could not agree with you more ! And a lot of people do. I do not pay my licence fee (tax) as I do not have TV any longer; and I do not miss it one little bit. All the drivel the biased BBC put out is not worth £145 per year, added to that they are advertising now on their website – utterly despicable.

  11. Lifelogic
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Indeed it is all part of the wonderfully biased and scientifically ignorant BBC. They have climate alarmist reporters who do not understand the difference between power and energy and confuse the units used. Also reporters who think positive feed back, in climate terms, is jolly good news. Economic “experts” who confuse deficits with debt and think that governments invest and create jobs. Electric car experts who think batteries are a fuel when they are just very expensive and heavy fuel tanks. Even Chancellors and even Boris now who think the job and competitivity destroying national living wage is a jolly good thing. Some even think intermittent solar and wind energy are competitive with gas and coal.

    • f
      Posted May 10, 2016 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

      Nowhere in the UK do they worship solar and wind energy more than in Scotland. They think it is the answer to all their dreams and that the whole world will be saved because of what they are doing. They fail time after time to listen to the experts and allow the developers of wind energy to con the public into believing that wind is producing nearly 100% of energy for Scots homes. What a bloody joke. Yes, it is windy up here but the windfarms get paid more money to switch off than when they are working and what they don’t tell you is that the grid cannot cope with all this energy and that a lot of this energy is produced not when needed but overnight. It is intermittent and not reliable. Scotland will be at risk of major blackouts in the not too distant future. I say, bring it on.

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted May 10, 2016 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

        Sorry, above comments should have had the name of Fedupsoutherner

  12. Lifelogic
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    I was very sad to learn that the excellent Prof David JC MacKay the author of “sustainable energy without hot air air” has died at a very young age. He at least tried to explain the reality of energy engineering & physics to the scientifically ignorant and innumerate politicians, bureaucrats, the BBC and government.

    • Richard1
      Posted May 10, 2016 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

      I just read a synopsis of his book & may get round to reading the whole. He is clearly on the side of those who say man made CO2 emissions are a major problem but points out that the whole thrust of climate change policy in the UK (& EU) – pushing of wind, solar and tidal power – is a useless waste of money,

      • Lifelogic
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 8:32 am | Permalink

        Indeed he was on the alarmist side a little too much in,my opinion, but at least he understood the numbers, physics and engineering unlike almost every other green believer, politician, climate secretary, bureaucrat or politician.

  13. Richard1
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    mr Hague says Brexit would be a catastrophe for the Falklands, Gibraltar and N Ireland, where it could threaten the peace process. mr Osborne says Brexit would be catastrophic for the economy and could cost 100,000 jobs in the City. And Mr Cameron says Brexit could lead to WW III. I quite understand, given these views, why these eminent and talented men support continued membership of the EU – it would be extraordinary if they didn’t. But I don’t understand why they were in favour of, or prepared to permit at all, a referendum, give the risks of unimaginable disaster as they see it.

    • Hope
      Posted May 10, 2016 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

      Scared of losing all support to UKIP. If it was not for this he would have continued to deny the people a vote like he did before. Hague appears a broken man since it was revealed he spent the night with his staffer to save expenses! You should feel sorry for him, his article today was pathetic and of no real substance. He must feel embarrassed by his change of stance, it would be better if he walked away and held a dignified silence.

  14. FrankC
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    John, this is sums. Not very hard sums but we are talking about arts graduates.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 11, 2016 at 5:02 am | Permalink

      Indeed nearly all the BBC lefty art graduates tend to “think” with their gut feelings. In the Tracey Emin mode. Numbers or reason have nothing to do with it. The are usually inumerate

      BBC think is often about sounding, “renewable”, “sustainable”, “fair”, “kind” and “nice” but always doing far more harm than good, nearly alway using other people’s money. Money they would almost certainly have invested better themselves.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 5:05 am | Permalink

        Has anyone on the BBC ever pointed out the lunacy of the national minimum wage that prevents many people from working at all by law?

        Even Boris is in favour it seems and Michael Gove thinks Osborne is an excellent chancellor!

  15. John E
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    They got their exchange rate reversed. The reciprocal of 1.26 is 0.79. A Euro will buy you £0.79

    • matthu
      Posted May 10, 2016 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

      You mean a bit like saying that the temperature has doubled (when it has increased from 10 deg C to 20 deg C)?

      Or getting kWh mixed up with Amps?

      You’re right. I guess we expect too much of our BBC correspondents.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted May 11, 2016 at 8:36 am | Permalink

        They do not seem to use SI units mechanical often get them wrong. they talk of powering X houses, suitable vague and sounds impressive that way. Even is untrue.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 11, 2016 at 5:08 am | Permalink

      They so often get all their logic reversed. They are more like parots. They just repeat what they are told (using the stock phrases) by the remain propaganda units or the government and rarely think for themselves at all.

      The confusion of EU with EUROPE is perhaps the worse fraud of all. I love EUROPE and hate what the EU is doing to so much of it.

  16. Loddon
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    An unsavoury aspect of Cameron’s disingenuous speech yesterday is his use of the word “Isolationism”. He has the cheek to assert and imply that the Leave campaign want the UK to be isolated — a damaging, false and untrue misrepresentation of the Leave campaign message, a misrepresentation that is being repeated by others including Main stream media like the BBC.

    Cameron and other Remainians keep saying that we want the UK to “turn its back on Europe”. This is untruthfulness in the extreme and Cameron should be taken to task by the leaders of Leave and compelled to withdraw that allegation.

    The truth is that the Leave Campaign have stated continuously that we want the UK to be free to trade fairly and openly with the whole world including all the countries of Europe. We want to enable the UK to regain its traditional position of trading throughout the world and by example encouraging other countries to trade widely and freely.

    Professor Patrick Minford has explained that most international trading agreements, like the EU internal market, are in effect protectionist; they are agreements to protect a particular market for the participants and aim to keep others out. This is what the EU does by imposing tariffs on agricultural products in particular that other countries would wish to sell inside the EU.

    So it is the Remainians that are being isolationist and protective and endorsing the stagnation, unemployment and relative contraction in EU trade and GDP.

    Another disingenuous remark which is parroted repeatedly by the Remainians is the assertion that the UK, after leaving the EU, would have to negotiate 27 trade agreements with 27 countries after losing access to the EU market. How is that when we are told continuously that we cannot negotiate any trade agreement at present because the EU handles all such negotiations on behalf of all the member nations? This is what Jo Johnson MP, Minister for Universities and Science, claimed today during an interview on the BBC. In his position he should be well aware of the truth and not be spouting such blatant untruths. The truth is that if we leave we would have to negotiate with one organisation, the EU, NOT 27 countries. If he cannot be honest and truthful about such a matter one is tempted to wonder how competently he is performing the job of Minister.

    These are just two of many such recent occurrences; how bad is it going to get over the next six weeks? Such distortions must be challenged promptly by the Leave’s leaders because repetition of such untruths eventually leads to many voters being persuaded to believe them and to vote the wrong way for false reasons.

  17. turbo terrier
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    The BBC bless bless just keep travelling on the same road which is downhill and their brakes are failing.

    last night at the BAFTA’s they took flack from the company present.

    They like CMD are losing all credibility and should be shut down completely and then reinvented if that is at all possible.

    Greek debt and immigration is about to explode and they report nothing. Disgraceful.

    Posted May 10, 2016 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Pre-UKIP; Pre-EU Referendum England.

    The greatest mystery of the BBC is its ability to find studio audiences 50-50 of those for and against immigration.

    Over the past 50 years though changing my mindsets with the growth of ones soul and maturity, I have never been in any industrial or office environment in quite a few places…in fact many, plus home environments, where the people, workforce, including migrants and their British born children, were not very near 100% against further immigration irrespective of their Party voting practice and intentions…covering a very large area of the North of England.

    Most, the vast majority of discussions and comments not started by myself, nor engaged in by myself were quite blunt, severe, and could not be screened on TV. In fact they were so extreme as to be quite unbelievable if I were to relate them verbatim. At many times as full as hate and venom as one could imagine in a nightmare. I do not exaggerate.

    It is surprising therefore, when one sees national, constituency and local election results which do not in any way conform to the talk in places mentioned plus clubs, pubs, golf clubs, amateur football matches and rugby and cricket matches.

    Perhaps in the goodness of time psephologists can research this anomaly.

  19. Vanessa
    Posted May 11, 2016 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    The BBC needs to be broken up and sold off. It is becoming similar to the EU – too big and not fit for purpose.
    You may like to know that the BBC now ADVERTISES on its website for businesses which supports its agenda and which its pension fund is heavily invested in. Here is the link.
    This is ILLEGAL under its ROYAL Charter.

    • Jerry
      Posted May 12, 2016 at 8:01 am | Permalink

      @Vanessa; I do not see any adverts on that page, I see the reporting of business news (from your chosen search string [1]), of course if the reporting of news is now to be classed as Advertorial’s

      [1] one gets a page full of the “BBC adversing BskyB” if one alters the search string, no wonder BSkyB (now Sky) never complain!

  20. Chris
    Posted May 11, 2016 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    I see that the IEA has come up with research showing that the BBC pro EU bias is very significant. Apparently in an analysis of speakers on EU topics invited to the BBC, only 3.2% are pro Brexit. Why is the government not bringing them to account on this, as of course the BBC are meant to be impartial? Something could be done, and should be done, immediately, with the referendum only a few weeks away. It is not acceptable to wait until charter renewal.

    Posted May 11, 2016 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Off topic:
    Taxi drivers from different firms have informed me their cabs not only video-camera ahead as they drive but also video internal passengers.
    Also, that conversations in the cab are recorded as a matter of course. Security.
    On the negative side:-
    (1.) It is not Security, in the full, if potential wrong-doers are unaware of the devices. Whilst recordings of ones brutal death whilst driving such a taxi may be poetic justice on the murderer,- being a dead taxi-cab video star has few compensations.
    (2.) The recording of private conversations which may be romantic or even controversial-romantic in case of infidelity and recording what amounts to confidential market-sensitive business conversations without anyone in the cab knowing except the taxi-driver and his company is not on. In fact, in my unrecorded opinion, it should be against the law and punishable by immediate loss of taxi licence, driving licence and severe fines upon the company and custodial sentencing for repeat offenders.
    There were no signs of warning in the taxis in question…at least none that came to my immediate or later attention. But taxi drivers are generally goodly folk and aim to please.

  22. Dennis
    Posted May 11, 2016 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    I have just read this – is it true?

    The European Parliament just gave corporations alarming new superpowers to harshly punish whistleblowers. We have to stop this to protect people who speak out against corporate abuses.

  23. Iain Moore
    Posted May 11, 2016 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    It takes some effort for the BBC to get our net contribution to the EU down to £5.5 billion, as they have done on the 6PM News this evening.

  24. Chris
    Posted May 11, 2016 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
  25. Ptolemaeus
    Posted May 12, 2016 at 6:13 am | Permalink

    John, I have just heard BBC license will be secured for another 11 years. I am not sure politicians understand the strength of feeling in my country about this? I have never been in trouble with the law in my life BUT cannot pay to be propagandized anymore. I refuse!
    Please make this possible without criminalizing me.

    etc ed

    Reply There is a very large majority to keep the licence fee in the Commons, so you will have to obey the law.

  26. Ptolemaeus
    Posted May 13, 2016 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    Reply There is a very large majority to keep the licence fee in the Commons

    because they are all communists.

  27. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted May 14, 2016 at 1:42 am | Permalink

    We both know that the Single Market is not free trade. I would be grateful if you would highlight the differences in parliament.

    On a slightly different tack, I request that you use PMQs to ask the following question:

    “It is highly likely that, soon after our EU referendum is over, the European Commission, France and Germany will propose a new treaty based on the recommendations in the 5 Presidents Report. Will the UK Government veto such a treaty? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice.”

  • 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