Project Fear Mark 2??

The Buzz Feed website has obtained a leaked copy of the leaked Government analysis of different Brexit scenarios which claims that over the next 15 years, the UK would be poorer by 8% under “WTO rules”, 5% poorer under a Comprehensive trade deal with the EU and 2% poorer if we re-joined EFTA, which would allow us reasonably frictionless access to the EU’s single market.

However, this is hardly Project Fear Part 2.  Labour may be pushing for the Government to publish the findings, but they are wasting their time. The report matters not one iota.  Forecasting likely economic developments as far ahead as 2034 is an utter waste of taxpayers’ money.

I can say this with some confidence without having seen the report because government bodies and indeed many distinguished economists – especially if they carry the label “Keynesian” – have terrific form when it comes to making economic predictions which turn out to be utterly and completely wrong – even over a much shorter timescale than 15 years.

We recently pointed out that David Cameron had been caught on camera admitting that the first 18 months since the Brexit vote had not been anything like the disaster he had anticipated.  You don’t need long memories to recall Gordon Brown’s claim that there would be no more boom and bust – only a few years before the Great Recession erupted during his premiership. Going back to 1981, no fewer than 364 economists wrote a letter to the Times stating that Sir Geoffrey Howe, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer,  would cause mayhem if he raised taxes in the middle of a recession. It turned out that the controversial 1981 budget, far from exacerbating the recession, laid the foundation of the UK’s economic recovery under Margaret Thatcher.

What is more, it is asking the moon to expect civil servants to come up with a study showing Brexit to be beneficial. Steve Baker MP found himself in trouble for claiming that Treasury officials are conspiring against the government on Brexit, but like it or not, the Treasury has been reported on good authority as being keen to keep us in the Customs union, even though Civil servants are meant to implement, not decide policy.

John Mills is therefore correct in sharing our scepticism when commenting on the claim in the new report that “Officials believe the methodology for the new assessment is better than that used for similar analyses before the referendum.” He says  “The whole piece rests on the above assertion. There is no description of the previous methodology or of the changes that make this analysis better. Is the methodology different from the one used previously to “prove” that the UK economy would tank if it did not join the Euro?”

Let us apply a bit of common sense to the UK’s economic prospects instead of listening to the so-called “experts”. In the shorter term, a slight dip in economic growth is likely in the post-Brexit period as things settle down, even if a satisfactory exit solution is agreed with the EU. Fisheries and agricultural  products are not covered by Single Market legislation and trade with the EU may be reduced here (although the fishing industry can begin its revival as soon as we leave, assuming Fishing for Leave’s proposals are eventually accepted by the government.) The delay in providing any guidelines about what deal the Government is expecting is causing firms to hold back on investment decisions and some firms in the City are already contemplating relocating staff to other locations. The City of London may see a slowdown in growth given the EU is none too keen to strike a trade deal involving financial services.

There is also the question of trade with those countries with whom the EU has negotiated trade deals. The EU is most reluctant to let the UK continue to participate in these deals post-Brexit and if new deals are not negotiated in time (or the countries in question do not agree to continuing to trade with the UK on the same basis), the economy may suffer here. As it happens, most of the UK’s most important trade partners outside the EU, including the USA, China and Japan have not negotiated a full-blown trade deal with the EU, although the EU has made more limited mutual recognition agreements with these countries, which we may need to replicate quickly.

All these factors do suggest that even the smoothest of Brexits could well see a slowdown in growth in early 2019, although this is a long way from saying a recession will occur. The UK economy has proved far more resilient than the promoters of “Project Fear” expected. Of course, if we crashed out of the EU, the consequences could be far more serious.

In the longer term, however, there is every reason to expect the UK to perform at least as well outside the EU as if we had remained a member state – if not better.  It will be far easier to reorientate our trade away from the sclerotic EU to the up-and-coming economies of Asia from outside the EU.  The massive deregulation advocated by some Brexiteers in the run-up to the referendum vote is not realistic, given how many  regulations originate from global bodies such as the WTO or the ILO, of which we will still be members. Some regulations could be scrapped or re-written if they originate from Brussels and are not in our national interest. We would also have the option to cut taxes to boost the economy in a way which would not be possible as an EU member state. VAT could be scrapped, for example.

Then thee is the issue of freedom. A strong correlation exists between freedom and prosperity. Freedom is a relative term, but being able to make our own laws, being able to remove those people holding real power via the ballot box if we don’t like them and our common law legal system will put us higher up the freedom index once we leave the EU. How tyrannical the EU is likely to become remains to be seen. Vladimir Bukovsky, the former Soviet dissident, said of the European Union, “I have lived in your future and it didn’t work.”  We are, of course, a long way from the gulags, the persecution of Christians and the extreme censorship of the former USSR, but a number of EU officials have made clear their disdain for real democracy. To quote one example, when the European Constitution was rejected in two referendums in France and the Netherlands,  Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French Prime Minister, said “Let’s be clear about this. The rejection of the constitution was a mistake that will have to be corrected.”

Given that we will be free from all this, it is inevitable that Brexit will have a positive effect our prosperity. It is ironic that the young people, who were the strongest supporters of remaining in the EU, are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of our leaving it. Mrs May has insisted that, in spite of these government studies, we will indeed leave the EU.  Mind you,  it would be a serious cause for concern if she had been influenced by it for, as one government minister said “It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependent on a wide range of assumptions which demonstrate that significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis and draw out conclusions.”

In other words, it isn’t worth the paper it was printed on.

 

Taking on the remoaners

By Leo McKinstry

The anti-Brexit campaigners are the sorest losers in modern British history.   Instead of accepting the verdict of the EU referendum, they do all they can to thwart it. In their contempt for democracy, they mirror the arrogant spirit of the unelected, unaccountable Brussels oligarchy, which has always despised the notion of the popular will.

There are two central strands to the Remoaners’ cynical effort.   One is to fight against Brexit through the courts and Parliament, putting every possible legalistic obstruction in the way of the drive for British independence.  So they mounted a judicial review against Article 50, put down a deluge of amendments against the EU Withdrawal Bill and now try to galvanise the House of Lords into wrecking the Brexit legislation.  The other, perhaps more dangerous, strategy is to wage a ruthless propaganda war on behalf of the EU. Effectively, this is a reprise of the infamous Project Fear deployed by the Government in advance of the vote. Once again, we hear the same old scare stories:  that Brexit will be a disaster for the economy, trade and employment; that the process is so complicated that it cannot even be achieved in a decade; and that Britain will be left hopelessly isolated on the global stage.

The clear aim of the Remoaners is to create a climate of such anxiety, frustration and gloom over Brexit that the British people will turn against independence, either by demanding a second referendum or by pressurizing the Government into the abandonment of the entire process.  But this ruthless campaign cannot be allowed to succeed.    A surrender to the Remoaners would completely shatter faith in democratic politics in Britain.  It would show that even the majority cannot prevail against the establishment.   Amid profound public disillusion, the EU and the Europhiles would be triumphant.  Once again, Britain would be locked into the federal project, with all dreams of nationhood and a return to self-governance broken.    Such an outcome would be perhaps the greatest humiliation in our island story.

The best way to defeat the Remoaners is to demolish their arguments.    Already, the predictions of post-referendum meltdown could hardly look hollow.  George Osborne claimed that a vote for Brexit would lead to “an immediate economic shock” and a “DIY recession.”   Yet, almost two years after the referendum, economic growth is steady, the City of London is expanding, unemployment is at its lowest level since the 1970s and manufacturing order books are at their fullest since 1988.   Similarly, the Remoaners’ synthetic alarmism about the alleged negative impact of border controls – such as skill shortages – needs to be ruthlessly exposed. Far from damaging Britain, tougher immigration will raise living standards, promote social cohesion, lower social security bills and reduce.   After, as David Cameron once pointed out, no less than 40 per cent of EU migrants are actually dependent on welfare.

The British people need to be reminded that a return to the status quo in our relationship with the EU is not an option, for Brussels is bent on the creation of a federal superstate, where every vestige of national sovereignty has disappeared.  If Britain stays in the EU, we will become nothing more than a regional province of a bureaucratic empire. Indeed, the entire Remoaner message is one of defeatism, betraying a profound lack of confidence in our country. For centuries, Britain has been a great nation, the victor in two world wars, the creator of Parliamentary democracy and the pioneer of the Industrial Revolution, yet the pro-EU brigade that we are too enfeebled to survive on our own.   This unpatriotic, sneering disdain for Britain and its people shone through a recent outburst from the former diplomat Lord Kerr, author of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, who declared that “immigration is the thing that keeps the country going.   We native British are so bloody stupid that we need injections of intelligent people from outside.”   Such self-loathing attitude infuses the Remoaners’ movement.  That is why it is so laughable when they talk about the national interest.   There will be no nation at all if they have their way.

Still eating his words in 14 months’ time? Let’s hope so

The consequence of the Brexit vote  “wasn’t as bad as we thought.” David Cameron’s off-the-cuff comment to steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal was caught on video, as you can see here. However, he did actually say, “it’s a mistake not a disaster. It’s turned out less badly than we had thought but it’s still going to be difficult”.

Over 18 months since the Referendum the UK economy has performed well. The  official guidance to voters, in a letter sent by HM Treasury to each and every household, said that on a Leave vote, “Britain’s economy could be tipped into a year-long recession. Further, at least 500,000 jobs could be lost and GDP could be around 3.6% lower following a vote to leave the EU than it would be if we remained in the EU.”

The reality is that unemployment has fallen to a 43-year low of 4.3%, GDP has continued to grow and exporters are doing well, with September 2017 being the best month ever  Project Fear has looked very discredited and even one of the two men driving it has finally admitted the truth.

The last part of Cameron’s statement is also true as well, unfortunately. The next 14 months are going to be difficult and the difficulties for the government are already mounting as opposition from Tory MPs in particular to the proposed “transitional deal” is beginning to grow.  We have outlined many of its unsatisfactory features on this website and are pleased that our concerns are now being voiced within the corridors of Westminster.  Readers may enjoy this exchange between Jacob Rees-Mogg MP and Brexit secretary David Davis, whose jocular manner cannot disguise the discomfort he clearly felt as Mr Rees-Mogg put him on the spot.

We yet remain hopeful, even if the conflict over this issue is likely in the short-term, that David Cameron will still be eating his words in 14 months’ time.

The BBC’s official festive fifty bias techniques

This post first appeared on the Is the BBC Biased? website. The original can be viewed here.
Although written a few weeks ago as a Christmas piece, we think that Brexit campaigners will find it a useful tool at any time of the year. By keeping this list handy and familiarising yourself with the techniques enumerated, you can immediately spot this manipulation of any given item of news by the BBC.

Courtesy of Monkey Brains in the comments, here’s MB’s John Peel-style Festive Fifty which observers of BBC bias everywhere may enjoy this pre-Christmas weekend.

So raise your mulled wine glasses please, ladies and gentlemen, and let the countdown begin…

(Be warned though. The Undertones won’t be at Number One).

A seasonal message from Lord Hall, Director General of the BBC:

In this era of fake news, Russian subversion of referenda to produce incorrect results and the installation of a fascist dictatorship in the USA, I thought it apposite and timely, to publish a list of our 50 top Bias Techniques, lest anyone should think we were being complacent about the challenges facing us in the contemporary media world. This list will act as a helpful guide for our staff but I hope it will also reassure the public at large that we have their best interests at heart.

  1. Bias by News Agenda Choice. The biggie. If we don’t report it, it’s not news. And we don’t like to report things like the Synagogue attack in Stockholm, no go areas in the UK or the New Year’s Eve events in Cologne a while back.
  2. Bias by News Prioritising. OK, sometimes we can’t avoid reporting something but we can certainly give it very low priority. It only needs to appear for a nanosecond for us to be able to say that we have done our journalistic duty.
  3. Bias in Perpetuity. If we like a story…”Tories racist says report”…we might leave it up on our website for months to make sure just about everyone gets to see it, even though we are allegedly a news” organisation. Likewise we will return obsessively to stories we love like Grenfell Tower.
  4. Bias by Burying. If we don’t like a story we will bury it away somewhere like “News from Leicester” which you get to by navigating four or five pages on our website. In terms of broadcasting you will have to live in the East Midlands to be informed of what happened. I am not going to say what happened, because that would defeat the objective of this particular technique.
  5. Bias by Headline Creep. Sometimes we know a story hasn’t really got legs but by using the headline ruse we can make it sound a lot better. So “Boris “racism” claim” on the front page of the website becomes…”Boris claims government is acting on racism”….becomes “Boris has rejected a UN report claiming that racism in the UK is rising at an alarming rate”.
  6. Bias by Interruption. An old time favourite…if you don’t like what the interviewer is saying, interrupt them to hell and back, so that they can’t get their points across. Some right wing obsessives on the internet try to expose this bias by recording the number of such interruptions and comparing that number with interruptions of favoured guests, but such statistical exposure of this technique can be dismissed by a vague, airy “Notwithstanding this particular interview, we consider the programme, taken in the round, was balanced and impartial”.
  7. Bias by Misrepresentation. It’s important that we at the BBC control debate by ensuring we get to mispresent viewpoints. Under this approach, being worried about hardly ever hearing the English language spoken in your neighbourhood (a perfectly legitimate concern) obviously becomes “racist attitudes to migrants”. Of course we don’t simply assert that – to do so would be crass and far too obvious. Instead we imply it via other bias techniques e.g. “Bias by Question and Some Say”.
  8. Bias by Concept Merge. Sometimes it pays to be pedantically precise about definitions (a favourite of both Dimblebys on occasion). But with this technique, it is important to be vague and overlap differing concepts until the viewer or listener is taught, in Pavlovian fashion, to associate “Member of Conservative Party” with “Far Right Nut”. Thus we merge “Neo-Nazi” into “Far Right”, which in turn merges into “Right Wing” which then merges into “Nationalist” (as in “Bad Nationalist” – obviously does not apply to SNP, Sinn Féin and Plaid Cymru) and further blends with “Tory” and “Conservative”. By constant mixing and association Neo Nazis, Nationalists and Tories all become part of a dangerous amorphous group that like to persecute minorities. We find this approach very effective at the BBC.
  9. Bias by Mirroring. Under this ruse we call extreme radicals like Iranian Mullahs or Chinese Communists “Conservatives” so as to make toxic the whole “conservative” brand. You have to admire our cheek in doing so! But the useless Tories never make any effective protests about this.
  10. Bias by Intimidation. We tell our audience that we will report them to their employer or school if they voice opinions of which we disapprove. This can be more effective than you might think. Of course we have combined this with a sustained attack on the Have Your Say function on our website and also by turning the Feedback programme into a meaningless “complaints from both sides” exercise now stuffed full of disguised adverts for BBC programmes.
  11. Bias by Mockery. The mockery is not just something for “comedy” panel shows or the Now Show. News presenters can also join in the mockery of anything the BBC doesn’t like. Eddie Mair and Jonny Diamond have I think done some excellent work in this area. But woe betide anyone who mocked say Stella Creasy or Chukka Umuna!!! (not that that would ever happen under my watch!) – that would be sexist and racist and would lead to instant dismissal. We of course produce an in-house list of who to mock and who not. Currently Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are top of the list. But such lists can of course change and staff should keep up with developments.
  12. Bias by Complaint Dismissal. As long as we keep batting away complaints in the face of the truth and the facts, we can maintain our absurd formal claim of impartiality. It is therefore important that the programmes we claim allow the viewer or listener a voice should be tightly controlled. I have of course instructed all editors and producers to hold the line and deny bias by claiming complaints from both sides and if they cannot defend something, claim a broader overall balance across the piece.
  13. Bias by Propaganda Tentacle. The BBC has a long reach. Our correspondents can use Twitter to voice more extreme anti-democratic, pro-Antifa opinions through re-tweeting. We are now going into schools as well to brainwash children with our “Fake News” agenda. Our tentacles can basically reach anywhere.
  14. Bias by Question Selection. What questions get asked is vital. If you think we pull the QT questions out of a hat then you are very, very naïve.
  15. Bias by Simple Fact Denial or Avoidance. For instance we will not admit even the possibility that the housing crisis might have something to do with mass immigration. It’s rather like that loose thread in a pullover. If you start pulling on it before long the whole thing will unravel. So we have to maintain “Complete Fact Denial” in those very sensitive areas touching on the central tenets of our PC Multiculturalist doctrine.
  16. Bias by Expert. We choose the experts. Our experts are guaranteed to support our views. That’s how and why we select them!
  17. Bias by Org-Labelling. For instance, that think tank is “right wing”, this think tank (the one we like) is “respected”! It’s not so difficult once you get the hang of it.
  18. Bias by Person Labelling. That person (someone standing up for beliefs that were uncontroversial 50 years ago) is “far right”, this person (a Marxist totalitarian) is the “conscience of the left” or a “revered academic and commentator”.
  19. Bias by Tone of Voice. So important! When we are children we listen to our parents’ tone of voice before we understand the meaning of their words. Are our parents angry or pleased with us? We know this and so we play on these very human weaknesses. Our presenters sound surprised if a right wing person does a nice thing or somehow escapes justice when we have been looking forward to their downfall. Equally they make it sound like their mother has died if the PC Multicultarist liberal-left suffer a reversal, however minor.
  20. Bias by Atypical Person Choice. It may be true that most female followers of Islam in Bradford may wear a Hijab and rarely go outside the family home but we have the resources at our disposal to find one who doesn’t wear a head covering, uses make up, wears tight jeans and has set up her own business. Once we have found her we are going to give her the full PR treatment on your shows, eventually giving her her own series.
  21. Bias by Drama and Soap. I can’t overemphasise the importance of this bias technique. This is how we really buttress the news and indoctrination agenda. We use drama and soap to signal approval or disapproval and to identify what issues the public should think are important.
  22. Bias by Lifestyle Show. We can make frightening things appear comforting all by the magic of lifestyle TV. Of course this has to be managed. It can be an area requiring sensitive handling. We didn’t show a Hijab for years. Big beard presenters are still out and the Burka is I am afraid still a big no-no. But this is a Long March we are on. Eventually we will be able to de-sensitive the backward segment of the British public on such matters by associating such features with nice things like baking, cooking, shopping and home décor.
  23. Bias by Over-representation of Minorities. You see a lot of this on TV adverts of course and we have to take our hat off to our commercial colleagues in that regard. The message of course is “resistance is useless”. It is supposed to deliver a jolt and acclimatise people to further volcanic demographic change. We are of course doing everything we can at the BBC to ensure that minorities (officially only 13% of the population) are over-represented in a number of key areas like news presentation. When it comes to drama, we are quite happy to provide misleading representations of classics from the Victorian period now, sacrificing accuracy to our PC Multiculturalist principles. Of course when we talk about ethnic minority representation we mean generally African-Caribbean, African and South Asian. At the BBC we don’t much care about how many Poles, Arabs, Romanians, Chinese, French or Latin Americans are on our screens despite there being very large communities from those ethnic groups in our country. I hope at some point to explain why that is but sadly time is limited and I must press on. (Ahem).
  24. Bias by Slow Information Release. We wouldn’t want you to run away with the idea there’s just been a terrorist incident carried out by an IS operative migrant who shouted Allahu Akbar…so we will slowly drip feed the news and then disappear the story altogether. Often we will use the “mental ill health” ploy to justify this.
  25. Bias by Local News as National News. Local news is a good way of extending the bias especially in areas where there are lots of Labour MPs and we can call on them to provide a steady drumbeat of public expenditure propaganda . We always favour local news with a national flavour…so expect lots of NHS cuts and not much about the County Show.
  26. Bias by Survey. Our opinion polls are frequently wrong. But they always seem to favour the left for some reason. Sometimes our levels of bias are off the scale as was the case with the Newsnight panel of “ordinary voters” that voted 9-1 to remain. BBC Staff should not be embarrassed by this, rather they should see polls as weapons in our hand not instruments of science.
  27. Bias by Decree. Here, the likes of John Simpson or David Dimbleby – once respected as cutting edge journalists – trot out the BBC narrative without appearing to have thought about what they are saying first. In our BBC world of bias, if they say so, it must be true. You might call this the “Hillary Good, Trump Bad” approach.
  28. Bias by Obfuscation. David Dimbleby is of the view that if he poses a smugly sceptical or irrelevant question “But we don’t know that was an official Mosque letter, do we?” (irrelevant – it was clearly being handed out at the Mosque in full view) or “But do you have an example of the BBC saying “despite Brexit”? ” (Answer: Guido Fawkes website had plenty of examples the next day!), he has neutralised the critique. Obviously he hasn’t genuinely neutralised the critique, but at the BBC we feel it is “the moment” that counts. As long as he appears to have raised legitimate doubts that is enough. It is my view this is an effective Bias technique as Dimbleby is sly enough to time his semi-rhetorical questions at just the right point so they don’t get or can’t be answered. They therefore serve our purpose.
  29. Bias by Yawn. Sadly this is a rare example of a technique that has been tried but proved unsuccessful. It was attempted in the run up to and during the early part of the EU Referendum campaign as we got nearly all our TV and radio presenters to imply that everyone was bored with the Referendum debate even though we now all know the opposite was true: family and friends often ended up having passionate debates on the subject (some are still continuing to this date!). But we at the BBC were trying to reduce the interest in the campaign, as we knew that was important in ensuring the anti-EU vote did not get mobilised. Frankly, we failed. Though we cannot be blamed for the decision to have a Referendum (we strongly opposed that), we were wrong to pursue that ineffective technique. We should have been much more pro-Remain from the outset. Eventually we realised the yawn technique was proving ineffective: the pretend yawns stopped and it was then we desperately tried “educating” everyone to vote remain. But sadly, it was too late. Personally I feel the Government should have given us more leeway to support the Remain campaign, even though we did our best to back their arguments and rubbish the Leave campaign. Clearly it wasn’t enough.
  30. Bias by False Friend. This is one we have been using a lot recently in relation to events in the US: “So let’s go over to Washington to discuss Trump’s latest tweet. We have leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Republican Governor for Wyoming…” Our audience thinks this sounds balanced since it’s one Democrat and one Republican. But of course, we know something they don’t – this particular Republican Governor hates Trump as much as the Democrat. We see similar set ups with our domestic politics “Here to discuss the Government’s proposals are Chukka Umuna, Labour MP and Ken Clarke, Conservative…” only Clarke is going bash the proposals almost as much as Chukka.
  31. Bias by Herd Instinct. Human beings have a tendency to follow the herd or the “troop” (since we are primates!)…so we at the BBC do our best to create bandwagons for the campaigns we favour. Biased BBC Trending do a lot of good work in this area.
  32. Bias by Recruitment. This is what we at the BBC call the “Guardian readers only need apply” ploy. Don’t worry – I am a Guardian Reader!!! lol This is really a very important and self-fulfilling bias category.
  33. Bias by Vocabulary Choice. This is of course a huge area of bias. The “bread and butter” of bias you might call it. It covers many things but among my favourites are right wing think tanks “claim”, “assert”, things whereas left wing think tanks “point out”, “conclude”, “find evidence”…During the EU Referendum campaign pro-Remain agencies were always concluding, calculating, pointing our and finding…or projecting, predicting (never guessing!)…When Remain claims were criticised by the Leave side, we at the BBC always used the language of emotion and violence instead of cool consideration: the Leave side “angrily denied”, “lashed out”, “slammed” etc
  34. Bias by Paragraphing. We often leave the key information to the penultimate para of a long article (not the final paragraph because people sometimes skip to that). You can hope the punters have got bored by then and miss it…thinking the perpetrator was simply a “man” with known “mental health issues” not someone who visited Afghanistan last year and was carrying an IS flag.
  35. Bias by Mandy Rice Davies. The point of this technique is to make the denial sound as thin as possible. I think Norman Smith is quite good at this. Norman is adept at telling us the unfavoured have “denied” something…but does so in a “well wouldn’t you too if you’d been found out” sort of way…It’s normally the right who get this treatment of course but there was a phase when the BBC when we were gunning for Corbyn and we gave him the same treatment (this was when we at the BBC thought Corbyn was a vote-loser who would keep the Tories in power for the next 20 years – now of course it’s all Christmas jumpers with Jezza’s face on it! – he’s forgiven, for the time being).
  36. Bias by Uneven Standards. Of course at the BBC we believe in high standards, we just don’t believe in applying them consistently around the world. For instance we hold Israel to a much high standard than Saudi Arabia (which doesn’t even allow people to profess Christianity). We report obsessively about their “illegal occupation” of Arab land. But illegal occupation of land is a rather flexible concept. We never, or only very rarely, give Russia and China any grief about their huge empires and their occupation of territories against the people’s will. We don’t ask representatives of countries like Australia, Brazil, Canada and Argentina about eradication of indigenous peoples. Romania’s occupation of Magyar lands is of no interest to us at the BBC. Likewise, while we show an inordinate interest in civilian killings in the US by gunfire we have no interest in such killings in Mexico or Brazil, and absolutely no interest in the murder of thousands of white farmers in South Africa. While we at the BBC are willing to shed tears over a few thousand Palestinian Arabs losing their homes and being “forced” to flee some 70 years ago, we have no interest in the many millions of Europeans, Jews, Hindus and Christians forced to flee from the Middle East and South Asia and in reality not much interest in all the displaced persons in Sub-Saharan Africa.
  37. Bias by Photo Choice. A picture tells a thousand words and picture bias tells a million. We can choose a nice one of Jeremy looking either messianic or avuncular, surrounded by happy smiling people, or we can choose one of Theresa looking very anxious (as though she’s about to try swallowing something on I’m Celebrity) and isolated, with a dark sombre background. We had a nice example on the BBC News website recently: May looking worried and pensive, her frame apparently being squeezed between two EU flags that dominated the photo…and then there’s Nicola Sturgeon smiling, looking very businesslike with one of her ministers carrying lots of impressive looking files…Chance choice? Of course not. Nothing happens by chance at the BBC! Photo bias is one of the easiest techniques to spot if you look for it but because people tend to take images on trust they rarely identify or comment on the bias.
  38. Bias by Placard Placement. I rather like this one. I used to use it a lot myself back in the day. We at the BBC know we are not going to get away with a newsreader saying “The Tory fascists have decided to dismantle the NHS.” But there’s nothing to stop us showing a placard in a protest that says something like that: “Tory fascist scum will kill the NHS”. Nothing to stop the cameraman zooming in on that as a lingering image to underline a report. When, rarely, we cover right wing protests, the placards get far less prominence, unless of course we think we’ve found one that is an own goal. We are quite happy to feature old eccentric people covered in Union Jacks opposing the EU in robust terms. That’s an image we like to cultivate.
  39. Bias by Soft Interview. This is a technique I think is sometimes underestimate but all staff should appreciate its importance. We particularly make use of this technique when we want to put rocket boosters on a political position we approve of. So we saw recently Blair being given the softest (and longest) of rides by Mardell because Blair was proposing one of our favourites: a Brexit Reversal Policy. We can counter accusations of bias, by claiming these are serious, in-depth, “mission to explain” style interviews though we hardly ever accord such access to viewpoints we oppose.
  40. Bias by Celebrity Endorsement. No! This doesn’t refer to the celebrity endorsing a product but the BBC endorsing some celebrities over others. So Jim Davidson and Cliff Richard get the cold shoulder despite being very popular. People like Lily Allen know that BBC endorsement can be vital to prolonging their career lives way beyond their natural span and the we at the BBC know it is useful to have people like Lily Allen around to endorse otherwise somewhat difficult policies like “no borders”.
  41. Bias by Reality Checking. We brought in BBC Reality Check to create a kind of alternative universe where matters of policy can be judged objectively by reference to “facts”. Of course this universe does not exist in any shape or form but it is useful to our purposes to pretend it does and that we at the BBC (alone in the UK – butt out ITV and Sky!) can objectively arbitrate such matters. Anyone who looks at BBC Reality Check can see instantly it has nothing to do with “reality” and everything to do with our policy preferences. This can be seen by (a) its choice of subject matter (Reality Check never investigate the dodgy social studies from groups like the Joseph Rowntree Trust we are so fond of quoting) (b) its concentration on “future outcomes” which by definition have not happened yet and cannot therefore form part of our “reality” and (c) its disregard for the initial starting question (you will often find the conclusion has little to do with the question!) (4) its frequent recourse to “argument from authority” – quoting their favoured sources. So, please staff, don’t think that Reality Check is going undermine your reports – you can rely on it as a solid backer of everything we at the BBC are trying to achieve. We just need to give it a spurious veneer of independence and objectivity – nothing to be scared of!
  42. Bias by Absent or Abbreviated Nomenclature. At the BBC we pride ourselves that Trump is more often Trump than President Trump whereas President Obama was nearly always President Obama, certainly for his first term – just as Thatcher was more often Thatcher than Lady Thatcher. Use of the “criminal” surname is often reserved for those perceived as “right wing” Tories. Jeremy Corbyn is much more likely to have the cosy “Jeremy” attached. Also by a kind of reverse law, titles are much inflated when the BBC wants to make use of them: so you get stuff like “Lord Shyster of Plain-Wrong, the ex Lord Chamberlain of High Office and current Chairman of the Lords Select Committee on Matters of Great Import has denounced the treatment of Calais migrants as “callous”…” Don’t worry, while we are ideological egalitarians, when it comes to pushing the agenda, a bit of peasant-like deference is on offer if it means we can push our ideas more effectively.
  43. Bias by Emotional Response. This is where we ensure the BBC acts as emotional gatekeeper to the nation. You can cry about your factory closing down but not about your neighbourhood being changed out of all recognition by mass immigration. If you are the victim of Islamic terrorism we prefer smiling defiance to tears. But other forms of terrorism may be treated differently depending on context.
  44. Bias by Views as News. This is something we have always practised but these days we have expanded it into all areas. A classic recent example was James Cook’s take on Trump (he doesn’t like him – what a surprise!) – a virtually 100% opinion piece appearing under the BBC News banner. Of course a lot of our BBC bias involves smuggling views into news but this refers to those blatant examples where a piece should be labelled “A Personal View” if appropriate at all (doubtful).
  45. Bias by Vox Pop. Never underestimate the Vox Pop. They are a really important bias tool which you will find used in nearly every national and local news programme. They can really put a nice spin on a story. And then there are the visuals which can add yet another layer of bias: we at the BBC are always very happy to have a pro-Brexit vox pop on our screen if it is delivered by an old pot-bellied bloke on a mobility scooter with a fag hanging out of his mouth, with the betting shop visible in the background. If we can encourage him to have a go at “migrants” all the better!
  46. Bias by Newspaper Review. This is a specific technique we use to build a kind of Potemkin village of opinion out of MSM news. By using left-liberal reviewers, a left-liberal presenter and a selection of stories biased to the left-liberal view of the world, we are able create the erroneous impression that the BBC’s agenda is very much in line with that of the rest of the MSM. Where necessary the Review can be used to chastise heretical opinions deemed as offensive to PC Multiculturalist beliefs.
  47. Bias by Some-say. Let’s be honest, it is rare for an hour to go by without a BBC presenter or reporter having recourse to that well known family “The Somes”. “But some say this belief in fundamental biologically-based differences between men and women is just petty-minded fascistic prejudice which will soon be consigned to the dustbin of history.” The Somes come in very useful to us at the BBC when we want to advance the “progressive agenda” but realise we are on tricky ground. A non-specific “some” is a nice way of suggesting support is building for a “progressive” idea. It sounds a lot better than “that mad columnist from the Guardian”. Given we live in a nation of nearly 70 million people, if you say “some” then most fair-minded people will think you mean a few hundred thousand or a few million at least, if not yet a majority, whereas it might only be that mad columnist from the Guardian, 12 people in Hampstead and five in Islington.
  48. Bias by History. The past is not such a foreign country to us at the BBC. In order for the PC Multiculturalist Fantasy to be realised in the modern world the past needs to be tweaked or, worse, given the full Harvey Weinstein treatment. So, looking back at the past through our BBC-PC Telescope we see that slavery was something that was visited on Africans only by Europeans. Arabs did not enslave Africans in their millions and if they did, it wasn’t really slavery. Likewise only West Europeans have engaged in imperialism. Chinese imperialism is really of no note at all. Russian imperialism likewise of virtually no importance since the end of the Cold War. Through the PC lens of history we see that Islam is a universally benign and progressive force that invented the scientific method and brought the benefits of progress to Europe, India, Africa and elsewhere. The BBC History guide can’t help but be a little obsessive. So the history of the Levant 1917-1967 (no other time) is of great and enduring interest to all of us at the BBC. It is of course the time of the unjust creation and expansion of Israel as far as we are concerned. The history of Asia Minor during that same period is however of virtually no interest whatsoever to us! We have also to accept that the BBC’s history can be very sentimental when we want it to be. As far as the BBC are concerned Native Americans always lived on the Plains hunting buffalo on their horses. Likewise, the Zulus of South Africa never exterminated and drove out the San people of the area in the 1600s. Weirdly although we at the BBC have this highly “romantic” approach to history elsewhere, when it comes to the UK have absolutely no time for any romanticised version of “our island story”. No, then we cast a cold, callous, indifferent eye over the history of our forebears. Actually, I don’t think I should say “forebears” but you know what I mean.
  49. Bias by Counterintuitive Injury Reporting. At the BBC we use this mostly in the context of domestic or American demonstrations. So “An EDL march took place in Rotherham today [Note – don’t mention about what!]. The march was condemned by the local Mayor who said “This Far Right rally has nothing to with our community which is peaceful and harmonious.” There were 7 injuries and 5 arrests.” The set up makes the audience think the EDL caused the injuries and that EDL supporters were arrested, when the truth is the counter-demo mob caused the injuries and were the source of the arrests. Classic result! Just what we want!! This technique can also be used with terrorism in faraway places. “Terror attack – two Palestinians dead.” No – not an attack on Palestinians by Far Right Israelis…two Palestinian terrorists shot dead while trying to carry out a terror attack. “ Likewise “70 Muslim worshippers killed in Mosque attack” might make you think the religion of Islam was yet again being persecuted by Christians or Hindus. The fact’s it’s a Sunni-Shia thing is nicely obscured.
  50. Bias by Absorption. There are many cultural events or phenomena which we seek to make our own. Glastonbury, Turner Prize, MOBOs, Chelsea Flower Show, Women’s Football…we are like some giant amoeba, absorbing chunks of other DNA safe in the knowledge that it can replicate inside us and produce a yet more bloated version of the BBC itself. I think it’s what I would call cultural synergy. By absorbing these other cultural phenomena we make ourselves stronger and better project our cultural aims.

I hope you have enjoyed our Festive Fifty and that you now understand better how we operate. The BBC believes in transparency and connecting with its staff and the public at large. Besides we think that you are so brainwashed by now you are probably quite happy that we are so biased.

Seasonal greetings and a Happy New Year whatever calendar you choose,

Yours ever,

Tony

Photo by LoopZilla

The remoaners aren’t giving up – yet

Life in the remoaner bubble remains as surreal as ever.  The Guardian newspaper has publiushed an article by David Cameron’s former tutor Vernon Bogdanor, claiming that “A second Brexit referendum is looking more likely by the day.”  Wishful thinking perhaps? As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, Mrs May and the Tory Party dare not row back on their commitment to deliver Brexit. Not only would it be as good as handing the keys of No. 10 to Mr Corbyn, but it would precipitate the worst crisis the party has faced since the split that followed the repeal of the Corn laws in 1846. What Bogdanor fails to take into account is that now Article 50 has been triggered, we are on the way out. Even EU sources  have suggested that it may not be reversible. Furthermore, Mrs May shows no sign of conceding a second referendum, not to mention the fact that no one in their right minds would want to go through that gruelling campaign again, especially given the lack of interest among the general public

Still, it’s the silly season aka the Parliamentary summer recess, so editors have to be a bit more creative in trying to fill the columns. The Financial Times, another bastion of remainiacs, is no better than the Guardian. In a piece entitled Brexit reveals Britain’s enduring flaws, Simon Kuper claims that the idea of leaving the EU was hatched in the Oxford Union in the 1980s by the likes of Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, because “This generation of mostly former public schoolboys didn’t want Brussels running Britain. That was their caste’s prerogative.” No better proof of the decline in the standards of journalism can be found than this once respected newspaper  giving space for such utter tosh. Is Mr Kuper completely unaware of the long-standing opposition to EU membership within the Labour Party? Or of the Campaign for an Independent Britain, which was set up in 1969 to oppose our accession – before Boris Johnson or Michael Gove were old enough to go to school?

True, both articles acknowledge that the Brexit talks are not going as well as David Davis and his team had hoped, but widely-reported differences of opinion within the Cabinet over the “hardness” of Brexit does not mean that Brexit isn’t going to happen. Whether it is seamless is another matter, of course, but happen it will. I wouldn’t normally quote Jean-Claude Juncker approvingly, but he does seem to have the measure of the mood in the UK (including the government) and has distanced himself from those Brexit sceptics who are expecting  a big back-pedalling “My working hypothesis is that it will come to Brexit”, he said.

Meanwhile, our attention has been drawn to a piece by Jonn Ellidge in the New Statesman, which claims that a recent YouGov survey proves that Brexit voters hate their own children.  The reason for this astonishing statement  is  because:-

A healthy majority of Leave voters, it found, claimed that ‘significant damage to the British economy’ would be a price worth paying for Brexit: 61 per cent, compared to just 20 per cent who disagreed. More bizarrely, when the question was made more personal, and respondents were asked would it be worth “you or members of your family” losing their jobs, 39 per cent still thought Brexit was totes worth it – slightly more than the 38 per cent who, like normal, sane people, replied ‘obviously not’”.

So QED, Brexit voters, which the author equates to retired baby boomers “who are prepared to crash the economy because they don’t like Belgians” are a selfish generation who must hate their offspring because “when asked directly whether they’d swap the wealth and security of their own children for a blue passport and the ability to deport Polish plumbers, they said yes in huge numbers.

As blogger Samuel Hooper says, Ellidge’s claims are “vile” and totally ignores the real reason why a significant majority of older voters supported Brexit. “Does he not realise that the counterfactual, unrecorded by YouGov (who did not bother to probe more deeply) is that perhaps these older people – rightly or wrongly – thought that by voting for Brexit they were preserving some other vital social good for their descendants, something potentially even more valuable than a couple of points of GDP growth? I would posit that the supposedly hateful Daily Mail-reading generation of grey haired fascists scorned by Jonn Elledge actually do not have any particular desire to inflict economic harm on their children and grandchildren, but simply realise – through having lived full lives through periods of considerably less material abundance than those of us born since the 1980s – that other things matter too. Things like freedom and self-determination, precious gifts which were under threat during the Second World War and the Cold War, and which the older generations who remember these difficult times therefore do not casually take for granted.”

Absolutely, but no amount of debunking is going to stop the blinkered fanaticism of the remainiacs. Among the chief of these is the European Movement, which is ramping up its campaign to stop Brexit altogether, linking up with other  like-minded groups including Scientists for EU, Healthier IN the EU and Britain for Europe to try to stop Brexit. I debated with a few members of the European Movement and although I didn’t always win, it was fun to embarrass them by mentioning the funding they received from the American CIA during the 1970s. A recent e-mail has encouraged recipients to join this iniquitous organisation which sees itself as able to “represent the groundswell of opinion against departure from the EU.”

Sorry, European Movement, but the ground isn’t swelling round here. If even I, as a political “anorak” and long-standing opponent of our EU membership, am getting fed up with all the debating about how badly the cabinet is divided, how much we will have to pay to leave, trading arrangements and so on, Joe Public is even less interested. He cast his vote a year ago and whichever way he actually voted, he was never really very excited by the EU, never really understood what we had joined and just wants the country to move on. Hopefully on March 29th, when we finally leave, the European Movement and its fellow-traveller remainiacs will move on – preferably to well-deserved oblivion – but I’m not holding my breath.

 

So we’re all stupid racists?

It’s over a year since the referendum but some remoaners just will not give up their belief that a group of ignorant racists bear the prime responsibilty for our leaving the EU. As stubborn as the most ardent flat earthers, no amount of evidence to the contrary will shake their convictions.

Last August, our Chairman debunked the claims of an alleged increase in racist hate crime, showing how easily the statistics can be manipulated.  Undeterred, Channel 4 thought they had struck gold when featuring Sivalingam Rajan, a Sri Lankan-born shopkeeper from Swindon, who suffered a racist attack after telling a customer that she didn’t have enough money to pay for her purchase. The offending girl was interviewed by the programme and asked about Brexit, no doubt in anticipation that she had voted to leave the EU.  Instead, she replied, “I didn’t watch it, things like that I don’t get involved with – nothing to do with me.”

You would expect better things from the respected Nature journal but sadly not. Last January, we highlighted an article by Colin MacIlwain of Edinburgh who called Leave voters “a loose coalition of dissenters, doubters and right-wing jackals.”  Undeterred by its descent into the levels of the gutter press, Nature subsequently published a piece by a certain Jane Green who claimed that “voters with less education cast ballots consistent with populist waves.” So there you have it. We’re all thickos. Richard North, with a PhD to his name, the trilingual Daniel Hannan MEP with his history degree from Oxford, the multi-millionaire inventor and businessman Sir James Dyson and Cambridge-educated Dame Helena Morrisey, one of the most influential women in the City of London are all complete numbskulls because they supported Brexit.

OK, perhaps on average, a higher percentage of remain voters may have had degrees, but there is a world of difference between having a good brain and actually using it!

 

 

Photo by LauraLewis23