Saw a clip from a LBC phone earlier. The caller was a life long Tory voter but no more. They were describing that the problem the Tory party have now is the membership. He argued that it was the membership that put Johnson in power, then Truss.
Tempted to say the loons running the asylum but that’s probably not fair.
They suffered a problem with entryism. There was a push from UKIP and far right groups like Britain First to gain membership and then push out the One Nation Conservatives.
The problem is that many traditional Conservative voters have no idea who they are voting for now. Maybe some are waking up to it?
Just like Labour is traditionally a coalition of socialists, left wingers and centre leftists, The Tory’s have always covered a broad spectrum of interests from the centre right to nutcases like John Redwood.
The Tories battleground has usually been Europe. Philes in the centre, Sceptics on the right. Brexit settled that for a generation, but the end result was that right wing eurosceptics saw that as an opportunity to take control of the party, and force out the more moderate voices (including my own MP Ken Clarke - someone I wouldn’t vote for, but felt no great antipathy towards).
As the right wing of the Conservative Party feel no need to be bound by process or decency, and probably don’t even believe in democracy, they have also set about imposing their will on the country, right to protest and dissent massively curbed, voting rights suppressed, Government scrutiny channels weakened, the Civil Service attacked, and the BBC turned into a state propaganda channel.
This is why Boris Johnson’s role in Richard Sharp’s appointment, and his financial affairs that surrounded it, are really important. It isn’t a private matter for Johnson.
I really have a big problem with these “An Interview with…” that that the BBC does.
Obviously the Diana one and now the Schofield one. I not sure of there are are others.
I just find it so cynical how they are done. The whole set up, the lighting, the wardrobe, the make up, all designed to garner the most sympathy.
Questions that are obviously pre-agreed on. And designed to appear candid, when in actual fact don’t investigate anything. It’s just an opporunity for liars to offer further half truths to compound the original lies and garner sympathy for the individual.
“There were three of us in this marriage” - aren’t you forgetting James Hewitt and Will Carling? There were five of you. At least.
“You’re all homophobic for criticising my grooming of a 15 year old boy” - No, Phillip, I can assure you if you’d done the same thing with a 15 year old girl, the wolves would still have come for you.
If you want to do these interviews, than ask the right questions . Don’t treat it as an opportunity for thes people to explain why they’ve done nothing wrong and it’s everybody else’s fault.
What about the one with the pervy prince?
I don’t think Emily Matliss needed to say anything. It was a masterclass in allowing your subject to tie themselves in knots.
Still he didn’t sweat though did he?
Did he name drop Dicaprio ?
Any ideas who the unnamed sex-pest is?
No, and the fact that they are not naming names or progressing it as a police enquiry means that the S*n can go on smearing anyone who works for the corporation.
I’m pretty sure that there are numerous media figures who have dirty secrets that they would rather keep in the cupboard but they are far more valuable to the gutter press as kompromat than any concept of justice.
You say that as if you think there is only 1?
Looks like there is an update. It would seem that the other presenters are sick of having their names dragged through the mud:
As always it’s best not to speculate with these things until actual facts are revealed.
Why has Hurricane Milton been dominating the news on the BBC over the last few days?
Firstly, there are more important things going on in the world. Secondly, it’s the British Broadcasting Corporation, not the American one.
And, finally, Storm Daniel, which wrought destruction in the eastern Mediterranean in September 2023, did not attract anywhere near as much coverage despite being closer to home and almost certainly leaving a higher death toll.
Political agenda? Nah.
That is true, they seem obsessed with the US for some reason.
The saddest thing is that they could be using Hurricane Milton to explain to people how climate change is being exacerbated by human behaviour and showing what we should all be doing to minimise our carbon footprint.
Instead, all they’re doing is showing lowbrow “human interest” stories.
I’m not sure how political it is, but it does speak to the question of what the BBC should serve to do.
If part of its remit is to educate, then this is shying away from its responsibilities.
I suspect that a chunk of it is that the BBC news service has been hollowed out so they are relying on feeds from other news outlets (e.g. CNN). It’s easier to pull them from English language news services which will tend to be from Anglophone countries, although having said that, there is no reason why they couldn’t tap into the English language services for FRANCE24, DW etc.
