Brexit...

[MikeO]

My new passport application has been approved and it's now being printed I've been informed.....in Tczew, Poland by a French/Dutch company called Gemalto who won the £260 million contract to supply UK passports.

Way to take back control eh?

[Matt]

6 hours ago, MikeO said:

My new passport application has been approved and it's now being printed I've been informed.....in Tczew, Poland by a French/Dutch company called Gemalto who won the £260 million contract to supply UK passports.

Way to take back control eh?

I've got 5 years left on mine, not going to change it unless I have no choice 

[MikeO]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/leave-voter-brexit-anniversary/ 

[MikeO]

On 29/06/2022 at 19:31, Matt said:

I've got 5 years left on mine, not going to change it unless I have no choice 

It's being delivered today by good old Royal Mail!!! Except it isn't, it's coming via TNT (Dutch company originally formed in Australia and now American owned).

All together now, "Rule, Britannia..."

[MikeO]

Emily Maitlis, ex-BBC newsnight reporter in a speech at the Edinburgh Television Festival...

Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.

"But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't."

[Palfy]

4 hours ago, RPG said:

But Brexit wasn't mainly about the economy. And the Uk is actually doing no worse than EU since it left. We are all suffering with the consequences of Ukraine war, Covid etc and the BBC are totally biassed in their reporting.

 

This is the most 'grown up' statement I have seen so far about Brexit and the UK economy:

Quote:

A more plausible comparison, between the UK and the other G7 countries, shows no visible impact from Brexit at all.  GDP in current prices in the UK fell a little behind the G6 in 2018 but then recovered by 2019. The Covid-induced decline in 2020 was a little deeper than the G6 and, as expected from its earlier ending of lockdowns, the UK’s recovery has been a little faster.

It will take many years to disentangle the effect of Brexit from all the other influences on the UK economy over these years.  It can’t be short-circuited by creating an implausible and flawed methodology to draw premature conclusions.  

Unquote.

Full article here: https://policyexchange.org.uk/why-the-centre-for-european-reform-is-wrong-about-brexit/

That would only appear sensible if it suits your agenda, it did recover in 2019 and looked good compared to the EU but the reason for that was because we were that far behind them any recovery was magnified in % terms compared to there’s, but since then we have once again fallen well below the EU and continue to do so. The truth is that there has been no positive in any areas since we left the EU and definitely none that you mentioned and banged the drum for a few years ago, you were proved to be wrong then as you are now. 

[Matt]

Sovereignty wasn't a dirty word. It was a catchphrase that was bandied about that no one on either side really understood the meaning of. Control over boarders? We had that anyway. Budget control? Had that too. Can't remember all the lies to debunk again to be honest.

I agree that it's hard to comment either way on the economic impact for now (business costs aside, that's blatantly obvious with the lack of planning, clear idea, workarounds and flipflopping on agreements). 

However, "we" could laugh at the immigration mess, the skyrocketing increase of illegal immigration, the impact on the NHS (staffing and lack of £350m a week I believe it was supposed to be) the delays and subsequent costs of transport which is passed on to customers...

But yeah, "Sovereignty"...

[Matt]

18 minutes ago, RPG said:

That might be your choice to misunderstand or not understand the concept of Sovereignty but we believe we do understand it, we value it (some of us have fought to maintain it) and it is worth protecting. I understand that there is an agenda driven refusal in the Remain camp to want to understand or acknowledge that but, like so many things in life, many would only really appreciate what sovereignty meant when they no longer had it. And it would be too late then. The UK is a Democracy, not a Federation and to try to integrate UK into Europe at a political level was never going to work. Again, we understand that the Remain agenda will refuse to countenance such thoughts.

I would call myself pro Europe but anti EU and more and more people I know (some of whom were definitely in the Remain camp) are now taking that same view.

So, yes, Sovereignty!

People dont choose to misunderstand things

But Ok... Since you ignored everything that has and is happening, how about you "all" (can't believe you're trying to speak for all those who voted leave) explain what sovereignty is for you (the individual) and let's see what has actually changed based on that answer?

Or we can talk about refusal to acknowledge and understand the leave lies too?

[Wall Writer]

It is striking to me that the conversation around this subject is still entrenched in the same old tropes.

It illustrates the fact that although Brexit is apparently done, there still remains a huge gap in the British cultural mindscape as to what the relationship of Britain and the British people is to Europe, what it means to be both British and European, and our identity as both Europeans, but not Europeans.

This subject always was, and still continues to be, backwards-looking and stuck in the past.

[Matt]

1 minute ago, Wall Writer said:

It is striking to me that the conversation around this subject is still entrenched in the same old tropes.

It illustrates the fact that although Brexit is apparently done, there still remains a huge gap in the British cultural mindscape as to what the relationship of Britain and the British people is to Europe, what it means to be both British and European, and our identity as both Europeans, but not Europeans.

This subject always was, and still continues to be, backwards-looking and stuck in the past.

The vote passed, its not done. I agree with RPG in the sense it will take years, probably decades to see the real impact. But the current impact, and the past is very much apparent. 

[Matt]

51 minutes ago, RPG said:

I don't speak for 'all'. I speak for 'we' which is the group of people that I discuss matters with.

Your staement that I have ignored everything that is happening is factually inaccurate and merely exposes your agenda driven rhetoric Matt.

Sovereignty? Google should be your your first reference point so you can decide for yourself Matt. But, to me it is the authority and freedom for a state to govern itself. In the case of the UK we do that (and have done so for centuries) via a governance model known as democracy. The word democracy itself comes from the ancient Greek words of Demos (The People) and Kratos (Rule). In practice that means the people of the UK rule the UK via their various elected bodies. The people of the UK ruled in 2016 (and gave an instruction to their elected body) that the UK was going to Leave the EU and we have done. That is the way the UK works and has worked for centuries. Political integration into the EU would have changed all that until we lost both the freedom and authority to govern ourselves and the UK became a vassal state of the United States Of Europe. And that Sovereignty is worth protecting as it goes hand in hand with our freedom. It isn't perfect but it has served us well for centuries and the democratic decision is that we will keep our Sovereignty thank you.

That is what Sovereignty means to me.

Now, what does it mean to you?

Your last sentence is just more agenda driven rhetoric Matt. Or a question built on a premise that I disagree with. Both sides were guilt of certain untruths (Project Fear from Remainers in Chief  Cameron/Osborne for example) but the beauty of democracy (which remaining in EU would slowly strip from us) is that the UK people get to form their own opinions, sort the wheat from the chaff (on both sides) make a balanced decision and instruct their elected body accordingly.

Well, you didn't acknowledge any of the current failings, so you absolutely did ignore. Rhetoric?! Agenda?? I'm juat trying to have a discussion ffs. Sorry if the facts are inconvenient.

I know what sovereignty means and, yes, i double checked with Google to be sure

Don't need a history lesson on where the word democracy comes from, linguistics student over here  There's different forms of it, and the UKs version isn't a true democracy, in my opinion. Why do I think that? Well the immediate example was that I was actively refused a vote on Brexit as I lived abroad for so long, thanks to the freedom of movement the EU status provided. I lost my ability to live and work as I wanted due to that misguided vote; not being bitter here, there simply wasn't a plan, still isn't. Because of that, people didn't really know what it meant, and we're flat out lied to. That's just fact. I've said multiple times, if there'd been a concrete plan, I would have less of an issue. I lost my home of 10 years, a country I'd lived in for nearly 15 because I lost my EU status. As a British citizen, refused a say, I can say comfortably that its not the peoples rule at all. There's a few million British citizens that were in a similar situation. So not really the people's rule. 

Switzerlands representative democracy is a true democracy, again in my opinion, and a much better way of running a country with everyone in mind. 

I do agree that both sides played their own propaganda, and that Leave did a better job by promising things it couldn't whereas Remain half-arsed their efforts assuming the as-is would be enough. I'm pro Europe and pro EU ideal, but I have issues with the organisation too. Best way to improve things is engaging, not running away based on pipe dreams. 

Final question... What did we gain then? We had control over budget, immigration, trade (to a larger extent than the rest of the EU at least). So what did we actually gain? Ideally with examples. 

[Matt]

24 minutes ago, RPG said:

Thanks for the agreement.

The UK and the rest of the world is certainly feeling an impact at the moment but as already pointed out, that is from geo political events that are affecting the globe and it is always going to be a subjective argument, lacking in credibility, to try to apportion any cost or benefit exclusively to an event - certainly in the short to medium term I think.

I dont believe we are feeling a Brexit impact for exactly those reasons (throw covid in too), in a measurable sense aside from those i mentioned previously. It couldn't have happened at a worse time from an analytical point of view. 

[Matt]

5 minutes ago, RPG said:

It doesn't have to be this way. The UK is a democratic country and democracy fails and becomes borderline anarchy without the loser's consent. That would be very irresponsible and not good for anyone. More and more people I know who voted remain are realising that they don't have to like Brexit but it is a fact of life, here to stay and that they would be better served getting behind it and (from their view point) making the best of it. Hopefully they will be pleasantly surprised in time. But nobody said this was a short cut to paradise. We are really talking about building a future and protecting freedoms for our children.

 

To misquote Churchill.

'Brexit may be a painful short to medium term experience for many. But it is infinitely better than the alternative!'

The mismanaged unknown is infinitely better than a mismanged known?

Impossible to quantify, thus nonsense. Nice dream though. 

[Matt]

Different question but along the same theme; I assume you're a supporter or Scottish Independence for their sovereignty?

[Matt]

Just now, RPG said:

Final Question First: We didn't really have total decision making control over any of the things you mentioned. We could certainly negotiate over them and present our case but control? No. Ultimately we were always hamstrung (be it by treaty, law, finance etc) by non UK factors within the EU. Now we can control our own decision making which is the first big step in the right direction. The next big step is enabling the execution of our decision making and that is not going to be a quick process. But the sooner we begin, the sooner we get there.

I am happy to discuss but which 'facts' do you allude to that I ignored?

I am sorry to hear about the way it has affected you and how you didn't get a vote. I too was disenfranchised years ago so didn't get to vote either. But it didn't stop me getting involved in the debate and trying to influence people's opinions.

The EU proved years ago that it is on a one way street to a United States Of Europe and that 'engaging' with EU could only be done around the periphery. It is the core direction of the EU that Leave objected to and why there was no pint in further engagement.

We weren't in Schengen, so we had absolute control over our borders. If the UK wanted to priorities hiring UK citizens, they could've incentivized businesses to do so. So immigration wasn't the issue it was made to be, and sure as shit wasn't what Farage made out (fact is illegal immigration is increasing dramatically, even the Mail is reporting it!).

Trade agreements had to be ratified, they weren't impossible. They will still need to be ratified today, just by a different administration which isn't pure UK. Any trade agreements will have non-UK factors in, that's inescapable, and we're still not in complete control.

The core direction of the EU is working together. It's still in its infancy, it needs work. But the idea is unity. Russias actions are a prime example as to why it was conceived and it is working, albeit too slowly. 

Sorry for being short here, works getting busy. 

[Matt]

6 minutes ago, RPG said:

I (admittedly with disappointment) recognised the right to hold the once in a generation independence vote. Now that they have held their once in a generation vote I expect them to do what I did and respect the democratic process and result.

Despite them overwhelmingly voting to remain in the EU (think it was 64%?)?

I'd agree with you, if the landscape hadn't been so drastically changed and their sovereignty completely overruled and continously undermined by an unorganised group of people in another country. 

[Matt]

13 minutes ago, RPG said:

Several issues there.

First: If the vote was 64/36 in Scotland (I forget) think about how much that reinforces the Leave vote in the rest of the UK.

Second: If, hypothetically, Scotland did leave the UK, it does not meet many of the strict criteria required to even apply for EU membership.

Third: If Scotland were to leave UK and to meet the requirements to apply to join the EU and then subsequently do so, think about the land border issue with England. Hadrian's wall would have to be rebuilt.

Fourth: No Sovereignty was overruled. Some Nationalist feathers were ruffled but Sovereignty was not overruled. Certain powers are devolved and certain are not. The Sovereignty is of the UK in that regard, not Scotland.

Fifth: As I mentioned Sovereignty, you never answered my question of what it means to you. You told me that you know what it means but that was all. Care to share what it means to you now?

1) a percentage of a much smaller population (5.5m) does not reinforce the vote for Leave as much as you're suggesting, but point taken.

2) I heard that a lot, but that's not the point (nor have I seen evidence to be honest). The point is they could work towards that criteria like any of the other countries queuing up to join. 

3) We've put a border in the Irish sea, apparently. But that can also be easily worked around, look at Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

4) Scottish Sovereignty was absolutely ignored. Scotland is a country, GB is not. They have their own parliament etc. but at the mercy of "foreign powers" and have been for centuries.

5) sorry, like I said, works busy. Sovereignty it's the country's ability to choose for itself. Which we had and still have. Nothing changed. We had and have control over immigration, trade, budget, spending, voting, currency. The only thing we "gained" is one less extra pair of eyes checking things. Still bound under WTO and other entities. It's a complete misdirection to think we're free to do what we want.

[Matt]

28 minutes ago, RPG said:

The Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957 Matt.

If the EU is still in its infancy after 65 years then it is not maturing very well is it! I'm 60 and retired.

It has gone through various name changes, each one a step closer to its goal from day one - A United States Of Europe.

Common Market sounded ok, just a free trade association on the face of it. But that was the bait and switch.

European Economic Community - a first public step towards Europe being one community and finance getting involved.

European Union - getting closer isn't it!  Politics involved now.

Leave had enough at this stage and, thankfully, so had enough of the UK electorate.

The idea is unity is just plain wrong. The idea is a United States Of Europe, run on Federal lines with a superficial veneer of democracy while, in practice, vassal states will lose control of much or even all of their existing domestic decision making freedom - aka Sovereignty - with decisions for the entire EU being made by a small cadre of very powerful people in Brussels.

Work no longer an issue for me. Redundant, lost medical so retired early.

I know, just because it's been decades old does not mean its mature. Its a centuries long project. 

The mission statement of the EU is "to guarantee peace, freedom and security in and around Europe. To promote and protect democracy and universal rights in Europe and around the world. To strengthen Europe's economy and to promote solidarity around Europe by working in partnership with national, regional and local government". That's the goal, the one I agree with and support, despite it not being able to do it as well as it should. Yet. 

That is what it's aim is, not USE. USE is just a lazy comparison in my opinion. But let's say its accurate, what is so bad about that? USA took centuries to develop and its still developing, meanwhile became a superpower. Why is that a bad thing?

[Matt]

15 minutes ago, RPG said:

It becomes an issue of trust and of the UK becoming nothing more than collateral damage in the building of a United States Of Europe. There is no trust, and with good reason. And the people of the UK do not wish to become a vassal state in the United States Of Europe. It is very easy to dress everything up so that it presents well but the real idea is centralised control of all of Europe from Brussels and the UK wants no part of it.

If you don't think that the EU wants to strip us of our sovereignty (which we, I think now agree, means inter alia, freedom to make our own domestic decisions) then have a listen to the charming Guy Verhofstadt in the following link. He openly admits that this is what the EU should be doing - transferring sovereignty to EU. With friends like him in the EU we don't need enemies.

 

 

No trust for you, that's clear. Although i still think this idea of complete control is beyond paranoia. Its certainly not true for everyone, not even those who voted leave without knowing what they were voting for. 

I could pull 101 videos of our politicians ranting and saying the same. GV is a character for sure, but a 60s clip devoid of context isn't really proof of anything. I remember that clip though, I remember looking up the extended recording and the context puts it in a completely different light, despite it being poorly worded (he should know better and should've known it'd be a sound-bite for anti-EU campaigns).

[Matt]

Just now, RPG said:

The USA was born out of (almost) one culture (with apologies to the native Indians), one language and was (post civil war) largely united with common values.

The EU comprises almost 30 nations with very different languages, cultures, economies and values. To try to harmonise that efficiently is just not possible without first defining what it means to be 'European' and expecting every EU nation to sacrifice much (not all) of its identity and culture and, certainly, sovereignty so that its political masters in Brussels could ensure that all the trains run on time across the EU.

If the aims of the Treaty of Rome, Common Market, European Economic Community, European Union are genuine then they are naive as they will never work. Many people (myself included) are firmly of the opinion that the aims are not genuine and that the real aim is centralised control of Europe, from Brussels by a small cadre of very powerful people. Verhofstadt's speech serves to reinforce that belief.

It would be a shame if each side became so entrenched that further dialogue became meaningless but I continually see nothing to change my own views and when I see Verhofstadt in power grabbing mode it just reinforces my opinion that the EU is a scam and that we are better off out of it.

1) USA was born out of multiple European powers predominantly, eventually consolidated to mostly English based. The civil war United on paper and divided at the same time. 

2) Which is exactly why I say in its infancy. 

3) Aim for the stars. That's how progress works. It's not naive, it's immensely ambitious. GV is 1 person, 1 voice. Like saying all Brexiteers are represented by Farage or that Tommy Robison dickhead. 

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

Dress it up how you like Matt (like I said earlier, its easy to present it well) but the fact remains that GV wants transfer of sovereignty from member states to EU. His words, not mine, not yours. He does go on to say in the video that (I paraphrase here) 'People complain about too much EU but the truth is there is not enough EU." The guy is power mad and would fit in perfectly at the top table at Brussels. I have no doubt he would get the trains running on time but at what cost?

Not dressing anything up, that is just the way it is. Like Remain voters only using Farage's photoshoped immigration poster or the bus. 

For the EU project to succeed, more trust is required and yes, that means investing in it. If you don't invest in a project, it fails completely or scope creep takes over. 

[Matt]

To paraphrase all this. You don't believe in the EU project, you don't trust those coordinating the project. I do.

You do trust the Brexit project (which has no published business case, scope, plan or actionable goals defined - by definition of project management, its not a project eveb really) and believe in the people in charge of the UK are capable of delivering something that's not defined. I don't. 

[MikeO]

16 minutes ago, RPG said:

On a personal level, I have absolutely no time whatsoever for Johnson, but, paradoxically, he has been far more effective imho as PM than either Truss or Sunak will ever be and he has had to endure a cruel witchhunt from MSM for several years.

 

[MikeO]

4 minutes ago, RPG said:

I did say that Johnson had provided MSM with a target rich environment. My comment on MSM is the absolute glee with which they stuck at Johnson like shit to a blanket to inflict every ounce of damage on him that they possibly could. MSM are no better than Johnson is perhaps the best way I can express my feelings on the matter.

The whole jist of that video though is that the mainstream media was almost universally pro Johnson, so who are these imaginary powers that caused his downfall? The Guardian maybe? The Independent? The Mirror?

No, it was his own MPs that got rid of him, nobody else. The mass circulation tabloids did everything in their power to keep him in office, total fallacy to say "the media" was responsible.

[Matt]

33 minutes ago, RPG said:

I don't trust EU because I have satisfied myself over many years that it cannot be trusted. I believe that there are many genuine people working within EU in the belief that they are working for a noble cause. But they will not be in the small group pulling the levers of power in Brussels. This is one of the reasons why I describe myself as pro Europe but anti EU.

As far as Brexit is concerned as it pertains to Farage, Robinson etc, then I refer you to my earlier post on the merits of democracy. It gives them the freedom to speak but then trusts the electorate to sort the wheat from the chaff. It's not a perfect system but its far better than any alternative I have seen proposed - including the EU model.

One other thing. Going back to your comment about EU in its infancy and it being a centuries long project. One of the main remain complaints about Brexit was that any benefits they reluctantly agreed would come from Brexit might take 50 years to show. I actually think it would be quicker but that is not my point. Why is waiting 50 years a problem but waiting centuries is ok?

In summary. I believe in Europe. I do not believe in the EU. I believe there are some very good people within EU but that many of those at the top table cannot be trusted and that the methodology for electing and replacing them is flawed to the point of corruption and that it will effectively become a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy.

I would far rather be a part of a Europe of allied independent nations. If that means I collect a few extra stamps in my passport then I can live with that. Economy will balance itself out with trade deals signed with countries outside EU and our own manufacturing industries (ravaged during our time as EU members) will have the opportunity to rebuild.

As far as the people running the UK at the moment are concerned (and I include Starmer and the Labour Party in this) I wouldn't trust any of them (with one or two exceptions) to run a bath. On a personal level, I have absolutely no time whatsoever for Johnson, but, paradoxically, he has been far more effective imho as PM than either Truss or Sunak will ever be and he has had to endure a cruel witchhunt from MSM for several years. Granted, he provided a target rich environment for the MSM but the way they went after him betrayed their own agenda. But, having said all of that, I would still rather have Johnson, Sunak or Truss as PM of an independent UK than be governed from Brussels by the President Of The United States Of Europe.

Replying on phone, so I'll just reply assuming number equals paragraph if that's OK.

1) That's true of any democracy, in any variation, in any democtratic country. 

2) freedom is part of the EU charter, as in any democratic state. The EU has the exact same principles on freedom of speech, it's considered a human right (a UN charter, talk about power mad!). My point was dont judge a movement based on the voice of 1 or 2 deluded fanatics. 

3) my whole issue with Brexit is that there's no plan, never has been. There's no tangible plan, no forecasted benefits (there's no precedent to model against), no actual logical reasoning. It very much has been a case, from my point of view, of the Conservatives constantly screwing things up or not delivering and it got to the point that the few at the top pointed the finger at the EU to misdirect the blame from themselves. Not saying the EU isn't entirely blameless for causing issues, as I've said before it's far from perfect. But the failures of the Conservatives just keep mounting and mounting, I feel the EU became a scapegoat for their ineptitude. My opinion based on looking form the inside out and then living under a Conservative rule for 18 months back in the UK. 

The EU has a plan. Its massively ambitious and extremely complicated. But there is a plan, there is a charter, which is the baseline for any project. That's why I have patience and belief. I've been a project manager, I've lead global rollouts. I understand how that part works, maybe thats why I accept the EU more readily. Its also why I don't have a problem with the timeline. When Brexit plans actually materialise, then maybe I'll be more accepting. But they still haven't and the reported deals we've done are very much a "see! It works! Just don't look at the terms please. Well actually, were not publishing them anyways". Very hard to trust something without a plan and being led by people who openly lied, some who have since admitted to lying, and a party who continue to screw the country into the ground.

4) same can be applied to the British government

5) decentralised alliances don't work. All alliances have 1 party thats got majority control, usually the biggest economy/military.

Lastly, largely agree with you funnily enough bar the witchhunt thing - hes a lying, cheating, self-serving, racist, out of touch, mysogistic scumbag who's pushed the limits too far, setting standards at ridiculous low and should be jailed. He's getting so much less than he deserves. But that just shows what a shitshow British politics is and has been, that even Boris is still a better candidate than Truss or Sunak. I'm hoping Labour win not just because of a distain for the Conservatives, but we need a break from 12+ years of their collective lies and deception. Probably for a different brand of lies and deception.

Ran out of time, so not proof read. 

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

Its cause and effect isn't it. The MSM willingly and happily poured fuel on the fire and were certainly less than impartial in the reporting of the news. The BBC were as bad as any. Andrew Marr for one off the top of my head. Jess Brammer (sp?) formerly of HuffPost as another.

I don't think anyone is saying that the media was directly responsible. Rather that the media saw an opportunity to pursue an agenda and gleefully took it. Johnson did present them with the opportunity but MSM definitely made the most of it - more, I believe, than they would have had the PM not been Johnson.

The BBC, as it always does and is bound to by it's charter, reported the news as it happened with no editorial position or opinion; if that had been breached they'd have been in big trouble; Andrew Marr will ask tough questions of whoever is put in front of him. Fact remains that the vast majority of mainstream media that took a line on the whole sorry saga desperately tried to keep the idiot in post, it was his party that shafted him, nobody else.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, MikeO said:

The BBC, as it always does and is bound to by it's charter, reported the news as it happened with no editorial position or opinion; if that had been breached they'd have been in big trouble; Andrew Marr will ask tough questions of whoever is put in front of him. Fact remains that the vast majority of mainstream media that took a line on the whole sorry saga desperately tried to keep the idiot in post, it was his party that shafted him, nobody else.

One other person, himself. Over and over. 

[Matt]

5 hours ago, RPG said:

There are two separate issues here I think:

1) Did Johnson behave inappropriately? Absolutely.

2) Did MSM give the story more air time than they otherwise would have and present a less than impartial narrative because it was Johnson? Absolutely.

2nd issue doesn't happen without the first (although I disagree with the witchhunt claim). 

[Matt]

5 hours ago, RPG said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10840863/Ministers-launch-probe-BBCs-Islingtonian-Left-wing-bias.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1371675/BBC-bias-BBC-news-left-wing-latest-study-comedy

Quote from a long standing former BBC contractor:

 

 

Robert Bobbings

I worked as a contractor within BBC. My Father spent 20 years working for BBC.Author has 512 answers and 872.7K answer views7y

Originally Answered: Is the accusation against the BBC biased and left winged fair?

The BBC is extremely bias towards a left wing view, but its been doing it so long that the majority of people cannot detect it.

It isn't biased towards a political party though.

A good example to explain this bias is to view how BBC news will cover a story. If the government in power cuts taxes, the question asked by the reporter will be how will the tax cut be funded. That question is a left wing question because it assumes that the government must maintain all services and tax cuts reduce the money the government has to spend.
A right wing viewpoint of that question would be why was the tax higher previously? The assumption being that the government was demanding more money from the public than it could justify. However, the BBC never asks such questions.

Another example might be that any activity that isn't regulated by the government is bad and unsafe. When the government introduces legislation, it is always commented by the BBC as being a good thing, and not as an extra cost on business that will ultimately mean the public have to pay more for the same service.

I doubt this answer will get many supporters, but this is due to the BBC having behaved like this since forever, and most British viewers don't know any different.

Are you seriously quoting the Fail and Express, 2 of the most ridiculously biased Tory rags, as defence that the beeb went after Johnson? They're only good for lighting bonfires. They also turned on Johnson too for the record. 

[Matt]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

I am quoting the independent reports they refer to.

You see, this is where the left hypocrisy is at its worst. I was criticised earlier in this thread for 'ignoring everything that has gone on' (even though I haven't) but as soon as national newspapers publishes a report on BBC left wing bias its perfectly ok (even though it isn't) for the left to ignore what they say.

That's double standards Matt.

So, yes, I am quoting these national newspapers.

If you had quoted national newspapers that didn't have a history of false reporting, I wouldn't argue (well, argue less/differently). They also do not provide their source, just claiming they have one as usual. Thats not just true for those 2 firelighters, its true of all tabloids. So you're not quoting their independent reports, you're quoting columns from known and proud right wing tabloids with a proven history of propoganda and flat out lies.

If you're referring to that guy (who is a self-proclaimed genius, check his profile) on Quora, I'm afraid that has no merit either since that's a social media blog, which also contradicts itself at the end. If the BBC has been like that forever, then it will have been right wing leaning during Labour rule, right? I can setup a Quora account and claim anything I want, means nothing. 

There isn't a bias, the BBC isn't allowed regarding news reporting. If the comedians are seen as more left wing, so what? Those shows run on viewings and if that's what's getting views, that's what keeps them on air. Also, the BBC isn't the only MSM in the UK, so making a general claim that MSM is left wing bias is unfounded. At best, you can claim the BBC is, despite it not being allowed to for reporting purposes. 

You didn't respond to the points I initially mentioned yesterday so you were ignoring. I don't see any point in going down that road though