Question Time LiveBlog 9th June 2011

Question Time LiveBlog 9th June 2011

>> THURSDAY, JUNE 09, 2011

Question Time comes tonight fromNorwich. On the panel we have Andrew "Let's be a proud international aid superpower" Mitchell, ex-local MP who lost his seat in 2010 Charles Clarke, anti-Easter Egg campaigner Jo Swinson, anti-man campaigner Germaine Greer and Peter Hitchens. The LiveBlog will also stay open for the bizarreness of This Week, with Andrew Neil, Michael Portillo and Alastair Campbell. Expect the Blue Nun Bingo to be as aggressively competitive as ever. David Vance, TheEye and David Mosque will be moderating the abuse here from 10:30pm. See you later!

The Archbishop Of Canterbury, Polly Toynbee with A Beard

Wow, the Archbishop of Canterbury keeps his beard but discards his sandals for Doc Martens and gives Cameron a good kicking. Naturally the BBC has an orgasm.

The tone and strength of language used in Dr Williams' attack on the coalition has taken ministers by surprise. Accusing the government of being committed to "radical, long-term policies for which no-one voted" is an overtly political statement and one Downing Street has quickly rebuffed. But they can't ignore the broad sweep of criticism or questioning of their mandate to govern.

Thus warbled Jo Coburn alleged to be BBC Political Correspondent. Well, Jo, one effective strategy might well be to ignore it. After all Williams has form on this and his attachment to the Guardian/BBC zeitgeist is as established a fact as Polly Toynbee’s property portfolio in Tuscany. Nobody outside the NW1/Oxbridge media/academic elite gives a fig for what he thinks. He is head of a religious structure that is as empty a husk as the official cult of Rome in the early years of the first millennium. If you want fervour and commitment you go to the evangelicals or other faiths. Williams and his ilk have done more to secularise our culture than any humanist league of bores – so why give him any more oxygen? The other option, however, is to rip into him tooth and claw, ignoring any screeches from the great and the good. Like Prince Charles Williams believes he has a pass to step up and pontificate from a richly endowed soapbox and hector and lecture us without fear of response except from elements of the tabloid press. Maybe it’s time those soapboxes were kicked away from under their feet. Tim Montgomerie has already entered the fray with a blistering exposure of the Archbishop’s hypocrisy over social issues. What irritates me is the prelate’s claim that he articulates the concerns of Mr & Mrs Public.

At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context," he said. In a wide-ranging attack, he accused the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition of creating "anxiety and anger" in the country by introducing reforms without sufficient debate. ......... "Government badly needs to hear just how much plain fear there is around questions such as these at present," he said.

What he means, of course, is the "anxiety and anger and fear" being expressed by the cartels and special interest groups that feed at the trough currently overflowing with taxpayer’s money, particularly in the field of education, the law, health and social services. If he really wished to articulate the fears of the silent majority in this country, the people who try to obey the law, pay their own way without incurring massive debt and accept the fact that they have responsibilities as well as rights he would be following a different path by Asking why it is that so much of our daily life is now decided by faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats from Brussels Voicing the concerns of the poorest elements in our society worried by the apparent inability of successive governments to confront the issue of unrestricted immigration. Questioning the wisdom of allowing those guilty of violence, murder and intimidation back onto the streets within a few years of their crime. Demanding how it is that the “rights” of criminals and terrorists are of a higher order than the public’s right to go about its legal business without interference or assault. Condemning those who use taxpayer’s money without regard to transparency, fiscal rectitude and effective and meaningful outcomes. But then he wouldn’t get the great and good seal of approval from James Naughtie, Simon Jenkins and Polly Toynbee and that would never do

WAVING, NOT DROWNING?

Let's be clear where the BBC stands. Obama has done a great job, he has healed some of the wounds created by the evil Bush, oh, and he's saved the US from another great depression. The rest is detail, or so the BBC would have us believe. Naturally, the reverse is true and so the BBC has to spin even harder to sustain the Obama-delusion. Take THIS report from Stephanie "Two Eds" Flanders. The shock horror news is that "some" parts of the US economy are "slowing down" rather than "moving towards a quicker recovery". The good news is that "recoveries are never linear, you get setbacks". Stephanie pretends the US economy has moved out of recession (it hasn't) but is now going through a soft patch. In this way she seeks to obscure the central fact that Obama has done more than anyone to delay the recovery through his massive injections of QE and the truth is that his "stimulus" hasn't stimulated anything.

WHEN BISHOPS ATTACK...

I see that the BBC is giving massive prominence to our Sharia-compliant leftist loving Archbishop of Canterbury's latest attack on the Coalition. Williams waffles on about the Government introducing reforms no-one voted for. Can't seem to recall the Druid taking to his platform during the Labour years to denounce them on a similar basis but I suppose since this story conforms to the BBC narrative about "fear and anger" it was always going to be given a blast.

FLYING PORKIES...

The BBC's climate change page is aptly named. There is a torrent, a blizzard, a hurricane of the stuff - with helpful links to almost every piece of claptrap alarmist propaganda that the corporation has ever published. The Conservative MEP Roger Helmer is not happy about this and he wrote to DG Mark Thompson to tell him so. Of course, Mr Thompson was too busy to answer directly matters he regarded so trivial, especially, no doubt, as Mr Helmer is a hated eurosceptic and totally unimportant in the BBC worldview, so he delegated the task. And here's the surprise. The woman he chose for the task is Liz Howell, who - it seems - has just been appointed to the post of Head of BBC Weather. Quite what the qualifications are for this elevated, role, I don't know. So I googled her. I expected a Met office lackey, but no; - I could find no trace of any such mention of related qualifications. She has also risen virtually without trace, her previous post being only a new media editor. Despite this apparent significant lack of relevant scientific training, she nonetheless has been swift to put one of our elected representatives in his place. This is the opening paragraph of her reply to Mr Helmer's complaint:

Thank you for your correspondence concerning the Climate Change page on the BBC's Weather website. Firstly, it is worth pointing out that in terms of impartiality, the BBC has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

There, straightaway, re-iterated, in 35 words, we have all the arrogance, the partisan politics, the nonsense and the lies contained in he BBC's stance on this topic. Miss Howell betrays that she hasn't got a clue about or interest in scientific methodology, and also that she will pig-headedly stick to the carefully-concocted major lie that there is a "consensus" on the topic. She also confirms, creepily, that the BBC has "come to a view" on this topic. Of course, she doesn't say how; evidently, transparency does not come into such corporation deliberation. Ms Howell further demonstrates - as this reply will have been approved by His Highness Mr T himself - that this attitude has been engineered, is condoned and has been approved at the very apex of the corporation. Ms Howell goes on to provide an excuse for why there might not many climate sceptic stories on her propaganda page (I could find none today) - apparently her "aggregation index" means that any such material - being "transient" - would only be there for a few weeks. Finally, she condescendingly tells Mr Helmer as a sop that his worries might not be in vain. She states:

...it might be possible to add something to the permanent links on the page which gives a clear sense of the divisions that exist on this issue.

And pigs, I suggest, might fly. Test one might be at least a mention of yesterday's report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation that energy bills have risen by hundreds of pounds a year because of ludicrous warmist stealth taxes. It's reported by the Daily Mail here and here; but there's not a peep about the Foundation or the report on the BBC website. h/t a Cambridge friend - thank you. Mr Helmer's letter and its reply are not available, as far as I can find, online. I have a copy but have not posted it in full for reasons of space. The key points are above - there is nothing that qualifies Ms Howell's position.