27 April, 2005

Blair's plane struck by lightning

So... Lightning does strike twice. First time being when he flew to Washington two years ago.
"BBC producer Will Walden said many of the journalists were asleep when the incident happened over London at about 1400 BST."

Is that what journalists usually do at two o'clock in the afternoon in the middle of a general election campaign? Haven't they got articles that need to be written and tight deadlines to be met? People generally sleep at night, and, as campaigning in the middle of the night is likely to be rather scarce wouldn't that be a good time to sleep?

One journalist was talking privately to Mr Blair and when she suggested the lightning strike could have been a missile, the Labour leader just shrugged his shoulders and "didn't bat an eyelid".

Sounds like Blair was asleep too.

26 April, 2005

Breaking news

There's been a defection from labour to the Lib Dems today.

It's Brian Sedgemore! What a shock. Can you believe it... i can't. Who would have thought that good ol' redder than red Brian would ever leave the bosom of the Labour party.

Hmmm... but wait a minute. Who the hell is Brian Sedgemore? I've never heard of him, and i don't think anyone else has either. Even the deputy Prime minister (that's John Prescott if you'd forgotten.. i regularly forget that Prescott even exists) claims he's never heard of him (slight exaggeration there, John?)

This is a non-story. No one will remember who Brian Sedgemore is in a week's time. They didn't know who he was last week and they won't know who he is next week.

I don't know which constituency he represented for 27 years. It's irrelevant anyway when you learn that he isn't even standing at this election. Do the lib dems believe that his defection will bring their party more votes? They can't seriously think that.

The headline on this story should be...
"Some former labour old codger emerges from the woodwork of the backbenches and tells us to vote for the nice Mr. Kennedy and not the nasty lying Tory Blair"

It's a non-story. If he had been a candidate at this election then it would have carried more weight, but he knows he has got nothing to lose. Most importantly... his seat.



Brian whatshisname asks Charlie Kennedy "who am i?" while Charlie looks on with a blank expression on his face.

No hair today... political career gone tomorrow

Oh no... It's back. I thought it had receded, but the importance of politicians' hair upon their electoral success has been brought to my attention again.

Bald truth about attracting voters

Apparently bald/balding politicians are at a major disadvantage. So my tongue-in-cheek remarks in the past about women voting for the party leader with the best hair-do may well contain some truth. Not that that little theory was my own creation, the mainstream media helpfully tipped me off a couple of elections ago. As the Blair/New Labour image machine sparked into life in the mid-90s it brought with it an increased focus on image rather than the substance of party policies.

Some might think i'm being sexist. If so, then i blame the BBC et al for bringing this image thing up at every election. I honestly don't believe that male voters' (in general) have their opinions swayed a great deal by how a politcian looks. You only have to look at the evidence from past elections to see that that belief holds water (and plenty of it).

It was Blair that increased the number of women voting for his party. Obviously Neil Kinnock just didn't appeal to them. (Thatcher's hair was clarly something Kinnock just couldn't compete with)


I mean, just look at the evidence.

Poor guy, he never had a chance did he.


What was Labour thinking of. They let a bald man lead their party to 3 consecutive general election defeats and even when he almost got Labour into govt they threw it away at the last minute with the victory celebration (otherwise known as the Sheffield rally, the night before the polls opened). Looking back it's hard to figure out why Kinnock was leader for so long. Was there no one else seen as being a suitable leader? (a bit like a latter day tory party). At least with the tories you know they will elect a new leader after every defeat. So that's something to look forward to.

Hair apparent (sorry I couldn't resist it)
If hair really is so important then I suggest Michael Howard resigns immediately and...

Step forth Mr. Boris Johnson... your country needs you!

It's ok Boris, Mr. Howard probably won't stand down yet.. at least not for a few days.

24 April, 2005

The blatant bias of the BBC

The news that BBC employees provided microphones for hecklers during a speech last Wednesday by Tory leader Michael Howard is absolutely scandalous! Heads should roll, and not just of those immediately involved. This incident goes to show how virulent the culture of left-wing bias is in the corporation which is supposed to be politically impartial, but time and time again evidence shows that this obviously isn't the case.
Two of the slogans the hecklers were shouting were....
"Michael Howard is a liar"
"You can only trust Tony Blair"
Yeah, maybe they're right. That's the kind of guy that Blair is. Trustworthy.
(don't mention the dossier)

The conservatives have made a complaint. A letter of complaint to the BBC. They should be making this into a much bigger issue. The letter should be just the beginning.

They claim the BBC equipped three hecklers at the meeting in Horwich near Bolton last Wednesday with microphones to “generate a false news story...and embarrass or ridicule the leader of the Conservative Party”.

Tories Accuse BBC of Bias after Hecklers Target Howard

The tories haven't got a chance of electoral victory when they're not only fighting Labour, but also the BBC. It's about time the BBC balanced the political leanings of it's employees a little more evenly. It's well known that a large percentage of BBC staff are on the left of politics, and those in the minority who are more conservative generally keep their heads down.

It's not always easy to figure out what is bias and what isn't. It's hard to prove that a specific article is biased. In my opinion the BBC is as biased as they think they can get away with. Subtle propaganda is probably the most effective, as it can be drip fed to the masses much of the time.

The BBC does report the heckling story on the election page but it's only a text link.
Tory anger over BBC heckler show

The scandal is more important than that. It should be the top story.