Best Of

Oh.

It's Farage, Badenoch and Burnham for Laura K tomorrow.

Farage was interviewed before today. It’s still questionable though whether LK would have asked him why they invited Connolly to the conference.

Not mentioned either in this gushing piece, which is probably a better effort than Reform's PR dept could have managed themselves.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zdpke8kko

The BBC ARE Reform’s PR department. I hope the government are looking at their charter in regards to impartiality.

I’ve seen this bizarre idea elsewhere

In what possible way is the BBC “acting as PR” for Reform?

Maybe voters are just thinking for themselves and saying “yes I want a government that gets a grip on immigration and asylum, instead of promising this and then doing nothing. Or actually doing the opposite”

Hence the popularity of Reform. It is not some conspiracy at the BBC

Have you read this pile of sycophantic shite? I mean, he even blames Rayner for being late....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zdpke8kko

Yes.

I expect the BBC to report on Reform in the same manner they report on say the Greens or LibDems. Respectful but balanced reporting. Interview them. Quote what they say. Do an analysis of their manifesto and produce an ordered list of key ideas.

I don't expect 'I am going to wet myself this is soooo exciting'

It's going exactly the way MAGA did.

Politics as entertainment, completely different set of standards applied to the new party, Republicans (Conservatives) not sure whether to tag along or not while exhibiting a deep satisfaction at the distress of the Left, even as their own principles are those that are primarily subsumed.

The demographic bit has already happened. The distribution of the vote in 2024 was similar to that in the US, with high earners overwhelmingly voting for left-wing parties, while pensioners and those on low incomes (or on benefits) voting for the right.

That's all very well and may be true. But we were talking about the BBC reporting, specifically Chris Mason's oleaginous, fawning love-in with the Reform conference, in which he even omitted to mention some fairly controversial speakers.

The BBC is supposed to be objective and impartial, reporting the facts. It no longer is. Chris Mason is top bod, and is forever putting his own, subjective spin on things. The article referred to is just the worst of many such examples.

Oh.

It's Farage, Badenoch and Burnham for Laura K tomorrow.

Farage was interviewed before today. It’s still questionable though whether LK would have asked him why they invited Connolly to the conference.

Not mentioned either in this gushing piece, which is probably a better effort than Reform's PR dept could have managed themselves.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zdpke8kko

The BBC ARE Reform’s PR department. I hope the government are looking at their charter in regards to impartiality.

I’ve seen this bizarre idea elsewhere

In what possible way is the BBC “acting as PR” for Reform?

Maybe voters are just thinking for themselves and saying “yes I want a government that gets a grip on immigration and asylum, instead of promising this and then doing nothing. Or actually doing the opposite”

Hence the popularity of Reform. It is not some conspiracy at the BBC

Have you read this pile of sycophantic shite? I mean, he even blames Rayner for being late....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zdpke8kko

Yes.

I expect the BBC to report on Reform in the same manner they report on say the Greens or LibDems. Respectful but balanced reporting. Interview them. Quote what they say. Do an analysis of their manifesto and produce an ordered list of key ideas.

I don't expect 'I am going to wet myself this is soooo exciting'

FPT to Turbotubbs.....

If I was the suspicious type I might have thought Starmer himself was the lawyer who gave Ange the advice! This has worked out perfectly for him. He's got a shiny new team none of whom eat peas with their knife. From a government POV this couldn't have worked out better. Angie was never up to the job and despite protestations Starmer's much more comfortable without that particular loose cannon swinging around Downing Street.....

....No the story is about Ange herself and the snobbery that brought her down. The Telegraph and Mail have been campaigning against her for months. Pure snobbery. Someone on here yesterday called her 'Gobby'. I'm afraid that's what females from her background who are climbing the ladder are having to put up with.It is so depressing.... Just another scalp for some double barrelled nobody at the Telegraph

If Labour and its supporters tell themselves that "snobbery that brought her down" then they're screwed. Rayner did something minorly wrong, but for a value that is eye-watering for many voters. She denied wrongdoing, and then tried to blame others. She was in denial. All MPs (of all parties, not just Labour) need to learn lessons from this. Many are too thick, or greedy, or self-important, to do so.

The government's media management, and management of its MPs, is awful. They need to fix this. They need to develop a few simple messages and deliver them effectively. Since Starmer is incapable of the messaging, they need someone else. Lammy isn't it.

I don't think Rayner did deny wrongdoing. She fessed up, and wanted to pay the £40k. And she promptly and quite graciously accepted the findings of the Independent Adviser, falling on her sword immediately and admitting she'd been negligent.

Yes but the narrative of those hostile to Rayner is to paint as negative a picture of her as possible to forestall any attempt at rehabilitation in a year or two.

The fact remains she breached the Ministerial Code and that made her position untenable. Whether said Code is fit for purpose is another question - we want to ensure Government is as free as possible from allegations of corruption or inappropriate influence such as from third party lobbying companies - but the notion complex non-Government related private financial transactions need to be held to such a high standard - well, I understand why many would wish our Ministers to be beyond any kind of reproach especially since the Expenses Scandal - doesn't sit well with me and some latitude for genuine errors should exist (as distinct from deliberate and planned tax evasion).

She was a damn fool not to seek further advice as recommended.

But I'm remembering how but for a chance conversation with my accountant I would once have ended up paying the wrong rate of stamp duty too, and it would never even have crossed my mind to check.

There but for the grace of God...

Probably about the size of it. And it's not easy to distinguish between "get more advice because I'm covering myself" and "get more advice because you really need more advice".

Some other big-picture observations.

It's good to be back in a world where ethical judgements cause ministers to resign, not ethical advisers.

The chorus of "this wouldn't have happened if Rayner hadn't been so aggressive in opposition" is obviously claptrap.

Politicians of various colours have returned from worse things than this.

She only resigned after the ethical advisor told her she had broke the ministerial code. That's fine, but you don't extra Brownie points, especially after 2 weeks of deflecting and lying. It's a standard political scandal.