We are aware that the press can conspire with a politician to keep a secret from the public. It was done in the case of Franklin Roosevelt: his disability was very largely hidden from view so that many Americans were unaware that they had a President dependent upon a wheelchair. That is a conspiracy of its time that I would hope will never have to be perpetrated again.
But what is clear is that another such conspiracy is being attempted now. Only small parts of the media, such as Michael Crick on Channel 4, are willing to expose the fact that Theresa May's presidential image is being burnished by the removal of opposition.
May is not meeting the public.
And as is now very clear, she only takes pre-vetted questions from journalists who face the risk of their microphone being turned off if they go off topic.
The One Show was excruciating.
And the public aren't being told that far from being 'strong and stable May is 'weak and insecure' about her ability to withstand the normal scrutiny of an election campaign. It's only because she is a Tory that she gets away with it.
Where does this lead? First, to an even greater loss of confidence in the media.
Second, to effective state control of the media.
Third then to the dismantling of key components in democracy which is dependent on effective political and media opposition to survive.
The Tories have always had an absolute last for power.
In May they are demonstrating a lust for absolute power.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think we are nearer to media control of the state than state control of the media.
But when they work hand in hand we have fascism
And that is what we are getting
It seems almost unthinkable, but that’s how it’s shaping up. And Rupert Murdoch making threats that the BBC ‘better watch out’ is chilling.
I gave the “One Show” a miss. Sadly May does nothing for me I think ‘weak and insecure’ sums it up well or as Peter May says on Progressive Pulse ‘Adrift and Visionless” http://www.progressivepulse.org/society/strong-and-stable-adrift-and-visionless-more-like/
I watched the repeat when I heard it was so bad
And it was truly bad
Thank heavens I ditched my T.V some years ago and no longer contribute to the neo-fascism of the BBC and its anti-intellectual journalism dumbed-down to destruction.
Don’t know how you managed to watch it, Richard, presumably you took an ant-emetic beforehand?
Curiosity
Have just read Ivan Horrock’s piece. Coupled with Tom pride’s blog today (https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/bbc-reporter-close-relative-of-2-tory-mps-accused-of-collaborating-with-theresa-may-on-planted-questions) it has further deepened my fearful gloom as to where the country is being led, and the ensuing results. It is all deeply concerning and, as you say, moving in a fascist direction. Such collusion between the State & the MSM is a very powerful combination against which there is little short-term remedy other than making maximum use of Social Media which, in spite of its profile, simply doesn’t carry the weight of the MSM. Once again one comes back to the weakness of the Labour Party’s opposition in terms of offering any credible check or balance to May’s rabid opportunism, professional incompetence and ego-driven personality disorder. It’s not looking good, is it?
compare the treatment of Theresa May by the BBC with the interview of Jeremy Corbyn on Today, yeaterday afternoon,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08p5l4d
starts approx minute 8.25
I caught it in the car yearerday and it sounded rather hectoring, pushed leading questions to the point of talking over him and was somewhat openly disparaging,
will we see Theresa May subjected to a similar approach?
I doubt it
But the fact remains he gives the perception of not being able to answer a direct yes or no question .
Instead he goes off on tangents regarding its abstract minutiae.
As I understand it May s Govt have said equivocally that in extremis if all else fails they will
leave and default to the WTO position.
Why cannot Corbyn either confirm or deny that will be Labour s position. ?
Simple question . Not advanced calculus.
By not doing so he is exposing himself to charges of obfuscation which are seized upon by MSM
and dutifully fed to the open mouths of the great unwashed …. to his evident detriment.
Actually, as no one knows the answer to negotiations – which is what he said – he can’t say what the outcome will be
Credit where due on this – he told the whole truth
This is truly horrendous and further proof to my oft mentioned theory that ‘when you think the lowest, most banal point has been reached, a trap door opens to reveal hiddne depths of vapidity.’
The Torygraph has daily been producing huge ‘glamourous’ pictures of May on a daily basis and it is clear that her image as an impressive looking stateswoman, power-dressed to kill is being flogged like hell. Tha lack of domestic policy, the grotesque vacuity, her personal failings and self-contradictions are being ignored as if the whole thing were a giant photoshop exercise.
This is very dangerous as a groomed populace is clearly falling for it.
The idea that we vote for local representatives rather than a prime minister/president appears to have been almost entirely lost in the ‘vote for Theresa May for Brexit’ sloganeering. A piece of conservative blurb has just come through my door in which no mention of the candidate’s local policy positions are made, it is entirely a piece about how she agrees with Theresa May on Brexit. The back even includes a statement from May and a section entitled “what this election is about” which is entirely about Brexit.
I counted one instance of a candidate pledge (“I pledge that I will not block brexit”) and the following count for slogans/references to the national party/Theresa May:
– Prime minister – 3
– Theresa May – 7
– Strong and stable leadership – 5
– Brexit – 5
– Coalition of chaos/coalition/weak and unstable coalition – 4
– Will of the people 1
Really terrifying is the last section which says “[we will] build a more secure and united nation by taking action against the extremists who try to divide our society and standing up to the separatists who want to break up our country” – put together with her saboteurs language this kind of talk is chilling.
Are we being set-up for a massive election fraud? The only reason May won’t meet the public is the fear that she will provoke outbursts of hostility, in contrast to Corbyn’s apparent popularity. I don’t know enough about the mechanics of ballot box custody or counting procedures to say. What audit procedures and processes if any are in place? We know that the company that has the contract to oversee much of this is owned by a Tory MP. What scrutiny will be applied and by who? People will say, but the Tories have a big lead over Labour. Who audits the opinion polls?
There are billions of £’s at stake. Crimes have been committed for much less. So much is hidden.Secrecy is an abuser’s charter.
I think the checking is OK
The fraud is before the vote
I was thinking about the problems confronting Labour – just as I heard that our local Lib Dems have come out not wanting to join a progressive coalition in my area and after Labour had apparently expelled some loyal local members who were thinking of doing the same in their area.
The large town that I commute to work 5 days a week is an ex railway town where the locomotive works is long gone and the carriage works is a shadow of its former self that just seems to put together kits of trains manufactured abroad now.
I work with people banging on about immigration when really the problem is the emigration of work from our cities and regions that started along time ago when the process of ridding the country of working people who were more prone to voting Labour started in earnest under Margaret Hilda Thatcher (and continues to this day under Osbourne and people like May).
I can think of no other benefit to be derived from getting rid of jobs other than changing the make up of those who can be bothered to vote.
Labour’s travails are not therefore just some form of natural progression (although the Labour response to these challenges has been poor to be honest) – they are the intended consequences of Tory political and economic policy since 1979.
Just listened to the interview with Jeremy Corbyn conducted by Laura Kusenberg yesterday. Whatever anyone thinks of Corbyn, Kusenberg had no right to be so rude and so inept, in a journalistic sense, as to make her preferences so clear.
Nothing so much as disgraceful and partial journalism of which the BBC. and Ms Kusenberg, should be ashamed.
best thing I did a few years ago was get rid og the ‘box’ and deny the British Balderdash Corporation of £147 pounds a year. You get a visit from a Capita TV licence man (on commission) but as long as you don’t watch any live stuff -no problem. The sooner the Beeb is gone the better-it was valuable in the past but no longer.
I have some sympathy
But not enough to follow your example
On a very personal level I cannot stand Kusenberg at all. The way she sneers at certain politicians is just not on. Every interview she does is about HER.
Some of Channel 4 New’s younger personnel get out of order too. They seem to think that their job is to make all politicians look ridiculous even if they want to put forward something new and genuinely helpful.
Nor can I understand how the BBC thinks employing Nick Robinson is a good idea. I know the man has been unwell but I spent a week monitoring his ‘work’ earlier this year on Radio 4 and that man’s journalistic standards are so low he should be working for The Sun. Actually…………make it the Daily Star. Or what about the Beano? No – wait – that’s not fair on the children!
As I keep saying, PSR -get rid of the T.V, save £147 a year and have the satisfaction of nor funding this garbage and start using alternative news sources. You also improve mental health by not having to get irate listening to these propagandists of state economic ideology. Go on, you can do it!
PSR
I live in a Con/Lab marginal constituency, with the Lib Dem vote enabling the Tories to win- just.
I asked the local Lib Dem local councillor whether they would consider withdrawing to keep the Tories out?
He replied that they would not, indeed he said keeping Labour out was more important, .
I suggested that Mrs May was becoming very UKIP and authoritarian. He thought Not and that Labour was an extremist organisation!
There goes the notion that the Lib Dems are in any way left! God help us!
Indeed
But some of them did enjoy an alliance with the Tories
The Liberal Dems have betrayed their fine radical tradition -they betrayed it many years ago.
Paul
All I pick up is that the Lib-Dems LOATHE their Labour rivals.
I’m not sure if it goes the other way but I bet its six of one and half a dozen of the other.
In my experience Labour folk are often at least if not more interested in trashing the LibDems than they are the Tories. It is some weird tribal thing.
Clearly a few people have missed Labours recent expulsion of long standing members in SW Surrey who wanted to support a alliance candidate, in this case an NHA candidate who would be a strong opponent to Hunt. Local LibDems were supportive.
I fear that a some long standing Labour tribal prejudices might be showing through in comments…
PSR
Richard
I can only say what happens here, I don’t mean to say that Labour are not tribal elsewhere?
Indeed there is no way that Labour should not agree, say, with the Greens to tactically coincide.
But I was shocked that the Lib Dem could not accept that there is a Tory rightward lurch? Surely the proposed use of Henry VIII non parliamentary powers alone should make us concerned? Not so.
Nevertheless reading this blog and a few others, I believe that I am witnessing a a renewal of the politics of common good. It needs a new form for the 21st century. Here we are.
I am firmly of the view that, with an unassailable majority, she will abolish the Monarchy and declare herself ‘Dear Leader’ for life.
I am of the opinion that she will not.
Nor, Richard, do I, with European Jewish ancestry, think that what we have or may get in the UK now and after the general election bears any resemblance to fascism. Quite frankly your remark is an insult to the memory of those who suffered under fascism or fought against it. A despicable, hysterical little comment.
I was not in anyway disrespecting anyone when making that comment.
I am well aware of the suffering of Jews, and not just from the Nazis. But ant-semitism is not the only thing that defines fascism and it would be wrong to say it was. That’s not insensitive. That’s awareness that others can also suffer from the actions of a fascist state. I would hope you could see that too.
Roger, as someone from a Jewish backround (the clue is in the surname!) I 100% agree with Richard. We can’t define fascism purely in judeo-phobic terms but how it marginalises ans scapegoats other groups as well.
have you not noticed Government language over the last few years:
Those that get up in the morning
Those that have their blinds drawn
Skivers, strivers,
Swarms (of immigrants)
Doing the right thing.
Think of the treatment of the poor/ill/vulnerable the sufferings of those with mental health whose conditions have worsened because of a bogus economic ideology that wants to keep the assets of the wealthy at a high level. Look at the treatment of the Greeks, called , ‘lazy’ and ‘feckless’ and now with millions unable to get health care.
Sorry Roger, as a person of jewish background I would hop that you would be MORE sensitive to these portents or does it not bother because it is not coming through your front room window?
I think there has been enough said on this now unless Roger wants a right of reply expressed in reasonable terms