Bbc Bias - Page 2 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, exile said:

I don't think I follow. in what sense?

Fairly simplistic answer, but both parties called referenda which they lost but then subsequently picked up a lot of sympathetic support.

Stuck on the Andy Marr documentary there. Pretty well made I thought, was only going to watch a few minutes but ended up sitting through most of it...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Fairly simplistic answer, but both parties called referenda which they lost but then subsequently picked up a lot of sympathetic support.

Stuck on the Andy Marr documentary there. Pretty well made I thought, was only going to watch a few minutes but ended up sitting through most of it...

 

Are you sure Labour "lost" the referendum in 1979?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Devolutionist Labour lost. Certainly big problem for them was the divisions among the party, whereas in 2014 the SNP were 100% behind Yes.

 

In 1979, the number of folk in the Labour party who wanted a YES vote were in the minority.  Of that, I am absolutely certain.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

In 1979, the number of folk in the Labour party who wanted a YES vote were in the minority.  Of that, I am absolutely certain.  

Scottish Labour or UK wide?

There's no doubt it took Mrs T and the following 18 years to build up a significant momentum behind devolution though.

Watched the rest of Andy Marr there. Was interesting to see Donald Dewar's opening speech to the parliament, if you didn't know better you'd think he was a committed Scottish nationalist!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

Scottish Labour or UK wide?

There's no doubt it took Mrs T and the following 18 years to build up a significant momentum behind devolution though.

Watched the rest of Andy Marr there. Was interesting to see Donald Dewar's opening speech to the parliament, if you didn't know better you'd think he was a committed Scottish nationalist!

 

Labour was split UK wide.

If you take a look at old Hansard debates from the late 70's you'll find plenty of English Labour MP's were deeply opposed to Scotland and Wales getting their own parliaments. Perhaps the most prominent anti-devolution Labour MP was left winger Eric Heffer who argued against it along the lines that it would create "class division" and provoke anti-English sentiment. :rolleyes:

Almost all Welsh Labour MP's were totally opposed to devolution for Wales too.

You should also look at how many Labour MP's supported the infamous "40% rule". This is the list:

Leo Abse (Pontypool)
Sydney Bidwell (Southall)
Betty Boothroyd (West Bromwich)
Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)
Maureen Colquhoun (Northampton North)
George Cunningham (Islington South)
Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
Joseph Dean (Leeds West)
Peter Doig (Dundee West)
Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden)
Ioan Evans (Aberdare)
Martin Flannery (Sheffield Hillsborough)
Ted Fletcher (Darlington)
Ted Garrett (Wallsend)
Helene Hayman (Welwyn and Hatfield)
Eric Heffer (Liverpool Walton)
Robert Hughes (Aberdeen North)
Adam Hunter (Dunfermline)
Alexander Lyon (York)
Joan Maynard (Sheffield Brightside)
John Mendelson (Penistone)
Eric Moonman (Basildon)
Stanley Newens (Harlow)
Eric Ogden (Liverpool West Derby)
Arthur Palmer (Bristol North East)
John Parker (Barking Dagenham)
Josephine Richardson (Barking)
Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West)
George Rodgers (Chorley)
Renee Short (Wolverhampton North East)
Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Leslie Spriggs (St Helens)
Ronald Thomas (Bristol North West)
Audrey Wise (Coventry South West)

Tam Dalyell has said in the past that Donald Dewar only really took an interest in devolution during the Thatcher era as it was a vote winner. "The Father of Scotland" my arse. We owe him nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers. Noticeable there were only only 4 Scottish MPs on that list.

I certainly don't subscribe to the view that Dewar was the father of Scotland, but he did carry the devolution torch for John Smith, as from what I've heard before, Blair (contrary to his comments in the programme) would have happily ditched it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/09/2016 at 1:33 AM, Toepoke said:

Fairly simplistic answer, but both parties called referenda which they lost but then subsequently picked up a lot of sympathetic support.

 

 

Ok... I am still trying to get my head round this. I can see that the indyref could have fired up (ex) Labour supporters to support the indy cause, which translated into switching to SNP in 2015. But I can't figure who was thinking what in 1979, just don't remember that.

Maybe (ex) SNP supporters switched to Labour  because by granting a home rule/devolution chance they saw Labour as pro-Scottish (= the sympathy vote). (And maybe those supporters switching were themselves ex Labour coming back into the fold after 74...

But also I have a feeling that there was more fragile sense of national self-confidence (not just due to 1978 world cup!)

Also, maybe the existence in Scottish Parliament and a visible core support for independence was a factor. In 79, devolution became a 'lost cause' and people dispersed with nothing to do but put their banners away get back to Westminster business as usual, whereas the existence of an ongoing nationalist 'alternative government in waiting' in Holyrood was a heartland to rally around.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

 Blair (contrary to his comments in the programme) would have happily ditched it.

 

I can believe that - whatever was the vote-winner.  If devo had lost more support in England than it gained in Scotland, he would not have done it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Labour was split UK wide.

If you take a look at old Hansard debates from the late 70's you'll find plenty of English Labour MP's were deeply opposed to Scotland and Wales getting their own parliaments. Perhaps the most prominent anti-devolution Labour MP was left winger Eric Heffer who argued against it along the lines that it would create "class division" and provoke anti-English sentiment. :rolleyes:

Almost all Welsh Labour MP's were totally opposed to devolution for Wales too.

You should also look at how many Labour MP's supported the infamous "40% rule". This is the list:

Leo Abse (Pontypool)
Sydney Bidwell (Southall)
Betty Boothroyd (West Bromwich)
Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)
Maureen Colquhoun (Northampton North)
George Cunningham (Islington South)
Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
Joseph Dean (Leeds West)
Peter Doig (Dundee West)
Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden)
Ioan Evans (Aberdare)
Martin Flannery (Sheffield Hillsborough)
Ted Fletcher (Darlington)
Ted Garrett (Wallsend)
Helene Hayman (Welwyn and Hatfield)
Eric Heffer (Liverpool Walton)
Robert Hughes (Aberdeen North)
Adam Hunter (Dunfermline)
Alexander Lyon (York)
Joan Maynard (Sheffield Brightside)
John Mendelson (Penistone)
Eric Moonman (Basildon)
Stanley Newens (Harlow)
Eric Ogden (Liverpool West Derby)
Arthur Palmer (Bristol North East)
John Parker (Barking Dagenham)
Josephine Richardson (Barking)
Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West)
George Rodgers (Chorley)
Renee Short (Wolverhampton North East)
Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Leslie Spriggs (St Helens)
Ronald Thomas (Bristol North West)
Audrey Wise (Coventry South West)

Tam Dalyell has said in the past that Donald Dewar only really took an interest in devolution during the Thatcher era as it was a vote winner. "The Father of Scotland" my arse. We owe him nothing.

Always with the lists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, exile said:

Ok... I am still trying to get my head round this. I can see that the indyref could have fired up (ex) Labour supporters to support the indy cause, which translated into switching to SNP in 2015. But I can't figure who was thinking what in 1979, just don't remember that.

Maybe (ex) SNP supporters switched to Labour  because by granting a home rule/devolution chance they saw Labour as pro-Scottish (= the sympathy vote). (And maybe those supporters switching were themselves ex Labour coming back into the fold after 74...

But also I have a feeling that there was more fragile sense of national self-confidence (not just due to 1978 world cup!)

Also, maybe the existence in Scottish Parliament and a visible core support for independence was a factor. In 79, devolution became a 'lost cause' and people dispersed with nothing to do but put their banners away get back to Westminster business as usual, whereas the existence of an ongoing nationalist 'alternative government in waiting' in Holyrood was a heartland to rally around.

Your last point could be a factor in the decline of the SNP after 79. Or could it have been the no confidence vote, or even Argentina?!!!

There was quite a bit of indifference towards the referendum, even among the SNP, due to the limitations of the proposed Scottish Assembly. 

Plus the UK itself was a bit more united then. The Tories won 22 seats in Scotland in 1979!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Your last point could be a factor in the decline of the SNP after 79. Or could it have been the no confidence vote, or even Argentina?!!!

There was quite a bit of indifference towards the referendum, even among the SNP, due to the limitations of the proposed Scottish Assembly. 

Plus the UK itself was a bit more united then. The Tories won 22 seats in Scotland in 1979!

There's also the fact that the SNP was in a bit of internal turmoil itself after the first referendum with the 79 group expulsions and all that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Toepoke said:

There was quite a bit of indifference towards the referendum, even among the SNP, due to the limitations of the proposed Scottish Assembly. 

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that (and similar SNP ambivalence in the run-up to 1997).

Many people would have been persuaded that the Assembly was a poor offer, and there would soon be a better version (the Devo Max of its day?) - as even the Tories promised a better home rule offer to come, but then reneged on when they got into power.

 

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SNP were more right wing in those days...  and I would not underestimate the effect of Argentina 78, on the nations confidence....   

However a dishonourable mention should go to Brian Wilson( ex Labour MP for Ayrshire) he was very much involved in the 40% rule before he got elected. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stocky said:

The SNP were more right wing in those days...  and I would not underestimate the effect of Argentina 78, on the nations confidence....   

However a dishonourable mention should go to Brian Wilson( ex Labour MP for Ayrshire) he was very much involved in the 40% rule before he got elected. 

 

 

 

Exactly, the whole point of the 79 Group was to try to pull the SNP further to the left. A lot of the traditionalists in the SNP didn't like that idea. Some still don't. One of them was on this board for a good while. The SNP vote fell by nearly half between the 74 and 79 elections. Most of those votes went to the Tories. Some of the votes went to Labour which might make it look like Labour increased their popularity but in reality it was more to do with the SNP in-fighting resulting in not being able to sustain the surge which brought 11 seats in 1974.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2016 at 7:01 AM, Toepoke said:

Cheers. Noticeable there were only only 4 Scottish MPs on that list.

I certainly don't subscribe to the view that Dewar was the father of Scotland, but he did carry the devolution torch for John Smith, as from what I've heard before, Blair (contrary to his comments in the programme) would have happily ditched it.

 

Blair's infamous "just like a parish council" gave away what he thought of the new Scottish parliament. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Came across this - report into media bias against Corbyn

(may have missed it - and any coverage on here - during summer holiday period 2016)

Should be shocking if you think BBC (TV) impartial, not surprising if not

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Corbynresearch.pdf

Executive summary

  • 465 online articles and 40 prime time news bulletins assessed
  • Twice as much airtime given to critical, rather than supportive voices
  • Huge imbalance in favour of issues pushed by Corbyn critics on early evening BBC and ITV bulletins – especially pronounced in headline stories
  • Strong tendency within BBC main evening news for reporters to use pejorative language when describing Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters
  • Domination of views opposed to the Labour leadership in all but one of the online outlets sampled, and across both left and right - leaning titles
  • Online-only news sites relatively balanced in their coverage, as well as the BBC online

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, exile said:

Came across this - report into media bias against Corbyn

(may have missed it - and any coverage on here - during summer holiday period 2016)

Should be shocking if you think BBC (TV) impartial, not surprising if not

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Corbynresearch.pdf

Executive summary

  • 465 online articles and 40 prime time news bulletins assessed
  • Twice as much airtime given to critical, rather than supportive voices
  • Huge imbalance in favour of issues pushed by Corbyn critics on early evening BBC and ITV bulletins – especially pronounced in headline stories
  • Strong tendency within BBC main evening news for reporters to use pejorative language when describing Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters
  • Domination of views opposed to the Labour leadership in all but one of the online outlets sampled, and across both left and right - leaning titles
  • Online-only news sites relatively balanced in their coverage, as well as the BBC online

 

No surprises there.  BBC particularly shocking in the airtime they've given to Farage and UKIP over the last few years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎06‎/‎02‎/‎2015 at 7:17 PM, hunchy said:

Good to see the BBC keeping there impartiality. Right before the rugby tonight the show an advert for an coming drama which uses Jerusalem as its audio. Wonder what they will show before the Scotland game?

Anyone else go to any lengths to be desperately offended?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exile said:

Came across this - report into media bias against Corbyn

(may have missed it - and any coverage on here - during summer holiday period 2016)

Should be shocking if you think BBC (TV) impartial, not surprising if not

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Corbynresearch.pdf

Executive summary

  • 465 online articles and 40 prime time news bulletins assessed
  • Twice as much airtime given to critical, rather than supportive voices
  • Huge imbalance in favour of issues pushed by Corbyn critics on early evening BBC and ITV bulletins – especially pronounced in headline stories
  • Strong tendency within BBC main evening news for reporters to use pejorative language when describing Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters
  • Domination of views opposed to the Labour leadership in all but one of the online outlets sampled, and across both left and right - leaning titles
  • Online-only news sites relatively balanced in their coverage, as well as the BBC online

 

I posted a copy and the BBC shit response a wee while ago, might have been somewhere else. It's mental. In fact it was something different but same idea, just a specific example.

"The simmering row between Jeremy Corbyn supporters and the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg has erupted once again after a “drafted finding” by the corporation’s watchdog found that a report on the Labour leader’s views on shoot-to-kill had breached accuracy guidelines...

 

"...A BBC spokesperson said: "BBC News does not accept the assertions made and the complaint has been rejected on four separate occasions already. The Trust has not published a finding regarding this appeal and BBC News has further evidence it is still to present this month before that happens."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/laura-kuenssberg-bbc-political-editor-jeremy-corbyn-bbc-row-impartiality-a7514581.html?cmpid=facebook-post

 

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, phart said:

I posted a copy and the BBC shit response a wee while ago, might have been somewhere else. It's mental. In fact it was something different but same idea, just a specific example.

"The simmering row between Jeremy Corbyn supporters and the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg has erupted once again after a “drafted finding” by the corporation’s watchdog found that a report on the Labour leader’s views on shoot-to-kill had breached accuracy guidelines...

 

"...A BBC spokesperson said: "BBC News does not accept the assertions made and the complaint has been rejected on four separate occasions already. The Trust has not published a finding regarding this appeal and BBC News has further evidence it is still to present this month before that happens."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/laura-kuenssberg-bbc-political-editor-jeremy-corbyn-bbc-row-impartiality-a7514581.html?cmpid=facebook-post

 

Thanks. If posted before I may simply have missed it

The BBC seem to be able to use multiple layers of defence using weasel words. For example, they might be prepared to admit that making Corbyn's answer seem to be answering a different question was simply 'inaccurate' rather than biased. Elsewhere it's been noted that the BBC don't need to give equal weight to views, just 'due weight' and while I can understand that (eg giving more weight to established scientific facts than to fact deniers) it can lead to cases where 'due weight' could mean always having a majority of right wing papers reviewed, or giving disproportionate airtime to London-based parties. And finally they can always fall back on something in their charter about cohesion of the UK which means they can always claim they are uphholding their core purpose thereby not breaching guidleines even when this does mean partiality... I guess this is well known but it's instructive to see hard figures in the report

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...