Sunday 10 March 2013

What You Cannot Say Under Matthew d'Ancona's Telegraph Column

For example. I am sure that it also applies elsewhere.

You cannot say that Cameron entirely honestly stood for Leader of the Conservative Party as an extreme social liberal and EU supporter, and stood against a socially conservative Eurosceptic.

You cannot say that he took more than two thirds of the votes of Conservative Party members on that socially liberal and pro-EU ticket, and against that socially conservative and at least partially anti-EU alternative.

And you cannot say that much of the socially conservative and at least partially anti-EU minority will have died by now, while quite possibly most of it will be dead by 2015.

Oh, no. You cannot say all of that. You cannot say any of that.

Why ever not?

So much for fantasies that the (not very warm) endorsements of the Purple Party by Simon Heffer and Peter Hitchens might have had an effect on the wider right-wing press, or at any rate an effect in the Purple Party's favour.

If anything comes of Farage's dinners with Murdoch, and so much for United Kingdom Independence there, then expect mass resignations from his employ.

Those taking such a stand would have no difficulty finding work at the Telegraph, where Operation Protect The Tories At All Costs is clearly in full swing.


  1. Murdoch's endorsement is wonderful news-it signals Murdoch is now also behind Britain's independence from the EU (which he indicated in his Tweet about Farage "reflecting public opinion").

    That can only be good news-Murdoch can use his papers to counter the relentless pro-EU propaganda of the BBC.

    As for "national independence"-we live in a globalised world, Dave. People are allowed to own newspapers outside their own country. What are you going to do about it?

    Wake up.

  2. So much for the UKI in UKIP, then.

    Glad that you have admitted the Murdoch point: a country can have him or its sovereignty, but not both.

  3. "a country can have him or its sovereignty, but not both".

    The truth is precisely the reverse-the nationalised BBC is the media organ most implacably opposed to our national sovereignty, with its relentless pro-EU propaganda.

    Murdoch's support for EU withdrawal can serve as useful counter to that.

  4. A nationalised industry cannot, by definition, be anything other than a bulwark of national sovereignty.

    And in the United Kingdom, a safeguard of the Union. Murdoch supports Scottish independence.

    Simply by existing in public ownership at all.

    Whereas Murdoch is a global state in himself, carving up things like the United Kingdom the easier to devour them.

    But all of his London staff would resign if he told them to endorse UKIP.

  5. "A nationalised industry cannot, by definition, be anything other than a bulwark of national sovereignty"

    Oh, it certainly can, if (like the BBC) it receives some of its funding from the EU!

    The amount of money the BBC gets from the EU has been exposed several times, and nobody even questions it.

    It is the most powerful EU propaganda organ in Britain.

  6. Is this the same BBC that thinks the loser of a by-election the week before, otherwise a complete political novice, is a sufficiently important person to be on the Question Time panel?

    You need to lie down.

  7. It's the BBC that's been pumping out left-wing propaganda for years, yes.

    Which BBC have you been watching?

  8. The one that has Nigel Farage, and the boys from the Loony Right think tanks, on the air morning, noon and night.