Remoaners need Dr Who, not Captain Picard

So, it’s finally happened. The entrenched establishment’s last desperate gamble to thwart Brexit has cranked into life amid great fanfare, tons of publicity and a million pound budget.

Of course they don’t call it that. When questioned on their attitude to Brexit, this elitist coalition of closet authoritarians hide their disdain for democracy behind phrases like “choice”, “new information” and “the terms of divorce.” They are always, always at pains to stress just how much they respect the result of the 2016 referendum.

This is a brazen, calculated lie, and we all know it. In fact, arch luvvie and continuity remainer Patrick Stewart couldn’t even convince the BBC’s Andrew Marr of his sincerity when asked about respecting the Brexit vote. Either he wasn’t properly briefed by the “People’s Vote” campaign, or he’s decided that honesty is the best policy. Whether by accident or design, we should thank Mr Stewart for saving us all the time and trouble of trying to prize the truth from this dishonest and deceitful campaign’s lips for the next year or so.

One of the more reliable rules of politics is that any nation with the words “democratic” or “people’s” anywhere in its name should be treated with extreme caution, and the same can be said of political campaigns. Ironically enough the “people” understand this fundamental truth well enough, which is why this this last hurrah from the fading neoliberals will expend a lot of time, energy and hot air with no discernible outcome. Kind of like having a counsellor on a spaceship.

The People’s Vote is doomed.

First and foremost, because there will be no second referendum. Both Labour and the Conservatives have been clear about this. Any such proposal is extremely unlikely to make it through Parliament as both the voting public and the political class are well aware of Brussels’ long and lamentable record of re-runs when it comes to democratic votes they don’t like. Such a move would be politically impossible in the current atmosphere.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty has already been triggered, and any move to reverse that decision will require a democratic mandate equal to or greater than the 2016 referendum. In the unlikely event a second referendum were to be held, it would not affect the result of the first unless that question was specifically addressed on the ballot paper.

This new and fundamentally flawed rearguard action is grounded on the false premise that any second referendum will be a direct re-run of the first, when the likelihood of such is vanishingly small. The best they can hope for is a take-it-or-leave-it vote on the final form of any future Brexit deal, but this will not affect the legal status of the Lisbon Treaty. In fact, such a plebiscite could quite conceivably lead to the “hard” Brexit they so desperately seek to overturn. The potential for backfire is a real and present danger, so hardcore remainers should be careful what they wish for.

Finally, there is also the inescapable and ironclad fact that Brexit is driven by the largest democratic mandate for anything, ever, in the long history of this nation. The ship has sailed, and there’s very little chance of stopping it now. The hard core rump of Brexit deniers would’ve done better to find a time traveller than to rely on Captain Yesterday.

Image courtesy Carol Kramberger at Freeimages.com

The BBC’s new Personal Services Comedy

Maybe you’ve heard of it. It’s the one where a bunch of too-clever-by-half wheeler dealers get caught out for tax dodging, and then start crying and blaming each other.

The proceedings inside Parliament’s Committee Rooms are not known for producing outstanding satire, but there are always exceptions.

Earlier today, various BBC presenters including Kirsty Lang and Liz Kershaw were giving evidence on the widespread use of Personal Services Companies (PSCs) within that organisation. These companies have been increasingly scrutinised by both the press and HMRC over recent years because of well-heeled professionals using them as vehicles to minimise their tax exposure. It’s a shame that the rest of us aren’t permitted to offset the cost of our lunch or our daily commute, but I digress.

However, according to both Lang’s and Kershaw’s accounts, the situation at the BBC was entirely different. The Digital, Culture, Media & Sport Committee heard tales of the taxpayer funded broadcaster forcing its presenters to set up such companies in order to avoid paying National Insurance on their salaries. It’s unclear to what extent the presenters themselves benefited from such arrangements, but I’ve never heard of a Personal Services Company being formed to increase tax liability. If Christa Ackroyd’s tax bill of £419K is anything to go by, then we’re talking about a lot more than a couple of lunches and a few train tickets here and there.

The BBC stands accused of using these service companies as a way of bypassing normal workers’ rights such as sick leave, with one presenter stating, on the record, how she felt forced to work through almost an entire course of chemotherapy. These poor, downtrodden public servants paint a picture of a tyrannical corporation that has driven some of its familiar faces to the brink of suicide.

The highlight of today’s show was when the BBC’s Paul Lewis said “this isn’t a story of well-paid presenters trading through companies to avoid tax.” Although I’m pretty sure he knows what kind of PAYE take-home is needed to run up a £400K tax bill. It’s funny how the BBC’s money guy suddenly got all shy about hard numbers on the presenters’ side, yet he was pretty outspoken about the £10 million tax the BBC has allegedly sidestepped.

So, if I’m following the plot correctly, the taxpayer funded BBC forced these presenters to set up Personal Service Companies, and as a result both parties paid a lot less tax, but that was only the intention of mendacious BBC executives. Any favourable tax conditions enjoyed by the presenters were entirely incidental and forced upon them against their will. Poor souls.

No doubt that Christa Ackroyd would much rather have paid the lion’s share of half a million pounds to HMRC in exchange for the security of sick leave, and it’s just a shame that the BBC declined to tell its side of the story to the committee today.

Now that really would’ve been a punchline!

Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Thinktank Report on BBC bias? Never Heard of it!

It’s been a busy news day, what with Donald Trump at Davos and the continuing fallout from the pervy Presidents Club. With all that in mind, it’s understandable that maybe the mainstream media haven’t found time to study the latest Civitas report documenting the BBC’s blatant anti-Brexit bias.

In today’s competitive media sphere, you’d think that maybe Sky News or The Guardian would jump at a ready-made story where someone else has already done the legwork; but no, I guess they just haven’t gotten around to it yet. Maybe tomorrow.

In fairness, we can’t expect every outlet to have exactly the same priorities, but when the likes of the Daily Express and the Telegraph don’t want to weigh in on a highly critical paper penned by seasoned media professionals, then we really need to start asking some questions. At least the Daily Mail and The Times have turned up, and stories are finally starting to trickle out.

Maybe all these highly paid and highly educated journalists are just too preoccupied to read the full eighty page report and condense it down to a single digestible chunk for an increasingly harassed and world-weary public. That’s surely why it’s been mostly left for partisan blogs like Brexit Central to pick up the story and run with it as best they can.

There are only two possible explanations when the blogosphere is frantically busy with something and the mainstream media is noticeably muted. The first possibility is that the internet is chasing a phantom, non-existent, tinfoil hat kind of story; and the second is that said story is all too real, but the corporate press don’t really want to talk about it more than they absolutely have to.

How to tell one from the other? Well, look at the report and decide for yourself how important it is.

Image courtesy of pakorn at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

A Jolly ‘Oliday with Auntie

As the sparkling madness of the festive season fades to January grey, many of us are already beginning to think of summer escapes to warmer climes as we gaze across the British new year’s bleak concrete vista.

Just like buying a car or perhaps even renting one, the ritual sun-pilgrimage bristles with fiendish legal and financial traps, forever eager to ensnare the unwary. Luckily the BBC is poised to help all of us paella-munching mortals with a brand-new series of Rip-Off Britain: Holidays. Naturally, this valuable public service necessitates not just one, but three highly paid presenters jetting off to Tenerife so they might capture the welcoming warmth of this desirable destination as a backdrop for each short segment introduction.

I’ve no doubt that the idea of a more modest, studio based consumer show was discussed in depth, but eventually abandoned. After all, creative integrity is the lifeblood of these selfless angels of the small screen, who work tirelessly to ensure we don’t squander our hard-earned during our flight from the factory and the call-centre for two warm and blessed weeks of the year.

It’s a shame that the Rip Off budget didn’t extend to flying, oh I don’t know, an actual, real life consumer expert out to the sun-drenched Canaries; but in the final equation, those short introductory monologues are so much more important than any expert’s sound, dependable, and hard-earned knowledge.

It’s good to know that the BBC has its priorities straight. By ring-fencing the frivolous jollies of overpaid presenters in these increasingly turbulent and uncertain times, the beeb reminds us of what’s really important…to the BBC.

Thanks, Auntie. Just how would we manage without your wise guidance?

Image courtesy of patrisyu at FreeDigitalPhotos.net