Well, it’s Sunday evening and, at last, the World Cup is finished with France coming out on top. For weeks we have had a load of interminable, frequent and regular claptrap about “it’s coming home” and even though England didn’t win, members of the team – and especially Gareth Southgate – seemed lined up for sainthood, at the very least. As my daughter pointed out (from the feminist perspective) all this rubbish about reaching the semi-finals for the first time for decades, was inaccurate, as the England women’s team had done it 3 years ago!
Then there was Wimbledon. Now I must ‘declare an interest’ here, as I like Wimbledon. Not tennis especially, but tennis at Wimbledon and spend a fair amount of time during the 2 weeks glued to the TV or iPad. The first week was rather tame however things really hotted up in the latter part of the second week following the demise of Roger Federer and the resurgence of Novak Djokovic. I even watched a match between Williams (S) and Giorgi – but I guess that was for the ‘pure visual entertainment’, rather than the tennis!
Throughout the week the emotional incontinence from the BBC and its team accelerated to a point where I thought we might even be shown a film of the birth of Serena William’s (there is someone else who is destined for sainthood) child, that had been discussed interminably throughout the week and, on at least 3 occasions, I turned on the broadcast and thought it was an edition of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour! Finally and just before the men’s final, we had some ludicrous ‘poetic’ mumbo jumbo from the retiring Barry Davies, which made one think that Centre Court was a World War I battlefield.
Comparing these two major sporting events also highlights the massive difference in athleticism between the tennis players and the wimps on the football field in Russia and, frankly, more generally. One tennis match going on for six and a half hours!
Listening to and watching the BBC, it seems that the vast amount of their output of general programmes and news and news-related programmes, feature, advocate and disproportionately support minorities.
A big question for me is, if you added up most these minorities would that be or represent a/the majority? If the answer is yes, then thats fine – but if, as I believe the answer is no, then there is (and UK society has) a problem. The problem being that there is no ‘representation’ of ‘normal’, ‘middle of the road’ people and their values, beliefs or opinions – and that is just on the BBC, never mind politically or more widely.
I recall that when I worked in the field of management and leadership development, there was little or no media available on good and effective management or leadership. This was largely because that was not entertaining and even seen as boring. It’s the same with most ‘commercial output’ on ‘analogue’ or ‘digital’ media – and certainly the BBC. Where are the ‘normal’ characters and/or plots on The Archers, Eastenders or Emmerdale? There used to be a lot on Coronation Street but even that has changed.
Whatever the reason, the BBC are obsessed with representing what they see as reality, in and around Portland Place. regarding our obligatory and apparently inevitable ‘diverse’ society. Listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning, they had am ‘un-checked’ view from a representative of one of these minority groups “The way England is going to look in the future”… If that is not social engineering or brainwashing I don’t know what is. Then there was a feature supposedly about ‘classical music’ and even that was a thinly disguised focus on ethnic minorities.
There is, by the way, nothing inherently wrong with a ‘diverse society’, but not on this scale or so fast.
It is not necessary to name these key minorities, as anyone reading this will know and understand what and who they are. Amongst other things, the big issue seems to be, why are the publicly-funded BBC (and others) focussing on these groups – what is their motivation or objective in supporting, encouraging or possibly accelerating such social engineering and change?
Well, the ‘Brexit weekend’ at Chequers has come and gone and, as a consequence, so have a number of government ministers. With the clock ticking even faster in terms of the deadline for exiting the EU in March 2019, it would seem that we (the government) have had to compromise. The main issue being – especially for the Brexiteers – how much of a compromise. Social media is full of people saying it’s a “sell-out” or even “traitorous” behaviour from Theresa May and her Cabinet and it would seem that quite a few Conservative MPs agree. However, her meeting with the 1922 committee a few days ago would seem to have been successful (at least in the short term and from her personal point of view) in that they reacted well to her ‘back me or get Jeremy Corbyn and Labour’ message/threat.
So what are the alternatives if she were to be ‘ousted’? Boris Johnson? Jacob Rees-Mogg? Jeremy Hunt? Each of these have ‘baggage’ regarding their personalities, their ‘heritage’ or what they have or haven’t achieved in their previous departments or jobs. One thing in Jacob Rees-Mogg’s favour is that he has been successful in most things he has done. But is he too ‘old school’? Given the wide view that Jeremy Hunt has ruined the NHS he is unlikely (maybe not with Conservative party members but with the wider public). Boris, of course, is seen as various types of fool…which he clearly is not.
If the ‘Chequers compromise’ is accepted by the EU, gets through parliament and forms the basis of Brexit, this will leave a massive and damaging legacy for Theresa May and the Conservative Party at the next General Election. The hard Brexiteers will not be happy and whatever the deal is, things will not have settled down well within 4 years – for the economy, trade or socially. Whatever the alternatives are from Labour or even a ‘resurrected’ UKIP, I doubt very much that they will remain in power. Even at grass roots level, “activists” are staying off the streets according to Peter Bone MP and locally, the local Party association are having difficulties in getting volunteers to ‘do stuff’ and in one case turn up to support the local Conservative MP in public. I noticed that a local public session designed to attract Conservative youngsters from the area to meet 2 local MPs and other Conservative stalwarts, has only attracted 6 ‘interested’ views on Facebook! Given the state of the local Conservative Party Association, I am not that surprised.