The BBC is showing its bias over Brexit

Widdecombe

WHEN Ipsa, the watchdog which oversees MPs’ expenses, banned the buying of second homes and insisted instead that all MPs must rent, I predicted that it would simply lead to rising bills for the

THE BBC seems to have celebrated the renewal of its right to be funded by licence with an outbreak of bad behaviour. First came the broadcasting of Cameron’s comments about corrupt countries and then the Queen’s comments about the rudeness of the Chinese during their state visit.

Neither of these comments was intended to be publicly disseminated and the result of the BBC’s putting melodrama before the national interest was a diplomatic row with three countries, which was unnecessary as no public interest was served. We already knew the characteristics of the governments concerned.

Diplomatic rows are bad for trade, for British jobs and for promoting Britain’s agenda abroad. Worse still was the accompanying shot of troops with the comment that it would make people wonder what the war in Afghanistan was all about, with the clear implication that we had sacrificed British lives in a useless fight against corruption.

In case the BBC has forgotten we went to war in Afghanistan after the attack on the Twin Towers in New York which left nearly 3,000 people dead and injured 6,000 others.

Then came the arrogant disregard for balance in the debate over the EU referendum. To listen to the headlines you would have thought that Mark Carney was predicting an inevitable recession if Britain left the EU. What he actually said, as was clear from the snippet of the interview, was that “out of a number of scenarios” if Britain left “one” was that there “could” be a “technical” recession. That is rather more guarded and much less dramatic.

GIVEN that we have suffered a number of very nasty recessions while still in the EU the correct challenge should have been “so if we stay in there will not be any recession?”

Instead the commentator rehearsed a number of statements and told us that there was now a lot of weight lining up behind staying in and then quoted in opposition just a single economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher.

The BBC has been here before. I taxpayer as mortgages do not inexorably rise year on year as do rents. Nor was there any return to the taxpayer from giving up a rented property as there was through capital gains tax in giving vividly recall the fight we had with it during the bills to limit abortion in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it insisted on fielding pro-abortion doctors against pro-life politicians. In vain did we offer it pro-life doctors because it wanted to create the impression that medical expertise was ranged against interfering politicians.

The simple fact is that in economic predictions there are no facts. Nobody can say for an absolute certainty that any one scenario will result. Former chancellors and foreign secretaries are divided, academics are divided, up a bought one. Furthermore the MP had to pay the capital so the cost of a mortgage was shared but the whole of the rent falls to the taxpayer. Sure enough Ipsa has now decided, surprise, surprise, that business is divided. There is no one agreed economic outcome and those now weighing in have been wrong before.

Yet there is one very simple political fact: Britain will not be free to make its own laws and to control its own borders if it remains in the EU. Our parents and grandparents sacrificed life and limb for Britain to be a free country. Why do we shiver on the brink now? THE row over women at work being forced to wear high heels drags on with now even Business Secretary Sajid Javid chipping in. The silliest aspect of the dispute is that it is being presented as an issue of equality rather than health. A man might as well object to being told to wear a tie because women don’t have to. I am rather with the employer in laughing at claims that the policy is sexist. However there is no doubt at all that high heels are neither healthy nor comfortable and no podiatrist would promote them as desirable all day long. A woman should be able to wear flat shoes at work so long as they are smart and their colour meets any uniform policy. That is just health and sense, so now can we all calm down and carry on?

A STUPID RULING ON MEMBERS’ HOUSING EXPENSES HAS BACKFIRED – AS I PREDICTED

rented properties near Parliament cost too much so maybe MPs should be obliged to live further out.

That would produce a reduction in costs but the pattern will continue because rents go up so eventually the bill will rise again.

What will Ipsa do then? Insist MPs live even further out? And what happens when they are all commuting from John O’Groats?