#C4news There is "ALWAYS" one thing that is certain when watching C4, BBC, Sky News and the rest of MSM. It "WILL" be a concerted attack on Starmer, Day in Day out! With NO questions asked by OFCOM or even Gov ministers! Are they ALL in on it! And who is organising it!!!
The anti-Starmer Labour MP Joe Morris gets a seat on the panel for the duration of the show. Andrew Lewin who supports Starmer is a brief guest.
We see your bias @BBCPolitics
Sack Gibb and McAndrew.
#PoliticsLive
These incredibly regular, thinly veiled attempts at undermining and ultimately removing Keir Starmer are given a longer time slot every week on The BBC
We've just had the biased speculation of Henry Zeffman
Has Chris Mason 'called it on our behalf' yet?
#politicslive
Such a weak argument saying 'it won't work because kids will find a way round it'
Kids who are determined enough can get their hands on booze, but doesn't mean society should facilitate it, and make it easier for them
#politicslive#SocialMediaBan
Tory on #PoliticsLive criticism of the social media ban is that Starmer didn’t do it sooner.
While conveniently overlooking the fact the Tories didn’t do it in the 14yrs they were in Govt.
Another day where there is no Tory MP but an unelected Tory peer, Rachel McLean who deservedly lost her seat at the last election. Another reason to abolish the House of Lords.
#PoliticsLive
#PoliticsLive BBC at it again and again, will invite anyone on the program that is prepared to slag off Starmer! At the same time Vicky Young pushes the BBC agenda to remove Starmer at all cost!
#PoliticsLive No matter what Labour do this program will come up with a negative! Vicky Young, guess what! "Another crucial week for Keir Starmer!" Like every other week from this program and the rest of BBC!
Increase in fraud? But surely it’s not as high as the year of the Tories Covid Contract fraud which @BBCNews@BBCBreakfast
FAILED TO REPORT.
#bbcbreakfast
Chris, what is most striking about your piece is not the reporting of events, but the relentless effort to frame every development through the prism of impending collapse.
Throughout the article, readers are presented not with objective analysis, but with a succession of loaded phrases and assumptions designed to reinforce a predetermined narrative. A premiership is described as "flailing", potential rivals are elevated into waiting successors, and routine political disagreement is transformed into evidence of a government supposedly on the verge of disintegration.
What is conspicuously absent is any serious examination of the reality facing any government today. Defence spending does not emerge from thin air. Every additional pound committed to the armed forces must either be raised through taxation, borrowed, or diverted from another area of public expenditure. That is not a political slogan. It is a fiscal fact.
You devote considerable attention to those criticising the Defence Investment Plan, yet remarkably little attention to what their alternative would be. If the spending settlement is inadequate, what precisely should replace it? Where would the money come from? Which taxes should rise, or which public services should face reductions? These are the questions that matter.
The article also appears determined to portray every resignation as a judgement on Sir Keir Starmer's leadership while giving scant consideration to the possibility that ministers can disagree on policy without it amounting to an existential crisis for the government. Westminster may enjoy perpetual leadership speculation, but governing a country requires rather more than gossip, intrigue and anonymous briefings.
Perhaps the greatest weakness in your analysis is the assumption that political commentary can substitute for political reality. The government remains in office with a substantial parliamentary majority, inflation has fallen significantly from its peak, economic growth has returned, and major policy decisions continue to be implemented. Whether one supports the government or not, those are facts rather than interpretations.
In the end, your article says far more about the current appetite among sections of the media for leadership drama than it does about the actual condition of the government. The country deserves analysis grounded in evidence, not a running commentary built upon Westminster's favourite pastime: predicting the imminent downfall of every Prime Minister.
https://t.co/iHgb3apH0G
UK is starting to love Sir Keir.
I don't know but something seems to be changing in the media.
Apart from the predictable hostility from GB News and Nick Ferrari on LBC, parts of the press finally appear to be moving towards something dangerously radical:
Judging Keir Starmer on what he actually does.
Not every difficult week is now automatically being presented as a political funeral.
Not every disagreement is being treated as the collapse of government.
Not every Labour setback is being turned into another breathless “Starmer is finished” headline before breakfast.
Some journalists are beginning to acknowledge the seriousness, discipline and stability he brings after years of Conservative chaos.
I would not say the media loves him yet.
That may be asking for a miracle.
But a little fairness, context and neutrality would already feel like a revolution.
And perhaps, slowly, some of them are beginning to realise that quiet government is not the same as weak government.
Sometimes it is simply government getting on with the job.
#LessNoiseMoreDelivery
Laura Kuenssberg to James Cartlidge:
"You were a defence Minister in the last govt, so you know a lot about these things"
She could have therefore maybe also asked him if he knows how UK defence got into such a parlous state in the first place
#bbclaurak#BBCBreakfast
Welfare breakdown:
50% pensions
40% people IN work & that will go up when they force people into any job
10% unemployed or sick or disabled
Seems they have decided the 10% must be punished instead of forcing companies to pay a decent wage so the 40% don't have to claim anything