Friday, 20 November 2009

I WONDER WHAT FELICITY'S LIKE TO HAVE A DRINK WITH

*
I'm slowing catching up on my programmes here, so it's back now to last night's The World Tonight and the second appearance (if you ignore strict chronology) of Labour's Joyce Quin (friend of Baroness Ashton, and a baroness herself). Joycie was interviewed by young Felicity Evans.
*
Here are the questions she was asked:
*
1. "She's obviously someone who's been involved in the nitty-gritty of the recent negotiations over Lisbon, but she isn't someone necessarily that many people will have heard of."
*
2. "How important is it for you that a woman is being elevated to such a prominent role within the EU?"
*
3. "There are those though who may express concern about the fact that she's never been elected as a political representative. What would you say to those concerns?"
*
4. "And what about her as a person, as a character? Can you give us an idea about what she'd be like to have a drink with?"
*
Hardly Andrew Neil is she!!
*

ALL HAIL THE NOBODY!

*
The rise of the Labour placewoman Baroness Ashton to Europe's new foreign ministry, without ever deigning to be elected by the general public, is an insult to democracy. If you listened to Justin Webb's reports from Brussels on this morning's Today programme, however, you would have got a very different impression of the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8369000/8369748.stm
*
The feature at 7.34 featured short bites of praise from Gordon Brown, David Rennie of The Economist (38 seconds) and former Labour MP Kerry Pollard (defeated 2005) (23 seconds), as well as a short bite of tepid criticism from the Conservative leader in the European parliament Timothy Kirkhope (26 seconds). The main feature here though was a remarkable interview with the failed Labour leader Lord Kinnock. This gooey confection lasted 4 mins 30 seconds, with Justin chuckling away at the not-so-noble lord's little jokes at democracy's expense. Justin added warm words of his own too: "Since her arrival in Brussels she's impressed people with her diligence and her diplomacy." Who are these "people"? Are they "all people", "most people", "some people", "a small number of people"? *
*
A full-scale interview between Justin Webb and Cathy Ashton herself followed at 8.10. This was no toughie either, with plenty of softly-struck questions and few critical interruptions. The democratic deficit was not dwelt on for long (passed over in less than a minute).
*
Our friends at the BBC seem to want us to believe that the Euro-sceptic belief that European federalism is alive and kicking and that the Lisbon Treaty (aka the European Constitution) has breathed new fire into it has been refuted by the installation of these nobodies. Webb put this very point to Baroness Ashton: "What do you make of the idea that your appointment, and Mr Van Rumpuy's as well, suggest that the Eurosceptics are wrong, that the idea of a kind of federal state emerging and Europe having powerful people of stature who go around speaking for Europe, that that's all been rather given up on now. European people like you are going to speak for Europe but in amongst all the other foreign ministers and nation states?" He then pursued the point with the Beeb's new Europe editor Gavin Hewitt: "Is this the end of federalism Gavin? Is this a kind of sea-change, a moment where Europe has looked at a route and decided not to go down it?" Hewitt told us "that the person they (the EU leaders) were looking for was a low-profile chairman, a coordinator" and went on to say "for some Eurosceptics today, they are celebrating because the big powerful president who would impact on the world stage that hasn't happened." I'm not sure Hewitt is qualified to speak for Eurosceptics. He doesn't speak for me, nor for many others I'd wager: http://derekbennetteu-sceptic.blogspot.com/2009/11/nonenities-to-fore.html.*

QUESTION TIMINGS

*
Counting up the amount of time each of the guests on last night's Question Time got to speak reveals that it was, as it seemed, the Phil Woolas Show. He certainly received the lion's share of Dimbleby's interruptions, but was compensated by being allowed the lion's share (one-third) of the programme!
*
Total amount of time each guest spoke for - including the time taken by Dimbleby's questions(percentage of total time):
*
Phil Woolas (Labour) - 15 minutes 19 seconds (33.3%)
Ming Campbell (Lib Dem) - 10 minutes 8 seconds (22.4%)
Clare Short (Left-wing independent) - 8 minutes 19 seconds (18.1%)
Nick Ferrari (Right-wing commentator) - 6 minutes 24 seconds (14.3%)
Chris Grayling (Conservative) - 5 minutes 31 seconds (11.9%)
*
The combined voices of the Left therefore got 73.8% of the show, whereas the combined voices of the Right got 26.2%.
*
Woolas had interrupted Chris Grayling at every opportunity throughout the programme and when Mr Grayling interrupted him back for once in crashed Dimbleby with "One at a time please. Don't just argue over each other. Just finish your point..." and allowed Woolas to go on attacking the Conservatives for quite some time.
**
As Woolas was about to push his percentage up even further, Dimbleby finally called time: "Our time is up Phil. I'm sorry, you've had many chances to speak." I should say he had!!!

SPARING HARRIET'S BLUSHES

(*
Sorry, but it's back to him again!
*
When Gavin Esler said in the programme's introduction that "The Tory MP in charge of helping to fix the expenses scandal, David Curry, is forced to quit after revelations about this own arrangements", I immediately thought to myself, "Aahh, I bet that will be one for Michael Crick." Of course, it was!
*
The story (in the Telegraph) involves claims for a cottage where Curry was not living, allegedly, due to his wife's demands that he move out after he was caught having an affair with a local headmistress. Now that's a story for Michael Crick to come onto Newsnight and crow about if ever there was one! And crow he certainly did: "But it's hugely embarrassing this." "That he's had to step down after a few weeks isn't just embarrassing for the Conservatives - although he's not a very mainstream Conservative, he's very pro-European - but embarrassing to MPs and parliament as a whole."
*
As for the other main story in the Telegraph and most other papers - Harriet Harman 's prosecution for allegedly crashing into another car while using a mobile phone (a crime under legislation passed while she was Solicitor General!) - that was not mentioned by Michael Crick. What a surprise! I'd have thought the story was 'hugely embarrassing, not just for her but for the Labour Party.' It flashed by (in about 10 seconds) during Gavin Esler's brief news summary before the final features. Also flashing by were the latest appalling government borrowing figures - which are naturally far less important for a BBC political editor to talk about than a scandalous Tory!!
* figur

A NONENTITY AND AN UNKNOWN

*
The 'election' of former-short-lived-Belgian-premier Herman van Rompuy as EU president and the never-elected-by-the-general-public-in-her-entire-life Baroness Kathy Ashton as EU foreign minister was the lead story on last night's Newsnight. The BBC was not shy of calling Mr Rompuy a 'nonentity', though it preferred the less pejorative term 'unknown' for the Labour placewoman. (They seem to have been very keen to have Blair, pushing this point at every opportunity) - as he would have been a charismatic projector of Europhile power). I have no great complaints about David Grossman's report, though I note that his only talking-head was a Europhile - Jacki Davis of the Brussels-based think-tank the European Policy Centre.
*
The report was followed by a discussed chairpersoned by Gavin Esler with Nigel Farage of UKIP and Baroness (Joyce) Quin of the Labour Party.
*
Esler put the first question about the noble baroness to the other noble baroness, and it was the question we're all asking (for example, see http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/11/democracy-eu-style-part-2.html) - though note that it was prefaced by praise for Kathy Ashton: "She's undoubtably a woman of qualities, but does it worry you that she's never been elected to any elected office, ever?" Joyce Quin's answer went uninterrupted.
*
"Nigel Farage, whatever you think of today's appointments, it does not look as if we're on the way to a European superstate, does it?", Esler then asked. Nigel trenchantly noted that both appointments were 'political pygmies' and informed us that, when Baroness Ashton's appointment was announced, Gordon Brown couldn't even pronounce her name properly! (Because of his bad eyesight, maybe?). Unlike with Labour's Joyce Quin, Nigel Farage was soon interrupted by Gavin Esler (who had his arms folded and that sardonic expression he often puts on when interviewing right-wingers): "You're sort of making my point for me, this would not be the way you'd go to create a great power, wouldn't it?"
*
The pattern was thus set. Baroness Quin's next two answers also went interrupted, and her final answer was only interrupted because time had run out - and even this was what I call an 'abortive interruption' because she got to finish both her sentence and her point. The ends of each of Nigel's remaining two answers, however, were both talked over by Gavin Esler!
&
Whether asking Joyce Quin if these appointments (unlike that of Blair's) mean the EU will have a "very small voice" on the world stage or asking Nigel Farage whether they show that "this remains a union of sovereign states", all Esler's questions came from a Europhile perspective (though not an uncritical one).
*

Tuesday, 17 November 2009

CARPETBAGGEING THE TORIES

*
Damn it! I was going to post a prediction yesterday morning, but didn't. I was going to predict that Michael Crick would definitely be in Norfolk for the Conservative association meeting to select/de-select Elizabeth Truss. Oh well. He was there, of course. Anything to embarrass the Tories.
*
Miss Truss won.
*
Crick prefaced his report with these words: "Well, David Cameron must be mightily relieved tonight, Jeremy, that this result didn't go the other way, because that would have been a severe setback to his attempts to transform the Conservative Party". And Michael Crick must have been mightily disappointed that it didn't go the other way, because that must have been a severe setback to his plans to damage the Conservative Party yesterday. Cameron's wish to have (pretty) young women with children as Conservative candidates forms part of his "attempts to drag the Conservative Party away from that crusty image of crusty colonels and squires and baronets." Oh yes Michael, that's exactly the image we all have of the Conservative Party - not!
*
Sir Jeremy Bagge of the local Conservative Association is a baronet, and lives in an "Elizabethan Hall". He's been Central Office's main critic during this 'crisis'. He told Crick that there might be a new party at the next election to fight against Liz Truss. That's the sort of thing Crick wanted to hear!
*
He was at the association meeting as people were going in, badgering Tories as usual. "Excuse me, what do you make of this motion tonight?" he asked one lady. Her reply was wonderful: "I'm wondering what I make of you, thrusting that at me" and walked off. Good for her! "Are you a member of the Turnip Taleban?" he asked another Tory. Another lady was asked "Who will you be voting for tonight?" and looked in amazement at Crick, said "Good gracious!", laughed and went in. Good gracious indeed!
*
"Liz Truss herself steadfastly said nothing" to Crick, even though he ran towards her like an idiot, thrust that at her and shouted questions.
*
Crick had a 'scoop- and - guess what! - it was an embarrassing one for David Cameron:
"What's more I've learned that Central Office did warn local Tory officials against picking another woman candidate because of embarrassing details in her past." 'Oh, what hypocrisy!' Crick obviously wants us to think. We needn't think that though, as we know nothing of the circumstances about that case, and I'm not taking anything Michael Crick says on trust.
*
After the result was announced, the disappointed Sir Jeremy Bagge was asked by an eager Crick "Why are you not proud to be a Conservative?".
*
*
*
This edition of the programme ended with a piece on soul/rap-singer Gil Scott-Heron - not done for any topical reasons, but because (or so we were told) the reporter Stephen Smith wanted to find out what happened to the singer who sang "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". That he was also a left-wing political activist surely help explains Smith's interest and his presence on Newsnight.

Monday, 16 November 2009

P.M. FOR THE P.M.

*
Though I approve (on the whole) of Eddie Mair, that does not mean that his show PM is not biased towards the Left - at least if today's edition is anything to go by. See if you agree. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qskw
**
Terry Stiasny' s report on the hostels for teenage mothers proposed by Gordon Brown in his speech at the Labour Party conference, taking shape in the form of foyers run by local housing associations, could have been scripted by a Labour spin doctor. She talked to a young mum who thought it was a great idea in that it made life a lot easier for her. The sociological jargon spouted by its director, who thought his foyer was a 'great example' for the prime minister, tells you something about the mindset behind such doubtless well-intentioned projects - as does the fact that rehearsals were going on for a play for Black History Week. (Of course, he wanted more funds from the taxpayer.)
*
A lively debate within a narrow ideological circle followed with a discussion on the importance of a treaty at the forthcoming Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, with enviromental campaigner Kim Carstensen of the WWWF Global Climate Initiative talking the matter over with Andrew Pendleton of one of the Beeb's favourite think-tanks, the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). Both supported strong action to 'save the world', they only disagreed about just when a binding treaty should be signed.
*
The privatised rail companies came under sustained attack from Nick Cosgrove in the Upshares Downshares business spot, with Ashwin Kumar of the pressure group Passenger Focus piling on the criticism.
*
Even Nils Blythe's report from Malawi on food security praised the government intervention policies of the government of that country, talking to "one of the beneficiaries of a Malawian government programme to provide heavily subsidized seeds and fertilizers to poor farmers". We heard twice that this had "made a huge difference" (as it may well have done). We also heard praise for our Labour government role in the 'Malawi Miracle', with Gwen Hines of the Department for International Development stressing the importance of 'financial engineering.' We also heard of campaigns against wicked artificial fertilizers, which were not (Blythe said) felt to be "sustainable in the long term."
*

BACKING LABOUR

*
Today's The World at One discussed the Danish environment minister's concession that a binding treaty is very unlikely to come out of the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change with ... John Prescott. The interview with Edward Stourton resulted in an I.C. of 0 (i.e. no interruptions).
*
Attention then turned to the financial matters and the issues of (a) the Tobin Tax, which seems likely to appear in Labour's Queen's speech, and (b) the new Financial Services Act that Labour is also about to announce, permitting the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to intervene in business contracts and tear them up if they feel that people are being rewarded for taking excessive risks. First to speak was Terry Smith of money brokers Tullett Prebon. He was in favour of both the Tobin Tax and Labour's financial services act. We then had Nick Clegg (I.C. of 0.3) whose process-based quibble with Labour's Financial Services Act was that it was unnecessary, as the FSA already had the powers to do what Brown proposes and should be doing it now. So that's two in favour of invasive government intervention in the nation's boardrooms. How about an opposing voice? No, not here. Instead we had Labour's Sally Keeble speaking out (like Mr Smith) in favour of both the Tobin Tax and the government's Financial Services Act (I.C of 0.6). What a range of opinion!! None of Mr Stourton's questions to Sally Keeble played the opposing devil's advocate to any of these issues. Any Labour Party official listening would surely have felt a glow of satisfaction at all this.
*

Sunday, 15 November 2009

BUT SHIRIN'S AT THE HELM ACTUALLY

*
This week's The Record Europe saw the heat transfer from the Conservatives to UKIP, as Europhile presenter Shirin Wheeler hosted another of her infamous round table discussions. Indeed the Conservative guest, Vicky Ford, was - most unusually - not interrupted at all. Far less unusually, neither was the Labour guy, Derek Vaughan.
*
On the receiving end this time was that doughty campaigner against EU fraud Marta Andreasen (now, of course, a UKIP MEP). She was interrupted five times by Shirin, giving her an I.C. of 1.2. The whole interview began with a question to Marta asking her to agree that it was good news that for the second year running EU auditors had given a "clean opinion" of the EU's budget. Marta rejected the idea that it was a clean opinion, and persisted in doing so after Shirin had interrupted her to re-ask the question. Not getting the answer she wanted, Shirin then interrupted Marta for a second time, saying "Well...well, the court is saying it is a clean opinion" and passed the conversation on to Brian Gray, the current EU chief accountant.
*
Christofer Fjellner, a chap from the Swedish centre-right, also fell foul of left-wing Shirin when he made the mistake of saying something unhelpful to our Labour prime-minister. He said, "There's a lack of political leadership. To me this is not a Brussels problem. It's the member states who set the rules, spend the money and, therefore, I'd rather blame Brown than Barroso...". Shirin leapt in at this point, saying "Yeah, but Brown's not at the helm actually" and, in time-honoured-Shirin-Wheeler-fashion, passed the conversation on to someone else! (Even if Mr Fjellner was wrong, and I think he was, her contradiction was a complete non sequitur in terms of what he was actually arguing and was surely designed only to shut him up).
*
The final pair of interruptions were made against Marta Andreasen, just as she was (skilfully) facing down an onslaught from several of the other guests. Marta was complaining about the Commission's reluctance to stop payments to non-compliant countries when Shirin interrupted and contradicted her: "But they are doing that Marta, they are doing that!" and again shortly after: "But they did it last year, they did it with Britain."
*
Another week, and more bias at The Record Europe.

PLASTIC BAGS, NEANDERTHALS AND LANCASTER CANAL

*
Today's Politics Show doesn't call for much comment - though that won't stop me.
*
It began by covering the proposed high-speed rail line that should connect our major conurbations within the next few decades, centring on an interview with Lord Adonis (a man who really shouldn't be in the Labour Party), scoring Jon Sopel an I.C. of 1.1.
*
It ended with talk of plastic bags. Sopel discussed this with Beebette Gillian Hargreaves. The underlying assumption that plastic bags are a major problem that effects climate change - and that limiting their use will cut carbon emissions - was not challenged. The only talking head in the piece was, naturally, an environmentalist - Green MEP Jean Lambert, who (of course) wants a tax on plastic bags and lots and lots of left-wing compulsion.
*
Beeboid Andrew Sinclair was in S.W. Norfolk to discuss the spot of local bother for brainy beauty Elizabeth Truss and her stalled ambitions to be selected as the Conservative candidate there. Any story that damages the Tories, by showing splits and Neanderthal attitudes, is an absolute gift to the BBC - and Sinclair seemed very eager to open it. The word 'nasty' was batted about between him and Sopel at regular intervals. (The 'nasty party', you may recall, was what Labour used to call the Tories). Sopel called the story 'extraordinary' and said ominously "We'll be following it very closely." I bet they will!!*
*
Cocky Max Cotton's latest report was an interesting one on Treasury plans to sell off British Waterways's £500m property portfolio (so as to help cut the insanely high deficit this reckless government has built up - not that Max put it that way, of course). The case against such a move was made by many of the people who use our magical canal network. (As you might guess from the use of the word 'magical' I love our canals too. Lancaster Canal, here in NorthNorthwesterLand, is just pure magic - except when it passes through Lancaster!) Max played devil's advocate, as he should. (Well done!). The piece's only lapse into bias came as Max spun for Labour: "Many Labour MPs have a real problem with selling off British Waterways assets. They see canals as a Labour success story". Cue Alun Michael MP, claiming that "since 1997" Labour had turned the canals around, turning them from the terrible state they were in under the wicked Tories ("badly maintained") into a "national asset". Is there any truth in this? Max certainly didn't dispute the claim, or comment any further on it. My canal, however, has always been beautiful in my eyes - even, my Beeboid friends, during that fearful time when the land lay under the dreadful sway of the evil Mrs Thatcher. *

BROADCASTING GROUSE

*
This morning's Broadcasting House on Radio 4 (9.00am) began by discussing the forthcoming apologies from Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd for the Child Migrants' Programme that saw many UK children sent to Australia between 1930 and 1970, and which led to a lot of suffering. The issue was, as you'd expect with the BBC, discussed with the director of the campaign group responsible for bringing the matter to the notice of politicians, Margaret Humphries of the Child Migrants' Trust. Presenter Paddy O'Connell conducted an entirely sympathetic interview with her, and didn't just confine himself to asking questions. He also supported her position, as when he commented "This is the State lying".
*
Obama's dithering/prudent pondering over General McChrystal's request for more troops for Afghanistan was discussed, and placed in a historical context, with Sir Malcolm Rifkind and John Hutton, not uninterestingly. Intriguingly Mr Hutton was harder on Obama than Sir Malcolm. Paddy O'Connell's views on the matter were easy to guess. When Sir Malcolm said "I don't think he's dithering at all. Not only is it a crucially important decision...", Paddy interjected a "yeah" of agreement and the only interruption came when John Hutton gently criticized Obama for not fully explaining the delay. Paddy barged into his answer with this defence: "Well, we heard him earlier say he wants to get it right, it's money, it's lives, and it's about the safety of the U.S. at home." I think Paddy likes President Obama, and ain't too keen to hear criticism of him!
*
Talking of left-liberal Americans, a report from Kevin Connolly (a left-liberal Brit) looked at 'what makes us happy', considering the Grant Study, set up at Harvard in 1941 to follow a sample of people throughout their lives and find out the key to happiness. Which volunteer did Connolly talk too? Ben Bradley, "the Washington Post editor whose questions brought down the Nixon Administration over Watergate". The Study's director Professor George Valliant had a dig at Nixon too. Who's likely to be the happiest person, according to him? "Someone who has devoted themselves to other people." He says you'll feel better if you give some money to OXFAM. "Being rich doesn't make you happy," said Connolly. "Being nice does." So there you go.
*
When it came to the paper review, Paddy gave us a short run-down of the headlines, beginning with the left-of-centre Independent on Sunday, followed by the left-of-centre Observer, then the left-of-centre Sunday Mirror then, finally, the right-of-centre Mail on Sunday. And that was it!
*
His first guest on the paper review was British business reporter Richard Quest of CNN (who Wikipedia tells us worked with Paddy O'Connell on BBC News 24). Then there was Virginia Ironside of, inevitably, The Independent. Finally, there was Camilla Batmangheldjh of the charity Kids Company, who started the review with a childcare report from The Observer.
*
Paddy prodded Mr Quest to go after the bankers while discussing Equitable Life: "Richard, what I think you're getting at is, people who saved are being punished by not being compensated from the Equitable Life fiasco, whereas people who borrowed, and bankers who've misled. are effectively having the tab picked up" and went on to say "Do keep with your selections Richard. You've gone to the Sunday Telegraph on bankers as well."
*

SOPHIE SAVES THE WORLD

*
No Andrew Marr this week. It was Sophie Raworth instead (pictured right. Funny how I don't tend to feature pictures of Marr, isn't it?)
*
Besides interviewing Squeaker Bercow (and not asking him about his expenses), the fair Sophie's main political interview was with Ed Miliband. The interview (scoring an I.C. of 1) concentrated on climate change and in her introductory remarks Sophie mentioned the "poll yesterday" which "showed the public are sceptical about the threat of global warming" and that "less than half believe it's caused by human activity." It was good to have that mentioned and did the programme credit. That said, it was not mentioned again during the actual interview. Moreover, Sophie's own non-sceptical bias came out through each of the questions she put to Mr Miliband, which included - in all seriousness - an interruption to state that the 'deal at Copenhagen' "is about saving the world." When she pressed him about the 'deal', she phrased it as "a legally-binding one hopefully" and it didn't sound to me as if she was talking about Ed's hopes, rather about her own. Something similar happened when the question turned to Barack Obama's presence at Copenhagen. Sophie stated "because he needs to be there", before realising that this should be a question and re-phrasing it as such. She also asked (twice) about a report from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers which advocates even stronger measures to tackle this allegedly "really serious problem" - as we heard on Friday's PM, where Tim Fox of the I.M.E. said we need "a paradigm shift" in our attitudes to climate change and a "war-time mentality" to cope with the looming apocalypse. (What Eddie Mair, who conducted that interview, forgot to ask Mr Fox was whether the I.M.E. might not just have a slight vested interest in encouraging a huge number of new, expensive engineering projects over the next few decades, and may have that in mind at least as much as 'saving the world'!).
*

Saturday, 14 November 2009

THE WORLD TONIGHT

*
The World Tonight is the thoughtful, foreign-affairs-dominated mainstay of Radio 4's current affairs coverage. It's a kind of idealised version of The Guardian and, like The Guardian, has a pronounced left-liberal bias. Or is that just how it seems? Though I've had a busy working week (with overtime!) & haven't had much time to blog (only to count interruptions), I've recorded the contents of all of the last eight editions of the programme to see just exactly what it covers and just who the programme invites to speak. This is what I found.
*
4/11 This edition began with Afghanistan and featured an interview by Robin Lustig with a sceptical Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats (I.C. of 0.3). The following discussion of MPs expenses & spouses featured one of the few MPs willing to whinge about it in public, Charles Walker of the Conservative Party. The interview was somewhat challenging (I.C. of 0.8). The issue was then discussed with Allegra Stratton of The Guardian. After a discussion of opposition protests in Iran with BBC regular, Professor Ali Ansari of St Andrews University (a frequent contributor to The Guardian, Independent and Observer), the focus turned to the Tories and their European policy. The matter was discussed with a highly critical Sylvie Goulard. Robin introduced her as a 'French MEP and president of the French European Movement'. Though we can infer that she's an ardent Europhile, Robin forgot to tell us which party she belongs to. It turns out that she's a Liberal (as regulars could have guessed already from my colour-coding of her name!). So, all in all, a strong left-liberal bias on this edition.
*
5/11 This edition was not so clear-cut. We had an interview with a female Afghan charity worker who wanted coalition troops to stay in her country and a report on the Fort Hood killings. Then the government's policy of Quantitative Easing (Q.E.) - i.e. printing money - was discussed with two people who were (with reservations) supportive of it (George Magnus and Jan Raldolph). Paul Moss then reported from Germany, where he chatted to former bosses of the communist GDR who are still proud and unrepentant about their dour old tyranny. The Trafigura story was then discussed with a lawyer called Martin Day and a Ivorian chap called Claude Gohourou, who claims to speak for the toxic poisoning victims. Finally came a hymn of praise to President Lula of Brazil, a centre-left president obviously, by the BBC's own centre-left economics correspondent Jonty Bloom. More hagiography than report, it would have brought a blush to Lula's bearded cheeks if he'd have heard it!
*
6/11 Afghanistan again led this edition and Robin Lustig discussed the matter with (a) someone who advised President Obama during his election campaign, Marvin Weinbaum, and then (b) Patricia DeGennaro, a professor at NYU who regularly blogs for the left-liberal Huffington Post. A spot of left-liberal bias there for sure. More on the Fort Hood killings and a report on whether TV helped bring down the Berlin Wall (and a piece on Santa School - yes, about training santas) led to a bit of AGW chat with the head of the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat, Yvo de Boer. An interesting report on the U.N.'s conference on migration in Athens by the Beeb's Malcolm Brabant quarantined a couple of sage voices from the Third World (protesters) who opposed migration on the grounds that it harmed their countries (depriving them of skilled people) between two advocates for migration, William L. Swing of the International Organisation for Migration and the U.N.'s Peter Sutherland, who got the last word (hymning the glories of migration). (Note that no-one from, say, Migration Watch got a look-in here).
*(Not
9/11 Ritula Shah took over for this edition and the opening discussion of nuclear power centred on interviews with Lib Dem leftie Simon Hughes, an opponent of nuclear power, and a newly-converted Stephen Tindale (former head of Greenpeace) - who supports it to 'save the planet'. A balanced argument on nuclear power certainly, but a debate between people on the Left nonetheless. The BBC's Roger Harribin then added this thoughts. Next up came a discussion on the fall of the Berlin Wall between the Economist's liberal-minded Edward Lucas (formerly of the BBC and The Independent) and left-wing Neal Ascherson of The Observer. This was followed by a report on the Tories and poverty by Jonty Bloom - an ill-informed piece in which Jonty referred to "the Tory party of Wilberforce and Gladstone" . Now, does anyone with an interest in British history spot what's wrong with that statement? (Clue: check Wikipedia's entry for the famous Liberal Party prime-minister W.E. Gladstone!). A discussion about Yemen with Ginny Hill of Chatham House and The Guardian (naturally) and an interesting piece on China and Africa rounded off the programme. Left-liberal bias here? Yes, in spades.
*
10/11 This was a remarkable edition of the programme. It opened by discussing Gordon Brown, a grieving mother and The Sun with Charlie Beckett of the L.S.E.'s journalism think-tank POLIS. Presenter David Eades might have been expecting a defence of Brown and an attack on The Sun from such a source. He didn't get either and the result was a satisfyingly testy encounter. A piece on those poor Palestinians followed from Bethany Bell (complete with obligatory side-sweeps at wicked Israel) and Mahmoud Abbas's declaration that he intends to cease being Palestinian president was discussed with one of his chums, Ziad Asali of the American Taskforce for Palestine. The bulk of the programme, however, was a debate at Chatham House, hosted by Robin Lustig, on the Copenhagen Climate Change conference. It was prefaced by a report from the BBC's enviromental(ist) correspondent Richard (Since Kyoto "the scientific case for man-made climate change has strengthened significantly") Black and featured the voices of various Green activists, as well as Joan Ruddick, Labour's climate change minister, a climate-scarer from Grenada and someone from the Union of Concerned Scientists. All four of Robin's guests fully bought into the AGW agenda too, and every single one of Robin Lustig's questions came from the same stance. The panel consisted of disgraced Labour ex-minister Elliot Morley (though his career-sinking expense claims were not brought up); Steve Rayner, professor of science and civilisation at Oxford University; Mike Hume, professor of climate change and founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia; and Cleo Paskal of the Energy, Environment & Development programme at Chatham House (and the liberal Toronto Star).
*
11/11 With Robin Lustig back in charge, this edition looked at the economy and interviewed John Philpott of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and John Cridland of the C.B.I., as well as featuring a report from Bishops Stortford by our old friend Jonty Bloom. Bishops Stortford has one of the lowest rates of unemployment, so that was obviously the place for the BBC to go on a day when the latest unemployment figures came out. Divided Cyprus, the Glasgow North East by-election (due the following day), and aliens and Christian theology were also discussed. Orla Guerin reported from Pakistan (a report that sounded exactly like every other report she's ever filed). Today's Afghanistan spot consisted of an interview with Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, yet another voice from the liberal wing of American politics.
*
12/11 At last, another centre-right voice (the first since Charles Walker)! Immigration was the hot topic and Robin Lustig conducted a joint interview between Labour's omnipresent Phil Woolas and Harriet Sergeant of the Centre for Policy Studies. Other pieces examined ivory trading in Zambia, Japan's relations with the U.S. and the thoughts of Russia's President Medvedev. Afghanistan today was discussed by (you guessed it!) two more voices from the left-liberal end of U.S. politics - former Clinton administration official Karl Inderfuth and long-term Bush-basher David Corn of liberal-progressive magazine Mother Jones. Any chance of hearing any American interviewee who isn't from that end of U.S. politics on The World Tonight some time soon?
*
13/11 The Obama administration's decision to try the 9/11 Guantanamo inmates in civilian courts in New York was first up for discussion. Doing the discussing with Robin Lustig were (a) a lawyer for the Guantanamo crowd, Tara Murray of Reprieve and (b) Tony Ortega of the very-liberal Village Voice (described by the very-liberal Robin Lustig as a "venerable New York newspaper", who praised the current administration and bashed Bush. More voices from just one side of U.S. politics. The undoubtedly venerable Douglas H. Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was the sage consulted over Asia-U.S. relations. I don't know what his politics are (though he wrote this, which is suggestive: "Obama decided early on that among the many messes he inherited from George W. Bush, China policy was not one of them.") Also discussed were time-zones, local elections in Kosovo, China and its carbon emissions, the Glasgow North East by-election result (discussed with Hamish McDonnell, formerly of The Scotsman) and the government-owned rail company, East Coast, which has taken over the running of the mainline on the East Coast from National Express.
*
I think all this conclusively proves that there really is a left-liberal bias at the BBCs The World Tonight.

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

A TRUE FRIEND OF LABOUR

*
Yesterday, according to Michael Crick on Newsnight, David Miliband's friends were letting the world know that he 'genuinely' doesn't want the new foreign minister's post in the post-Lisbon European empire. Crick, ever the friend of Labour, was at the same game, spreading the message that Miliband's much-doubted denials were 'true'.
*
In a report featuring only Labour's friends - i.e. Sir Stephen Wall, former Europe advisor to Tony Blair, and Paul Richards, former Labour strategist - Crick's tone throughout remained free from sarcasm or scepticism or accusation. He chased no-one and engaged in no mischief-making. How utterly different to all his reports on those despicable 'Tories'!
*

Monday, 9 November 2009

HAS ALAN LITTLE JUST SMEARED THE LATVIANS?

*
The Labour Party must have loved this morning's Today programme.
*
The BBC continues its endless crusade against the Conservative Party's new allies in Europe, whilst completely ignoring the revolting aspects of some of Labour's allies - 9/11 denial, anti-semitism, homophobia, corruption, terrorism, secret police activity, Communist pasts. (Please click on the label European allies for more on this.)
*
This morning's programme featured a long piece from Latvia by Alan Little, which had in its sights the country's For Fatherland and Freedom party, now allied to David Cameron's party in the European parliament. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8349000/8349786.stm.

It was an extraordinary piece of polemic that strayed well beyond mere reporting. If what Little implies is true, it is indeed appalling that the Conservative Party should be allied to such a party, and they should be shamed into breaking with them and also denounce them in no uncertain terms. If what he implies is not true, this will rank as one of the most disgraceful and biased reports ever to appear on the BBC.
**
The Today website records much of Justin Webb's introductory remarks, including yet another darkening of the name of Michal Kaminski: "The row over whether or not the Conservatives should be allied in the European Parliament with Michal Kaminski, a polish MEP with a far right background," (long ago, when he was a teenager) "has overshadowed some of the other members of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group to which British Tories now belong. Allan Little reports from Latvia on the activities and views of the For Fatherland and Freedom Party."
*
Little recalled Nazi crimes against Latvia's Jewish population, and noted that Latvians as well as Germans were responsible. On March 16th each year members of the Latvian Legion march through Riga. "These men marched alongside Hitler's Waffen SS." The main governing party at the height of Latvia's "ethnic triumphalism" (1998) was For Fatherland and Freedom. "They declared March 16th Latvian Legion Day and a public holiday". When the party's only MEP Roberts Zile claims that "there is no historical evidence that the Latvian legion fought alongside the Waffen SS" Little challenges him on the point. Zile points out that the US and UK governments of the time (Truman and Atlee) accepted the truth of this, and Little concedes the point and features a man whose family was murdered in the Holocaust but who believes that, as Little puts it, "the Latvian Legion parade, in itself, is inoffensive." So what exact point is Alan Little trying to make here? Is this not smoke-without-fire?
*
Dan Hannan has pointed out something that Little did not mention: "They don’t “celebrate Waffen SS veterans”. They attend an annual commemoration of all Latvia’s war victims, a commemoration attended by every party in Latvia except the Russian ones. Let me repeat that: attended by every party in Latvia, from the Christian Democrats to the Greens." Why did Little fail to mention this? We hear time and time again (not least from David Miliband and the BBC) that it's For Fatherland and Freedom that 'celebrates the Waffen SS', but we aren't told that 'every party in Latvia except the Russian ones' attends the 'celebration' too. Knowing that casts things in a very different light, doesn't it?
**
Little moved on the discuss the anti-Soviet sentiment that swept Latvia when Communism fell (though he didn't explain why there was such a strong anti-Soviet feeling): "For many Latvians the fall of the Soviet Union was a chance to take their country back from the Russians. This was the popular sentiment that For Fatherland and Freedom thrived on. Many turned on Latvia's Russian-speaking minority." A clip of an old Latvian soldier followed, egged on by Little, saying that all Russians should leave Latvia. Little said slowly and carefully: "Be clear about this. It is a call for mass deportations. There are nearly a million Russians living in Latvia, 40% of the population. In the 1990s For Fatherland and Freedom introduced a law that would deny citizenship to most of those Russians, leaving them stateless." (This is not the same thing as mass deportation). But, Mr Little, can we be clear about this too: Did (or does) For Fatherland and Freedom also call for the mass deportation of Russians? Was what this old soldier says what the party said (or says) too? Or not? That was not at all clear from your report. If they didn't say that then why forcefully imply that they did? That would be a lie and a smear. If you say they did say that, please provide some evidence to support it. (Little, incidentally, forgot to mention that the Russians mass-deported Latvians to Russia at the end of the war).
*
We then heard from Miroslav Mitrophanov. He is, according to Little, "a member of Latvia's parliament and an ethnic Russian" who "remembers the atmosphere of ethnic intolerance in the Fatherland and Freedom years of the late 1990s." What Little fails to mention is that his own party has a pretty dark past of its own, as For Human Rights in United Latvia is a left-wing party many of whose main leaders were members of the old Communist Party and that it's widely hated by ethnic Latvians for that very reason. (The party is allied to our very own Greens).
*
Little goes on, "The Latvian parliament is a noisy, chaotic, irreverent place. The main centre-right party is called New Era. It sits in the mainstream bloc in the European parliament." ('Mainstream', of course, as opposed to 'extreme' -we know who sits there!!) Little's characterisation of the party is sharply at variance with Wikipedia: "New Era has later been characterized as a social democratic party, but it does not call itself social democratic. Until 2007, New Era Party used to define itself as "right-of-centre" in its program, but it no longer does that now." Which is right - Alan Little or Wikipedia? Whoever's right, we heard from one of its spokemen in Little's report. Little asked him what he thought of For Fatherland and Freedom now. He slagged it off something rotten.
*
Having set up a lot of smoke but no fire whatsoever, Little moved to this remarkable statement: "For Fatherland and Freedom appeals rhetorically to much that is dark and dangerous in Latvian popular sentiment." Well, that's Alan Little's opinion. "It drags its World War Two baggage heavilly into the present day." Well, that's also Alan Little's opinion. These are both heavy charges which needed a lot more evidence than Little actually provided to justify.
*
Maris Riekstins, the socialist foreign minister of Latvia has complained about all this party-political mud-slinging at For Fatherland and Freedom and the other allies of the Conservative Party in Eastern Europe. The BBC will doubtless ignore him and continue to insinuate that David Cameron is in bed politically with a bunch of far-right extremists.