MR SMITH GOES TO DOWNING STREET

*
Going back in time (as I have a habit of doing) and re-visiting yesterday's Today finds John Humphrys chatting to Labour-leaning BBC political correspondent Norman Smith at 6.32 am. Smith was in full 'Protect the Emperor' mode, presenting Number Ten's case without criticism. He reported the allegations - which he insisted did not come from Number Ten itself - that Mrs Pratt is nothing more than a Tory Stooge, on the extremely dubious logic that her office is "next door to" a Conservative constituency office (!!!!), that Ann Widdecombe is (now was) a chief patron of her charity (thus ignoring Labour MP Anne Snelgrove's crucial early support) and that David Cameron had just e-mailed her his support, without qualifying them in any way. (On the first point I used to live opposite a brothel!) That this just might have been nothing more than a disgusting and risible smear wasn't even entertained at this point by either Norm or John.
*
The Tory stooge accusation, later repeated by Lord Mandelson and others, remains completely unproven. Smith also reported the Brownites' allegation that Mrs P. had a personal animus against Gordon Brown, which was of course another completely unsupported allegation (i.e. another smear). Messers Smith and Humphrys again didn't think it worth raising even the merest whiff of doubt about it.
*
Smith then reported Labour's second line of attack on the credibility of her charity/business and then the third, that Mrs P. had breached confidentiality. I have to say I think she did, and shouldn't have done - but, in her defence (a defence not put by Smith of course) she didn't name any names, leaving the broken confidences anonymous broken confidences! Smith piled on the agony here, saying "and I have to say that is a criticism not just made by friends of the prime minister but indeed by other bullying helplines," "at least one" of which criticised her on their website. ("At least one"? What does that mean? How many exactly? Was there really only one at the time? If so, that would make it yet another smear.)
*
In conclusion Smith presented both sides of the issue, though one gets a more positive (and longer) spin (guess which one!) than the other: "Some people will conclude that his explosions of anger, his alleged bullying, do raise fundamental questions about the appropriateness of him in Number Ten. Others will say 'look, it just demonstrates he is a determined and committed character, he may get angry but it shows he cares about what he does and they may well argue that Number Ten, highly pressurised job, but what an earth do you expect?'"
*
From the beginning this was little more than Labour propaganda, served neat.