CLOSURE NOTICE

**
Sorry my friends, this blog is now officially closed.
*
When I started it, I intended to stop after the election. Though that intention faded as time went on, I will stick with it now. I need to write about something else, something I broke off writing about a year ago. I am itching to get back to doing that - a long-term project of mine. That's one part of it (the main part of it).
*
This is the other. You may still see me from time to time over at Biased BBC - which I will keep on reading - but I intend to avoid BBC News like a plague for a few months! You really can hear too much of James Naughtie and Carolyn Quinn, and see too much of Andrew Marr and Kirsty Wark. I am sick of the sound and sight of them.
*
Biased BBC will, of course, go on doing its magnificent, many-eyed work and the tireless eyes of Not a sheep (more an eagle than a goat) will not let the biased BBC rest either.
*
I want to thank you all for your support - and, at times of need, help. Thank you to all my followers. You have all been wonderful.
*
I must thank Not a sheep for all his encouragement, and his example, and Ctesibius, kindly Ptolemaic inventor of that killer tool, the interruption coefficient - available for all to keep using!


Thanks to Hippiepooter for his support and help and for honouring me by including me in his invaluable Biased BBC digests.
*
Also, thanks to my most long-term commenter, known only as Anonymous (there have been the occasional impostors adopting your name but you have always been the Anonymous!), who has shared so many of my grim experiences of listening to the Toady programme and the odious Carolyn Quinn. I have very much appreciated your comments.
*
Grant, you really must add Morecambe to your list of regular haunts (far fewer midges than Scotland, much sunnier than the Gambia). Your comments have made my day many a time, and I hope to keep seeing lots of them over at B-BBC. I almost always resisted the temptation to respond with a photo of John Prescott. Thank you Grant.
*

And thanks also to Andy C, whose support has been no less appreciated - and whose views towards the Rockies even I, with my superb views across Morecambe Bay to the Lakeland Hills, envy just a little bit. The idea of you reading my blog each day after looking out towards the Rockies helped inspire me to keep at it this year and to try to start again after the election. Thank you sir. Sorry for not being able to keep at it.
*
Thanks again to all and, lest this be turning into the longest Oscar speech in history, let you just say

Best wishes

*

Craig

EUROPIA THE BEAUTIFUL

*
Arch-Europhile James Naughtie discussed "what lies ahead for the EU" this morning with arch-Europhile and former VP of the European Commission Lord Brittan and arch-Europhile historian (and consequent Lib Dem supporter) Timothy Garton-Ash. The discussion was thoughtful, not without interest and, inevitably, given the current 'existential threats' to the Euro, not entirely free from angst either, but nonetheless it was a meeting of Europhile minds of the kind an unbiased broadcaster might not have considered entirely acceptable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8698000/8698581.stm
*
Incidentally, our old friend James Naughtie gave us a fine Freudian slip this morning (highlighted, aptly, in red), asking Leon Brittan: "Sort of intrigued about the arrival of Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister. Not as intrigued as you will be since he used to work in your office in Brussels. (Why doesn't that surprise me?) Were you surprised when you saw the deal unravel and have you offered him any advice?" You can hope, Labour Jim, you can hope!
*
Lord Brittan, no less incidentally, was delighted, clearly preferring the ConLib coalition to a Conservatives-only government (Why doesn't that surprise me either?)
*
*
Coda: The Today website's headline for this piece is classic BBC:
*
********Eurozone 'must keep the show on the road'
*
As a summary of the BBC narrative, this can hardly be bettered!!
*

ANY QUESTIONS?

*
This week's Any Questions featured a revealing encounter between Jonathan Dimbleby and a member of the audience (a typically left-wing audience, but then it was from just outside Swansea.)
*
The questioner, a Mr Greg Wilkinson, offered the panel a choice of questions (war and peace or equality and inequality) - much to JD's surprise. Dimbleby wanted to be able to ask Labour leadership no-hoper John McDonnell about the Labour leadership and prompted Mr Wilkinson to use what was clearly the agreed question about the Labour leadership. The bolshie Mr Wilkinson was not playing ball: "I was given a question to ask, but that's my question. She said 'Any question', this is my question." He asked an anti-American, pro-European, anti-war question instead. (For more on Mr Wilkinson:
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Pensioner-picks-date-protest/article-594221-detail/article.html)
*
Jonathan Dimbleby, clearly embarrassed, returned to the subject shortly afterwards, as he thought that the listening public might be "puzzled" about this exchange. He thought, naturally, that the listening public might leap to the conclusion that Mr Wilkinson's "I was given a question to ask" meant that the show's producers sometimes give their own pre-prepared questions to the audience for them to ask on their behalf - which, if true, would completely undermine the show's credibility. (Haven't we all suspected that from time to time though? And even more so about its sister show - or should that be 'brother show'? - Question Time?)
*
JD explained that what Mr Wilkinson meant was that because the show gets large numbers of questions from the audience each week the producers must pick a handful to be read out. This is sort-of obvious, but it puts on record the fact that what gets asked and who is chosen to ask the questions is entirely at the discretion of the programme's producers. If a question attacking the coalition comes up first, or a question calling for the scrapping of Trident comes up third, that happens because the shows producers have chosen it to happen. If a left-wing, anti-Israeli protester (like Mr Wilkinson) gets called on to ask a question, that's because he has been picked by the show's producers. Everything is filtered through their lenses. There's nothing random about the show. All very obvious really, but sometimes the obvious goes unnoticed.
*
As further evidence for all this, and in blatant disregard for the very idea behind the show, Jonathan Dimbleby then - after the four panelists had finished holding forth on Mr Wilkinson's question - simply went ahead and put the question Mr Wilkinson was supposed to have asked to John McDonnell, regardless. The programme's agenda was not going to be derailed that easily!
*

THE BRANDENBURG BAIT

*
Alas for the hard-working taxpayers of Germany, their parliament (with understandable reluctance) has now voted to hand over huge amounts of their money to bail out the profligate Greeks.
*
Last night's Newnight led on the story. Well I say 'led on' it, but Peter Marshall's latest report started from a somewhat different angle, an angle familiar from so much of the BBC's coverage of this story, an anti-Cameron angle: "Well in two days the Eurosceptical new British leader has 'done Europe' - the power centres of Paris and Berlin. And the Europeans, struggling with their financial crisis, may well feel he's given them little more than small change. Everyone speaks of 'solidarity' but David Cameron was never going to divvy up funding, still less to surrender what he sees as British sovereignty".
*
Everyone from Shirin Wheeler to Kirsty Wark has been pushing this line: Europe (especially Germany) should be showing solidarity with the poor Greeks by bailing them out. This will save the Euro. Britain should not be standing on the sidelines but should be showing solidarity too and handing over more money. The British taxpayer would doubtless be as reluctant as the German taxpayer but, then again, when have the interests of the British taxpayer ever been at the forefront of the BBC's mind? Nor do Peter Marshall's comments take into account the fact that we Brits are at least as up to our eyes in debt as the Greeks - and, if rumour is to be believed again, very possibly even more so - so we will need all the money we already have to rescue ourselves, never mind rescue the Eurozone.
*
No, he was much more concerned to stoke up conflict between the new prime minister and the chancellors and presidents of Europe (just as he was doing on Thursday in Paris).
*
He kept plugging away at it: "Now struggling with the Euro crisis, Angela Merkel was wishfully thinking that Britain might lend a hand." David Cameron "disabused" her.
*
He still kept plugging away at it: "Even among critics of Angela Merkel here - and there are many - there's some resentment at Britain's refusal to to pay any part of the Great Euro Bailout", he said, before turning to one such critic, who sourly warned (to the accompaniment of Mr Marshall's nodding head) that, should we in the UK face collapse, our standing-aside now could seriously backfire on us. Who was this man? Remarkably, there was no caption to tell us and Peter Marshall forgot to tell us. (I bet he was a left-winger, probably from the SPD).
*
There was no stopping Peter Marshall. After giving us a pair of contrasting German vox-pops, the second of whom said that 'we're all in it together', he returned to his attack: "Not 'in this together', certainly not in the financial sense, is the UK and its new premier."
*
A new angle of attack followed. We saw Peter Marshall at the Cameron-Merkel joint press conference asking the new premier a question. We're so used to probing, mischief-making British journalists asking deeply embarrassing questions to our leaders that it's rarely shocking to hear them asking any question, even when putting it at a sensitive press conference between heads of government. This one was pure mischief-making: "One of the British diplomats is quoted this morning as saying it was 'crackers' for Mrs Merkel's government to act unilaterally against naked short-selling. Did you think it was 'crackers'? Did you tell Chancellor Merkel it was 'crackers'?"
*
David Cameron's diplomatic answer was then spun by Mr Marshall, in a classic instance of BBC editorialising, into something worse: "That was both a pointed rebuke for Germany's measures earlier this week that set the world's markets tumbling and it was yet another reiteration (sigh) of Britain's independence."
*
The spinning continued right to the bitter end: "The leader of Germany and the new leader of the UK say they get on harmoniously but on the key issue of the Euro there's discord and you can't help but hear that." Especially, if you're looking for it Peter!
*

SPECULATION

*
Too much to catch up on, so I won't even try! So just a vignette.
*
Many of us suspected that the rumours (circulating for some time now) - that the last government acted a bit like previous Greek governments and deliberately hid the true scale of our national debt - were true. What is already a national scandal - the present level of our national indebtedness - (though it is not being treated as such by the political class or the BBC) may well be far worse than we feared. There have been statements from senior figures in the new coalition this week that suggest that they're finding lots of evidence for this. Sadly, they aren't producing it for us. If there is proof of systematic fiddling of our national accounts by Labour, our new government shouldn't act like members of a clubby, opportunistic political elite and merely suggest as much but then move on without seeking to punish the guilty parties (or party!). They should lay all the evidence before us and then call in the fraud squad. If Labour has been fiddling the books then calling in the fraud squad is hardly an unreasonable or an extreme response!!
*
Imagine for a moment that the rumours are true. Wouldn't you expect the BBC, regardless of who was in power then or now, to flood our airwaves with Panorama or Analysis specials investigating the scandal? Wouldn't you expect Today to pry and probe day in and day out to get at the truth? If the rumours are true and the coalition government produces the evidence in great detail and with complete candour, how could even the generally pro-Labour BBC fail not to investigate further?
*
These speculations arise as a result of the following depressing exchanges between John Humphrys and Norman Smith at 6.32am last Monday.
*

Discussing George Osborne's remarks about already having found skeletons in the cupboard, John and Norm immediately ditched this discussion and concentrated instead on the cuts the coalition would soon be enforcing - their scope and their immediacy, and their falling on "Mr and Mrs Average" - as well as the setting up of an Office of Budget Responsibility. Here Norm did at least mention, in passing, that economic experts thought that Alistair Darling's growth predictions were "bluntly bordering on the heroic". (It would have been far blunter though to say they were absolute rubbish, of course. And blunter still to say (with a hat-tip to Tarzan) they were complete Ed Balls. And, being even more blunt, to say that, far from being 'heroic', they were much more likely to have been extremely 'cowardly' in their reluctance to admit reality to the voting public prior to a general election.)
*
The really depressing bit follows, and it begins with a question from John Humprhys:
"And I suppose if one were being desperately cynical one might suggest that they've discovered all these skeletons in the closet at a convenient time because it enables them to say 'Look, we don't have any choice. Don't blame us for all these cuts and tax increases and all the rest of it. It's the other lot's fault. It's what they left us with."
*
It's odd, isn't it, that John Humphrys's 'desperate cyninism' anticipates, to an eerie degree, Alistair Darling's "It's the oldest trick in the book, blaming the last government" defence put forward on The World At One on the same day?
*
Is this going to be how the BBC reacts should evidence emerge that Labour has been systematically fiddling the books? To say that the Tories are just playing the oldest trick in the book, trying to deflect the blame for all these cuts and tax increases away from themselves and onto the last Labour government?
*
This is, very obviously, to ignore the fact that the present government isn't responsible for our national debt and isn't responsible for the cuts and tax increases that are going to happen. It is Labour, Labour, Labour that is responsible. Obviously and undeniably Gordon Brown's responsibility.
*
Well, not obviously and undeniably for the BBC, if Humph's question is anything to go by.
*
And how did Norman Smith respond to Humph's question? By countering it, or qualifying it, or softening it? No, by agreeing with it: "I mean, of course there is an element of politicking here and of course the new coalition administration will want to apportion as much blame as possible onto Gordon Brown's administration..." Well, to quote Not a sheep again 'No shit Sherlock'. But also to quote myself, 'Norman Smith is a Labour apologist.' To concede that there is an 'element of politicking' here is to state an opinion - an opinion harmful to the coalition. There may well be an 'element of politicking' here (or there may not be), but that doesn't mean that the coalition aren't correct in their charge against Labour. And more importantly, why should we have to pay to hear Norman Smith give us his opinion that there is an 'element of politicking' here? He should, like John Humphrys, keep his opinions to himself.
*
Moreover, if Gordon Brown's administration is to blame for the JAW-DROPPING level of national debt that our country and its taxpayers are liable for, and for the sheer scale of "the pain ahead" (as Norm put it) - and if it isn't no other party in the UK is! - why is it wrong to say so?
*#
No, if Labour are proven to have fiddled the nation's books to a scandalous degree I suspect that there won't be many Panorama or Analysis specials, nor much probing by Today.

A WARK DOWN (BAD) MEMORY LANE

*
Last night's Newsnight contained a few echoes of one of the programme's most biased pre-election editions, chronicled here:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/liz-mckeans-very-biased-report-gavin.html
*
To mark David Cameron's first foreign trip as prime minister, meeting President Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace, Peter Marshall followed him to Paris. As soon as I heard Mr Marshall talk about "a history of upsets and insults", I thought 'They're bound to bring up George Osborne's joke about Sarko's height' ("the Sarkozy box" remark), from which particular molehill the programme had made almost as much of a mountain as the French. It wasn't too long in coming: "If British Euroscepticism has deep roots, there's a current bete noire here in Paris and he's the new British chancellor. It was the moment last August when Mr Osborne, at a business conference, poked fun at President Sarkozy's stature. That very personal insult appalled the French, whatever their political stripe. They felt it unforgivably rude" (Molehill, mountain). Cue a French leftist (not introduced as such of course), former Europe minister Noelle Lenoir, who called Mr Osborne "immature". Oh well, I suppose they had to bring it up, didn't they? And seek out someone from the Left to comment on it as well? As well at Mme Lenoir, Peter Marshall also sought out Cameron's "old sparring partner" Jean-Francois Cope of the Europhile UMP.
*
Who did Kirsty Wark talk to in the wake of this Tory-free report? The German ambassador , the French ambassador and...Chris Bryant, shadow minister for Europe. (Why Chris Bryant?)
*
And what was Kirsty's first question to the French ambassador "Ambassador, before we go on and talk about the future, let's talk about the state of the relationship before David Cameron came to power yesterday (sic), the unfortunate comments by George Osborne about President Sarkozy's stature, and on the other side what Sarkozy said about the fact that the Tories left the EPP, said that was "autistic and sad". The relationship has not been of the best up till now, has it?" M Gourdault-Montagne, being an ambassador (a role the presenter clearly doesn't understand), refused to play along and make the second part of his surname out of any more molehills but Kirsty Wark, never the diplomat, soon crashed into his answer and tried again: "And yet, and yet just months ago, sorry to interrupt you (yeah, sure you are!) and yet..are you telling me now that when President Sarkozy said it was "sad and autistic" of the Tories to leave the EPP, he was telling fibs?" When he replied diplomatically, she laughed at him derisively.
*
And on she went, turning next to the German ambassador and saying "And by the same token Angela Merkel was clearly very angry as well when the Conservatives left the EPP. She was supposedly furious about it. How do you create a relationship where you're saying that you actually want Britain to be part of the European discussions about what happens to the Eurozone but you don't believe, as it were, that they're in the right position?" Herr Boomgaarden gave the answer Mr Gourdault-Montagne should have given when Kirsty laughed at his answer: "I'm an ambassador of a country not of a party. That means I don't comment on party-party relations." Exactly.
*
I like Ambassador Boomgaarden. I've talked before about the BBC's keenness to get British taxpayers to fork out lots of money to save (a) the Greeks and (b) the Euro. When Kirsty shot off down this increasingly familiar line of BBC questioning, like a ferret down a spacious pair of trousers, he responded in a way that (however convincing you find it) made my wallet feel a lot happier:
*
Kirsty (interrupting): "And how do you exactly see evidence of that 'constructive new relationship'? Could it be down to how much Britain is prepared to put in to help the Eurozone's financial problems?"
Ambassador: "This sounds as if we need help for the Euro..."
Kirsty: "Do you not?"
Ambassador: "No we do not. The Euro is a firm, stable and wonderful monetary unit. It works. It went up today."
*
Again, like a determined ferret in the late, great Cyril Smith's trousers, Kirsty wasn't going to be deflected. My wallet looked worried again as she turned to the French ambassador and asked: "How do you want Britain to proceed? You already have this promise from Alistair Darling of the 8 billion euros (my wallet had forgotten about that!). Do you think there should be a further financial contribution from the British?" M Gourdault-Montagne said, sensibly enough, that the important thing was for Britain, and all other EU countries, to tackle its deficit - as that is the root of the problem. (Yes, cheers Gordon for making ours among the worst of all!!)
*
At least putting a question for once from a devil's advocate position, Kirsty's next question (another interruption) to the French ambassador again showed her complete inability to grasp the concept of ambassadorship and ask questions appropriate to a diplomatic role: "But ambassador, do you think Britain actually in the end...Britain was right to stay outside the Eurozone, wasn't she?" That's a question you should ask a politician, not an ambassador. "It's not up to us to say", he replied, speaking for the French nation but perhaps also speaking for ambassadors as a breed!
*
That she was playing devil's advocate (as all BBC interviewers should be doing at all appropriate times) was suggested by the way she put her next question: "Just finally Chris Bryant. You absolutely sure that Britain was right to stay outside the Eurozone for now and all time?" (Mr Bryant attacked the Conservatives and the coalition in both his answers, as if the election were still going on. Now how's that for "mature" politics? What would Mme Lenoir make of that? Thank goodness he's now a shadow of his former self!)

P.S. Why do BBC journalists think it's the done thing to remind foreign ambassadors about reasons to be angry with the British Conservatives? Who does that help? The French and Germans? No. The British? No. The British opposition? Perhaps. It's a strange practice, isn't it?

JIMS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

*
Labour MP, and joint chair (hopefully not bought from John Lewis at our expense) of the Unite parliamentary group, Jim Sheridan was on Today this morning bellyaching about Ipsa (the "vindictive" Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority). James Naughtie was quick to "make it clear that this (the complaint against Ipsa) comes from all parties". Mr Sheridan got a sympathetic hearing. And more than that, he was extended a courtesy which I suspect might not have been extended to a Conservative MP with a comparable expenses record - Naughtie chose not to bring up any of his controversial expense claims - the plasma TV, the coffee table, the ivory leather bed, the Memory foam mattress, the new shower (etc), not to mention his enthusiastic use of the second home's allowance. He was also a very strong supporter of Speaker Martin, the Chief Trougher who famously fought tooth and nail against Freedom Of Information campaigners.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5354087/Jim-Sheridan-claimed-for-plasma-TV-and-leather-bed.html
*
A new parliament, but not a new MP and not a new story.

ON YOUR MARKS

*
After attacking the 'Tory Right' for disapproving of "those pesky foreign laws" contained in the Human Rights Act (in his second post from under the gloomy ConLib ash cloud), Mark Easton has now moved on to the new immigration cap proposed by the coalition. His latest post attempts to undermine it:

Thinking cap
Mark Easton 14:06 UK time, Thursday, 20 May 2010

'It is the "mechanism" (to calculate the annual limit) that is going to be the really tricky bit', he says.

There isn't really a problem anyhow (thanks to Labour), or a least not a problem about too much non-EU economic migration: 'At the moment, the only non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK are those with enormous wealth, enormous brains or with specific skills in areas where Britain has an identified shortage.' So stop worrying that there's too much non-EU immigration and start worrying instead about the idea of a cap and too little non-EU immigration!

Opposition is growing, apparently, to...the new proposal: 'How will the mechanism prevent the cap damaging the national interest? There are already warnings that stopping people coming to the UK who have skills or investment we need would undermine another of the coalition's stated aims - to "support sustainable growth and enterprise".' (Funny, how some 'warnings' are considered worth mentioning, but others not).

Mark Easton has been caught out over his (mis)use of statistics before, most notoriously over knife crime. Migration Watch (who he doesn't quote) record an instance of this from during the election campaign which is well worth a read:
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefingPaper/document/191.
*
So, it's with a strong dose of wariness that we read: 'As revealed on this blog, official data show that the number of non-EU economic migrants employed in the UK is falling - down 76,000 last year compared with the year before.'
*
Am I missing something here (and I very well could be!) but surely this figure - even if taken at face value -, which is being used by Mark to suggest a long-term trend for falling non-EU economic migration - is very possibly nothing more than a short-term consequence of the fact that we were in a very deep recession last year? This figure could be nothing more, therefore, than a blip (a spike) caused by people choosing, for the time being, not to come to a country that in 2009 was deep in recession - a blip that might run counter to the overall trend. Merely quoting a large-looking number which suggests a very significant drop without putting it in the context of that deep UK recession, or even fitting it into the context of several years figures (for example, had the year before last year seen a rise of, say, 96,000, then combined with 2009's drop of 76,000 this would have resulted in a two-year rise of 20,000. Context is crucial with statistics) looks suspicious. Mark Easton's quoting of a one-off figure seems far too convenient. Or, as I say, am I missing something?

This is followed by a repeat of an earlier point: "Some sectors of the economy are already complaining that they cannot fill key vacancies." (With some eight million Brits 'economically inactive', isn't that truly extraordinary? A point Easton doesn't choose to make.)

He goes on: 'The cap could only apply to Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the existing points-based system, since those are the only two categories under which migrant workers from outside the EU can come to the UK.

Tier 1 is for "Highly skilled workers, investors and entrepreneurs". It is hard to imagine that these are the kind of immigrants the UK would want to ban.

Tier 2 covers "Sponsored skilled workers", mostly defined as "people coming to the UK with a skilled job offer to fill a gap in the workforce that cannot be filled by a settled worker". Again, it is difficult to conceive how, in the short-term, stopping these individuals would be good for Britain.'
*
This last point is the third appearance of the point made earlier.

Then it was back to a Labour 'achievement', which (if Mark is to be believed) has struck a balance which 'business' thinks is too restrictive but the new government thinks isn't restrictive enough: 'The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) was set up to offer "independent, transparent and evidence-based advice to government on labour market shortages that can sensibly be filled by migration". Only non-EU workers with a job and the right skills in a sector identified by the committee are allowed in.

Some British business leaders are already fuming that the MAC has not agreed to put their sectors on the list of skill shortages which would allow them to bring talent in from overseas.' (The fourth appearance of the point made earlier). 'The suggestion that we need a cap seems to imply that the government believes the committee has not been tough enough.'

It's woe, woe and thrice woe for the coalition then: 'So it is going to be interesting to see how the cap "mechanism" might work: set the limit high and there's no point in having it; set it low and Britain deprives itself of workers which benefit the UK ' (fifth appearance). 'The thinking cap will be worn.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/05/thinking_cap.html
*
Mark Easton's thinking cap will be worn too, trying to find ways to undermine this government.

WOE, WOE AND THRICE WOE!

*
BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton earned a reputation for himself as someone deeply reluctant to criticize the former Labour government. He was, however, occasionally critical of the Lib Dems (usually when they diverged from the Labour line) but regularly critical of the Conservatives.
*
His blog presented a broadly sunlit view of Britain - a Britain far from 'broken', indeed largely healing nicely over the last, shall we say, fifteen years. Some might have applied the word 'Panglossian' to Easton's blog.
*
Suddenly though Dr Pangloss ("All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds") has vanished, and his creator Voltaire - satirical, critical, pessimistic - has taken his place.
*
The age of Labour sunlight, about which we all so ungratefully 'moaned', has passed. Bad times are coming (which have absolutely nothing to do with the previous pilot and crew of course!) and Easton is already impatient for this shilly-shallying new government (which has been keeping him, businesses, public services and charities waiting for years, no months, no weeks, no actually just a few days) to outline their terrifying plans - presumably so that he can get down to the business of criticizing them.
*
Britain under the ConLibs is going to be painted in very different, far darker colours, I suspect, by Mark Easton. The 'unjustified' fears we held under Labour will be replaced by 'justified' fears. The 'simple-minded', who never believed him when he said that things were 'all a bit more complicated than (we) had thought' (ie safer, better than before), will now doubtless find that things are 'a bit less complicated than Mark Easton had previously thought' (ie less safe, worse).

This was his very first post from the era of the new ConLib government. It's not a very warm welcome, is it? (Nor a particularly neutral one either):
*
*
Britain in the departure lounge
Mark Easton 11:44 UK time, Tuesday, 18 May 2010

Britain fidgets nervously in a deserted airport terminal. A black cloud of volcanic ash has forced all the engines to be turned off. We are hanging around waiting for the departures board to ripple back into life.

And we fear what it will tell us when it does.

The machinery of government has been put on auto-pilot, a silent glide until new ministers have been told what really happens if they press any of the cockpit buttons.

After years moaning at the crew, now they are in charge, but before they take over the controls they must listen to a pre-flight briefing explaining how it is all a bit more complicated than they thought.

I rang a departmental press office this week and asked if I could interview a minister about one of the new government's flagship policies. No-one was available. Why? Because they are still learning how they might keep the promises they made to the electorate.

So we sit and we wait.

Businesses, public services, charities: all must sit on their hands until the government flight plan has been published. It will be a few more days yet before the details of the route captain Cameron and co-pilot Clegg are planning for Britain.

The forecast is grim. Dangerous volcanic clouds drift overhead. Storms are on their way. Lightning strikes look certain.

Ashen-faced and white-knuckled, some of the passengers in the departure hall suffer a profound fear of flying.

Buckle up Britain. It is going to be a bumpy ride.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/05/britain_in_the_departure_loung.html

RIPPING UP HER REALITY CARD

*
Following Jon Sopel's discussion with the delicious Miranda Green and Sarah Sands, The Politics Show went rift-hunting in Birmingham, sniffing out a disgruntled Lib Dem. This particular Lib Dem, interviewed by beebette Susana Mendonca, was so disgruntled he had just resigned from his party and joined the ultra-left Greens - which kind-of (as they say in Beebland) suggests where he's coming from (as did all of his subsequent remarks).
*
Susana didn't neglect to mention Charles Kennedy's disquiet and added that "we know that around a hundred Lib Dem supporters have actually left the party since that deal was made last week. I'm joined by one of those people..." Wow, a whole one hundred people!!!!
*
The beebette then asked the disgruntled Lib Dem, Eddie Hartley "You must be furious to take that course of action?" The jackass (a Labour chief whip Nick Brown lookalike) was.
*
Susana was wholly on his side, echoing and pre-echoing his words over PR and Trident. She went on to ask him "Now you're not the only one who's..er..basically left the party (no, there are around a surprisingly insignificant number of others, or so you keep telling us!). Do you think this will be a sign of things to come? What do you think's going to happen to the party?"
*
The jackass, prompted by the beebette (and I really do mean 'prompted'), then ripped up his Lib Dem membership card on camera. The beebette then, shamelessly, stood in front of the camera and said "And there we have it. One Liberal Democrat member there ripping up his card live on air. I suppose the message to the Liberal Democrat leadership couldn't be any clearer here." Nor could the message from the BBC be any clearer.
**
I hope the Liberal Democrat leadership is taking notes.
*
The utter stupidity and sheer brazenness of this report were made clear by Susana's final comments, which have to be transcribed in full to be believed: "I spoke to the party about how many people have actually left. They told me that a hundred or so have actually left the party." How many times does that need repeating? Well, maybe plenty of times because this, astonishingly, is what she had to say next: "But around 400 people have actually joined the party since that coalition was formed last week." Get that: 100 people have left the party, providing the BBC with its story, but 400 people have joined the party since the coalition was formed - a fact to be mentioned, just in passing, at the very end of a very biased report!
*
So, surely then the story isn't that Lib Dems are leaving the party because of the leadership's decision to team up with the wicked Tories but that the Lib Dems have had a net gain of 300 members as a result of that decision!!! That extremely fleeting concession to honest reporting having been given, what did biased Susana say next? Steel yourselves for some real BBC gall here: "So clearly keeping a positive gloss on it Jon." As opposed to the BBC, which was glossing it as negatively as it could, burying the facts in the process.
*
The BBC are beyond incorrigible and this report was beyond a joke.
*
*
CODA: Sopel called this travesty of a report "very interesting" and started his interview with Danny Alexander with the question "Well, we've just seen another membership card ripped up. What have you got to say to disaffected members?"
*
Incorrigible.
*
Sopel's interview with Mr Alexander was an absolute disgrace, which pursued all the angles the BBC have been pursuing in recent days with little subtlely and a little dishonesty. Sopel is not happy about this new government. For example, when Mr Alexander tried to state why the alternative options were not feasible Sopel stopped him dead and then overplayed his hand when he said that "all your former leaders seem to be holding their noses over the agreement". At one stage Mr Alexander accused him of "playing games". Sopel denied it of course, but it was the truth nonetheless.

MORE PRO-LABOUR SPIN FROM THE BBC

*
The BBC are incorrigible....
*
(My uninventive title might earn me a 'No Shit Sherlock' award from Not a sheep!)
*
Going back to my final post from yesterday, I haven't been watching the BBC much this week but, despite that, I've already heard several disapproving/sarcastic mentions of the new coalition cabinet's lack of women, so I suspect there have been many more and that you will have heard some of them too.
*
This lunchtime's Politics Show provided only the latest example, as Jon Sopel said sarcastically, "Compensating for the lack of women in the cabinet, we're joined now by Sarah Sands and Miranda Green".
*
So we have a big problem, according to the BBC. The BBC likes to quote the killer figure - a cabinet of 23, featuring just 4 women.
*
Here's what they mean, with helpful colour-coordination (colours chosen at random!)

Prime Minister The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Deputy Prime Minister The Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP
Foreign Secretary The Rt Hon William Hague MP
Chancellor of the Exchequer The Rt Hon George Osborne MP
Secretary of State for Justice The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP
Home Secretary The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Secretary of State for Defence The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills The Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change The Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP
Secretary of State for Health The Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP
Secretary of State for Education The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP
Secretary of State for Transport The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP
Secretary of State for Environment The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP
Secretary of State for International Development The Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland The Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP
Secretary of State for Scotland The Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP
Secretary of State for Wales The Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP
Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury The Rt Hon David Laws MP
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster The Rt Hon The Lord Strathclyde PC
Minister without Portfolio (Minister of State) The Rt Hon The Baroness Warsi PC
*
The BBC, however, must take us for complete idiots - and, given that no-one seems to be pointing this out to them whenever they complain about the 'gender balance' of the new cabinet, perhaps with some justification - but this alleged 'terrible step backwards for women', about which they are getting so worked up, neglects one killer fact: The last Labour cabinet also contained just 4 women out of a cabinet of 23!!

Prime Minister The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP
Leader of the House of Commons The Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP
First Secretary of State The Rt Hon The Lord Mandelson PC
Chancellor of the Exchequer The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs The Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Justice The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department The Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP
Secretary of State for International Development The Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government The Rt Hon John Denham MP
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families The Rt Hon Ed Balls MP
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change The Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Health The Rt Hon Andrew Burnham MP
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland The Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP
Leader of the House of Lords The Rt Hon The Baroness Royall of Blaisdon PC
Minister for the Cabinet Office The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP
Secretary of State for Scotland The Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury The Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP
Secretary of State for Wales The Rt Hon Peter Hain MP
Secretary of State for Defence The Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth MP
Secretary of State for Transport The Rt Hon The Lord Adonis MP
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport The Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP
*
The BBC are trying to pull the wool over our eyes on this issue. They are condemning and mocking our new government for something Brown's last cabinet was no less guilty of. They didn't scream blue murder then, so why are they doing it now? And how dare they think we wouldn't notice?

It look as if they are going to chuck anything they can at this new government (especially one part of it) and will clearly not let any ideas of fairness or honesty get in their way. (Why change the habit of a lifetime?)
*
Labour got a honeymoon from the BBC in 1997 that just went on and on and on (arguably for 13 years, with a brief blip during the Iraq War). The ConLibs haven't even had a day's grace from the biased BBC.
*
UPDATE: After the Susana report (reviewed above), Sopel returned to his earlier point, in his sarcastic introduction to Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Danny (as opposed to Dougie) Alexander: "Well, in this new era of new politics we have something entirely new - Lib Dem cabinet ministers. Five of them. All men. "Male and pale" to use the phrase." A phrase, as I say, not used by Sopel and his kind about the no less 'male' or 'pale' final Labour cabinet. The BBC are truly, truly shameless. (And on the 'pale' front, I'll match lonely Baroness Scotland (1) with Baroness Warsi (1) No, the new government is no less 'hideously white' than its predecessor, despite what the BBC is trying to insinuate here).
*
PS Just a thought. Given that, as in this case, the Lib Dems (previously much favoured by the BBC) are now witnessing some collateral damage resulting from fire aimed at their coalition partners, the Conservatives, in the new spirit of the times, even they might begin to see the BBC in a new and less favourable light. I think a few e-mails to them are in order too.

RIFTS IN THE CON-LIB CONTINUUM

*
The BBC's intention to focus relentlessly on potential rifts within the new coalition has already become bleedingly obvious.
*
Not a sheep has tweeted that the Politics Show has been rift-hunting today on the issue of Europe. Here's a further example on exactly the same subject from Shirin Wheeler on this week's The Record Europe, where she explored the question posed in her introduction: "But will the differences in their policies over Europe prove to be the fatal faultline in the alliance?"

DID YOU FEEL SLIGHTLY DIRTY?

*
How has Gordcasting House been coping with the bad news (for it) following the election, when its man went down to just 29% and was subsequently prized out of Downing Street? Not that well by the sounds of it.
*
The programme obsessed about the Lib Dems &, as I would expect from BH, ignored the Tories - in much the same way that Today has been ignoring the feelings of Tories. Paddy O'Connell right away emphasized the importance of Charles Kennedy's having "sounded alarm at the new coalition" and went on to recall Roy Jenkins: "He left the Labour Party to co-found the SDP and for some that was an act of betrayal, for others a sign of one of the sharpest minds of the political landscape." (I strongly suspect that Paddy thinks that Nick Clegg has committed an act of betrayal too).
*
Paddy talked to Jenkin's biographer John Campbell, who thought that though, were he still alive, Jenkins would have been pleased at the "crack in the ice" of "sterile" left-right politics, he would have preferred it if there had been a "progressive" re-alignment of the Left beginning with a Lib-Lab coalition.
*
Next, it was off to Birmingham to talk to the Lib Dem deputy leader of the Con-Lib council there, Paul Tilsley. Paddy asked him: "And would you kindly be blunt? In your heart, when you shook hands with the Conservatives, were you scared and did you feel slightly dirty?" What a question! Can you imagine him asking that question (with appropriate amendments) to the Conservative leader of Birmingham City Council - in the unlikely situation of Paddy O'Connell ever talking to such a person? Mr Tilsley was "blunt", bluntly saying "No" to both questions. Sorry Paddy, it wasn't to be.
*
His next question began "And you're making cuts." He didn't follow this up, just made it as a statement (just as if he were a Labour Party politician, reminding the voters of something they ought to know) and then moved straight on, without giving Mr Tilsley the right to reply, saying "So let's get to the heart of this matter again. There's a tug between the head and the heart of your party and Charles Kennedy, the popular (word emphasized by Paddy) former leader, has implied that he can't see it working." That was the question. Having broadened the question beyond Brum, Paddy found that Mr Tilsley gave an answer he didn't want. The Lib Dem sighed and brilliantly called the alternative (i.e. the 'rainbow coalition') "the Dagenham solution - it's two stops from Barking." Paddy intervened to say "OK, let me just...forgive me...we would just like on another day your analysis of the national picture, but please stay in Brum because what I want to say is...". At which Mr Tilsley interrupted him and protested (good-naturedly) "But you were trying to get me out of Brum!" "Fair enough", said Paddy, and moved on.
*
From the Lib Dems, the programme moved on to Labour and the Miliband Brothers. (It was time for Paddy to look on the bright side, cross his fingers and wish upon a lucky star. ) We heard from "two friends and colleagues of their late father, the Marxist intellectual and international socialist Ralph Miliband, and also from one of his sons." Ah, it wouldn't be BH, would it, without either a Labour politician or a far-Leftist (or two)?! The friends of the old commie were "the activist co-editor of of Red Pepper magazine" Hilary Wainwright and "the historian and writer" Tariq Ali.
*
Paddy also went along to that 'Ed Miliband for leader' meeting we saw on the BBC a couple of days ago, making sure we heard the cheers and someone shouting out loudly "We love you Ed". (I don't think it was Paddy O'Connell himself.) He asked Ed a few questions, and here they are in all their challenging glory:
*
- "How's it going?"
- "It's early days?"
- "Did you know there's an event here, 'My Dear Brother'?"
- "How will you stand out from the rest of the candidates?"
- "What would Ralph Miliband have made of the candidate?"
*
Both Hilary Wainright and Tariq Ali - and the Milibands' mum by the sounds of it - want Labour to stop being Thatcherite opportunists and become a true socialist party again (and we all know what they mean by 'socialist' in this context). The intelligence of the Brothers was praised however.
*
Paddy O'Connell sounded happy with these people.

THE XX FACTOR

*

I am wholly supportive of getting many more women into parliament and government (especially good-looking ones). However, despite such feminist ardour on my part, I found Nicola Standbridge's report on this morning's Today to be a deeply dissatisfying one.

*

Prompted by Lynne Featherstone (the fetching new Equalities minister) and her comments calling for more female representation in the top echelons of government, Nicola went to meet the Fawcett Society, an old feminist organisation that features quite regularly on Today. She called it "an antidote to Cameron and Clegg's cabinet of 19 men and 4 women." The Fawcetts have 7 women and 1 man in its daily meeting - which is, of course, much fairer!

*

We listened in to the discussion as the Fawcetts discussed the new Con-Lib coalition's attitude to women's equality and caringly-sharingly-positively agreed (unanimously) that it would "put the brakes on if not move it backwards". (I distinctly remember a leading Fawcett coming out for Labour during the election, so this is, perhaps, unsurprising.) Nic interviewed the chief of the Fawcetts, Labour-supporting Ceri Goddard (pictured). Nic treated her as the fount of all wisdom.

*

Where did Nicola look for foreign inspiration? To Bolivia and its communist president Evo Morales. (Ah, the BBC and its love of communists!) Evo has granted women "gender parity" - something the Fawcetts, of course, are extremely keen on. Nic talked to Ana Maria Romero, communist President of the Bolivian Senate. She "encouraged us to follow their lead". Nic asked her, "So would you say Cameron and Clegg are missing out with just 4 out of 23 cabinet members?" Red Ana said "yes" and, "though I don't like her", cited Margaret Thatcher as a sign that women can participate in British politics. Thanks for that insight Ana. Thanks for that insight Nicola.

*

At least Nicola did talk to someone who, despite being a feminist, doesn't believe in lists and quotas - the classicist Prof Mary Beard (who I always think of as the professor who said that the US "had it coming" when thousands of people were horrifically murdered on 11 September 2001). She, light-heartedly, cited a well-known example from Ancient Greece of a way for women to get what they want (here more political representation) - by refusing their menfolk sex. (That made Sarah Montague snicker!)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8684000/8684268.stm

*
A campaigning piece, of course, rather than a piece of reportage. Should the supposedly impartial BBC be conducting such pieces?

RIGHT ANGLES

*
Another evolving angle on the BBC's attack on the new government has been to highlight the opposition to the coalition from Lib Dem supporters. This has already been noticed by several commentators on the B-BBC website.
*
Just considering the Today programme, the obvious point to make here is that Today has shown itself not to be interested in finding out how Conservative supporters are reacting to having to share power with the Lib Dems - even though there are three million more of them than their are Lib Dem voters. Not one report on Today this week has looked at that angle. Why not?
*
Here's all there has been:
*
MON 10/5
0835
What do Liberal Democrat members make of the negotiations with the Conservatives to form a coalition? Justin Webb reports from St Albans, where the battle for the parliamentary seat saw the Lib Dems jumping Labour to take second place.
*
WED 12/5
0713
The Liberal Democrats have taken up four cabinet posts and their leader Nick Clegg is David Cameron's deputy in the new coalition government. Today presenter Justin Webb investigates how the Lib Dems feel about the new alliance.
*
SAT 15/5
0810
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will address a special conference of his Liberal Democrat party this weekend in an effort to get members to endorse the coalition deal with the Tories. Many members have threatened to leave the party over the deal. Nick Starling a party member, and Simon Hughes MP and former president of the party, analyse how members have reacted to party's new relationship with the Tories.
*
*
Now, as Laban has posted, at B-BBC, Dan Hannan notes that the BBC are interested in hearing from right-wing Conservative politicians:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/05/its-bbc-here-wed-like-you-to-say.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100039829/its-the-bbc-here-wed-like-you-to-say-something-angry-stupid-and-preferably-racist-about-the-new-government

FLAWED-CASTING HOUSE

*
Another quick glance backwards...
*
The recurrent anti-capitalist strain on Radio 4's Broadcasting House was in evidence again last week, with presenter Paddy O'Connell referring (gratuitously) in passing to Sunday as "an oasis free from stock market speculation". He used this phrase in his introduction to the final election pontifications of those erudite old lefties Anthony Howard and Peter Hennessy (who have been the programme's chief election pundits throughout the whole campaign), who went back down memory lane to Jeremy Thorpe in 1974 before cooing over Jim Callaghan.
*
The only other point to make about this (as was made by Deborah at B-BBC at the time) is that Paddy did his usual thing of leaping to Labour's defence. When Mr Howard brought up the now famous 'heated' telephone conversation last week between Clegg and Brown, Paddy stepped in to say "Although that was strongly denied in the briefings that were given..." and then to move the conversation swiftly on: "...but let me just ask you to nail this down then. What does the stopwatch say from history..." This blog is festooned with other (often far worse) examples of the same thing. (Just click on the label Paddy O'Connell at the bottom of this post).
*
If you remember back a week, you will recall that the BBC was still banging on obsessively about electoral reform (when they hoped this could wreck the chances of a Conservative-led government in perpetuity). Paddy O'Connell paused last Sunday to mention "one of the big events in Westminster this weekend". What was that seismic event? "The arrival of a crowd chanting for voting reform. They gathered outside one of the multiple meeting of the Liberal Democrats". We heard their chanting. (He was to return to the same (minor) event later in the programme & played us another clip from it!)
*
Paddy then went for a walk around London talking to people about the post-election uncertainty. He met newly-retired Labour MP Andrew McKinlay, Charles Kennedy and Michael Crick, a morris-dancing lady, a couple of workmen, a pro-Brown 'ordinary woman' and a psychotherapist called Lucy Beresford, who said that all this election uncertainty unsettles us because it reminds us of the uncertainty of our own date of death. I can truly say I'd never thought of it like that before!!
*
Another of Paddy's very selective use of listener e-mails followed. I have also commented on this abuse before. Why are they almost exclusively from left-wing listeners? This one, John Anderson (not John at B-BBC I would wager), said "David Cameron constantly emphasized during the campaign 'Vote Clegg & you might get Brown'. So I did. Now it looks as if I voted Clegg and I might get Cameron." Yes, John, you did and you did. Oh the irony!
*
Proportional representation was back on the agenda next as Paddy discussed its varieties with Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg of what he called the "independent research organisation" Democratic Audit. 'Independent' it and Dr Wilks-Heeg may very well be, but Democratic Audit is a Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust-sponsored offshoot of Charter 88, and so very much the BBC's sort of "independent" organisation (i.e. a left-leaning one).
*
A rare Tory on BH appeared for the paper review, albeit the somewhat semi-detached Michael Portillo. The other paper reviewers were Channel 4 News's political correspondent Cathy Newman and left-wing comedian Francesca Martinez.
*
Paddy's run-down of the front pages of the Sunday papers began, of course, with the Independent on Sunday (36.43-36.53) before moving on, no less 'of course', to the Observer (36.53-37.09) and talk of Lord Ashcroft. The Sunday Times (37.09-37.28) on the shambles of election day and the Sunday Express (37.37-39.44) on Brown's future brought up the rear. No space for the Sunday Telegraph on the Mail on Sunday.
*
The final seven minutes or so of the programme were the latest pages - written during the election - from newly-retired Labour MP & popular diarist Chris Mullin, read by the man himself. Mr Mullin is a very entertaining writer and has a refreshing detachment but he's still a staunch Labour partisan nonetheless and this was a sharply political piece. BH has given a platform to many Labour MPs over the past year, with Conservatives far, far thinner on the ground.
*
There was just time for two more listener e-mails before the show ended. The first came from a Mrs Glenys Burgess: "Am I the only one to see the irony in news reporters repeatedly saying 'we need a decision for the markets'? The markets, with their massive self-centred mismanagement, have done more than most to create this situation." I wonder why Paddy picked up on that one! More anti-capitalism! The other was a joke (and not a bad one) from a Gerald Toranto: "When Caroline Lucas won Brighton Pavilion, was I the only one to wonder what the second prize was?"
*
If you thought The Andrew Marr Show was biased just try its simultaneously-broadcast Radio 4 counterpart. Broadcasting House is far subtler in its bias but the bias is even more pervasive.
*
(That wasn't as "quick" a glance backwards as I thought!)

HOBBY-HORSES FOR COURSES

*
How has The Record Europe been going on in my (semi-continuing) absence?
*
Going back to 2nd May (prior to the election), we find the programme plugging the BBC line on Greece. Not 'why should Greece be bailed out by European taxpayers for its years of reckless spending, creative accounting, tax evasion and public sector profligacy?' but "We'll be asking how Europe's politicians can wrestle control back from the markets and save Europe's single currency." Maybe Greece doesn't deserve to be saved from the markets and maybe Europe's single currency doesn't deserve saving either. That, however, was something Shirin Wheeler and co. were unwilling even to entertain.
*
Shirin's introduction went on: "Also on the programme, Europe's consumer groups plead with the EU institutions to stand firm against airlines in upholding passenger rights in the wake of the disruption caused by the volcanic dust cloud from Iceland".
*
The BBC has been berating the poor Germans (and, yes, I do feel for them over this) over their reluctance to fork out their hard-worked-for money to bail out the feckless Greeks. Shirin slammed the Northern Europeans for "dithering" over the rescue of prodigal Greece and said that the German tabloids have "been screaming in protest" - hardly a neutral way of putting it! The sensible Angela Merkel, not keen on the bailout - like the majority of her countrymen - was presented as playing party politics over the issue: "What's not helping (helping who exactly Shirin? The feckless Greeks? The Europhiles cause?) is a critical election in the German state of Nordrhein Westphalia..." German cold feet (bad!) were contrasted with EU commission resolve (good!): "Europe's monetary affairs commissioner Olli Rehn attempted to calm and reassure."
*
No UK politicians (all home no doubt, campaigning for the general election) were involved in the following discussion between a German liberal, a Portuguese socialist, a member of what Shirin called "the centre-right Fine Gael" (though centrist would be a far more accurate description) and a Belgian member of the Dedecker List (aligned to our Conservatives, so - in Shirin's eyes - an out and out "boo!").
*
As I've noted before German liberals (the FDP) are not like our left-leaning liberals, being emphatically pro-business. (Will our liberals change, now that they are in power?) They have been the party most hostile to the idea of bailing out our feckless Greek friends. So Shirin interrupted the German liberal (Wolf Klinz) and took him to task over the issue, accusing him (and his party and coalition government) of "foot-dragging". The German liberals are, however, clearly not wholly united on the issue and this German liberal - a German MEP with a plum job as chairman on a EU committee (CRIS) - had clearly "gone native", as so many Eurocrats seem to do, and was somewhat critical of his own Conservative-Liberal government's position on the issue. This established, Shirin went a bit easier on him. Only a bit though. After Herr Klinz (who seems like a pleasant enough chap) accused his own country's media of failing to "calm down the situation", which got a firm "Yes!" from the supposedly impartial presenter, Shirin, with yet more breathtaking bias, assumed a haughty air, interrupted him again and said "Your own colleagues don't really help, talking about exit from the Euro, do they?" And having slung that barb at him, she did what she usually does to UK Conservatives or UKIP spokesfolk and - without giving them the right to reply - moved on to another guest. Such behaviour could not be less improper from a supposedly impartial presenter. (When he returned later there was another question critical of the German government and another heckle from Shirin!).
**
Go the German Free Democrats!
*
Guy Mitchell from the highly pro-European Fine Gael, asked about the spead of the contagion, said that that it wasn't so much the markets (Shirin's point) as unscrupulous people "willing this to happen" and "out for the kill" but added that Greece's situation was largely the fault of the Greeks themselves. Fair points, I'd say. Fine Gael is (to its great credit) supporting Fine Fail's drastic recovery plan. As he was making that very point, Shirin cut him off and turned to the Portuguese socialist, Vital Moreira, in order to move the conversation away from such good sense and back to the more comfortable territory (for her) of market-bashing. She asked him about the credit rating agencies attitude to Portugal and said "this is the trouble, isn't it? It's not according to any rationality?"
*
Like Mr Mitchell, Mr Moreira bridled at the comparison between his country and Greece, making some valid points to back this up, but then said that his government had acted properly and that it was the speculators who are to blame for the current crisis.
*
At last she came to Derk Jan Eppink, the "Belgian Conservative". Within a matter of seconds Shirin was in on him, forcefully contradicting him. Why? Because Mr Eppink had immediately made clear that he understood the German public's concerns and said that Greece should have dropped out of the euro. Another "on the other hand" was not long in coming. Intriguingly, though, Mr Eppink declares himself to be "pro-Euro". (That declaration, made later in the discussion, didn't stop him being interrupted again as soon as his Eurosceptic side re-emerged).
*
When Mr Mitchell returned and had the temerity to say that the Greeks should obviously only be bailed out if they are taking strong and credible measures (like Ireland) to get their own house in order, Shirin plunged in passionately to defend the Greek (Socialist) government's actions so far.
*
When Mr Moreira complained of "schadenfreude" on the part of Eurosceptics (following some wise words from the Belgian Conservative), Shirin did not keep quiet and allow him to make his point. No she intervened to sympathise with him, saying "Well, there's some of that around certainly."
*
The left-wing/Europhile bias on this programme is often choking in its intensity.
*
*
If you still doubt that (and why would you?), the programme's second subject area - EU legislation to protect passengers' rights against the wicked airline companies - was discussed with... can you guess?
*
A representative of the airlines? A British Conservative?
*
No, a spokesman (David McCullough) from the Brussels-based lobby group that represents all the European consumer rights' organisation across Europe, which supports the legislation, and a Labour MEP (Brian Simpson) who helped draw up the legislation. Shirin was with them all the way, saying that "we've heard all the right words from the European institutions, Brian Simpson, but what can you, as chair of the Transport Committee, and the European commission, with whom you're working closely on this, do about this?" Head nodding throughout, Shirin did not interrupt either Mr Simpson nor Mr McCullough, nor did she play devil's advocate for the airline companies in her questions to Mr Simpson and Mr McCullough. Far from it. All her questions came from the 'take tough action' angle. All of them.

Mr McCullough and Mr Simpson (4 questions, 3.12, IC of 0) could both be right of course. As they agreed with each other, however, isn't it the duty of a neutral presenter to challenge them?: *
*
*
A week on (9/5) and what was Shirin Wheeler's opening question? Not "Is Europe asking too much from the European tax-payer in its steps to rescue Greece? Should Greece be asked to leave the euro?" but "Is Europe asking too much of Greece? Is the price for rescue too high?" The BBC is relentless once it has a narrative in place.
*
Who were Shirin's guests to discuss the issue? Stravros Lambrinidis, a Greek Socialist, Ioannis Tsoukalas from the Greek Centre-Right, Daniel Gros from the pro-European Centre for European Policy Studies ("one of Brussels's leading think tanks", according to Shirin) and Ronald Janssen from the European Trade Union Confederation.
*
Shirin questions Mr Lambrinidis gently but Mr Tsoukalas more toughly, accusing his party (New Democracy) of "political game-playing" by not backing the socialist government over its austerity measures. (I think she's right, but should she have said it?) She also pressed the trade union rep over the same issue, saying that surely they too should be supporting the socialist government's austerity measures, before returning to the BBC narrative and agreeing with Mr Janssen's final point - and quoting Labour's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz to back it up!! Stiglitz says the measures will weaken the Greek economy. So, having offered the Greek Socialist government her support, Shirin then moved on to attacking the demands for austerity placed on the Greek economy, as imposed upon Greece by the IMF and the Eurozone.

She was then back on her hobby horse again, asking Mr Gros "And what of Europe's own role in this? As bad actually. You know, the foot-dragging, the lack of responsibility?" This is an opinion. (Why is she giving us her opinion?) Has Europe's "foot-dragging" been a bad thing? When Shirin talks of Europe's "lack of responsibility" (doubtless meaning the Germans and us!), shouldn't the answer have come "'Europe' isn't mainly responsible. The Greeks are." She kept banging away at it, asking later: "And this is the point. In the absence of the fiscal architecture, which I think is what people call it, there has been a lack of solidarity as well. Surely it's about time that is demonstrated." Mr Gros is closer to the Germans on this. Hence Shirin's closer questioning of him.


Available on BBC World, the BBC News Channel and BBC Parliament, and always available on the BBC website's Europe page, the programme may have a limited reach but that's surely not an excuse for it to be so shamelessly biased week in and week out.

DISPROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

*
The batteries are still re-charging but...
*
**
Interesting times these (hopefully not in the sense of the famous Chinese curse).

What do you make of the 55% bar set for MPs to vote for dissolution? The BBC (who I've returned to today, just for today) is clearly obsessing about the issue.
*
The BBC's Clare Spencer presents a sequence of 'expert' views: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2010/05/daily_view_parliament_dissolut.html
*
Strangely, the opponents featured in Clare's article come from the Right and the Left, while the supporters are solely drawn from the Centre and the Left. Where is the support from the Right? There is some, because I've read and heard it elsewhere.
*
This clearly reflects a fascinating sense of confusion reigning across the political spectrum.
*
This morning's Today also showed this in the contrasted and surprising responses of all its interviewees on the issue (Peter Hennessy, Robert Hazell, John Gummer - the main surprise being that Prof Hazell and Mr Gummer agreed, seemingly to the chagrin of Evan Davis).
*
This morning's Today also showed that there is at least one group of people in the country who aren't in the least confused on the issue - the BBC. They have simply come out in opposition to the idea.
*
Clare's sequence grossly favours one side of the argument - and it isn't the new government's side. Whichever side you are on here (if any), you will surely agree that her presentation is deeply biased. I could speculate as to why she (and her BBC colleagues) might want to show that 'expert' opinion largely believes that the Con-Lib coalition is in the wrong...but I won't!
*
The article's structure is a classic 'bias sandwich'- a sandwich with sceptics on top, supporters in the middle, and then - for the final word - another sceptic. (Actually, six are outright opponents. Only Douglas Hurd is really a sceptic).
*
Also, the sceptics outweigh the -philes by some margin. We get seven opponents of the government's position to just three supporters. Moreover, every single one of the first six views presented is that of opponent. Is that fair?
*
Simple colour co-ordination will make plain the extent of the imbalance (blue for sceptics, brown for supporters). Above and beyond my previous two points you'll see the contrast in word-count between the two sides is vast.
*
Moreover (and finally), just look who comes first!! A Labour MP!!!!
*

Daily View: Parliament dissolution rules change
Clare Spencer 11:02 UK time, Friday, 14 May 2010

Commentators discuss the coalition government's move to introduce a new mechanism for the dissolution of Parliament. The plans would require 55% of MPs to vote for dissolution, this is higher than the simple majority required for a vote of no confidence.

Labour MP Paul Flynn says the Liberal Democrats should be ashamed:

"Today a tiny sharp thought pierced the sensitive brains of conscientious LibDems. They have signed up to the illiberal power-hugging cheat of 55% majority for a confidence vote. There is no argument for this except party advantage to the Tories. It's a shameless, blatant denial of democracy.

"When they sober up, the LibDems morphing into Con'Dems will remember their past indignation at alleged Labour sins on democracy and freedoms during the past thirteen years. The Con-Dems have proved their mettle.

"They have slashed a basic tenet of democracy within thirteen hours."

In the Law blog Head of Legal Carl Gardner argues against the move:

"This proposed legislation, though, seems to aim at preventing an election even if 54% of MPs want one. That is wrong in principle, it's undemocratic, and it must be opposed.

"What it would mean is that if the coalition broke down, the Con-LibDem administration would end too. Of course. But there wouldn't and couldn't be an election. Instead, a minority Conservative government would be able to carry on - its 306 seats giving it a blocking minority of 47% - and as long as it kept discipline it could rule without the confidence of Parliament. Bear in mind that this could happen the moment this new legislation comes into force, which is presumably intended to be soon, so that government could go on, effectively behind Parliamentary barricades, for months or for several years. Even for this to be theoretically possible is, I'm afraid, outrageous and unconscionable. Whatever government we have, it must be accountable to Parliament."

Iain Martin says in the Wall Street Journal that he thinks the 55% rule is a "very dangerous constitutional innovation":

"It has slightly sinister sounding connotations, as though a ratchet effect might operate. If it is being suggested that 55% of votes is needed to express no confidence in a government this year (all in the interests of strong government, you understand) then why not 60% or higher at some point in the future?

"It is rather stretching things to try and present this piece of proposed gerrymandering as 'Political Reform.' It is actually designed to ensure that even a walk -out of the whole Lib Dem parliamentary group couldn't actually bring down this government. This would weaken Parliament and strengthen the hand of the executive considerably - when it is only weeks since both parties were talking of doing the opposite."

Lee Rotherham at Conservative Home says the change would betray "the most basic and fundamental principles of how a democracy works":

"A majority of MPs could vote down a government, and yet it could keep on trundling in power.

"I am not sure where this idea came from; it has rather a tinge from the days of the sacked European Commission.

"Having pondered the revolutionary change last night and pored over Erskine May this morning, the reality seems even more striking. I could find in its many pages no actual definition of what constitutes a majority in Parliament. The centuries-old presumption is that it is a majority of one. Ink is expended explaining Speaker Addington's decision of 1796, and three decisions by Speaker Denison between 1860 and 1870, where votes were tied and the Speaker's vote (and his deputy's) counted. But beyond that, the definition of a majority is so obvious it requires no comment or definition.

"That is the measure of the revolution at hand."

A senior lecturer in the school of law at Aberdeen University, Scott Styles is reported in the Times as pointing out a few problems with the plans:

"Firstly, Cameron is renouncing his right as PM to dissolve Parliament at a time of his choosing. Politically this seems unwise but legally it is unproblematic: in effect, the government is surrendering a right.

"The second and much more fundamental problem is the raising of the bar of a no-confidence vote in the government to 55% rather than simple majority of those MPs present and voting. This is a major and fundamental alteration in our constitution and what is being changed is not a right of the PM but a power of the Commons."

The constitutional and government expert from Queen Mary University Peter Hennessy says on the BBC Today Programme that the idea is "iffy":

"You can't actually create hurdles that make it easier for you to last in power. It just looks all wrong."
**************************************
Supporting the 55% rule, Alan Travis says in the Guardian that it shouldn't scare voters:

"But it is worth asking if the controversial 55% rule set out in the Lib-Con coalition agreement needed to force an early general election really is a conspiracy against the opposition parties or a legitimate stabiliser for an infant coalition taking its first steps.

"The first thing to clear up is that there does not appear to be any change in the rules surrounding a vote of no confidence. A government could still fall on a simple majority of MPs. The text of the coalition agreement appears clear. It only refers to providing a vote for the dissolution of parliament, that is, the calling of a general election."

Will Straw asks in Left Foot Forward whether 55% too low:

"All this begs the question of whether 55 per cent is too low a threshold for a dissolution resolution. If the point of a fixed term parliament is that the governing party cannot dissolve parliament to suit itself, perhaps the threshold should be two-thirds as in both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly."

Iain Roberts argues in Lib Dem Voice that the reality is different to the critics' description:

"So this proposal makes no difference to motions of no confidence and gives MPs power they've never had before to dissolve parliament, moving power from the Executive to the Legislature. Whilst the percentage might be a little low, the basic principle is both sound and democratic."
**************************************
Former foreign secretary Douglas Hurd discusses the proposal with presenter Andrew Neil on the BBC's Straight Talk:

Andrew Neil: You say you hope the coalition lasts for five years. How long do you think it will last?
Douglas Hurd: Well, I'm not 100% in favour of fixed Parliaments, because I think you can have circs, we may get into circs where the existing Parliament is just not working.
AN: You just need a change?
DH: Well, you need a change, and somebody has to produce that change. Now, there's a proposal now that it would be 55%, something of that kind, a substantial majority of the House of Commons has to vote for change. Well, maybe that's adequate, I'm not quite sure.
AN: But doesn't that leave you a little bit uneasy, this requirement that you can only bring a five-year Parliament to an end if you get a 55% majority in a vote of no confidence?
DH: Yes, it makes me slightly uneasy. I'm prepared to live with it because there is that 55% rule, I'm prepared to live with it, but, you know, I'm a Tory really, and Tories believe in a strong prime minister and a strong prime minister is somebody who can actually say at the end of an evening, of a bloody evening, 'well, that's the way you want it, right, I'm off to the Palace.'
AN: It continues, this changing of our constitution with not too much debate or forethought, Mr Blair did a lot of that - remember the argument over the Lord Chancellor? - and now we're saying, here was something that everybody understands, that when a government loses a motion of no confidence in the Commons, it is finished; either there's an election or it has to, the Queen invites someone else to form a government and here is something that both of us were brought up with, suddenly gets changed in a back-room deal.
DH: It suddenly gets changed, but of course it won't be a back-room deal; it will be thoroughly debated and mulled over, not least in the House to which I belong. The House of Lords has become a real expert in interpreting the constitution and many governments haven't liked that.
AN: And may not get through?
DH: May get changed. I mean, there will be a debate, there will be a discussion, there ought to be a discussion exactly as you say.