*
Brown's performance at the Chilcot Inquiry was given a clean bill of health by Robin Lustig on last night's The World Tonight.
*
And what did Newsnight's political editor Michael Crick make of this major story - the story of a sitting prime minister being questioned at a major public inquiry about his own role in the most controversial war for decades? We'll never know because Crick went missing in action. Like Macavity Brown during the Iraq War, Crick vanishes from any crime scene that might implicate Labour, yet he was all over Newsnight earlier in the week when the Tories were in the firing line. He doesn't mind occasionally (very occasionally) reporting gossip and trivia about Labour but anything serious, or potentially seriously damaging to Labour, and he's off!
*
Instead of the Hidden Paw, we got his understudy David Grossman.
*
The usual cast of characters followed, with Sir Ming Campbell being given the 'independent expert' treatment by Emily Maitlis.
Showing posts with label Emily Maitlis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emily Maitlis. Show all posts
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Saturday, 13 February 2010
LIZ IS TOO MACKEEN TO ATTACK THE TORIES
*
On the same edition of Newsnight, the Swedish model for independent schools, and their supporter here, the British Conservative Party, came under attack from Liz MacKean on Newsnight.
*
The report did make some efforts at fairness, featuring Bo Nyberg, headmaster of one of the new schools, children and parents who go to the new schools and Anders Hultin, former advisor to the Swewish School Ministry, who helped establish the system. Mr Hulton criticised the Tories for not allowing the profit motive into the scheme. This, he argued (doubtless correctly) might mean that the scheme won't take off as it should.
*
The overall tenor of the report, however, was critical and hostile. Though we heard early on from Lena Jendi, headmistress of an old state school who is unhappy with the new schools , the report's onslaught against the Conservatives really kicked in at 33.50 on the BBC i-Player. Of the Conservatives' argument that standards have risen in Sweden, Lizzie was emphatic: "That's not what we've been told." She went on, "A few years ago it was notice that in fact standards across all schools in Sweden were slipping. International comparative studies, as well as national research, confirmed the decline. It's not known why (but that didn't stop Liz from speculating...) that the slide began at about the time the schools were introduced." (Aha! Cause and effect, or pure coincidence? No smoke without fire?) Her star witness in 'confirming' this decline was bureaucrat Per Thulberg, Director General of the Swedish National Agency for Education. "So overall results are down," she continued, "and there are strong indications of increased social segregation inside the school system." "It won't be what the Conservatives want to hear", she gloated. "They even told me that their view that competition improves all schools was based on a hunch. So what does the Swedish experience really tell us?" For her answer (which the Conservatives also wouldn't want to hear) it as straight back to the leftie bureaucrat.
*
"Swedish politicians are now having a re-think," we were then told, before Liz reached her conclusions: "The new schools remain popular but they're likely to face more inspections and more rigorous testing. After a period of freedom, it's time to introduce more ground rules."
*
Much of this is strongly disputed, from the statement that Swedish politicians are having a re-think to the whole idea that standards really have declined. Michael Gove certainly disputed it, saying "I enjoyed Liz's report but there were no facts in there". Emily Maitlis, who conducted this interview, was not too happy with this and later interrupted (as he was in the middle of making an interesting point to counter the 'increasing segregation' argument) to say "Let me just give you a hard fact because you wanted one." Guess what the source of the 'hard fact' was? "The Treasury is estimating that the running costs of 250,000 extra places - which is what you want - would be £1.8 billion. From where?". She soon butted in again to repeat this 'hard fact' from the oh-so-very-honest Treasury: "These are extra places. £1.8 billion pounds for those extra places to create the choice...". Well might Mr Gove have commented, "Those are figures that have been produced by the Treasury. What they do in that report is they deliberately misunderstand our policy". Who'd have thought that of this government!!" He added "It's a Labour Party document" as Emily pressed him further. 'Hard fact' indeed!
*
Here's the whole of a post on ConservativeHome from Harry Phibbs:
Swedish school choice is working
There is a consensus in Sweden that their policy of school choice, introduced in 1992, has driven up standards. This has been the result of the expansion of independent schools from covering 1% to 10% of pupils. It is not just that the new schools have achieved good results but they have pulled up the results of the state schools competing with them.
However there is not unanimity in Sweden. Newsnight are pleased with themselves as they have got the top education bureaucrat in Sweden, a man called Per Thulberg, to tell them that the whole thing is a failure. But reading his paper, What influences education achievement in Swedish schools, upon which Newsnight based their report, one finds plenty of left wing assertions but not much in the way of solid evidence. There are general references to "research" showing this and that but no solid data. For instance the report says streaming in schools is a mistake because it has " a stigmatising effect."
Anyway the Burning out Money blog has done a very good rebuttal although I thought he was a bit unfair saying Michael Gove was "back-footed" by the BC attack. I thought old Govey did pretty well. If he had tried to quote the facts then Emily Maitlis would have thought he was very boring and shut him up.
BOM points out that the Swedish free schools get a Grade Point Average that is 20 points higher than the state schools.
What of the evidence of standards being driven up elsewhere?
A study by Anders Bohlmark and Mikael Lindahl of Stokholm University found that an increase in the percentage of free schools in an area increased pupil performance across all schools. Most of this increase was due to competition in the school sector, forcing all schools to improve their quality. Åsa Ahlin of Uppsala University found that a ten per cent increase in the number of children attending free schools led to a five per cent increase in Mathematics performance across the area.
See also this Bergstrom and Sandstrom study.
UPDATE.
Maria Rankka of the Swedish think tank Timbro emails to say:
"Per Thulberg is wrong. There have been academic evaluations of the school voucher reform and the fact is that schools in geographical areas where competition exists are performing better than schools in areas where there still is no competition."
The Swedish Association of Independent Schools have more details on their website. What helps comparisons is that not everywhere in Sweden has the free schools system:
The proportion of students in independent schools has grown considerably since the beginning of the 90s, although the sector is still very small. In school year 1990-91, about 0.9 per cent of all
Swedish pupils in compulsory education (ages 6-15, approximately) were enrolled in independent schools, whereas in 2007-08 the figure had grown to about 9 per cent. The same trend may be observed in secondary education (ages 16-18, approximately), where the share has grown from 1.5 per cent to 17 per cent during the same period.
In about 210 of the 290 local councils in Sweden, independent schools “compete” with public schools run by locally elected school boards; as yet there are no independent schools in the other local councils. The urbanized areas of south and middle Sweden, in particular in the Greater Stockholm area, have the highest concentration of independent schools.
That makes it possible to judge the impact the free schools have on standards in the state schools.
Critics said that it is highly motivated parents who opt to take their children out of local council schools, thus leaving those schools with disadvantaged children, or that independent schools impose financial burdens on the school boards by disrupting their planning.
Where comparisons have been possible, independent schools have performed better in terms of knowledge and skills than local council schools, and have achieved this at a lower cost. This has inspired some local community schools to improve their organisation and teaching in order to improve results.
More can be found here at Burning Our Money:
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2010/02/does-swedish-model-actually-work.html
On the same edition of Newsnight, the Swedish model for independent schools, and their supporter here, the British Conservative Party, came under attack from Liz MacKean on Newsnight.
*
The report did make some efforts at fairness, featuring Bo Nyberg, headmaster of one of the new schools, children and parents who go to the new schools and Anders Hultin, former advisor to the Swewish School Ministry, who helped establish the system. Mr Hulton criticised the Tories for not allowing the profit motive into the scheme. This, he argued (doubtless correctly) might mean that the scheme won't take off as it should.
*
The overall tenor of the report, however, was critical and hostile. Though we heard early on from Lena Jendi, headmistress of an old state school who is unhappy with the new schools , the report's onslaught against the Conservatives really kicked in at 33.50 on the BBC i-Player. Of the Conservatives' argument that standards have risen in Sweden, Lizzie was emphatic: "That's not what we've been told." She went on, "A few years ago it was notice that in fact standards across all schools in Sweden were slipping. International comparative studies, as well as national research, confirmed the decline. It's not known why (but that didn't stop Liz from speculating...) that the slide began at about the time the schools were introduced." (Aha! Cause and effect, or pure coincidence? No smoke without fire?) Her star witness in 'confirming' this decline was bureaucrat Per Thulberg, Director General of the Swedish National Agency for Education. "So overall results are down," she continued, "and there are strong indications of increased social segregation inside the school system." "It won't be what the Conservatives want to hear", she gloated. "They even told me that their view that competition improves all schools was based on a hunch. So what does the Swedish experience really tell us?" For her answer (which the Conservatives also wouldn't want to hear) it as straight back to the leftie bureaucrat.
*
"Swedish politicians are now having a re-think," we were then told, before Liz reached her conclusions: "The new schools remain popular but they're likely to face more inspections and more rigorous testing. After a period of freedom, it's time to introduce more ground rules."
*
Much of this is strongly disputed, from the statement that Swedish politicians are having a re-think to the whole idea that standards really have declined. Michael Gove certainly disputed it, saying "I enjoyed Liz's report but there were no facts in there". Emily Maitlis, who conducted this interview, was not too happy with this and later interrupted (as he was in the middle of making an interesting point to counter the 'increasing segregation' argument) to say "Let me just give you a hard fact because you wanted one." Guess what the source of the 'hard fact' was? "The Treasury is estimating that the running costs of 250,000 extra places - which is what you want - would be £1.8 billion. From where?". She soon butted in again to repeat this 'hard fact' from the oh-so-very-honest Treasury: "These are extra places. £1.8 billion pounds for those extra places to create the choice...". Well might Mr Gove have commented, "Those are figures that have been produced by the Treasury. What they do in that report is they deliberately misunderstand our policy". Who'd have thought that of this government!!" He added "It's a Labour Party document" as Emily pressed him further. 'Hard fact' indeed!
*
Here's the whole of a post on ConservativeHome from Harry Phibbs:
Swedish school choice is working
There is a consensus in Sweden that their policy of school choice, introduced in 1992, has driven up standards. This has been the result of the expansion of independent schools from covering 1% to 10% of pupils. It is not just that the new schools have achieved good results but they have pulled up the results of the state schools competing with them.
However there is not unanimity in Sweden. Newsnight are pleased with themselves as they have got the top education bureaucrat in Sweden, a man called Per Thulberg, to tell them that the whole thing is a failure. But reading his paper, What influences education achievement in Swedish schools, upon which Newsnight based their report, one finds plenty of left wing assertions but not much in the way of solid evidence. There are general references to "research" showing this and that but no solid data. For instance the report says streaming in schools is a mistake because it has " a stigmatising effect."
Anyway the Burning out Money blog has done a very good rebuttal although I thought he was a bit unfair saying Michael Gove was "back-footed" by the BC attack. I thought old Govey did pretty well. If he had tried to quote the facts then Emily Maitlis would have thought he was very boring and shut him up.
BOM points out that the Swedish free schools get a Grade Point Average that is 20 points higher than the state schools.
What of the evidence of standards being driven up elsewhere?
A study by Anders Bohlmark and Mikael Lindahl of Stokholm University found that an increase in the percentage of free schools in an area increased pupil performance across all schools. Most of this increase was due to competition in the school sector, forcing all schools to improve their quality. Åsa Ahlin of Uppsala University found that a ten per cent increase in the number of children attending free schools led to a five per cent increase in Mathematics performance across the area.
See also this Bergstrom and Sandstrom study.
UPDATE.
Maria Rankka of the Swedish think tank Timbro emails to say:
"Per Thulberg is wrong. There have been academic evaluations of the school voucher reform and the fact is that schools in geographical areas where competition exists are performing better than schools in areas where there still is no competition."
The Swedish Association of Independent Schools have more details on their website. What helps comparisons is that not everywhere in Sweden has the free schools system:
The proportion of students in independent schools has grown considerably since the beginning of the 90s, although the sector is still very small. In school year 1990-91, about 0.9 per cent of all
Swedish pupils in compulsory education (ages 6-15, approximately) were enrolled in independent schools, whereas in 2007-08 the figure had grown to about 9 per cent. The same trend may be observed in secondary education (ages 16-18, approximately), where the share has grown from 1.5 per cent to 17 per cent during the same period.
In about 210 of the 290 local councils in Sweden, independent schools “compete” with public schools run by locally elected school boards; as yet there are no independent schools in the other local councils. The urbanized areas of south and middle Sweden, in particular in the Greater Stockholm area, have the highest concentration of independent schools.
That makes it possible to judge the impact the free schools have on standards in the state schools.
Critics said that it is highly motivated parents who opt to take their children out of local council schools, thus leaving those schools with disadvantaged children, or that independent schools impose financial burdens on the school boards by disrupting their planning.
Where comparisons have been possible, independent schools have performed better in terms of knowledge and skills than local council schools, and have achieved this at a lower cost. This has inspired some local community schools to improve their organisation and teaching in order to improve results.
More can be found here at Burning Our Money:
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2010/02/does-swedish-model-actually-work.html
Friday, 15 January 2010
STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING!!
*
Well, another Tory turned up after all on last night's Newsnight - George Osborne. The interview lasted 5 minutes (I.C. of 1.3).
*
Emily Maitlis's introductory words could have been scripted by Charlie Whelan:
"If you're planning your budget for a nursery, a residential care or school, if you're joining the army or starting a training course, you might want to stop what you're doing and look up." Tonight the shadow chancellor George Osborne warned that a Conservative government would be willing to start making cuts to public spending by as early as June. They've admitted a future Conservative government would follow the Swedish model based on fast and furious cutting."
*
Emily returned to the theme during her interview:
"You are talking about telling, what, care home workers, army, teachers, medical research projects, they're going to have to start cutting their budgets."
"OK, but if I'm running a care home...but how do I prepare for that...just a second, a very concrete example, if I'm listening to this, I'm running a care home, how do I know I won't have to shut my doors come July because of the decisions you will make 50 days after coming into government?"
*
*
Thankfully the programme's bleeding-heart Guantanemo series has now come to an end. It finished with a studio discussion between BBC favourite Clive Stafford Smith of Reprieve (naturally) and our friend Michael Scheuer - though he certainly wasn't Emily's (or Clive's). She kept interrupting and misinterpreting him. His argument is an unusual one, far from what we're used to hearing from all sides of the debate. It was hardly surprising that it shocked Emily Maitlis, or that she failed to grasp what he was saying. She's much more comfortable with the conventional left-liberal line of Mr Stafford Smith. Mr Scheuer is certainly not conventional (though his hard line on Israel & his rejection of the Iraq and Afghan Wars clearly appeals to the BBC).
Well, another Tory turned up after all on last night's Newsnight - George Osborne. The interview lasted 5 minutes (I.C. of 1.3).
*
Emily Maitlis's introductory words could have been scripted by Charlie Whelan:
"If you're planning your budget for a nursery, a residential care or school, if you're joining the army or starting a training course, you might want to stop what you're doing and look up." Tonight the shadow chancellor George Osborne warned that a Conservative government would be willing to start making cuts to public spending by as early as June. They've admitted a future Conservative government would follow the Swedish model based on fast and furious cutting."
*
Emily returned to the theme during her interview:
"You are talking about telling, what, care home workers, army, teachers, medical research projects, they're going to have to start cutting their budgets."
"OK, but if I'm running a care home...but how do I prepare for that...just a second, a very concrete example, if I'm listening to this, I'm running a care home, how do I know I won't have to shut my doors come July because of the decisions you will make 50 days after coming into government?"
*
*
Thankfully the programme's bleeding-heart Guantanemo series has now come to an end. It finished with a studio discussion between BBC favourite Clive Stafford Smith of Reprieve (naturally) and our friend Michael Scheuer - though he certainly wasn't Emily's (or Clive's). She kept interrupting and misinterpreting him. His argument is an unusual one, far from what we're used to hearing from all sides of the debate. It was hardly surprising that it shocked Emily Maitlis, or that she failed to grasp what he was saying. She's much more comfortable with the conventional left-liberal line of Mr Stafford Smith. Mr Scheuer is certainly not conventional (though his hard line on Israel & his rejection of the Iraq and Afghan Wars clearly appeals to the BBC).
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
OCTOBER'S I.C.s - EMILY MAITLIS AND GAVIN ESLER
*
It's been a very quiet month for Newsnight's Emily Maitlis, with only 4 interviews to record:
*
14/10 Bill Rammell Labour 1.3
14/10 Caroline Lucas Green 0.9
14/10 Zak Goldsmith Conservative 0.7
16/10 David Miliband Labour 0.5
*
From the 21 interviews covered since June, we can derive these super-averages for Emily:
*
UKIP (1) - 1.5
Labour (8) - 0.86
Conservatives (5) - 0.68
Greens (2) - 0.45
Lib Dems (3) - 0.3
*
*
*
*
Gavin Esler has been another near-absentee in October, with only one interview:
*
15/10 Emily Thornberry Labour 2.3
Looking at all of Gav's interviews over the last 5 months, this one was not typical (as you would expect, I suspect!). Here are his super-averages:
*
Conservatives (6) - 1.27
SNP (2) - 1.05
Labour (16) - 0.82
Lib Dems (1) - 0.8
*
That an anti-Conservative bias is indicated is hardly surprising. Gavin is a known leftie. (For more, please see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search/label/Gavin%20Esler).
It's been a very quiet month for Newsnight's Emily Maitlis, with only 4 interviews to record:
*
14/10 Bill Rammell Labour 1.3
14/10 Caroline Lucas Green 0.9
14/10 Zak Goldsmith Conservative 0.7
16/10 David Miliband Labour 0.5
*
From the 21 interviews covered since June, we can derive these super-averages for Emily:
*
UKIP (1) - 1.5
Labour (8) - 0.86
Conservatives (5) - 0.68
Greens (2) - 0.45
Lib Dems (3) - 0.3
*
*
*
*
Gavin Esler has been another near-absentee in October, with only one interview:
*
15/10 Emily Thornberry Labour 2.3
Looking at all of Gav's interviews over the last 5 months, this one was not typical (as you would expect, I suspect!). Here are his super-averages:
*
Conservatives (6) - 1.27
SNP (2) - 1.05
Labour (16) - 0.82
Lib Dems (1) - 0.8
*
That an anti-Conservative bias is indicated is hardly surprising. Gavin is a known leftie. (For more, please see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search/label/Gavin%20Esler).
Thursday, 1 October 2009
SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - EMILY MAITLIS
*
Emily Maitlis has not been a hard-working girl in the past month, with only 3 interviews to her credit, whose averages I will let you work out.
David Miliband Labour 0.9
Dan Hannan Conservative 0.9
Norman Lamb Lib Dem 0
Emily Maitlis has not been a hard-working girl in the past month, with only 3 interviews to her credit, whose averages I will let you work out.
David Miliband Labour 0.9
Dan Hannan Conservative 0.9
Norman Lamb Lib Dem 0
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
AUGUST'S I.C.s - EMILY MAITLIS
*
Emily Maitlis broadened her party range in August. This is apt, as Emily likes her parties. She was not very active however, as all these results came from one edition of Newsnight (that of 27/8):
David Willetts, Conservative - 1
David Laws, Lib Dem - 0.5
Vernon Coaker, Labour - 0.3
Sir Ming Campbell, Lib Dem - 0
David Willetts, Conservative - 0
Note also that Sir Ming got another free ride. (Lucky man!)
Emily Maitlis broadened her party range in August. This is apt, as Emily likes her parties. She was not very active however, as all these results came from one edition of Newsnight (that of 27/8):
David Willetts, Conservative - 1
David Laws, Lib Dem - 0.5
Vernon Coaker, Labour - 0.3
Sir Ming Campbell, Lib Dem - 0
David Willetts, Conservative - 0
Average number of interruptions per political party:
Conservative - 0.5
Labour - 0.3
Lib Dems - 0.3
The top three results all came from one joint-interview, & the bias against Mr Willetts was palpable. Emily was all over him - though not in a good way! (I have reviewed this elsewhere). When Willetts returned this imbalance was somewhat redressed (though it was a lighter spot, on 'Labour's children').
*Note also that Sir Ming got another free ride. (Lucky man!)
Friday, 28 August 2009
EMILY STICKS A LEG OUT TO TRIP UP THE TORY
*
Newsnight's panel discussion on education, education and education, hosted by Emily Maitlis, featured Labour's Vernon Coaker, the Lib Dem's David Laws and the Conservatives' David Willetts. The statistics tell the story:
Interruption Coefficients
Coaker - 0.3
Laws - 0.5
Willetts - 1
Number of interruptions
Coaker - 1
Laws - 1
Willetts - 4
Number of questions
Coaker - 5
Laws - 1
Willetts - 5
If this anti-Conservative assault from Emily wasn't bad enough for David Willetts, he also faced a joint anti-Tory assault from Coaker and Laws. Not a fair debate.*
Newsnight's panel discussion on education, education and education, hosted by Emily Maitlis, featured Labour's Vernon Coaker, the Lib Dem's David Laws and the Conservatives' David Willetts. The statistics tell the story:
Interruption Coefficients
Coaker - 0.3
Laws - 0.5
Willetts - 1
Number of interruptions
Coaker - 1
Laws - 1
Willetts - 4
Number of questions
Coaker - 5
Laws - 1
Willetts - 5
If this anti-Conservative assault from Emily wasn't bad enough for David Willetts, he also faced a joint anti-Tory assault from Coaker and Laws. Not a fair debate.*
In fairness, however, to Emily Maitlis, Willetts returned towards the end of the programme for a second panel discussion with Fiona Millar (Alistair Campbell's no-less-charming partner) and a teacher. This time he was not interrupted at all.
Saturday, 1 August 2009
JULY'S I.C.s - EMILY MAITLIS
*
Emily 'Legs' Maitlis has hardly been more active (on Newsnight at least) than many of the programme's other star presenters, and has talked to no-one from the political right all month.
*
Here are her interruption coefficients for July:
Emily 'Legs' Maitlis has hardly been more active (on Newsnight at least) than many of the programme's other star presenters, and has talked to no-one from the political right all month.
*
Here are her interruption coefficients for July:&
Angela Eagle, Labour (8/7) - 1.3
Alistair Darling, Labour (8/7) - 0.8
Keith Vaz, Labour - 0.7
Jenny Jones, Green - 0
Brian Paddick, Lib Dem - 0
*
Average number of interruptions per political party:
Labour - 0.9
Greens - 0
Lib Dems - 0
*
How does this compare to June? Again, Emily was not overly used on Newsnight. There she scored highest against Nigel Farage of UKIP (1.5), with Labour on 1.2, the Lib Dems on 1.1 and the Conservatives on 0.8. No trends in bias yet then - except maybe against UKIP!!
Saturday, 11 July 2009
CRICKGATE - A STUDY IN BIAS
In what was little more than a one-day wonder, the BBC got themselves into a frenzy of anti-Tory bias over the 'News of the World' hacking 'scandal'. These allegations were ostensibly aimed at Robert Murdoch's News International, but the BBC - and their Labour allies/masters - tried to fix the focus (at least as much) on Andy Coulson, communications chief to Conservative leader David Cameron and former editor of the 'News of the World'. They did so on the flimsiest of evidence. This evidence turned out to be nothing more than the 'there's no smoke without fire' ruse, the 'but he must of known' dodge and, to top it all, some gossip from anonymous ex-employees of News International - and exes are not the most reliable of judges. There is, the BBC were eventually to admit, no evidence yet - which m'lud means there's no evidence, period (as the Americans say).
Concentrating on just one programme, 'Newsnight', what follows is a study in bias.
Wednesday 10.30 pm
Late on Wednesday night a 2-year old story re-'broke', as the 'Guardian' (the hard-copy version of BBC News) announed that it was reheating the 'News of the World' 'hacking scandal' of 2007. Labour smear-doctors leapt on the news (and, as Guido Fawkes reveals http://order-order.com/2009/07/09/coulson-coulson-coulson, were already well aware of its coming publication.) Their allies at the BBC were ready to pounce too, & no-one was more ready that that scourge of the Conservatives, Michael Crick (who, on top of his Tory-baiting duties, acts as 'Newsnight''s political editor). He was tipped off by the 'Guardian' and had a report ready for broadcast by 10.30 pm.
The BBC juggernaut began to roll on the Wednesday night edition of 'Newsnight'. Emily Maitlis, in a fetching above-the-knee skirt, introduced the programme with "Tonight claims that go to the heart of the Murdoch Empire and the top of the Tory party...Andy Coulson's a former editor of the 'News of the World' but he's now David Cameron's right-hand man. What did he know of all this?"
THE INITIAL CRICK REPORT
Crick, of course, leapt straight on the Tories. Not the 'News of the World', mind you. No, the Tories. His report began, "Tonight Andy Coulson, one of David Cameron's closest aides, faces serious questions over the involvement in criminal acts by HIS reporters during HIS time as editor of the 'News of the World'."
He went on, "Unless Mr. Coulson comes up with a convincing account - and quickly - it could prove highly embarrassing for his boss" and shortly after called the 'News of the World' "Coulson's paper", just to make sure viewers got the point: Coulson='News of the World'. This is essential for the success of the final Crick equation:
From which a new equation can, of course, be insinuated:
Is this second equation far-fetched as an interpretation (on my part) of the BBC's agenda? Well, as the juggernaut kept on rolling through into Thursday, it grew less and less far-fetched.
Back to the 'Newsnight' report. Nick Davies, the 'Guardian' reporter who led the story for the paper, was interviewed by Crick. (Not questioned, of course).
"Another whose voice-mail was allegedly hacked into was the then Deputy Prime Minister, who tonight was pretty angry", Crick continued. Cue John Prescott, calling for David Cameron to "take action" against Andy Coulson. (Who stirred up Prescott against Coulson? Was it the 'Guardian', the 'Labour Party' or Crick? That would be interesting to know.)
"But the big political story is about Andy Coulson". Cut back to Nick Davies, who went through hoops to suggest reasons why Coulson should resign for a second time.
Crick then read out a statement from Andy Coulson, which says "This story relates to an alleged payment made after I left the 'News of the World' two and a half years ago. I have no knowledge whatsoever of any settlement with Gordon Taylor. The Mulcaire case was investigated by the police and the Press Complaints Commission. I took full responsibility at the time for what happened on my watch but without my knowledge and resigned."
"David Cameron meanwhile is said to be 'very relaxed' about all this. "The ramping up of this story is ridiculous", a spokeswoman said. "This is about a payment made well after Andy Coulson left the 'News of the World'.""
Unlike Crick, I'm not a reporter employed by a supposedly impartial state broadcaster, so I will make it as clear as day that I agree with the Tory spokeswoman. The ramping up of this story was ridiculous - but I'd go further, it was scandalous too.
Next, the Conservative chairman of the (Labour-dominated) Culture select committee made the first of several appearances on the BBC. John Whittingdale was in demand throughout Thursday too. He was a rare Tory. He wanted questions asked of Mr. Coulson & his (Labour-dominated) committee. Fine by Crick and the BBC of course.
EMILY'S INTERVIEWS
Emily Maitlis's first interviews (following Crick's report) were with Andrew Neil, BBC presenter and former editor of Murdoch's 'Sunday Times', and Peter Wilby, former editor of the 'Independent on Sunday'
Lovely Emily prefaced this discussion with the wise words "It IS worth reminding viewers again that these are only allegations at this stage" (perhaps after a word in the ear from a more cautious Beeboid, alarmed at the tenor of Crick's report?) . That didn't stop the ever-entertaining Mr Neil from saying that the "hacking into mobile phones" was on a "mass scale" and that "it's an enormous story and to my mind one of the biggest stories of journalistic practise and ethics of modern times". With a statement like that from a former Murdoch employee, you could guarantee that Andrew Neil was bound to make many more appearances over the coming 24 hours. Neil went on to attack the police and the criminal justice system too for not acting strongly enough on the matter.
Emily repeated the Coulson statement, & invited comments. Both guests were sceptical about it.
Still, both former editors were - unlike Crick - not fixated on Coulson and the Conservatives.
Thursday 10.30 pm
At 5.15 pm (or so) Yates of the Yard had rammed into the BBC juggernaut & knocked its two front wheels off, undermining the 'Guardian' story and, as Tom Bradby on ITV News at 6.30 pointed out, sending the story back into the shadows. Being a juggernaut, however, the two back wheels kept on running for a while - as if nothing had happened. That night's 'Newsnight' soldiered on bravely. They were not pleased, however. Not pleased at all.
Gavin Esler was its presenter, & in his introduction we got the same old story: "The man at the centre of the storm, former 'News of the World' editor Andy Coulson, holds onto his job as a key advisor to David Cameron."
Just why was Coulson at the "centre of the storm" if the main allegation (the Taylor story) related to events after his resignation from the 'News of the World'? Obviously because the BBC, the 'Grauniad' and their Labour puppet-masters wanted him there. Why else?
Esler went on, "In a moment we'll consider the fate of the former 'News of the World' editor Andy Coulson, now a key advisor to David Cameron, who has broken one obvious rule by himself becoming at least part of the story..."
This is hardly fair, is it? Coulson was only "part of the story" because the Beebosphere made him "part of the story". Or should that be "part of the non-story"? That's like blaming a man who has been mugged for walking the streets with money in his pocket.
RICHARD WATSON'S REPORT
This concentrated on the allegations against the 'News of the World' and the Press Complaints Council rather than Coulson and the Conservatives. This carried Assistant Commissioner John Yates's devastating statement - or at least a tiny, tiny part of it (25 seconds worth). The brevity of the except was outrageous. I heard the whole statement (which was not that long) &, as I say, it knocked the BBC sideways - despite 'Newsnight's valiant efforts. Comments from Vanessa Feltz and Madonna's barrister Matthew Nicklin (a legal Max Clifford) followed. An anonymous free-lance journalist at 'News of the World' was quoted, backing up the 'Guardian' story against moody, thriller-style background music. (An old BBC trick). Ron Sutton, private investigator, chips in a word.
ESLER'S PANEL DISCUSSION
If you wanted a dream-panel to stoke the flames of this non-story, who would you choose?
How about Labour's John Prescott (allegedly phone-tapped - until the police said otherwise!), sleazebag Max Clifford (allegedly phone-tapped), Lib Dem former Met Officer (and 'Jungle'-loser) Brian Paddick (not worth being phone-tapped) and, of course, Nick Davies of the 'Guadrian' again? Well, 'bingo!' That's the panel 'Newsnight' gathered together on Thursday night. Balanced? Hardly.
Davies called Yates of the Yard's performance "weird" and huffed and puffed, but blew no new houses down. Prescott was unimpressed either, and blustered as only John Prescott can bluster, agreeing with Davies. Paddick sat on the fence, as only a Lib Dem can, but agreed with Davies and Prescott. Clifford agreed with all three of them.
Was Esler, a BBC employee, neutral? Did he play devil's advocate? Was he hell and did he hell. He agreed with all four of them & had a bugbear about the police to boot, reflected in several questions, such as "Indeed, but why would Mr Yates come out and make that statement, which doesn't seem to address the issue that Mr Davies and others are raising. In other words, what's going on with the police here?" and "I'm still trying to get at whether the Met can handle this, or should handle this, or whether some outside force should look at it." (There were others later!!) As I say, the BBC were not happy with the Metropolitan Police for ruining their day. Not happy at all.
The sting in the tail of the discussion, and bound to have spoiled their day even more, was the damp squib revelation from Nick Davies that "To be fair, you've seen the best of what we've got". Well, that wasn't much to start with, was it Nick? Pathetic.
DAVID GROSSMAN REPORTS...
Esler introduced the next segment of the programme like this: "Now Gordon Brown's press advisor Damien McBride was forced to resign earlier in the year after being involved in a story about e-mail smears. Alistair Campbell also quit as a top aide to Tony Blair. But today's statement by Asst Comm Yates of the Metropolitan Police APPEARS to have lifted SOME of the potential clouds from David Cameron's communications chief, the former editor of the 'News of the World' Andy Coulson, who won strong backing from his boss. But, as David Grossman reports, this row - with Andy Coulson in the middle of it - isn't over." (The emphases were HIS.)
Note the attempt to equate Coulson with Campbell, and - above all - the disgraced (and disgraceful) McBride (the man behind Drapergate), insinuating some sort of moral equivalence between them. Then there are those emphases, casting doubt on the idea that John Yates had, in fact, lifted the BBC-generated cloud from over Coulson (and, by extension,the Conservatives). And the 'some', of course, implies the existence of other, unspecified, unremoved clouds.
Grossman's report began with a heavy, BBC-style joke: "As an old red-top editor, Andy Coulson
knows just how this story could play in the tabloids: "FROM SPINNER TO SINNER: Cam's man's a hacking disgrace". The real irony here is that's pretty much how the story was being played at the BBC, with only a little more subtlety!
Grossman goes on to describe Coulson's background as "controversial" (everything's controversial, David, if you and your BBC friends tell us it is). The day's political reactions are reviewed (inside and outside the House of Commons) & Labour MP Martin Salter is invited to comment (and does so in the way you would expect).
Then Grossman concedes that "so far though no-one has come up with any concrete evidence to show that he knew about the way his journalists were getting stories", but then comes a "but": "But somebody who worked for him..."(an 'anonymouse') says he did. The report ends, as it began, with another heavy Beeboid joke - another mock headline: "RED TOP ANDY CAUGHT RED HANDY". (You wish, Beeboids, you wish) - and these final comments from Grossman: "Some papers are itching to write this headline..." (Some papers? Don't you mean the BBC, David?) "...but the evidence doesn't appear to be there as yet". (But a Beeboid can hope, can't he (or she, as you would say) David?). "Even so if the story doesn't die down soon..." (and the BBC could always keep flogging away at a dead horse, couldn't it?) "...David Cameron may conclude that he can't afford to keep his director of communications". (At which, David, you would doubtless think, "Result!")
All this was little more than innuendo. Prove it BBC, or shut up.
PREZZA RETURNS - ESLER'S SECOND DISCUSSION
Next came another Esler-hosted discussion, now focused squarely on Coulson and the Conservatives. This time we moved from the 'Guardian' all the way across the political spectrum to the 'Independent', but the 'Independent' commentator was ex-Tory MP Michael Brown. This sop to impartiality was welcome. At last, a true Tory! He did describe the idea of Coulson not knowing as "preposterous" however. (Was that why he was invited on?)
Esler did play devil's advocate this time & asked if the Labour and Lib Dems who called for Coulson's head were "whistling in the wind", because there's no evidence against him. Did he ask this to the Tory? No, he asked it to Prescott, who said Coulson "must have known". Despite one brief interruption he allowed Prezza to prattle on at length. Prescott called Cameron's judgement into doubt and Esler echoed him back to Michael Brown, interrupting him with "But isn't it because of the reasons Mr Prescott just said".
CRICK RETURNS
Crick returns, talking to Gav, to give us his thoughts. "Well, it's a fascinating story, this", he enthuses, "because of the glimpse it offers into the sort of power play in the new establishment" (of which you're a part, surely, Michael?) . "The role and strength really of News International and those four Murdoch newspapers. Now a few weeks ago, Rebekah Wade, the editor of "The Sun" had her wedding and you had so many leading politicians, David Cameron and others, (pause...cogs in the brain working...'oh, I suppose I must mention this too or else someone might notice...'), Gordon Brown, there." He goes on to describe how these same leading politicians have NOT turned up at former News International boss Les Hilton's wedding party.
Crick went along to badger the guests (probably hoping to catch Tories) and got a good response from former 'Sun' editor, Kelvin McKenzie, "I can officially tell you it's a load of socialist claptrap. I know, I know Andy. He had nothing to do with it. It was a bigger shock to him and it cost him his career at the 'News of the World' and all this has just been got up by a collection of old dinosaurs, like Prescott and Clarke." Good man, Kelvin! Crick pestered him further, along with the 'Telegraph' editor (at whom Crick shouted "How come you didn't cover it this morning?" Answer came there none, but answer should have come, "Because it wasn't worth covering. Why did you cover it, Crick? Because you want to smear the Conservatives?" Opportunity lost.) Phil Woolas, Labour MP, was there "as a friend of the bride", calling for Coulson to go. Crick did not pester him.
Crick told Esler that the story was not going to be covered by most of the papers. He said it would be investigated by "The 'Guardian' and..and..and..various broadcasters". (The BBC i-Player shows a wonderfully smug look on Esler's face at this moment). In other words, the 'Guradian', possibly Channel 4 News and, of course, the BBC and Michael Crick. Crick is placing his hopes on Parliament's select committees and vengeful Labour MPs: "Andy Coulson is going to have to give a convincing account in public of what he did and what he knew." He goes on, "...and Labour MPs are also going to make the utmost effort to go after the documents that the 'Guardian' has based its stories on, other documents that may exist, and it could prove to be a pretty important test..um..for the new speaker, John Bercow, in helping those committees get hold of those documents." I will be watching intently to see if this warning shot across Bercow's bows is followed up by Michael Crick. I suspect it will be.
At 35.51 on the BBC i-Player, the programme at last moved on to another story.
Friday 9.30 pm
No-one could accuse 'Newsnight' of moving on. On Friday Esler was back to keep the dying embers burning. However, the heart of the story had dimmed & the Coulson element fell away. The frenzy has ebbed.
RICHARD WATSON IS BACK
Richard Watson, however, returned with another report. This mentioned News International's "detailed rebuttal" but didn't go into many details about it - as I would have expected of a decent news organisation & which would, surely, have been interesting to hear). Instead, Watson had "spent the day taking" to another anonymous ex-employee of News International ("We agreed to conceal his identity"), and this 'ex' formed the basis of his whole report. The source didn't give any evidence about Andy Coulson, or even mention him.
Defeat for Crick?
CRICK BOUNCES BACK
Like Carrie, Crick will not remain dead. His hand reared up from the grave with a new anti-Tory story. What had Michael Crick "discovered" now? Guess what? It was another Labour Party - and therefore Crick Party, obsession: Lord Ashcroft, the Conservatives's chief donor. The Labour Party are forever attacking Ashcroft. So is Crick. They are both at it again.
"Well, this week we've seen Andy Coulson, David Cameron's close aide, in the spotlight". (You put him there Michael!!). "Now it could be Lord Ashcroft. I've learned tonight that Jack Straw is bringing in a measure, almost immediately, to ban anybody who doesn't pay British tax or who is not liable to British tax, from making any donations to a political party. Now this could well affect Lord Ashcroft. There's been a lot of controversy.." (from Labour and the BBC, that is) "..about whether he pays tax or not. He's been a big donor to the Conservative Party in recent years."
Anything to harm the Tories.
AND FINALLY...
Michael Crick will be watched, watched very closely. This blog will be watching.
Concentrating on just one programme, 'Newsnight', what follows is a study in bias.
Wednesday 10.30 pm
Late on Wednesday night a 2-year old story re-'broke', as the 'Guardian' (the hard-copy version of BBC News) announed that it was reheating the 'News of the World' 'hacking scandal' of 2007. Labour smear-doctors leapt on the news (and, as Guido Fawkes reveals http://order-order.com/2009/07/09/coulson-coulson-coulson, were already well aware of its coming publication.) Their allies at the BBC were ready to pounce too, & no-one was more ready that that scourge of the Conservatives, Michael Crick (who, on top of his Tory-baiting duties, acts as 'Newsnight''s political editor). He was tipped off by the 'Guardian' and had a report ready for broadcast by 10.30 pm.
The BBC juggernaut began to roll on the Wednesday night edition of 'Newsnight'. Emily Maitlis, in a fetching above-the-knee skirt, introduced the programme with "Tonight claims that go to the heart of the Murdoch Empire and the top of the Tory party...Andy Coulson's a former editor of the 'News of the World' but he's now David Cameron's right-hand man. What did he know of all this?"
THE INITIAL CRICK REPORT
Crick, of course, leapt straight on the Tories. Not the 'News of the World', mind you. No, the Tories. His report began, "Tonight Andy Coulson, one of David Cameron's closest aides, faces serious questions over the involvement in criminal acts by HIS reporters during HIS time as editor of the 'News of the World'."
He went on, "Unless Mr. Coulson comes up with a convincing account - and quickly - it could prove highly embarrassing for his boss" and shortly after called the 'News of the World' "Coulson's paper", just to make sure viewers got the point: Coulson='News of the World'. This is essential for the success of the final Crick equation:
Coulson='News of the World'
'News of the World"=criminal acts
Therefore, Coulson=criminal acts
From which a new equation can, of course, be insinuated:
Coulson=Cameron and the Conservatives
Coulson=criminal acts
Therefore, Cameron and the Conservatives=criminal acts
Is this second equation far-fetched as an interpretation (on my part) of the BBC's agenda? Well, as the juggernaut kept on rolling through into Thursday, it grew less and less far-fetched.
Back to the 'Newsnight' report. Nick Davies, the 'Guardian' reporter who led the story for the paper, was interviewed by Crick. (Not questioned, of course).
"Another whose voice-mail was allegedly hacked into was the then Deputy Prime Minister, who tonight was pretty angry", Crick continued. Cue John Prescott, calling for David Cameron to "take action" against Andy Coulson. (Who stirred up Prescott against Coulson? Was it the 'Guardian', the 'Labour Party' or Crick? That would be interesting to know.)
"But the big political story is about Andy Coulson". Cut back to Nick Davies, who went through hoops to suggest reasons why Coulson should resign for a second time.
Crick then read out a statement from Andy Coulson, which says "This story relates to an alleged payment made after I left the 'News of the World' two and a half years ago. I have no knowledge whatsoever of any settlement with Gordon Taylor. The Mulcaire case was investigated by the police and the Press Complaints Commission. I took full responsibility at the time for what happened on my watch but without my knowledge and resigned."
"David Cameron meanwhile is said to be 'very relaxed' about all this. "The ramping up of this story is ridiculous", a spokeswoman said. "This is about a payment made well after Andy Coulson left the 'News of the World'.""
Unlike Crick, I'm not a reporter employed by a supposedly impartial state broadcaster, so I will make it as clear as day that I agree with the Tory spokeswoman. The ramping up of this story was ridiculous - but I'd go further, it was scandalous too.
Next, the Conservative chairman of the (Labour-dominated) Culture select committee made the first of several appearances on the BBC. John Whittingdale was in demand throughout Thursday too. He was a rare Tory. He wanted questions asked of Mr. Coulson & his (Labour-dominated) committee. Fine by Crick and the BBC of course.
EMILY'S INTERVIEWS
Emily Maitlis's first interviews (following Crick's report) were with Andrew Neil, BBC presenter and former editor of Murdoch's 'Sunday Times', and Peter Wilby, former editor of the 'Independent on Sunday'
Lovely Emily prefaced this discussion with the wise words "It IS worth reminding viewers again that these are only allegations at this stage" (perhaps after a word in the ear from a more cautious Beeboid, alarmed at the tenor of Crick's report?) . That didn't stop the ever-entertaining Mr Neil from saying that the "hacking into mobile phones" was on a "mass scale" and that "it's an enormous story and to my mind one of the biggest stories of journalistic practise and ethics of modern times". With a statement like that from a former Murdoch employee, you could guarantee that Andrew Neil was bound to make many more appearances over the coming 24 hours. Neil went on to attack the police and the criminal justice system too for not acting strongly enough on the matter.
Emily repeated the Coulson statement, & invited comments. Both guests were sceptical about it.
Still, both former editors were - unlike Crick - not fixated on Coulson and the Conservatives.
Thursday 10.30 pm
At 5.15 pm (or so) Yates of the Yard had rammed into the BBC juggernaut & knocked its two front wheels off, undermining the 'Guardian' story and, as Tom Bradby on ITV News at 6.30 pointed out, sending the story back into the shadows. Being a juggernaut, however, the two back wheels kept on running for a while - as if nothing had happened. That night's 'Newsnight' soldiered on bravely. They were not pleased, however. Not pleased at all.
Gavin Esler was its presenter, & in his introduction we got the same old story: "The man at the centre of the storm, former 'News of the World' editor Andy Coulson, holds onto his job as a key advisor to David Cameron."
Just why was Coulson at the "centre of the storm" if the main allegation (the Taylor story) related to events after his resignation from the 'News of the World'? Obviously because the BBC, the 'Grauniad' and their Labour puppet-masters wanted him there. Why else?
Esler went on, "In a moment we'll consider the fate of the former 'News of the World' editor Andy Coulson, now a key advisor to David Cameron, who has broken one obvious rule by himself becoming at least part of the story..."
This is hardly fair, is it? Coulson was only "part of the story" because the Beebosphere made him "part of the story". Or should that be "part of the non-story"? That's like blaming a man who has been mugged for walking the streets with money in his pocket.
RICHARD WATSON'S REPORT
This concentrated on the allegations against the 'News of the World' and the Press Complaints Council rather than Coulson and the Conservatives. This carried Assistant Commissioner John Yates's devastating statement - or at least a tiny, tiny part of it (25 seconds worth). The brevity of the except was outrageous. I heard the whole statement (which was not that long) &, as I say, it knocked the BBC sideways - despite 'Newsnight's valiant efforts. Comments from Vanessa Feltz and Madonna's barrister Matthew Nicklin (a legal Max Clifford) followed. An anonymous free-lance journalist at 'News of the World' was quoted, backing up the 'Guardian' story against moody, thriller-style background music. (An old BBC trick). Ron Sutton, private investigator, chips in a word.
ESLER'S PANEL DISCUSSION
If you wanted a dream-panel to stoke the flames of this non-story, who would you choose?
How about Labour's John Prescott (allegedly phone-tapped - until the police said otherwise!), sleazebag Max Clifford (allegedly phone-tapped), Lib Dem former Met Officer (and 'Jungle'-loser) Brian Paddick (not worth being phone-tapped) and, of course, Nick Davies of the 'Guadrian' again? Well, 'bingo!' That's the panel 'Newsnight' gathered together on Thursday night. Balanced? Hardly.
Davies called Yates of the Yard's performance "weird" and huffed and puffed, but blew no new houses down. Prescott was unimpressed either, and blustered as only John Prescott can bluster, agreeing with Davies. Paddick sat on the fence, as only a Lib Dem can, but agreed with Davies and Prescott. Clifford agreed with all three of them.
Was Esler, a BBC employee, neutral? Did he play devil's advocate? Was he hell and did he hell. He agreed with all four of them & had a bugbear about the police to boot, reflected in several questions, such as "Indeed, but why would Mr Yates come out and make that statement, which doesn't seem to address the issue that Mr Davies and others are raising. In other words, what's going on with the police here?" and "I'm still trying to get at whether the Met can handle this, or should handle this, or whether some outside force should look at it." (There were others later!!) As I say, the BBC were not happy with the Metropolitan Police for ruining their day. Not happy at all.
The sting in the tail of the discussion, and bound to have spoiled their day even more, was the damp squib revelation from Nick Davies that "To be fair, you've seen the best of what we've got". Well, that wasn't much to start with, was it Nick? Pathetic.
DAVID GROSSMAN REPORTS...
Esler introduced the next segment of the programme like this: "Now Gordon Brown's press advisor Damien McBride was forced to resign earlier in the year after being involved in a story about e-mail smears. Alistair Campbell also quit as a top aide to Tony Blair. But today's statement by Asst Comm Yates of the Metropolitan Police APPEARS to have lifted SOME of the potential clouds from David Cameron's communications chief, the former editor of the 'News of the World' Andy Coulson, who won strong backing from his boss. But, as David Grossman reports, this row - with Andy Coulson in the middle of it - isn't over." (The emphases were HIS.)
Note the attempt to equate Coulson with Campbell, and - above all - the disgraced (and disgraceful) McBride (the man behind Drapergate), insinuating some sort of moral equivalence between them. Then there are those emphases, casting doubt on the idea that John Yates had, in fact, lifted the BBC-generated cloud from over Coulson (and, by extension,the Conservatives). And the 'some', of course, implies the existence of other, unspecified, unremoved clouds.
Grossman's report began with a heavy, BBC-style joke: "As an old red-top editor, Andy Coulson
knows just how this story could play in the tabloids: "FROM SPINNER TO SINNER: Cam's man's a hacking disgrace". The real irony here is that's pretty much how the story was being played at the BBC, with only a little more subtlety!
Grossman goes on to describe Coulson's background as "controversial" (everything's controversial, David, if you and your BBC friends tell us it is). The day's political reactions are reviewed (inside and outside the House of Commons) & Labour MP Martin Salter is invited to comment (and does so in the way you would expect).
Then Grossman concedes that "so far though no-one has come up with any concrete evidence to show that he knew about the way his journalists were getting stories", but then comes a "but": "But somebody who worked for him..."(an 'anonymouse') says he did. The report ends, as it began, with another heavy Beeboid joke - another mock headline: "RED TOP ANDY CAUGHT RED HANDY". (You wish, Beeboids, you wish) - and these final comments from Grossman: "Some papers are itching to write this headline..." (Some papers? Don't you mean the BBC, David?) "...but the evidence doesn't appear to be there as yet". (But a Beeboid can hope, can't he (or she, as you would say) David?). "Even so if the story doesn't die down soon..." (and the BBC could always keep flogging away at a dead horse, couldn't it?) "...David Cameron may conclude that he can't afford to keep his director of communications". (At which, David, you would doubtless think, "Result!")
All this was little more than innuendo. Prove it BBC, or shut up.
PREZZA RETURNS - ESLER'S SECOND DISCUSSION
Next came another Esler-hosted discussion, now focused squarely on Coulson and the Conservatives. This time we moved from the 'Guardian' all the way across the political spectrum to the 'Independent', but the 'Independent' commentator was ex-Tory MP Michael Brown. This sop to impartiality was welcome. At last, a true Tory! He did describe the idea of Coulson not knowing as "preposterous" however. (Was that why he was invited on?)
Esler did play devil's advocate this time & asked if the Labour and Lib Dems who called for Coulson's head were "whistling in the wind", because there's no evidence against him. Did he ask this to the Tory? No, he asked it to Prescott, who said Coulson "must have known". Despite one brief interruption he allowed Prezza to prattle on at length. Prescott called Cameron's judgement into doubt and Esler echoed him back to Michael Brown, interrupting him with "But isn't it because of the reasons Mr Prescott just said".
CRICK RETURNS
Crick returns, talking to Gav, to give us his thoughts. "Well, it's a fascinating story, this", he enthuses, "because of the glimpse it offers into the sort of power play in the new establishment" (of which you're a part, surely, Michael?) . "The role and strength really of News International and those four Murdoch newspapers. Now a few weeks ago, Rebekah Wade, the editor of "The Sun" had her wedding and you had so many leading politicians, David Cameron and others, (pause...cogs in the brain working...'oh, I suppose I must mention this too or else someone might notice...'), Gordon Brown, there." He goes on to describe how these same leading politicians have NOT turned up at former News International boss Les Hilton's wedding party.
Crick went along to badger the guests (probably hoping to catch Tories) and got a good response from former 'Sun' editor, Kelvin McKenzie, "I can officially tell you it's a load of socialist claptrap. I know, I know Andy. He had nothing to do with it. It was a bigger shock to him and it cost him his career at the 'News of the World' and all this has just been got up by a collection of old dinosaurs, like Prescott and Clarke." Good man, Kelvin! Crick pestered him further, along with the 'Telegraph' editor (at whom Crick shouted "How come you didn't cover it this morning?" Answer came there none, but answer should have come, "Because it wasn't worth covering. Why did you cover it, Crick? Because you want to smear the Conservatives?" Opportunity lost.) Phil Woolas, Labour MP, was there "as a friend of the bride", calling for Coulson to go. Crick did not pester him.
Crick told Esler that the story was not going to be covered by most of the papers. He said it would be investigated by "The 'Guardian' and..and..and..various broadcasters". (The BBC i-Player shows a wonderfully smug look on Esler's face at this moment). In other words, the 'Guradian', possibly Channel 4 News and, of course, the BBC and Michael Crick. Crick is placing his hopes on Parliament's select committees and vengeful Labour MPs: "Andy Coulson is going to have to give a convincing account in public of what he did and what he knew." He goes on, "...and Labour MPs are also going to make the utmost effort to go after the documents that the 'Guardian' has based its stories on, other documents that may exist, and it could prove to be a pretty important test..um..for the new speaker, John Bercow, in helping those committees get hold of those documents." I will be watching intently to see if this warning shot across Bercow's bows is followed up by Michael Crick. I suspect it will be.
At 35.51 on the BBC i-Player, the programme at last moved on to another story.
Friday 9.30 pm
No-one could accuse 'Newsnight' of moving on. On Friday Esler was back to keep the dying embers burning. However, the heart of the story had dimmed & the Coulson element fell away. The frenzy has ebbed.
RICHARD WATSON IS BACK
Richard Watson, however, returned with another report. This mentioned News International's "detailed rebuttal" but didn't go into many details about it - as I would have expected of a decent news organisation & which would, surely, have been interesting to hear). Instead, Watson had "spent the day taking" to another anonymous ex-employee of News International ("We agreed to conceal his identity"), and this 'ex' formed the basis of his whole report. The source didn't give any evidence about Andy Coulson, or even mention him.
Defeat for Crick?
CRICK BOUNCES BACK
Like Carrie, Crick will not remain dead. His hand reared up from the grave with a new anti-Tory story. What had Michael Crick "discovered" now? Guess what? It was another Labour Party - and therefore Crick Party, obsession: Lord Ashcroft, the Conservatives's chief donor. The Labour Party are forever attacking Ashcroft. So is Crick. They are both at it again.
"Well, this week we've seen Andy Coulson, David Cameron's close aide, in the spotlight". (You put him there Michael!!). "Now it could be Lord Ashcroft. I've learned tonight that Jack Straw is bringing in a measure, almost immediately, to ban anybody who doesn't pay British tax or who is not liable to British tax, from making any donations to a political party. Now this could well affect Lord Ashcroft. There's been a lot of controversy.." (from Labour and the BBC, that is) "..about whether he pays tax or not. He's been a big donor to the Conservative Party in recent years."
Anything to harm the Tories.
AND FINALLY...
Michael Crick will be watched, watched very closely. This blog will be watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
