*
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.
Showing posts with label Mark Easton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Easton. Show all posts
Friday, 21 May 2010
Thursday, 20 May 2010
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
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
Saturday, 1 May 2010
SMEARING UKIP
*
UKIP have been complaining for some time about the BBC's attempts to link them in the public's mind with the BNP.
*
Hippiepooter has brought to my attention some examples of this, both from BBC political correspondent Brian Wheeler. The first comes from his review of the BNP's latest party election broadcast:
The UK Independence Party must have thought it had cornered the market in the anti-politics vote with its "sod the lot, vote UKIP" poster.
But in this election broadcast, BNP leader Nick Griffin goes further still, urging people to use their vote to "get your own back" on the entire political class.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8647630.stm
His second comes from a review of UKIP's latest party election broadcast (and a very snide piece of reporting it is too):
*
The theme of the broadcast is "straight talking" - like the BNP in their broadcast, Ukip are starting from the premise that the public now think all mainstream politicians are liars and crooks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8651489.stm
*
And I can add Mark Easton to the list of smearers:
The big three Westminster parties have tended to brush to one side the point that lots of our inward migration comes from the EU and none of their policies would do anything about that. Only UKIP and the BNP would withdraw from the European Union, a prerequisite for restricting Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians from coming to work in Britain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/immigration_by_numbers.html
And now BoBs on the latest B-BBC open thread has picked up on possibly the worst of the lot. As he notes, "The ever helpful BBC informs us that the BNP and UKIP are basically the same party ... WTF". It begins:
*
Two parties who have entered the Westminster election race in the hope of winning their first seats are the British National Party and the UK Independence Party.
Central to both organisations is the notion of being British, however that has often led to the BNP being accused of racism and UKIP being accused of being anti-European.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/scotland/8653809.stm
*
The worst case I know of this came during an edition of The Politics Show courtesy of Jon Sopel. Sorry for doing this, but I'll have to quote myself here at some length:
*
Short extracts from interviews with each of the candidates for the leadership of UKIP followed. I would love to know how long the actual interviews lasted from which these crumbs were drawn and what questions were asked. Here the focus, initially, was firmly on immigration - and Sopel had the clear aim of painted UKIP as a far-right party analogous to the BNP.
*
First came Gerard Batten MEP. He said that immigration should be reduced to a trickle and that Sharia Law is unacceptable in this country. An unhappy-looking Sopel said "I'm sure that Nick Griffin wouldn't disagree with anything you've just said."
*
Next came front-runner Lord Pearson, who Sopel clearly had in his sights. He was labelled a "former Tory" (boo!) and "old Etonian" (boo!), and a "field sports campaigner" (boo!)" and as the man who invited Geert Wilders to the Houses of Parliament (boo!). Wearing a sour expression, Sopel asked him "So is there a danger you could be confused, UKIP and the BNP?" When the lord answered (slowly), Sopey interrupted and twisted his words: "Are you saying that there's a fine line between UKIP and the BNP?" The over-polite peer should have replied "No, you twit, of course not - and, unless you're thick, you know I didn't."
*
The mere councillor came next, Alan Wood - "chairman of Fittleton Parish council", a man who "breeds spaniels". "Do you respect Lord Pearson?" asked Sopel. "No I don't", replied Mr Wood. "Are you saying that if he's elected people will think you're too close to the BNP?", asked Sopel. "Yes", replied Mr Wood. Job done for Sopel!
*
Next up was Mike Nattrass MEP. He was labelled a "former member of the right-wing New Britain"(boo!). 'Right-wing' is usually BBC code for a fascist nut. Mr Nattrass is absolutely no such thing, but how are BBC viewers to know that the 'right-wing' New Britain was not a fascist organisation, like the BNP? This is a low subliminal smear. *
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/11/ukip-get-full-sopel-treatment.html
*
I think we should all be on the alert for more examples of this.
*
P.S. Here's another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/regions/west_midlands/8578858.stm
*
And another from Stephanie Flanders:
The UK Independence Party and the British National Party also often focus on the economic impact of immigration: on wages, productivity and jobs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8634469.stm
UKIP have been complaining for some time about the BBC's attempts to link them in the public's mind with the BNP.
*
Hippiepooter has brought to my attention some examples of this, both from BBC political correspondent Brian Wheeler. The first comes from his review of the BNP's latest party election broadcast:
The UK Independence Party must have thought it had cornered the market in the anti-politics vote with its "sod the lot, vote UKIP" poster.
But in this election broadcast, BNP leader Nick Griffin goes further still, urging people to use their vote to "get your own back" on the entire political class.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8647630.stm
His second comes from a review of UKIP's latest party election broadcast (and a very snide piece of reporting it is too):
*
The theme of the broadcast is "straight talking" - like the BNP in their broadcast, Ukip are starting from the premise that the public now think all mainstream politicians are liars and crooks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8651489.stm
*
And I can add Mark Easton to the list of smearers:
The big three Westminster parties have tended to brush to one side the point that lots of our inward migration comes from the EU and none of their policies would do anything about that. Only UKIP and the BNP would withdraw from the European Union, a prerequisite for restricting Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians from coming to work in Britain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/immigration_by_numbers.html
And now BoBs on the latest B-BBC open thread has picked up on possibly the worst of the lot. As he notes, "The ever helpful BBC informs us that the BNP and UKIP are basically the same party ... WTF". It begins:
*
Two parties who have entered the Westminster election race in the hope of winning their first seats are the British National Party and the UK Independence Party.
Central to both organisations is the notion of being British, however that has often led to the BNP being accused of racism and UKIP being accused of being anti-European.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/scotland/8653809.stm
*
The worst case I know of this came during an edition of The Politics Show courtesy of Jon Sopel. Sorry for doing this, but I'll have to quote myself here at some length:
*
Short extracts from interviews with each of the candidates for the leadership of UKIP followed. I would love to know how long the actual interviews lasted from which these crumbs were drawn and what questions were asked. Here the focus, initially, was firmly on immigration - and Sopel had the clear aim of painted UKIP as a far-right party analogous to the BNP.
*
First came Gerard Batten MEP. He said that immigration should be reduced to a trickle and that Sharia Law is unacceptable in this country. An unhappy-looking Sopel said "I'm sure that Nick Griffin wouldn't disagree with anything you've just said."
*
Next came front-runner Lord Pearson, who Sopel clearly had in his sights. He was labelled a "former Tory" (boo!) and "old Etonian" (boo!), and a "field sports campaigner" (boo!)" and as the man who invited Geert Wilders to the Houses of Parliament (boo!). Wearing a sour expression, Sopel asked him "So is there a danger you could be confused, UKIP and the BNP?" When the lord answered (slowly), Sopey interrupted and twisted his words: "Are you saying that there's a fine line between UKIP and the BNP?" The over-polite peer should have replied "No, you twit, of course not - and, unless you're thick, you know I didn't."
*
The mere councillor came next, Alan Wood - "chairman of Fittleton Parish council", a man who "breeds spaniels". "Do you respect Lord Pearson?" asked Sopel. "No I don't", replied Mr Wood. "Are you saying that if he's elected people will think you're too close to the BNP?", asked Sopel. "Yes", replied Mr Wood. Job done for Sopel!
*
Next up was Mike Nattrass MEP. He was labelled a "former member of the right-wing New Britain"(boo!). 'Right-wing' is usually BBC code for a fascist nut. Mr Nattrass is absolutely no such thing, but how are BBC viewers to know that the 'right-wing' New Britain was not a fascist organisation, like the BNP? This is a low subliminal smear. *
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/11/ukip-get-full-sopel-treatment.html
*
I think we should all be on the alert for more examples of this.
*
P.S. Here's another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/regions/west_midlands/8578858.stm
*
And another from Stephanie Flanders:
The UK Independence Party and the British National Party also often focus on the economic impact of immigration: on wages, productivity and jobs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8634469.stm
Friday, 30 April 2010
FULL OF EASTON PROMISE
*
Mark Easton used The Daily Politics Crime Debate to launch a sustained assault on the Conservatives (17 questions, 8 interruptions), and a lesser assault on the Lib Dems (4 questions, 3 interruptions). He left Labour alone (2 questions, 1 interruption). Observers of Mark Easton know that this is far from untypical. Still, the BBC's live election blog promised today that he had blogged about the use of inaccurate statistics by the three big parties, so I clicked expectantly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston
*
He certainly mentions 'the three big Westminster parties', but whose figures does he look at in detail? The Lib Dems and, you guessed it, the Conservatives. You will not find the word 'Labour' anywhere in his article.
*
This man is biased to the core and he is far from ashamed to show it.
Mark Easton used The Daily Politics Crime Debate to launch a sustained assault on the Conservatives (17 questions, 8 interruptions), and a lesser assault on the Lib Dems (4 questions, 3 interruptions). He left Labour alone (2 questions, 1 interruption). Observers of Mark Easton know that this is far from untypical. Still, the BBC's live election blog promised today that he had blogged about the use of inaccurate statistics by the three big parties, so I clicked expectantly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston
*
He certainly mentions 'the three big Westminster parties', but whose figures does he look at in detail? The Lib Dems and, you guessed it, the Conservatives. You will not find the word 'Labour' anywhere in his article.
*
This man is biased to the core and he is far from ashamed to show it.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
ALL ROADS LEAD TO BIAS
*
Crime was the theme of this morning's Today programme, and several acts of GBH were carried out against the Conservatives during the course of it. Indeed, the whole programme seemed to be structured in such a way as to make the mugging of Chris Grayling at 8.15 its focal point.
*
It began with Mark Easton telling Justin Webb that Labour were right about the crime figures, and that crime shot up under Ma Thatcher and the Conservative Gang but fell back again after Labour's Untouchables came to power. After initially sketching each party's view of whether crime is rising or falling, Justin turned to Easton and joked "I wasn't going to ask you who's right and who's wrong Mark." He might as well have done. Easton's description of what has happened to crime over the last thirty years would have been music to Alan Johnson's ears. The stats he used are those of the opinion-poll-like British Crime Survey, recommended by Easton as the best way of judging the figures.
*
Justin Webb then interviewed Chris Huhne. He gave him a very easy ride, but got him to agree with Easton that crime has been falling significantly under Labour. Just one interruption in five minutes saw a very low interruption coefficient here of 0.2.
*
Alan Johnson came on at 7.33. There were no audio clips from crime victims before his interview, no academics critical of Labour's record, indeed no pre-prepared ambushes whatsoever. He was simply interviewed. Evan Davis was the interviewer and he did plenty of interrupting (achieving an IC of 1.5). As to why the public remains unconvinced by the official statistics, he got Mr Johnson to concede that it wasn't just the Tories who were guilty, but when Al said it was the Conservative-supporting media (ie. 'The Daily Mail'!) as well Evan gave an 'Ah!' and let matters rest - for the time being. His next interruption was merely to say "'It's all working now' would be your perception?"
*
The next phase of the interview did get a concession that not everything was rosy in the garden, though it was laced with a repetition of the good news: "Just want to clarify. Because we are saying that crime is down and violent crime is down I think it's very fair to point out, I thought you'd like to comment on this, that the drop in violent crime is primarily domestic crime, acquaintance violence. If you look at muggings or violence committed by strangers, I know you would want to clarify, that has really barely budged over the last 15 years. It just carries on more or less level, doesn't it?" When Mr Johnson said that domestic violence has gone down by 50%, Evan chipped in supportively "Very dramatic." Mr Johnson repeated "Very dramatic." Still Evan did get him to admit that muggings were "stable" and "not going down".
*
He next returned to his original point and said, as well as the Conservatives and the media, maybe you have contributed to the public's fear by all those law and order bill...and promptly wasted the rest of the interview (two minutes) ploughing this minor point - a minor point which only served to reinforce the BBC narrative: Crime has fallen since the Conservatives left office. The Conservatives are lying over the crime statistics. Vote Lib-Lab. Shouldn't Evan have used those remaining minutes to interrogate Mr Johnson over some of his manifesto pledges?
*
Before Chris Grayling came on we heard an audio clip from an OBE-winning woman from Bristol, Mary Smith, who said that crime has dramatically fallen in her area, then an interview with Prof Rod Martin, a crimologist at Bristol University. "Can we nail this business of violent crime first of all," said Justin Webb. "I don't want to get bogged down in statistics and want to talk about other things, but when the Conservatives say we live in a more dangerous country thanwhen Labour came to power, I mean in so far as we can say, can we say that that's true or false?" Prof Martin thinks the Conservative position is "not defensible". That, surely, is why Today invited him onto the programme!!! To reinforce the message, Justin asked "So they are simply flat wrong when they make that allegation?" "Yes", replied Mr Martin. Such were the tripwires laid in front of Mr Grayling.
*
Everything in this programme seemed to lead to this interview. Mark Easton's initial 'analysis' of the crime figures, which 'refuted' the Conservatives and showed that crime has fallen significantly under Labour, the easy interview with Chris Huhne (which plugged away at the same point), the part-flattering, part-probing (but far from hostile) interview with Alan Johnson (which plugged away at the same point), Mrs Smith saying that crime has fallen on her estate, Prof Martin saying that crime has fallen significantly under Labour...all leading to 8.15, Evan Davis and Chris Grayling.
*
The interruptions flew again, even more so that with Alan Johnson (I.C. of 1.8). This time, however, it was straight down to business, there were no supportive interruptions and Evan's tone (and I like Evan Davis, so I'd rather not say this) was noticably tarter than with Alan Johnson. He debated which crime figures to trust with Mr Grayling, advocating the British Crime Survey (asserting, at one stage - in echo of Easton, that they are "the best statistics") against Mr Grayling's preference for the recorded crime figures. This was a dialogue of the deaf. Evan Davis later rubbished Mr Grayling's anecdotes, heckled him ("We always have!") and did that thing I always think interviewers should NOT do - disagree with their interviewee then change the subject without granting him a right to reply ("Well, we've had gangs, we've had problems with teenagers for as long as we've recognised the existence of teenagers. Just to follow up with a quick, specific policy proposal of yours, I think on knife crime...")
*
The Today programme's aim was clearly to show that the Conservatives are wrong on crime. Listeners would be forgiven for believing them. I have to admit I found myself being persuaded by the BBC line. Chris Grayling's inability to get past Evan Davis's constant interruptions didn't help. I am armour-plated against BBC bias, so if even I find myself struggling to believe the Tories on this one, either the Tories are very wrong...or the biased BBC has done a very good job indeed. I think I know which it is. The whole thing stank of a set-up.
*
Like yesterday.
*
Crime was the theme of this morning's Today programme, and several acts of GBH were carried out against the Conservatives during the course of it. Indeed, the whole programme seemed to be structured in such a way as to make the mugging of Chris Grayling at 8.15 its focal point.
*
It began with Mark Easton telling Justin Webb that Labour were right about the crime figures, and that crime shot up under Ma Thatcher and the Conservative Gang but fell back again after Labour's Untouchables came to power. After initially sketching each party's view of whether crime is rising or falling, Justin turned to Easton and joked "I wasn't going to ask you who's right and who's wrong Mark." He might as well have done. Easton's description of what has happened to crime over the last thirty years would have been music to Alan Johnson's ears. The stats he used are those of the opinion-poll-like British Crime Survey, recommended by Easton as the best way of judging the figures.
*
Justin Webb then interviewed Chris Huhne. He gave him a very easy ride, but got him to agree with Easton that crime has been falling significantly under Labour. Just one interruption in five minutes saw a very low interruption coefficient here of 0.2.
*
Alan Johnson came on at 7.33. There were no audio clips from crime victims before his interview, no academics critical of Labour's record, indeed no pre-prepared ambushes whatsoever. He was simply interviewed. Evan Davis was the interviewer and he did plenty of interrupting (achieving an IC of 1.5). As to why the public remains unconvinced by the official statistics, he got Mr Johnson to concede that it wasn't just the Tories who were guilty, but when Al said it was the Conservative-supporting media (ie. 'The Daily Mail'!) as well Evan gave an 'Ah!' and let matters rest - for the time being. His next interruption was merely to say "'It's all working now' would be your perception?"
*
The next phase of the interview did get a concession that not everything was rosy in the garden, though it was laced with a repetition of the good news: "Just want to clarify. Because we are saying that crime is down and violent crime is down I think it's very fair to point out, I thought you'd like to comment on this, that the drop in violent crime is primarily domestic crime, acquaintance violence. If you look at muggings or violence committed by strangers, I know you would want to clarify, that has really barely budged over the last 15 years. It just carries on more or less level, doesn't it?" When Mr Johnson said that domestic violence has gone down by 50%, Evan chipped in supportively "Very dramatic." Mr Johnson repeated "Very dramatic." Still Evan did get him to admit that muggings were "stable" and "not going down".
*
He next returned to his original point and said, as well as the Conservatives and the media, maybe you have contributed to the public's fear by all those law and order bill...and promptly wasted the rest of the interview (two minutes) ploughing this minor point - a minor point which only served to reinforce the BBC narrative: Crime has fallen since the Conservatives left office. The Conservatives are lying over the crime statistics. Vote Lib-Lab. Shouldn't Evan have used those remaining minutes to interrogate Mr Johnson over some of his manifesto pledges?
*
Before Chris Grayling came on we heard an audio clip from an OBE-winning woman from Bristol, Mary Smith, who said that crime has dramatically fallen in her area, then an interview with Prof Rod Martin, a crimologist at Bristol University. "Can we nail this business of violent crime first of all," said Justin Webb. "I don't want to get bogged down in statistics and want to talk about other things, but when the Conservatives say we live in a more dangerous country thanwhen Labour came to power, I mean in so far as we can say, can we say that that's true or false?" Prof Martin thinks the Conservative position is "not defensible". That, surely, is why Today invited him onto the programme!!! To reinforce the message, Justin asked "So they are simply flat wrong when they make that allegation?" "Yes", replied Mr Martin. Such were the tripwires laid in front of Mr Grayling.
*
Everything in this programme seemed to lead to this interview. Mark Easton's initial 'analysis' of the crime figures, which 'refuted' the Conservatives and showed that crime has fallen significantly under Labour, the easy interview with Chris Huhne (which plugged away at the same point), the part-flattering, part-probing (but far from hostile) interview with Alan Johnson (which plugged away at the same point), Mrs Smith saying that crime has fallen on her estate, Prof Martin saying that crime has fallen significantly under Labour...all leading to 8.15, Evan Davis and Chris Grayling.
*
The interruptions flew again, even more so that with Alan Johnson (I.C. of 1.8). This time, however, it was straight down to business, there were no supportive interruptions and Evan's tone (and I like Evan Davis, so I'd rather not say this) was noticably tarter than with Alan Johnson. He debated which crime figures to trust with Mr Grayling, advocating the British Crime Survey (asserting, at one stage - in echo of Easton, that they are "the best statistics") against Mr Grayling's preference for the recorded crime figures. This was a dialogue of the deaf. Evan Davis later rubbished Mr Grayling's anecdotes, heckled him ("We always have!") and did that thing I always think interviewers should NOT do - disagree with their interviewee then change the subject without granting him a right to reply ("Well, we've had gangs, we've had problems with teenagers for as long as we've recognised the existence of teenagers. Just to follow up with a quick, specific policy proposal of yours, I think on knife crime...")
*
The Today programme's aim was clearly to show that the Conservatives are wrong on crime. Listeners would be forgiven for believing them. I have to admit I found myself being persuaded by the BBC line. Chris Grayling's inability to get past Evan Davis's constant interruptions didn't help. I am armour-plated against BBC bias, so if even I find myself struggling to believe the Tories on this one, either the Tories are very wrong...or the biased BBC has done a very good job indeed. I think I know which it is. The whole thing stank of a set-up.
*
Like yesterday.
*
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
FULL OF EASTON BIAS
*
What does a BBC home affairs editor who is shameless enough to interrupt a Conservative spokeman 8 times and a Lib Dem spokesman 3 times (asking them 17 and 4 questions respectively), while interrupting a Labour home secretary just once (and asking him a mere two questions) during a single TV debate, what does that sort of man do for an encore?
*
Well, if he's Mark Easton he posts yet another article attacking the Conservatives and the Lib Dems whilst leaving Labour completely unscathed:
New figures released today have thrown an incendiary into the election debate on violent crime.
Analysis of hospital data for England and Wales, by academics at Cardiff University [191KB PDF], shows there were 64,000 fewer violence-related attendances in emergency departments last year than in 2001 - a fall of just over 15%.
This contrasts with Conservative claims that violent crime has increased by 44% since 2002. It also appears to contradict Liberal Democrat analysis that hospital admissions for assault are rising.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/violent_crime_falling_says_new.html *
*
Easton's graph-filled piece contrasts with The Daily Telegraph 's take on the same report - to a startling degree:
*
Violent assaults risen by 21,000, A&E figures show
The number of people needing hospital treatment after violent assaults has risen by 21,000 in the past year, according to new research which blames the first increase in years on binge drinking. An estimated 960 people-a-day are hospitalised nationwide having suffered serious attacks, figures from Accident and Emergency departments show.
Binge drinking in town and city centres is blamed for the total number of assaults resulting in hospital treatment going up by seven per cent, driven by large increases in attacks on women and people aged between 31-50. In addition, 24-hour drinking was introduced in 2005, in changes in licensing laws which allowed some pubs and clubs to stay open 24 hours a day. It is the first rise in serious violence in the seven years that hospital admissions have been officially recorded.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5194726/Violent-assaults-risen-by-21000-AandE-figures-show.html
*
The Conservative-supporting newspaper spotlights the bad news for Labour in the report; the Labour-supporting BBC reporter spotlights the good news for Labour (and bad news for their political opponents) in the report. Both are spinning.
*
Easton does mention the part of the report that The Telegraph concentrates on - the rise of 21,000 in the past year - but only in passing, and without that scary-sounding number, describing it as "the slight rise in violent incidents identified in the Cardiff graph for that period".
*
So Easton trumpets the 64,000 fall since 2001, but calls last year's rise "a slight rise". Is 21,000 really a "slight rise", being as it is almost exactly one third of the fall over the previous seven years? Surely it's a "dramatic spike"? It wouldn't help Labour to say though, would it?
*
CCHQ will be livid!!
*
*
David Preiser over at Biased BBC is also on the case, reaching the same conclusion as me - that "Mark Easton is playing with violence statistics again in support of Labour." A characteristically fine critique follows.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-thread_19.html
What does a BBC home affairs editor who is shameless enough to interrupt a Conservative spokeman 8 times and a Lib Dem spokesman 3 times (asking them 17 and 4 questions respectively), while interrupting a Labour home secretary just once (and asking him a mere two questions) during a single TV debate, what does that sort of man do for an encore?
*
Well, if he's Mark Easton he posts yet another article attacking the Conservatives and the Lib Dems whilst leaving Labour completely unscathed:
New figures released today have thrown an incendiary into the election debate on violent crime.
Analysis of hospital data for England and Wales, by academics at Cardiff University [191KB PDF], shows there were 64,000 fewer violence-related attendances in emergency departments last year than in 2001 - a fall of just over 15%.
This contrasts with Conservative claims that violent crime has increased by 44% since 2002. It also appears to contradict Liberal Democrat analysis that hospital admissions for assault are rising.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/violent_crime_falling_says_new.html *
*
Easton's graph-filled piece contrasts with The Daily Telegraph 's take on the same report - to a startling degree:
*
Violent assaults risen by 21,000, A&E figures show
The number of people needing hospital treatment after violent assaults has risen by 21,000 in the past year, according to new research which blames the first increase in years on binge drinking. An estimated 960 people-a-day are hospitalised nationwide having suffered serious attacks, figures from Accident and Emergency departments show.
Binge drinking in town and city centres is blamed for the total number of assaults resulting in hospital treatment going up by seven per cent, driven by large increases in attacks on women and people aged between 31-50. In addition, 24-hour drinking was introduced in 2005, in changes in licensing laws which allowed some pubs and clubs to stay open 24 hours a day. It is the first rise in serious violence in the seven years that hospital admissions have been officially recorded.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5194726/Violent-assaults-risen-by-21000-AandE-figures-show.html
*
The Conservative-supporting newspaper spotlights the bad news for Labour in the report; the Labour-supporting BBC reporter spotlights the good news for Labour (and bad news for their political opponents) in the report. Both are spinning.
*
Easton does mention the part of the report that The Telegraph concentrates on - the rise of 21,000 in the past year - but only in passing, and without that scary-sounding number, describing it as "the slight rise in violent incidents identified in the Cardiff graph for that period".
*
So Easton trumpets the 64,000 fall since 2001, but calls last year's rise "a slight rise". Is 21,000 really a "slight rise", being as it is almost exactly one third of the fall over the previous seven years? Surely it's a "dramatic spike"? It wouldn't help Labour to say though, would it?
*
CCHQ will be livid!!
*
*
David Preiser over at Biased BBC is also on the case, reaching the same conclusion as me - that "Mark Easton is playing with violence statistics again in support of Labour." A characteristically fine critique follows.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-thread_19.html
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
SACK MARK EASTON!
*
BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton has earned a reputation for himself as a leftie Tory-basher. Today he starred alongside Andrew Neil on a Daily Politics election special - a debate on crime, featuring Alan Johnson for Labour, Chris Grayling for the Conservatives and the ubiquitous Chris Huhne for the Liberal Democrats. This gave Easton a golden opportunity to prove that he really does take the concept of impartiality seriously. All he needed to do to prove that was to probe all three party spokesmen with a roughly equivalent intensity. Hardly difficult, you would think. Is that what he did?
*
No, he didn't. Indeed, I could hardly believe what he actually did do. A complaint will be on its way shortly to all and sundry!!!
*
Here are the number of questions/points Mark Easton put to the three politicians:
*
Alan Johnson - 2
Chris Grayling - 17
Chris Huhne - 4
*
Here are the number of interruptions Mark Easton made against each politician:
*
Alan Johnson - 1
Chris Grayling - 8
Chris Huhne - 3
*
Is that not absolutely disgraceful? How the hell does he think he can get away with that?
*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s61n7/The_Daily_Politics_2010_Election_Debates_The_Crime_Debate
BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton has earned a reputation for himself as a leftie Tory-basher. Today he starred alongside Andrew Neil on a Daily Politics election special - a debate on crime, featuring Alan Johnson for Labour, Chris Grayling for the Conservatives and the ubiquitous Chris Huhne for the Liberal Democrats. This gave Easton a golden opportunity to prove that he really does take the concept of impartiality seriously. All he needed to do to prove that was to probe all three party spokesmen with a roughly equivalent intensity. Hardly difficult, you would think. Is that what he did?
*
No, he didn't. Indeed, I could hardly believe what he actually did do. A complaint will be on its way shortly to all and sundry!!!
*
Here are the number of questions/points Mark Easton put to the three politicians:
*
Alan Johnson - 2
Chris Grayling - 17
Chris Huhne - 4
*
Here are the number of interruptions Mark Easton made against each politician:
*
Alan Johnson - 1
Chris Grayling - 8
Chris Huhne - 3
*
Is that not absolutely disgraceful? How the hell does he think he can get away with that?
*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s61n7/The_Daily_Politics_2010_Election_Debates_The_Crime_Debate
Saturday, 10 April 2010
ALTERNATIVE REALITY CHECK
*
Just when you thought BBC bias could go no further...
*
The BBC's new 'Reality Check' service began with Robert Peston suggesting that Conservative proposals on NI go against "the good society".
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/unreality-check.html
*
The second 'Reality Check' moved from the Conservatives' stance on NI to their stance on efficiency savings. Hugh Pym promised to investigate. I wrote:
Well, we'll see where this leads but, given that it's a story based on a Labour allegation against the Tories, and seems to be concentrating on the 'tough goal' for the Conservatives, do you blame me for worrying that Hugh's willingness to "help (us) form a judgment" is going to lead him to cast doubt most heavily on the Conservatives' promises?
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/reality-check-for-reality-check.html
*
Well, he's done his work and, as I expected, he's judged heavily against the Conservatives. All the people he's spoken to agree, namely Gerry Gilbert of Standard Life and... "some independent academics" (independent!) who "have also questioned whether it can be done." Anyone else? Well, there's a video clip featuring a (previously unseen by me) attack on the Tories by...Prof Colin Talbot!!!!! (see previous posts!!!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8609135.stm
*
I wrote in my last look at 'Reality Check', "The BBC's new Reality Check page is only just under way but, following on from Robert Peston's strange post about national insurance yesterday, looks as if it might possibly be about to become a Conservative Check page." Has this really turned out to be the case?
*
Well, the third 'Reality Check' has arrived. An ominous rumble of thunder...it's by Mark Easton. A flash of lightning!...it's called Welfare: Can the Tories save billions in benefits?
*
I think I can sum up my reaction to this turn of events with this remark:
The Conservatives' bigger promises on welfare rely on saving £600m within three years. Not by targeting cheats, but getting people off Incapacity Benefit (IB).
.....
But there's a problem with both figures.
.....
And Neil Coyle, of the Disability Alliance, believes the policy would hit the vulnerable.
......
But if the consequence of reform is thousands of vulnerable individuals with long-term health conditions being treated unfairly, it's a policy with built-in dangers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8611173.stm
*
Three 'Reality Checks' from three top BBC reporters. Three 'Reality Check' that target the Tories and judge against them, ever more harshly. Easton's is the worst of the lot. He's worthy of his place in that line of anti-Tory BBC home affairs editors that included Polly Toynbee.
*
I didn't think BBC bias could get any worse. It's getting worse. How far will they go to stop the Conservatives winning this election?
Just when you thought BBC bias could go no further...
*
The BBC's new 'Reality Check' service began with Robert Peston suggesting that Conservative proposals on NI go against "the good society".
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/unreality-check.html
*
The second 'Reality Check' moved from the Conservatives' stance on NI to their stance on efficiency savings. Hugh Pym promised to investigate. I wrote:
Well, we'll see where this leads but, given that it's a story based on a Labour allegation against the Tories, and seems to be concentrating on the 'tough goal' for the Conservatives, do you blame me for worrying that Hugh's willingness to "help (us) form a judgment" is going to lead him to cast doubt most heavily on the Conservatives' promises?
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/reality-check-for-reality-check.html
*
Well, he's done his work and, as I expected, he's judged heavily against the Conservatives. All the people he's spoken to agree, namely Gerry Gilbert of Standard Life and... "some independent academics" (independent!) who "have also questioned whether it can be done." Anyone else? Well, there's a video clip featuring a (previously unseen by me) attack on the Tories by...Prof Colin Talbot!!!!! (see previous posts!!!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8609135.stm
*
I wrote in my last look at 'Reality Check', "The BBC's new Reality Check page is only just under way but, following on from Robert Peston's strange post about national insurance yesterday, looks as if it might possibly be about to become a Conservative Check page." Has this really turned out to be the case?
*
Well, the third 'Reality Check' has arrived. An ominous rumble of thunder...it's by Mark Easton. A flash of lightning!...it's called Welfare: Can the Tories save billions in benefits?
*
I think I can sum up my reaction to this turn of events with this remark:
!!!!!!!!!
*
The article begins:
Welcome to Reality Check. Today I'm taking a close look at the Conservative pledge to cut billions from the welfare bill.
*
Can you guess what conclusions his investigations lead him too? I bet you can!!
Welcome to Reality Check. Today I'm taking a close look at the Conservative pledge to cut billions from the welfare bill.
*
Can you guess what conclusions his investigations lead him too? I bet you can!!
*
So how much will their "three strikes and you're out" policy actually save?
We asked the Conservatives and they said "We can't say", so I have attempted to do the sums instead.
How many people have been convicted of benefit fraud three times? The Department for Work and Pensions tells me the answer is... zero. No-one. Ever.
.....
Even if we include those people cautioned as well as convicted, it is clear that this
proposal is not going to save much money.
The shadow work and pensions secretary, Theresa May, was asked by Reality Check if she knew there was no record of anyone being convicted three times for benefit fraud.
She declined to give a direct answer, but said the policy was intended to send out a clear message to benefit fraudsters.
It goes on:
We asked the Conservatives and they said "We can't say", so I have attempted to do the sums instead.
How many people have been convicted of benefit fraud three times? The Department for Work and Pensions tells me the answer is... zero. No-one. Ever.
.....
Even if we include those people cautioned as well as convicted, it is clear that this
proposal is not going to save much money.
The shadow work and pensions secretary, Theresa May, was asked by Reality Check if she knew there was no record of anyone being convicted three times for benefit fraud.
She declined to give a direct answer, but said the policy was intended to send out a clear message to benefit fraudsters.
The Conservatives' bigger promises on welfare rely on saving £600m within three years. Not by targeting cheats, but getting people off Incapacity Benefit (IB).
.....
But there's a problem with both figures.
.....
And Neil Coyle, of the Disability Alliance, believes the policy would hit the vulnerable.
......
But if the consequence of reform is thousands of vulnerable individuals with long-term health conditions being treated unfairly, it's a policy with built-in dangers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8611173.stm
*
Three 'Reality Checks' from three top BBC reporters. Three 'Reality Check' that target the Tories and judge against them, ever more harshly. Easton's is the worst of the lot. He's worthy of his place in that line of anti-Tory BBC home affairs editors that included Polly Toynbee.
*
I didn't think BBC bias could get any worse. It's getting worse. How far will they go to stop the Conservatives winning this election?
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
JOHN, MARK AND JUSTIN
*
At least Today didn't entirely swallow The World Tonight's deviant line!
*
Continuing on from my earlier posts, there was confirmation that Labour is (paradoxically) keen to hear the BBC discuss Mark Easton's holiday freebies story rather than the far-more-damaging-to-Labour lobbying story from the characteristically unsure-footed Sir Stuart Bell on this morning's Today programme.
*
Labour veteran Sir Stuart gave the game away, saying in answer to a question from Justin Webb, "Well I think the Labour Party meeting last night was more to do with the three cabinet ministers rather than the question of 20 MPs who had not declared their interests on foreign trips. So essentially what I'm talking about today is this further error of judgement in our colleagues, twenty of them, which unfortunately means that 646 MPs are now tarred with the same brush..." To his credit, Justin (who was not reading from the prescribed Mark Easton/Michael Crick/The World Tonight script) pulled him back to the cabinet ministers and pressed him on it! Not that Sir Stuart gave any real answers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8582000/8582281.stm
*
Still the narrative, a "cross-party affair" (as Justin called it), was back in place soon after with the appearance of the man himself, Mark 'Stick-the-knife-into-the-Tories' Easton. In outlining the rules to John Humphrys he used a far-from-hypothetical example of an MP who, say, goes to the Maldives. There is such an MP, and he's a Conservative, David Amess. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8582000/8582305.stm. Andrew Dismore (the sacrificial Labour lamb) followed, as he did with Michael Crick and on The World Tonight. He's the one on the Parliamentary Committee on Standards and Privileges. Then Easton went back to the Maldives guy, Mr Amess (this time naming him). As Sir Stuart said, Labour is much more comfortable here, where the guilt is spread much more widely across the parties.
*
John Humphrys returned though to the big story at 8.10, but he spun it in the expected way.
*
He began by saying that their was anger at the former cabinet ministers not just from the opposition but "not only on the opposition benches. There was plenty of anger among Labour MPs too. Well now the government has reacted. The three ministers involved have been suspended from the Labour Party". So there you go, Labour is outraged and has taken strong action against the three . Labour's all right really, it's only a few rotten eggs.
*
Interviewing Jack Straw, John Humphrys first discussed the individuals then questioned the rules. Shouldn't the rules the changed? The rules, the rules, it's the fault of the rules. After the few rotten eggs came the generalities. The government's thinking on the generalities was where the bulk of the interview lay. So the discussion moved from three individuals from the Labour Party to parliament as a whole without dwelling on the in-between i.e. the Labour Party itself, which is riddled with sleaze.
*
At least Today didn't entirely swallow The World Tonight's deviant line!
*
Continuing on from my earlier posts, there was confirmation that Labour is (paradoxically) keen to hear the BBC discuss Mark Easton's holiday freebies story rather than the far-more-damaging-to-Labour lobbying story from the characteristically unsure-footed Sir Stuart Bell on this morning's Today programme.
*
Labour veteran Sir Stuart gave the game away, saying in answer to a question from Justin Webb, "Well I think the Labour Party meeting last night was more to do with the three cabinet ministers rather than the question of 20 MPs who had not declared their interests on foreign trips. So essentially what I'm talking about today is this further error of judgement in our colleagues, twenty of them, which unfortunately means that 646 MPs are now tarred with the same brush..." To his credit, Justin (who was not reading from the prescribed Mark Easton/Michael Crick/The World Tonight script) pulled him back to the cabinet ministers and pressed him on it! Not that Sir Stuart gave any real answers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8582000/8582281.stm
*
Still the narrative, a "cross-party affair" (as Justin called it), was back in place soon after with the appearance of the man himself, Mark 'Stick-the-knife-into-the-Tories' Easton. In outlining the rules to John Humphrys he used a far-from-hypothetical example of an MP who, say, goes to the Maldives. There is such an MP, and he's a Conservative, David Amess. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8582000/8582305.stm. Andrew Dismore (the sacrificial Labour lamb) followed, as he did with Michael Crick and on The World Tonight. He's the one on the Parliamentary Committee on Standards and Privileges. Then Easton went back to the Maldives guy, Mr Amess (this time naming him). As Sir Stuart said, Labour is much more comfortable here, where the guilt is spread much more widely across the parties.
*
John Humphrys returned though to the big story at 8.10, but he spun it in the expected way.
*
He began by saying that their was anger at the former cabinet ministers not just from the opposition but "not only on the opposition benches. There was plenty of anger among Labour MPs too. Well now the government has reacted. The three ministers involved have been suspended from the Labour Party". So there you go, Labour is outraged and has taken strong action against the three . Labour's all right really, it's only a few rotten eggs.
*
Interviewing Jack Straw, John Humphrys first discussed the individuals then questioned the rules. Shouldn't the rules the changed? The rules, the rules, it's the fault of the rules. After the few rotten eggs came the generalities. The government's thinking on the generalities was where the bulk of the interview lay. So the discussion moved from three individuals from the Labour Party to parliament as a whole without dwelling on the in-between i.e. the Labour Party itself, which is riddled with sleaze.
*
'NEWSNIGHT' TAKES THE FIGHT TO THE TORIES
*
Thirty minutes into last night's Newsnight the programme turned to the issues raised by Dispatches (why don't the BBC have such a programme? Panorama is not in the same league these days). After telling us that Byers, Hewitt and Hoon have been suspended from the Labour Party in the wake of tonight's fresh revelations (which would doubtless have given Gordon Brown a great deal of pleasure!), Jeremy Paxman read this from his autocue: "The BBC's home affairs editor has also disclosed tonight that dozens of MPs from all major parties have broken rules requiring them to register and declare trips abroad at the expense of foreign governments". Ah yes, it's the 'they're all as bad as each other' point made whenever Labour gets itself in the mire, though strangely not made when the Conservatives are under fire. Fancy Mark Easton having something up his sleeve to pull out just as damaging news flies hard at the Labour Party (despite John Butterfill, for whom Dispatches raised a Baroness Morgan), something that hits all major parties! What a surprise!
*
Cue Crick. "Amid revelations that some MPs (and a Labour peer Michael! You forgot Baroness Morgan) are open for hire like taxis, dramatic news tonight as three former members of the Labour cabinet are suspended from the party. Rarely has any party taken such strong action against three such senior figures." Yes, it's 'Labour to the rescue!' time again.
*
Mr Byer's 'taxi for hire' claim gave Crick all the excuse he needed to bring up Neil Hamilton. ('They're all as bad as each other', you see).
*
Byers's retraction today of those claims which could be damaging to Labour Lords Adonis and Mandelson was reported by Michael Crick as if it was to be taken at face value - 'Byers has owned up. He exaggerated. Adonis and Mandelson are in the clear, and that's that. Move along now please.' I doubt Michael Crick's tone would have been the same had a Conservative miscreant recanted!
*
Crick then briefly reviewed Geoff 'Hoon Work' Hoon, Patricia Hewitt and (you could see this coming)
"the senior Tory John Butterfill". (I'd never heard of him before). What happened to Labour's Baroness Morgan though? Why did Crick not mention her starring role in Dispatches?
*
Then Crick turned to Mark Easton's conveniently timed revelations about MPs and their foreign hospitalities. Labour MP Andrew Dismore and Conservative David Amess were singled out. 'They're all as bad as each other', you see. Well almost because, this being Crick, David Amess was spotlighted (rather than Mr Dismore) with an embarrassing clip and lots more criticism. Also Mr Dismore's denials of wrongdoing were quoted. As further proof of bias, here (if more proof be needed) Crick spent 16 seconds on Mr Dismore but spent 46 seconds on Mr Amess! That's Michael Crick for you!
*
Jeremy Paxman then asked Peter Mandelson about the Tesco claims (briefly) and Ken Clarke about Mark Easton's Labour-saving investigation, mentioning Theresa Villiers.
*
What is Newsnight? Is it merely a branch of Downing Street's Rebuttals Unit?
Thirty minutes into last night's Newsnight the programme turned to the issues raised by Dispatches (why don't the BBC have such a programme? Panorama is not in the same league these days). After telling us that Byers, Hewitt and Hoon have been suspended from the Labour Party in the wake of tonight's fresh revelations (which would doubtless have given Gordon Brown a great deal of pleasure!), Jeremy Paxman read this from his autocue: "The BBC's home affairs editor has also disclosed tonight that dozens of MPs from all major parties have broken rules requiring them to register and declare trips abroad at the expense of foreign governments". Ah yes, it's the 'they're all as bad as each other' point made whenever Labour gets itself in the mire, though strangely not made when the Conservatives are under fire. Fancy Mark Easton having something up his sleeve to pull out just as damaging news flies hard at the Labour Party (despite John Butterfill, for whom Dispatches raised a Baroness Morgan), something that hits all major parties! What a surprise!
*
Cue Crick. "Amid revelations that some MPs (and a Labour peer Michael! You forgot Baroness Morgan) are open for hire like taxis, dramatic news tonight as three former members of the Labour cabinet are suspended from the party. Rarely has any party taken such strong action against three such senior figures." Yes, it's 'Labour to the rescue!' time again.
*
Mr Byer's 'taxi for hire' claim gave Crick all the excuse he needed to bring up Neil Hamilton. ('They're all as bad as each other', you see).
*
Byers's retraction today of those claims which could be damaging to Labour Lords Adonis and Mandelson was reported by Michael Crick as if it was to be taken at face value - 'Byers has owned up. He exaggerated. Adonis and Mandelson are in the clear, and that's that. Move along now please.' I doubt Michael Crick's tone would have been the same had a Conservative miscreant recanted!
*
Crick then briefly reviewed Geoff 'Hoon Work' Hoon, Patricia Hewitt and (you could see this coming)
"the senior Tory John Butterfill". (I'd never heard of him before). What happened to Labour's Baroness Morgan though? Why did Crick not mention her starring role in Dispatches?
*
Then Crick turned to Mark Easton's conveniently timed revelations about MPs and their foreign hospitalities. Labour MP Andrew Dismore and Conservative David Amess were singled out. 'They're all as bad as each other', you see. Well almost because, this being Crick, David Amess was spotlighted (rather than Mr Dismore) with an embarrassing clip and lots more criticism. Also Mr Dismore's denials of wrongdoing were quoted. As further proof of bias, here (if more proof be needed) Crick spent 16 seconds on Mr Dismore but spent 46 seconds on Mr Amess! That's Michael Crick for you!
*
Jeremy Paxman then asked Peter Mandelson about the Tesco claims (briefly) and Ken Clarke about Mark Easton's Labour-saving investigation, mentioning Theresa Villiers.
*
What is Newsnight? Is it merely a branch of Downing Street's Rebuttals Unit?
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
MARK EASTON
*
Following on from my post this morning, what did BBC Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton blog about today - over three hours after my post?
P.S. Check out his belated P.S. That's how he responded - he chose the second option! How predictable is that!
*
Conservative crime correspondence
Mark Easton 11:13 UK time, Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Letters just published show how the shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, has been trying to rethink the Conservative election strategy on crime.
You may recall that he got into trouble with the statistics watchdog when he used dodgy data to suggest that violent crime had soared under Labour.
The UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) advised him to use the British Crime Survey (BCS) instead, a source which, irritatingly for Mr Grayling, suggests violent crime has fallen by more than 40% since 1997.
Now the UKSA has released correspondence from its chairman, Sir Michael Scholar, responding to letters from Mr Grayling.
***
However, the authority's response to Mr Grayling's question is not one that would be welcomed by any campaign team hoping for a simple slogan to suggest increased violence under the incumbent government.
A Conservative poster with the legend "MUGGINGS UP" would have to include a caveat along the lines of "...or quite probably down, depending on which figures you look at".
As if to make the political campaigner's life even more difficult, Sir Michael again stresses that the best measure for violent crime trends is the one that shows it falling.
Sir Michael ends by writing that the Authority won't criticise Mr Grayling's stats "unless we judge it clearly necessary... to prevent damage to trust in official statistics". The shadow home secretary may find this less than entirely reassuring, given the UKSA's warning that "selective quotation" might well be deemed "misleading".
It could be argued that political campaigns have always been about "selective quotation". Candidates see themselves not as judges summing up a case, but as barristers using the best available evidence to prove that the other lot are hapless and hopeless. The idea that political parties should try to portray "a more balanced commentary on national trends" will be hard for some to take. Sir Michael's words could have implications for the eager campaign teams of any party looking to use official statistics.
PS: It's been revealed this morning that the Conservatives believe the House of Commons Library research demonstrates that violent crime has risen 44% under Labour, but the government continues to dispute the accuracy of the claim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/03/conservative_crime_corresponde.html
Following on from my post this morning, what did BBC Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton blog about today - over three hours after my post?
P.S. Check out his belated P.S. That's how he responded - he chose the second option! How predictable is that!
*
Conservative crime correspondence
Mark Easton 11:13 UK time, Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Letters just published show how the shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, has been trying to rethink the Conservative election strategy on crime.
You may recall that he got into trouble with the statistics watchdog when he used dodgy data to suggest that violent crime had soared under Labour.
The UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) advised him to use the British Crime Survey (BCS) instead, a source which, irritatingly for Mr Grayling, suggests violent crime has fallen by more than 40% since 1997.
Now the UKSA has released correspondence from its chairman, Sir Michael Scholar, responding to letters from Mr Grayling.
***
However, the authority's response to Mr Grayling's question is not one that would be welcomed by any campaign team hoping for a simple slogan to suggest increased violence under the incumbent government.
A Conservative poster with the legend "MUGGINGS UP" would have to include a caveat along the lines of "...or quite probably down, depending on which figures you look at".
As if to make the political campaigner's life even more difficult, Sir Michael again stresses that the best measure for violent crime trends is the one that shows it falling.
Sir Michael ends by writing that the Authority won't criticise Mr Grayling's stats "unless we judge it clearly necessary... to prevent damage to trust in official statistics". The shadow home secretary may find this less than entirely reassuring, given the UKSA's warning that "selective quotation" might well be deemed "misleading".
It could be argued that political campaigns have always been about "selective quotation". Candidates see themselves not as judges summing up a case, but as barristers using the best available evidence to prove that the other lot are hapless and hopeless. The idea that political parties should try to portray "a more balanced commentary on national trends" will be hard for some to take. Sir Michael's words could have implications for the eager campaign teams of any party looking to use official statistics.
PS: It's been revealed this morning that the Conservatives believe the House of Commons Library research demonstrates that violent crime has risen 44% under Labour, but the government continues to dispute the accuracy of the claim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/03/conservative_crime_corresponde.html
LABOUR/BBC GET AWAY WITH MURDER
*
The Mail is reporting more bad news for Labour:
How violent crime has risen 44% after 13 years of Labour: But ministers insist it's DOWN
By James Slack
Violent crime has rocketed by 44 per cent under Labour, official Parliamentary research revealed last night.
The House of Commons Library report is the definitive independent verdict on the 13-year record of the Government.
The Tories say the research backs their claims about 'broken Britain'.
The figures are a serious and embarrassing blow to the Government - which has repeatedly insisted violent crime was down and accused the Tories of using 'dodgy' statistics.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This new analysis confirms that the level of violent crime actually reported to police officers in police stations up and down the country is much higher than it was a decade ago.
'This just serves to underline the scale of the challenge the country faces in fixing our broken society.'
However, Home Secretary Alan Johnson repeated his claim that the Tories use 'dodgy' statistics and said violent crime was down.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256474/How-violent-crime-risen-44-13-years-Labour-But-ministers-insist-DOWN.html#ixzz0hf2bcIFu
*
I think this could easily be re-written to apply to another left-wing organisation:
*
How violent crime has risen 44% after 13 years of Labour: But the BBC insist it's DOWN
By James Slack
Violent crime has rocketed by 44 per cent under Labour, official Parliamentary research revealed last night.
The House of Commons Library report is the definitive independent verdict on the 13-year record of the Government.
The Tories say the research backs their claims about 'broken Britain'.
The figures are a serious and embarrassing blow to the BBC - which has repeatedly insisted violent crime was down and accused the Tories of using 'dodgy' statistics.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This new analysis confirms that the level of violent crime actually reported to police officers in police stations up and down the country is much higher than it was a decade ago.
'This just serves to underline the scale of the challenge the country faces in fixing our broken society.'
However, Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton repeated his claim that the Tories use 'dodgy' statistics and said violent crime was down.
*
It will be interesting to see if Mark Easton blogs about this (nothing there yet of course). If he doesn't just ignore the story, I confidently predict he will (like Alan Johnson) reject it.
The Mail is reporting more bad news for Labour:
How violent crime has risen 44% after 13 years of Labour: But ministers insist it's DOWN
By James Slack
Violent crime has rocketed by 44 per cent under Labour, official Parliamentary research revealed last night.
The House of Commons Library report is the definitive independent verdict on the 13-year record of the Government.
The Tories say the research backs their claims about 'broken Britain'.
The figures are a serious and embarrassing blow to the Government - which has repeatedly insisted violent crime was down and accused the Tories of using 'dodgy' statistics.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This new analysis confirms that the level of violent crime actually reported to police officers in police stations up and down the country is much higher than it was a decade ago.
'This just serves to underline the scale of the challenge the country faces in fixing our broken society.'
However, Home Secretary Alan Johnson repeated his claim that the Tories use 'dodgy' statistics and said violent crime was down.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256474/How-violent-crime-risen-44-13-years-Labour-But-ministers-insist-DOWN.html#ixzz0hf2bcIFu
*
I think this could easily be re-written to apply to another left-wing organisation:
*
How violent crime has risen 44% after 13 years of Labour: But the BBC insist it's DOWN
By James Slack
Violent crime has rocketed by 44 per cent under Labour, official Parliamentary research revealed last night.
The House of Commons Library report is the definitive independent verdict on the 13-year record of the Government.
The Tories say the research backs their claims about 'broken Britain'.
The figures are a serious and embarrassing blow to the BBC - which has repeatedly insisted violent crime was down and accused the Tories of using 'dodgy' statistics.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This new analysis confirms that the level of violent crime actually reported to police officers in police stations up and down the country is much higher than it was a decade ago.
'This just serves to underline the scale of the challenge the country faces in fixing our broken society.'
However, Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton repeated his claim that the Tories use 'dodgy' statistics and said violent crime was down.
*
It will be interesting to see if Mark Easton blogs about this (nothing there yet of course). If he doesn't just ignore the story, I confidently predict he will (like Alan Johnson) reject it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
