LORD ASHCRICK

*
Early in the days of this blog I pledged to watch the Labour-supporting political editor of Newsnight Michael Crick. I've slipped a little recently. My prediction (last Monday) that Crick would beg and be granted a spot on last week's Newsnight to bash the Tories over Lord Ashcroft failed to come true but, looking at his blog, he has not been silent on the subject.
*
On 16th December, Labour's most reliable Beeboid (James Naughtie notwithstanding) posted this:
"What dodging Ashcroft questions does to the Tories" http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/12/dodging_ashcroft_questions_hur.html
*
I just knew he'd couldn't resist doing Labour's work for them on this issue - and he certainly did that here:
*
"David Cameron's need to sort out the Lord Ashcroft problem is even more urgent than I suggested last week. (You don't say!) Labour taunted the Conservatives with the issue once again at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, and it threatens to dog the Conservatives through an election campaign. (You and your friends at The Guardian and in the Labour government will see to that Michael, won't you!) The Tories' proposed new law, disqualifying from the Commons or Lords people who are non-domiciled for tax purposes, will not tackle the issue. (Spoken like a Labour minister Michael! Is that for you, a supposedly neutral political editor to say?) And it is not just a question of Lord Ashcroft's tax status making the Conservatives look like the party of the rich and privileged, or of toffs (though Lord Ashcroft isn't really a toff in the traditional sense anyway). (Well done Michael! Imply that the Tories are "the party of the rich and privileged, or of toffs", then sneak away your admission that "Lord Ashcroft isn't really a toff" in brackets and then further dilute it with the phrase "in the traditional sense anyway". What other sense is there?) Or that it undermines George Osborne's statement that "we're all in this together. It's more a question of leadership and strength. By constantly dodging ('dodging'? a loaded word that!) questions as to whether Lord Ashcroft pays UK income tax, Mr Cameron and his colleagues are in danger of looking weak and scared of Lord Ashcroft. By saying it's a "private matter" they look like they don't know, and people (especially Labour and Lib Dem-supporting ones) start to think they daren't ask him the obvious question. What I can't really understand is why Mr Cameron won't act. And several Tory front-benchers are just as baffled as me. (Really? Pardon me if I don't take your word for that Michael). The Conservatives no longer depend on Lord Ashcroft financially.
Under William Hague it was Lord Ashcroft's money - donations and loans - which kept the party from bankruptcy. But that's no longer the case. Nowadays Lord Ashcroft gives and lends the party a lot less cash, and the Conservatives are flush with funds from other sources. Lord Ashcroft's other big contribution has been as a party strategist. His work in identifying target seats, and pumping the party's cash into seats where it's likely to produce results, is hugely important. (Scares you does he, Crick? Good!) But he's now taught the party how to run his strategy, and anyway, on a day-to-day basis it's organised by full-time officials such as Stephen Gilbert. The party's got to the stage where they can do it without him. So if I were Mr Cameron (dream on Crick!) I'd invite Lord Ashcroft for a talk, thank him generously for all his help, but then insist that he issue an immediate statement setting out in full his tax position year-by-year since he got his peerage in 2000 (though that need not include specific sums). If he won't do that, then Mr Cameron should sack Lord Ashcroft as deputy chairman. (If I were David Cameron, I'd insist that Michael Crick display a modicum of impartiality in his reporting, and if he won't do that I'd insist that the BBC should sack him as political editor of Newsnight - or at least suspend him during the general election.) I can't be sure, of course, but I reckon that Lord Ashcroft probably does pay UK tax on all, or most, of his worldwide earnings these days, but that the real problem may arise from earlier. (Insinuate away Michael!) Having promised back in 2000 to pay UK tax in order to get his peerage, was there a delay of some years before Lord Ashcroft started doing so? That of course would be very embarrassing to Mr Hague, the leader to whom Lord Ashcroft made his pledge. (You'd like to embarrass William Hague, one of the hated Tories' biggest hitters, wouldn't you Michael?) But not half as embarrassing as the issue will continue to be if the issue is not clarified before the election really gets under way. (You'll chase enough Tories with your enormous microphone, and even more enormous ego, to make sure of that, I don't doubt Michael!). And one can easily see now how the line of questioning will go when Mr Cameron does his many one-on-one in-depth interviews during the campaign. (True, especially when he meets Michael Crick's fellow travellers, Naughtie, Marr, Humphrys, Sopel, Quinn,....etc, etc,)

CRICK MARCHES TO LABOUR'S TUNE AND CHASES A TORY

*
General Dannett's new role with the Conservatives came under fire from Newsnight last night. "A blunder?" asked Paxman, before calling it a "wheeze".
*
Guess who reported on the story and led the charge against the Tories? Michael Crick, of course.

Allegations of smears against General Dannett by the Labour Party (allegations confirmed by Labour's own Eric Joyce) were completely ignored by Crick, naturally, as it wouldn't do to embarrass Labour. Embarrassing the Tories is all Crick cares about. Every concern Labour ministers held (and hold) was reported straight by Michael Crick. They couldn't have hoped for better coverage of their part in the story (as the poor, innocent, aggrieved victims in all this).

In another insufferably smug report, we were 'treated' to the spectacle of Crick gloating over Chris Grayling's 'another Labour gimmick' gaffe ("one of the most amusing gaffes in recent politics", he called it). Watch him chasing Grayling on the BBC i-Player and look at the self-satisfied smirk on his face as he turns to camera afterwards! The word 'gloating' is no exaggeration. What a twit!
*
He then questioned the calibre of Cameron's current team.

"Some Tories", he said, were questioning the wisdom of announcing the general's appointment today. And a couple of minutes later, he made exactly the same point again (using an unattributed Tory critic). More Tory splits!!

No wonder when the report ended we saw a very cheerful looking Phil Woolas!!

When Crick retires from the BBC, I bet he'll go straight into a job with the Labour Party!!!


The Crick Count
Conservative 2
Tories 6

CRICK THE RIPPER STRIKES AGAIN

*
What a contrast! No report from Michael Crick at the start of the Labour conference ('for technical reasons'), only a short chat with Jeremy Paxman, but for the first day of the Tory conference there's a Crick report all right. To Cameron's 'dismay, no doubt', Europe's a big issue again, he said. We then had Michael Crick restlessly stalking Philip Hammond (and then George Osborne), with a big microphone in hand, speaking in a quavering, high-pitched voice, full of mock incredulity.
*
'Unity' was the key word (if we don't include the word 'Tory' of course!), if only to highlight 'splits'. Boris threatens 'unity' and his comments "won't have pleased" Ken Clarke, Crick said. More -philes and -phobes, of course.
*
Then there was the obligatory spectacle of Crick chasing Tory prospective parliamentary candidates around the conference centre!

The Crick report though ended on a nasty, bitter note: "Europe may trouble the party again tomorrow with a meeting with the leader of the new European caucus to which the Tories now belong, the Pole accused by David Miliband as having a neo-Nazi and anti-semitic past".

This outrageous smear has been discussed elsewhere on this blog. Trust bloody Crick to spread it again, and do so at the very end of his report. Was it then discussed, so that the slur shouldn't be left hanging in the air like a bad smell? Guess.
*
Will he bring up Michel Kaminski (a completely uncontroversial figure in Poland) in the next edition of Newsnight?
*
The next report from Crick should come at the end of the week, when he bring his silly cardboard cow into the Tory conference.

*
The Crick Count
Conservatives - 1
Tories - 4

CRICK AND GROUNDHOG DAY

*
It's groundhog day again. Michael Crick's latest report on Newsnight (his last one being about Boris and the Tories) was about...yes, of course...the Tories. (The man's obsession with them just goes on and on and on..., as all true obsessions should!)
*
It was also, ostensibly, about UKIP - being provoked by Nigel Farage's (excellent) decision to stand against Labour-friendly, expense-grabbing Speaker John Bercow in the forthcoming general election. I say 'ostensibly' because UKIP spokesmen were thin on the ground in Crick's report, with only 19 seconds going to a local party activist, Brian Adams.

The main purpose of Crick's report was to highlight more problems for David Cameron and his party. The understandable desire of many Conservatives, including party activists in Buckingham, to vote for the truly conservative Mr Farage rather than for the no-longer-conservative-at all Mr Bercow is causing confusion (if Crick is to be believed) in the party. How should active Conservatives handle it? Back Bercow? Back an anti-Bercow official Conservative? Or vote for Nigel Farage?

The secondary purpose of Crick's report was to heap praise on the Left's favourite Bercow. "Some UKIP activists concede John Bercow has been a good local MP", he said. More praise for his constituency work followed from various talking heads. The Daily Telegraph's revelations about Speaker Bercow were not mentioned.

I also look for the word 'independent' in any description of a 'talking head' in a report, as the word gives the speaker an authority that may or may not be deserved - and that's a sign of bias, in that either the person is likely to be one of whom the reporter approves or is expressing opinions of which the reporter approves. So my ears pricked up when I heard this from Crick: "But the vice-chancellor of the independent Buckingham University believes Farage would be bad news for the seat." The word 'independent' is strange in this context anyhow. Why call a university 'independent'? Surely only for the purposes of bias, outlined above? Indeed, why include this man at all?
*
If I ask again why Crick keeps on reporting on the main opposition party rather than on the government of this country, I too will be giving you a groundhog day experience! So I won't.

The Crick Count

Conservative - 6
Tory - 6

CRICK: IN SEARCH OF BORIS JOHNSON

*
I tuned into Newsnight for an investigation of the day's events concerning the release of a Megrahi. Who was Paxo going to to excoriate? Well, no one, as it happens.

Still Michael Crick was back. The Newsnight political editor would surely have lots of insights and revelations about Labour or the SNP in the light of the remarkable events of the last fortnight. I mean, not even Tory-basher Crick would be so blatant and shameless as to do yet another story about the Tories. Would he?

Of course he would!

As Jeremy listed the programme's menu, these ominous words were heard: "Michael Crick accompanies the Mayor of London on a pilgrimage to Brussels to intercede for hedge-fund managers." This is getting well beyond a joke.

"Johnson was off to Belgium to lobby against part of the draft EU directive which will impose tough new regulations on hedge funds, on private equity and venture capital."

A dig at the Tories' exit from the largest centre-right grouping in the European parliament was inevitable: "After seeing London MEPs, he dropped in on the Frenchman who's in charge of financial services for the EPP, the centre-right grouping in Europe which the Tories left
only a few weeks ago."

Next it was followed by the usual 'Tory splits' angle: "This trip exposes tensions in Tory ranks. Mr Johnson feels he should make a public stand for the financial services industry at a time when he knows his party front bench has chosen not to. Boris Johnson's day trip campaign here in Brussels today has adopted a very, very different tone to that set by David Cameron back in Britain over the last few months. David Cameron has attacked the government ferociously for what he sees as its failure to regulate properly."

"But Mr Johnson's campaign clearly hits home with Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP..."Wow! Crick talking to UKIP. It could only be because he wants to get at the Tories, couldn't it? To continue Crick's sentence though, "...with Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, whom I encountered quite by chance." I bet he did. Says it all really. Crick would never seek out Mr Farage by design!!!

He gloated over a 'lapse of memory' by Tim Kirkhope, leader of the British Conservative MEPs:
"Later Mr Kirkhope's office contacted us to confirm that the Tories had indeed voted for the original motion which led to the contentious draft directive - though, they claim, amending it more to their liking.'"

After talking over Boris's comments after a meeting, Crick goes on "Mr Johnson's office has promised a more substantial interview on the train back to London but suddenly pulled out not long before the train did." (I don't blame them. Why should they talk to this most biased of BBC reporters?) "Which is a pity because I would have liked to ask Mr Johnson some pretty tough questions." (I bet you would, Michael!! Why don't you try asking some of the Labour Party too?")

Brace yourselves, here's Crick's climactic passage and those 'pretty tough questions':

"First, about the obvious differences between him and David Cameron on regulation. Why isn't Mr Cameron at the moment coming out in support of hedge funds?" Back to 'Tory splits!

"Second, I would have liked to have raised a point made by the Liberal Democrats" (of course you would, Michael. You like the Lib Dems, don't you?). Are we moving towards the inevitable 'Tory sleaze' angle? Oh, yes!!: "They've claimed that the Tories and Boris Johnson's campaign last year have been awash with hedge fund money. Three hedge-fund bosses gave Mr Johnson's mayoral campaign almost £50,000, including Stanley Fink, who's now co-treasurer of the Conservative Party." (He thrust his face very oddly towards the camera for the words 'Stanley Fink' then, following on from 'Fink', moved back again!!)

"Which leads to a bigger question. Would a David Cameron goverment in practise, once the election's won, end up supporting hedge funds and the alternative investments markets as boldly as Boris Johnson did today?"

Again, I ask, why is this man allowed to get away with such Tory-bashing, week after week after week? Why is he not hauled before the BBC high command and reprimanded? It would be fine if he bashed Labour in the same way. He doesn't (as I've shown). How can such relentless bias be allowed to continue?

*

The Crick Count:

Conservative - 2 *********Tory - 6

MEGRAHI, THE BBC AND THEIR I.C.s - AND CRICK MAKES AMENDS

*
What, if anything, do the I.C.s tell us about how the BBC is conducting its coverage of the release of al Megrahi?
*
Here are the details of all the relevant interviews (this month):
*
Newsnight 20.08.09, Gavin Esler, Kenny MacAskill, SNP 1.6
World at One 13.08.09, Martha Kearney, Daniel Kawczynski, Conservative 1.4
PM 20.08.09, Eddie Mair, Kenny MacAskill, SNP 1.1
Today 21.08.09, John Humphrys, Alex Salmond, SNP 1
Today 21.08.09, John Humphrys, David Miliband, Labour 0.9
Newsnight 21.08.09, Gavin Esler, Iain Gray, Labour 0.6
World at One 17.08.09, Martha Kearney, Richard Baker, Labour 0.6
Newsnight 21.08.09, Gavin Esler, George Kerevan, SNP 0.5
PM 17.08.09, Eddie Mair, Christine Graham, SNP 0.4
Newsnight 5.8.09, Kirsty Wark, Christine Graham, SNP 0.4
World at One 19.08.09, Martha Kearney, Christine Graham, SNP 0.2
World at One 21.08.09, Shaun Ley, Lord Trefgarne, Conservative 0
World at One 21.08.09, Shaun Ley, Tam Dalyell, Labour 0
World at One 13.08.09, Martha Kearney, Christine Graham, SNP 0
World Tonight 21.08.09, Robin Lustig, Richard Baker, Labour 0
*

The average number of interruptions per political party being:

Conservatives - 0.7

SNP - 0.7

Labour - 0.4

*
If the focus of the story turns to Labour's part (or non-part) in this (as, following Gadaffi's son's comments about a British-Libyan trade angle to the motivation behind the Lockerbie bomber's release, it well might) will these figures change?

The intriguing suggestions of anti-SNP, pro-Labour bias in the Beeb's Scotland coverage match my earlier findings (click on label for SNP), though I've not got sufficient data - yet! - to claim that it's in any way proven (as it certainly isn't) or that it's even a particularly strong trend. Time (and the return of 'The Politics Show: Scotland') will clarify the matter.

******

Update

******

Michael Crick's Newsnight piece redressed the balance I was complaining about in my last post,

using a Conservative as the only true 'talking head' party politician in his report (besides the Great Chieftain of the Pudding Race himself, Alex Salmond, and Alistair Darling - both of who were not Newsnight's own 'talking heads', merely heads talking!). Credit where credit is due. Oddly, the Conservative spokesman was never labelled as such, only as 'David Mundell MP, Shadow Scottish Secretary', so there's nothing to add to the Crick count!

*

And what of Crick's attitude to the SNP? His report was much more sober than usual (how could it have been otherwise?), despite the swirling landscapes and the stirring music (Mendelssohn's glorious Hebrides Overture, naturally. Crick is nothing if not obvious!). No sarcasm, no Tory-bashing. So, the SNP? I think, on balance, that Crick was fair, raising various pro- and various anti- angles on the story and giving a flavour (in his vox-pops) of the conflicting feelings felt by the Scots public.

*

******

Another update

******

Back to more familiar territory, John Humphrys interviewed Conservative David Lidington and Lib Dem Ed Davey this morning about the Megrahi case (and Labour's involvement), following Gadaffi's unsettling intervention - thanking his 'good friend' Gordon Brown and the foreign secretary (among others!) for Megrahi's release. Here are the I.C.s:

Today 22.08.09 John Humphrys, David Lidington, Conservative 0.9
Today 22.08.09 John Humphrys, Ed Davey, Lib Dem 0

Welcome back John!

UNUSUAL BEHAVIOUR ALL ROUND

*
What's going on here?! The second post in a row about atypical behaviour at the BBC - and another compliment!

(I've not just begun a course of Prozac, honestly).

Firstly, Vince Cable of the Lib Dems got a thorough fisking by Kirsty Wark on Newsnight, earning her a 1.6 I.C. against the Great Sage and placing her in second place on my spreadsheet for this month (so far). Well done, Kirsty!

That said, it was, remarkably, the dancing doc's 8th appearance on my BBC list this month alone - 5 more than anyone else - which equates to an invitation to be interviewed by the BBC every other day!! So the Beeb still loves you really Vince!!

Secondly, Michael Crick did a report on bankers' bonuses, prompted (like the Cable interview) by the left-wing pressure group Compass's calls for a 'high-pay commission'. So, not a report about those wicked Tories. Amazing!!!

His report featured a snippet of Alistair Darling for Labour and Mark Hoban for the Conservatives, and was largely about the issue and its implications for politicians in general. Maybe the chance to drive about in a smart car & use lots of phrases like 'excess', 'bonus-laden' ,'bling', 'city slickers' & 'city whizz-kids' was enough fun for him.

That also said, today's Crick Count was:
*****Tory - 2
*****Conservative - 0

CRICK THE RIPPER STRIKES AGAIN!...AGAIN!

Michael Crick can openly attack the Conservatives with impugnity now, as the BBC is currently having yet another of its periodic anti-Tory fits. The latest feeding-frenzy has centred on the comments (on Fox News) of Daniel Hannan, the refreshingly independent-minded (and genuinely conservative) Conservative MEP, concerning the shortcomings of our National Health Service. Labour have pounced (with predictable and rather puerile glee) on Dan's remarks, using them to score points against the Conservatives in general, and Messers Cameron and Lansley in particular. Labour really are the 'new nasty party'. The aim is obvious - to undermine the successful-seeming Cameroon strategy of saying only nice things about the NHS and to try to convince voters that the Tories really dislike the NHS and want it to undergo (as Esler put it) "a good dose of private medicine". And, of course, that old ploy - to paint them as divided ("Tory splits.)

Of course where Labour goes, Crick goes too.

Tonight's Newsnight left us with another crime-scene, and Crick's fingerprints were all over it. It's his second anti-Tory report of the week. He will be pleased. After playing short clips of Mr Hannan's previously appearance on Fox ("It's not as if Daniel Hannan hasn't denounced the NHS on Fox TV before"), he said "Indeed the Euro MP's become a star hit with Rupert Murdoch's avowedly right-wing presenters." (Nice little example of bias by labelling there).

Crick continued, "All very embarrassing for the Conservative who could quite soon become prime minister". Note the Crickian use of the word 'very' (to heighten Tory embarrassment), in contrast to the minimising 'pretty' in the following passage: "A big aim of the Cameron project has been to try and neutralise Labour's traditional big lead on health in much the same way that during the 1990s Tony Blair successful neutralised the Tories historic lead on tax and the economy. And in recent years there are signs that David Cameron's been pretty successful at doing that; indeed some polls have put the Tories ahead of Labour on health. The danger is, from Mr Cameron's point of view, is that Labour could now snatch back what used to be its ace card."

"Yet while the Tory leader may call Daniel Hannan 'eccentric', Mr Cameron knows that the MEP and his views are very popular with the Tory grassroots;" (and with floating right-of-centre voters like yours truly) "indeed at the Conservative spring conference this April Hannan got prime billing, ahead of nearly all the shadow cabinet".

Crick then reported on the pro-NHS campaign launched on twitter, with Labour folk gushing out their undying love for our glorious health service. Cue lovable John Prescott, and his characteristic attacks on both Dan Hannan and David Cameron. He was followed by another Tory-bashing 'talking head' , the Lib Dem Norman Lamb, opining that the Tory grassroots (in the party and in the blogosphere) would make the Conservative leadership change its policy if it won power. Why does this show bias on Crick's part? Well, where were the opposition voices in Crick's last report on the Labour party's leadership? They were absent. (See label for 'Crick' ).

"The skirmishes over health these last 48 hours could overshadow and perhaps freeze a big debate that's raged within Tory ranks - over whether party leaders should ditch, or at least dilute, their pledge to ringfence spending on the NHS whilst making big cuts almost everywhere else." Ah yes, Tory splits and Tory spending cuts.

Peter Hoskin, web editor of the Spectator, was the only conservative voice in the report, and he was only there as a tool to help Crick make his point that the party leadership's emphasis on 'ringfencing' strategy is going to make it hard for them to "row back from this position, should they want to" after the general election. "I rather suspect they will want to row back from it when they're in government given the scale of Gordon Brown's debt crisis." Unintentionally (and whilst making a valid point), Mr Hoskin here makes himself Crick's 'useful idiot'.

"Twice this week David Cameron's squashed colleagues who's views may be publically unpalatable but chime with many Tories. First Alan Duncan, now Daniel Hannan." This seems to me to be a bare-faced twisting of the truth. Alan Duncan's views chimed with many MPs from other parties too & I strongly suspect that the Conservative grassroots were almost completely chime-free on this issue, in fact much more likely to have been furious with Mr Duncan.

Crick's punchline was characteristically unfriendly to the Conservative Party: "Both men have now shut up. But thanks to the internet opposition parties will no doubt in the months ahead exploit Duncan and Hannan as if they were a firm of undertakers." They will & so will you Crick! I will be watching to see if you do.

*

*

Here's a new count, just for Michael Crick. It will track how many times he uses the word Tory (or Tories) compared to the number of times he uses the word Conservative (or Conservatives). Here's today's tally:

Tory - 6

Conservative - 2

Except for John Prescott, is there anyone else in the political class who uses the word 'Tories' with such frequency and with such venom as Michael Crick?