I advise reading Jonathan Lockhart’s entertaining post before responding to that question:
‘The show ended with a discussion of Tony Blair’s dress sense. Michael Portillo observed that Blair had never been particularly stylish and had taken to wearing light ties to match his light shirts, 1970s style. “Ouch, you bitch!” proclaimed Diane Abbott. So ended another edition of the top-flight BBC politics show.’
I have never understood why they picked Dianne Abbot, a not so bright, extreme left wing, out of the mainstream, old labour backbencher to represent ‘the left’ on that show.
She only represents a tiny minority of die hard Islington Communists.
It’s made even worse by the fact that they picked Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo, an arrogant, anti-tory, pink shirt wearing bisexual liberal to represent ‘the right’.
And no show would be complete without an airhead communist celebrity guest
like Billy Brag.
The only decent part of the show is Mark Mardell, he’s hillarious. Other than that, the Politics show is typical of the bullshit served up during the red Gweg Dyke era.
they were at school together
I think initially they had pencilled in Oona(?) King . Presumably she had better things to do , and so the search for an MP who was female + non-white had to resume. There’s not much choice in parliament , so Hello Dianne!
BBC being PC as usual ?
Oona King, known for being in favour of the Iraq war, and also a forthcoming opponent for Georgeous George Galloway when he pitches up in her patch in Bethnal Green and Bow.
I wonder if Ms. King, for all her inate leftiness, is in need of some extra campaign assistance?
Got to be better than being on the losing side, again, whether the losing side is the party that dare not be organised and steadfast or, heaven forfend, the other one that Robert Kilroy-Silk has targetted for a spot of entryism… 😉
Let’s face it, we know what the outcome of the next election is going to be – but it’d be nice to play a part in consigning Gorgous George to a parliamentary footnote along with Screaming Lord Sutch and Commander Bill Boakes!
On another matter, one of the good things about having an unreconstructed, relatively dim, old-time “son goes to expensive public school” leftie like Diane Abbot on our TV’s each week is that, as with Rod Liddle and the hunting fraternity, it reminds us why we didn’t vote Labour… that and all the other things that Labour is doing of course!
And besides, I’m happy to put up with Diane A. on TV each week if it means we can have Andrew Neil playing Devil’s advocate from what, I’m sure most here will concur, is a sensible and rational point of view, a voice in the wilderness among the BBC’s presenters.
Indeed.There’s no better barometer of the Beeb’s worldview, than that one of their flagship political programs is based around debates between a hard-left Labour MP and a soft-left Tory. No wonder they see right-wing extremists everywhere – on this scale that includes most of Britain’s second biggest party.
You are all a bit hard on the Politics Show. Mardell is very good, and Neil brings much common sense to the programme, and rarely allows silly left wing assumptions by guests or Abbott to go unchallenged. For example, a few weeks ago he was very sharp with an Egyptian journalist who was spouting off about freedom of speech in this country. Neil reminded her very forcefully about the hypocricy of people like her who don’t criticise the lack of democracy, let alone free speech, in their own countries. His Scottish paper also serves up some very sensible articles.
I agree with Dumbjon that soft left tory and hard left socialist is the Beeb’s idea of balance. Can you imagine the Beeb giving such house room to the likes of Simon Heffer, Bruce Anderson or Peter Oborne? No I thought not. As for giving any of them a job…! The post Guardian Naughtie and post Indie Marr are far more typical.
It’s interesting you mention Anderson, Heffer and Oborne. Although I am anti the left-liberal bias on teh BBC I am not enamoured of those commentators. I think the BBC plays a subtle game by promoting these buffoons of the right as spokespeople for the right – along with Peter – ex-Trotskyite – Hitchens.
Really thoughtful voices of common sense are rare. Andrew Neil is I would agree the exception.
David
“the BBC plays a subtle game by promoting these buffoons of the right ”
Remember the Ann Widdecombe vs Clare Short edition? The ‘battle of the battleaxes’ LOL.
“For example, a few weeks ago he was very sharp with an Egyptian journalist who was spouting off about freedom of speech in this country. Neil reminded her very forcefully about the hypocricy of people like her who don’t criticise the lack of democracy, let alone free speech, in their own countries. ”
Yeah, they don’t half give some visceral foriegn journalists a platform to run us down. I remember a Chinese journalist (state media of course) running her mouth about the ‘hypocracy’ of the west, and how democracy would create chaos in china, totally unopposed.
And who’s that Egyptian guy with the moustache that’s on all the time? The words ‘mouth at foaming’ come to mind, as well as ‘nutcase terrorist Islamic sympathizing’.
monkey..””And who’s that Egyptian guy with the moustache that’s on all the time? The words ‘mouth at foaming’ come to mind, as well as ‘nutcase terrorist Islamic sympathizing'””
..think you must mean that nutcase, Abdul Bari Atwan, (editor of Al Quds newspaper, and longstanding islamicist/arabist BBC pundit)
I presume the last comment is a reference to Abdel Bari-Atwan (I think that’s how it’s spelt), often anglicised by friendly journos (on Sky and the Beeb) as Barry Atwan, editor of Al-Quds Al-Araby, an Arabic newspaper based in London, noted for a face-to-face interview with Bin Laden himself and a few other Al-Qaeda related exclusives.
He does seem to have become (or at least become apparent) as a partisan rentaquote, rather than the objective commentator originally purported.
His apparent support/sympathy for Saddam, at least in my view, was quite nauseous, particularly given that his newspaper wouldn’t be in business under a Saddam style regime (at least not with him free to edit it as he wishes).
Personally, I believe that we ought to see more Imams and the like on TV condemning or justifying various atrocities/incidents/inflammatory comments by others/etc. on behalf of their congregations, and where they decline to appear, advising the audience of that fact, just so we can all be clear about where everyone stands – nothing like the harsh glare of studio lights and a Paxo-style grilling (without the subjectivity) to stiffen the sinews, excercise free speech and get to the point.
Ms Hawley feels she must devalue every advance in Iraq. In BBC1 News 13:00, she presented a report on the progress to elections. Her first words were that Allawi had set a trial date for Chemical Ali as an election ploy.
At least the online version of the story leaves this bit of cynicism to the last para
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4096943.stm
“Correspondents (well Hawley & her hotel drinking buddies) say the timing of the trials’ announcement is being seen as a bid to give Mr Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord party a political boost ahead of the polls.”
David – You seemed unimpressed by the suggestion of rightist journos Heffer, Anderson and Oborne. While I accept that Heffer can foam at the mouth a bit, I think it is unfair to say the same of Oborne and Anderson, both of whom write cogent well argued pieces. Oborne especially is a compelling interviewee – Sky used to use him on their parliamentary coverage – Streets ahead of leftist mediocrities like Rizla Rosie who pop up with monotonous regularity.
The Egyptian journo must earn a load of money from us licence payers – 100 appearances a year on various progs ? He always comes across as a crackpot, grinding an axe rather than giving any objective view. No wonder the BBC love him.
If there was any “referee” of BBC bias he would be a prime example of the imbalance in who the BBC choose to interview. AAlong with the fragrant Jasmin.
Meanwhile carlyn Hawley and Orla Guerin are really looking past their sell-by-date.
OT BBC viewing figures falling badly :
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/story.jsp?story=592946
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4098729.stm
New attempt by BBC to cover for the UN.
OT – Now that Blunkett’s gone I am reminded of a post by Andrew recently saying that when Marr said he thought a minister would survive the P45 could not be far away. Marr said Blunkett would survive….
I don’t remember saying that JH – maybe it was someone else – although the sentiment is entirely right…
PMQ’s today was good for a laugh – at least the first ten minutes.
I have a modicum of sympathy for Blunkett the man – and whilst a leftie at heart, he was probably about as ‘good’ a right-winger as we were likely to have as Home Secretary in a Blair administration.
I hope that Charles Clark, Blunkett’s replacement, cuts the mustard in defending our country and our laws – but I can’t say I’m expecting much conviction (no pun intended!) from him!
“http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4098729.stm
New attempt by BBC to cover for the UN.”
Yes, I noticed that report, written by the same Mark Gregory who “broke” the story about UNscam!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4025057.stm
for the last 2 hours the front page of bbcleft has had:
Please enter a summary…
instead of their rolling ‘ticker’ thing.
is anyone awake at toytown news headquarters tonight?
OT
Daily Telegraph Leader slams BBC coverage of Morris Report:
‘Police report reveals prejudice,” announced the BBC this week, on the publication of the Morris report into the Metropolitan Police. “Black and ethnic minority officers face serious discrimination, an independent inquiry into professional standards has revealed.”
That was disingenuous, even by the standards of the corporation’s notoriously right-on website. The inquiry, headed by the former TGWU leader Sir Bill Morris, questioned 43,000 employees. It did indeed find that black officers and staff faced discrimination. But its most explosive finding was that this problem was caused by political correctness, rather than remedied by it”.
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main
OT
“Right Decision?”
Views on David Blunkett’s resignation
(from bbclabour front page)
Well here we have 8 people supposedly representing a cross-section of British society. And guess what, 7 of them are defending Blunkett.
The Politics Show is produced by a private, profit-making, independent production company.
Just the way you lot like it.
John Wreath
Next you’ll be saying that PPP’s represent good value!
Coerced money corrupts!
OT:
Christmas market bombers in France are “militants:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4102023.stm
The great acid test is whether the BBC will still call them millitants if they successfully attack the UK.
They don’t see themselves as “British” exactly, rather than as members of a post-national elite. I doubt it would make a blind bit of difference if they managed to attack the UK.
Of course if the BBC itself was attacked, that would be quite different. 😛
if the uk is attacked by islamic terrorists we will see the bbc’s true colours.
Let us hope they are red, white and blue – which I believe are the United Kingdom’s colors as well as the United State’s, (and France’s too). But I wouldn’t count on it.
America as you will recall was attacked and our mainstream media rather notoriously refused to wear our colors for fear of seeming ‘biased’.
Roxana they will asked what “we” did to “provoke” them…
Hopefully the backlash will wipeout the BBC.
Isn’t it a bit ironic that you’re hypothesising about the BBC’s potential response to an Islamic terror attack in the UK, when the very fact that you have to hypothesise suggests that the BBC has been right to play down the Muslim ‘threat’ to this country?
“…the BBC has been right to play down the Muslim ‘threat’ to this country?”
You must have missed this then;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4081383.stm
Sorry, shouldn’t have stuck it in quotes as there clearly is a threat, however the fact that there have been precisely zero people killed by Islamic terrorism in the UK suggests that the threat isn’t as dramatic as the more excitable would have us believe. If there really was a vast community of anti Western zealots aided by unhindered illegal immigration one would have expected something to have happened by now.
A 5 post conversation on how the BBC might cover such an attack therefore seems a bit OTT. One might just as easily debate the response should Canvey Island be destroyed by a 500 foot tidal wave (wishful thinking I know – and yes it would probably be Bush’s fault).
cockney
Richard Reid the ShoeBomber aimed to blow up an airplane. 2 other zealots from Britain actually blew up a restaurant in Israel. The Met Commissioner has stated that major attacks in Britain have been foiled.
So I say again – people who try to deny or dismiss the threats are CRAZY. In effect they are fellow-travellers of the Islamofascists.
John,
I agree that to dismiss the threats would be crazy, however quantification of the threat is necessary in order to determine the amount of public money required to adequately defend ourselves, and the level of restrictions which are necessarily put onto the lives of law abiding citizens. Whipping up uneccesary hysteria about our impending doom against the available evidence in my opinion hinders going about this important analysis in a responsible way.
For example;
Should we invest public money in monitoring Islamic extremist groups in the UK – in my view clearly yes.
Is the threat enough that we should bear the cost to our economic wellbeing and international reputation of expelling every muslim from the country – in my view clearly no.
I’m not saying that we should ignore terrorism, just that in formulating a response a CBA needs to be performed in a rational manner.
The fact that British muslims blew up a restaurant in Israel surely illustrates that either security in the UK was too good or, more likely, these people didn’t have the oft referred to generic grudge against the West, just against Israel.
I would have to agree with cockney. I think I’m right in saying that no-one has yet to be charged in the UK under the anti-terrorism act (except for a few Irish terrorists). Although plots may have been ‘foiled’, I suspect the level of paranoia of the some of the individuals here far outweighs the actual threat. To use the American idiom: a “reality check” is very much in order.
The various foreigners at Belmarsh are being held under the anti-terrorism legislation. Other arrestees have been charged but their cases have not yet been brought to trial. Try reading what the Met Commissioner says. Or are you suggesting that he is paranoid ?
John: He’s got to look like he’s doing his job hasn’t he? But still, there aren’t that many people in custody and from the various legal wrangling surrounding some of the cases there’s no chance there’s not going to be many (if any) convictions. The problem is that ‘terrorist threat’ = high news values (another ‘beige alert’ et. al.) subsequent realisation that that there is no case against the accused/ someone has f*cked up somewhere = low news values. A case in point being the ‘fertiliser bomb’ in Sussex. Erm..just some blokes doing some gardening actually.
there’s no chance” correction:
“there’s a chance”
“There aren’t that many people in custody”.
What staggering complacency. Just one lunatic could kill dozens of people, a handful could kill hundreds. But you prefer to see it as an overzealous police force ?
Sheesh !
So what would you recommend mate? Forceful expulsion of all Muslims from the UK? A large rise in taxes to fund an enormous expansion of monitoring activity? More wars? Or would banning the liberal media (or just the BBC) do it?
There amy well be arguments for all of those but I think that if you’re going to be shrill about a problem you should have a solution.
OT but related: From Anthony Browne in the Times, a column entitled “We are committing cultural suicide.”
“It is the American Civil Liberties Union that is threatening lawsuits against any schools that allow the singing of carols and the BBC’s editorial policy bans criticism of the Koran, but not the Bible.”
The BBC bans criticism of the Koran, but not the Bible? Do tell. I never would’ve guessed.
Proof positive of the BBC’s pro-Islamic bias, which was supposed to have been a figment of our fevered Biased-BBC-poster imagination.
BBC Channel Four Christmas Special: “Who Really Wrote the Bible”? yet another documentary “debunking” Christianity.
Would the Beeb ever broadcast “Who Really Wrote the Koran” during Ramadan?
Do large porcine animals have wings?