There is a particular line which Gordon Brown’s PR people via the BBC have been relentlessly spinning since yesterday’s Commons vote that I wanted to comment on. The BBC have been playing Gordon Brown’s comment that to suggest a shoddy deal was done with the DUP MP’s – the notorious nine – impugns the integrity of a party that has more experience than most of dealing with terrorism. The use of this Northern Ireland terror-related dimension is intended to copper-fasten Browns’ position and support the DUP’s integrity and the BBC has not seen fit to challenge it in any way.
Indeed the DUP does have more experience than most of dealing with terrorism – it sits in power with terrorist godfathers, it accepts convicted terrorists onto the Policing Board for Northern Ireland, and of course it turns a blind eye to terrorist murders such as that of 21yr old Paul Quinn. The DUP are quite happy to prostitute their principles for power, just like Brown. That may be viewed by some as fine but please let us not accept that there is any integrity with a party of political whores such as the DUP to be impugned in the first place. Where once the DUP was mercilessly mocked by the BBC, it is now presented as a party of great honour. This is what happens when you sell out your principles.
I think any suggestion that the Beeb might want to shore up the DUP’s credibility is a bit far fetched. They’re still seen as a bunch of strange oppressive sectarian bigots amongst liberal English opinion (and probably wider English opinion), albeit ones that have been forced by unfortunate reality into some semblence of pragmatism.
The only person the BBC are interested in shoring up is McBean.
What I don’t get is why the Tories don’t attack Labour for being soft on terrirism by asking just who allowed hundreds of Islamic terrorists to come and live here in the UK back in the 90’s on the “promise” that they wouldn’t carry out any attacks here?
I believe Melanie Philips’s “Londonistan” tells us all we need to know?
Martin | 13.06.08 – 9:06 am
What I don’t get is why the Tories don’t attack Labour for being soft on terrorism by asking just who allowed hundreds of Islamic terrorists to come and live here in the UK back in the 90’s
Perhaps because Labour was in opposition for almost seven and a half years of that decade and the Tories aren’t keen to shoot themselves in the foot.
Pauls: It’s true that some Muslim terrorists came here under the Tories. But the vast majority came hee under Blair. The Human Rights act has also been written in such a way that prevents them being deported back to their home Countries, yet other Countries like France, Germany and italy don’t seem to have a problem.
When Blair said after 7/7/ “the rules of the game have changed” that was a coded mesage to the terrorists living here that they had broken thier promise not to cause problems here.
Digging back through the BBC News website I really have to laugh at this piece. It really is amusing when you hear the shite being spouted by McNulty.
“…Mr McNulty was praised by Shami Chakrabati, director of civil rights group Liberty, who said his words were “music to my ears”.
“The Angels are weeping in heaven tonight,” she added.
Mr McNulty spoke out just a day after Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the time was right to reconsider extending the 28-day limit on holding terrorism suspects without charge…”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7015154.stm
Quentin Letts responds to Gordon Brown’s suggestion that journalists are soft on terrorism:
Shouldn’t the beeboids be examining the motives of all those labour mp’s who voted against 42 days , rather than dissing DD and his motives ? Oh, of course, the bbc doesn’t bite their parties hand, does it !
The BBC won’t do anything that would point the finger at Nu Lab.
The DUP is being consistent. Were they against internment or the diplock courts? And that was when they were still for killing the IRA.
Call me a foolish United Statesian, but doesn’t the fact that it was basically the DUP and UKIP that gave Brown his victory on the vote make the whole thing even less palatable than it would have been?
Labour “rebels” are claiming Mr. Brown did some private dealing with the DUP, but whether that’s true or not, I don’t see how this helps the DUP’s image. In any case, it must be killing certain elements at the BBC who can’t stand the DUP or the idea of 42 Days, but also can’t really move against Brown. Oh, but that’s the vaunted impartiality at work, I’m sure. Selective as always.
But one other thing puzzles me, and perhaps this is just my ignorance about British politics. According to the BBC (and especially Nick Robinson’s pathetic ’10 Reasons’), David Davis’s resignation over this vote puts the Conservatives into “disarray”.
I understand that Davis resigned from the Shadow Cabinet, and this is a solo stunt. But, contrary to the received wisdom at the BBC – and even the Telegraph and Spectator – I don’t see this necessarily as a bad thing for the Conservatives.
If this is in fact an attempt by Davis to undermine Cameron’s leadership by bringing attention to himself as a crusader on an important issue or whatever, I say more power to him. Again, contrary to the youth movement at both the Telegraph and the Spectator, I think there are still quite a few people who think Davis would be a better party leader. Cameron hasn’t played up Labour’s various assaults on Civil Liberties anywhere near enough during his tenure. He’s more about the happy green issues and things.
For too long, Cameron groupies have been trying to prop him up as the savior of the party, and the one to lead them back to No. 10. I have not been alone in saying this is wrong, and that Cameron is more about being cute on the “right-on” issues, and less about being a real Conservative (although he pretty much always eats Mr. Brown’s lunch at PMQ, which is fun, but that’s not exactly hard to do). They may have been gushing over him at the Spectator for the last couple of years, but not everyone is buying it.
I think a challenge from Davis on the important Conservative values of civil liberties – it’s much more than just the ’42 Days’ – will be good for the Tories, and will not tear them apart, as the BBC hopes. Sure it’s a stunt, but it’s a good one, and Davis is the right man to do it. It’s not like this is the first time he has made noise over this kind of issue. Didn’t he nearly resign from Michael Howard’s Shadow Cabinet because Howard wouldn’t do the right thing about National ID cards?
Maybe this won’t be good for Cameron’s career, but who cares? This just might turn out to be the right move for the party in the end.
David – same issue as for the last 10 years. Traditional Conservatives don’t trust Cameron and would prefer Davis, but that’s a pretty small rump of the British electorate – hence recent electoral hammerings. B-BBC readership is not a representative cross section. Cameron might be shallow but it’s his happy clappy stuff that’s made them perhaps genuinely popular for the first time since God knows. It’s all very well having principles but they mean f-all unless you’re in power to act on them.
So the risk of what Davis is up to is that they look as shambolic as Labour and people start remembering why they didn’t like them. Also, Brown has been so abysmal that it was starting to look like the Conservatives might be able to be Conservative and still win (and I’m pretty sure that Dave would love to be a bit Conservative really if he could get away with it) – this sort of stuff might put a stop to that.
Cockney | 13.06.08 – 4:48 pm |
Also, Brown has been so abysmal that it was starting to look like the Conservatives might be able to be Conservative and still win (and I’m pretty sure that Dave would love to be a bit Conservative really if he could get away with it) – this sort of stuff might put a stop to that.
Good.
I still think the Conservatives are popular more because of Blair’s and now Brown’s failings, and that Cameron’s popularity amongst Conservative pundits is based on false assumptions. I know this blog is not representative of a cross-section of Conservative voters, but I have heard anti-Cameron rumblings elsewhere.
This looks like it will be beneficial to the Tories in the end.
Cockney.
I think I agree.
Too many Davids. All very Spitting Image.
I think its incredible that you are claiming this wasn’t discussed. I have to ask, what BBC rae you watching. If compared to the coverage of David Davis’ resignation, there has been as much discussion of a ‘DUP’ deal as there was of the ‘stunt’ of Davis’ resignation.
I watched a lot of this coverage, and your comments simply do not reflect the reality. Why is that? Is in intentional?
joel: So explain why the BBC hasn’t bothered about the fact that Broon couldn’t get a majority of his party to support him?
I think there were 36 members of Labour who voted against the bill. That’s why they needed DUP support.
Why don’t you watch or listen Martin and you’ll hear the coverage?
joel: Just how much BBC time has been spent investigating WHY those Labour MP’s voted against their own Government?
And why is it that some MP’s that said they were going to vote against the bill changed their minds because they “…wanted to save Gordon for the nation…”
When ANY Government can’t get a majority of its own MP’s to support a piece of legislation it’s in serious trouble. The BBC have just hidden this.
David Davis is one MP. An opposition MP at that. Plenty of Labour MP’s voted against this bill but have escaped any examination by the BBC. Why?
And where are all the “civil liberties groups” in all this? Normally they are crawling all over the BBC when things like this come up, yet this time the BBC seems not to be interested in their opinions.
‘Just how much BBC time has been spent investigating WHY those Labour MP’s voted against their own Government?’
It’s fairly central to the coverage. I would take a while guess, and say they probably oppose 42 days detention.
‘And why is it that some MP’s that said they were going to vote against the bill changed their minds because they “…wanted to save Gordon for the nation…’ – That’s what whips are for. Gordon has had a hard time recently, perhaps they were willing to put their principles aside in order to protect their gov. Or..(in the interests of balance) maybe they were convinced by the arguments.
‘When ANY Government can’t get a majority of its own MP’s to support a piece of legislation it’s in serious trouble. The BBC have just hidden this’- mmm, it can suggests a Gov is in trouble, depends on their overall majority, some argue Briown is only pursuing it so that winning the vote bolsters his authority. There has been no hiding it, the vote was obviously close, I can’t think what you’ve been watching. The news sometimes deals with difficult, complex subjects maybe you would be better sticking with Newsround.
‘David Davis is one MP. An opposition MP at that. Plenty of Labour MP’s voted against this bill but have escaped any examination by the BBC. Why?’
eh, because he resigned.
‘And where are all the “civil liberties groups” in all this? Normally they are crawling all over the BBC when things like this come up, yet this time the BBC seems not to be interested in their opinions.’
Lsst week you were complaing that your mate Shami was never off the TV, make up your mind!
joel: utter utter rubbish. Is this the best you can do?
So where is Shami? AS you mention she’s never off the BBC normally
Bob Marshall Andrews. Sky have an interview with him, the BBC don’t. No mention of it on their website either. Why not?
Why is the BBC not looking as why so many Labour MP’s voted against thier party line? Is that not a “split?”
You say they might have been convinced by the Government. More likely bought off. Should that not be investigated by the BBC?
David Davis did resign. But he’s an opposition MP. Who cares? Why is the BBC so obsessed with it?