What is it with the BBC’s love-in with Vince Cable? Just after 7am this morning on Today, the nationalisation of the Bradford & Bingley was being covered and WHO do the BBC invite on for a bit of a chin-wag on the topic? A member of the Government perhaps? Nope. A member of the Opposition then? Nope. Instead Lib Dem Vince Cable is afforded yet ANOTHER prime time media slot care of the BBC, giving him the opportunity to explain why if only people had listened to him back when the Building Societies were being de-mutualised, then none of this current chaos afflicting them would have happened. Blah Blab Blah. I have no problem with Vince Cable mouthing his Lib-Dem platitudes, I do have a problem with the amazingly high profile he is given by the BBC, which is out of all proportion to that given to wee Georgie Osbourne, for example. Does Vince have friends in high places?
THE CABLE GUY
Bookmark the permalink.
Frankly I’d have thought that keeping George Osbourne off the airwaves was advantageous to the Conservatives!
Fair point Roland. Just heard him at 8.20am – he was being asked why voters shouldn’t choose…Vince Cable!!!!
I don’t think it’s a question of them choosing a Lib Dim – Vince Cable is very good at soundbite TV, and comes across as some sort of human being, rather than an automaton. So he will always be the producer’s choice.
Roland’s right, too: best thing for the tories is to keep off the air as much as possible.
apologies if this has been mentioned before. This video on ‘American Thinker’ about the Community Reinvestment Act 1995 reforms by the Clinton administration which has led to the present crisis, is well worth watching through to the end. The music is a bit annoying and unnecessary, so turn the sound down.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/burning_down_the_house.html
Vince Cable does seem to be the flavour of the month on the BBC at the moment. However, this sort of partisan reporting has been going on for at least twenty years, during which time the BBC has treated Liberal Party spokesmen in effect as journalists or dispassionate observers rather than what they are – political animals. Who can forget Menzies Campbell being wheeled on at every opportunity, treated like a reporter, and never asked what the policies of his party are/were. Likewise, before him, when Simon Hughes was the Liberal Party Home Affairs spokesman, never questioned on his party’s policies, but just given free rein to give his opinions.
It’s one rule for them, another rule for the Conservatives.
And the Today programme, todasy, Monday 29th? I don’t recall any mention of the Conference speeches, and certainly none on the policy outlines and fine speeches by Cameron, Hague, and Liam Fox yesterday. The latter’s speech I though was very fine, as was Freddy Forsyth’s before him, who rightly lambasted Gordon Brown for vetoing necessary spending on armed forces spending which has led to a seriously under-resourced military. Naturally, the Today programme kept quiet about that.
The BBC are boosting the Lib Dems’ profile because if they can keep the Lib Dems strong then the Conservatives may not take quite as many Lib Dem seats in the South. Most BBC political coverage must be seen through the filter of “what do the BBC want to see happen?” The BBC want a Labour government and a Barack Obama presidency, now does their news coverage make sense?
Well later in the show they interviewed the chancellor, and they have their conference show covering Osborne’s speech later today, so surely they are fulfilling their mandate by allowing the third party some time to discuss their economic thoughts?
It was perfectly obvious that, after the 1997 election, the BBC consciously or unconsciously took the decision to give the LibDems greater prominence – a prominence out of all proportion to their share of the vote.
Indeed, at times it has seemed as if it were the LibDems who were in oppostion, not the Conservatives.
ipreferred | 29.09.08 – 9:42 am | #
That will be in the same way they didn’t allow any opposition (Tory or Lib Dem) to discuss anything during Labour’s conference.
Fulfilling mandate only happens when it can be seen as good for Labour and bad for Conservatives.
Standard beeboid operating procedure – “Anyone but the Tories”.
Susan Franklin,
That is a useful video – shows who set in train the disaster that we now face. Bet the BBC would never mention the CRA.
I think it is fair enough really. Given that Vince Cable’s prescience indicated some understanding at least of the nation’s economic difficulties, when the Conservatives and Labour only demonstrate how little they understand about what is going on, he does appear to be the person to turn to if you want to have some idea what might happen next. It pinpoints the yawning gap in competence in both the current and next governments and should be a concern to us all at these times.
Shame they did not ask Vince Cable just why the Nationwide rather hurriedly took over the Derby and Cheshire Building Societies without any ceremony a week or two ago. They were two of the top ten remaining BSs.
Vague mentions about they were about to report losses for the year? Obviously their management was operating prudently.
Liked the comment that the whole problem went back to Republican Reaganomics.
Found the interview with the pollster
“interesting”. Started by saying his organisation had not done any up to the minute polling but seemed quite ready to offer his detailed analysis. Anybody remember similar analysis last week? Silly me it was don’t mention the polls week last week at the BBC.
You can see why the Conservative Party try to keep George Osborne off the airwaves.
After criticising Vince Cable’s views on Northern Rock he was asked by Evan Davis “Do you know as much economics as Vince Cable, George?”.
Reply: “Er, I spend a lot of time talking to people across the economy …”
This from someone who hopes to become Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Anon | 29.09.08 – 10:45 am | #
I didn’t hear Evan Davis asking Alistair Darling the same question.
Conference watch bulletin:
BBC coverage on the Today programme this morning kept up the anti-Tory campaign most effectively. We were treated to a long analysis of the polls that concluded no-one really wants to vote Conservative; a history lesson from David Willets about Chamberlain and Birmingham; and at the end of the programme they dug up Stephen Dorrell to pin all the blame for the credit crunch on Thatcher, with Will Hutton to stick the boot in. There were no reports at all about conference speeches, for example Boris Johnson’s well received speech yesterday.
But the real coup was a transparent Downing Street/Today programme piece of schedule doctoring. At 7.40 they oddly announced that they were going to interview Alistair Darling but he was too busy. Oddly enough he was available precisely half an hour later to intervene in what was supposed to be George Osborne’s interview. So instead of Osborne we got a long, long exposition from Darling about B&B, which had already been covered in the news bulletin by Peston. Osborne was given a few aggressive questions right at the end. And as David Vance rightly points out, Vince Cable was given star billing. With no clauses like ‘people might say’ – or ‘some might say’ Evan Davis simply announced that people should vote for Vince Cable. Can you begin to imagine the response if he’d said that people should vote for example for John Redwood? But the BBC has created an agenda in which openly declaring your support for Cable is seen as common sense and not bias. As an example of slick, well thought through, expert bias I’d say this got ten out of ten.
I should have added that for good measure Today had a ‘report’ from Nick Robinson who made the strange allegation that Conservative ideas about the economy would not connect with people because they were talking about what would happen when they were in power in 2010/11 – not what they would do now! Maybe someone should tell Nick that much as the BBC would love to pin all the blame for everything on the Conservatives, running the country before there’s been an election isn’t actually something the Tories can promise.
On BBC 5 live, Peter Allen just suggested that this banking failure is the fault of the Tories.
What a shock.
How about putting blame where it belongs for once at the feet of the fat one eyed jock?
It was he that took regulation of the City away from the Bank of England and gave it to the useless FSA.
Oh and FINALLY on Up all night, Dotun the idiot was interviewing some American exonomics professor, Adibayo then spouted the usual BBC crap that the US banking crisis was the fault of George Bush.
Professor came straight back at him that itw as the DEMOCRAFT who under Clinton put pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give loans to minorities that couldn’t afford them and that Chris Dodd (Democraft) was up to his neck in this mess.
Dotun didn’t like it one bit. “Well whatever you say…” spouted the beeboid.
Finally though, someone has the balls to challenge the lies pumped out by the BBC.
Martin | 29.09.08 – 4:47 pm |
I heard that Martin – Peter Allen was blaming the Tories for de-mutalising (if thats the word) the building societies about 20 years ago.
And then to top it all he attacked the Conservatives for daring to propose a freeze on council tax if the councils saved money. “This would affect the poor” Allen said ( a statement, not a question)- Eh? the policy was to get rid of the thousands of expensive consultants who cream off millions from the tax payer, the same consultatnts who are encoraged by Labour to carry out meaningless consultations.
Then the Gorden Brown plug – “People will probably think it is best to stick with labour as they are sorting out the problems” or words to that effect. I liked the conservatives reply though “Brown is not the answer to the problem, Brown is the problem.” Very Regenesque.
“I heard that Martin – Peter Allen was blaming the Tories for de-mutalising (if thats the word) the building societies about 20 years ago.”
This was a line also plugged on the Toady. They dug up Stephen Dorrell as a token Thatcherite and proceeded to let Will Hutton run rampant about his opposition to the building society deregulation. The credit crunch is all the fault of the evil Tories you see – it’s as if the years of Blair and Brown proving their ‘credentials’ in the City never happened.
I can see a pattern here. when ever there is an important debate,the BBC always seems to choose the absolutley most idiotic/bankrupt/unimportant people to agree with it’s left wing viewpoint.
For instance,on issues like…
islam – Ken,or Ken or Ken or Ken and sami. And some one from the MCB.or Lord Ali.
Asylum& immigration:
Sami,Ken,Keith “im not a corrupt mp using my race to avoid arrest” Vaz.
police stuff:-
the fella from liberty who is now in charge of the quango investigating the police??lol John??? Dunno. That clarissa/cruella deville bird -Ian Blair.Ken. Ken and sami.
Israel.
Ken,sami,polly,benn,any jewish american professor who just happens to hate israel. An angry muslim. An angry beeboid.
Any more folks?
“Does Vince have friends in high places?”
Common Purpose?
Jon/Oscar: Allen is a twat of the first degree. His cosy little chat with Vince Cable 2 weeks ago and his arse licking of Nu Liebour scum last week was an utter joke.
Here is one MP who, I’m sure would sort out the BBC if he had a chance.
http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2007/10/06/the-bbc-gets-caught-out-fiddling-the-news/
“That BBC guideline again
Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on [controversial] matters.
I’m publishing it here for the benefit of Evan Davies, BBC journalist, who has obviously lost his copy, or so I surmise from hearing him this morning telling the Shadow Chancellor that the over-rated Vince Cable is a better economist that he (Osborne) and ‘has been right all along [so] I wouldn’t vote for you, I’d vote for him’. Three times. Insistently. As if his sub-clause ‘if I were angry’ makes any fucking difference to his paean of praise for Cable.”
http://prodicus.blogspot.com/2008/09/that-bbc-guideline-again.html
Jon:
“Evan Davies, BBC journalist, who has obviously lost his copy, or so I surmise from hearing him this morning telling the Shadow Chancellor that the over-rated Vince Cable is a better economist than he (Osborne)”
You didn’t hear him tell Osborne that Cable was a better economist. He asked him if he thought that Cable was.
His exact words were: “Do you know as much economics as Vince Cable, George?”. Osborne then floundered and flanneled in response.
“Osborne then floundered and flanneled in response.”
So would I, if I had just been asked such a bloody rude question. Why doesn’t Davis ask Brown that question next time?
David | 29.09.08 – 9:18 pm |
Exactly
“Brown has a PhD in history from the University of Edinburgh and spent his early career working as a TV journalist.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown
“Osborne was educated at Norland Place, St Paul’s School and Magdalen College, Oxford, where he received an upper second class degree in Modern History”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Osborne
So whats the difference?
Will he also ask Darling the same question:
“…he was awarded a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B). He became the head of Aberdeen University Students Union. Before joining the Labour Party at the age of 23 in 1977, Darling was a supporter of the International Marxist Group, the British section of the Trotskyist Fourth International”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alistair_Darling
Eminently qualified then.
They even interviewed George Osborne and Alaistar Darling later in the programme….the bastards.