Well now, Mandelson is back. Gordon Brown is relentlessly selling us the line that we need “serious people for serious times” – as the BBC obligingly parrots. But Mandelson is a man without political integrity, twice forced into resigning. I met him a few times politically and counted my fingers after shaking hands with him to ensure all were still there afterwards. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, Margaret a Beckett is also called back, another serious person for serious times? Wonder how the BBC will react to Mandy in the times ahead? Personally, I am delighted, as he was here at the birth of NuLabour and he will be there when it is buried in less than two years.
OH MANDY
Bookmark the permalink.
Peter 7.59am,
That’s a conundrum and our eternal dilemma. We threw out the Tories a while ago and welcomed the new dawn of Labour and now we long to get the Tories back! How’s that?
How did the Americans with maybe a couple of hundred million eligible citizens, manage to come up with the current unimpressive (and maybe even quite dodgy)final choices?
Urm. Sorry about this but I worked quite closely with Mandy when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
I was working in the oil industry at the time and we were trying to set up a genuine energy policy for UK.
We were all impressed by him. Sorry but that is true.
All went to shit when Mandy had to resign and the oil industry ended up getting fucked over by Brown, someting they have never forgotten, with the supplemental CT charge within the ring fence, a change they and the DTI were given 20 minutes notice of before it was announced in parliament. So much for YEARS of discussion between the industry and DTI.
@Whitewine Liberal,
I have no doubt Alistair Campbell may not be liked too much at Al-Beeb these days, however, in the past, he probably would have had many a close relationship with the influential members of the news department. The BBC’s willingness to bury the hatchet (with plenty of telly-tax payers money), probably stems from the possibility that if they remained hostile to Campbell, that he (in book writing mood) may have blown the whistle on the gloriously impartial BBC news department and their colusion with Labour spinners.
And anyway, the Iraq war was merely a lovers tiff between the Labour leadership and the BBC, they certainly seemed to have gotten over it!
“Return of the Mandelson!”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/03/the-return-of-the-mandelson/
Checking the ‘Comments’ there, his return doesn’t seem to go down very well with the political Left; but, like many Beeboids, they’ll carry on supporting Labour regardless.
The comments on even The BBC have not been totaly favourable but I have heard no mention of the method used to get him in.
With such an obvious lack of talent on hand in the commons it is not suprising that Brown is going to use the House of ‘Lords’ to bring talent in.
If a Tory PM had used the House of Lords to bring a twice disgraced politician back into power the bbc would have been on full attack mode.
wwl
“Humphries gave Ed Miliband a serious grilling on the issue,”
Only if you equate sneering with a “serious grilling”. The sneer was all connected with Humphrys perennial shoulder chip and Mandy not caring very much if people joined the ranks of the wealthy. Humphrys asked, with his typical slimy chutzpah, if it’s OK to get rich “at “our” expense” – “our” being us taxpayers: as if Humphreys’ relative wealth and high income has no connection to the ability of his employer to mulct the taxpayers to the tune of £3.5 billion annually. Humphrys (like Toynbee) is a prime examples of the cognitive dissonance of the left.
BTW did we learn anything from Miliband’s “serious grilling”? No we didn’t. Humphrys asked the obvious questions (eg possible conflict between “energy” and “climate change” responsibilities) which Miliband must have expected (and been briefed on) and accordingly gave the expected bland response. This isn’t bias – it’s the usual crap from Humphrys who is considerably overrated as a journalist. Even when he’s being aggressive he is just rude not clever.
I’m sure he was a wonderful reporter on the Penarth Times and the Western Mail but, despite his material success, he still can’t stop the resentment of coming from a poor family showing through. It’s time he got over it. After all he must, by now (with Toynbee), be in the top 1% of income earners in the UK. But Humphrys conveniently forgets that his success and 40-year career at the BBC has come at “our expense”.
Stop press?
Mandelson tells Brown to make him the Cabinet’s ‘Minister for Men’ (precedent set with Harperson as Minister for Women).
I’m all for Mandelson’s appointment and the BBC reporting it with glee.
This deeply unprincipled communist that never had a proper job is another nail in the Nu Labia / BBC coffin as far as I’m concerned.
“Polly. I hate her politics, but nothing a good s**g wouldn’t sort out.”
OK,anything for the cause.Draw lots,the loser gets to do the job.
a parody of the humphries interview. it was good and sound and tough. today interviewed someone from the america enterprise institute too, about the bailout and the impact on mccain. very interesting. lots of anti-americanism though evident on the item about red and grey squirrels. nasty imperialist yankee squirrels.
OK,anything for the cause.Draw lots,the loser gets to do the job.
Never mind a draw have a whipround and I will do it if you raise enough
anything over £50 would do,
Reacting to your final paragraph, David, (which has nothing to do with BBC bias), is it now the official policy of this blog to support the Conservative Party? I just think we should be clear about these things.
We exist as a site to highlight BBC bias, obviously, and – as is by now obvious – to loathe the Labour Government, but are we also actively supporting the Conservatives?
(Oh, and by the way, before someone responds to this question by saying, “You don’t get it – the BBC is biased against the Conservatives and in favour of Labour!” – let me say, yes I do get it. It’s obvious. But the way this site is going I wonder if we should now have two sites: one highlighting BBC bias, and another devoted to attacking left-of-centre politicians and parties here or in America. At the moment this site does both, and thus is losing is focus and in my view its credibility. Sorry to bang on about this again, but Mr Vance seems incapable of writing about BBC bias without sharing his own vehement political views with us.
Personally, despite being broadly right of centre, I would genuinely be just as concerned if the publicly-funded state broadcaster were biased in favour of the Conservatives. I get the impression many here would be just fine with that. I hope I’m wrong.
“anything over £50 would do,”
I’ll email her and ask her how much she can afford.
George R:
Stop press?
Mandelson tells Brown to make him the Cabinet’s ‘Minister for Men’ (precedent set with Harperson as Minister for Women).
George R | 04.10.08 – 1:31 pm | #
A bit of a role reversal surely!!
Henry,
The bias of the BBC is left wing bias.
henryflower:
“Reacting to your final paragraph, David, (which has nothing to do with BBC bias), is it now the official policy of this blog to support the Conservative Party? I just think we should be clear about these things.
We exist as a site to highlight BBC bias, obviously, and – as is by now obvious – to loathe the Labour Government, but are we also actively supporting the Conservatives?”
Not all of the people on this site are Conservatives. Many of us are UKIP or BNP.
wwl
The Humphrys/Miliband interview “was good and sound and tough”
It told us nothing we didn’t already know and gave Humphrys the excuse (yet again) to display his resentments. Other than that, not a lot. The interview went nowhere and Miliband was not in the least discomforted. “Tough” maybe (if “tough” means aggressive to no purpose) but “good” and “sound”? We must have been listening to different interviews.
I’m no fan of Humphries. But i thought he went down some new avenues on the Mandy issue. I guess we’re agreeing it wasn’t biased?
@Henryflower,
Most would probably not be fine with any version of the BBC if it still relied on extorting tax for ownership of a TV!
The main problem that right-wingers, like myself, have with the BBC, is that everyone is forced to pay for it! Guardianistas do not have such a problem mainly because the left love taxation, especially when it supports them.
Because it has such a left-wing bias, conservatives would like to see some balance and fair representation of their views (never happen), but ultimately, most conservatives don’t like unfair taxation, and are the ones shouting about the BBC bias because it is so obviously left-wing.
News organisations and broadcasters are iherently biased, for various reasons, be they commercial, or political. Most people on the right know this and therefore see a tax funded broadcaster as inherently wrong and undemocratic.
If the BBC had right-wing bias, as difficult as that is to imagine, no doubt I would be less hostile to them, but personally, I could never defend their existence as a tax funded organisation.
Henry,
I’m not a Conservative, get over it.
A typically mature response David.
[b]Not all of the people on this site are Conservatives. Many of us are UKIP or BNP [/b]
I’m not sure what I am. I now think I might be a minarchist.
Whatever political philosophy best expresses ” leave me the fuck alone ”
I thought I might be a libertarian until I realised that most of them are frozen in time as hormonal middle class teenagers, still painting their bedroom walls black to annoy their parents and listening to the Cure. Even the ones who are 50 years old 🙂
What David Vance and others who have responded to my comment don’t seem to grasp is that whether or not you are a Conservative supporter is precisely not the point.
The point is this. On this post, ostensibly about BBC bias, David Vance ends with an entirely irrelevent statement of his anti-Labour political viewpoint. I am here to read about BBC bias. I don’t care who David Vance votes for or what he thinks of the Labour government – that’s his concern and he shouldn’t make it the concern of this blog. This blog is not his political hobbyhorse, and he weakens its credibility if he thinks it is.
Pointing out the entrenched pro-Labour bias of the BBC comes within the remit of this site, looking forward with delight to a Labour defeat does not, whoever you vote for.
If the eloquence and thoughtfulness of his previous reply are anything to go by, I can’t wait to hear David’s response. It’s a shame that he cannot respond to constructive criticism without that streak of intransigence coming to the fore.
Geezer – agree 100%.
Henry,
If it is not relevant whether one supports the Conservative Party, why do you allege it in the first place? I suggest that you threw up a straw-man which has been thoroughly demolished by B-BBC posters.
Now, as to my political bias, I see no reason to hide it behind a bushel. Why should I hide it? The point that eludes you is that unlike the BBC I do not demand taxpayer funding to support it.
This site IS about BBC bias and how it manifests itself. But political bias does not exist in some sort of refined rhetorical vacuum as you seem to believe. I have right of liberal views, others here have more left views, which is fine. The issue we zero in on is the institutionalised political bias of the State Broadcaster. We colour this by our own prejudices but then again I am reminded of the words of Mark Twain..
“The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice”
I am very prejudiced against State Broadcasters who take my money and then spew out anti-British propaganda in a 24hr news cycle whilst pretending to be reason incarnate.
Final point – based on the stats behind this site, for some reason more and more come here. Wonder why?
oops millie i didnt realise!
Moved onto another career politicion has he?
eww
David, I do not allege that you support the Conservative Party. I am, on the contrary, well aware of your political affiliations and past. I was being rhetorical, David, and sarcastically enquiring whether the blog shouldn’t perhaps go the whole hog and endorse a particular party as well as exposing BBC bias, considering the amount of naked political comment that was creeping into your own posts.
So you see, your “thorough demolition” is neither here nor there, since you completely misunderstood my point. However, it seems that you do now get it, so let’s discuss that.
You say, concerning your political standpoint:
“The point that eludes you is that unlike the BBC I do not demand taxpayer funding to support it.”
Why do you suppose for one moment that this “point” eludes me? Of course it doesn’t, it is merely irrelevant. We’re discussing whether including your own political views adds anything to our exposure of BBC bias, or whether in fact it compromises it, and you resort to that tired old line. Whether or not you receive public funding has literally no bearing on the question. It’s a bizarre response.
As to your first question:
“Now, as to my political bias, I see no reason to hide it behind a bushel. Why should I hide it?”
a) It’s irrelevant to the issue
b) So that the site will have as broad an appeal as possible
c) So that we cannot be easily dismissed as a mere anti-Labour political site.
You once stated that you didn’t really want to get into discussing your theological views regarding homosexuality here, and I think you were right to state that this isn’t the forum for that. All I am saying is that your posts might benefit from an extension of that logic.
“But political bias does not exist in some sort of refined rhetorical vacuum as you seem to believe. I have right of liberal views, others here have more left views, which is fine.”
It’s fine, except that on a number of recent occasions, anyone expressing a less than wholeheartedly right-of-centre viewpoint on any subject in the comments has been treated to a display or bile, stupidity, and name-calling that makes the site look foolish. The more that this site becomes openly identified as a generally right-of-centre site, the more such things will happen, and the less positive that growth of visitors that you trumpet may appear.
I don’t necessarily want refinement, (though I wouldn’t disparage it quite as readily as you do); but politics IS rhetoric, as well as reticence, and we have to play politics, which might mean not always saying aloud everything that you think.
Mandelson is the best move Brown has ever made. Unfortunately one competent individual in a sea of imbeciles and nonentities ain’t gonna bail him out.