Anyone else caught this interview with Armando Iannucci on Today this morning? It allegedly concerned parallels between story lines in his TV programme “In the Thick of it” and the current McPoison Gate. I noted that Armando was able to get the sly line in that David Cameron also has spin doctors around him and so the culture of spin and spite evident in the current case was likely to continue under the Conservatives. BBC subtext; they are all the same, Save gordon.
THOSE SMEAR MAILS – WHO IS TO BLAME?
Bookmark the permalink.
I noted that Armando was able to get the sly line in that David Cameron also has spin doctors around him
In addition Naughtie, obviously blown away by the cosmik co-incidence of Mc Bride & Iannucci’s product (including a movie “In the loop” released this week), was able to wrap up the interview with a reference to “House of Cards” & Thatcher.
Same narrative on Radio 5 phone in. Tories are evil, most of the press is Tory, blah blah blah
They ARE all the same. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding no-one but themselves.
The real difference is that the rest seem rather more capable of keeping a lid on it than Labour currently do…
I cant stand the way BBC allow Labour followers to talk freely yet are agressive to all Tories. This happens time after time. It is so blatant, the BBC just dont care.
Nicki Campbell comment. “Bernard Ingham was as bad as the Labour spin Doctors”
See Guido yesterday, beeboid insider admits Govt leaning on them to drop the story . Pushing on an open door, might be a better choice of phrase !!!
Classic skillful beeboid deflection operation. Introduce irrelevant third party (postman pat), allow him to protest innocence. Make no effort to corner the porker with his trotter prints all over it, smug tom watson, and utterly fail, despite their hundreds of crack publicly and highly paid journalists, to follow up on the source of the leaked e-mails being Unite union types, with grudge against whellan.
The bbc, shilling for new labour, its what we do.
Sutekh – no they aren’t all the same. There is in fact no moral equivalence between what new labour and in particular the Brownite circles have been perpetrating for thepast 15 years and the normal rough and tumble of political life. the cabal presided over by Brown have been in a special gangster league of itheir own. The biggest lie foisted on the public is that Brown has a moral compass and is a decent guy. He isn’t. He is a sociopathic thug.
BBC reporting is undoubtedly once-sided – there is a quite extraordinary reluctance to interview any Conservatives on the subject. But I must put in a good word for Laura Kuenssberg who has been giving crisp, incisive reports on Smeargate that are a breath of fresh air. Thank God toenails Robinson has not been around.
The BBC narrative is clear, from the very start they are peddling the spin ‘nobody is suggesting that Brown was involved'(oh yes they are)this has been repeated dozens of times by the BBC, without the slightest foundation in reality, the full facts are not out yet so the BBC have no idea if Brown was involved or not.
The BBC today show is pushing the story onto scapegoats and down the agenda, they are trying to suggest that both sides are involved and are as bad as each other, they are trying to portray the Tories as ‘making all the political capital they can’ just as we thought they would, guests are invited on but they lack one quality, NO TORIES the last thing the BBC wants to do is give a platform to their ideological enemies so everyone gets a say except the victims, newlabour type news management that can peel the enamel from yor teeth!
Predictable is the word for the BBC, they have become so very predictable.
We are treated to newlabour drones/clean skins who mumble on about how awful this was but then go onto deny it was anything other than a sick joke and limited to two people who acted on their own(yeah right), storm in a tea cup/Brown acted straight away/Brown regrets the actions he had nothing to do with OR knew nothing about right upto the moment his attack dogs were outed(yeah sure) blah blah repeated as if it were a loop, hang on long enough enough with half hearted half meant regret(why cant we all just get along)while excluding the Tories from commenting and hope the media lose interest.
Good analysis Cassandra.
Oscar
Just a note to let you know that your new heroine, Laura Kuenssberg, informed the nation on Saturday night (on BBC News at Ten) that “of course” Gordon Brown knew nothing about this whole fiasco. A “breath of fresh air”? I don’t think so. Just the old biased stale air we’ve become used to.
I doubt she knew/knows any more about Gordon’s knowledge of this than you or me. The difference is I’m prepared to admit my lack of knowledge although I reckon it would be some kind of miracle if he didn’t have a good idea of what his appointees were up to. Despite her ignorance, she still goes in to bat for Gordon.
Umbongo – I think Kuenssberg is a bit more subtle than that. She keeps quoting others saying that Gordon knows nothing. But she also emphasises in every report that McPoison was a very close adviser to Brown. There is, to my ear, a distinct subtext of incredulity. A lawyer’s trick. But maybe I’m clutching at straws. She is beyond doubt better than toenails.
Yes, the worst thing in the whole affair so far is the way the BBC has been shilling that Brown’s hands are clean. They can’t know that, and given the intimate relations between Brown and his advisor the opposite looks just as likely – especially given Brown’s meeting with Draper a short time after the emailing.
But they are all singing from the same hymn sheet at the BBC to defend him.
……..
re Bernard Ingham – he was in pretty public view for years, was certainly a fierce defender of Thatcher, but he attacked on policies, was not the sort of man who would descend to this level of filth.
…….
I really hope some of this ends up in the courts.
Surprised Kuensberg managed to stop fellating Obama for long enough.
Oscar:
Sutekh – no they aren’t all the same. There is in fact no moral equivalence between what new labour and in particular the Brownite circles have been perpetrating for thepast 15 years and the normal rough and tumble of political life. the cabal presided over by Brown have been in a special gangster league of itheir own. The biggest lie foisted on the public is that Brown has a moral compass and is a decent guy. He isn’t. He is a sociopathic thug.
———————————————-
Well, I stand by my earlier comment. In the light of what is happening NOW (and I certainly don’t disagree with your comments about Labour’s long term thugishness, btw) it would be very naive to think that elements with the Conservative Party had not at some point come up with a parallel idea, namely to smear political opponent by whatever means: email, blogs, rumours, gossip, etc.
They are all untrustworthy, self serving, highly unpleasant scum, whatever the party. It’s axiomatic.
Nadine Dorries has experienced BBC Bias for herself from Steve Nolan on Five Live ….
http://blog.dorries.org/blog.aspx
Its interesting that the BBC coverage of this event now excludes Guido and blogs in general totally. They just aren’t mentioned. Are the beeb scared or just in denial ?
it would be very naive to think that elements with the Conservative Party had not at some point come up with a parallel idea, namely to smear political opponent by whatever means
Sutekh – you have absolutely no evidence and this just amounts to smearing the Conservative party. You’re doing Brown’s work for him. It isn’t a question of ‘naivity’ – it’s called being fair.
1327
Scared, very scared.
The agenda has been hijacked and they realise that, by mentioning blogs, many more people are likely to visit said blogs.
The Labour party and the BBC are no longer running the media story. The blogs are and that’s dangerous for them, very dangerous.
Bernard Ingham was a completely different operator from McBride and his stinking ilk.
For a start-off, he was a civil servant, not a SPAD, and so was bound by civil service rules. The corrosion began in earnest when Tony Blair (as Bernard Ingham chronicles in his excellent book Kill the Messenger)created SPADs with the deliberate and sole intention of operating spin in new and despicable ways. From that moment, tne restraints on decent conduct were removed, and I only marvel that it has taken this long for people to realise what Draper and Whelan and McBride have been doing all along.
Of course previous administrations also practicised spin, but it was within a much more tightly controlled framework.
For Nicky Campbell to accuse Bernard Ingham of being like McBride is a libellous disgrace, stemming from pig ignroance.
Well said Richard Horbury. Pig ignorance seems to be one of the BBCs specialities now.
I suspect yet another Campbellism. Just like his ‘fascist’ attack on Guido.
Campbell is a Liebour whore.
Robin Horbury
Exactly.
Bernard Ingham was a tough nut, but basically decent. I first met him back in the early 1970s when he was an Under Secretary at the old Ministry of Power/MinTech. He argued his corner fiercely with Ministers – but was a civil servant of the old school. I believe he resisted Thatcher’s original call for him to be his press guy.
I think a key point in all this is that Old Labour would not descend to this level, let alone the Tories.
I would give Brown a further month or so at best. This debacle will have riled a lot of decent Labour MPs as well. The stench of death is on this Government now.
Oscar, Kuenssberg actually said “Of course, Gorden Brown is not involved” on BBC News at 10 12/4/09. No mention of others saying so. Don’t let a Beeboid off the hook. Also, Sutekh: You have absolutely NO evidence that the Tories would do the same. You are just repeating Liebour’s spin and lies. You ought to be ashamed of yourself – unless you’re really a troll and are doing Liebour’s dirty work for them!
Maybe it would be a good idea for Cameron to give Andy Coulson a big thank you and a large bonus on the day after the election – but no job in Downing Street for ex-News of the World hacks.
Twizzle
I think they have to be scared but sometimes the beeb is so complacent its hard to say.
It was interesting to see Guido mentioned when the story first broke and it was explained he was a nasty right wing blogger. But then on Saturday it was as if a switch had been hit and he became a nonperson. Mind you if the story doesn’t go away (and I don’t think it will) expect No 10 and the beeb to go on the attack. Perhaps Guido will be the subject of a Panorama “documentary”.
BBC News Channel….just on…very fair and balanced….Iain Dale splendidly measured….he takes broad responsibility for journalists employed on his publication….by the same token PM Brown should for those around him…..
Brown is McBrides boss and responsible for his actions.
The blame lies at the feet of the bos.
Remember the press in 96 and 97 blaming Major for all Tory problems.
1327:
I’m just hoping and praying that Mr Fawkes has other little bits of paper in his drawer!
It would be fantastic to see all this balther from the ZaNu Labour apologists put to the sword by the divulgence of yet another e-mail.
Now wouldn’t that let the cat out of the bag!!
New line on BC R4 news – it is all “Westminister Village” silliness that those nasty Tories are spining for their own advantage and distracting the one-eyed saviour of the world for the important business of saving us.
Bleating Blears got a free run to sprout this nonsesnse. Presenter accused Francis Maude of pettiness.
This is not just propaganda – it’s BBC propaganda.
The BBC ‘have your say’ has ignored the scandal untill now, I suppose they were trying to protect Brown from any critisism, now they have put up a section about ‘should the role of political advisors be tightened’
Huh?
The current rules are crystal clear already and they have been broken with gay abandon and contempt for the political proccess.
These rule changes are a red herring, so obviously a smokescreen and yet the BBC just buy into it and spread it around.
The first HYS on the subject just happens to confuse the issues at stake, Brown calls for tighter aides code of conduct does he? ooooh right then thats OK then eh? no need to punish those who plannned the smears because the rules werent ‘tight’ ennough so these innocent aides were just doing their work within lax rules?
No need to investigate just who knew what when, what people were involved, what other e-mails were sent or recieved and who gave the orders to send them, oooh no all thats needed is to improve the reguations a bit and all will be well in No10 land everyone will be whiter than white and purer than pure with a few tweaks of the rules at some point in the future.
The BBC is spinning for newlabour by doing this HYS the BBC knows full well that a few tweaks to the rules that will not become active before the election makes it possible for Brown to crow and posture that he is ‘getting on with the job’ that Brown is doing something while the Tories are reduced to petty demanding, whining and whinging like spoiled kids, clever eh? very dishonest and it fits perfectly with the BBC mindset.
The BBC comrades have been in emergency conference with newlabour spin merchants all this time on how to minimise the Tories and limit the damage to Brown and this HYS is the product of that political collusion.
If the BBC were unbiased the title of the HYS would be ‘are the political spinners out of control’ or ‘is the No 10 smear unit still opperating’ or ‘are dirty tricks like this acceptable in politics’!
BBC regular and Labour stalwart Kevin Maguire goes with a “no smoke without fire” angle which is plumbing new depths even by the standards of NuLab. Talk about making a bloody fool of yourself.
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/maguire/kevin_maguire/
Wonder if he’ll get a chance to peddle it on Five’s drivetime programme, where his pretty well in with the furniture?
1327: As Iain dale pointed out it’s not the Tories that are stringing this story out but the Westminster Village media pack that have all returned from holiday today and want a piece of the action.
On News24 a short while ago an interview with Daniel Hannan who tries to explain blogging to the beeboid, as the beeboid is confused between emails and blogging. Hannan explains that blogg-sites operate from the bottom up, not top down, so people can respond immediately. We don’t have to listen to Paxman and Marr’s selective interviews asking selective questions. And that this new media brings things out in the open and resolves them much faster. The beeboid shrilled ‘but who is going to control it’. Hannan said that’s the wonderful thing, nobody controls it.
It was a joy to watch. Hope its repeated.
RR: The comments though basically tell Maguire he’s a twat.
Susan Franklin: The BBC bloody well know what blogging is, they were shilling about it when the sainted one was doing well in America and the likes of Justin Webb and Matt Frei were repeating smears and lies about Sarah Palin. The BBC also operate their own blogs.
What the BBC are upset about is that in their eyes there are too many successful ‘right wing’ blogs and THESE must be controlled.
RR: The comments though basically tell Maguire he’s a twat.
Martin | 14.04.09 – 2:06 pm | #
Martin, such restraint from such a source. I do declare the feedback has been near 100% negative, and perhaps even more robust than you suggest:)
It was a joy to watch. Hope its repeated.
Susan Franklin | 14.04.09 – 2:05 pm | #
Indeed. And if any of our IT whizzes can get a direct link, I would be grateful to share.
The concern on control does seem to come out when it passes from those who have perhaps got a bit too cosy with having it all, all the time. And, often, in perhaps an overly uni-directional way.
Events are currently disabusing such dinosaurs daily. At least every time I send out a link to a blog such as this to all my mates, usually with a Downfall YouTube attached.
I also rather suspect that a high % of 2M+ folk are keeping tabs on the likes of Mr. Hannan.
Last time I got banned from Evan Davies’ R4 site he had 4 comments. Maybe the other 1,999,996 are just shy observers?
A truly pathetic attempt at deflection.
Just like big-shot criminals try to remain untouchable, their underlings taking the flak and convictions, so is Brown, in his risible claims of ignorance. This won’t wash in the blogosphere.
The BBC / New Labour are stuffed and they know they are. Only another year of this to go…
The problem with the labour stance that Brown did not know about the smear tactics is that until the last couple of days , the labour website has been running various childish features ridiculing the conservatives. It just shows the way they are operating – smear tactics all the way. Since the latest developments, the labour website appears to have been cleaned up. Brown’s method is to play dirty but deny it so many times that people start to beleive him.
Just been watching Nadine D doing her bit on Breakfast. I thought she was excellent – and I’d never heard of her, until this weekend.
BBC News 24 3PM news. Fat female beeboid. Tories are the same, Tories making too much of this Tories just as bad, to a Liberal Lord.
Chuffer
Nadine is free to speak – and has being walloping Labour something rotten.
I hope she sues.
Chuffer: She’s actually quite a Fox. Hope she’s on QT in the future 🙂
Fran | 14.04.09 – 11:07 am |
Thanks for the link about Nadine Dorries posting about the awful behavior of Stephen Nolan.
Long before he got to Dorries, Nolan had a caller on, “Ray”, who sounded like he was reading from a script. It was a perfect parody of Martin’s prediction from the other day. Every buzz word, full sentences matching BBC defenses, right down to the caller’s closing line about the Conservatives: “Me thinks they doth protest too much”. Nolan played Devil’s Advocate as long as he could keep a straight face.
No matter how many dopey viewers they can find to write or call in and say they’ve never heard of a boss having to apologize for an employee doing something entirely on their own, that the boss knew nothing about, it’s a false defense position. From what I understand, these emails from McBride to Draper were part of their schemes for Red Rag. Mr. Brown knew about Red Rag, met with Draper about it, and approved, didn’t he? So even if Mr. Brown didn’t know about the base details of every line, he knew what they were up to, how, and why.
Unless I’ve got my facts wrong here, any Beeboid who says different is lying. Just like Stephen Nolan did.
“You’ve got a scalp, what more do want?”
And of course – Caroline Spellman!! What a joke! Partisan or what? I can hear Nolan huffing and puffing every time Dorries says something he disagrees with. Isn’t he bright enough to mute his mic or put his hand over it? Maybe the sniffing is just from too much coke over the weekend.
Nadine Dorries may be calling the Prime Minister a liar, but I’m calling Stephen Nolan a liar. He was defending a politician far beyond the limits of his remit as a BBC presenter. He was also lying.
Nolan is a disgrace. I’ve heard him be reasonable before, but I’ve also heard him say on air that proof that the BBC is not biased is that he lets people call in to complain on air.
What the BBC are upset about is that in their eyes there are too many successful ‘right wing’ blogs and THESE must be controlled.
Martin | 14.04.09 – 2:08 pm | #
Sorry Martin. Nothing to do with right wing blogs. They didn’t seem too worried prior to Guido’s revelations over the weekend.
No, nothing to do with right or left wing. All to do with control. The BBC are losing control and that’s why there has to be a clamp down.
After all, we couldn’t let the truth out now, could we!
I made a decision not to listen to Stephen Nolan a while back. He is so biased he makes Nicky Campbell and Simon Mayo look impartial.
Anybody seen this yet? Steve Richards thinks McBride was sloppy as well as venomous. He also reveals that
He was often texting journalists with venomous messages or malevolent advice that took the breath away.
On one occasion shortly before a presenter was about to interview a cabinet minister McBride texted him with the message: “Ask him about his drinking problem.”
I found this via James Forsyth’s blog post at the Coffee House. James adds this:
I’m sure this anecdote will have Coffee Housers screaming, understandably, about collusion between the media and the Brown machine.
As if people here haven’t been screaming about it for years.
If the presenter had held the phone up to the camera, McBride would have been finished. But journalists have to protect their sources. If we burned them by revealing what was said off the record then we would find that few people would talk to u,s and what we could tell the public would be severely limited.
Sure, fair enough. But the BBC didn’t take kindly to Guido using that defense, did they?
There is, though, obviously, a point at which journalists are being used to spread smears and shouldn’t go along with it.
PBR and VAT, anyone? Spellman? Peston, Lloyds, HBOS and Brown? Gordon Brown knew nothing about something he obviously knew about?
I think we know who was briefing Peston and Robinson.
Twizzle: But in the UK the right wing lbogs are more successful. That is what the BBC are obsessed about. And yes you are right, the BBC would like to ‘suggest’ that the internet be brought under their control as a regulator.
Never going ot happen.
David Preiser (USA): Spot on about Nolan. The guy is just a gobby tosspot.
His rantings about Boris Johnson and who paid for his Champagne on victory night is a classic.
I’m sure David Vance could enlighten us more about Nolans politics.
But Radio5 is in effect a complete Radio network dedicated to promoting Liebour and dissing the Tories.
obama making a speech. Stuttering over almost every word. Pathetic.