Hah! I did laugh at this interview with Ed Balls and his former Girlfriend Stephanie Flanders on today. To be fair to Flanders she did try to be neutral but Balls narrative that “we must go for growth and ease off on the cuts” is still very much the BBC mantra. I have to say that it strikes me as surreal that the BBC allow Balls to get away with his dreary monologue without any real focus on the dreadful economic legacy Labour left behind. Is it a thought crime to discuss how Balls messed things up?
NEGATIVE OUTLOOK, POSITIVELY ASSURED
Bookmark the permalink.
He realy spouts drivel, doesn’t he? How can any intelliegnt person take him seriously? He sounds a complete prat, because he IS a complete prat. He and the other Ed prat are doing for what remains of the labour party what Michael Foot, and the Welsh twat almost did a few years ago.
Good, more strength to their greasy elbows.
I just can’t stand listening to him. There’s something about both the sound of his voice and the relentless harping on the same old, same old tired phrases, coupled with the cynical opportunism and the constant point-scoring and posturing. I’m afraid I fast-forwarded through most of his dreary monologue, desperate for the sound of some other voice. Even the sound of windbag Humphrys was welcome respite.
Contrast the relative softness of the Balls interview with the hectoring and sneering from Humphrys as he tried to discomfit Osborne. OTOH any decent journalist (let alone economist) would have been able to crucify both Balls and Osborne: the first for his – and his party’s – responsibility for the dire state of the country’s finances and the latter with doing not a lot to remedy the situation. Both the Chancellor and his shadow are crap but the BBC only cares to demonise Osborne and give Balls and (when he’s on) Darling a free pass and blame it all on the US and those nasty bankers.
The BBC’s relationship with Ed Balls could be greatly simplified. Balls could be bricked-up behind one of the Today studio’s walls. Steph, Jim, John, Justin, or Uncle Tom Cobbley, could then ask him, ‘Hi Ed, any policy suggestions, other than go for growth & ease off on the cuts? Knock once for No, twice for Yes. Ok?…so that’s just the one knock, yes? And now it’s onto Bonnie Greer’s new opera, Night of the Griffin…
Is there anybody there in Libleftland who can recall who left us with this car crash of an economy.
They were left with a pretty good inheritance from the despised likes of Major and Clarke…and look what happened to it.
Thirteen years and all Liam Byrne can leave at the Tresury is a sneering note saying that there`s no money left…they`ve spent the lot.
And all Ed Balls has left in his locker is an old Nazi uniform.
Yet…this shower of shite are always the first-only-port of call to critique anything economic or financial.
Any views on SureStart funding Mr Huntley?
Only the BBC and the Guardian will ever listen to someone who talks what he`s called…
The link is to a Humphrys interview with Balls. Humphrys is actually challenging to him for a change. It’s too bad, though, that Humphrys and the Today producers don’t actually know what the hell is really going on and can’t call him out on his claim that Osborne is doing austerity “alone”. Spending is up in real terms in many places, so it’s a lie to say that it’s all radical austerity and all that. Which, oddly enough, is the same story “Two Eds” always tells.
I’d love to hear a Beeboid – just once – tell the audience that nobody is doing austerity “alone”. And what a joke to hear Balls talk about somebody having to “clear up George Osborne’s economic mess”, when it was only a few months ago that Balls was doing an apology tour to show that he’d learned his lesson and Labour was now ready to be trusted once more. Only Andrew Neil ever calls out Labour on that crap.
The end result is pretty poor. It gives the appearance of a challenging interview, complete with haughty tones and laughter from Humphrys, so they can claim they go after Labour as much as the Tories. But there is no actual substance. At no time does anyone say Labour screwed up, or that Balls is actually wrong his claims of “austerity alone”. So the audience comes away having learned nothing of value. Unless, of course, the goal was to make Balls look good.
“Unless, of course, the goal was to make Balls look good.”
. . . and I thought I was cynical!
If the Beeboids refuse to point out that Labour left the original mess, and that Balls actually did that breif apology tour (insincerely, for political purposes only, but still…) for it, it’s difficult not to draw the conclusion that they simply don’t mind if the public is misled.
DP
Sorry – it was (sort of) rhetorical. As I’ve said before, your cynicism concerning the BBC matches mine: and here (and in lots of others places BTW) you’re right on the button. The BBC will allow the wrong impression to become a “fact” as long as the “fact” agrees with the Narrative.
Essentially, in its reportage and analysis the BBC lets Labour off the hook for its major responsibility for the nation’s financial mess (despite, as you say, Balls’ “apology tour”). As far as the BBC is concerned, Balls murmured something which sounded like “sorry” and we should now “move on”. However his “apology” amounted to Balls regret that the financial mess happened to coincide with Labour being in power and, moreover, he is sorry that Labour is not in office to deal with the . . er . . unfortunate consequences of that mess.