The BBC is having to play catch up as their initial assessment of Miliband’s performance in regard to the vote over Syria was that he was the ‘architect of Camerons’ defeat’ and that he could now ‘walk tall’.….as Assad supporters fly the Union Jack in Damascus in celebration.
The BBC’s two senior and important political reporters, Nick Robinson and John Humphrys, got it wrong.
Apparently even the Labour Party is having doubts about Miliband’s actions:
Syrian crisis: Ed Miliband faces growing criticism from Labour ranks
Ed Miliband is facing mounting criticism from within his own party for his handling of the vote on Syria, amid fears that Labour’s approach has damaged Britain’s standing on the world stage.
And Quentin Letts in the Mail:
A slippery hypocrite no one can trust again
For Ed Miliband this week, it was not about peace. It was not about parliamentary sovereignty, the national interest, chemical-warfare treaties or our (possibly now knackered) ‘special relationship’ with Washington.
It was certainly not about those children whose suffocated bodies were seen wrapped in white burial shrouds after the Damascus suburbs gas attack. Murdered innocents? V. low on the Miliband priority list, they’d be.
Nah. For the Labour leader this week it was, as ever, about just one thing: me, me, me. How could he turn the horrible Syria crisis to his own short-term advantage? That may sound harsh, but it is hard to see any other explanation for the Labour leader’s conduct during Thursday’s ‘war debate’ in the Commons.
The BBC did put a toe in the water on Newsnight on Friday and yesterday, Saturday, they were starting to take the issue more seriously with a discussion of how Miliband’s performance was being perceived. Tony Livesey actually does a fair old job (08:36) investigating whether Miliband may appear ‘a villain’ eventually.
Amused to hear the presenter rolling his eyes at the Daily Mail headline (above)…‘Guess which paper this came from’.
Ironic because not the other week the author of that eye rolling worthy article, Quentin Letts, had a little series on the BBC, ‘What’s The Point Of….’
and look who else has been moonlighting at the awfully dreadful DailyMail:
Shocking, yes. But Churchill’s war speeches just made many Britons despair, says ANDREW MARR
(More of which later…the quality and direction of Marr’s ‘history’ under examination)
I suspect the BBC’s problem with the Mail is that they are rivals for the very same audience…5Live being the BBC’s very own broadcast version of the Mail….both going for the ‘shocking truth’ and trashy titbits whilst posing as respectable and worthy members of the community.
Interesting clip from 5live on the vote as war photographer Paul Conway relates how the vote was recieved by the regime in Syria:
‘A great day for Syria, it makes us stronger’ (08:12)….Union Jacks were being flown in Damascus….the message is we’ve agreed ‘you can kill 100,000 with conventional weapons…and now chemical weapons are being used’ and if there is no response it gives the message that Assad can carry on killing at his leisure…and diplomatic efforts as put forward as the answer by Miliband are not the answer.
Tony Livesey is one of the better BBC presenters. The fact he used to edit the Daily Sport at least means he cannot be a part of the BBC’s cosy Islington clique, even if he ever wanted to be.
If there is a 2nd vote it will really do for Milibandwagon: he will have to say something meaningful and take a position.
Bit naive!
You quote far right commentators to support your argument!
The reality is that Cameron was royally shafted by a far more wily politician and the Tories are now really running scared. They can’t run the Traitor line but they’ll come close. Labour winning the next election is now a reality.
The far right are always such pathetic losers.
Plus this yet again has nothing to do with the BBC but your own extreme right wing bias.
You call someone naive then back yourself up with name-calling and emotional rhetoric. Amazing. I suggest you read a book on defence mechanisms.
‘…The far right are always such pathetic losers…’
That sounds like a version of the gloating line uttered by Diane Abbott after the vote on Thursday and repeated by many from the left, since.
I don’t agree with everything said on this site, but like many in the BBC itself, believe that it lacks balance and it does indeed have a left wing bias.
But it seems that you hold the view that what we have we hold, it being to Labour’s advantage that the national broadcaster leans to the left and you would prefer to keep it that way (rather like rigged boundaries that gives Labour an undemocratic electoral advantage).
You don’t have to be a rabid Tory to demand that a broadcaster funded by a licence fee, and charged by its Charter to uphold its obligation of truth and impartiality, sticks to the terms of its covenant.
Contributors to this site, broadcasters and journalists can give an increasing number of examples of where the BBC has departed from its obligations, where that bias has turned into nothing more than activism.
You might like it that way, I’m sure you do. But for many ordinary people – not those of the far right, the BBC that we once loved, warts an’ all, can no longer be trusted.
You’ve got to hand it to Will. Showing up here after making such an arse of himself yesterday shows a lack of self-awareness that only the left can truly aspire to.
Fair play to him (genuinely) He’s had a tough weekend ,holding the line all on his own. with only the mysterious six for support -and even they seem to have bailed on him
And here was me thinking a new name was sure to be dusted off the Borg production line, as the last outing was so covered in egg it looked like a Leader of the Opposition’s security detail
“Labour winning the next election is now a reality.”
Yep all Miliband has to do is adopt a few more BNP
policies, like staying out of Syria, and he’s a shoe in.
could you please give us your definition of the term far-right? It makes no sense to me, though I know quite accurately what a socialist/communist is.
What is meant by far right? Well if you are a socialist or a communist, every thing that isn’t socialism or communism. (As I understand it)
Oldbloke, you may be correct, but let’s see what Mr Duncan has to say.
Labour winning the next election is now a reality.
You’re from the future?
(Not so) strange goings on Marr this morning. Labour having doubts? Milibands role questioned? Not that you’d know it from this true-to-form ‘flagship’ programme.
The newspaper review often used by the BBC as a surrogate to express its leftism, was used to hammer Cameron. OK, the review started with a positive headline from the Mail, but this was quickly qualified by Marr who felt it necessary to tell the viewer that their Editor is a friend of Cameron (which is news to me – Leveson told us of his close relationship to Gordon Brown). Mail columnist Amanda Plattel, no friend of Cameron, felt obliged to chip in with a ‘friends in high places’ jibe.
Then followed 3 or 4 critical pieces, lefty historian Sharma picking out pieces by Rawnsley, then he and Marr were salivating over the excoriating editorial in the Times.
But then to Miliband. A brief mention that ‘there’s not much positive commentary for Miliband’, followed by, ‘but we’ve found one (positive) piece in the Observer’, which was duly delivered by Sharma.
Balance? What balance? They don’t even try to hide their leftism any more.
Some of the comments on the HYS have been pretty amusing. In particular there’s two notorious posters, Rebecca Riot and Little_Old_Me, who usually post the same Guardianista anti-male/anti-English bilge but who on this occasion have come to totally different – yet both completely naive – conclusions on Syria.
Rebecca has posted time and again how there’s supposedly undoubted and unambiguous evidence that Assad carried out the chemical weapon attack (even though the rebels have now publicly admitted it was them) and that therefore we should intervene. The funny part of this is that she doesn’t afford the same thought when it comes to defending our own Falklands territory from illegal invasive maneuvers from Argentina or opposing Spain’s actions regarding Gibraltar, presumably because they’re just white English people and therefore deserve everything they get for our colonialist past – though strangely the liberal elite who use this tiresome line never criticise Spain for colonialising Argentina, or Argentina itself for attempting to colonialise a set of islands inhabited long before Argentina was even a sovereign nation. Weird, that.
As for Little_Old_Me, she actually had the nerve to say Cameron was politicking but Miliband was being 100% genuine. The naivety required to come to that conclusion is honestly the stuff of human wonder. I have no doubt whatsoever that Miliband (who to be fair claims to have opposed Iraq but backed Afghanistan and Libya intervention, the latter of which has proven to be seriously misguided) would have made a very different decision had he actually been Prime Minister. The only reason he’s opposing intervention is because he doesn’t have to deal with the consequences for at least two years. Regardless of whether you think it was the right thing to do (it probably was) to assume it was for the right reason is delusional. It was point-scoring, nothing more.
The funniest part is that they always throw terms around like ‘little Englander,’ ‘right-wing nutter,’ and ‘Daily Mail brigade’ at anyone with an opinion to the right of Marxism, yet they regurgitate stuff they’ve read in the Guardian or the BBC, often in heavily-biased editorials, and accept them as fact because they cater to the left (for instance, both appear to think that 95% of violence is perpetrated by men, which has no statistical backing whatsoever). Apparently bias only exists for them if it supports a right-wing standpoint.
Excellent post.
I’d like to see some justification for the claim that the rebels have admitted they were behind the poison gas attack. If that were the case, I think it might have made the headlines.
Yes I’d like a link to that if anyone has one
This looks to be what people are talking about. It’s from a newish U.S. online news organisation called Mint Press News:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/
It hasn’t been reported much elsewhere – except by the Russian and Iranian press, who are reporting it quite extensively, and by websites like Daily Kos and Anti-War. The rest of the world’s media is ignoring it, maybe with good reason.
The lead reporter is Dale Gavlak, who also reports for the BBC (mainly about Jordan). So it’s from a mainstream reporter (who also reports for AP and NPR).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Dale%20Gavlak
It looks credible – but whether it is or not, who knows?
If true, it’s dynamite. But if it is, why are no mainstream media organisations beyond Russia and Iran reporting it (AFAICS)? Presumably, they think it’s complete rubbish.
Sorry, but Mint Press is not credible:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/31/shia-advocacy-journalism-behind-story-claiming-saudis-gave-rebels-chemical-weapons/
Thank you, Adi.
That explains why few media organisations beyond Iran and Russia are giving it the time of day.
Nah. For the Labour leader this week it was, as ever, about just one thing: me, me, me. How could he turn the horrible Syria crisis to his own short-term advantage?
How hypocritical ! Like Cameron isn’t in it just for himself, or Clegg? I remember the knife in the back of alcoholic Charles Kennedy. Of the stories passed to journalists in cosy late night dinners prior to the election. Or the cosy old boys club of the mates Cameron has felt obliged to repay following his climb up the greasy pole.
No, none of them are honourable men and it is for that reason that they call themselves ‘honourable’ because they plainly are not.
Having watched the debate in full I was left with some admiration for Cameron. Whilst I believe we should stay out of the Syrian civil war and there is no good outcome for us or the Syrian people, Cameron spoke with command and confidence. His put his case well. Miliband’s performance did not reach the coherence, cogency or rigor of a sixth form school boy debating the subject. His weedy and irritating voice sounded like that of a child as he stuttered and haltered through his speech. I rather stick my fingers down my throat than vote for this boy.