Further to Craig’s heroic live-blog, a few afterthoughts.
I don’t know (neither do you) whether the avalanche of criticism over the recent crescendo of lefty bias affected the strategy of David Dimbleby and his BBC back-room team, but something strange happened last night. Rather, something unusually unstrange, which was of course the unique reversion to balance, from both chairman and audience.
I know many left-leaning viewers didn’t much like it, but one could gloat over the fact that they were experiencing at long last a taste of their own medicine. Anyway, to many people it looked less like bias than a well-timed reversal to normal.
I’m inclined to agree with Nick Robinson, or was it Norm, who said that the audience won. It was a sharper than usual audience, and there was little of that appalling whooping that was allowed to wreck previous election programmes with audiences.
I am not much of a political aficionado, but there are certain things that interest me more than others. One topic I would have liked to have seen addressed was the Islamophobia come antisemitism pledge, be it Theresa May’s ‘Crackdown” or Ed Miliband’s ‘criminalisation’, but I might as well admit that if it had been raised, it would inevitably have been couched in such obfuscational language that we would have been none the wiser.
In fact that was a theme throughout all the electioneering to date. Politicians (apart from Nigel) trying not to reveal their hand, as in poker. “Who will you team up with?” Can’t show my hand. “What will you cut?” Can’t possibly show my hand.
Of course they can’t. They’d be crucified if they did. So why the pointless, hiding-to-nothing, persistent badgering from ALL the BBC’s finest? Andrew Neil is as bad as the rest on that score.
The most memorable aspect of the debate was Ed’s attitude towards the previous Labour government’s mistakes. One, squandering the crown jewels and plunging us into massive debt. Two, deliberate open door immigration. On the first, Ed revealed that at the end of the day, he thought that the spend spend spend principle was justified by the acquisitions it brought ‘are country’, as he pronounces it. Schools, hospitals and so on. This exposed him as the serious lefty he is. But my goodness me. He is always inclined to admit to his party’s failure on immigration with the phrase, “we got it wrong.” Is that phrase really suitable for something that has had such a massively detrimental effect on ‘are country?’
It’s a phrase more appropriate to something like placing a wrong bet. Heads or tails? Oops. Got that wrong! Winner of that match? Wrong again.
But it wasn’t a sport, it wasn’t roulette. It was a much more fundamental gamble, and saying “We got it wrong” is a very offensive and glib. It’s an understatement and a gigantic cop-out. It’s beyond a cliche, reminiscent of that grotesquely emotive and misleading phrase “What Israel is doing to the Palestinians.”
I want to hear someone from Ed’s party saying our open door policy was a mistake that had huge negative ramifications, and what’s more it was a deliberate megalomaniacal ploy to keep us in power.
David Cameron spoke well but he said very little. Yes, we know bringing down the deficit is his priority, and it seems like a worthy objective. Duh!
At least he didn’t stumble over the ‘accident-waiting-to-happen’ podium ‘Q’ shaped thingy that some lunatic from W1A had managed to dream up and get past the department of stupid.
The collapse of the Lib Dems has absolved Nick Clegg from serious electioneering. He went through the motions dutifully and came across as a nice bloke. One could almost forget the bitter toxicant within the party. But not quite.
Nigel Farage was relegated to past-my-bedtime hour. But there’s always iPlayer. Dealing him Jo Coburn, on the other hand, was a mean trick that can’t be rewound and undone. She can be unpleasant, can’t she? She was so witch-like and irritable that no-one could resist feeling a pang of sympathy for Nigel Farage. All that was achieved by her intrusive interruptions was more evidence that Ukip has been dealt a bad hand by the BBC.
There were a couple of strategic blunders in the area of general performance. The first miscalculation was producing that infamous ‘No money left’ note. Props are unpopular. Second one was asking the questioner’s name all the time. Some of them seemed irritated by this, and who wouldn’t be?
There were a few ‘Let me be clears’ and ‘right thing to dos’ and an awkwardly choreographed ‘walk towards the audience’ from Ed.
I notice these things, and I suspect many other viewers do too.
Agree about the tripping hazard podium. Much though there is to detest in our politicians, giving them the added stress of thinking about where to put there feet all the time was hardly fair or sensible.
ReplyDeleteAs for the audience - there is definitely something that has happened to bring about this change. I doubt we'll hear what it was until after the election - maybe years after. Someone at BBC or Comres decided (finally!) to review procedures.
Be funny if some teasing-type lobbed up just before kick off in a wheelchair.
DeleteThe thought of the entire BBC enablement department (there must be something like it) having a collective kitten at what had not be allowed for would have been worth it.
Re: the trip - so, there's something in this telekinesis stuff!
ReplyDeleteLOLOLOLOL!! Labour is freaking out that the Tories rigged the audience!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3064363/I-m-not-Tory-s-absolute-nonsense-says-straight-talking-businesswoman-took-Ed-Miliband-task-live-TV.html
I said the production team was going to be under more scrutiny than ever before, and the one time the get it right is the one time the audience really is biased against Labour. That was pretty obvious. But clearly, like the FT, some people still stuck in the New Labour rut can see that Miliband and Balls would be an absolute disaster for a country just barely scratching to make it above water. Uber-Keynesians (Andrew Neil lectured some Labour idiot - a Benn scion? - about that today, which was hilarious) borrow and spend even in a surplus, and Miliband screwed up royally by saying he'd do it all over again, only with slightly better banking regulations. Which doesn't really address the issue of borrowing and spending like there's no tomorrow.
The thing is, though, that this woman featured in the Mail article is obviously a disgruntled Labour voter who now has entered the real world and understands what's in store for her if Miliband and Balls are put in charge. But will she and some of the other angry audience member just vote tribal anyway because they ultimately place emotion - and the way they view themselves as 'good people' - over reason? As awful as Miliband was, maybe even his shouting and scolding won't change that.
I see also that the fourth quartile not associated with the three parties represented were 15% decided on other parties and only 10% undecided. That explains a couple of those attacks on Cameron and probably one on Miliband. I think all the attacks on Clegg were from people who had applied as Lib Dem voters, though. Former Lib Dem voters, from the sound of it. Bunch of morons. They deserve for their party to implode.
Either there were no UKIP supporters let in, or their questions weren't selected. If there really was any audience rigging, it was in that direction.
This was always going to be good value.
DeleteAllowing Hanlon's Razor, I merely raise a thought, given the BBC's obsessions with 'balance', 'getting it about right' and 'not pleasing everyone'.
This appears to be another easy to see young lady very much in the same mould as the one who was quipping on HIGNFY recently.
Slight difference in that one was a panel guest the BBC knew could be relied upon to deliver, and the other one they clearly invited by accident unaware of her history... with the BBC. Easy mistake to make.
But they were very much selected.
Looking at my twitter, our STB is now proof positive across the Labour/Graun/BBC Axis of Outrage that the BBC is clearly right wing and not biased enough in favour of the true path of Jasminism and Brandywisdom.
Conveniently. Now, for every Amy getting dizzzgooostid, there is an STB. The Farce is in harmony.
As the BBC oft intones, po-faced, I merely analyse the possible options.
Oh, and for a giggle on BBC po-facism whilst on the back foot and not liking getting what they serve, full marks to Mr/s. Jones:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/do_the_bbc_or_capita_employ_sock
Oh, that is a good one!
DeleteFOI question: "As part of the BBC public relations internet presence - are Sock-puppets employed to help create the illusion in other forum users minds? The reason I ask, is many forums have posters, that 24/7 defend the BBC from any attack from critics - including the BBC's own POV online forum & Digital spy."
BBC response: "The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion."
The BBC deliberately twisted the meaning of both Sock Puppet and the point of the question. It's not BBC content, it's actions by BBC staff. It's most likely that they do not actually employ defenders of the indefensible. And why would they? There are plenty of staff and social justice warriors out there who seem perfectly happy to do it voluntarily.
DeleteSemantic black belts, the BBC.
DeleteOne day someone will figure out how to use their strength in this and turn it back on them.
I just hope anyone reading the simple factual exchange, to and from, will see what was not denied as much as what was not said or avoided. Chip in, guys!
Such things deserve the light of the court of public opinion and a wider audience; not the dark recesses of the BBC Star Chamber or a niche (though excellent) factual resource.
One small attempt ongoing to promote this as rain has stopped play here today.
Borrowing and spending is not that different really to our personal finances. It's not the amount so much as how the repayments match our overall income. The facts are that (a) the Tories supported the Government spending plans when in opposition - in 2007 (b) argue for looser controls over the banks before the crisis and (c) did not object to the bail out of the banks (which was what most of the massive borrowing post 2008 was about).
ReplyDeleteTories quoque isn't really a good defense.
Delete(b) argue for looser controls over the banks before the crisis
ReplyDeleteSource? (Again, third time)
Putting aside for a moment that the BBC now has a very large prop of their own they can wheel out next time they need to run the old "complaints from both sides" defense, this Guardian article has one or two revelations:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/30/bbc-question-time-audience-leaders-special
The BBC has defended how it chose the audience for the leaders’ debate on Question Time, after its selection process was accused of both leftwing and pro-coalition bias.
And then later:
However, the Independent cited a Labour source saying that Miliband will be at a disadvantage because 50% of the audience will be supporters of the current coalition.
It's impossible for anyone to claim pro-coalition bias. Just about the only person in the room who might possibly vote Lib Dem next week was Nick Clegg. Pro-Tory bias, perhaps, if we believe that the businesswoman was knowingly allowed in despite her Tory connection, or that anyone who criticized Miliband and his party's past could only be Tory activists. But that's not a revelation.
The Telegraph and the Sun both said the composition of the audience exaggerates the proportion of people likely to vote Liberal Democrat....
They sure got that right, although not in the way they think.
....and that up to two-thirds of the 150-strong audience could be leftwing supporters.
Perhaps, but enough of them had brains that I wouldn't say Cameron was at a disadvantage. A couple of his questions were even relatively lightweight emotional pleas rather than harsh criticisms of actual disastrous policies. The other two didn't get that luxury.
When discussing how they tried make it so that each politician faced an audience where, technically, only one-fourth could be said to support their party (not the Coalition, and I think they're right to frame it that way) and three-fourths would be considered hostile, we get this:
“The thinking behind this is that it will ensure that there’s a level playing field,” Ric Bailey, the BBC’s chief political adviser, said in a blog. “Each leader engages the audience on the same terms. It also means that the BBC has done all it can to ensure that each leader gets the same shot at a fair hearing with the much bigger audience at home.”
Bailey admitted that the regular weekly Question Time audience based on proportionate support for each party, “the larger the party, the more people who intend voting for that party are selected for the audience”.
So they do get involved. The whole "It's an independent production by an independent production company, nowt to do with us, guv," is bullsh!t.
"So they do get involved. The whole "It's an independent production by an independent production company, nowt to do with us, guv," is bullsh!t."
DeleteI don't understand how often very senior named management, as well as battalions of anonomised spokespeople, keep getting away with such BBC 'we don't...until we do' excuses with so little challenge.
Related to this is the whole 'leaving the mid-level editors to decide based on their integrity (parroted by the complaints system)', when it is quite clearly shown there is a raft of topics where institutional meddling is practiced from on high and risk the wrath of Cohen
I dare a reporter to go to hear some unsettling science without a 28Gate graduate running to Helen Boaden, or a producer decide any vacated female funny slot (no pun intended) is filled on merit alone.
It is getting to the point where nearly everything the BBC says about important internal operations is a lie.
DeleteSpiking a Savile story because they were running a tribute? It didn't happen, except it did, but we don't know how and anyway the scapegoat has been punished.
Editorial directives from on high about Global Warming? It didn't happen, the BBC is too big and too unmanageable for that to be possible, except it did happen, and nobody has been punished.
Editorial directives from on high about treating Islam with kid gloves? It didn't happen, the BBC is too big and unmanageable for that to be possible, except it did happen, because, shut up, Islamophobe!
Tax-dodging arrangements for on-air talent? It didn't happen, those are perfectly normal practices for freelancers who work for several employers, except it did happen, and a scapegoat has been punished for this as well as.....
....Gold-plated pensions and fat payouts for incompetents while cutting staff and staff pay? It didn't happen, it's all normal business practices, except it did happen, and that same scapegoat has been punished.
Faking phone-in competitions on children's programmes and stealing audience money on phone-in fees? It didn't happen, we didn't really mean it that way, except it did happen, and only a junior scapegoat was punished.
And on and on it goes.
They're approaching Soviet Union levels of dishonesty.