Sunday, 8 January 2017

And finally...

Tim Montgomerie sent out a hopeful tweet yesterday in response to Rob Burley, editor of The Andrew Marr Show:
Hopefully Ms Sturgeon will be quizzed on her educational and SNP's other policy failings and not just tell rest of UK what Scotland wants...
He was still holding out hope this morning:
Any minute now on #marr @NicolaSturgeon will be held accountable for her SNP govt's performance... almost certainly... perhaps... isn't she?
But, alas, his hopes were shattered:
No, only questions that followed her agenda. Disgraceful. She got away scot-free on the SNP's record
Yes, it was pretty much 'Brexit' all the way on Marr this morning - and almost entirely with Remain-supporting guests.


  1. Watching it now. I laughed at Marr's sarcastic intro about Theresa May's new 'Shared Society' catch phrase, and asking again what Brexit means, declaring that he'd be trying to find out more, and no mention that she snubbed him for Sky.

    As for the interview with Wee Jimmy Krankie, it was kind of odd for the news brief to give a sound bite from it when it hadn't been broadcast yet. I'm used to teasers being shown before a show starts, but this was trying to hard.

    Paper Review: Interesting to hear Craig Oliver say that Ivan Rogers was basically a font of Project Fear. Marr asked him if Rogers had been too anti-Brexit and too pro-EU, and I couldn't help but think that he wasn't any more either of those than Cameron and his cohorts. Plenty of high-minded, "It's soooo important" talk from the sofa panel, mainly only JHB daring to break through the flannel.

    This is followed by the "Well, He Would, Wouldn't He?" segment where Ken Clarke is asked to defend Ivan Rogers as a pretense for giving his usual passionate defense of the EU. Completely uninterrupted and fed set-up questions by Marr, of course. Plus a little dig at Theresa May's leadership. I wonder if he'll hear it from her office before the show ends.

    Then a stack of waffle with syrup from Justine Greening about what the 'Shared Society' actually means, and if it's really just a 're-badging' of previous policies. Lightly challenged by Marr for lacking substance, and rightly so. Seeing the dead end, he moves on to the NHS. More waffle, again lightly challenged by Marr. But he asks about how much more money is being spent, then angrily declares he's tired of hearing "this terribly sterile debate" where all politicians do is talk about how much money is being spent. The only point of having these pols on and demanding concrete policy details when the interviewer knows they can't do that yet until the official announcements are made is to make the interviewer look tough. It's a waste of time.

    Skipping over the tv star interview, it's time for Wee Jimmy Krankie. Wind her up and off she goes. You could write her lines yourself at this point and imagine the segment well enough, no need to actually watch it. Marr's questions gave the appearance of a challenge, but were really just opportunities for her to go off again. He won't come out and say she's talking crap like Andrew Neil would do.

    The whole hour seemed largely perfunctory. However, there was very clearly an underlying theme to the show: Theresa May has no idea what she's doing.

    1. Message to Theresa May: Don't ever snub us again!

    2. Glad they leave their politics, along with sense of self-entitlement, at the door still.

      Must relook up the meaning of 'professional impartiality' again.

  2. Did you notice that after telling us ‘what Scotland wants’ Nicola Sturgeon complained bitterly about Scotland having to be ruled by English Lawmakers. Isn’t that uncannily reminiscent of why we voted for Brexit? I was surprised that Marr didn’t question whether she’d really rather Scotland was ruled by Brussels.

    1. There is a (closed, amazingly) HYS link posted on Biased BBC on the BBC's 'report' of her latest political foray into glory.

      Outside the bubble it suggests she and the BBC may again be the wrong side of actual public opinion.

  3. Compare and contrast how the BBC treats Sturgeon, as opposed to Arlene Foster.
    Biased Lefties with gently lobbing of patsy set ups for Sturgeon-sheer venom for Arlene.
    One survived a bombing-the other more than happy to give comfort to the bombers. Guess who the BBC backs?

    1. I know what you mean, Aisla.

      I don't think any BBC reporter would dare to add an opinionated 'Analysis' like this to a BBC News website article about Nicola Sturgeon. About Arlene Foster, however, the BBC seems entirely comfortable about doing so, being openly dismissive here:

      "Analysis: BBC News NI Political Correspondent Gareth Gordon
      Arlene Foster and the DUP have come out fighting in characteristic form.
      I think some people will find the misogyny line hard to take."