The road to somewhere

As regular readers of ITBB and News-watch will know, Radio 4 has taken BBC bias to a whole new high in recent months over Brexit (well, at least until their Trump coverage came along and took it even higher!).

Apart from a couple of pro-Brexit editions of A Point of View (on 12 and 13 July), the channel has offered no other pro-Brexit programmes whilst offering countless anti-Brexit programmes (including major, authored documentaries about Brexit from David Aaronovitch to Gary Younge and Gus O'Donnell). The bias has been off the scale.

The trend continues. This week's Analysis was a Brexit-related edition and, inevitably, a strongly pro-EU presenter was chosen - namely blog favourite Anand Menon of UK in a Changing Europe. 

He expanded on his Saturday From Our Own Correspondent piece and made it even worse, much worse. 

The message could hardly have been clearer: Because of Brexit we're on a road to nowhere. (The programme's recurring musical accompaniment was Road to Nowhere by Talking Heads).

Everyone who matters in EU country after EU country (excepts for those nasty populists) will make sure the UK suffers, all with the full backing of their national publics.

We're doomed, doomed! And Anand sounded intensely relaxed about breaking all of this bad news to us. 

I bet this is going into the Brexit Collection. They really aren't going to offer positive programmes about Brexit any more. John Gray and Roger Scruton on a pair of one-off A Point of Views seem to be all we'll ever get from Radio 4, positive-wise, about Brexit. 

Here's how Anand closed his Analysis:

ANAND MENON: So normally, in a program like this, I’d now reflect on the range of views we’ve heard. But what’s been really striking for me on this journey is that the message from all four countries that I visited was so consistent: ‘We’re sorry you’re going, it’ll hurt us too, but the integrity and the future of the EU are our priorities now. Regret mixed with resolve.’ True – there are 23 other member states who will all have a say, but nothing I’ve heard suggests they’ll adopt a dramatically different approach. The EU’s remaining members are as one on protecting its core principles, even if they have different ways of expressing love you.  So, we Brits have to sit on our blisters, we’ve got to choose the butter or the money from the butter, we have to eat the soup we cooked, and lie in the bed we made. EU countries are not currently prepared to bend the rules to give us a special deal, even if it makes economic sense for them to do so.  When it comes to ensuring the EU’s future, politics is winning the day. There’s a long time to go before the negotiations start, let alone end, many talking heads to debate our final destination, but, for the moment at least, the picture seems all to clear:

SONG: We’re on a road to nowhere.

BBC Radio 4 clearly wants to be on a road to somewhere...namely keeping us in the EU forever.

P.S. Miles Gosnett at Heat Street heard this Analysis the same way that I (and others) did. In fact, his piece quotes exactly the same passage I quoted. (He got there first, but I wasn't copying!). "The programme was hardly a balanced view of where things stand post-Brexit, whatever the BBC claims", he says, accurately. 

He also tells of an interesting, baffling exchange with the BBC over whether James Harding voted Remain on 23 June.

The Brexit Collection (another update)

Regular readers will know all about Exhibit A when it comes to proving post-referendum BBC anti-Brexit bias: Radio 4's The Brexit Collection. 

(We here at ITBB set the ball rolling about it and News-watch then turned the ball into a Brimstone missile. Now MPs and peers are using it to make the BBC answer our concerted charges of anti-Brexit bias). 

The collection has now been updated and, frankly, it's only made it appear even worse for the BBC. 

They've added Fi Glover's self-admittedly Remain-biased The Listening Project for starters, which is bad enough.

But, even worse, they've also added a particularly excruciating example of Radio 4 dramatic agitprop - an afternoon play called Leaving wherein the lead character, a Polish widow, is spat at by racist children and feels she has to leave the country as a result of post-Brexit 'hate'.

(I listened to it today and felt like leaving the country myself as a result, if only to avoid hearing such a mind-meltingly unsubtle BBC radio drama ever again).

The playwright is on Twitter and comes across as a Brexit-hating, Corbyn-supporting far-left activist holding all the opinions you'd expect such a person to hold).

That BBC Radio 4 would rate such a heavily loaded piece as being worthy to appear in its 'crown jewels' Brexit Collection is sadly unsurprising.

The other new edition - Ed Stourton's Analysis: Brexit and Northern Ireland - wasn't anywhere near as egregiously biased:

However...

Ed gave us a spread of voices throughout, though the balance wasn't strict and tilted significantly in the usual direction. (I made it 3 for Brexit and 6 against Brexit - and a lot more airtime for the Remain backers). 

Plus the chosen 'expert' (Prof. Brendan O'Leary) was obviously very firmly (and passionately) in the Remain camp. 

And the closing section (the last seven minutes) was so heavy on the negatives that it rather undid the reassuring effect of the more balanced early parts of the programme. 

And the framing figure of the cheery, non-partisan 'Londonderry/Derry tour guide' sounded a sharp note of short-term worry at the end.

So, this Analysis also merits its place in the stark-staringly-madly-anti-Brexit-biased Brexit Collection.

The Irish Question

"Vote to leave the EU and woe betide Northern Ireland! 

Or so Ed Stourton led us to fear tonight".

I'm sure I read that somewhere recently, though for the life of me I can't  think where!

Is it true though?

******

Last night's Analysis on Radio 4, presented by Edwards Stourton, looked at the Irish view of Brexit, from both sides of the border:

The programme worked its ways through various potential downsides that might follow a Brexit. 

The first section (the first 15 minutes) dwelt on the possible negative consequences of the closing of the presently 'open' border. The second section (some two and a half minutes) dwelt on the possible negative economic consequences of a Brexit, especially for Northern Irish farmers. The third section (around four minutes) dwelt on possible harm to the peace process from a Brexit. The fourth section (two minutes) looked at the position of Irish passport holders in the UK, some 500,000 of whom will be able to vote in the referendum. The fifth section (a couple of minutes or so) looked at the damaging uncertainty a Brexit might cause. And the final section (two minutes) looked at how the UK might fracture constitutionally as a result of a Brexit.

Now, I have to admit that when I first listened to the programme (last night), these potential threats from to a Brexit did start to worry me. I hadn't really thought of them before and, cumulatively, they added up to 'five reasons to vote 'Remain' in the EU referendum'. 

We heard them put by a range of people - two local business leaders, three local community leaders, a Sinn Fein politician, an Irish Times journalist, the Irish ambassador to the UK and an academic. 

Against these eight people on the anti-Leave side were set two pro-Leave voices, both politicians - Nigel Dodds and Kate Hoey. Adding up the amounts of time devoted to their point of view, I make it just under 8 minutes for Nigel Dodds and Kate Hoey in a programme that lasted nearly 28 minutes. Much of the rest of the programme was devoted to those arguing against a Brexit. 

Besides the differing amounts of time each side's concerns received, another difference between the their treatment was that Edward Stourton challenged Nigel Dodds and Kate Hoey significantly more than he did the other side of the argument (which ate into 'their time' even more).

To show all this in action, here are my notes. (Apologies for any spelling mistakes, especially of names, and for its sketchiness). 

They include quite a few direct quotes (all in quotation marks!), including some from Ed Stourton himself. The one that struck me as most worthy of note was this one: 

But shared British and Irish membership of the EU does give the people of Northern Ireland a choice of a new and perhaps less contentious way of approaching the issue of identity."

******

0.00 Narrative.

1.00 Colin Paterson, a Newry enterprise agency head, recalls the "hard border". He calls it "really tough".

1.54 Thomas McAvoy, Lough Country Council, praises the open border and the stability (from a Republic of Ireland perspective). 

2.35 Narrative.

3.42 Nigel Dodds. DUP criticises the costs of EU and wants control of our borders.

4.14 Question.

4.19 Nigel Dodds. 

4.40 Narrative.

5.09 Bernard Boyle, local community activist. Ed: "Are you anxious about the referendum?" Mr Boyle: "Yes, very much so". He talks of the disruption of the last land border. "We don't want to see it again". Ed does poses one devil's advocate Eurosceptic question. 

7.23 Narrative.

7.35 Magella Murphy, women's group, says "It would be a shame if we end up with the border again".

8.41 Narrative.

8.48 Patrick Smith, Irish Times, says "I fear that a British departure from the EU would lead to the re-imposition of border controls...and that's a real horror".

9.35 Narrative.

9.55 Dan Mulhall, Irish ambassador to London, says "We don't know what the future may bring..." "Anything that divides those two countries..has to be a negative thing, from our point of view". "It's also negative from the point of view of the British economy".

11.23 Nigel Dodds, DUP, criticises Enda Kenny.

11.38 Narrative.

11.46 Nigel Dodds, talks of "exaggerated" fears about border problems.

12.29 Question from Ed to Nigel Dodds: "You're REALLY confident about that are you?....That border could become a hard border, couldn't it?"

12.46 Nigel Dodds, recalls the decades-old common travel area within the British Isles.

13.09 Question from Ed to Nigel Dodds: "The trouble with that is that Britain in the circumstances of voting to leave wouldn't be negotiating with Dublin. It would be negotiating with the EU as a whole...(etc)"

13.39 Nigel Dodds, says it's in the EU's interests to be sensible.

13.55 Narrative.

14.14 Kate Hoey, Labour, says border controls might help counter crime and terrorism and that we'd still cooperate with the Irish Republic.

15.04 Narrative. Farming subsidies? Peace subsidies?

15.33 Martina Anderson, Sinn Fein. Her constituency is a net beneficiary of EU funding, she says. It will lose over £3.5 billion if there's a Brexit.

16.18 Kate Hoey, says the UK treasury might pay them instead.

16.47 Question from Ed to Kate Hoey: "Separate to that, a lot of farmers in Northern Ireland who do very well out of the EU too."

16.51 Kate Hoey, replies that farmers would get money from leaving the EU. 

17.28 Narrative. 

17.38 Narrative. Would Brexit undermine the peace process? Ed: "But shared British and Irish membership of the EU DOES give the people of Northern Ireland a choice of a new and perhaps less contentious way of approaching the issue of identity."

18.02 Dan Mulhall, Irish ambassador to London. Brexit would cause "dislocation and uncertainty". Would disrupt progress on last 30 years, he says.

18.46 Narrative.

18.55 Nigel Dodds. calls this "scaremongering". 

19.29 Narrative. 

19.51 Martina Anderson, SF, says there would be an EU border right in the middle of Ireland.

20.14 Question from Ed to Martina Anderson: Would there be a separate referendum, like the Scots might have, if there's a Brexit?

20.27 Martina Anderson, SF, replies The days of "Mother England wagging its finger" are over.

21.10 Nigel Dodds, replies that we are part of the UK, so there's no need for a separate referendum.

21.21 Narrative. A "wildcard": Irish passport holders in UK, will be able to vote. 500,000, "plus people of Irish descent" (as Mr Mulhall puts it) 

21.55 Dan Mulhall, Irish ambassador to London. See above.

23.12 Narrative. The referendum is causing uncertainty. 

23.29 Pamela Arthurs, East Border Region Organisation, talks about this uncertainty, saying "It's an unknown that we are quite frankly disturbed about".

24.04 Narrative. The Irish question may be entering Cameron's "radar", Parliamentary exchange with a nationalist MP and David Cameron.

25.23 Narrative. Constitutional changes across UK. Ed: "But this referendum could reopen questions that seemed settled".

25.56 Dr Jo Hunt, Cardiff University. If England and Wales vote one way and Scotland and N Ireland the other, "that could leave us in a very difficult constitutional situation". Another Scottish referendum, possibly. SF would demand a referendum too. "This is far more than just a question about our remaining in the European Union. It's about our constitutional future," she says

27.24 Narrative. Ed's closing words: "In this referendum local views could have an impact right across the United Kingdom in ways we've hardly begun to think about".

27.31 End.

Duncan Weldon: The shape of bias to come?

Radio 4 listeners got a sneak preview of TUC senior economist-turned Newsnight economics editor Duncan Weldon last week, and a chance to assess whether those concerns about the likelihood of him bringing more left-wing bias with him to Newsnight are likely to be borne out or not. 

He presented an edition of Analysis called Why Minsky Matters. 

The Minsky in question was the American post-Keynesian economist Hyman Minsky, and in the course of the programme we heard from various Keynsians, neo-Keynsians and post-Keynsians - namely George Magnus, Professor Steve Keen and Laurence Meyer, as well as Adair Turner and Wendy Carlin from the Keynesian Institute for New Economic Thinking. Each and every one of them is on what might be called the 'left side' of the present economic/political debate. Not one of them had a bad thing to say about Minsky's ideas. And neither did Duncan.

The one concession to non-Keynesian thought came with a brief (less than one minute) contribution from Joseph Salerno, an Austrian School economist who said Minsky got some things right and some thinks wrong. It would have been good to have heard about some of those things Minsky may have got wrong in more detail, because this Analysis gave every impression that he was right in every respect. 

Professor Salerno was then dismissed by Duncan Weldon in a way that doesn't bode well for his career on Newsnight. (Duncan said the economist who inspired the institute where Professor Salerno works isn't mentioned these days. Unlike Minksy.)

The most ominous bit though came when Duncan related some of Minksy's ideas to the present UK government's Help to Buy scheme. Guess who he invited to comment on it? Former Labour MP Kitty Ussher, who wasn't supportive of the scheme. 

OK, Duncan Weldon was making an argument for the importance of Minsky, and doing so - explicitly - in his old job as TUC senior economist rather than in his new job as a BBC reporter, so this out-and-out bias is still defensible. But woe betide him if he does something like this after he begins reporting for Newsnight!

Last rites for the Anglican Church?

Analysis returned to Radio 4 this week, and as a lapsed-but-still-sympathetic Anglican I was interested in its subject - the apparent terminal decline of the Church of England. 

It was presented by the Guardian's veteran religious affairs writer Andrew Brown, who painted a very dark future for the Church, with younger people seemingly falling away from it at a staggering rate. 

It was an interesting report, growing more nuanced as it proceeded. 

Its opening stages dwelt at length on the 'values gap' between an overwhelmingly socially liberal Anglican flock (churchgoing or otherwise) and a more socially conservative hierarchy. The Church was out of touch, argued Andrew. He then dwelt at much less length (he is a Guardian man after all!) on the other 'values gap', that between the right-leaning tendencies of most Anglicans and the strongly left-leaning tendencies of the Church hierarchy on matters such as welfare spending. The Church is out of touch here too, argued Andrew.  

Later contributors questioned whether the 'values gap' explanation provided the whole answer, but Andrew Brown largely stuck with it. 

He seemed genuinely surprised - and dismayed - about how sanguine some of the leading Anglicans he spoke to seemed about the demise of their Church.

The tenor of the programme was markedly liberal, but not oppressively so.

Coda: As is my way, I like to look into such things and came across a recent YouGov poll on matters religious. As YouGov takes a political approach to such things, it breaks down its questions along party political lines. 

The broad point, I suppose, is that there's not a huge amount of difference between supporters of different parties on the central tenets of Christianity, but certain results stand out as intriguing nonetheless:

- As many Conservatives are out-and-out atheists as believe in a personal God. 

- Lib Dems are least likely to believe in a personal God but most likely to believe there's some sort of spirit or life force instead. (Typical Lib Dems!)

- More Labour supporters believe in the devil than Conservatives. 

- UKIP supporters are much more likely to believe in life after death than supporters of the other big parties.

- Conservative and UKIP supporters are more likely to believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the correct explanation for the origin of life on earth. Labour voters are least likely.