Getting their own voices back

Dr Philip Cunliffe, Senior Lecturer at the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent, is someone I follow on Twitter. Being a man of the Left he naturally reads The New Statesman. He wasn't impressed by one of its latest pieces though:

Philip Cunliffe: Perhaps you thought the Ukraine war was about defending sovereignty and national independence? It's actually about us Rejoining the EU, according to this latest Andrew Marr piece. They will never accept democracy went against them.

Andrew Marr's piece begins like this: 

In the earthquake caused by this war, a grand reshaping around the world, relations between Britain and the EU must again become our biggest near-at-hand argument.

Almost nobody in mainstream British politics wants to talk about this. For Brexiteers any other issue may, in theory, be reopened, from tax promises to Scottish independence; but Brexit is a sacrosanct and holy victory that must remain forever untouched. Pro-European politicians largely agree, although out of fear of English nationalism rather than pride.

Following the outbreak of war in Ukraine, this cannot be allowed to stand. 

A couple of responses to Dr Cunliffe's tweet may strike a chord with you:

Ike Ijeh: Well I never! It's such a good job the BBC is impartial. If it wasn't I would literally have had *no idea* Marr held these views until he left!

Jonny Austin: I know. Its shocking that Fogarty, Mair & now Marr move from the BBC to LBC & their opinions are centre-left anti-Brexit. Almost like we knew.

...to which can be added the names Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel no doubt. 

Boxing Day Smorgasbord

Here are a few random thoughts for Boxing Day...

I

Catching up with a discussion on the open thread...

The BBC News website article Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia by Marco Silva, BBC climate change disinformation specialist, featured discussion of Femke Nijsse from The Netherlands - “one of the most influential editors in the Wikipedia climate change community”. This “Dutch volunteer” is described as:

...a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Exeter, studying the transition to green energy - so global warming is something she's been thinking about for a while.

What Marco doesn't mention about this “clinical” academic crusader for truth is that Femke used to be deputy leader of DWARS, GroenLinkse Jongeren, the youth wing of the Dutch political party GreenLeft. 

I guessed she'd has a political activist side to her, but I'd rather have been openly told that by the BBC rather than have to Google around to find it.

II

🎄I really must clear up all the potato snacks I trod into my carpet yesterday... 

It's beginning to look a lot like crisp mush.🎄

III

As Charlie noted, also on the open thread, the cancel culture comments made by Maureen Lipman induced the BBC's new culture editor Katie Razzell to do a News at Ten report that featured the mighty Maureen before balancing her concerns with comedian Russell Kane's outright dismissal of them. [In passing, let's note that Russell has done very well out of the BBC over the years]. What wasn't so balanced was Katie's use of two vox pops - the first of which said, “I'm not worried about being judged. I would just far rather not say something because I don't think it's right”, and the second of which said, “At the end of the day, making offensive remarks is bullying.” 

She rounded off her report by saying:

What's happening on the comedy stage and in real life is a sign outdated views are being weeded out. Or a worrying assault on free speech, depending on your perspective. Culture often leads the way on the big issues of our time as we all navigate what we can say, and what it's best not to. 

 IV

🎄Just got kicked out of my ornithology group...
...for using fowl language.🎄

V

A few months back I wrote, “It's surely time now for David Walker, the go-ahead Bishop of Manchester, to be officially installed as Bishop of Radio 4's Sunday.” When I heard this morning that Archbishop Desmond Tutu has died, aged 90, I wondered who Radio 4's Sunday would invite onto this morning's edition to talk about him. Inevitably it was the go-ahead Bishop of Manchester. That programme's contacts list is even more limited than mine these days.

VI

🎄I was going to have Bucks Fizz for an aperitif this afternoon...

...but I'm having trouble making my mind up.🎄

VII

Quiz time: Which departing BBC broadcaster painted this work of art entitled Cleaning Windows?

Clue: The answer is an anagram of Man, draw, err.

VIII

To develop a point Winter George made earlier today,...

When box-ticking and talent collide everyone sort of wins, possibly. I was thinking after having switched on my TV during Countryfile and watched Anita and Matt swoon over some lovely Elgar from cellist Sheku Kanneh-Mason. Sheku, if you recall, became famous after performing at Harry and Meghan's wedding. I also watched the last moments of the Andrew Marr show and Andrew departed the BBC to music from Konya and Jeneba Kanneh-Mason performing an arrangement of Tchaikovsky's Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy. And it that wasn't enough Christmas Day on BBC Two saw an hour-long programme called A Musical Family Christmas with the Kanneh-Masons. It raises the inevitable question that always arises when 'positive discrimination' is a strong possibility: Is their success with the BBC partly, even mainly, cos they is black? 

IX

🎄I was struggling to think of what to get someone for a Christmas gift. So I got them a fridge and watched their face light up when they opened it.🎄

[P.S. All the jokes in this post come courtesy of The Dad Joke Man].

X

Is their a more put-on, disliked family in the world than Mrs Brown's? It's become a new Christmas tradition for the snootily 'progressive' to join hands with the tasteful to traduce the BBC for putting her and her boys on TV, every single year without fail, on Christmas Day. Did you have turkey, those pigs-in-blankets that we weren't supposed to be able to buy, and sing Christmas songs, and criticise Mrs Brown's Boy while poor Tiny Tim Davie sat in the naughty corner sarcastically muttering, 'God bless us, every one!'? If so, God bless you, every one!

Mr Marr's Antepenultimate Sunday Morning Sermon

There aren't many shopping days left till Andrew Marr Day, so I hope you're ready for 19th December, the date of Andrew Marr's final Sunday show on BBC One. 

Order your supply of tissues now! 

And if you just can't bear the thought of no more Andrew Marr on a Sunday morning, here's today's sermon to savour and return to and linger over as the nights draw in and we are all left feeling bereft when we wake up on a Sunday morning only to find that Mr Marr has mounted his reindeers and sleigh and flown off to the Left Pole at the New Statesman - and LBC and Classic FM.

Now I know that some of you on reading the bit in the transcript below about ''to snog, or not to snog'' and talks of ''hugs'' might start thinking of inventive ways to substitute ''snog'' and ''hugs'' with ''grope'', but I couldn't possibly comment.

Anyhow, here's today's scary and opinionated Andrew Marr Sunday Sermon - his intro to today's show:

Hello. More information coming in this morning on the Omicron variant. And it isn't, I'm afraid, hugely cheering. 160 cases officially identified here, maybe many more. Both England and Scotland are affected, we know this spreads very quickly. And, yes, vaccinated people are being infected. So, this leaves all of us with immediate Christmas dilemmas. To party or not to party. To snog, or not to snog. See older relatives for a mince pie and a hug, or pass on that this year. In normal times, we would look to the government for clear direction, but during this week, the messages from those in charge have been so confused, and so contradictory, it's really very hard to know what they think at all. Perhaps, at least for the moment, it's up to us to make up our own minds about how to behave this Christmas.

More from Andrew Marr

More from Andrew Marr on leaving the BBC and joining the left-wing New Statesman as it's chief political commentator:

It’s a huge privilege to be joining one of the great titles of British political journalism, the paper of Orwell, Priestley and Ali Smith — I grew up learning how to think by reading Christopher Hitchens and other NS writers — and I’m thrilled to be there as part of my new life which includes daily political broadcasting for LBC and Global. I have been looking for partners who won’t be leaning on my shoulder as I write — and it seems I have found them.

Guess where Andrew Marr's off to?

 

Silly leftists on Twitter who have stormed at former Independent editor Andrew Marr every week in recent years for being 'a BBC Tory' will probably keep quiet about him now that he's becoming the New Statesman's chief political commentator - a move that may surprise them but surely won't surprise anyone sensible. 

As it's editor Jason Cowley puts it, the NS is 'a publication "of the left, for the left", so Andrew Marr is evidently returning home.

Update: He tweeteth:

I see in reply that someone had the same thought as me:

Samuel Lloyd: The Left, for years: “Marr is a Tory Party stooge!” Marr, upon leaving the BBC: joins the well known Tory publication… ummm… The New Statesman…

Yet more proof that the 'claims from both sides' argument that some at the BBC still use to defend themselves remains a fallacious argument. 

Andrew Marr is leaving the BBC

 

So Andrew Marr wants to get his own voice back:

• Personal announcement. After 21 years, I have decided to move on from the BBC. l leave behind many happy memories and wonderful colleagues. But from the New Year I am moving to Global to write and present political and cultural shows, and to write for newspapers.
• I think British politics and public life are going to go through an even more turbulent decade, and as I’ve said, I am keen to get my own voice back.
• I have been doing the Andrew Marr show every Sunday morning for 16 years now and that is probably more than enough time for anybody!

He's off to LBC and joining John Humphrys on Classic FM, among other things.  

Further to the previous post...

Some thoughtful parts of the left side of politics are calling out the kind of coverage provided by the likes of The Andrew Marr Show today and echoing some of the points I made earlier:

Sam Freedman, New Statesman: Does seem odd that the focus in so much of the papers [Craig - and on the BBC] around David Amess's murder is around political discourse. I'm all in favour of less shouty/angry hyperbole in politics but it wasn't why he was killed. It's almost like everyone's rehearsing the arguments made when Jo Cox was killed (after which discourse did not, of course, improve in any way) even though this murder was for very different reasons (as far as we can tell at the moment). Also - while clearly a lot of aggression aimed at MPs is OTT and unfair - there has to be space in a democracy for very robust, angry, even personal criticism of elected officials. We need to be careful about "solutions" that drift towards censorship while abhorring violence. Clearly a small minority of MPs do sometimes do awful things (one was convinced of threatening an acid attack this week!) and are corrupt or nasty. They still shouldn't face the risk of being physically attacked. Which is why for me the issue is mainly about security. Also just pragmatically earnest newspaper editorials about civility in politics aren't going to stop the Bob19384735s from sending abusive messages to MPs. Whereas improving security is something that can actually happen (and apparently is going to be offered for surgeries now). 

Sunder Katwala, British Future: Agree with the thread. A rising tide of anger could legitimise violence & important to address safety of MPs on all fronts. But political civility & tone vs terror threats from extreme Islamist terrorism (or far right networks, or Republican terrorism) are distinct issues.

Stefan Schubert, LSE: Agree. Maybe some of that focus was from before they knew the motive of the killer? [Craig - No, it's continuing Stefan, as this morning's Andrew Marr shows.] But no doubt many are also just pushing whatever narrative they want heedless of the facts (especially in the context of something emotionally stirring, like an assassination).

And this from writer Ben Sixsmith expresses it well too:

Ben Sixsmith: What is the likelihood that Ali Harbi Ali was radicalised by people arguing about Brexit and COVID on Twitter? Being abusive is bad, of course, but this whole debate seems to be being conducted in a parallel universe.

It certainly felt like glimpsing a parallel universe watching today's Andrew Marr.  

''We need to be clear what happened here''

  

Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard tweeted this a few minutes ago:

Two vital issues are being confused in debate after David Amess killing. Discussion is needed over the tone of politics and social media etc. It is dangerous and toxic. But from what we know, that is a separate issue to what led to the killing of David Amess. Amess was, it seems, killed as a result of Islamist terror. We could have the most civil politics ever and it would not change the motivations behind Islamist terror. We need to be clear what happened here.

Someone replied that the ''confusion'' is being ''deliberately disseminated by some very high-profile 'journalists'''. 

And at the very moment I read that reply Andrew Marr began his programme, saying:

Good morning. For a long time, certainly all my lifetime, we have enjoyed a peaceful and largely consensual system of politics. We may have disagreed vehemently about many big things - peace and war, poverty, leaving the European Union. But in every row we've - mostly - left violence at the door [Craig - except, of course for the four MPs murdered by Irish republicans]. Now, following the death of Jo Cox MP, the hideous killing of another parliamentarian, Sir David Amess, going about his civic and political duty, helping ordinary constituents, not political players, makes us rethink. There are few phrases more often and glibly used than "it's an attack on democracy" but this week, that's exactly what it was. So, how can we balance the conflicting needs for MPs to freely meet their constituents and their physical safety? I'm joined live in the studio by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary - a neighbouring MP to David Amess and a close personal friend. Talking about that and the rising Covid numbers, one of Jo Cox's friends, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Lisa Nandy. 

He continued during the paper review:

And as I said earlier on, we had at that time [of the murder of Jo Cox] lots of talk about how we must have a new attitude in politics, less hate, less abuse online and in-person, and Brendan Cox has devoted his life since then to combating hatred in politics. And yet here we are again. 

Update: The paper review remained firmly focussed on that issue, avoiding discussing Islamist terror - as did the following interviews with the acting US ambassador and Labour's Lisa Nandy. 

[Intriguingly, while focussing on the abuse against politicians and ''the heat and aggression'' within politics with Lisa Nandy, Andrew Marr opted not to raise the Angela Rayner ''Tory scum'' issue.]

And Andrew Marr even avoided discussing Islamist terrorism with Home Secretary Priti Patel - which, if you think about it, is frankly extraordinary. It was very briefly hinted at without being specifically mentioned [except once by Priti Patel in tandem with the far-right] and then skirted around. 

It's as if the programme deliberately chose to focus on the circumstances surrounding the last assassination of an MP, Jo Cox, rather than the circumstances surrounding this assassination. 

Wonder what Stephen Pollard would have made of it?

Further Update: Tied in with that peculiar refusal to focus on the circumstance of Mr Amess's murder but to shift the focus instead back to the circumstances surrounding Jo Cox's murder was the repeated focus throughout the programme on the abuse targeted at female MPs and the safety of women MPs even though the murdered MP in this attack was a man.

Views his own, beyond the BBC door

It's fascinating that Andrew Marr continues to write occasional diary pieces for the Spectator.

Some can be charming, but his latest is too self-justifying. 

And I'm guessing that he either never reads the online comments or doesn't care about that kind of criticism, for - so far - it's 20-0 against him below his latest piece there - The true enemy of political interviews.

Here's what in old school exam papers they'd call a 'precis' of his piece:

My conference interviews with 'Sir Keir' and 'Johnson'/'Mr Johnson' were rightly tough. My team and I worked hard on them. Both leaders' aides felt aggrieved, so - therefore - we got it about right. As as for Nadine Dorries saying she doesn't think I'm impartial, well, we at the BBC 'do our level best' to leave our views at the door, but we've all got opinions and they make us better interviewers. Plus BBC-bashing is 'the safest sport in the country fairground' and the BBC is too timid in responding to it. Meanwhile I've been watching Jeremy Clarkson and, by being a 'big, pink, fallible wazzock' and not minding been seen as such, he's 'a lesson in self-importance to the rest of us'.

Some comments even outdid the 'big, pink' bit there in describing Andrew's own appearance [without bringing in the 'skin colour' question], but this selection sums up the main response so far:

• Evidence if it was needed that BBC people are simply not like us normal people. The breathtaking lack of self awareness is extraordinary.
• "Jeremy Clarkson is....a lesson against self-importance for the rest of us." A lesson you have no intention of learning.
• "Cognitive dissonance: inconsistency between what people believe and how they behave motivates people to engage in actions that help minimize feelings of discomfort", which explains why this article is so dishonest.
• The true enemy of any interview is Andrew Marr, the Joe Biden of the prepared script and the search for the "Gotcha" moment.

Long may social media, whatever its faults, continue to allow people to share their dissenting views about the mainstream media - and everything else besides!

Nick v Boris

Please check out the discussion on the Open Thread about the BBC's recent interviewing of Boris Johnson.

I've posted already about the hostile Andrew Marr interview on Sunday. 

One bit I missed was taken up by others, including some newspapers - namely the bit where 'Andrew Marr called Boris Johnson a liar' over the question of rising wages.

"You’ve said something that isn’t true, you’ve said something that isn’t true about wages," said Mr Marr.

But I see that Full Fact - a 'fact-checking' organisation many of the Right are sceptical of - found Andrew Marr rather than Boris Johnson to have been wrong.

Ouch! Wonder if the next edition of The Andrew Marr Show will address that?

---------------

As for Nick Robinson's famous Today interview yesterday where he told the PM to 'Stop talking!', well, statistics can perhaps add a little extra to the story. 

I've been applying the old stopwatch and counting.

From the moment Nick Robinson began speaking at the very start of the interview to the moment when he told Boris Johnson to 'stop talking', 6m31s had passed and Nick Robinson had been talking for 2m37s of it - introducing, repeatedly interrupting, asking several long questions, heckling.

So, if you crunch the maths, the BBC interviewer had talked for slightly over 40% of the time and his guest - the UK Prime Minister - just under 60% of the time. 

If a BBC interviewer talks for over 40% of the first six-and-a-half minutes of an interview then I don't think that BBC interviewer has been particularly hard done by. 

In fact, that sort of balance makes me think that the interviewer was trying to dominate the interview, because interviewees are usually allowed to speak a lot more than interviewers during interviews.

Indeed, Nick had already tried interrupting twice in the first minute of Boris's opening answer. His first attempt came just 33 seconds in, and - after a further go at interrupting soon after - he'd 'fully' interrupted barely a minute after Boris began.  

Thereafter, the pace of Nick's incessant talking quickened, and eight more significant interruptions followed before the 'Stop talking!' moment.

Now Boris can certainly waffle and bluster, and he can dodge questions for England, but he wasn't dodging the questions here.

I'm guessing that Nick went in tooled up for a fight with a ready response, especially following [a] the Andrew Marr interview and [b] it having been two years since Boris Johnson agreed to be interviewed by Today. 

Part of the evidence is that he introduced the PM [very 'unhelpfully' for Boris] by framing it as 'Crisis? Which crisis?' and that, even before letting him speak, Nick said it was 'the first time he's agreed to talk to us...[dramatic pause]...in two years'. 

And, after his first two attempts to stop the PM, his third [successful] attempt - 1m 6s into Boris's first reply - was prefaced with the words, 'Just have to pause for a second, then I can put a question to you'.

Yet Boris repeatedly gave in when when Nick made attempts to intervene, giving way a second time shortly after. Another Nick interruption soon followed as Boris began his third answer and Boris tried to counter this next, very swift interruption [Nick pushing a pro-business, pro-immigration line] and the following exchange ensued:

Nick Robinson: No, no, no, Prime Minister. You've made that point. You've made it at length in a series of interviews in the run-up to this conference. 

Boris Johnson: [jovially] Hang on, I haven't had the chance to make this point on your show for two years, by your own account. 

Nick Robinson: [sourly] That was your choice not ours.

Nick and Boris then squabbled for a while, interruptions flying, before Boris got a while to speak for about half a minute before Nick made his famous intervention:

Nick Robinson: You have made that point very clearly and I'm going to make...Prime Minister, you are going to pause. Prime Minister...Stop talking! We are going to have questions and answers, not where you merely talk if you wouldn't mind.

Remember that Nick Robinson had been talking for getting on for half of the interview by that stage. 

And that shows [I think] what I strongly suspect, that Nick Robinson had his 'Stop talking!' interruption prepared in advance. My suspicion is that BBC editors encouraged him to deploy it.

After two years of avoiding the programme, Boris might now remember why he avoided appearing on the programme and might well begin avoiding it again.

'Our local hero'

 

Harry Cole, political editor of The Sun, tweeted this while watching Andrew Marr and Boris Johnson slugging it out earlier: 

Getting spicy now on Marr. Not much love lost here.

They certainly don't seem to like each other. It always seems to get frosty. 

Here's a flavour of it. if you missed it: 

Andrew Marr: The logic of what you are saying is that the shortages and the short-term problems are an inevitable result of the policy, that to get higher productivity and higher wages, we as a country have to go through some bumps, some shortages, some queues, on the way. And that, folks, is what you voted for. When you voted for Boris's Brexit, that is what it meant. 

Boris Johnson: When people voted for change in 2016, when people voted for change again in 2019, as they did, they voted for the end of a broken model of the UK economy that relied on low wages and low skills and chronic low productivity. And we are moving away from that and investing massively in skills...

Andrew Marr: [interrupting] When will you...

Boris Johnson: We're investing massively in infrastructure...

Andrew Marr: [interrupting] I'm sorry, you're starting...

Boris Johnson: We are going to be talking... 

Andrew Marr: [interrupting, talking over] This is...

Boris Johnson: We are going to be talking...

Andrew Marr: ...heading towards bluster. 

Boris Johnson: No, it's not.

Andrew Marr: Let me ask a direct question. 

In contrast, the two Andys - Andy Marr and Andy Burnham, got all well. Here's a flavour of Mr Marr's comments about / interactions with Mayor Burnham:

6.40am King of the North Andy Burnham is on as well.

9.01am And because we're in his backyard, by the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, aka the King of the North, Andy Burnham. 

9.11am And another fascinating story here about our local hero. Tell us about that.

9.12am Katy, it's very interesting that local mayors are actually an area where politics is rising in public esteem. People in Westminster struggling sometimes to be noticed, certainly to be admired, but when it comes to local mayors' votes, Andy Burnham, whether it's London, whether it's Sheffield, all over the place, they are finding new ways to do politics in this country. Localism is finally arriving. 

9.15am You were hearing just a moment ago about the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham. I'm delighted to say he joins me now. 

9.30am So people jokingly call you the King of the North. So, Your Majesty, for now, thank you very much indeed for joining us. 

And this - for further comparison - is how Andrew Marr commented about / interacted with PM Johnson today:

9.00am Boris Johnson has made a career as the great showman selling good cheer. But will this be his autumn of discontent when he starts to lose the audience? 

9.01am Speaking of showmen, I've also been talking to one of rock's greatest frontmen - Roger Daltrey of The Who.

9.30am The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is with me now in Salford. Prime Minister, let's start by talking about...

9.44am I'm sorry, you're...this is heading towards bluster.

9.57am Alright, Boris Johnson, for free, thank you very much for joining us.

St Andrew and the Dragon

It was fascinating watching Andrew Marr don shining armour and go into battle, lance raised, on behalf of damsel-in-distress Labour MP Rosie Duffield this morning. 

It was even more fascinating watching Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC looking distinctly uncomfortable throughout his interview today, like a boring, pratfall-prone, flaccid dragon.

Given that he's a barrister and former DPP, it's quite odd just how poor he is at defending himself.

I'd even call it a 'car crash interview'. 

It got so bad that I even wondered if Sir Keir must had had coaching lesson on interviewing techniques by Diane Abbott, the queen of car-crash interviews - though that's pretty unlikely, given that's she's betrothed to another. 

The analogy was made even stronger by Sir Keir's Massive overuse of 'Well, Andrew'. 

It was pure Jan Ravens on Radio 4's Dead Ringers impersonating Diane Abbott being interviewed by the late Andrew Neil. 

Well, Andrew...

Even Andrew Marr managed to pull Sir Keir apart on his contradiction of prior pledges over nationalisation and the contradiction between what he was saying on tax and what Rachel Reeves [his new, as-'boring, snoring'-as-he-is shadow chancellor] has said on tax, and even made him squirm a little over 'Scum'gate. 

The bit about Rosie, damsel of Duffield Towers, besieged in her Canterbury constituency by angry knights who believe they are maidens, was genuinely important - despite my flippancy - because it shows where we are now.

The Leader of the Opposition is a cowardly, self-censoring advocate for the Emperor's new clothes being real.  

--------------

As The Andrew Marr Show recently gave up posting transcripts of all their major interviews, so here's mine. 

Look out for Sir Keir KCB claiming that trans people are ''the most marginalised and abused communities''. 

Are they? Will the BBC fact-check that?

And look out for him calling for a ''tolerant'' debate but then uttering the most extraordinary words, that what Rosie Duffield say - a pure fact about biology - is ''not right'' and ''shouldn't be said''.

Well, what she said is right and should be said. 

Does Sir Keir really believe what he's saying, or is he just scared of saying the unsayable truth for fear of offending trans extremists and their aggressive supporters and the weirdest and least tolerant parts of the present Labour Party?

For the leader of one of the two main UK parties to say that views like those of Rosie Duffield - the factual truth - ''shouldn't be said'' and that only ''proper views'' expressed ''in a proper way'' ought to be allowed in the national debate shows that we aren't in a good place as a country, politically-speaking. 

To put it mildly.

That said, he has form, He largely bit his tongue and shifted and slid about and manoeuvred to keep himself onside with the Corbynistas over antisemitism when serving Jeremy Corbyn. 

He should have resigned. 

And I don't agree with how Andrew Marr far too generously characterised Sir Keir today. 

If you talk to...if one talks to a wide range of your colleagues, a similar picture seems to come through. They almost all say, Sir Keir Starmer, honest as the day is long, punctilious, hard-working, thoroughly decent, but in the end he's not really a politician, he doesn't have the oomph and the edge to cut through in those big seats - but in the end he is not really a politician, and these are the days when you need someone who's a bit of a showman, who can really let rip and show who they are emotionally, and you're not that man.

Is he ''thoroughly decent'' and ''honest as the day is long''. Well, Andrew, there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. 

Anyhow, here's the transcript.

 

Andrew Marr: Does someone who thinks only women have a cervix is [sic] welcome in the Labour Party?

Sir Keir Starmer: Now, look, Andrew. we need to have a mature, respectful debate about trans rights...

Andrew Marr: Yeah.

Sir Keir Starmer: ...and we need to, I think, bear in mind that the trans community are amongst, you know, the most marginalised and abused communities, and wherever we've gone to with the law, we need to go further - and we want to go further on that - but whatever the debate is it needs to be a tolerant debate, and I am absolutely sure that our conference will be a place which is safe for that debate to take place, and it is.

Andrew Marr: Is it transphobic to say that only women have a cervix?

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, it is something that shouldn't be said. It is not right. But, Andrew, I don't think that...

Andrew Marr: So Rosie Duffield should not have said that? Can you explain to people watching why she should not have said that?

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, Andrew, I don't think that we can just go through various things that people had said. Rosie Duffield...I spoke to Rosie earlier this week and told her that Conference was a safe place for her to come, and it is a safe place for her to come. And I spoke to others to make exactly the same principle. We do everybody a disservice when we reduce what is a really important issue to these exchanges on particular things that are said. But the trans community are, as I say, the most marginalised and abused of many, many communities and we need to make progress on the Gender Recognition Act.

Andrew Marr: You could say that 'exchanges' is how people communicate and resolve these things.

Sir Keir Starmer: Yeah but, Andrew, this debate...I am concerned that this debate needs to be conducted in a proper way in which proper views are expressed in a way that is respectful.

Andrew Marr: Sure. You've spoken to Rosie Duffield. We've spoken to Rosie Duffield. After your conversation, she still doesn't feel comfortable about coming to this Labour Party conference. What does that say about the Labour Party?

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, Andrew, I spoke to Rosie just earlier this week and made it absolutely clear to her that this is a safe Conference for her to come to.

Andrew Marr: She doesn't agree with that.

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, Andrew, I spoke to her, and what she said...

Andrew Marr: As did we.

Sir Keir Starmer: What she said to me was that she didn't want to come because it would cause a distraction from the ideas that we are putting forward at this Conference, and i asked her when I spoke to her whether that was something I could say on her behalf and she said yes. So that's what Rosie says about this, and I'll take that from Rosie.

Andrew Marr: OK. She said to us that she didn't feel comfortable.

Wonder what that Rosie/Sir Keir phone call actually said? I'm not sure I quite believe Sir Keir's gloss on it.

A helpful suggestion?

It happens every year. It's as traditional as cheese-rolling in Gloucestershire. Andrew Marr invites on the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury BEFORE the Budget, asks him lots of specific questions about things that might be in the Budget and receives response after response along the lines of 'Sorry, I can't answer that. You'll have to wait for the Budget on Wednesday', leading to Andrew getting frustrated. Crazy thought: Why not interview the Chancellor of the Exchequer AFTER the Budget?

Redoubtable

I wasn't looking at the TV during Andrew Marr's introduction this morning, just listening, but when he described one of his guests as "redoubtable" - "Georgia's redoubtable Stacey Abrams" - I guessed she'd be a female politician of color.

Someone else tweeted, "We’re in the middle of a pandemic. The economy is trashed. But here’s a black female senator from Georgia to polish our virtue signalling. Aren’t we great?"

Andrew asked Ms Abrams such tough questions as this:

• You've been called the woman who brought down Donald Trump, and because of what happened in Georgia, you have been a hero to many Democrats ever since. Let me ask you, has Joe Biden actually spoken to you since then?
• So, how did it feel for you personally when you saw Kamala Harris take the oath of office as vice-president?
• Finally, how long before we see a female American president, and do you see yourself in the White House one day? 

"It's a simple law of nature"

 

Andrew Marr's public sector instincts leaked out this morning during the paper review. BBC reporter Nick Eardley was reading from a Sir John Redwood piece in the Mail on Sunday that argues that low taxes stimulate growth and Andrew read out the headline - It's a simple law of nature - and laughed derisively. 

Jeremy Vine and Andrew Marr's discussion "misled listeners and did not meet the BBC’s standards of due accuracy"

Those who enjoy reading BBC Executive Complaints Unit findings that go against the BBC are in for a treat here. 

This one concerns an edition of BBC Radio 2's The Jeremy Vine Show on 6 October 2020 and an interview between the host and Andrew Marr.

Here's how the BBC summarises the complaint: 

The programme included an interview with Andrew Marr about his book “Elizabethans: How Modern Britain Was Forged” in which he referred to one of its subjects, Jayaben Desai, who was involved in the prolonged strike at Grunwick in 1976. The son of the late George Ward, the owner of Grunwick, complained that the discussion repeated statement about Mr Ward’s treatment of his workforce which were in conflict with the findings of the inquiry conducted by Lord Scarman, and for which the BBC had apologised when they were broadcast on previous occasions. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of due accuracy.

What's so striking there is that the BBC "had apologised" before "on previous occasions" for making such statements, and now thanks to Mr Vine and Mr Marr they've had to do it again! 

So what happened? Well, the BBC ruled against Jeremy Vine and Andrew Marr:

Outcome

As the ECU was presented with no evidence which would have allowed it to discount Lord Scarman’s conclusions, it accepted that the statements in question would have misled listeners and did not meet the BBC’s standards of due accuracy.

Upheld

And what happened as a result? Well, pretty much the usual:

Further action

The finding was reported to the board of BBC Radio and discussed with the programme-makers concerned. The inaccurate material will not be re-broadcast.

It doesn't sound as if the verdict had to be read out on The Jeremy Vine Show or a public apology given.

"Baltic. Balls and brass monkeys"

 

Minor Post Warning!

Andrew Marr had quite a turn of phrase on his eponymous show this morning:

And so to the weather. It has been brutally cold - Baltic. Balls and brass monkeys. Nice weather for wolves. Sarah Keith-Lucas is in the weather studio. For pity's sake, please tell us that it's going to get warmer.

I've been reading up on the origin of the phrase 'cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey' as a result. Apparently, it originated in the US and has nothing to do with cannonballs. 

The 'balls', in fact, were a late addition, with the full phrase first appearing in print as late as 1978 in the autobiography of leftist activist Mary Oppen:

The first taxi man George encountered in Brooklyn said, "It is cold fit to freeze the balls off a brass monkey."

They may have had a much longer life in street slang though. Here's F. Scott Fitzgerald's wife Zelda in 1928: 

This damned place is 18 below zero and I go around thanking God that, anatomically and proverbially speaking, I am safe from the awful fate of the monkey.

It seems clear which parts of the anatomy she was alluding to.

Much more here.

Let me just jump in...

    

Talking of David Buik, his reaction to today's The Andrew Marr Show was this:

David Buik: Well done Liz Truss for standing her ground in good humour against a cantankerous Andrew Marr! My word this seasoned inquisitor wears his heart on his sleeve!

And the leader of the Conservative group in the London Assembly wasn't too impressed with Mr Marr either:

Susan Hall AM: Andrew Marr, you are a disgrace. You apologise gently when interrupting your other guests but barge in all through your interview with Liz Truss. Bring on GB News - Andrew Neil treats all his guests the same regardless, as I am sure the station will. 

One of the problems was that Andrew Marr had a lot of questions to get through and Liz Truss was his final interviewee, with time running out. She - unusually for politicians on TV - was actually answering his questions, but whenever she continued saying something interesting Andrew Marr interrupted her to tick off yet another 'gotcha' question off his list. He seems to be forever chomping at the bit to get in, even when she'd barely begun answering. It made for frustrating viewing. 

Also very noticeable was the remarkably negative take Andrew Marr was pushing throughout the bit on the UK's plan to join the CPTPP, and his heavily pro-EU angle too. Despite the need for political interviewers to ask 'devil's advocate' questions, wasn't this OTT?

Here's a transcript of that section of the interview:

Andrew Marr: Right, let’s turn to trade. You’re announcing today this Trans-Pacific partnership you want to join. Of the eleven countries who are members of it, we have already got trade agreements with most of them. So far as I can tell, you haven’t got the faintest idea what this would do to our GDP if we manage to get into it, which is still some way away. 

Liz Truss: This is a group of countries which represents nine trillion pounds of GDP, and the point is they’re fast-growing countries....

Andrew Marr: Sure...

Liz Truss: So, countries like Mexico and Malaysia are shooting up the global league tables. There is more demand for fantastic British goods like Scotch whisky or cars...

Andrew Marr: So...

Liz Truss: What this deal will do is it will reduce tariffs on those key industries, it’ll mean that they are able to sell more goods into those countries and ultimately deliver jobs and growth here in the UK. But the key....

Andrew Marr: (interrupting) And what the exports to those countries total for the British economy, in total, is about 8.4 per cent, which is the same as Germany by itself. In other words, this is very, very small beer compared to leaving the EU. 

Liz Truss: That’s what it is at the moment, before we’ve got those tariffs reduced, And it’s 110 billion pounds of exports, Andrew. And the point is it’s growing. What we need to do is be putting in place the policies that are going to deliver for Britain in 2030-2040...

Andrew Marr: OK, so...

Liz Truss: ...when the global economy will look very, very different. And you talk about the existing deals we have already...

Andrew Marr: (interrupting) So leaving the...Let me just jump in...

Liz Truss: I wanted to answer the question.

Andrew Marr: Leaving the EU takes about four per cent off our GDP, according to your own figures, your government’s own figures. Four per cent. What is the figure for what this would give us back? 

Liz Truss: Well, I wanted to answer the question you asked me last, which is we’ve already got deals with a lot of these countries. That is true, but we don’t have some of the advanced data and digital chapters, we don’t have the advanced services chapters. We’re the second biggest services exporter in the world, so this deal will go further and faster...

Andrew Marr: OK...

Liz Truss: ...in areas where the UK has huge strengths, whether it’s robotics,...

Andrew Marr: (interrupting) So we don't know what...

Liz Truss: ...whether it’s computer games...

Andrew Marr: ...this would do on GDP? The reason I might be a little suspicious is that you’ve done trade deals with New Zealand and Australia, or you’re about to do so, and if you look at the government’s own figures the effect on GDP is really, really small. Indeed, on New Zealand your own figure says that we might actually be poorer as a result of doing this free trade deal. Why would we do a free trade deal that would make us poorer? 

Liz Truss: Well, that isn’t true...

Andrew Marr: But...

Liz Truss: What all of these deals do is they give new opportunities to British business that they don’t have before, by lowering barriers, by making it easier to export their goods. And you can make...

Andrew Marr: (interrupting) Liz Truss, I’m sorry, you say it isn’t true, but your own government says, and I quote, ‘the impact of a UK-New Zealand trade agreement would be limited, with a central estimate of minus nought point one per cent in scenario two, equivalent to a decrease of 200 million pounds.' I ask you again, why would you do a free trade agreement that actually made us poorer? 

Liz Truss: Andrew, that is a – one of many different scenarios [Andrew Marr sniggers loudly] that analyses the geographical impact. What it doesn’t look at is the future growth of these economies. And New Zealand is a relatively small country, but it’s a very influential country. And the important point is here we’re working with those leading democratic nations to help set global standards in areas like digital and data, challenge unfair trade practices from the likes of China, and build a better world trading system. And what we know is trade leads to growth...

Andrew Marr: Yes, absolutely...

Liz Truss: We know that the more open our economy is...

Andrew Marr: So...

Liz Truss: ...the faster it grows. And we know in the future it’s going to be the Asia-Pacific counties in particular...

Andrew Marr: So, OK...

Liz Truss: ...where the big markets, the growing middle class markets are for British products. So no one’s got a crystal ball. Of course British businesses will need to reach out and take these opportunities. But what I am doing is I am creating the opportunity for low tariffs,...

Andrew Marr: So...

Liz Truss:... removing those barriers so they can go out and do that. 

After all those questions from the 'EU membership is better than CPTPP membership' angle, Andrew then moved straight on...to a bit more Brexit negativity, and more 'gotcha' attempts:

Andrew Marr: So what about all those small businesses that are reaching out and trying to trade with the EU at the moment and are finding they are being throttled day by day by new red tape? Whether it’s musicians, cheese makers – you’re a cheese queen yourself – cheese makers are very, very upset. The Cheshire Cheese Company, for instance, says that they are going to be destroyed by non-tariff barriers. We’re talking about fishermen, we’re talking about farmers, right across the British economy we’re seeing lots and lots of small businesses dealing with the reality of Brexit trade regulations and finding themselves on the edge of going under. What do you say to those people? 

It would probably have served the viewing public better if - especially given the time constraints - the bulk of the interview had been devoted to the CPTPP question instead of cramming it in, and spending most of that going for (would-be) headline-grabbing 'gotcha' attempts. 

It's one muddy marathon after another

For those who missed it, here was Andy Marr's intro this morning: 

Good morning. Everyone seems to agree - this is a race. We vaccinate as fast as possible, it mutates as fast as possible. If we win, Covid-19 withers, falls back and lurks on the sidelines of human society. If it wins, then all of our futures are narrower, poorer, bleaker, and, in some cases, shorter. The vaccine roll-out is going well, but even the Prime Minister, a natural optimist, is talking about the new variant being more deadly and refusing to confirm we will be back to normal life by the summer. What we're learning right now - sorry, folks - is this race is not a sprint, it's one muddy marathon after another.

Not quite tough enough early enough

  

A familiar point from Andrew Marr this morning:

Lucy Fisher, Daily Telegraph: We heard from the Prime Minister on Friday that there will be major changes to the border as of 4am tomorrow. From that point onwards all travel corridors will be scrapped and all inbound passengers forced to produce a negative Covid test and to quarantine for ten days once arriving. This new batch of proposals that the Sunday Times reports on today represents a much stricter series of measures. This would involve the creation of quarantine hotels which would force inbound passengers to stay there and to pay for them. And they are not cheap. We have seen that in Australia, which already has a similar system, that passengers are forced to pay between £1,500 and £2,500 to stay in these hotels. 

Andrew Marr: So this is something that has worked abroad but it hasn't been done here, and it has been effective in the past. I think Number 10 are apparently saying that they haven't taken this decision yet. We'll talk to the Foreign Secretary later on about whether it's going to happen or not. But the accusation has been made again and again and again that this government is not quite tough enough early enough to have the effect that other countries have had. 

Lucy Fisher: Yes, there have been plenty of questions in the past days about why the government didn't rush to act sooner when we saw the likes of New Zealand take these measures and what they called 'directed isolation' did seem to have a large part of the success early in the pandemic in stopping the spread. But I think the reason that these measures have been considered now really reflects ministers concerns about some of the new variants we are seeing around the world of coronavirus, particularly some of the variants coming out of Brazil, amid the concerns that they could be vaccine-busting. 

And again later in the programme:

Andrew Marr: And to do that, are you going to require people coming into this country to self-isolate in hotels before they join the rest of the population?  

Dominic Raab: We've said we will keep all the potential measures under review... 

Andrew Marr: (interrupting) I'm sorry to jump in, but...why keep this under review? You know this works in other countries. You know it's been highly effective in other countries. And there is a perpetual suspicion that you are acting slightly too late again and again. Shouldn't you be ahead of the curve and announcing this now?