Showing posts with label Christopher Booker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christopher Booker. Show all posts

Sunday, 24 April 2016

"None other than Margaret Thatcher"



To quote David P. from an earlier comments section about Nick Robinson's Europe: Them or Us, Part Two:
I'm finally watching this now, and I see that this episode's theme is "It's Thatcher's Fault!" A whole lot of energy placing blame squarely on her shoulders, and painting her in a rather bad light. Nobody said it outright, but the subtext was that Thatcher handled it all badly and was a bit of a hypocrite. Nice touch showing Nigel Lawson describing one speech as xenophobic. It possibly even caused her downfall. 
I find it curious that Robinson's approach is to convince Right-wingers that the EU is not only something conservatives can support (Churchill introduced the vision, what's your problem?), but the two main reasons it might not be as beneficial as possible for Britain are: It's the fault of Little Englanders that Britain wasn't in from the beginning, and Thatcher is to blame for eroding national sovereignty, so conservatives can't really complain about Socialist Europe. Never mind that Eurocrat after Eurocrat featured kept saying that the money paid into the EU isn't really Britain's money, it's theirs.
That was very much my impression too. And to show why, here's Nick Robinson's commentary in full - from Mrs. Thatcher's arrival in power to the signing of the Single European Act, with all the "It's Thatcher's Fault!" bits highlighted:
So, who was it who would sign up to the changes which transform the Common Market? None other than Margaret Thatcher. Now seen as the Euro-sceptic's pin-up, she was staunchly pro-European when she first came to power.  
Dublin was Mrs Thatcher's first big summit. She arrived with a demand for what became known as Mrs Thatcher's Billion, the gap between what Britain paid in and what we got out. Broadly speaking, for every £2 we contribute, we get £1 back. That leaves us with a net contribution of £1,000 million next year to the community, and rising in the future. Some saw this as a sort of late entry fee for joining the European club after its rules had been drawn up. Mrs Thatcher complained that Britain, along with Germany, was footing the bill for everyone else. Her fellow leaders didn't much like being lectured by the new girl.  
The response of the European smoothies was far from diplomatic. The summit went from bad to worse. 
The leaders gathered for a glum photo call. Dublin had set the tone. From then on, year after year, summit after summit, the budget row rumbled on. Again and again, Mrs Thatcher would insist that Britain should get our money back. Eventually, five years later, in Fontainebleau, she swung that famous handbag and did get a rebate of some of her billion, but at what cost? 
It was not, though, an idea from the French or the Germans that would turn Margaret Thatcher against Europe. It was, ironically, an idea that emerged from her very own handbag. She wanted to make it easier for companies to do business across Europe, to turn the Common Market into a single market. The problem was, that would involve watering down the power of governments to block, or veto, proposals they didn't like. The grand ambition of a Europe without frontiers had become logjammed. Countries were looking after their own, protecting their industries not respecting the rules. At national borders, cash was king. 
Margaret Thatcher's ambition was not just to do away with coffee money, but to lift all other barriers to free trade.  
The man in charge of securing the powers Brussels needed to enforce and police the single market was the European Commission's new president, Jacques Delors, a French socialist. For Delors, a single market was just as much about the rights of workers as business - the message he would take to Thatcher's enemies in the trade unions.  
But it was another Delors plan that would outrage Mrs Thatcher's supporters. He wanted to revive the idea of a single European currency. (Sun headline: Up Yours Delors) Ironically, he'd been backed by her to be the top man in Brussels, but theirs was a relationship which quickly soured. After one summit in London, she wouldn't let him get a word in edgeways.  
To keep Delors and his grand schemes under control, Thatcher sent one of her own Cabinet to Brussels. Arthur Cockfield was a former taxman. Thatcher thought he was a pen pusher, who would be prepared to do her bidding, but Cockfield went native, backing his new boss, Jacques Delors, instead. He explained to Thatcher that the single market meant harmonising VAT. 
Delors's plans where the most significant changes to the European Community ever made. Back then, there were only ten members at the table. Now, there are almost three times that number. But what they, what she, agreed in Luxembourg, didn't just expand what Europe did, it limited any country's veto power to block it by expanding so-called majority voting.  
She swallowed hard and signed up, but how would she persuade her MPs to do the same? Simple - brief reporters that nothing much had changed at all.  
The law enacting the transfer of so many powers from Westminster to Brussels, the Single European Act, was rushed through the Commons at top speed. The debates lasted just a few days, many MPs scarcely knew what they were voting on.  
For decades, opponents of Britain's membership of the European club have claimed that it involves sacrificing our sovereignty, giving away the power of Parliament to decide what's right for us. Over just six nights, it was the House of Commons itself which voted to surrender the British veto on proposals coming from Brussels on a wide swathe of policy. And whose lead were they following? Margaret Thatcher's.

******

Christopher Booker, at the Sunday Telegraph, argues that Mrs. Thatcher was deceived and that the evidence for this has emerged since the series this series was so closely based on: 1996's The Poisoned Chalice. He contends that Nick Robinson & Co. ignored that here.

And he also argues that Nick Robinson & Co. also misused The Poisoned Chalice by omitting a vital interview (and watching it for myself, yes, that bit did get dropped).

Here's Mr. Booker:
The second treaty, already planned in the mid-Eighties, was that signed six years later at Maastricht, transforming the European Community into the “European Union”, with its own currency, foreign and defence policies and, again, much more. Not only did Robinson say nothing of all this, but he tellingly omitted a remarkable interview in The Poisoned Chalice with Jacques Delors, who recalled how, on becoming president of the European Commission in 1985, he proposed “three themes: a common defence policy, a single currency, a change to the institutions which would lead to political integration”
******

As with the first episode of this much-admired series, where the much-liked Nick Robinson & Co. presented Churchill as 'the Father of a United Europe, history does seem to have been re-written somewhat here to make Mrs. Thatcher 'the Mother of the European Union'.

Quite why this has been done I'm not sure, unless it really is to try and convince Conservative-voting types to get behind the EU because the EU is a fundamentally Churchillian/Thatcherite invention.

Is that what's going on here?

Sunday, 11 October 2015

Christopher Booker cheerfully drives his tractor into a ditch



I think Christopher Booker may have published his least popular article at the Sunday Telegraph today

I suspected as much when I saw the surprisingly small number of comments below his article. 

And then when I saw the top-rated  comment, beginning "Sorry Christopher...", I knew something was seriously amiss.

What had he got so 'wrong'? What had so put off his faithful readership?

Well, here's a clue - his article's headline:

BBC is not always as bad as I often say

Not even we've ever dared post a blog title like that!

And it gets 'worse'...

Here's the whole of this part of Mr Booker's Sunday Telegraph column:
Farming Today's Charlotte Smith is entirely at home with both countryside and farming. 
Despite the constant examples I report of the relentless bias and professional shortcomings of the BBC, I am first to admit that here and there in that horribly flawed and absurdly self-satisfied organisation there are still admirable people, whose good work is much appreciated. 
Years ago, when I often wrote here about the mess being made of British agriculture, I several times had a go at how Farming Today had ceased to be a serious programme, featuring certain female reporters who seemed to know nothing about farming or the countryside. 
A shining exception to this recently has been one of its current presenters, Charlotte Smith, who seems entirely at home with both and (like her counterpart Helen Mark on Open Country) can talk expertly, pleasantly and with common sense to everyone she interviews. 
A fine example was last weekend’s item about the man who, amazingly, still happily runs his family’s 200-acre farm, split up into little parcels all around and even inside Heathrow Airport. 
Like all Smith’s reports, it was superbly professional and a fascinating little gem. 
However loud the clamour may grow for the BBC to be abolished – and its failings are so culturally ingrained that it is hard to see how they could ever otherwise be remedied – we would miss the rare contributors like her who alone make one quite happy to pay the licence fee.
Having a bit of a soft spot for Charlotte Smith too, I was happy to read his lovely tribute to her.

And that last, most 'disappointing' paragraph of all, where Christopher Booker grows wistful about some of the collateral damage that might occur if the licence fee were to be abolished, strikes a strong chord with me too...

...if not, it seems, with that many of his other readers!

Sunday, 13 September 2015

Impatient little noises


There's a good piece by Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph today about that James Naughtie interview with Bernard Jenkin MP. I particularly liked his concise way of describing JN's 'ways':
As Jenkin calmly proceeded, Naughtie began making those familiar impatient little noises, with interjections of “oh” and “look”, which show that an interview is not going the way he wants. 
His conclusions from the affair are:
The real point, as I have observed here before, is that, on a whole range of issues, from the EU to climate change, the BBC is so lost in its own groupthink that it simply does not recognise just how biased it is. And the point about people who have become caught up in groupthink is that, whenever anyone dares question it, they can only respond with a flood of angry intolerance – as Mr Naughtie again so neatly demonstrated last week. 
However, the paragraph that especially struck me was the following one:
I recalled the time back in 2000 when I presented the BBC with five fully-documented examples of how it had led the news with claims that some major international company, such as Nissan or Toyota, had threatened that, unless we joined the euro, they would pull out of Britain. In each case, the company trenchantly denied that it had said anything of the kind. But when I asked the BBC why it had not reported any of these denials, it merely replied that “BBC News is not biased. Our coverage of the euro-debate is balanced, fair and accurate”, while ignoring my question.
 That certainly sounds like the BBC we all know and love!

Sunday, 5 July 2015

It looks as if John Humphrys will be in trouble with 'Feedback' again



It looks, from another of his articles, as if poor John Humphrys might be on the receiving end of another Feedback slagging-off again soon:
But nothing last week better conveyed the desperation of the warmists to convince us that the world is hotter than ever than a remarkable item on Tuesday’s Today programme, when Lord Deben (aka John Gummer), bursting with self‑righteousness, broke the record for the largest number of absurd claims ever squeezed into a single three-minute interview: such as telling us that Bangladesh will soon be so intolerably hot that we shall see “170 million displaced people wandering the world, looking for somewhere to live”.  
So insistent was the noble lord that everything he was saying was “absolutely true” that John Humphrys eventually suggested that some people might think his wild assertions sounded “more like a religion than a science”. Gumboot hilariously replied that people had better believe him – because “even the Pope” was now agreeing with him.

What Evan Davis said in 2003



There was a sentence in one of Christopher Booker's latest Sunday Telegraph articles which caught my attention:
....we must never forget that equally mad campaign some years back, led by the BBC and politicians such as Michael Heseltine, Chris Patten and Kenneth Clarke, to get Britain into the euro. In 2003 the BBC’s Evan Davis famously made a documentary explaining how happy the Greeks were at last to have a currency that was “stable” and “quite secure”. All these people were carried away by one of the greatest acts of collective make-believe of our time. As the resulting tragi-farce now unfolds daily before us, they also should never be allowed to forget it.
For anyone who wants to re-visit that famous documentary, there's a full transcript of it available online

I have to say, on reading it (having Googled it this morning), that it turns out to be not quite as straightforward a pro-euro piece as Christopher Booker remembers it as being. A number of potential downsides were examined too. 

And the Telegraph columnist doesn't quite do the BBC man justice, given that Evan didn't really explain "how happy the Greeks were" about the change to the euro (that was probably just hyperbole on CB's part) and Evan did interview quite a few Greeks who complained about price rises due to converting to the euro. Plus, Evan also qualified the word "stable" with "relatively". 

That said, the overall impression I got from reading it was the Evan was indeed pushing the pluses more than the minuses when it came to joining the euro.

Please read it for yourselves though.

Looking back, however, the passage CB specifically refers to does make for grimly ironic reading today:


00.07.50
Evan Davis
There's the Olympic Stadium.  You'll be seeing more of that next year.

00.07.57
Evan Davis
Now Barbara has fixed up an appointment for me with the chairman of the company whose site we've just been looking at.  And he's one; he's a household name in Greece, right.  He's a top man.

00.08.10
Evan Davis
The folks in the market had complained [about price rises].  So was he yearning for the days of the Drachma?

00.08.16
Prodromus Emfietzoglou
Welcome.  Welcome.  It's a pleasure to meet you.

00.08.17
Evan Davis
Thank you very much indeed.  Good to see you.  Good to see you.  Thank you for having us.

00.08.22
Evan Davis
So we saw your Olympic site this morning.  Very Impressive.  Is it going to be finished on time?

00.08.27
Aston
PRODROMUS EMFIETZOGLOU
Chairman, Michaniki S.A.
Certainly we will finish early, early September this year, so it'll be on time for the Olympic Games.

00.08.37
Evan Davis
What was wrong with the Drachma?  I mean why didn't the Drachma work quite as well?  Was it the inflation? Because it did have much more inflation.

00.08.44
Prodromus Emfietzoglou
It had inflation.  As a result we had high interest.  As a result we had difficult approach to, to the banks, so we had a disadvantage.  Money was costing to Greek companies too much.  It was a high burden.  

00.09.06
Prodromus Emfietzoglou
From the other side you have high inflation.  So it was always an effort to cope with the inflation, to cope with the interest rates, and that was a problem.  Now things are clear.  We have a stable situation.  Stability is very important for business.

00.09.30
Greek music

00.09.33
Evan Davis
Stability - Gordon Brown's favourite word.  It's not one of his five tests, but if it was, the Euro would pass.

00.09.40
Music

00.09.47
Evan Davis
Before leaving Athens you've got to see the Parthenon, built two and a half thousand years ago when the whole concept of money was in its relative infancy.

00.09.58
Evan Davis
You might ask whether the Euro could last two and a half thousand years, but I think that would be pushing it a bit, wouldn't it?  But at least it does seem to pass the first requirement of a currency.  It's relatively stable, it's quite secure and it's broadly accepted.  

00.10.12
Evan Davis
There are teething problems, and the Greeks have been the first to notice those, but at a kind of everyday level the Euro does work.

00.10.20
Evan Davis
That's a useful message, yet it doesn't tell us why we might actually want to join.  For that we move on.

Sunday, 15 March 2015

Booker on anti-India bias at the BBC


I've been holding off all day about posting about Christopher Booker's hard-hitting Sunday Telegraph piece, Why to blacken India on rape do they have to omit the facts?

It savages the BBC over its controversial documentary about rape in India - a documentary India's courts have banned.

I have to say that, up till reading Mr B's piece, I'd been entirely siding with the BBC against the Indian government over this. The BBC seemed, from all the (extensive) coverage I've been reading (and hearing), to be on the right side of the argument. 

However, as I now know that others are in a similar position, I'll give it a recommendation because it does raise some concerns about the BBC's selective targeting of particular countries and communities (especially in comparison to other countries and communities)...

...and it makes a serious charge (with what looks to me like compelling evidence) that the BBC cut out counterbalancing material from the original version of its film - material which (apparently) pointed out that India is far from being unique or, indeed, anywhere near being the worst case of a country which tolerates rape. 

Saturday, 26 October 2013

Is the BBC our Radio Moscow?


...asks Christopher Booker in the Telegraph:
The problem with the BBC director-general Lord Hall’s admission that the corporation has been slow to recognise how much of its output is “biased” is that those who inhabit the BBC are the last people who could recognise how deeply in its culture that bias has become engrained.
Many of us could instantly jot down a list of issues on which the BBC has a clear “party line”, which distorts its coverage to the point where its audience is consistently manipulated and misinformed. Wind farms, for instance, it is for; Israel against; public spending for; “government cuts” against (and don’t mention the deficit); “brave” social workers and gay marriage it is for; US Republicans against. In its sentimental but hopelessly uninformed view of the EU, it is for; private enterprise — against; Tories (unless, like Lord Patten, the BBC Trust’s chairman, they are rabid Europhiles) it is against. The Guardian – for; the Mail and the Telegraph – against. And so forth.
Thirty years ago, Alasdair Milne, Lord Hall’s predecessor, told me that the one issue on which the BBC was proud to ignore its Charter obligation to be “impartial” was apartheid. But since then, its flouting of this statutory duty has become so routine — both in what it tells us and what it leaves out, in who it has on the air and who it excludes — that its coverage is, in many respects, as predictably one-sided as that of Radio Moscow in the days of the Soviet Union.
Read more here.

***********


Also from the Sunday Telegraph...
Minister's TV licence fee threat
The BBC could lose its exclusive right to the licence fee if it does not tackle a “culture” of secrecy, waste and unbalanced reporting, a senior Cabinet minister warns.
The minister in question in Grant Shapps, the chairman of the Conservative Party. The Telegraph's Tim Ross reports:
In a major intervention understood to have been made with the knowledge of Downing Street, he said that the Government would consider whether the BBC can keep receiving all the proceeds of the licence fee – £145.50 each year from every household with a television – after 2016, when its Royal Charter expires.
The issue of BBC bias appears to be on the government's mind:
He also spoke of his concerns about a lack of “fairness” in the BBC’s reporting.
Last week, this newspaper highlighted questions over a bulletin by Mark Easton, the BBC’s home editor, on a European Commission report about benefits for migrants. It appeared to draw inaccurate conclusions and fail to present the Government’s position fairly.
Mr Shapps said the item was “wrong” and added that there had been problems with other items by Mr Easton, including one on the Government’s austerity measures, which Mr Shapps described as prophesying “Armageddon, rubbish on the streets and people unburied”.
Although the minister stopped short of an accusation of “institutional bias” he said: “I do think there is, possibly with the particular journalist, but also there is an editorial question for the BBC about applying fairness in both directions. That also is a question of credibility for the organisation.”
He highlighted an opinion poll two weeks ago that concluded that the public were content with the outcome of the spending cuts so far, which the BBC downplayed.
“When they were proved categorically wrong, and people gave the wrong answer and said their services were improved, their response was to bury the story,” he said.
First the Telegraph, now the government. The pressure continues to build on the BBC.

For the moment though, the BBC is having none of it:
A BBC spokesman said last night: “Mr Shapps is right that transparency is key to the future of the BBC. So is its freedom from political pressure.”
He said its own television and radio programmes held executives to account, that it had dealt with 1,600 freedom of information requests in 2012, and appeared in front of 16 Parliamentary committees this year. It allowed the National Audit Office “full access” to everything except “editorial decisions”.
He said Mr Easton’s report was “fair” and that he had a “long record of reporting without fear or favour”.