Are we all OK with that?

We may not all be 100% comfortable with men talking about their husbands. “Speak for yourself!” do  I hear you say? Well, I am speaking for me. It’s not so much that I care one way or the other about same-sex marriage, it’s a language thing. I wouldn’t mind if they used an expression like ‘my spouse’ instead. 

The word ‘husband’ conjures up more than gender-neutral ‘partner in marriage’. For me, the word emotes masculinity in a nurturing, protective kind of way, and a bloke who mentions his ‘husband’ instantly clothes himself in a frilly pinny. Not that Dave Rubin appears at all emasculated in this video, despite referring to his husband.  (Has anyone ever heard Peter Whittle doing that?)

************

I know I keep posting videos that include other people’s negative opinions of the BBC instead of expressing my own. The best excuse I can offer for that is that I can’t bear to watch the BBC at the moment. 

I lie. I do watch the Saturday night double-bill Scandi-Noir offering on BBC Four. Something to look forward to, (although I hated 'Twin', mainly because I found the tale deeply unconvincing and I didn’t warm to the actor.) 

State of Happiness is promising. Full of 60s nostalgia and the usual Scandi-Noir mixture of personal and political intrigue. Like Mad Men but with a parochial flavour and more—-Norweigan.

************

One other topic I wanted to mention - not especially BBC-related - is addressed by my favourite TCW author, Margaret Ashworth. (As well as Karen Harradine, for obvious reasons)

I have a policy of never commenting on other blogs - it’s a kind of self-imposed tradition which I religiously uphold (despite having forgotten the original reason for inventing it) so mentioning this here is my other option. I read Margaret Ashworth’s post about the troupe of Bacup mummers known as ‘Nutters’ (origin of nickname being actual nuts and not a politically incorrect reference to insanity) who perform an annual ritual of parading… wait for it… ‘blacked-up’. Margaret explains,

“The Moorish pirates which originated from North Africa are said to have settled in Cornwall and they became employed in the local mines.” 

but at the time of writing, as far as I can see, neither she or anyone below the line has mentioned Cornwall’s (Padstow’s) controversial “Darkie Day”. In comparison to the smartly-dressed Bacup Nutters, Padstow’s Darkies look a bit of a shambles, and I only mention it because I find that it does have a BBC related aspect after all.  One which I found amusing, so there. 2006: “MP calls for Darkie Day to stop”!  It made me laugh anyway.  Diane Abbott, “Britain’s first black woman MP,” says it’s racist.

As a fan of upholding obscure traditions, I did wonder if Diane Abbott is OK with the nutters or if any sensitive actual  ‘nutters’ have called for the Bacup mummers to change their name to something less offensive and more gender-neutral such as ‘dancing parents with poor mental health’.

Oh dear

Have I Got News For You actually made a joke about Labour last night, and guess what? Yes, the pro-Corbyn crazies on Twitter went mad, accusing the programme of having made a racist attack on Diane Abbott. 

Of course, the programme was actually making a joke about Diane Abbott's famous inability to get numbers right. 

Anyhow, here's a sample of the madness to brighten up your Saturday morning:

• David Mitchell, I was astonished at your not very well disguised racist attack on Diane Abbott on #HIGNFY.
• WTF is the matter with these so called alternative comedians they are as funny as a boil on the arse, to make fun of some ones colour is the lowest, Dianne Abbott is one of the most intelligent people in politics and deserves our respect you irrelevant arseholes. #HIGNFY
• So David Mitchell, I see you're a racist bully now, with that geriatric "joke" wheeled out yet again on #HIGNFY. Where's your pride and decency posh boy?
• I'm so disappointed in DM. I knew his was a wet liberal but the abject, desperate, unfunny, racist state of him on #HIGNFY reveals his true colours. Foul.

#HIGNFY A racist trope why? because black people throughout history have been depicted as lacking in intelligence #BBCRacism pic.twitter.com/flTFlcFZu9

— Leftin #GTTO #JC4PM ❌VOTE LABOUR (@logical4ever) November 22, 2019

Diane Abbott, that Mojito, the Daily Mail and the BBC

Having a cheeky Cuban-cocktail-in-a-can on a London Overground train on a hot afternoon isn't much of crime, even if it actually is a crime and the person committing it is the country's Shadow Home Secretary. 

In my book, it's on a par with doing 72 mph on the motorway (something, of course, I don't actually do). 

Some nice person, however, took a photo of Diane Abbott lost in thought whilst looking at her mobile phone and sipping on an M&S Mojito, and The Sun then splashed with it. 

Some said, she's breaking the law by flouting Transport For London's alcohol ban, and, OMG, she's drinking at 1 pm in the afternoon, and we expect better from our politicians. 

Others said, well, it's no big deal and a perfectly understandable thing to do on a hot afternoon. 

Of course, the usual partisans went up-in-arms, smiting their enemies on Twitter (etc). Ms Abbott's most intense critics are being intense about it and her Corbynista defenders are raging with all the fury of the psalmist in the Old Testament at her critics. 

Tellingly, the media has also divided over its reporting of this.

Compare, say, the Daily Mail with the BBC News website. One inclines against Ms. Abbott, the other inclines in favour of Ms. Abbott. Guess which does which!

That said, the Daily Mail, actually achieves balance in terms of the number of reactions it quotes, with four people criticising her and four people defending her. The BBC, in contrast, quotes just two people - both defending her.

The Daily Mail article goes on to detail her previous 'gaffes', while the BBC article doesn't.

Instead the BBC goes on to not-so-subtly suggest that Boris Johnson's alcohol ban wasn't a great idea:

The alcohol ban was introduced by the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, in an attempt to tackle unruly behaviour on the TfL network. 

It was described by union leaders as "half-baked". 

On 31 May 2008 - a day before the alcohol ban came into place - revellers enjoyed a "cocktail party" on parts of the London Underground, mainly on the Circle Line. 

Within the first five months of the ban being enforced, a BBC investigation found that British Transport Police spoke to 35 people who had been seen drinking alcohol on the Tube. 

However, none of those incidents was recorded as a criminal offence. 

The case for the defence rests, m'lud.  

O Fiona, dinna toss your head

Fiona, mid-'apology'

Well, the Corbynista war against Fiona Bruce over Diane Abbott's Question Time ordeal raged on all week, and the online debate (between two tribes who didn't interact much at all, other than to throw abuse at each other) eventually boiled down to this question: Did the BBC bully Ms. Abbott, or was Ms. Bruce in fact bullied by the Corbynistas? 

Anyhow, this week's Newswatch said there have been "thousands of complaints" and that "more are still coming into the BBC" (doubtless most from committed Corbynistas, and some of it coordinated). 

On the lesser question of the opinion polls row, thwarted wannabe Question Time host Samira Ahmed said:

Despite Fiona Bruce's agreement [with Isabel Oakeshott] that Labour is "definitely" behind in the polls, that is not a fully accurate version of events, as the BBC's statement later acknowledged, and as the presenter herself mentioned on this week's programme.

Wow, an on-air BBC apology? You don't get many of those! So what did Fiona Bruce say on Question Time this week, just over half way through:

I'm going to move on in a moment, but before I do I just want to pick up on something from last week's programme. There was some discussion about opinion polls, you may be aware of this. I was talking about a poll that came out on the day of the programme which suggested the Conservatives were ahead, and the Shadow Home Secretary mentioned some other earlier polls, which showed Labour in the lead, and we should have made that context clear, and I'm really happy to do that now. Now, I want to tell you about Question Time next week...

Well, it's not much of an apology, is it? 

Of course, the bigger storm was over the alleged remarks made by Fiona Bruce before the programme before the recording began, and lots of left-wingers are demanding that the BBC release a recording of what went on during that warm-up. Did Fiona Bruce joke about Diane Abbott's sexual relationship with Jeremy Corbyn? Was Diane Abbott singled out for mockery? 

Now, I have to say that I'd love to see such a video (or listen to such a recording) myself, if only to hear what goes on pro-show, but I suspect - like so many Freedom of Information requests to the BBC - that such a recording (if it exists) would never be released "for purposes of journalism, art or literature".

Was 'Question Time' biased against Diane Abbott?

Was this week's edition of Question Time (which, unusually, I watched - and, even more unusually, very much enjoyed), biased against Diane Abbott?

Senior Corbynistas around the Labour leadership are claiming so, and an aide to far-left Labour MP Chris Williamson, Jyoti Wilkinson, wrote the following (which is receiving wide coverage):

New presenter Fiona Bruce came out to address the audience.  Hailed for her performance from the week before by fans, and after happily approving of the sycophantic praise that she was being adorned with from some quarters, Bruce proceeded to warm up the crowd.  I am aware that this was indeed a tradition with former host David Dimbleby, and audience members were encouraged to participate as vocally and enthusiastically as possible.  Nothing wrong with that, an exercise in democracy it would seem. 

However, it was at this moment in time that the real hostility towards Diane Abbott became evident.  Each panelist was given a brief bio; Rory Stewart – a member of the Government, Kirsty Blackman – SNP and a remainer, Isabel Oakershott – ardent brexiteer and Anand Menon – academic expert on the EU.  

When Fiona Bruce introduced Diane Abbott, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, she took it upon herself to instigate a roast. Comments along the lines of ‘let her know what you really think’ and ‘some may think she is in the shadow cabinet because of her very close relationships with Corbyn, nudge nudge, wink wink’ were made.  This indeed had the desired effect, and the carefully selected audience guffawed in delight as they had now been given licence to air their bigoted views in public.  An audience member in a pinstripe suit commented “I’m going to ask her to do a sum, but she will just claim its discrimination I’m sure.” This level of deliberate antagonism from the BBC is a disgrace, and the institution now desperately needs to be held to account. 

Now these terms were set, the now legitimised hostility became all too clear.  A brief practice session took place, where the most reactionary members of the audience were identified so that they could be returned to during the show.  Diane was given the cold shoulder as the other panelists chatted together chummily, and she was spoken over as if she did not exist.  

During the debate, the Shadow Home Secretary was interrupted by Fiona Bruce more times in three minutes that the others were in twenty.  Audience members barracked and abused her, questioned her legitimacy and jeered, empowered by the licence they felt they had been granted by the BBC to do so.  Sympathisers such as myself were simply ignored.  At one-point Fiona Bruce and Isabel Oakeshott ganged up like playground bullies to ridicule Diane Abbott over Labour’s polling, both making statements later proven to be false. 

BBC’s Question time is portrayed as a truly democratic spectacle, where the public can engage members of the Government and Opposition, as well as leaders of their field.  In reality, it is far from it.  It is a farcical stage-managed state propaganda tool in which the BBC use and legitimise institutional racism, misogyny and bigotry to stoke up reactionary sentiment amongst the general population.  At the very least the BBC needs to be reformed and we must build a new media.  This cannot be done soon enough.

So did Fiona Bruce single out Diane Abbott for mockery before the show began? Well, we mightn't be entirely inclined to believe a partisan aide to Chris Williamson, but another member of the audience has supported Jyoti's claim that there "was some humour at Diane's expense from BBC staff before the recording", while yet another said that "Fiona Bruce basically made fun of Dianne (sic) Abott (sic) in the briefing before it aired".

I'm assuming these widely-quoted claims are the ones the BBC is referring to when it talks of "reports circulating on social media" that are "inaccurate and misleading", continuing:

We firmly reject claims that any of the panel was treated unfairly either before or during the recording.

We can't be sure who's got it right here not having been there and not having seen the before-the-recording goings-on, and we can never be sure unless a (covert) recording emerging of it, but we can judge the claims about how Ms Abbott was treated during the programme itself.

Was Jyoti Wilkinson - as well as an oft-quoted Labour spokesperson - correct to say that she was interrupted by Fiona Bruce significantly more than the other panelists? Well, yes. By my reckoning, overall, Diane Abbott was interrupted 17 times, whereas Rory Stewart was interrupted 10 times and the SNP's Kirsty Blackman 6 times (with the two non-politicians being interrupted even fewer times).

As to his specific point that "during the debate, the Shadow Home Secretary was interrupted by Fiona Bruce more times in three minutes that the others were in twenty", clearly alluding to the opening 25 minutes of the programme, well, yes, that's an exaggeration but not too much of an exaggeration. I make it 9 interruptions for Diane Abbott and 15 interruptions in total for the rest of the panel during that time.

As for mockery during the debate, well again, yes, I do think that Diane Abbott got least respect from Fiona Bruce this week. My favourite jibe was this one:

Jeremy Corbyn sometimes says you have to talk to people with whom you profoundly disagree. He was talking about Hizbollah and Hamas. [Audience, panel laughter. Strong applause]. Theresa May?

But when Jyoti says that "at one-point Fiona Bruce and Isabel Oakeshott ganged up like playground bullies to ridicule Diane Abbott over Labour’s polling, both making statements later proven to be false", is he right (about the statements)? Well, yes, he is correct that both ladies did indeed make statements later proven to be false. These concerned the polls, and Isabel Oakeshott's claim that Labour was way behind in the polls - a claim Fiona Bruce echoed (including adding a "Definitely".) But of the latest ten polls 4 show a Conservative lead, 3 a Labour lead and 3 a tie, so - despite what Fiona Bruce said - there's no "definitely" whatsoever about the Labour Party being way behind in the polls. Note, however, that Isabel also talked about the Labour leader being way behind in the polls, and about that she's right.

More generally, was the audience biased? Well, despite having Labour Party activists (like Jyoti) in the audience, the bulk of the audience did seem - to the amazement of many Leave-supporting viewers! - to be strongly pro-Leave, and strongly pro-'No Deal' (giving that idea a HUGE cheer). Was it because they were the bulk of the audience, or only the most vocal part of it? Well, it did look as well as sound like the majority of the Derby audience to me - though there were plenty of exceptions. And, yes, Diane Abbott was their main target for booing, heckling and jeering.

As far as Brexit goes, was the panel biased? Isabel herself tweeted "Am I the only Brexiteer?" accompanied by "#prayforIsabel". Was she? Well, yes, if you mean a committed Leave voter who doesn't outright reject 'No Deal'. An audience member, however, took what might be called 'The Rob Burley Line' on this, quoting her tweet and telling her to look to two of the people sitting next to her - namely Rory Stewart and Diane Abbott, both of whom speak (in their different ways) of honouring the referendum result and being committed to us Brexiting (in some way or another, to some degree or another). I'll let you judge the truth of that particular 'line' for yourself.

As for whether the BBC "whipped" up a "hostile atmosphere" towards Diane Abbott because she's "a black woman" or was guilty of "legitimising racism" (as Labour MP Barbara Keeley put it), well, I don't think the BBC could ever be accused of intending that.

There are other reasons to jeer and heckle at Diane Abbott, especially after she opens her mouth.

********

P.S. Away from all of this, Question Time had an "expert" on - our old friend Anand Menon - who Fiona Bruce treated in the usual BBC way. I appreciated his take on a second referendum, so I thought I'd share it will you (just in case this post wasn't already more than long enough):

It might well be that another referendum - I can't stand the phrase People's Vote I afraid - ends up being the only way forward. And I don't think it's anti-democratic. If Parliament legislates for something, that's democratic under our system. But I think you've just got to be honest about how hard and how divisive it would be. 

Firstly, it's hard to achieve, because Parliament have got to agree to legislate for one......and then they've got to agree to a question, which would be a nightmare. 

I don't necessarily think it would be better than the first time round because I still think it would be an argument about a future about which we have no facts. It would be just as speculative and vague as the first one. 

And it would be massively divisive. Because whatever else you think about the referendum of 2016, it was a remarkable moment in our democratic history that mobilised people who either haven't voted or haven't voted for a long time and I think those people would, with some reason, feel a little bit hacked off that they were asked to do it again. 

And the final question I suppose is, would it definitely fix things? And there I'm a little bit uncertain because if you imagine we had another referendum, imagine we got to the stage were Parliament couldn't decide and we defaulted somehow to another referendum and we ended up with the result that was 52-48 the other way on a smaller turnout than 2016, with fewer than 17 million people voting Remain? Would that settle the question? No. 

Sparks

While I'm waiting (anxiously, and with sweated brow) for Samira to reveal whether it's Roger Waters or David Coverdale or some other hard rock singer who's been complaining to the BBC about Arron Banks being 'platformed' on the Andrew Marr show, I'll just blurt out another thought (as you do on a Friday night, especially with some red wine at hand)...

I half-watched last night's Question Time today.

I rarely ever watch it these days, but the prospect of Diane Abbott and Dr. Jordan Peterson appearing on the same programme was too much for me not to at least half-scan it. 

Interestingly, this didn't turn out to be the pile-in-upon-the-extremist spectacular I expected (pace Nick Griffin). Far-left Diane was largely left alone.

As for Dr. Jordan Peterson, well, he got lots of applause - at least until the free speech question approached the Nazi-saluting pug video. He stood alone over that one, with a small fair bit of piling-in from his fellow panellists.

(I think he failed to explain his position properly on the specifics here but was sound on the general issue).

Here, for the record, was David Dimbleby's intro:

With me tonight: Kwasi Kwarteng, part of the Treasury team under Philip Hammond, a Brexiteer, he won't like me saying this, seen by some as a future leader of the Tory party; Diane Abbott, Shadow Home Secretary and MP for more than 30 years, one of Jeremy Corbyn's closest advisers; Mairead McGuinness, the first Vice President of the European Parliament since 2017, she has been in that job, MEP for the Irish Fine Gael party since 2004; David Aaronovitch, writer, broadcaster, columnist for the Times newspaper, and the Canadian psychologist whose self-help book has sold 2 million copies and whose speaking tour excites controversy wherever he goes, Jordan Peterson.

Quite an introduction for the Canadian professor there!

Anyhow David, Jordan Peterson didn't "excite controversy" last night.

Will the team behind Question Time be disappointed by that? Were there too few sparks flying for them?

There’s never been a fag paper between us. Updated

Diane Abbott spoke passionately, almost eloquently, on the Today Programme yesterday about the police’s somewhat confusing approach to hate speech and hate crime following Sara Thornton’s and Cressida Dick’s much-lauded announcement about the subject. ”Focus on violent crimes rather than misogyny.”   -  and, oddly “there’s never been a fag paper between us.”

When you’ve erased that image from your brain let’s consider what the much-maligned Diane was trying to explain. 

At one point she defined 'hate crime', to John Humphrys’s obvious consternation, as “being shouted at in the street!” 

“So police should divert resources - when somebody is shouted at in the street - when there might be somebody being stabbed around the corner?”  said Humph with exaggerated incredulity

“You know we live in an increasingly dangerous environment (sic) society and people feeling free to abuse people in the street and send them abusive emails and letters, that is part of that hatefulness and violence,” countered Abbott. You could see what she meant though.

But all that seemed somewhat at odds with Diane Abbott’s approach to antisemitism,  especially in the light of the story which occupied BBC News for one whole here-today-gone-tomorrow’s worth of headlines. 

Update

From a different political spectrum and to show that this blog is fair and open minded, I give you this from the New Statesman:

“If I’m rude to you for being black, you’d survive”: John Humphrys mansplains away hate speech to Diane Abbott.

Of course, I could person-splain my partially-sympathetic-to-Diane-Abbott position away with the ‘even a stopped clock’ manoeuvre, but I ‘m not going to do that right now. 

Abbott is unarguably weird, inconsistent, hypocritical and, it seems, I’m afraid, ’unnecessarily’ antisemitic, but she wouldn’t have got where she is today without a particular type of verbal or mental agility/acuity.

Anyway, here, against Humph she shows resilience and tenacity; and then she (and the New Statesman) goes and spoils it all by forgetting something stupid like antisemitism in the Labour Party. (and her own cloth-eared nonsense about smearing Corbers.)

Consider the aftermath

Dear Prime Minister,

It is with great regret that I am resigning as home secretary. I feel it is necessary to do so because I inadvertently misled the Home Affairs Select Committee over targets for removal of illegal immigrants during their questions on Windrush.
Since appearing before the select committee, I have reviewed the advice I was given on this issue and become aware of information provided to my office which makes mention of targets. I should have been aware of this, and I take full responsibility for the fact that I was not.
The Windrush scandal has rightly shone a light on an important issue for our country. As so often, the instincts of the British people are right. They want people who have a right to live here to be treated fairly and humanely, which has sometimes not been the case. But they also want the government to remove those who don't have the right to be here. I had hoped in coming months to devise a policy that would allow the government to meet both these vital objectives - including bringing forward urgent legislation to ensure the rights of the Windrush generation are protected. The task force is working well, the residence cards are being issued well within the two weeks promised, and the design of the compensation scheme is making good progress.
The Home Office is one of the great offices of state and its job is to keep people safe. It comes with the responsibility to fight terrorism, support and challenge the police and protect people against the abuse, as well as manage migration.
It has been a great privilege to serve as your home secretary. I have seen first-hand the second to none commitment and bravery of our police, fire and intelligence services, they truly are the best in the world and we should rightly be extremely proud of them.
I have been particularly pleased that we were able to set up the first Global Internet Forum for Counter Terrorism which has led the way with encouraging social media sites to go further and faster in taking down radicalising and terrorist material, which plays such a dangerous part in increasing extremism.
Setting out new laws to tackle the scourge of knife crime and acid attacks and helping to steer our young people away from a life of crime and violence by providing them with credible alternatives have been particularly important to me.
Opportunities to work on issues that safeguard the vulnerable, champions women and make a lasting impact on people's lives particularly stand out for me. New policies to fight domestic violence and abuse against women are out to consultation, and will lead this country to taking a new approach. Helping to bring thousands of refugees, including child refugees from both Calais and the Middle East region, and meeting some of the families who fled the terrible situation in Syria and have now been given a chance to rebuild their lives here in the UK in safety and security is something we can be proud of.
It has been an honour to work on a new security treaty with the EU as part of our new partnership going forward and to participate in your Brexit sub-committee helping to ensure that we have the best possible EU deal for our economy, businesses, jobs and people across the UK.
The new Economic Crime Centre that i launched with the first use of unexplained wealth orders will be important to the confidence of London as a financial centre.
I will continue to support the Home Office ministerial team whenever possible on all these important subjects, supporting the government from the back benches and continuing to work hard for my constituents of Hastings and Rye.
Best wishes,
Amber Rudd

Here is the prime minister's response:

Dear Amber,
Thank you for your letter of this evening tendering your resignation as home secretary. I was very sorry to receive it, but understand your reasons for doing so.
When you addressed the House of Commons and the Home Affairs Select Committee last week on the issue of illegal immigration, you answered the questions put to you in good faith. People who have entered the United Kingdom illegally or overstayed here should expect to face the full force of the law and know that they will be removed if they will not leave this country voluntarily. Just as importantly, people who have come here legally and enriched the life of our country should not expect the state unreasonably to challenge their presence here; rather, it should help them prove their right to continue living here and contributing to the life of our nation.
Under your tenure, the Home Office has been working to enforce a firm but fair immigration policy - working to increase the number of illegal migrants we remove, while ensuring that we continue to recognise the huge contribution of everyone who has come to the UK legally, and remain open to the brightest and best from across the globe.
When you spoke in the House of Commons, you said that you had not agreed specific removal targets, but that the Home Office's Immigration Enforcement command had been using local targets for internal performance management. You also said that you were not aware that those operational targets had been set.
I understand why, now that you have had chance to review the advice that you have received on this issue, you have made the decision you have made and taken responsibility for inadvertently misleading the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I am very sorry to see you leaving the Home Office, but you should take great pride in what you have achieved there - working with internet service providers to set up the first Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and take extremist and terrorist content offline; countering the cyber threat to British families and businesses; standing up for the victims of crime, abuse and domestic violence; offering shelter to refugees from Syria and elsewhere; and advancing the cause of equality as minister for women and equalities.
This comes on top of the considerable contribution you have made to Government since 2012 - first as a whip, then as minister and subsequently secretary of state at the department for energy and climate change - as well as the devoted service you have always given, and will continue to give, to your constituents in Hastings and Rye.
As a former home secretary myself, I appreciate the particular demands of that great office of state. You should take great pride in the way you have led the Home Office and its dedicated public servants through a number of serious challenges, including five terrorist incidents and other complex national events. You have done so with great integrity, compassion, and selflessness - notwithstanding the personal and political challenges you have faced during this period.
I know that you have a great contribution still to make to national life, and look forward to seeing you do so.
Yours,
Theresa

Paul Goodman on Con Home

“Amber Rudd seemed slowly to be escaping the worst of her troubles yesterday.  Now she has gone.  Did she come to consider her position too vulnerable, after all?  Has she simply had enough? Or is there some twist to the tale – some as yet undiscovered Home Office document or exchange – that we don’t yet know about?  At the moment, it looks as though the second is the case, but we will doubtless find out more in due course.
So Michael Fallon, Priti Patel, Damian Green and now Rudd have left the Cabinet that Theresa May formed last summer.  That’s a departure rate of almost one of its members every three months – an indication of this Government’s essential fragility.  The Prime Minister will not have wanted to lose a senior former Remainer from her Cabinet who can now cause her Brexit trouble – and perhaps tell recent tales of dealing with both May’s Home Office legacy and her internal management of leaving the EU

I thought the first part of Paul Goodman's article was fine, but I'm not quite so keen on the speculation about who will replace Rudd in the latter part of the piece. Let’s hope May isn’t forced (by ‘quota maths’) to choose someone weak, vulnerable and colourless.

I like Stephen Daisley. He goes on to make some interesting suggestions for revamping the Home Office; do read the whole thing in the Spectator.

The Home Office is not a government department; it’s a nervous breakdown minuted by civil servants. It is too big, too unwieldy, and too overstretched. It is an uber-bureaucracy of overlapping remits and contradictory objectives, at once sclerotic and dementedly populist. Tony Blair recognised this and hived off courts, prisons and probation to the Ministry of Justice. It was a good start but the decade since has proved that more radical restructuring is needed. 

Sometimes it’s vital to know who said what to whom and who knew what when, but I feel that the media is placing far too much emphasis on that aspect of the 'targets' affair in this case.

I prefer to look at the wider picture. In the Conservative press, there is some sympathy for Amber Rudd, in particular with regard to her competence in seeing through the proposals for putting things right for the Windrush generation. On the other hand, the Guardian was at the head of the campaign to depose her. Just imagine what the Home Office would be like under Diane Abbott. Is that really what the Guardian is aiming for?

After the business of the left dismissing the latest racism scandal in the Labour Party as a politically motivated smear, how can Diane Abbott get away with pretending that her crusade-like campaign against the government is any different?  

Let’s hear the BBC’s flagship political experts like Smith, Marr and Humphrys challenge Labour as ‘robustilly’ as they have been doing with the Rudd, May and anyone who ventures to defend them.

Depose the fragile Conservative government and usher in an utterly shambolic and vindictive opposition?  As in the Iraq debacle, this time please let’s consider the aftermath!

Update
Ah! It's Sajid!

Partisan agenda

There was an astonishing interview on the Today Programme just after the eight o’clock news.  In the studio with John Humphrys were Michael Gove and Diane Abbott. If you didn’t hear it, you should listen here. Go on.

The topic was immigration and in particular those contentious targets. You know, the targets that led to a small fleet of innovative “go-home” buses intended to generate a hostile atmosphere for illegal immigrants, who would obviously take one look and immediately flock to the airport in droves or drive to the airport in flocks.

John Humphrys was super-indignant and incredulous that the Home Secretary hadn’t seen the memo and/or didn’t know about the targets, especially after the Guardian had got hold of some damning evidence or other. He was so incensed that he started speaking in that staccato way of his, where each word is enunciated separately as if someone had scattered full-stop-confetti over his head. But Michael Gove wasn’t having any of it. 

“John, John! You’re making yourself an instrument of a highly partisan campaign against a highly effective Home Secretary.” 

Way to go! And it was followed shortly after by:

“John, John, in your desire to maintain the prosecutorial stance in the service of a partisan agenda..”

“You’ve gotta withdraw that!” said John, helplessly. Realising he had to let it go, he said, “I’ll let it go”.

I had almost forgotten that Diane Abbott was there, so quietly and patiently had she been waiting.

All she wanted to do was relate the tragic cases of Windrush grannies who have been herded into deportation camps in droves. (or driven in herds) Humph must have been conscious that he’d better grill the shadow Home Secretary as fiercely as he’d tried to grill the Gover, otherwise, that immaculate impartiality of his, which he had reminded us of moments earlier, might be called into question. 

However, he couldn’t quite raise the same passion with Diane and resorted to telling her to concentrate on the targets rather than describing some non-specific Windrush cases in an emotive fashion. She accused the government of deliberately confusing illegal immigrants with the Windrush generation. Deliberately!  It really was an astonishing interview for oh so many reasons. 

However, the bottom line is, and I’m straying from the astonishing interview now, but I think I need to ask… where can we see some facts? Like, for example, are there any statistics on erroneously deported individuals? What became of them? Can they be compensated? How about the people that were not deported but erroneously disenfranchised and prevented from working, driving and being treated on the NHS. Are there any statistics on these cases, and can they be compensated or is it now too late? 

I think we need some idea of the scale of the problem rather than hearing Diane Abbott emoting and hurling out innuendos. That’s one thing. Then there’s the matter of how difficult was it for the Windrush people to regularise their status? Because obviously, some have done so.   

This whole business is far too reminiscent of a parallel scenario, where the pro-Palestinian movement is generally far more concerned with attacking Israel than helping the Palestinians.  The politicised agenda we have here means that Labour seems far more concerned with calling for Amber Rudd’s resignation than actually helping the people they say they’re concerned about. 

Almost on cue, moments after that interview, John Humphrys spoke to a very satisfied customer. A member of the Windrush generation who had received his certification and was a very happy bunny. 

The Labour Party is mired in antisemitism. One would think they’d be embarrassed about calling for a symbolic resignation when the bleeding obvious applies to their own leadership a thousand times over. 

A Marry Christmas to Andrew, Rob & the Gang

A festive Andrew Marr

Mr. Marr's final Sunday morning sermon of the year - the one for the third week of Advent - began:

Good morning, and welcome to our last show of the year. What a year it's been! Back in 2016, we had Brexit, we had Donald Trump's election, and all those bloodthirsty leadership tussles. And we thought, "Wow - 2017 is going to be a lot calmer than that." But then what happened? The unexpected general election, its unexpected result, a weakened but resilient Prime Minister struggling on, and the drama of the Corbyn surge. 2018 is going to be really, really quiet.

Oh, wouldn't that be lovely? I like quiet. And peace.

*******

Now here's a familiar kind of exchange for 'people like us'. Someone complains about a particular bias on one particular edition of a BBC programme; the programme's editor, in response, asks to be judged over time and over a number of editions:

Rob Burley: At 9am a great #marr coming up with review of 2017, today's news discussed by Tim Shipman, Emma Barnett, Rachel Johnson plus Diane Abbott, David Gauke, James Norton and the BBC Singers. BBC1 in forty minutes time...

Tim Montgomerie: #Marr not even trying to represent Leavers anymore.

Rob Burley: As long as you don't count people like Nigel Farage, Kate Hoey, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Camilla Tominey, Michael Gove, Isabel Oakeshott, all guests in recent weeks...I mean I could go on...This is also, of course, based on the idea that Cabinet ministers who are enacting Brexit don't count if they voted Remain in 2016. So the PM doesn't count apparently.

And never the twain shall meet, apparently.

I do think that for the end of year review a pro-Brexit voice would have been a good idea. I've agreed with the thrust of Rob's main point many times before, but having no pro-Leave voices on the sofa at the beginning and the end (when the same three guests gathered, and one was the passionately anti-Brexit Rachel Johnson) was surely a miscalculation, balance-wise - and especially in an 'end of year review' segment? 

*******

Who's this?

Andrew Marr's review of the papers began with this:

And now to the papers, the front pages as ever, and we've got somebody who thinks that Rees-Mogg is a sex god on the front of the Sunday Times apparently. 

"Somebody"!? That's the lovely Toff (Georgia Toffolo) no less, deserving winner of this year's I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!. I'm guessing Andrew isn't an I'm a Celebrity fan, despite the show having featured Kezia Dugdale and Stanley Johnson this year - and a Rob-Burley-length list of politicians in previous years. (I was hoping for either David Cameron or Robert Mugabe to be on the show this year too, but alas it never happened. Maybe next year). Andrew seems to prefer Strictly Come Dancing though, saying "I'm sure we all watched that" (Not me!), but he added, "Strictly has become a personality contest I think, and everybody loved Joe." (Over to Sue for that one?) 

*******

Hmm, noting the Observer's front page, Andrew Marr talked of concerns about Mrs May "leaning too far towards Boris Johnson...[and after stumbling on the name 'Corbyn', his next headline]...and that lot". That's nice! 

*******

And if you were wondering why the BBC wasn't focusing on the Mail on Sunday's lead story - the one about Corbyn supporters sending abuse and threats to a Tory MP and his pregnant wife - well, let Andrew explain: 

There's a story about Corbyn (sic) trolling a Tory MP on the front page of the Mail on Sunday, but I have to say this story is rather lacking in names and details. We probably won't give it a lot of attention. 

The Mail's own explanation for why its story "rather lacking in names and details" is that it's "to protect mother and child from further abuse", which isn't unreasonable I think.

(I learned the MP's name from Corbynista Ellie Mae O'Hagan on Paddy's Broadcasting House. She had no such qualms.)

*******

As for Boris's interview with Tim Shipman in the Sunday Times, Andrew commented:

That's more or less what Theresa May said in the Florence speech, but now there is a clear gap. We're not allowed to use words like 'hard' or 'soft' and all the rest of it, but there is a clear gap between those people who want us to stay as close as possible to the EU - the kind-of convergers or the Continental Shelf party - and those who want to turn their back on that and look out to the rest of the world - the Deep Blue Sea party. Is that a fair assessment? 

That piqued my curiosity. What does he mean, "We're not allowed to use words like 'hard' or 'soft'"? Who's "not allowing" him? Surely not the BBC? 

*******

Someone who bores Boris's sister

Rachel Johnson described Mrs May's piece in one of the papers today as "a MEGO" piece - a term used at the FT apparently, meaning "My Eyes Glaze Over". (That made Andrew laugh). Is there an ear-related equivalent for, say, radio interviews with David Miliband (the most boring radio interviewee in the history of political interviews), or Radio 4's You and Yours? "MEBUS" (My Ears Bung Up Spontaneously) perhaps? 

*******

Praise from Caesar! As well as calling Mrs May "resilient" in his opening sermon, Mr Marr called her it again during the paper review: 

I used the word 'resilient'. She's like one of those fairground things, where every time you knock her she comes straight back up. There is perhaps a growing sense that she is able at least to keep going when lots of people, lots of men, would have given up at that point and stormed off in a huff, resigned... 

Andrew playing the 'male feminist' card there I see!

With an occasional Woman's Hour presenter, Emma Barnett, on the sofa, perhaps he felt the need to appease the vengeful feminist goddesses of BBC radio.

*******

Hmm. When Rachel Johnson talked of us leaving the EU and going off "the cliff edge", Andrew segued on to the next story, saying "Well, some people in the country agree with you because there's a new poll today from the Independent, Emma?".  That new poll, plugged by BBC broadcaster Emma Barnett, shows 51% backing Remain and just 41% now backing Leave. Andrew then added, "Of course, we've had polls going in lots of different directions and there's another poll in the Sun. This is just one poll, but there may be some sense the mood of the country is changing." Hmm.

*******

Diane in a Mao suit. (An early Christmas pressie from John McDonnell?)

What a pleasure it was to see Diane Abbott back on our TVs! I've so missed her car crash interviews. Thankfully, she was fully back on form this morning. Without once batting an eyelid, she stalled the interview more than once, went the wrong way round not one but two roundabouts, scraped several cars, performed a u-turn amid incoming traffic, overtook Andrew Marr on the brow of a hill and ended up (as ever) in a hedge before getting out and walking away as if nothing had happened. JC supporters on Twitter erupted in delight, lauding her for her wonderful driving skills and, loudly questioning why's she not yet been given the advance driving licence they think she richly deserves.

Update: I read elsewhere that others didn't see it this way at all.

Naturally, the lefties on Twitter felt that Andrew Marr had been a 'total biased Tory' and disgracefully mean towards poor Diane while going soft on 'his fellow Tory' David Gauke.

Meanwhile, on another BBC-critical blog, I also read righties saying that Andrew had been 'fawning' towards Diane and "intentionally unable" to challenge her silly points - and that the programme apparently "always" ends with "one of those black oil drum groups...or a nice bit of Bollywood",  which it most certainly does not. They would surely have been extremely pleased today though to learn that the show ended with a lovely traditional Christmas carol and that there was not even one 'person of colour' in sight to disturb their delicate sensibilities!

The "truth tellers" speak!

*******

David Gauke was on too.

*******

The closing carol was The Holly and the Ivy, sung by the BBC Singers. I refer the honourable ladies and gentlemen to my favourite of my own ITBB's posts for more on that piece:

*******

Of course, you're probably really wanting some Rob Burley action on Twitter. And, as it's nearly Christmas, who am I to deny you that pleasure?

***

Laura C: Andrew Marr  just cannot help himself from making his personal views heard on #marr. He also commented that he cannot see Brexit being stopped. He's obviously unaware of the latest poll which sees support for #Remain take an 11 point lead on Leave.

Rob Burley: Erm, he was talking about that poll at the time. But otherwise your argument is watertight.

Laura C: Thanks for that. I’ve stopped watching his biased interviews so I wasn’t aware of that.

Rob Burley: Don't let the facts get in the way.

Laura C: Which facts?

Rob Burley: The facts about the interviews you don't watch anymore.

Laura C: I ask again: which facts?

Rob Burley: You make assertions about interviews you don't watch. If you watched you would know lots of facts about the actual interviews.

Laura C: .1. I stopped watching as of today so I have a fairly good idea of Mr Marr's interviewing style and biased approach. 2. I ask for the 3rd time: which facts?

Rob Burley: Well, you don't know anything about the facts of today's interview but it turns out you are actually a loyal viewer. Until this week. So thanks.

Laura C: I really cannot see what you're trying to say. I would have thought you'd have better things to do than split hairs with an ex-loyal viewer. Good to see the Beeb spends our licence fee in such productive ways.

Rob Burley: I'm doing this in my spare time.

Laura C: Maybe your spare time would be better employed ensuring Mr Marr stops using right-wing derogatory terms to describe Remainers. His language resembles that of publications like the Express and DM. Many of us expect better from #BBC.

Rob Burley: We are endlessly told we are pro-Remain or pro-Brexit or anti-Remain or anti-Brexit. We aren't these things.

***

Who's this?

Martin Diggins‏: Andrew Marr, please explain why you gave credence to the latest #Remoaner poll (sample size 1509) whilst ignoring this petition (sample size 112,893 and counting)? FakeNewsBBC

Rob Burley: We reported a poll - chosen by a reviewer - in the paper review. We pointed out it was one poll and others said something else. A petition is self-selecting so utterly useless as a test of broader opinion although it does tell us lots of people care about an issue.

***

Gadgee Gerry‏: I missed #Marr today so was it: 1. Forensic #Marr interrogating @UKLabour, 2. #BBCOneShow style #Marr  fawning over #Tory spokesperson

S0S1Z‏: Nah, David Gauke got spanked.

Rob Burley: 1. and also forensic interrogating David Gauke but why not tweet about something you missed anyway?

Gadgee Gerry‏: It's called choice.

Rob Burley: Yeah obvs up to you if you watch it, but if you don't and then have a go...

***

VanityByNature: Despite talking puppet Andrew Marr's best attempts to obfuscate Labours position, Diane Abbott was calm, precise, accurate and reasonable on everything she said on #Marr. Looking great too!

Free The Press: If only Andrew Marr would grill the those actually NEGOTAITING #brexit as much as he relishes questioning Labour on something they have no power over, and are not in charge of negotiations for. Dear Andrew, newsflash.. its the Tories who are leading negotiations

Rob Burley: Please see last week's interview with, erm, the UK's Brexit negotiator

Free The Press: Please note that I used the word 'grill'... not interview...Maybe you guys should note the difference between the ways you GRILL Labour.. but only INTERVIEW your #ToryChums

Rob Burley: I think we do matey.

Free The Press: Of course you do.... chum!  I'll give you a tip... next time a #ToryChum sits on the couch (especially one with as important a role as Davis)... Just imagine its a Labour politician sitting there (say..Diane Abbott for example ) and act accordingly 

Rob Burley‏: We already treat them the same way. Could your perception that we are harder on those you agree with have something to do with you agreeing with them?

Free The Press‏: Could your perception that you have no biases against Labour have something to do with you agreeing with Tories?

Rob Burley‏: You have no idea of my views on anything.

Free The Press‏: Yes I do... you've expressed a few of them here. One view is that the BBC is unbiased... and, yes, its an amusing view 

Rob Burley: What views have I ever expressed?

Free The Press‏: Here's one: https://twitter.com/RobBurl/status/942359808816054272 …

Here's another: https://twitter.com/RobBurl/status/942361665630359554 …

Gotta go now. I'll reply when Im back

Rob Burley: These aren't me expressing political views. Because I don't. Soz.

***

Stanga‏: #Marr never asks about Tory policies, since there are none.

Rob Burley: Apart from today, and the week before that, oh yeah and the week before that and...

Mohammed Shafiq‏: Rob when you are attacked from both sides you know you are doing something right.  Have a good Sunday.

***

Andy Coll: Any chance of #Marr doing his job like a journalist and not a cheerleader? I suppose not. Decent journalists in other countries get at the truth, sometimes tragically giving their lives in the question. It would be shameful to describe Marr as a journalist so I won't again

Rob Burley: If you think we went easy on welfare issues today then you must have missed the programme.

Alladin Noons: There was me thinking David Gauke had been given a good run round the park by Andrew Marr. 

Rob Burley: Stop thinking, thinking is the mistake you are making.

Wan Ke Wanqa‏: The Andrew Marr who was a supporter of SCLV, an old comrade of John McDonnell, the man who is married to a prominent Labour peers daughter?...that Andrew Marr?

***

Ethel‏: Sounds like I 'missed' the same old crap this morning. Marr giving Tories far too much time and constantly talking over Labour bods. Same old, same old.

Rob Burley: Nope, whoever told you that is having you on.

***

What, no reindeer antlers?

Overview: Other than contributing licence payers' money to The Diane Abbott Christmas Fund, what WAS the point of having her on for a rerun of her 'I Know Nothing!' interview on #Marr in October 2017?  Devoid of ANY answers to ANY questions, this was down to the usual Abbott standard.

Rob Burley: Well , we don't pay politicians to come on but carry on...

***

Jason Bournemouth‏: Decent interview of Gauke from #Marr. I'm as surprised as anyone.

Rob Burley: Well you haven't been paying attention then, but thanks.

Jason Bournemouth: Alas Mr. Editor, I can only match your casual dismissal  by telling you to fuck off.

Rob Burley: Jason seems nice.

***

Tesh: How did you and Marr vote in the referendum. Leave or Remain?
Rob Burley: None of your bloody business.

***

Rob Burley: Merry Christmas from team #marr @RobBurl @AndrewMarr9 @laurawbbc @Jason_Keen - see you on January 7th!
CraigMorecambe: Merry Christmas to you too!

It's been another great year working on the @MarrShow. Best show to work on with an excellent team! Here's to 2018! @AndrewMarr9 @RobBurl @Jason_Keen @laurawBBC @chrisckmedia @lealapad #marr pic.twitter.com/qwSxLGPnYZ

— Habiba Khanom (@Ha_bi_ba) December 17, 2017

Breaking: Diane Abbott's hair has just confirmed that it never met the IRA

(h/t to joke in title)

Andrew Marr really got his teeth stuck into the security issue this morning, asking nearly all of his questions from a non-liberal standpoint. 

It was a fascinating, unexpected programme raising lots of important points.

His interviews with Leanne Wood and Caroline Lucas were short but rigorous and his interview with Amber Rudd quietly persistent. 

The standout interview, however, was with Diane Abbott. Andrew really sank his teeth into her, using her past voting record and past extreme statements against her in an especially rigorous way. 

Diane Abbott interviews are famously nearly always car-crash interviews. This one must have produced a ninety-mile tailback. After such a grim week it was good to have a bit of guaranteed 'comedy gold' from the woman who could be the UK's Home Secretary in two week's time. 

Here are two short highlights from it:

Diane Abbott: Firstly I think there is something to be said for Home Secretary who has actually worked in the Home Office. I worked in the Home Office for nearly three years is a graduate trainee and I know how it works from the inside. 

******* 

Andrew Marr: Jeremy Corbyn got into some trouble with Andrew Neil in his interview when he said he had not met the IRA and he was then photographed with lots of people from the IRA during the course of his career. You yourself said a defeat for the British state would be a great liberation, a great move forward at that period of time. Do you regret your support for the IRA right back in the 80s? 

Diane Abbott: That particular quote you're referring to comes from a now defunct Left newspaper. It has...

Andrew Marr (interrupting): But you said it, didn't you?

Diane Abbott: No, no, no. But what I'm saying to you is this: It was 34 years ago. I had a rather splendid Afro at the time. I don't have the same hairstyle. 

Andrew Marr: Do you have the same views?

Diane Abbott: I don't have the same views. It is 34 years on. The hairstyle is gone and some of the views have gone. 

Andrew Marr: So you no longer in any...You regret the fact of what you said then about the IRA? 

Diane Abbott: The hairstyle has gone, the views have gone. We have all moved on in 34 years. Haven't you, Andrew? 

Andrew Marr: We've all moved on. I was just wondering, do you regret what you said about the IRA at the height of the bombing? 

Diane Abbott: What specifically do you want me to regret? 

Andrew Marr: Well, I can read the quote for you, if I can find it here. Basically what you said was that a defeat of the IRA would be devastating for the British people and a defeat for the British state was a good thing, you said, at the time when the IRA was attacking the British state. And you said that the reason for the violence was entirely caused by the British presence in Northern Ireland. I'm saying, do you think those statements now are wrong? 

Diane Abbott: It's 34 years ago. I've moved on.

Andrew Marr: You've moved on. Alright. I've got the quote here finally. You said that "Ireland is our struggle. Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed".

Diane Abbott: 34 years ago and I have moved on. 

Stats-wise, it worked out like this: The Leanne Wood interview lasted 4m 18s, contained 1 interruption and had an interruption coefficient of 0.2; The Caroline Lucas interview lasted 4m 38s, contained 2 interruptions and had an interruption coefficient of 0.5; The Amber Rudd lasted 14m 02s, contained 9 interruptions and had an interruption coefficient of 0.6; The Diane Abbott interview lasted 13m 44s, contained 12 interruptions and had an interruption coefficient of 0.9.

It's the introductions this week that are so interesting though. At the risk of sounding like a Corbynista (not that they'd ever admit that Diane Abbott is useless), what could play better for the Conservatives than making "Who do we most trust to keep Britain safe?" the central question of the election, and then presenting us with Diane Abbott (Diane Abbott!!!) as one of the two available options?  

Main introduction:

Good morning. Well, as we all know, the general election campaign has been pushed off course by the hideous Manchester bombing. In other weeks we might have been talking about Brexit, taxes and the health service. All very important, but there's no getting away from it - one question is now at the centre of debate. Who do we most trust to keep Britain safe? After election day, one of these two women will be in charge of police and security on the streets of Britain. Should our next Home Secretary be Amber Rudd or Diane Abbott? Plus two party leaders with their take on terror: Caroline Lucas from the Green Party and, on the line from Cardiff, Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood. Reviewing the news for us today, the BBC's North America Editor, Jon Sopel, just back from Trump on tour. And two people who've been inside government at times of crisis: the former Labour Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, and David Cameron's former communications director, Sir Craig Oliver. 

Introduction to Leanne Wood: 

And his being the election campaign, we hear from a range of parties. In a moment, I'm going to be talking to the co-leader of the Greens, Caroline Lucas.  But joining me now from Cardiff, Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood.

Introduction to Caroline Lucas: 

And so to Caroline Lucas. 

Introduction to Diane Abbott: 

Now lot of people who are only half paying attention to the election campaign more or less assumed it was in the bag for the Tories. But now the polls have been closing a bit, they're having to focus for the first time on the real possibility of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister. And that means, almost certainly that Diane Abbott would take over the Home Office, and she joins me now.

Introduction to Amber Rudd: 

I'm joined by the current Home Secretary, the Conservative Amber Rudd. Amber Rudd, welcome!