Who's the fairest of them all?

If you're interested, here are the results of the other surveys by Mark Lees:

Just looked at the last 50 tweets & retweets on Beth Rigby's Twitter Timeline. Of the last 50 tweets or rt's, 18 included overtly critical messaging of a political party. Of those 18: 15 were critical of the Tories. 2 were critical of Labour. 1 was critical of the Lib Dems.
As a % of criticism towards a particular party: 83% criticism of the Tories. 11% criticism of Labour. 6% criticism of the Lib Dems. 0% criticism of the SNP. 0% criticism of the Greens. 0% criticism of the BXP Source: Beth Rigby's Twitter timeline, last 50 tweets & rt's.

Here are Kay Burley's stats: Of the last 50 tweets and retweets, 24 overtly criticise a political party. Of the 24: 23 criticise the Conservatives 1 criticises Labour 0 criticise the Lib Dems 0 criticise the BXP 0 criticise the SNP 0 criticise the Greens 0 criticise Plaid
As a percentage that is: 96% criticism of the Conservatives. 4% criticism of Labour. 0% criticism of the Lib Dems. 0% criticism of the SNP. 0% criticism of the Greens. 0% criticism of the BXP. Source: Kay Burley's twitter timeline, last 50 tweets and retweets.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy

Of the last 50 tweets or retweets on Krishnan's timeline, 15 tweets overtly criticise a political party.

11 criticise the Conservatives. 3 criticise the Lib Dems. 1 criticises Labour. 0 criticise the SNP. 0 criticise the Brexit Party.
As percentages: 73% criticism against the Tories. 20% criticism against the Lib Dems. 7% criticism against Labour. 0% criticism of any other party. Source: Krishnan Guru-Murthy's Twitter timeline. Last 50 tweets or retweets.

Just looked at the last 50 tweets or retweets on Robert Peston's Twitter feed. Of the 50 tweets or retweets, 17 overtly criticised a political party. Of those 17: 12 criticise the Tories 3 criticise the Lib Dems 2 criticise Labour 0 for any other party.

You may have noticed a pattern. But there's one exception (so far):

Laura Kuenssberg
Of the last 50 tweets or retweets on Laura Kuenssberg's timeline, 12 were overtly critical of a political party. Of those 12: 6 criticised the Conservatives. 6 criticised the Labour Party. 0 criticism of other parties.
In percentages: 50% criticism of the Conservatives. 50% criticism of the Labour Party. That's an exact balance of criticism between the 2 main parties. Source: Laura Kuenssberg's Twitter Timeline. Last 50 tweets or retweets.

Weel done, Laura K!

Backlash beware

It seems like only yesterday that some Islamic-related terrorist atrocity or other saw the media frantically warning us of the imminent backlash against the Muslim community.

Was there such a backlash? Not in the way the media predicted, but there is an undeniable slow-burn backlash-of-attrition grumbling away. I should know, being one of the ones doing the grumbling.

Now, after the very public, election-propelled antisemitism row, a topsy-turvy backlash is raising its head. This backlash is against “the Jews” for “Running the world, “skewing the foreign policy of the West in favour of Israel” and generally being the new Nazis. It’s the same old stuff but brought to boiling point by the general election and our polarised politics. 

Melanie Phillips is worried that: “The Conservative Party has weaponised antisemitism.” Well, when there’s a war, it certainly helps if you’re equipped with weapons, and if you’re handed them on a plate by the Labour Party’s perceived institutional antisemitism, surely there’s no alternative but to pick them up and use them.

If people think ‘it’s the Jews” that have prevented their beloved Jeremy from becoming PM, or if their abhorrence of racism “in all its forms” forces people to vote tactically and against their political or tribal instincts, then so be it. But then you have to weather the backlash. It’s the same old backlash that it always has been, and now that it’s a matter of open warfare it’s accelerating, as it’s bound to.

Ian Austin and Tom Watson have made their moves; Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman have been virtually hounded out of the Party, followed by John Woodcock, and people are wondering how ‘moderate’ Labour MPs can truly be at peace with themselves campaigning for a man who may not himself be an antisemite, but has stood by while those who certainly are continue to 'do their thing'. Fighting it from the inside looks like a losing game. 

I haven’t watched enough ‘pure BBC’  to conclude which channel is worse, but I have certainly seen some strange things on TV. Kay Burley was unusually quiet in her Interview with Ian Austin.

The Labour Party’s co-ordinated response to this crisis looks calculated. John McDonnell’s and Rebecca Long-Bailey’s “so sad” approach came over as damage limitation rather than sincerity in the face of their party’s serial inaction. Someone who hasn’t got the memo is the Guardian’s Dawn Foster whose defiant unpleasantness grows and grows. 

On the other side of the coin, some of us are on mass tenterhooks in case someone somewhere commits an awkward Jacob Rees-Mogg style ‘misspeak’ and topples us off the shaky moral high ground we so very temporarily occupy. 

Along comes Tanya Gold who besmirches a moving article by insulting Jacob Rees-Mogg’s face. Of all the unnecessary own-goals, this is one of the most unnecessary and self-inflicted. The antisemites are drawn to this kind of thing and it’s expedient not to provoke it. 

Please desist. 

Play for the Day: 'A Difference of Opinion'

Act One

Enter Media Guido and Rob Burley of the BBC, through different doors.

Media Guido: The probability of six guests selected at random all being remain supporters is 0.03125 - amazingly Peston has managed it.
Rob Burley: It’s not June 2016. Ex- Remainers are members of a Brexit delivering government and a Brexit supporting Labour Party. This measure is silly.
Media Guido: Brexit is still the main subject of discussion in politics, this is a political discussion show with six guests, none of whom campaigned for Brexit. You think drawing attention to that is silly. No further questions m'lud.
Rob Burley: I think the measure is wilfully designed to distort. Parking a specific programme I have no involvement with, I suggest we stop measuring as if it’s June 23rd 2016. It’s just not.

Trap door opens. Stephen Colvin rises, delivers heckle and descends again.

Stephen Colvin: (to Rob Burley) You are an embarrassment. The discussion is very much alive and it is up to so called impartial broadcasters to demonstrate it. 

Trap door closes. Exit Media Guido. Enter BBC Waste, stage right.

BBC Waste: Brexit still prism through which everything seen & decisions taken (govt policy shaped by opinions of those for or against within cabinet). Naive to think those who publicly back don't privately what to demur or seek to modify. Silly of BBC to ignore. Measure entirely appropriate.
Rob Burley: Disagree. Nuances of these issues reflected in the coverage but to base balance on position of guests pre-referendum is neither desirable or practical.
BBC Waste: Further difficulty with this position is this is the position BBC (rightly) adopts for aportioning airtime to political parties. But now not referendum views?
Rob Burley: We did in, yes, the referendum.
BBC Waste: Do love a robust courteous debate. Yes. Those attacking the BBC should also acknowledge the impossible task they have to balance. Good for Peston/ITV and others to be mindful of optics though. Looks bad. And very easy to  criticise.

Exit BBC Waste, stage right pursued by a 'Like' from Rob Burley. Enter Andy #FBPE, stage left.

Andy #FBPE: Therein lies the problem with the BBC...they think it was all over in 2016 and choose to ignore  both reality and the ongoing debate.
Rob Burley: That’s precisely the opposite of the point.

Exeunt omnes. Enter Tim Montgomerie. Turns to face audience. 

Tim Montgomerie: It’s not silly. BBC way of measuring balance classifies likes of Amber Rudd, Damian Green and Keir Starmer as pro-Brexit and that’s well short of giving the 52% the representation they deserve.

Curtain falls.

Will there be an Act Two?

Ken tells the truth again

Ken Livingstone was on Sky News  today, treating us to an almost identical interview to yesterday’s Victoria Derbyshire one. No doubt it’ll be on YouTube soon if it isn’t already. 

As before, he was invited on to Sky to opine about Keith Vaz, but it wasn’t long before Kay Burley brought up “Hitler”. 

Ken still insists that what he said was true. Obviously nothing is ever going to change his mind about that.

 Pity Kay Burley was so poorly briefed. It’s as if everyone has forgotten why he said what he said. (“Hitler  was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”)

He said it in defence of the indefensible, i.e., Naz Shah, who has already admitted to a string of antisemitic tweets, pleading ignorance or insanity, apologised and promised not to do it again.

“For Ken Livingstone to say Hitler was a Zionist is offensive – well, of course that would be offensive. I wouldn’t just apologise if I’d said that, I’d have been straight off to my GP to check if I was in the first stage of dementia. Hitler hated and loathed Jews, but that didn’t stop him doing a deal with the Zionist movement in the 1930s.”

Since people have already posited the theory that Ken is in the first, or some other stage of dementia, bringing it up all by himself in the form of a metaphor seems a bit close to the bone. 

He didn’t say Hitler was a Zionist - he said Hitler was supporting Zionism. See? Two completely different things, with plenty of wiggle room, or slither room if you like; enough for him to slither sideways with an almost conciliatory elucidation ….that the Zionists could’t help it, and he didn’t blame them, and what’s more Norman Finkelstein agrees with him, and no-one could call Norman Finkelstein antisemitic! 

At the end of the section, Kay Burley read out a message from a viewer complaining that Ken was given a platform.

Kay Burley put her down quite superciliously, saying ‘That’s democracy”. 

Not really, Kay. That’s show biz.

Ken Livingstone on anti-semitism row: you can't say "telling the truth can bring the Labour party into disrepute" https://t.co/yUH5zWnfGn

— Sky News (@SkyNews) 7 September 2016

Rumble in jungle

Bias? 

I suppose we ought to mention the rumble in the jungle. I disagree with whoever it was that declared Paxo the winner.

 I thought he was hopeless. The aggressive approach that’s suppose to ruffle feathers and stimulate passion only creates defensiveness and a kind of special politician’s brand of inhibition. Instead of drawing out potential, it kills it off.  Hell yes.

So after all that evasiveness and defensiveness, we’re none the wiser. Kay Burley got a thorough pasting on the interweb. Yes, she does resemble a cat.

The only thing worth just mentioning - in my humble, not very impressed opinion - was a superfluous debriefing in the BBC’s ‘spin room’.

They interviewed  a small cluster of Labour supporters and Nigel Farage. “What did you think of it so far?” they asked people like Dan Hodges and Kevin Maguire. “Rubbish” came the reply.   “Who came across best?“ Ed’s passion, apparently.

They must have been watching a different programme from the one I watched. 

After the Labour-luvvies plus the Ukip leader had given their verdicts, along came William Hague, and suddenly something went wrong with the sound.