In other news, Wednesday's Newsnightfeatured former Conservative MP turned-Lib Dem Dr Sarah Wollaston talking about the Lib Dems' plans to reform the Gender Recognition Act, including adding a 'X' gender option to passports.
“The idea these people [transgender people] are a threat to other women is an assumption we should challenge", said not-now-Conservative Dr Sarah along the way.
We discussed gender self identification last night on Newsnight. It’s not “ these people “. It’s the fact a blanket law would allow any predatory man to self identify as female to gain access to women. That’s the danger.
Well said, Emily!
As you might guess (if you're on Twitter), Emily's tweet went down like a cisgender lead balloon with the hyper-sensitive, hyper-aggressive transgender army on social media, for example:
Are BBC presenters allowed to spread terf nonsense on Twitter?
It is absolutely disgusting that a journalist would uncritically repeat this false talking point without any investigation.
This is a transphobic trope that has no grounding in reality.
(For those not up on such things, 'terf' is a term of abuse used by transgender militants to describe 'second-wave' feminists - of the Dame Jenni Murray variety - who aren't keen on having transgender women (i.e. men) beating cisgender women (i.e. women) at sport, or using their toilets, or sharing their prison cells, etc ---- a concern that lots of non-feminist women doubtless share).
But Tom's mischief has a point:
Are BBC employees allowed to opine about who is or isn't a valid person / spread transphobic conspiracy theories?
Seems to stretch the definition of impartiality....
Doesn't it just! (even though it's common sense).
So, will Emily be punished for breaking cover and stating the truth on a highly controversial area?
And which agenda (feminist or transgender) will win out at the BBC?
I wonder when the BBC will report the appalling event hosted by Jenny Tonge in the House of Lords yesterday? Only it’s caused a bit of a stir elsewhere.
It has even caught the eye of David Lidington MP.
“Speaking in the Commons, Mr Davies asked Mr Lidington: “May we have a debate on the use to which these premises may be put following reports that outrageously a member of the House of Lords presided over an event at which Israel was compared to Islamic State, and the Jews were even blamed for their own genocide?
“Could we discuss this and also whether we should be issuing an apology for these outrageous comments to the Israeli government and the Jewish people.”
The lady in the centre - Sarah Olney, a Libdem candidate - was on The Daily Politics today. Not that Andrew Neil said anything about Jenny Tonge's antics.
The Libdems seem to be making quite a habit of suspending Jenny Tonge, but nothing seems to daunt her zeal.
The event itself has been reported widely - anywhere apart from on the BBC. But now she’s been suspended, how can they not?
Even The Times (£) had a prominent report of the event. They called it ‘shameful’. Blogger David Collier was there, as was the survivor of a horrific attack by a couple of deranged Palestinian terrorists Kay Wilson (to whom Jenny Tonge tweeted sarcastically “What a lovely reasonable person you seem to be” See more here.
Even though most of the btl responses in papers like the Times are supportive of the Jewish community it’s chilling that so many rabid antisemites are out there and willing to rear their ugly heads. Update.
Baroness Tonge said the comments had been a rant that "made no sense" and said she was "irritated" by the row.
Speaking to the BBC, Baroness Tonge blamed the "power of the Israel lobby" and its sway over UK political parties for her suspension.She added: "Is it a cardinal sin to chair a meeting? I made no speeches or pronouncements. I'm extremely sad and frankly just irritated by it all."
“I’ve just bumped into Jenny Tongue (sic) who is a liberal democrat party member though she sits as an independent in the House of Lords - an independent very much on the left of the party. “What’s going through your mind about party membership. Which party do you feel most at home with? Describe whats’ happening in your mind and in your heart”
Justin’s pronunciation of Ms Tonge’s name was obviously Freudian. It was an unconscious, subconscious (or deliberate) verbal evocation of that mocking hand gesture that signals excessive babbling. Yap-yap. The tongue-wag hand gesture.
The Baroness seemed ecstatic. Audibly basking in at all this attention and giving flirtatious, breathless little giggles. I won’t go any further into porn mode, but you get my drift.
“I’ve been a liberal and a Liberal Democrat all my life. Literally all my life. And for the first time in my life I’ve become a bit of a ‘don’t know’. Then when Jeremy (sigh) really swept to the Labour leadership I was ..’But this is amazing!’ ....that he’s managed to galvanise all these people, and I think I was reported as saying I wanted to defect, which is a bit of nonsense. What I’m doing is thinking very very hard, what’s going on, and..”
“But you’re at least considering, that’s the point isn’t it?”
“I’m considering.... both ways”
“Are there other people, Liberal Democrats at the moment, who you think are also having to make that decision?”
“Indeed there are and that’s why I made that remark, actually because I was a little bit annoyed and interested - I suppose both - that Tim Farron and Vince Cable said there were all these Labour MPs wanting to come over and I thought, come on, that’s a bit rich because an awful lot of people are contacting me and saying ‘Are you gonna go over?You know Jeremy, you campaigned with Jeremy’...”
“An awful lot of people?”
“No, that’s a dreadful exaggeration, no. Not an awful lot”
“But you think there are some?”
“Oh. At least a dozen have contacted me personally.”
**************
Small Digression.
A Metaphor for this country.
Talking to Lib Dem Peer Baroness Ollie Grender, Justin says:
“But if you bring in... if quite a few Labour MPs were to come, an avalanche has been suggested, if that were to happen, the risk for the Liberal Democrats is that you lose your identity; you lose that part of your politics that is very dear to, probably, most of the people here in Bournemouth.”
“I think our identity is in flux.We already have a massive influx of people since the general election. I think this is the perfect moment for the party to take a long hard look at itself and potentially change its identity. Our identity has already changed in people’s minds because of the last five years.”
Influx? Identity crisis? We’re doomed. Doomed I tells ya. We’re Little Bo Peep. The country has lost its identity and doesn’t know where to find it.
Leave it alone and it will come home, dragging God knows what behind it.
**************
All that stuff about “very much on the left of the party” must surely have been Justin's euphemism for supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, BDS, and so on. I’ll take that as an admission from Justin that The Left is now officially identified with antisemitic causes. Another case of the elephant in the interview.
Never mind. There’s more.
Sarah Montague:
“It’s now 21 minutes past 8. The leader of the Liberal democrats Tim Farron has said his party is open to any Labour MPs unhappy with their new leader Jeremy Corbyn. He even admits to acting as an agony aunt to some of them. But the only politician to have talked publicly about changing party is the former Liberal Democrat Peer Baroness Tongue.”
(That’s a pair of tongues now) the wretched woman’s name is Tonge. Not tongs; not tongue.
“She says that along with a lot of people in her party, she’s thinking about joining Labour as she found Corbyn a breath of fresh air, because she ‘had not heard a peep’ on policy from Tim Farron . Well Mr. Farron joins us from his party’s conference in Bournemouth now. Good morning to you.”
"Good morning"
"Now that point was also one made by Ollie Grender who was the party’s director of communications - she said normally with a new leader you get a plan for the first 100 days keynote speeches - where has Tim bin*? “You have bin remarkably quiet for a new leader.”
(* been)
“What peculiar things to say. I mean we are in a position where our membership has gone up by 20,000 since the general election, where we’ve been gaining more council by-elections than any other party across the summer[...
I’m not going to transcribe Tim's lengthy passage about how wonderful the Lib Dems are. I’m sticking to Baroness Tonge.
“And you say that has attracted some labour MPs. How many Labour MPS are thinking of coming over to the Lib Dems?
“I won’t be drawn on that because it would be indecent for me to do so frankly.”
“But can we establish that somebody actually has talked about defecting?”
“A number of people have spoken to me in confidence of their immense angst over the Labour party[...]my job is not to be a home-wrecker ........”
“Jenny Tonge talks about a dozen she’s spoken to who are considering defecting to Labour.’
“Can I just make a really clear point about Jenny Tonge. First of all she is not a Liberal Democrat in the House of Lords, she’s an independent..”
“But she’s a member of the party and has always bin..”
“Can I just clarify something that is very important, which is really peculiar that you didn’t mention it earlier on. Jenny Tonge had the whip withdrawn in the House of Lords because she gave support for violence in the Middle East in the Israel Palestine conflict, and her admiration for Jeremy Corbyn has always been on the basis of his support for a similar stance.”
“And the dozen others she referred to?”
“It’s fantasy.”
Well, that’s nice. It’s nice that Tim Farron has spoken out about this issue and stopped all this silly euphemism malarkey and the tedious beating about the bush.
However, I suspect there’s still plenty of pro-Palestinian sentiment with a touch of antisemitism - amongst the ranks. I know David Ward and Baroness Tonge were the worst offenders, but all that CAABU stuff is still a major influence with the party. Nick Clegg fell for it, amongst others.
Even so, Tim Farron might want to differentiate himself from Labour by being a strong, principled leader, and who knows, he might put his foot down if any Lib Dems start denigrating Israel and spreading antisemitic rumours, whilst trying to suck up to potential Muslim constituents.
The new Lib Dem leader Tim Farron holds the constituency directly to the north of my own (the fine Conservative-held seat of Morecambe and Lunesdale): namely, Westmorland and Lonsdale.
Westmorland and Lonsdale is a seat you'd expect to be very safely Conservative - and it used to be a very safe Tory seat until Tim Farron won it by an extremely tight margin in 2005.
By 2010, however, Tim had made it in a very safe Liberal Democrat seat - so safe that, despite a significant fall in votes, he still managed to win in 2015 by a comfortable margin.
I remember very clearly driving through his constituency during the 2010 election and being astonished - yes, astonished - by the number of signs and posters backing Tim Farron. They were so ubiquitous that I expected most of the the cows and sheep of South Lakeland to be sporting 'Vote Tim Farron' badges as well. Tory posters were almost entirely absent (except a couple in the middle of a field in the middle of nowhere as we approached the safety of our beloved Morecambe and Lunesdale).
What had he done to bring this about in 2010? What did he do to still win by a large margin in 2015 (when most of his colleagues across the country were culled)?
My answer up until this week has always been: I've not got a clue. Yes, he's positioned himself cannily politically on the Left of the Lib Dems - but why would the latter help him in South Lakeland? So, putting my thinking cap on, it must be to do with his record as a constituency MP and his personality (which, to anyone but a hardened partisan, seemsquite charming and straightforward).
The curious thing though is, until this past week, I had absolutely no idea that he was an evangelical Christian. Nor that he's previously held religiously-inspired 'socially conservative' positions on issues like abortion and gay marriage (though he's apparently 'softened' those recently).
I do now though. And how!
The media seems to have suddenly discovered that fact and gone collectively crazy about it. From Channel 4 News to the Spectator and the Guardian (and the rest), there's been a veritable furore about Mr Farron's Christian faith this week, and his resultant social beliefs...so out of keeping with the prevailing 'liberal' (media) mood it seems...
...and the BBC has, inevitably, been near the forefront of the panic about this.
This morning's Sunday and this morning's Andrew Marr Show both dwelt on the subject.
There really does seem to be something about deeply-held Christian beliefs - especially Evangelical ones - which completely dumbfounds 'liberal' BBC types. Such views must seem so alien and distasteful to them...and especially dumbfounding given that, otherwise, he's such a nice, left-wing Lib Dem.
Now, in fairness to Andrew Marr and William Crawley today, both BBC presenters wondered aloud on their programmes whether this might be a case of liberal, metropolitan sneering.
That's progress, I think. (And that's coming from a fully paid-up social liberal - namely me).
I don't remember Baroness Warsi, however, getting anything like this kind of treatment when she made chairwoman of the Conservative Party a few years ago. Her views on abortion and gay marriage didn't come under such intense scrutiny, for some reason.
I saw these reports in the Times (£) and the Guardian, so I had a quick search to see if the BBC had reported it or something similar.
The Times.
“Theresa May was forced to drop plans to publish a counter-extremism strategy because of splits in the coalition.
The home secretary put forward measures, including linking benefits to the ability to speak English, and tougher asylum rules for those judged to have breached a new definition of extremism, for inclusion in the strategy.
However, the government was unable to agree her far-reaching strategy before parliament was dissolved after the Liberal Democrats...............”
The bit above you can access for free is enough to give you the gist, and of course the Guardian’s is not behind a paywall.
The Guardian.
“A Home Office strategy to tackle non-violent extremism has been discreetly shelved after Liberal Democrats in the coalition government blocked the proposals as too hardline and an affront to civil liberties.A leaked copy of the 28-page report, seen by the Observer, reveals a series of measures designed to counter extremism, including reduced benefits for people who struggle to speak English, training for Jobcentre Plus staff so that they can spy on people considered vulnerable to extremism, and banning individuals from entering the UK if they are judged to have “undermined British values”.It is understood that senior Lib Dems refused to approve the strategy, despite promises by the Home Office that it would be published before the general election.”
But when I typed in every combination of ‘Theresa May’s extremism plans blocked by Lib Dems’ or ‘Lib Dems block Theresa May’s new tough line on extremism’ into the BBC’s magnificent search engine all that came up was this rather detailed report of a teaching union’s scaremongering fears about a ‘heavy-handed’ approach to counter extremism. Teachers 'fear extremism debates in class'
"Teachers claimed Muslims were being demonised". "Teachers are being forced to spy on their students over fears about Islamic extremism, a teachers' union conference has heard."
NUT leader Christine Blower warns against a heavy-handed approach to counter-extremism
You might think people who would be interested in this report might also be interested to know that the Lib Dems have scuppered Theresa May's plans, flawed or not.
It’s a bit like one of those End Times movies; the end of civilisation as we know it.
The ever expanding Islamic State - sorry, the so-called Islamic State, then the ebola. The two-pronged, pincer-like assault on civilisation that is rapidly closing in.
Stockpile the groceries, get yourself a shotgun. Man the barricades. If the ebola don’t get you, the Islamists will.
Of course I blame Israel. Menzies Campbell does, anyhow. I think that’s what he was telling Andrew Neil on the politics show.
However, the Liberal Democrats were otherwise engaged with their emergency debate on the Middle East.
The Israel Palestine situation is an overriding emergency for the Lib Dems. They must pass an “emergency motion” straight away. Not just any emergency motion; a holistic one. One that is full of holes.
(Incidentally, the more hysterical Nick Clegg becomes, the more he uses the word ‘create’, pronouncing it ‘crate.’ The Lib Dems have crated almost everything. They must be thinking of moving out.)
“The Liberal Democrats have moved on to the final item on the agenda, which begins with a discussion on the latest situation in the Middle East. Opening, Cheltenham MP Martin Horwood criticises what he says are "illegal" Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the country's "disproportionate" response to rocket attacks from Gaza. Mr Horwood explains that the motion before conference encourages a "united European stance that recognises Palestinian statehood".
An emergency motion on peace in the Middle East with an holistic approach. Bring on the emergency services! The Lib Dems are passing a motion!
The ineffectual nature of this exercise brings to mind a video that has gawn viral, according to the Telegraph. I bring it to you with trepidation because I suspect viewing it is somehow unwholesome, and maybe putting it out there for the likes of you and me to gawk at is exploitative and a bit wrong, but it is very funny, and the ineffectualness of one little madam’s frustration and the histrionic delivery just reminds me of the Lib Dems’ emergency motion on the Middle East, holistic approach and all.
“Be vury curfull noye”
The accent could smite asunder any holistic approach to the so-called Islamic State, if not the approach by the Islamic State itself.
Do listen curfully to the speech by Martin Horwood MP. Cheltenham, which is so devoid of understanding, so ill-informed, so superficial, so wrong-headed that the thought of the Lib Dems influencing ‘policy’ beggars belief. What does he know about the Middle East, one wonders. Has he holistically entrusted his education and information to the BBC in its entirety? He starts in typical BBC. ‘The Lib Dems are even handed about Israel Palestine.‘ ‘We support a two state solution where two nations respect each other’s right to exist” . The ‘some of my best friend are Jews’ opening gambit, which precedes the nitty gritty.
“We remember and will always remember the terrible holocaust and catastrophe which cast dark clouds over everything that is ever done and said about this conflict. We understand that even a few careless words can stoke the fires of antisemitism........ and Islamophobia, and Liberal Democrats will always stand against prejudice and intolerance, not just abroad, but in our own communities.
So with one hand we’re given ‘antisemitism’ while the other takes it back with “Islamophobia’. Surprise.
“But conference - if we are right to tell the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki that it is not enough to be elected, but you also have to pursue the path of peace and inclusion and tolerance, then it is right to send the same message to the government of.......
Is he about to mention Hamas here?)
............... Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel!”
Burst of applause. I almost thought, just for a nano second, he was going to say Hamas. Back in the room.
“It is not acceptable to continually undermine the peace process through illegal settlement building. It is not acceptable to give settlers on Palestinian land legal rights that you don’t then give to their Palestinian neighbours.”
This is pure super-nanny.
“It is acceptable to defend yourself against terrorism as we did against the IRA, but it is not acceptable to unleash a wholly disproportionate attack in response that has devastated communities in Gaza and killed thousands of civilians.
Applause.
“And if we tell the Palestinian people and indeed Arab people across the region that the path of rockets and bombs and massacres is wrong, then we should reward and support the painstaking diplomatic and political path to peaceful change being pursued by the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Good grief! You only have to scratch the surface to see that Mahmoud Abbas is a devious and duplicitous individual who speaks with forked tongue and has long-ago out-lived his elected credentials. Does Martin Horwood know anything?
“Conference, this motion in very guarded language encourages a united European stance that recognises Palestinian statehood. “Now cleverer speakers than me will probably point out the apparent contradiction of asking for recognition on the basis of negotiated borders that have not yet been successfully negotiated, but conference, we have done that before, more than once on the 28th of April 1950 we did it for the state of Israel.” “Liberal democrats. Please pass this motion: The voices of pluralism and tolerance and democracy can be difficult to find at times like these, when war and intolerance and extremism seem to be rampant. Those voices may be hard to find, but they are there and they need to know that if they have the courage to stand up for democracy and tolerance and freedom then we will have the courage to support them and add our voice to theirs. thank you.”
We already know the Lib Dems will vote for the motion. It was a foregone conclusion, but nevertheless someone had the audacity to oppose it.
Here’s John Allen( Oxford West and Abingdon) who wishes to speak against the motion.
“Conference. Policy on the Middle East has gone from ignorance, through stupidity to hypocrisy. First ignorance: A few years ago we passed a motion whose only proposal, outside the usual platitudes, was to make that dictator’s club, the Arab League, the fifth member of the quartet on the Middle East. This was like asking Vladimir Putin to help us adjudicate on the Ukraine. And weren’t they so effective in Syria?
My God. What is going on? Is this man really a Lib Dem? I think ‘conference’ is wondering the same thing.
“Then stupidity: when we had a motion welcoming the Arab Spring, all that had actually happened at that time was a number of demonstrations, riots and a military coup, and in the same motion we supported bombing a Libya that had given up weapons of mass destruction, and opposing bombing Iraq when we thought they still had ‘em. Now the ‘spring’ has predictably resulted in Islamist dictatorships, another Egyptian military coup with thousands dead.; and hasn’t Libya turned out well? Hypocrisy: Earlier this year parliamentarians ranted, as this motion does, about the disproportionate response when Israel defended itself against murder and the continuous rain of missiles from genocidal Islamofascists using their own population as human shields, Hamas. “The obvious question of course is ‘what would we have done?’ Well now we know. After a few hostage murders, but no missiles fired at the UK we are now bombing genocidal Islamofascists using their own population as human shields. ISIS. Except, as far as I Know, we are not sending them warnings, we are not ‘door knocking’ or proposing to have any troops, let alone civilians, in harm’s way, So presumably we are even more disproportionate.“Of course there is no obligation on our side to have people killed just to satisfy the deliberate misreading of the concept of proportionality. The final stage of this party’s defence of their Middle East policy is indicated by the title of this motion. “A holistic approach” as if multiple ancient historic problems, many of them not related, can be sorted out by a bit of quack alternative therapy.
Tapping - or perhaps a solitary clap
“We don’t have any original ideas about Iraq or Syria - fair enough - but all of a sudden we’ve got the magic solution to Israel Palestine.Let’s get the EU to recognise a Palestine state. Problem solved. Just like a hundred years ago the good Europeans, Sykes and Picot imposed states and borders without local agreement, and that brought peace didn’t it.“ Asking Palestinians to break their commitment under the Oslo accords, to have the final settlement negotiated (and these are the Oslo accords which set up the Palestinian Authority in the first place) removes any incentive for Abbas to negotiate as agreed. Why should he? He would look stupid if he did.”
“Can you bring your remarks to a close?” interjected the chair
“Creating a state without agreeing borders is asking for further fighting and trouble, as of course has already happened. Churchill famously said “Jaw jaw is better than war war.” In the Middle East.....”
Oh dear. they’ve turned off the mike.
Next up normal service is resumed. Layla Moran a chirpy British Palestinian Christian comes to the podium.
Here's one for our Lib Dem readers (if we have any):
Lib Dems:amazing that 2 little known candidates take it on themselves to tell Clegg to quit and BBC leads bulletins on them - even on Sunday
— MichaelWhite (@MichaelWhite) May 25, 2014
By my calculations so far 0.004795% of the LibDem membership have signed a letter calling for @nick_clegg to stand down.
— Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) May 25, 2014
On From Our Own Correspondent the ever reliable source of bias or notably daft comments (remember Fort Hood) Mark Mardell told us that in the UK the words 'liberal democrat' describes a party and are not an insult. Really? He’s been out of the country too long.
(Oh dear, that's our remaining Lib Dem readers gone then!)
I’m not the kind of person who goes “I hold my hands up” when they think they’ve done something a bit naughty, but just in case the things I wrote about the Liberal Democrats and the Jesus and Mo cartoons appeared to trivialize a serious matter by use of facetious or flippant language, I’ll elaborate.
The LiberalDemocrats are a shambles. They are though, are they not?
I wrote that before everyone else started saying it. I even heard Michael Deacon say the same, days after I’d written it. You’ll have to take my word for that. Damian Thompson has said it (twice) as well.
The Liberal Democrats are the party of .....what?
Are they the party of immature, superficial and politically impracticable policies (some say lack of policies) that can neither produce a definitive manifesto nor stop individual members bringing the party into (further) disrepute?
Their undeliverable electioneering pledges propelled them into government; they were obviously taken by surprise when they woke up next day to find the electorate looking expectantly at them. They probably looked at each other and went: “What do we do now?” in a one-off moment of solidarity.
They did demand some concessions, like diluting any discernibly principled Tory strategies wherever they found them, (which might have been a good thing) and they succeeded in securing a governmental role for Vince, probably a shoe-in after the BBC adopted him as their go-to economic affairs pundit.
They were at odds with each other as well as the conservatives they were put there to prop up. They couldn’t please anyone, Nick Clegg was indecisive and had to cope with more rogue MPs than UKIP, who expelled theirs.
Look at the recent scandals. The media, (or maybe Mrs Clegg) prodded Nick into action over the media’s favourite topic, sexual misconduct, and Nick Clegg made a hasty decision that probably thrust them into an even deeper hole by confronting Lord Rennard who appears to be turning it into a full-frontal legal battle. The case over Mike Hancock MP, who they’ve suspended, has caught Nick Clegg claiming he acted ‘immediately’ amidst counter claims that he’d been informed about complaints months ago.
However, the worst thing of all is the horrible thing that’s had the least coverage. The BBC has barely mentioned it. I mean the dithering over Jenny Tonge, whose antisemitism was tolerated, right up till she crossed the proverbial red line by insinuating that Israel harvests organs from Palestinians. That was a glaring example of, well, dithering. And tolerating the intolerable.
Another example of the moral insensibility of the Lib Dems is their failure to censure a habitual
Israel-basher whose antisemitic pandering to his Muslim constituents frequently crosses that line. They gave him a light smack on the wrist last year, but he’s still at it.
A thread on Harry’s Place showed a clip of him speaking in the HoC , and shoehorning the Palestinians’ “right of return” into the topic of Holocaust Memorial Day, an event which he sort of implied he will be attending.
“Many of us will be attending” he said to be precise, so it looks likely that he’s not actually attending after all.
“Does the Secretary of State agree with me..” he begins, that at this time we shouldn’t forget “The millions of displaced Palestinians”.
The use of the figure ‘millions’ is emotive and misleading, because the original number of Palestinians displaced in 1948 - (by fleeing from a prospective war zone, primarily on the advice of the Arabs who were about to send their armies to eradicate the Jews of Israel, and not because Israelis chucked them out) - was estimated to be 750,000. That is not millions. What *is* millions, is the number of Palestinians who are claiming the right of return.
The millions David Ward MP mischievously evokes, actually represents six decades of population growth amongst Palestinian Muslim refugees who for reasons to do with political bargaining can’t or won’t budge because they’re steadfastly holding out until the world grants them permission to overwhelm the Jews in Israel, thereby making the Jews a minority in their only state.
Palestinian refugees are political pawns in the Arab World’s game of eradicating Israel, and to that end are the only refugees to have got away with a claim that refugee status passes from generation to generation.
But Clegg has equivocated over antisemitism all along. He and members of his party have been seduced into accepting guided tours orchestrated by pro-Palestinian CAABU. They believe they’re being shown ‘what is really happening in the Middle East’, which is exactly what they’re supposed to believe, and is exactly what they want to believe.
His majority is slim, but the Muslim vote props up the likes of David Ward.
The Lib Dems don’t even know what to do about Maajid Nawaz. He was a one-time member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and although he’s no longer a member he remains a religious Muslim. Surely in view of Quilliam’s alleged quest, which is to modernise Islam and prevent radicalisation, a party with a genuine interest in creating a liberal society should look upon Nawaz as a PR asset. But their illiberal constituents have kicked up enough fuss so as to override such considerations.
If anyone can put to one side the improbability of a genuinely liberal society being achieved with an ever increasing pro-Sharia Muslim population, the Lib Dems can. They brushed it under the carpet long ago. If Islam itself seems, to “many of us” , to entail repression, restriction, constraint, slugs, snails and puppy dogs’ tails and all things antithetical to Liberalism, it’s perfectly obvious that the Lib Dems are pragmatic enough not to see it that way.
This muddled statement from Maajid Nawaz’s facebook thingy shows what comes from trying to be a (L)iberal democrat Muslim.
Mohammad Shafiqsays his objection to Maajid’s blasphemous tweet (the cartoon) is all about freedom of speech. He contends that it’s the Muslims’ democratic right ‘to be offended’ even if that entails shutting down the opposition’s freedom of speech. Calling for Maajid Nawaz’s deselection, or appealing to foreigners whom you very well know will threaten to cut people’s necks off is all part of the democratic rights that devout Muslims exercise while demanding Sharia and calling for the end of democracy.
To a British citizen who has, up till recently, felt quite comfortable expressing skepticism about religious dogma, the sea change in British public discourse is alarming. Watching fatwas and alien Islamic taboos gradually become accepted, and almost mainstream, is astonishing.
Not just things like objecting to an innocuous cartoon, but expecting your religious demands to be respected and considered sacred just because they’re the norm for a particular religion - just compare and contrast with the way an African preacher who believed in witchcraft was scoffed at on The Big Questions the other week - and then, to use those bizarre objections about a cartoon as a reason for inciting murder, and unbelievably, being taken seriously by the Liberal Democrats and the BBC while doing so is nightmarish, world-turned-upside- down territory.
Caving in to the demands of Mohammad Shafiq is completely ridiculous by anyone’s standards, and by a party known as ‘Liberal Democrats’, even more so.
Anyway, Twitter. There’s ridiculous, as they say in Wales.
I mean restricting dialogue to 140 characters reduces communication to metaphorical stone- throwing. It’s okay to Tweet “breaking news” I suppose, but that’s necessarily subjective, often to a dangerous degree. The worst thing about it is its potential for nastiness. Yuck. And the lack of supervision.
I speak as an outsider. Personally I’m too wordy for Twitter. I haven’t got time to write a short letter, as the man said.
So that’s why I think of the Lib Dems, Maajid Nawaz, and Twitter as ridiculous. I don’t have to bother with George Galloway because he’s travelled too far along the winding road to self destruction. Nearly there George.
That leaves the cartoons and Islam. We know how Islam feels about cartoons. Cartoons and cartoonists are ‘haram’, as they say in Arabic. Oh yes, unless they’re depicting Jews as monsters. The Jesus and Mo cartoons deal with the subject of ‘not depicting the prophet’ head on. Right at the beginning Jesus asks Mo about this, and he says he’s actually a body double. So that clears that up to everyone’s satisfaction. Everyone except devout Muslims and the authorities at the LSE. The ridiculousness of that should be obvious..
I hope that explains any flippancy, and I do realise this isn’t directly connected to the BBC. But it isn’t entirely unconnected to it either. I contend that the BBC’s deliberate avoidance of openly tackling these indelicate matters and its conspicuous tiptoeing around them is allowing them to grow and grow like Japanese knotweed, which has become insidious and threatens to stifle everything in its wake.
There’s a story that makes me think of a sketch in a long-forgotten show, where the character dismisses a bunch of random topics as ‘rubbish’.
Can you guess which story it is? It’s not the quenelle. That story was given the BBC’s default Politically Correct treatment for a while, then after evidence too overwhelming to ignore, the quenelle gesture gradually became accepted as being unquestionably, indisputably antisemitic. Now the issue seems to have segued seamlessly into ‘racism in footie’ and the whole matter has been muddied with the slightly counter-productive question of “yid”.
So even though I thought the Today programme did a reasonable item on the topic yesterday, (and made a bit of a pig’s ear of it on Newsnight last night,) I think it’s now widely understood that the quenelle gesture is considered to be a justifiably offensive act, and the story currently appears upon our screens nearly as ubiquitously as Benedict Cumberbach.
That brings me to the story in question, which at the time of writing hasn’t been covered by the BBC at all.
Huffpo, Harry’s Place, Homo Economicus, to name a couple or three, yes. It’s been covered extensively, mainly because it’s so ridiculous.
Everything about this story is ludicrous. Every single one of the ingredients.
So it seems that Maajid Nawaz, who, despite campaigning for the modernisation of his religion, is still a religious Muslim, which for me gets a down-ding, but that’s my problem I suppose - anyhow, for some reason he wants to be a Liberal Democrat so much that he’s an actual Liberal Democrat candidate.
Why would anyone want to be a Lib Dem these days? I mean that would entail being tainted with David Ward!
The Lib Dems’ association with large Muslim constituencies, think Sarah Teather, and Cleggie’s tardiness in dumping Jenny Tonge; think the Lib Dems’ propensity to take CAABU sponsored trips to the Middle East to be fed raw pro-Palestinian propaganda. All this bruises my pro-Israel sensibilities. I might even take offence at it all, which is my prerogative.
Anyway, Nawaz does want to be a Lib Dem M.P., but the persistent high-profile media presence he has cultivated led him to rashly appear on The Big Questions, during which some fellow-panellists (for want of a better word) wore their Jesus and Mo T shirts, which in turn had been the catalyst for a freedom of speech issue at their university. (they’d been banned, then unbanned) if I remember correctly.
The BBC, pandering to a misunderstanding of Islamic regulations, or a misunderstanding of Maajid’s Islamic sensitivities, or for some other unspecified reason, thought they’d better not let these T shirts be shown Live On National TV, so later Maajid chose to show, on Twitter, that he was such a liberal Muslim that he didn’t mind the T shirts, and he Tweeted the very T shirt image in question to prove it.
Then I hear all hell broke loose. I mean - fatwas all round.
What is the objection, exactly? What is the actual offence? Is it:
a) Mocking Islam?
b) Mocking Christianity? (I don’t think so)
c) Showing an image of the prophet Mohammad PBUH which is only a very badly drawn cartoon that obviously makes no serious attempt to be a likeness?
So Maajid’s Twitter feed with the image of the Jesus and Mo cartoon that was on the T shirt caused offence. People from far and wide have clubbed together to campaign for Maajid’s deselection. Can you Adam’n’Eve it? And all this amidst an existential crisis for the Clegg party!
Enter George Galloway. He Tweets:
“No Muslim will ever vote for the Liberal democrats anywhere ever unless they ditch the provocateur Maajid Nawaz, cuckold of the EDL”
Apart from being a completely bonkers statement, one might wonder why the hell should he care? He’s not a Lib Dem now, is he? Surely not...
Even the cuddliest Muslims that the BBC are so fond of calling upon for their opinions on this that and the other have weighed in with varying degrees of condemnation.
Mohammad Shafiq, himself no stranger to The Big Questions, says it was despicable behaviour.
What, tweeting a cartoon on a T shirt?
despicable behaviour
Then with all the hooha about Twitter and vicious, racist and threatening Tweets therein, think whassername that got the feminist image on the fiver,(or was it the tenner) and the footballer who’s been racially abused, some Islamist or shall we say misinterpreter of Islam has tweeted a threat. He’s going to cut his neck off. (Maajid’s, not his own) It would be hard to do that without causing a very serious life changing injury - I don’t imagine he had in mind a simple neckectomy, you know, attaching the head directly onto the shoulders. No. He means he’s going to kill him.
Just imagine.
Everyone has weighed in with their own opinion, even me. Mine is that the whole thing and everything about it is utterly ridiculous.
The Lib Dems are ridiculous.
Maajid Nawas is ridiculous.
Fatwas are ridiculous.
The campaigns for deselection and antideselection are ridiculous.
The Big Questions is ridiculous.
George Galloway is ridiculous.
Mohammad Shafiq is ridiculous.
Twitter is ridiculous.
The LSE is ridiculous.
Me writing this is ridiculous
The only things that are supposed to be ridiculous, i.e. the Jesus and Mo cartoons, aren’t ridiculous.
I promised to monitor the Today programme's coverage of the party conferences this year to see if any evidence of bias emerges.
The Greens came first. Next came the Liberal Democrats. Their conference began last Saturday, but that day's Today (14/9) didn't spend much time on it.
The programme spent some two and a half minutes previewing the conference (from 7.12-7.14), though that discussion with chief political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue spent a good portion on that talking about a new government policy - the announcement of a five pence charge on plastic bags. Gary mentioned the Lib Dem advisor who said that only 25% of electorate would vote Lib Dem now and described this as "a dangerous thing to do".
An interview with Ed Davey, the Lib Dem minister responsible for the new plastic bag policy, came later (from 7.32-7.37). The interview concentrated on the plastic bag issue, and didn't discuss general Lib Dem matters. Justin Webb asked him to explain the policy, asked him why he wasn't going as they've done in Wales, asked him whether this was a policy the Conservatives had resisted, asked him about whether George Osborne had resisted it, asked him whether paper bags were included, asked him if packaging was next on his agenda (as many people are upset about that), asked him whether companies should be charged for cleaning up waste packages (and pressed him on that)....[all, you note, questions pushing the policy on even further, rather than challenging it]...and, finally [and, for the first time, challenging the policy in some way], asked him whether there's an element of unfairness to the charge, in that poorer people who go shopping on buses might not have their bags with them, unlike richer people with cars. There were five interruptions.
The 8.10 spot wasn't a Lib Dem bit either, being given over to a general discussion about the party conference season, as John Humphrys talked to three former party advisers - Conservative George Bridges, Labour's Dan Corry and Lib Dem Miranda Green - about how their parties can try to connect with the electorate.
So Today's real Lib Dem conference coverage only began on Monday (16/9), with Evan Davis reporting from Glasgow. [Yep, another BBC star joining the rest of the gang in Glasgow].
A couple of minutes was spend with the BBC's political correspondent Vicky Young at 6.33 speculating about why "such an eminent economic commentator" as Vince Cable wasn't speaking in that day's economic debate.
Indeed, the BBC's correspondents dominated much of that day's coverage, with Nick Robinson speculating about the day's events in the second hour and then coming back after 8.30 to give his post-match analysis of the interview with Nick Clegg at 8.10. There was also the BBC's Gary O'Donaghue reporting from the conference just before the 7 o'clock news and Evan Davis himself giving us his view of things just after the 7 o'clock news.
Gary O'Donaghue's report concentrated on some in the the party's desire for 'distinctiveness' from the Tories.
Evan Davis reported on Nick Clegg's revived position - "The only really funny thing about Nick Clegg now is how strong a position he's appeared to carve for himself, despite all the knocks....Calamity Clegg he once was, but he's turned into calm Clegg." We heard what Evan himself described as "a party political broadcast" for Nick Clegg - from Evan himself, from some non-Lib Dem students, from Sir Ming Campbell and even from Tim Farron. Then we heard from the Social Liberal (ie. left-wing) faction and got the less favourable take on Nick Clegg.
Evan's interview with Nick Clegg, which can be heard here, was good-humoured. Evan Davis and Nick Clegg got on well. Evan teed it up by saying how good a position Nick Clegg was now in. Yes, there was some ribbing over Vince Cable, but Mr Clegg emerged unscathed. They talked about the recovery, the 50p top tax rate, and then (briefly) the Lib Dem's falling membership figures - which Evan soon generalised to all political parties, about which they chatted for a surprising amount of time. Nick Clegg's popularity was the final topic. Evan can be a sharp interviewer, but this was a gentle, even soft interview. I counted a mere eight interruptions in 12 minutes (low by Evan's standard). Evan should do this more often.
The programme ended with a couple of journalists talking about the Lib Dems - Isabel Hardman of the pro-Conservative Spectator and David Clegg of the pro-Labour Daily Record. "We've been running a relatively upbeat story from the Clegg point of view", began Evan, accurately. David Clegg gave the counter-story, saying that Scottish Lib Dems are angry and that the polls are bad, and wondered what the point of the party is. Isabel Hardman stuck to the more upbeat take taken by Today.
Tuesday's coverage (17/9) included more BBC-on-BBC discussion, with talk of tax rises and the lifetime of the coalition between Evan Davis and Gary O'Donaghue at 6.35.
Then came another discussion about the future of the coalition (at 7.17) with Olly Grender, former Lib Dem communications director, who wants the coalition to go right up to the general election. This was a good-natured chat with Evan Davis.
There was a further interview with a Lib Dem politician at 8.34, when Evan interviewing Danny Alexander on the subject of tax rises v spending cuts following the next election. The party is saying there will be more tax rises ("on the wealthiest"). This was more of the sparky kind of interview associated with Evan Davis, with plenty of interruptions (seven in just over 5 and a half minutes), but it wasn't a hostile one - and drew a "you've been honest" comment from Evan. He then quoted some of Vince Cable's attacks on the "ugly" rhetoric of the Conservatives and asked him if he agreed. Danny did indeed agree "on some issues", such as immigration.
The programme closed with an interview with the BBC's Nick Robinson and Peter Kellner of YouGov (not a Lib Dem). Peter Kellner describes today's UK politicians (in general) as "pygmy politicians", but said the Lib Dems have an opportunity as a result - to say big things about modern politics (such as about the environment), and convince people over time that such big things count, and that they count.
*****
The coverage overall (basically two days-worth - as Saturday's doesn't really count), gave a decent amount of time to the Lib Dems, without weighing down the programme with wall-to-wall Lib Demagoguery. Evan Davis approached the party in a good-natured way, and I would say gave them pretty favourable coverage, on the whole. I think we can safely say that the Lib Dems won't be complaining about BBC bias as a result of it.
The test of BBC bias for the rest of us will come when we see how Labour and the Conservatives are treated in comparison. Will they fare as well?
After the shocking explosion of rioting and lawlessness that shook several English cities in August 2011, Sunday commissioned three talks from prominent figures to reflect on the events that had just taken place.
'Is the BBC biased?' is the name on the tin so, if Damian Thompson is correct that "Nowhere in the BBC's output is Left-liberal bias more thickly applied than on Radio 4's Sunday programme", then we should be able to see that reflected in the choice of figures, in how their contributions are framed and in what they actually say. Let's see then!
1. Choice of speakers
The three speakers were a Labour MP, a liberal rabbi and the leader of a Muslim organisation. A classic Left-liberal choice, at first glance.
Rabbi Julia Neubergeris 'certainly Left-liberal' through and through. A familiar figure, at the time she sat on the Liberal Democrat benches in the House of Lords, though she resigned from the party later in the year.
Fiyaz Mughal of Faith Matters, which Ed Stourton described as being "a Muslim group committed to reducing extremism and inter-faith tension", turned out to be 'Left-liberal' too. He was a former Deputy President of the Liberal Democrat Party.
Interestingly - and complicating matters pleasingly! - the Labour MP was Frank Field. Being a Labour MP, he can obviously be described as being 'Left' (to an extent!) but 'Left-liberal' doesn't fit him, and he's always been popular with conservatives - and Conservatives. He is a leading Anglican too.
An actual Conservative or, more generally, any right-wing speaker is noticeably missing from this short list - a revealing omission, don't you think? Why was that side of the debate missing?
2. What they said
What follows are my transcripts of the three talks. They are all of interest, and can now be preserved for posterity (thanks to this little blog!).
"The country no longer sings from the same hymn-sheet. That is the lesson I draw from the recent rioting and looting. To give a sense that the whole country from onboard the same train journey, even if we were in different compartments, the Victorians put much effort into creating what we would now call 'a public ideology'. This was a period when Christianity had come under sustained attack. The governing elite reacted by seeing how it could maintain much of Christian morality without it being underpinned by Christian dogma. The question posed was 'Is it possible to retain allegiance to our moral code or social ground rules without that code being undergirded by faith?' For almost a century the Victorians achieved what many people now think impossible - they maintained, in effect, a secular morality. The country WAS blessed by one individual, the philosopher T.H. Green, took much of the honey from the Christian hive and placed it in more secular surroundings. English idealism, the product of Green's work, became a public ideology or hymn-sheet. The aim was to create a society where everyone could develop their best selves and one that realised that this could only be achieved if we has a strong sense of community. Although this was a period of falling church attendances, it was one in which English idealism held sway. But no more. Why? One reason stands out. We have lost the confidence to teach a set of beliefs about our society's objectives and the rules that need to be followed if these ends are to be achieved. No-one, sadly, is much interested in doing what T.H. Green did. So how might we go about trying to emulate this extraordinary Victorian achievement? In place of one faith we now have many, and those without faith. Yet I've found it impossible to interest anybody in the task of looking at what each of these faiths see as the goals of life. There has been a similar lack of interest in knowing what these faiths see as the ground rules if the good life is to be achieved. My guess is that we will find much agreement over both ends and means. If I'm right we could have the basis for an agreed morality, a social highway code which we could confidently teach. It would tell us what the country was trying to achieve, both in terms of each individual's worth and what we see as the right ends to which individuals should aim. Nobody should pretend this journey would be easy and there is an alternative. That alternative erupted onto British streets only weeks ago."
"In my view the riots this summer were not a particular sign that our society is sick. Unlike the Prime Minister, I think it may well have been a one-off and not the start of something new. We've always has occasional rioting - Notting Hill, Broadwater Farm, Brixton and so on - but I DO think that there is a deep moral malaise in our society. It's just that those problems go deeper and our more widespread than the riots, however unpleasant, however frightening they were. First, we depersonalise our older people and talk about them as a demographic time-bomb. We've watched Southern Cross go bust and seen thousands of older people in care homes waiting anxiously to know their future, yet what are we doing to bring comfort, certainty and hope? Secondly, and similarly, we've allowed a huge number of our young to be in a position where they can't find work. However bubbly, energetic and full of hope they are when they start looking, the dejection and the depression is real as they are rejected time and again however hard they try. I think we should be creating jobs for young people and carving out exciting new volunteering opportunities for them as well. But that's expensive and would mean stopping cuts in those parts of our voluntary sector that could find things for them to do. So it's not really about riots, it's about our attitudes to the young and the old. And it's about our lack of energy and sense of urgency in doing anything about all this. When societies recognise they are in trouble they often heal themselves by a massive growth in what we might call 'civic institutions'. The Chief Rabbi makes this point. After the Industrial Revolution, with people living in fear of attack on the streets of our cities, friendly societies mutuals, charitable foundations and housing associations, many of them religious, with loads of people volunteering, sprang up all over the country. People felt they had a responsibility to heal what was wrong with our society. And that's what's missing now. Sure, there are modern philanthropists doing their best (though we need far more) and there are small, independent start-up organisations trying to make the world a better place, but it's for ALL of us to make the world a better place, riots or no riots. At a time of real worry about our future, real tightening of belts, with an angry element in society that doesn't feel it has a share in it, that sense of needing to make the world, our country, our city, our neighbourhood a better place needs renewal. We saw local communities could out to clean up in the wake of the riots. If we could just harness that wonderful energy, we might just find a way through. But it's not just for them to do it. It's for all of us - of all faiths, ages, political views, wherever we live, nationwide."
"The prime minister suggests that our society is broken and sick and suggests that there is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society. This view, which is simplistic, does not reflect the huge activities in civil society - faith groups and groups who are based on social justice, who have acted for decades as a glue between communities in local areas in the UK. Such a statement by the Prime Minister simply disregards all of this energy and focus. Without such interfaith, cohesion and community development activities involving young people the intensity and the length of the riots would have been considerably worse. Our society is NOT broken. It's simply challenged from time to time when we stop listening or when we disregard those who are the voiceless or the unseen. Within an Islamic context, ensuring cohesive communities is fundamental to the well-being of a community, a region and a nation. Indeed, at the very roots of the inception of Islam debate, discussion and listening to one another were a fundamental part of the faith and its energy. Allied to that, within Islam there is a consistent message that while God can provide solutions and give hope we must also use our energies to create a sense of social justice and harmony. Islam repeatedly talks of the divine and the here-and-now within a strong envelope of social justice and social harmony. It always gives people a direct link to God whilst stating that the mercy of God is available for those people who make mistakes. With this in mind, the role of family, education, social action for good and hope are all part of the equation which Islam promotes and whilst there are areas of confluence with the statement of the Prime Minister about the need for proper ethics, morals and parenting, there is also a distinct set of differences. We cannot regard society as broken when there are so many energies and so many social forces that have successfully kept us together for decades - young and old, black and white, male and female. Islam asks people to look at the totality of social situations and guides people away from narrow definitions and this is why the actions of many of those who commit crimes in the name of Islam are so fundamentally wrong. This is also where it diverges from such a comment made by the Prime Minister. We must, therefore, step back and look at the reasons why the riots took place and come up with reasons that we can act upon without blaming our younger generations or our society or our communities. A handful of young people simply cannot dictate how we look at our younger generations in the future. That would be a disastrous legacy of the riots."
As this is a blog about bias, I will not dwell too long on my own reactions to these talks. Frank Field's contribution had me thinking for hours after I first heard it. He has a part-alluring, part-concerning big idea. It is most unlikely ever to be put into practice. (The ideas of T.H. Green, incidentally, seem to be quite popular with Labour Party thinkers. Roy Hattersley is another fan). Baroness Neuberger's feeling that the August riots were "a one-off" looks to have been a shrewd insight. Having had the all the uplift of the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic Games (an uplift most people in the UK seem to have shared), the August riots seem like an old nightmare. (They won't, of course, to their victims). Mr. Mughal's contribution might be said to make him a natural for Platitude Thought For The Day, and it was a bit too 'missionary' in nature for my tastes.
Back to the bias. I don't think there's anything in what the three speakers chosen by Sunday actually said to bat away the claim that the programme fished only in the 'Left' or 'liberal' pool of public opinion for its perspectives on the riots - except that Mr. Field's contribution would surely appeal more to to conservatives (of Right or Left) rather more than to liberals. (Do you agree?)
It is also worth pointing out that the Labour MP was the only speaker not to criticise and disagree with David Cameron!
...which brings me to...
3. How the talks were framed
The debates were framed as responses to David Cameron's claims of a "broken" and "sick" society. This makes the absence of a Conservative voice all the more puzzling.
Frank Field's contribution was was introduced by Edward Stourton in the following way:
'There are pockets of society that are not only broken but frankly sick.' That was the Prime Minister's response to the outbreak of looting and public disorder which erupted early last month. We've asked three prominent figures to reflect on what happened and the way that we collectively should respond. They're all people of faith and people who are actively involved in politics or community service. First up Frank Field, a member of the church of England General Synod and a veteran Labour MP.
Julia Neuberger's talk was introduced by William Crawley like this:
On last week's 'Sunday' the MP Frank Field gave his analysis of the August riots. We had a lot of response to what he said. Here's just a taste of what you told us. Phil Edwards picked up on Frank Field's reference to the 19th Century philosopher T.H. Green. Phil writes, 'I don't think we can adapt the ideas of Victorian philosophy to the age we live in. My own personal belief on how to change people's attitudes is for our governments to lead by example, by behaving in a moral and honest way, but it is clear that there is no single explanation for the recent riots that enjoys universal support. Politicians, religious leaders, columnists, bloggers, academics and community activists will probably continue to debate the factors that became triggers for the riots for years to come.' Here's another voice in that debate, Rabbi Julia Neuberger.
Ed Stourton's introduction to Fiyaz Mughal ran as follows:
Over the past couple of weeks we've broadcast a series of essays prompted by the Prime Minister's response to the August riots. We've already heard from the Labour MP and General Synod member Frank Field and from Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a Liberal Democrat peer. This week the thoughts of Fiyaz Mughal, direct of Faith Matters, a Muslim group committed to reducing extremism and inter-faith tension.
Conclusions
The absence of a voice from the Right making a case that right-wing listeners would feel reflected their outlook of the August riots certainly suggests 'Left-liberal' bias on the programme's part. You may be perfectly comfortable with that (if you take a 'Left-liberal' line yourself, but please imagine the boot being on the other foot. Would you be happy if Sunday had asked three 'Right-conservatives' to give their views?
