Questions to the Prime Minister. Question One. Vicki Young of the BBC...

 

I wonder if, while watching the latest Downing Street Covid press conference, Andrew Neil was tempted to paraphrase his criticism of Andrew Marr on Sunday. 

With the merest tweak his new tweet would say, "Another question to the Government in which the broadcaster’s sole theme is — why didn’t you/don’t you lockdown, sooner, tougher, longer?"

That, and the other endless 'gotcha' questions of course...

Here's what happened today:

Boris Johnson: Let's go to Vicki Young from the BBC. 

Vicki Young: Prime Minister, the whole country is relying on you to take the right steps at the right time and many think that you waited too long to bring in extra restrictions. How can I have confidence in your decision-making when on Sunday you insisted that all schools should stay open and the very next day ordered them to close. And to Professor Whitty and Professor Vallance, when did you first advise the Government to lockdown in England and do you think the vaccine rollout timetable is realistic?

The BBC are absolutely relentless. With so many other possible questions the public might want answering, BBC political journalists, whenever they get the opportunity, ask little else. Absolutely every question there was a politically point-scoring 'gotcha' question from a very particular angle.

They are one-track journalists. It's as if they have an agenda.

Agenda? What agenda?

 

There was a discussion on the old open thread yesterday about last night's BBC News Channel seemingly pushing the 'The Government is not acting fast enough or hard enough' line over coronavirus. 

Looking back (with the help of TV Eyes), yes, there was Laura Kuenssberg asking Boris Johnson what she's been asking him and others at the Downing Street briefings incessantly in recent weeks: 

Laura Kuenssberg: Many children now won't be back at school this time next week, more people are going to be living under the limits near lockdown, ambulances are queueing outside hospitals and there are more daily coronavirus cases than at any point. Hasn't the government again just been too slow?

And that was soon followed by a BBC-BBC discussion along similar lines:

George Alagiah: Vicki, I read somewhere that now three quarters of the population is under either tiers 3 or 4. I mean, that is going to open up the accusation that, yet again, the Prime Minister has acted too late? 

Vicki Young: Yes.

Go back a week earlier, to the moments before a previous Downing Street briefing (23 December), and here's BBC health correspondent Catherine Burns:

Katherine Da Costa: That is the concern about getting on top of it now. And experts have always advised that with a pandemic it is better to go in quickly, act fast, be proactive rather than reactive. And that has been a criticism of the government, that it was too slow to go into lockdown back in the spring, and then again into the autumn. And that is why the pressure was ramping up about restrictions over Christmas, that they felt that originally it was going to be five days of mixing with household bubbles, that has obviously now been reduced to one day for lower level tiers. And even now some experts saying, don't wait until Boxing Day to bring in tighter restrictions, it is going up too quickly, to get it under control, you need to do something sooner rather than later. 

 

********

I'd tie this into something related. I almost posted  this on Monday, but will post now instead, so please see what you make of it:

Monday's The World at One began with Jonny Dymond saying:

The Government still plans to re-open schools in England next week. 

My ears pricked up. That sounded to me like one of those uses of "still" which imply that the Government is being stubborn.  

Jonny continued:

But will the new variant coronavirus force its hand?

Advocacy? The BBC pushing the ''The Government is not acting fast enough or hard enough' line again, and pushing for schools in England to remain closed? Or not advocacy, merely posing questions?  It would be hard to rule definitively from that, but not perhaps from what came later:

Jonny Dymond: The problem is pretty simple. For all the preparations that teachers have made over the past six months,  children at school mix pretty freely and transfer the virus to each other. Chuck in the understanding that the new variant of the virus is as popular with teenagers as it is with older folk and you can see why in regions with hospitals already straining giving transmission a helping hand looks a pretty curious way forward. 

And what about this?:

The staggered return with testing was mandated before the Government knew of the power of the new variant, before family Christmases were cancelled, before nearly half the UK ended up in near lockdown. Given the fast-moving circumstances, should the plan change once again?

Or this?:

How do you feel about this at the moment? At the prospect of hundreds of thousands of transmissible children, if you will, returning to schools in a week's time?

Questions

Just looking back on all the recent questions put by BBC Politics reporters at Downing Street press conferences, I'm spotting a recurring angle. Can you see it too?

19 Dec: LAURA KUENSSBERG: There were calls for you to drop the plans for Christmas last week, just a few days ago, but on Wednesday you told me and our viewers it would be inhuman to change the plans. Now that is exactly what you have done. Aren't there are millions of people whose plans have just been torn up who are entitled to feel that you have left this too late and caused them more personal disruption and upset by doing so? Can I ask the medics, you have shared the analysis of this new variant and you mentioned Porton Down have been looking at this in an earlier press conference this week. Can you say if Porton Down have completed their assessments of it? Professor Chris Whitty, if someone is packing a bag right now, trying to leave the south-east by midnight tonight, what should they do? 

16 Dec: LAURA KUENSSBERG: You are telling the country today to exercise extreme caution but you are still allowing a five-day period to go ahead when people from all over the country will be able to get together. Wouldn't it now be safer, clearer, and perhaps braver, to ditch the plan to relax the rules over Christmas? And, Professor Whitty, can I ask you, have you done any modelling of what the impact this period might have on the diseases, and if there are models, can you share what you think the effect of people getting together might be on how the pandemic spreads? 

16 Dec: VICKI YOUNG: Can I ask you first of all, given the rapid rise we're seeing in certain areas of the country, should you be rethinking plans to relax the rules over Christmas? And a question to Professor Whitty as well, are you comfortable with the plan for Christmas and, secondly, news today or a new variant of coronavirus will sound very alarming to lots of people watching at the moment. Could you tell us a little more about it and some of the possible repercussions there might be from it? 

26 Nov: LAURA KUENSSBERG: Some people watching might wonder what's going on. You have said this week people will be able to travel all over the country at Christmas which will bring risks but now you are clamping down again. What was the point of the national lockdown in England over the last four weeks if more people are moving into tougher restrictions than before? If I can ask the medics, would it be safer in your view if more people were in Tier 3 and are you concerned about some doubts being raised about the Oxford vaccine?  

5 Nov: VICKI YOUNG: You criticise political opponents who called for the furlough scheme to be extended and now you've done it. What do you say to those who've lost their jobs because you didn't provide that certainty earlier? And to Sir Simon, NHS staff are again facing huge pressure. Do you think the Government should have had a more cautious approach over the summer about lifting restrictions? 

31 Oct: LAURA KUENSSBERG: You were told by your own scientists many weeks ago that you would have to take national action in order to save lives. Prime Minister, what took you so long? And to Professor Whitty and Sir Patrick, you've always been clear that taking early action would have the greatest chance of success in controlling the spread of this disease. Do you think that people may have lost their lives unnecessarily because of the delay? 

22 Oct: LAURA KUENSSBERG: Firstly to you Chancellor. The problems with the first version of your jobs scheme that you've re-written today were obvious to many people in industry from the start. Why do you keep underestimating the help that people really need? Sir Patrick, can I ask you if you agree with Scotland's chief medical officer who's told families there's no question of a normal Christmas and they should plan to celebrate digitally? And Prime Minister, this week you've been to war with leaders in the north of England, you're still leaving some workers on two-thirds of their wages or telling them to claim benefits, and cases of coronavirus keep on rising. Is this really the kind of leadership you think the country deserves?

If you do agree with me that they have both been pushing one angle very strongly, well, they've certainly got their way now...at least as far as Christmas goes.

"Radio 4 used to be the home of sober reporting..."

Here's an interesting comment from Red Handler on the unofficial army forum ARRSE:

I caught the end of The Media Show. It struck me that quite a few opinions were presented as fact. They talked about BAME representation in the media, but two of the four persons on the programme were BAME {judging by their names}: 50% representation is much more than the proportion of BAME by overall population size.  

Then I caught the BBC Radio 4 News at Six, which included a lot of opinion presented as fact and, overall, came over either as (a) a lot of effort being made to spin stories against HMG, or (b) reporters not realising that they are biased.  

Example (a reporter talking about HMG's new internal markets bill) - "...but the provocative move [i.e. HMG's bill] has increased tensions with the EU as the two sides attempt to hammer out a trade deal..."  

'Provocative' is defined as: 'causing anger or another strong reaction, especially deliberately' so the reporter appeared to me to be commenting about the assumed motivation behind the bill. The reporter's sentence could easily have been rendered as '...but the proposed bill has increased tensions...'. This especially after she began the item with:  

'When the Northern Ireland Secretary admitted last week that the government's plan would break international law in a specific and limited way, many MPs could hardly believe what they were hearing! His admission caused outrage; former Prime Ministers; lawyers, the opposition and many conservative MPs said the move threatened the UK's reputation for upholding treaties and international laws...'  

There was no representation of the government's reasons for bringing the bill forward. And I don't want hyped phrases such as '...many MPs could hardly believe what they were hearing! His admission caused outrage...': 

Radio 4 used to be the home of sober reporting...

Fair comment? 

Well, here's the offending report from Vicky Young: 

When the Northern Ireland Secretary admitted last week that the Government's plan would break international law in a specific and limited way, many MPs could hardly believe what they were hearing! 

His admission caused outrage; former Prime Ministers; lawyers, the opposition and many conservative MPs said the move threatened the UK's reputation for upholding treaties and international laws. 

The growing rebellion ahead of a vote next week has forced the Government to seek a compromise and the BBC understands that it will give Parliament an extra layer of oversight. 

But that has not been enough to assuage the concerns of the Advocate General for Scotland Lord Keen. He's resigned from the Government. Appearing in front of the Liaison Committee the Prime Minister insisted his duty was to protect the country from what he calls "an irrational interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement". 

But the provocative move has increased tensions with the EU as the two sides attempt to hammer out a trade deal. Hilary Benn, the chairman of the Brexit Select Committee asked Mr. Johnson whether he believed the EU was negotiating in good faith. 

[Clip of Mr Johnson and Mr Benn.] 

Mr. Johnson's offer of compromise may persuade enough of his own MPs to fall into line over the Internal Market Bill in a vote next week, but many think Downing Street's approach has done serious damage to the UK's reputation.

Down with the kids

I wasn't greatly surprised to find the BBC and The Guardian being of one mind on those climate-protesting, Mrs-May-effing truants during the Andrew Marr paper review this morning, or that Camilla from the Telegraph was the only one expressing any reservations. Very BBC/Guardian. 

Anushka Asthana, The Guardian: But can I just say, right, all those politicians who are getting so angry about these kids, anyone with kids - and anyone else - probably knows that the Friday before half term is not an educationally enriching day at school. And one of the most educationally-enriching things kids can do is get involved in political action on the biggest issue and the biggest crisis facing our planet. 

Andrew Marr, BBC: They are right about this.

Anushka Asthana, The Guardian: They're really right. An the idea that politicians - and a lot of them were Conservatives - coming out and saying, well, they're acting truant,  on the Friday before half term, I think totally misses the point. And for a party that needs to attract young people I feel like they should have taken a different attitude. 

Vicky Young, BBC: I was surprised they came out so forcefully. Actually, Cabinet ministers doing that. I was surprised at them doing it. 

Camilla Tominey, Daily Telegraph: Although you have to make sure the kids are safe. There was an argument to say some of them had been running off to protest and no one knew where they were, which is slightly concerning from a safeguarding... 

Vicky Young, BBC: (interrupting) At least they're engaged!

Andrew Marr, BBC: We are down with the kids - which you can't always say for The Andrew Marr Show. 

*******

Meanwhile, our old friend DB posted a string of tweets from an effusive BBC politics journalist called Joey D'Urso a couple of days ago. I was about to screengrab them and post them here but Joey has now deleted them. In them he gushed that the protests were "really quite something", that the children skipping school were "righteously angry" and he "doubts they're going away" and, all in all, he said he finds it all "genuinely quite humbling". But, perhaps as a result of DB pointing them out, Joey D'Urso has now sent his opinions down the memory hole. 

*******

And....Friday night's Newsnight saw Katie Razzall (prior to reading out that half-apology to Richard Tice) called the protests "sobering":

Taking to the streets - the young pit themselves against the old, in the interests of the planet. Is climate change becoming the inter-generational battle of our times? It's sobering to see our children walking out of their classes in protest at how they think the grown ups have failed to protect their futures. Is what they're asking of us hopelessly naive, or just brutally true? 

******* 

It seems to have dawned on Mr D'Urso at least that it might be questionable in terms of BBC impartiality, but Vicky Young, Andrew Marr and Katie Razzall still seem to think that it's absolutely fine for them to express their support for these protests. 

Is it?

Cat-astrophic

Mishal Husain, tonight

On the subject of tonight's BBC One early evening news bulletin, I can't resist adding to the point I made in the previous post - that it led with yet another pro-Remain talking point on the EU referendum debate (namely the anti-Brexit warnings of the two ex-MI5/MI6 chiefs) and that, as a result, our running total counting 'which side's angle comes first in either the headlines or the whole bulletin' now stands at 9 for Remain and 3 for Leave.

The imbalance just keeps on growing.

Though the balance of direct speech (clips) from each side was precisely balanced during that section today (29 seconds for each side), it has to be said that Frank Gardner's commentary tipped the balance yet further in the Remain direction when he described them as "probably the most authoritative voices so far from the world of intelligence to express their opinion on whether Britain is safer in or out of the EU", thus downgrading the views of (ex-MI6 boss) Sir Richard Dearlove & others who've said that Brexit won't be a problem for security.

And then came a bit on the economy from Vicky Young. This bit led with Michael Gove putting the pro-Brexit case but 'balanced' him with George Osborne putting the anti-Brexit case. A small businessman putting the pro-Brexit case was then similarly 'balanced' by someone the BBC's Vicky introduced as a "leading business figure" putting the anti-Brexit case. Here the balance of direct speech (clips) from each side wasn't precisely balanced with the Remain side getting 8 seconds more than the Leave side. Plus Vicky Young steered the narrative to show the Remain campaign seizing on Mr. Gove's comments as a "significant moment" and her outline of the Single Market's 'free movement of people' policy said "that's why people can come to the UK from all over Europe and lots of Britons retire to Spain" (an 'equivalence' that even More or Less admitted was way off balance. The total number of Brits abroad in the EU (including Spain) are far fewer than EU people abroad in Britain. 

Falkirk: Miliband v McCluskey & the BBC v ITV

....just visit this website which documents the daily instances of the BBC's out-and-out Left-wingery.

So wrote Toby Young about us yesterday on his Daily Telegraph blog. 

Thanks Toby.

We've a feeling he may have been confusing us with another site though, as providing "daily instances of the BBC's out-and-out Left-wingery" isn't really what we're about. Still, this particular post might actually provide a genuine instance of that out-and-out Left-wingery after all. See if you agree that it does.

Watching tonight's main evening news bulletins on BBC and ITV, I was struck by several obvious differences between their respective reports on the dramatic spat between the Labour Party and the Unite union over alleged malpractice (by Unite) over candidate selection in Falkirk. My initial impression was the the BBC's take on the story was somewhat vaguer whilst ITV's was as sharp as a knife and easier to follow. 

There was also a basic factual error in the BBC's coverage. Newsreader Fiona Bruce stated early on that the controversial selection process in Falkirk was in aid of "a by-election". It's for no such thing. It's actually for the next general election, when the sitting Labour MP Eric Joyce stands down (or falls down drunk) and someone else is needed to stand for Labour. Not a good start for the BBC then. 

Looking at the two reports in more detail, the first difference is that ITV led with the story. The BBC chose to make it its second story instead. 

The second difference is that ITV spent 4 minutes on the story while the BBC spent just 3 minutes on it. 

Another difference is that ITV featured a Conservative MP making a critical point against Labour, something the BBC chose not to include. If this had been a Conservative donations scandal, would the BBC have chosen not to feature a Labour critic? I have my doubts. 

A fourth difference is that ITV mentioned that Ed Miliband owes his leadership to the votes of Unite, something the BBC's report didn't mention. The issue of Ed owing his leadership to the unions - especially Unite - is hardly an irrelevance here, I think.  

A fifth difference is that ITV spelt out the concern about 41 other constituencies where Unite's influence might now be questioned.  The BBC merely quoting Labour saying that this is a one-off. This one seems quite a striking difference, doesn't it?

A sixth difference concerns the level of detail provided about Unite's involvement. The BBC only mentioned the £3 million given to Labour by Unite last year. ITV gave the figure of £8 million for the total Unite has given Labour since Ed took over (which sounds worse than £3 million), plus detailed the 90 Labour MPs and 58 Labour candidates funded by Unite. That's a lot more detail. 

A seventh difference concerned the question of who initiated the police action. ITV pointed out that a Conservative MP reported the matter to the police first. The BBC didn't, leaving its viewers unaware of the potentially unhelpful fact that Ed failed to call the cops first after all. 

A further difference is that ITV said that Ed Miliband had supported the unions' paying for Labour membership right up until yesterday, when the policy was "hastily" scrapped. No such potentially damaging point was made by the BBC.

In more general terms: Of the initial presentations and the two reports - by ITV's Romilly Weeks and the BBC's Vicky Young - it seems pretty clear to me which one will have displeased the Labour Party least. Vicky's report made Ed sound more decisive that Romilly's. That would have pleased Ed because, as Romilly pointed out, Ed was keen to get the impression across to viewers that he was being decisive by saying the word "decisive" over and over again. BBC Vicky's report did very little to undermine that impression, unlike ITV Romilly's - which did! Indeed, the whole BBC presentation ("The Labour leader Ed Miliband has dramatically escalated the row") gave Ed the appearance of a man taking decisive action whilst ITV's presentation made him look weak. 

OK, well that's my take. I'll let you judge for yourselves by transcribing both reports and allowing you to read them at your leisure.

ITV 

Headline: Labour in turmoil - a clash over claims the biggest union tried to fix candidate selection. Ed Miliband refers a report to the police that could implicate his most powerful union backer. The union's furious.

Newreaders: Labour's Ed Miliband has turned on the trade union Unite, his biggest financial backer whose votes helped him become Labour. A report that accuses it of paying for votes to secure friendly candidates at the general election has been sent to the police by Mr Miliband. The leader of the Unite union, Len McCluskey, accused Labour of being "amateur" and its headquarters of "trying to pick a fight". He said they'd done nothing wrong. Our political correspondent Romilly Weeks reports. 

Comedian [accosting the Labour leader]: Mr Miliband, is it a good idea to kick your biggest donor and to make friends and influence people?

Romilly Weeks: Ed Miliband was accosted by a comedian as well as reporters today but with the allegations of union vote-rigging in Labour's selection process in Falkirk now a police matter he couldn't escape the serious questions. 

Ed Miliband [being interviewed by Romilly]: We had the inquiry that had taken place into Falkirk. We received further evidence and then we took advice from our party's solicitor and that is why we concluded it was right to send the matter to the police and, look, throughout this process what I've been determined to do is protect the integrity of my party. 

Romilly Weeks [to Ed]: But the integrity of your party has been terribly damaged by this, hasn't it?

Ed Miliband [to Romilly]: Well, it has been damaged by the fact that we have had bad practices in this constituency and the question is 'What action are we going to take?' and we're taking the most decisive action. 

Romilly Weeks [narrating]: Decisive or not, the action has set the scene for a major bust-up with this man. Len McCluskey, secretary general of the union accused of malpractice in Falkirk and the union which is also Labour's biggest donor.

Len McCluskey: We've got shadow cabinet members saying that Unite have overstepped the mark. What does that mean? We asked too many of our people, too many of our members to join the Labour Party? We should have told them that the Labour Party was full up perhaps. I mean it's a nonsense.

Ed Miliband [in a video]: I'm determined to lead a Labour Party that stands up for ordinary working men and women....

Romilly Weeks [narrating]: Until yesterday Mr Miliband could be seen in this video endorsing the very practice of unions paying for Labour membership which is now being hastily scrapped. For the Conservatives it's a gift.

Pritti Patel, Conservative MP: There's obviously malpractice that has taken place in some shape or form in Falkirk and there are now serious concerns that Unite are trying to infiltrate again in 40 other constituencies, other selections as well. There is a serious, serious issue here.

Romilly Weeks [narrating]: And the difficult questions won't stop here for Mr Miliband. With Unite funding Labour to the tune of £8 million since he became leader the bust-up goes to the nub of union influence over the party. Mr Miliband can't afford to look like a union puppet but then again nor can Labour really afford to do without union money. 

Newsreader: And Romilly joins us live from Hove now, where the Labour leader was visiting a school. Romilly, a damaging mess. You spoke to Mr Miliband. Do you think he's not got it under control?

Romilly Weeks: Well, he's certainly trying to give that impression. In the interview which you saw part of in my report there he repeated the line 'We are taking decisive action' at least four or five times. The trouble is the action doesn't look all that decisive. Despite having the report into what went on in Falkirk for some time, the handing over of it to police only came after a Conservative MP wrote to police asking for there to be an investigation. What Unite is accused of doing in Falkirk is of recruiting union members to the party in order to sway things in favour of their preferred candidate. Mr Miliband is insisting that only went on in Falkirk but there will now be close scrutiny of the other constituencies -and there are 41 of them - in which Unite has been promoting candidates. The problem for Mr Miliband is a wider one as well. He is the leader who came to power on the back of union support. Unite backed 90 Labour MPs and 58 candidates. It would take a very strong leader to change the terms of that relationship and Mr Miliband isn't looking like that right now.

BBC

Headline: The row between Labour and its biggest union backer escalates. Now Ed Miliband calls in the police.

Newreader: The Labour leader Ed Miliband has dramatically escalated the row with his party's biggest financial backer, the Unite union, by sending evidence of alleged vote rigging to the police. The crisis centres on the union's involvement in the selection of a Labour candidate for the Falkirk by-election. Unite's leader has accused Mr Miliband of "smear tactics" and, as our political correspondent Vicky Young reports, this is the biggest test so far of Mr Miliband's leadership.

Vicky Young: The leader of the Labour Party and the head of the biggest union in the country. The bonds between the two organisations runs deep, but now they're embroiled in a bitter public fight that's testing Ed Miliband's leadership like never before. The bust-up stems for what's alleged to have happened here in Falkirk where Labour's looking for a new candidate to stand at the next election. Unions often have a say in that, but in this case Ed Miliband's called in the police to investigate claims that there were serious irregularities in the way Unite signed up dozens of its own members to influence the selection process. 

Ed Miliband [being interviewed by Nick Robinson]: I am angry about this. I'm incredibly angry about what has happened because I think people, certain people have let down this party and I'm not going to let it happen.

Nick Robinson [to Ed]: These allegations first emerged in May. What do you say to critics who say you only acted after David Cameron knocked you around in the House of Commons?

Ed Miliband [to Nick]: No, at every stage we've acted thoroughly and decisively. In May, when complaints were raised, we suspended the process of selecting a parliamentary candidate. Then we conducted an inquiry. At all times we have acted to uphold the integrity of my party, and that is what we will keep doing.

Vicky Young: But Unite's leader, at a rally in Manchester today, insisted the union had done nothing wrong and he accused Labour of deliberately picking a fight.

Len McCluskey: We disagree with what the Labour Party have done because they've handled it absolutely amateurishly and they've played into the prime minister and the coalition's hands, who must be rubbing their hands at this.

Vicky Young: The fallout from Falkirk is a huge problem for Ed Miliband. He has to show that he won't be pushed around by Unite but it exposes deep divisions in his party over the influence of the unions. And, of course, Unite gave £3 million to Labour last year, so Ed Miliband is left trying to find a swift and painless way to end a full-scale row with his biggest financial backer. Labour MPs like Tom Watson want the party to have more working class members with links to the unions. Yesterday he resigned as election co-ordinator, denying it had anything to do with Falkirk but blaming colleagues for turning on him.

Tom Watson: You know, I started to become the story. You know, there were clearly people that I kept sort of seeing in papers, there were unattributed shadow cabinet briefings. Well, I thought, if it's got to that point, you know, let someone else do it.

Vicky Young: Labour insists Falkirk is an isolated incident, but Ed Miliband knows the Conservatives will exploit his relationship with union bosses at every opportunity.