I didn't have a very good nioght's sleep last night, but I needn't have worried. All I had to do is tune in to Andrew Marr's programme and listen to the interview with Gordon Brown to be induced into a prolonged zzzzz.I cannot think of an occasion when I have actually heard Gordon Brown say anything interesting in an interview. He uses a kind of language which normal people just do not indulge in. He manages to go for 15 minutes without saying anything at all. Quite a feat, I suppose.
I now understand why the BBC made so much on its news bulletins about Brown's remarks on Saddam's execution. Brown echoed Prescott's remarks, criticising the grisly spectacle. In itself this is not exactly newsworthy, but because Blair hasn't said anything about the hanging the BBC led its news bulletins with Brown's remarks proof of a further split with Blair. Laura Kuensberg was positively breathless in her comments live in the studio.
The simple fact of the matter is that with any political interview nowadays there has to be a"top line" to emerge from it otherwise the interviewer will be seen to have failed. For Brown's remarks on Saddam to be a 'top line' demonstrates what a mind-numbingly boring interview it was.
54 comments:
What made me laugh is Brown's assertion that 'naethin' is wrong about the current 'devolutional' settlement regarding England in the horlicks that Labour created. Personally, i'd rather England goes independent, and enacts PR for local government only in metropolitan areas (Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham- etc)that will make Labour scream!
Totally agree. I switched off after he failed to answer - yet again - the question of Scottish MPs voting on English matters. And Marr simply rolled over and let him get away with it.
Regarding his comments on the Saddam execution, I note he only comes out with his so-called opinion a week after the event, which has given him time to see which way the wind is blowing. Typical Brown - no guts, no saying anything unless he thinks there is something in it for him. God help us if and when this boring wind-bag is Prime Minister.
The problem is more basic. Marr is useless in this Sunday slot. The programme is so bland it is not worth watching. All that arts stuff first thing on A Sunday gets on your nerves. Why worry about Brown? He is going to win, become the worse PM since Eden and lose the election. Let him have a free ride. Who wants Reid?
Marr is truly pathetic. Still, that's what you end up with when the main broadcaster is dependent on a tax to survive.
As for GB and executions, just wait till the Treasury dip into the history books and discover that at one time the estates of condemned prisoners reverted to the Exchequer... there'll be gibbets in every Sainsbury car-park.
Poor Any More interviewing Gordo.........if he isn't a sycophant his harridan spouse Jackie Ashley will flay the meek-mannered actuary she married for better or worse
By letting the Director General of the Walter Ulbricht Brickworks Kombinat spout on about Real Existing Socialism and how the heroic efforts of the Workers to surpass the Capitalist West will be achieved by mailing GCSE and NVQ Certificates to every African child; Any More and the BBC showed why the lcence fee cut was generous from this regime
"He manages to go for 15 minutes without saying anything at all."
As opposed to David Cameron who has now gone 15 months...
At least Gordon's hair appeared clean - I expect Marr washed it for him.
Andrew Marr is NuLab to the core and let and will continue to let all Labour politicians off the hook.
To add insult to injury I am forced to pay his wages.The Brown Broadcasting Corporation simple has to go.!
Here are two simple questions to Brown.For every 5 pence you spend on Defence you you spend 29 Pence on Benefits.Is that a good balance of expenditure.?
With the help of the Barnett formula and your good self Scotland has 144000 net taxpayers, out of a nation of 5 million.Can you understand why a majority of the English want an independent Scotland.It will save us 20 billions pounds a year!!
You are treading on dangerous territory here, Iain. I seem to recall a legal action when it was suggested that Ken Barlow was boring.
However, Gordon Brown does not excite me. Can he pull it off, and if so, how long will he last?
I'm quite annoyed with Marr's pathetic interview. Its the second time in as many months where he's asked nothing and got nothing.
Perhaps its about time people started complaining to the BBC about this type of "journalism"?
Iain, I know what you mean but the boringness of this interview has now been eclipsed by this blog - which seems to be saying very little lately and now has done the ultimate and reported a boring interview in a boring way.
Jimbo, ok then, what would you like me to do more/less of? The feedback generally is that the blog has picked up again after an admittedly dodgy October and November.
Interesting Picture - was Gordy thinking about his 5 economic tests again ?
Iain - Good of you to respond. I think you should do more of what you do best and really get to the guts of the arguments. I think there has been a tendancy of late for you just to be scathing rather than explain your reaction to an event in more depth.
I would be very interested to know exactly what you think about the prospect of Gordon Brown being PM for example - what do you think the outcomes would be, what changes would he make etc.
Come on use F7 or get a copy of Firefox.
He said nothing interesting but then I am not his intended audience so I have to recognise that I am not the best judge.
I echo the points about Marr, why bother interviewing him? Guido has said that it came across as a political broadcast for Brown because it was so timid.
I think Brown DID answer Marr's question on West Lothian. He said, in effect, that this was the price England had to pay for being 85% of the Union. English votes for English legislation was NOT a step he would be taking.
When asked if Brown had ANYTHING to offer the English on this question, he reverted to his usual politobabble and jowl wobbling.
Learnt nothing from the interview except for his comments on the hanging of Saddam Hussein.
When there are so many issues that need to be sorted out - closure of hospitals despite record funding, housing/equipment supplied to armed forces etc, agree Marr was rubbish.
Re Boring Blog
Iain you focus on Politics rather than Policies. Start focusing on the absurdities of this Government.
People know the country is badly run but they can't go to one place and read all about it.
Maybe their needs to be an alliance of Bloggers, just like a newspaper has a sports section, a business section etc etc.
The tax we pay and where it goes (North of Oxford)
How after 11 years of full-time education so many kids can't read, write or do simple sums well.
The NHS, All the money being spent but patients still having their treatment delayed by managers.
Crime, street crime has gone through the roof, where are the police?
Prisons, Is attendance optional.
Brown has been a pretty good chancellor in the whole scheme of things I would have to admit. However he has a distinct lack of charisma which I believe it a necessary thing for leaders to have. He is going to be the grey Major to Blair's Thatcher.
He didn't have the guts to challenge Blair back in 1994 when they made their apparent grubby deal and have been sulking ever since. And now the country will be stuck with him as leader without any of us being asked. Shame for democracy.
He has nothing new to offer. A fact that even underarm bowling from Marr could not conceal. And that is the story. After ten years nu Labour is ideologically spent. They are even unable to deal with the inherent contradictions of their own policies leave alone the cock-ups or the on-going defence crisis that most - this blog included - don't think important.
In true nu Labour style this embarrassment is hidden by the distracter "Saddam was treated badly etc." which we all focused on like the saps we are. Brown was merely papering over the cracks.
The headline remark for me was that education is so important that, even though he basicly acknowledged that state spending cannot continue its present rate of rise, it should continue for education spending until state spending matches public schools.
I think he is right about the importance of education but wrong in thinking money the most important variable, classroom discipline is, & there are many private schools with per pupil budgets similar to state schools.
Of course my headline doesn't fit the adage "if it bleeds it leads" which probably makes me as boring as him.
bt, Anonymous 11:54 and Charlotte Corday - Funny!
Do you people commenting on this blog really believe that Blair's going?
Where does Brown get this idea that the English have to "pay" for the union? Why has this suddenly come about 300 years after the Act of Union? Why do the Scots not have to "pay" for the union?
Shame on Mr Marr for not piking him up on the point. Oh well he is a Scot.
Verity - You know I suspect something will come up that demands the Beloved Leader stay on. He likes being PM oh so very much does our Tone. I nearly choked on my porridge when I read this in The Times last week:
An unholy alliance threatening catastrophe by Anatole Kaletsky
Kalestsky is usually worth reading. (Unlike that world class drip Parris.)
verity - interesting that you should ask that. There's this conspiracy theory I read this morning following on from the Sunday Times piece about how Israel plans to bomb Iran's nuclear prrocessing plants with mini-nukes sometime within the next 6 months.
Well, latest hints are that Princess Toni has pencilled in June for his final curtain - six months away. But how could he even consider stepping down if this happens in the ME? His country, Europe - nay, the entire world needs him. So he'd have to sacrifice his well-earned repose and soldier on, secure in the knowledge that the hand of destiny is on his shoulder.
The whole thing was sleep-inducing. Marr should be banned from interviewing political people - his comments may be worthwhile, but as far as an interview, this was a Party Political Broadcast.
I suggested the rule should be - Marr interviews Conservatives ( at least he is anti THEM) and John Humphries shoudl interview the Labourites. Might make for rather more interesting viewing. Marr is clearly disillusioned the Bliar, but believes ( breathlessly) that Brown is the answer. Oh, dear.
I love the way we're presented with a Gordon Brown as if it's a rare privilege for us, the little people he inexplicably believes it's his birthright to rule! This Chancellor has a contempt for democracy and a monstrous ego, truly alarming and dangerous characteristics. Andrew Marr had a chance to represent us and he failed dismally
PS Gordon has a really unattractive combination of self-belief and cowardice, something's not right. Even this morning's party political broadcast can't disguise his basic flakiness.
The Druid and BT - Yes. I have a sickening feeling that Blair will find that his conscience, soi-disant, will not let him leave the world stage and the world's TV cameras because it is his duty to deal - with his usual effectiveness - with some looming crisis.
I am not counting on his going. The only comfort in this grisly scenario is, it will be a devastating slap in the ego of the repulsive Brown.
What was it which Brown said 'If you had only English votes on English matters then that would lead to the breakup of the union.'
Hold on a second...We have only Scottish votes on Scottish matters. Thats something which he (NuLab) brought in with devolution. Something is deeply wrong here. It's becuase of devolution that we have the bloody problem in the first place.
And what did Marr do to challenge him.....absolutly nothing.
Why is it that the BBC let labour off time and again with not answering questions. Do you remember how they used to be with the Tories.
I think they know that Labour is more vindictive and that they would punish the BBC in some way.
I think Brown is far overated.
Much of our media now seem to be happily colluding with Brownites , sorry, Nutters, in the creation of a cult of personality for a man without the basic quota. To be crude they are gilding the turd. With every public appearance, no matter how stage managed, his essential inadequacy is clearly apparent. But for Brownite nutters inadequacy means strength, substance even . As Steve Bell has written Gordon does substance the way Tony does sincerity.
Gordon also seems to be something of a egotistical megalomaniac with a Stalinist fear at his core , cheers Andrew Marr for holding him to account. He's such a humble, unambitious fella with no power who could blame you for such soft questioning? What disgrace!
Johnny Norfolk - I suspect that the reason the Beeb is so tame with Labour is not only their admitted left-wing bias. Many of those who work at the Beeb see themselves in the vanguard of progressive Britain's battle against the Beloved Leader's anti-Christ, "the forces of Conservatism." Hence the moralising smug superior "you lot are uncivilised scum" attitude and approached that they take to elected politicians on the right. They ooze disdain for the "Tories" as they insist on calling the Conservative Party. After all Conservatism is responsibile for the murder of Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela's years in Prison and so on.
But added to that must be the fact that the Charter is up for renewal. In any other country state broadcasting is regulated by the legislature. But not here where the royal prerogative allows politicians to lean on the supposedly impartial national broadcaster. Really healthy for democracy.
Here we go again - the usual debate on whether the BBC is Left wing or Right Wing. Surprisingly the Right says it's too Left Wing and the Left say it's too Right Wing. I far as I can see the BBC gets the balance about right. I would imagine it does the job better than a lot of TV companies around the world in terms of bias.
Its not a question of perceived bias. They admit it!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
At least Marr isn't a Paxman - i.e. getting worked up on one side of the argument and then inexplicably equally worked up on the other side. The layed-back style often lets the interviewee hang himself (Smarmy Frost was effective in that quite often.)
The BBC does its recruitment in the pages of the Guardian.
Applications from Labour, woolly, gay, minority ethnic europhiles welcome.
lol - the Druid. Your link to BBC admitted bias - is from the DAILY MAIL - a totally blatant, right wing and unrepentant media source if there ever was one! Of course they wouldn't exaggerate the article, distort it or edit it such as to reflect their well-known anti-BBC view would they? Hardly objective source there is it?!
In the early 80s there was some books (More Bad News) written by academics on the left who claimed the BBC was too right wing. If the BBC was so left wing it would hardly have such a spate with the present government over the David Kelly.
Personally I don’t think there should be a licence fee. Let the BBC have adverts. And if you want right wing bias then watch Fox News on cable.
Gaffauk
Where have you been, If you think the BBC get it about right then you are some kind of leftie.
The BBC has admmited it, it is not just The Daily Mail.
You need to improve your research.
gaffauk - the story on BBC bias was syndicated. The Mail is not my cuppa. But there is a world of difference between it and the BBC. The latter a STATE broadcaster is funded by our taxes and thus is under a special duty to be fair and impartial, which in a democracy is very important. The Mail is a private paper - it can within the law print what it likes. Obviously a lot of people like it otherwise it would have gone bust. The BBC will never go bust. In fact it stifles competition particularly in the internet broadcasting sector as The Economist points out this week. And that in anyone's book must be wrong.
I had that Andrew Marr in the back of my cab about two years ago. I did not realise then how much he was one of them. I very nearly said to him, as he paid me off "Next time you see that Tony Blair, tell him he's a F*****g ***t". I bottled the opportunity, which is probably just as well as a complaint from an establishment figure like Marr could have cost me my license. I have learnt my lesson. If he hails my cab tommorow I will drive on by.
Like the Sith institute much of the media is factionally Brownite. It isn't question of left or right GUFFAUK it's about power.
Gaffauk it is quite wrong to single out the Daily Mail. The Guardian is on record as saying that the label "anti-semite" should be used to attack anybody who was not willing to support the openly genocidal policies of our (ex-)Nazi friend running the fundamentalist Moslem regime in Bosnia. The BBC is on record as saying that his policy, of openly calling for the genocide of the Orthodox, Catholic & Jewish communities (60% of the population) was "moderate & multi-cultural".
Can you produce any case of the Mail producing a story 1,000th as racist, dishonest & pro-Nazi as the Guardian & BBC? If not you owe it an apology.
As I say - I don't think we should have a State TV. And the BBC has continually criticised the current Labour government in terms of Iraq and numerous other issues. But of course it will never be enough for those on the Right will it.
Please give me an example of a media news outlet (state subsidized or privately owned)any where in the world which hasn't been accused of being bias. It's impossible - don't you see?
I have no doubt that those who are currently at the BBC or those that have been in at the BBC in recent years like Greg Dyke are Labour supporters. I would imagine that a lot of our military Generals and top businessmen might be more inclined to be Tory supporters.
As for Neil Craig's claims. Back it up. Where do you get your evidence from?
Iain - Bravo! well-written and bang on.
Marr is just another Scottish emigre scribe who's discovered North London house price inflation and thinks Brown has something to do with the new-found wealth he thinks will found his future.
Andrew, he doesn't. And it won't.
Guffauk -
"I have no doubt that those who are currently at the BBC or those that have been in at the BBC in recent years like Greg Dyke are Labour supporters."
How can I break this gently...Greg was not only a Labour Party member, but also a donor to the Party. Before he was DG.
"How can I break this gently...Greg was not only a Labour Party member, but also a donor to the Party. Before he was DG"
Exactly - a well known fact. So does that means no one who works for the government, teachers, nurses, soldiers, or those at the BBC can ever give money to a political party?
Gafauk it is perhaps disengenous for you to ask me to give a general justification of what I said about the Guardian/BBC & their support of genocide when you make no effort to give chapter & verse about your claims for the Mail.
Nonetheless I am willing to take you up. However, if you wish to keep this shorter than an encyclopedia you must specify which part of what I said you dispute.
Is it that the the Guardian claimed that anybody who did not support our Nazi ally in Bosnia should be described as anti-semitic? Is it that the BBC did describe Izetbegovic as a "moderate Moslem committed to a multi-cultural Bosnia"? Is it that he was, in fact, an (ex-)Nazi, former SS auxiliary (& not of one of the nicer SS units)? Is it that he was publicly committed to the genocide of all non-Moslem groups in Bosnia?
I do not think either of us would doubt that the decision of the BBC & Guardian not to report such things about our Nazi friends over a period of 17 years must, because of the timesacle, represent the very highest standard of honesty & indeed human decency of which they are capable.
If what I say happened happened then I trust you would agree that the very highest standard of honesty & decency of which they are capable makes them more "blatantly right wing" not to say racist than anybody you oppose.
It is a straw man to say that every media source has been accused of bias - the correct judgement would be whether thay have been proved to have lied or censored, particularly in a case involving something as important as the genocide of hundreds of thousands of humans.
No Neil Craig when I say back it up I mean as so forth:
"Is it that the the Guardian claimed that anybody who did not support our Nazi ally in Bosnia should be described as anti-semitic?"
I have no idea what you are talking about. Cite your reference. What date did the Guardian claim this. Attach a link.
"Is it that the BBC did describe Izetbegovic as a "moderate Moslem committed to a multi-cultural Bosnia"?
When did the BBC claim this. Cite a reference and a link.
"Is it that he was, in fact, an (ex-)Nazi, former SS auxiliary (& not of one of the nicer SS units)? Is it that he was publicly committed to the genocide of all non-Moslem groups in Bosnia?"
Who is he? And where did he publically make this claim. Cite a reference and a link.
I don't doubt what you are saying maybe true - but I have no idea unless you provide something for me to look and see whether this is true or not.
1) "There was also a mutated strand of anti-Semitism in a lot of this, the Muslims being, in their way, the Jews of Bosnia"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/itn/article/0,2763,184815,00.html
The Guardian & indeed everybody who had seriously researched it, knew that the Bosnian Moslem leader whose enemies they were accusing of anti-semitism was in fact an anti-semitic (ex-)Nazi. It would probably be unwise of to express my opinion of the Guardian's action but it certainly seems cynical.
2) The quote is taken from a Newsnight edition but anybody who watched BBC reporting of the Bosnian war (I have to accapt you never did) will have seen that the Bosnian Nazis were continually reported as the victims, moderates & multi-culturalists & that reporting was virtually always from their side (both figuratively & geographicaly). Their Nazi history was, of course, suppressed by the BBC.
3) "He", as I made clear, was Alia Izetbegovic, the Bosnian Moslem leader:
"Alija Izetbegovic was a war criminal.
15 A. Nazi war criminal.
16 Q. Nazi war criminal, yes. Well, now, it's true that at the age 18
17 he joined a group that sided with the Germans, but can you just tell us..."
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050314IT.htm
The Q being the prosecuter in the NATO funded Yugoslav War Crimes "trial" & therefore hardly impartial, yet even he acknowlegdeges Izetbegovic's Nazi past. The organisation of which Izetbegovic was a leader was the "Young Moslems" who acted as auxiliaries to the Handzar Division of the SS. It may be of interest that our moderate multicultural genocidal Nazi friend, on whose behalf we bombed schools, set up his very own "bodyguard" when he came to power which he also named the Handzar Division in honoue of his genocidal alma mater.
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/handzar/handzar.htm
Since, once again, Gaffauk has declined to justify his claims about the Mail I must ask him to acknowledge that he has no evidence that would make them 1000th as culplable as the Guardian & BBC. Their journalistic standards have allowed then to deliberately lie & censor for 17 years to assist people they must know to have been Nazis openly engaged in genocide.
Neil - going through one comment at a time.
Firstly using your own reference the Guardian does not claim, I far as I can see, that anybody who did not support our Nazi ally in Bosnia should be described as anti-semitic.
What this particular writer (as opposed to The Guardian's editorial own comment) says is that he feels that the particular members of London's intelligentsia who came to offer support to Living Marxism when they claimed that concentration camps run by the Serbs were fake - are anti-semitic.
*So it wasn't the Guardian itself who made this claim.
*The writer doesn't claim "anybody" but refers to a particular set of people.
*He doesn't even say that these people (Weldon etc) are anti-semitic because they don't support Izetbegovic. His name isn't even mentioned in the article!
*He says the are anti-semitic because he claims they supported Living Marxism belief that ITN story on Serb concentration camps were faked.
Example - if I said that people who believe Diana was killed by the Royal Family are conspiracy theorists that is not the same as me claiming that everyone who does not support the Royal Family are conspiracy theorists.
-or-
If I said that I believe that Neo-Nazi supporters who deny that the holocaust happened are racist - that is not the same as me claiming that anybody who does not support the policies of the current Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert are racist.
Big difference, Neil!
As for the Mail - I'll come to that.
The Guardian said that these people were anti-semitic purely because they did not support our Bosnian Nazi friends, which clearly requires that anybody else who does the same is equally anti-semitic.
The comparison would be saying that David Irving must be neo-Nazi if he doesn't accept the Holocaust implying that anybody else who doesn't accept the Holocaust (such as our friend Franjo Tudjman the Croatian leader whose genocide we assisted) must also be considered neo-Nazi.
Obviously the BBC & Guardian censored any mention of his opinions on the Holocaust & on at least one occasion the Guardian deliberately lied about his ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia saying it was 150,000 when it was actually at least 500,000.
Neil - you still seem very confused.
Putting aside whether Izetbegovic is a bad man or not. This is irrelevant as the Guardian source you link to does not even mention him. To prove whether this guy is bad or not doesn't mean that the Guardian believes that anyone who doesn't support Izetbegovic is anti-Semitic.
1. First point you miss.
This is a REPORTER's comments. And not the Guardian's. A newspaper often has contradictory views because they often like to express different views. If it was in the commentary from the Guardian or if the reporter was not named then you could argue that this was the Guardian's view. In this case it is clearly the reporter's view and the reader cannot assume it is the same as the Guardian.
2. You use the very vague term 'SUPPORT'. Yes if there are other people who also believe that the concentration camps set up by the Serbs are fake - then it is a reasonable ASSUMPTION that this particular reporter might also believe those people has a 'mutated strand of anti-Semitism'. However again it is not absolute. Those who believe the camp was fake might have evidence which may convince the reporter whereas currently the reporter is not convinced by those who supported Living Marxism's claim.
3) It is a amazing DISTORTION created by yourself to say that because some people believe these camps were fake then the Guardian believes that all those who don't support Izetbegovic are anti-semitic.
For example:
'Imagine' if I believe those camps are real BUT I believe that Izetbegovic is a war-criminal. And that I believe both sides in the war committed war crimes.
Because I believe those camps are real that doesn't mean I suddenly support Izetbegovic. That is clearly illogical. Again - an example - if I thought dropping a bomb on Japan was wrong - that doesn't mean I support Japan's warmongering and it doesn't mean I support Hitler's aims.
At the end of the day, your link, only shows that a particular reporter believes that those who supported Living Marxism claim that the concentration camps allegedly set up by the Serbs are anti-semitic. Nowhere in that article do I see conclusive evidence that the Guardian believes that ANYONE who doesn't support Izetbegovic is anti-semitic.
As for the BBC - you didn't post any links and if your distortion with the BBC is as bad as the one you have done with the Guardian above - then it's probably not worth looking at.
Peter - it would not surprise me if a media outlet like the Guardian, ITN or any other paper/broadcaster 'exaggerated' it. I do not know the full story of the camp, nor do I claim to - so I am not in a position clearly to say yes or no based on your subjective view. Guess what - newspapers exaggerate their stories all the time.
However looking at the Living Marxism case - it seems that the camp was not fake - insomuch that the camp did exist. The debate seems to hinge on whether it was a concentration or detention camp.
Have a look at the wikipedia entry...
"According to subsequent testimony from witnesses, compared to other detention camps in the region, Trnopolje was a relatively minimal-security staging area for the forcible deportation of non-Serbs from the Prijedor area, and detainees were fed only sporadically, but were allowed to forage for food outside the detention area's perimeter [1], which explains the widely varying nourishment condition of the inmates. There were about 300 reported killings in the camp, and far more reported incidents of systematic rape of female detainees."
So it is hotly disputed. IF the above is true - it certainly doesn't sound like a holiday camp. Besides I'm not taking issue whether the camp existed on not.
Whether the camps was faked, exaggerated or existed as ITN portrayed - does does this show the Guardian has accused those who do not support Izetbegovic of being anti-semitic?
Or as you would put it:
A simple YES or NO answer will suffice.
Post a Comment