So we have got to the end of the Andrew Marr Show, which this week was a Tory-free and LibDem-free zone, and, essentially, a Peter Mandelson party political broadcast. If I were a LibDem I would be spitting blood that on the weekend of the party's Spring Conference no LibDem was interviewed. And the Tories might well question why, in this time of economic turmoil, there was no one to balance the partisan rantings of Mandelson. Even the paper review contained two Labour sympathisers (Fiona Millar and Clive Anderson) along with the ex Tory Sir Paul Judge, who has started his own political party (more of which later).
And if you're looking forward to the Politics Show at midday and expect the balance to be redressed, you'll be disappointed. Jon Sopel will be interviewing Harriet Harman, although LibDems can take solace in the fact that Vince Cable will be given an outing, live from Harrogate. Not a Tory in sight, according to the programme's website.
If anyone can give an example of a Sunday when neither of these programmes carried an interview with a Labour politician, I will happily admit to being too touchy on this issue.
74 comments:
Doesn't sound so unusual to me. Wednesday's edition of the Daily Politics had three Labour MPs and one token Tory, which I suppose is slightly better, but the next one had another Labour MP and no Tories at all.
OT.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j1ykg
08 Mar 2009, 19:00 on BBC Radio 5 live
Jonathan Maitland examines the influence of the networking group Common Purpose.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/jonathanmaitland.shtml
Secret society?
We shine a spotlight on a nationwide networking organisation with influence in high places.
“Common Purpose” has been described as a politically correct version of freemasonry.
Prominent supporters include the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Cressida Dick, BBC Business Editor Robert Peston and numerous top public sector officials.
We investigate whether there is any substance to the rumours about its hidden influence and agenda.
There's a mild irony in that whenever Mandleson's interviewed more people commit to never ever vote ZaNu again.
Who cares? Probably nobody other than politics nerds watch it anyway.
There will have been plenty of instances in Tory times of this sort of thing. Who knows what lengths the Beeb went to try to get Tories and LDs on. Perhaps they are all insisting on OBs from their house these days? And being told where to get off.
I don't watch Marr's show any more. There seems no point in so doing...
One day Iain Dale might bother to distinguish politics/government, the yapping of opposition versus the explanation of administration.
Seems to me that Dale's thesis here is a direct rip-off of what Norman Tebbit and Bernard Ingham would have griped about when the boot was on the other foot (say, in the days when a striking miner, being stomped on the ground, could be then be charged with "damage to a policeman's boot"). Ah, happy days!
Equally, when Tories have a cogent argument to propound, they seem to be given a fair hearing on such programmes: David Davies for one example in recent days and weeks.
As for his final paragraph, the information is there on line. The complete list of Guests appearing on The Andrew Marr Show in 2009 answers instantly to my Mighty Mouse. But, yawn, checking on facts is s-o-o-o debilitating, yes? Particularly when it fails to match blind prejudice. However, 15th February, 11th and 25th January from that list might merit perusal.
Iain Dale: Flash news - we're about to be hit by a comet the size of Jupiter. All life will become extinct.
Chris Paul: There will have been plenty of instances in Tory times of this sort of thing.I'm sure this can be traced back to Thatchers treatment of the miners.And if it ain't on AljaBeeb, it ain't true. So there. Na Na Na Nana!
The LibDems have every right to be annoyed at the omission. We may be living in "dumbed down" times for political coverage, but what has happened when even Party Conferences are ignored?
what's new? The BBC are in full 'save Labour's skin mode.' There was a report on the BBC this morning that parroted Harperson's line about women being the biggest victims of the recession however the ONS says "The economic downturn in 2008 has impacted less on women in employment than men." Employment among women was down 0.3% in the last quarter of '08. Male employment was down 1% over the same period. Women were made redundant at a rate of 6.6 per 1000 whereas for men the rate was twice as high at 13.6 per 1000. The ONS said women are less likely to be made redundant because they are disproportionately employed in the public sector where job security is much higher. Funny that Malcolm Redfellow's link is dead. However if you look at the list you'll see Iain's specific point still stands.
The BBC once again lowered itself further into the gutter of journalism. The bias towards the Labour Party and its sympathisers is now overt in the extreme. It is now likely the Conservative Party will be in Government in just over a year's time which Mandleson effectively admitted during the Marr interview on the Royal Mail Reforms. Marr tried to add a bit of balance into the newspaper review by mumbling something about Education failings after ten years of Labour Government but spin meister Fiona Miller was allowed to turn it round very quickly to say we shouldn't bash the schools...this would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
Malcolm either didn't read or didn't understand Iain's last paragraph. He asked for examples where neither the Marr Show and the Politics Show carried an interview with a Labour politician. As far as I can see, the Politics Show's website does not list the full running order.
That said, of the dates that Malcolm lists, the schedule for 25th January has Lady Royall as being interviewed by Andrew Marr. Whilst she might not be the most high profile mmber of the Government, it is a bit much saying that she isn't a Labour politician.
Chris Paul
I take it you were too young to remember what the BBC was like when the Conservatives were in power, and the BBC were attacking them at every opportunity. They claimed then that they were generally against the Conservatives because they had to challenge the government (a defensible case were it not against the BBC's charter).
They seemed to forget that as soon as Labour came to power, and continued to oppose the Conservatives and help Labour. In fact for 7 or 8 years they seemed to be stunned by Labour government, and carried on treating them as opposition and Conservatives as if they were still in power. It was bizarre to see them demanding the opposition justify their policies, and then allowing the government to simply attack those opposition policies with no need to justify their own, rather than the other way round.
It would be worthwhile if the conservatives had any policies to talk about on these shows.
sadly its just tories telling them how bad the government is handling things.
I think the tories have had an easy ride of late much like blair did in the lead upto the 1997 election.
The interviwer can hold to account a minister much better than a tory with no policies.
just my opinion
There is a pressing need for a equivalent Fox TV chanel in the UK but it may be illegal under the present arrangements which are clearly iniquitous.The Tories at the very least should be pushing for the privatisation of the BBC for its persistent violation of its charter which precludes politcal bias and tendentiousness.
Perhaps the Conservatives are all in church.
Bring back Sophie Rayworth! Marr was, even by his own innoxious standards, so ineffectual in questioning Baron Mandy of Fop. Although did anyone else notice how His Lordiness mentioned at least twice that it might be a different government to whom he didn’t want to leave the issue of the Royal Mail to sort out.
Cameron's to do list on being elected:-
1. Sell off the banks
2. Privatise the BBC
3. European referendum on UK EU membership
4. Sack millions of state paid attendees
5.....well, you get the picture
The BBC is showing contempt for its audience by making no attempt "to sustain public trust by meeting the highest standards of impartiality."
Are you really trying, BBC?
Following his Dr Fran-N-Furter homage to the Rocky Horror Show can we now expect Andrew Marr to pay tribute to The Producers with his singing of the line "Don't be stupid, be a smartie, go and vote for the Labour party"?
Another example of BBC bias (of which there are many), and not at all surprising, but the question that needs asking is, what can be done about it?
Why should I be forced to provide financial support to an organization with a political agenda diametrically opposed to my own?
The reality is that leading members of the 'New' Labour elite like Marr are terrified of a Conservative Government... for personal reasons above all.
In particular, many of them are worried that they might end up having to pay for their mistresses' children themselves, rather than having them funded by generous benefits and 'tax credits'...
If anybody had any lingering doubt about the BBC's impartiality the fact that Cameron's speech at the 2008 conference wasn't on iPlayer while Brown's was*, should put that doubt to rest.
I especially like it when the BBC rail against biased state media in Russia etc. That's one of the reasons I have a very strong telly and no heavy objects to hand while watching it.
*The BBC had a stand at the conference focusing on iPlayer etc. They really were taking the p**s.
@ Malcolm Redfellow - keep the spin going Malcolm, maybe you even believe it !
Since the glorious triumph of New Labour in year zero ( formally 1997 ) the BBC has started running interviews on Today etc with no opposition person present to counter the view point (after all there was only modern New Labour all else was Goldstein's lies ). Given the very close association of BBC personnel and the New Labour project this isn't really a surprise.
The Labour parasite is now calling in all its favours for what it sees as its last chance to continue to fed of is host by getting polls up for the G20 and a smash and grab election.
Liam said... “...what has happened when even Party Conferences are ignored?”
What has happened is that party conferences (this isn’t even a proper autumn conference) became so tightly controlled by the politicos and thus so boring that they were no longer worth they bother of covering
[Turns of an ennervating Nick Clegg spouting cliché after cliché - yawn.]
And Vince Cable is never off the 24-hour news channel screens. What would they do without him?
I loved the bit when Mandy defended beating up posties by the line 'well, we're gonna screw up in our way not the way the Tories want'. Hokay - fair point, well made.
Richard said... “...were generally against the Conservatives because they had to challenge the government (a defensible case were it not against the BBC's charter).”
Oh I don’t think it is [against the BBC’s charter]. It’s certainly a journalistic principle in any case. It is indeed necessary for journos to challenge the government of the day. Whether they do so adequately is another matter. You certainly have to have them on actually to be in a position to challenge them.
BUT. Compare and contrast the US where mainstream journalism is invariably supine before presidential power (even since Watergate). It’s always sooo embarrassing. We don’t have it anything like as bad here, believe me.
The constant grovel before the last (very bad) US administration by journos across the media was a wonder to behold.
And I have to hide behind my hands as the entire Washington elite press corps stands up as the President enters the room. Good grief.
Spare a thought for us in Scotland right now Iain. The Politics Show is a labour party show, not one other party has a representative and that's not healthy for politics.
Fortunately I wasn't tempted to watch the Marr and Mandy show this morning.
The BBC is the pinnacle of champagne socialism. A movement full of wealty but ineffectual closet politician wannabees. Same with the luvvy acting fraternity. It's all about conscience and the need to offset their emissions defecit. A defecit of decency and common good for everyone not just a few pathetic lefties.
niconoclast said... “There is a pressing need for a equivalent Fox TV chanel in the UK but it may be illegal...”
Hahahahaha. Oh you made me wet myself.
The very worst broadcast journalism on the planet and you actually want an imitation here. You cannot be serious. “Fair & Balanced” my arse.
And yes, I think you’re right, such a exceedingly extremist UK news channel would indeed be illegal.
Indeed there have been several attempts to get the UK broadcasting regulators to make Sky take Fox off the domestic channel line-up. I can’t for the life of me think why they haven’t been successful.
I’ve been trying for years to persuade Sky to also broadcast MSNBC and/or CNN-US (which latter you can get audio-only over the net). But no dice.
Either would have been useful during the two years of the last US presidential campaign to balance out the ghastly Fox-lies. Have you read the new junior Minnesota Senator's “Bill O’Reilly is a big fat liar”; very funny.
Lola said... “Cameron's to do list on being elected:- ...Privatise the BBC”
Over virtually the entire country’s dead bodies. I don’t think so. He wouldn’t be that asinine.
The BBC is the foremost cultural institution in the country and that’s because of the way it’s always been funded. And I don’t think other broadcasters - whatever they may say in public - would be at all keen to have the BBC competing for the dwindling advertising income - particularly right now.
Hasn’t Sarkozy just done the opposite with FR2, FR3 etc in France (ie is making them stop taking advertising)?
Twig said... “Why should I be forced to provide financial support to an organization with a political agenda diametrically opposed to my own?”
Err. Your peculiar little political agenda is “diametrically opposed” to just about everybody else’s so you must be getting used to it.
Compare and contrast the US where mainstream journalism is invariably supine before presidential power (even since Watergate). It’s always sooo embarrassing. (Simone Gardner)
I just don't believe that anybody can be so stupid as to spout this. Everybody knows the mainstream media were doing a toenails job on Obama for at least the last five years. GWB got no support at all from anybody apart from talk radio, and Fox (sometimes).
taxpayer funded broadcasting = leftist broadcasting
Simon Gardner: Gosh, we all feel so much better now that you have imparted your wisdom on us. Thank you so much for the lectures. Now F*** Off and don't come back!
Does this post match up with Guido's revelations of Marr's legal problems? Did Marr reveal a little too much about Mandelson and Blair 'adoring' each other?
And now Mandelson is becoming powerful in his own right he's putting the screws on Marr for a bit of soft soap.
Man in a Shed @ 12:30:
Hmm, I am no lily of the field: I may toil but I do not spin.
For example, read through the previous contributions to this thread. I suspect, from the repetition of rubber-stamped views, of tired abuse and of stale rhetoric, very few others have done so: after all, it's not the done thing to have our prejudices challenged, is it?
Note that I, at least, went to check Iain Dale's dubious assertion about the Marr Show, and found it wanting. Now find other examples of individual commentators who have bothered any similar factual check. That, surely, is the difference between argument and spinning.
putting the screws on Marr for a bit of soft soap.
@ Tapestry; Perhaps you mean lubrication?
Good
More of this.
It's honest Pravda. It's saying "get used to this, Zanu rule supreme, no one else matters"
I prefer this to a token gesture. It shows the BBC up in true light.
Simon, you are very defensive of the BBC aren't you.
Never mind there is a simple solution to all the arguments. The next Government can cancel the telly tax straight away and help the finances of hard working families.
If the BBC is as good as they think they are, I'm sure they will find funding elsewhere.
Labour voter Malcolm Redfellow thinks that the BBC is politically balanced shock....
Simon Gardner would deny Conservatives a TV chanel dedicated to the Conservative viewpoint.The soul of a liberal fascist laid bare.
Yes, Malcolm, you went and checked, having deliberately spun what I was saying. You checked and then lied. As someone pointed out on Jan 25th there was a Labour rep on the Marr Show, lady Royall. But more to the point, as someone else said, my point was that there wasn't a Tory or a LibDem on EITHER programme. In your haste to find an excuse to find fault with what I said you seemed to deliberately misrepresent it. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Iain Dale @ 2:39 PM:
Except, of course, I didn't "lie", any more so than you did in your original posting. A need for hyperbolic hyperventilation is rather worrying.
Seriously, is it not a mild paranoia to feel persecution mania whenever one's partial and prejudiced views are not always front stage?
To be factual: at the 2005 General election there were 44,245,939 potential voters, of whom just 27,148,510 (61.36%) bothered. No party, repeat NO party, attracted more than a fifth of the electorate's support. Even Labour, with 9.6M votes managed just 21.6%: the Tories were adrift by 800,000 votes and the LibDems by a further 2.8M. I do not see that gives ANY party automatic representation in each and every panel. Then, shall we consider the "regional" and nationalist parties and their deserved share of the sauce? Or are these politics shows just for the metropolitans?
Malcolm, typical, change the subject. Did you, or did you not state that there was no Labour Minister on Andrew Marr on 25 Jan, when it transpires that the records show Lady Royall was on it?
Did you or did you not deliberately or otherwise miss my point that I was talking about both programmes together, not individually?
The only consolation - slight - is that so few people watch these programmes that they hardly matter.
Even so, balance is in the BBC charter. Someone might tell Mark Thompson that.
No: I'm not changing the subject. I'm just not sold on the meme of the viperous Beeb being viciously biased. Particularly when the snake-oil salesman has free access to other media outlets (and might, just might, have a hidden agenda).
Yes: I overlooked the noble Baroness Royall of Blaisdon. As a democratic socialist, I have a tendency to dismiss those who have never ever held any elective office. Glad you were prompted to check your facts, however.
And no: re-read my first posting. I explicitly restricted myself to the Marr Show. Fo why? because I was still on my second coffee of the morning; and had other priorities.
@ Malcolm Redfellow
Fine, so just how biased is the BBC - if at all - in your view? Not 'viciously', it seems - so would you care to elaborate? And while we're at it would you hazard a guess as to a) what 'agenda' means and b) what that 'agenda' might actually be?
Second coffee at 10:44 AM? Some of us are having lunch or even dinner then....
And personally I'd like to 'dismiss' all 'of those who have never ever held any elective office'. Where do we start?
“The next Government can cancel the telly tax...”
It won’t. And I’m more than happy to put money on that.
“...so few people watch these programmes that they hardly matter.”
Quite. I’m a political junkie and certainly never watch either. Not a fan of Marr.
Unsworth said... “And personally I'd like to 'dismiss' all 'of those who have never ever held any elective office'. Where do we start?”
Clearly NOT by electing a Tory Government. I’ll see you at the barricades.
Simon, you say that, but one way or another in the next 5 years the telly tax will be gone or a fraction of what it is now.
Life is going to be totally different to what it has been in the last 20 years.
For the 250,000 people who lost their jobs in January alone it's starting now.
Van Helsing said... “...one way or another in the next 5 years the telly tax will be gone or a fraction of what it is now.”
It won’t and I am quite happy to wager a suitable sum on it.
Unsworth @ 4:09 PM:
Fair points, if even further off topic than where I stand accused.
I have found endless affront, offence and indignation in radio and TV programmes. That does not translate into a neurological condition of scenting bias in every one of them. Even among the phalanx of Scottish Andrews, for every Marr there is a Brillo.
Nor do I assume that only paid-up party apparatchiks are entitled to spout on "political" matters. Indeed, such wit and wisdom has its own dedicated BBC channel, and numerous specialist outlets. All I ask is to have access to the "off"-switch to escape the twitterings (ambiguity intended) of those Parliamentarians who exist largely to publicise their "media appearances".
As for a "hidden agenda", what about those who moonlight for Murdoch (or the Mail or any other rival) and elsewhere rubbish the Beeb?
!) The BBC is funded by the state
2) Labour is the party of the big state
3) The BBC supports Labour
It always has supported Labour, and when the Conservatives get in just wait to hear the squeals of " Journalistic Independance" that have been so absent since '97. The BBC should go to a subscription model and then those that share its politics can pay to have their views confirmed. Instead of all of us.
Quite.
And few would deny. At least few would credibly deny that we have an overall right-wing press. It always has been right down to the fascist Daily Mail.
There is legislation covering balance at elections in the electronic media. It is strictly adhered to. No such restrictions hamper our right-wing press which always let rip according to their right or very right sympathies.
Would that such laws covered the press. Then we’d certainly see a difference at election time. Wouldn’t we just?
The BBC Charter states that the BBC shall be independent - it's not, it's a ZaNu Labour media outlet.
The Framework agreement demands impartiality - which the BBC doesn't offer.
@ Simon Gardner
You may indeed see me at the barricades. But on which side?
'Dismiss' is an interesting term.
Perhaps you'd be best keeping your back to the wall - at all times.
titus-aduxas @ 7:02 PM:
That's defined the problem.
Now it's just a simple process of applying for judicial review or some similar way of bringing the BBC Trust to heel, to implement the Charter properly.
To that end, a few stray little cheques from the noble Lord Ashcroft might assist. Or the Freedom Association (or whatever the current name is). Should be a doddle, if the issue is as evident as you and so many others here say.
Why won't it happen? Well, the Latin for a duck is "anas": in the context of your pseudonym, that sounds about (lunatic) right. As does "Norfolk enchants!"
Simon says...
"No such restrictions hamper our right-wing press which always let rip according to their right or very right sympathies"
You seem to have overlooked the fact that the BBC is paid for by a tax on television ownership, the Daily Mail is paid for by people who freely choose to buy it.
If as you assert, the press is largely "right wing" then surely that would be because more people choose to buy the Daily Mail or Telegraph than the Daily Mirror or the Guardian, and who can blame them?
Iain, the solution to this is quite simple - instead of watching the New Labour Show on Sunday mornings, why not do something more productive?
An extra hour's sleep, maybe?
The BBC are a. bag of shite.
A huge bag of fettid festering left wing puss.
“You seem to have overlooked the fact that the BBC is paid for by a tax on television ownership.”
I did no such thing. I pointed out there is a scrupulously observed legislated balance (down to the last second of air time) during general elections in the electronic media whilst most of our press remains stridently right wing or neo-fascist.
trevorsden...
"The BBC are a. bag of shite.
A huge bag of fettid festering left wing puss"
A bag of shite can be very beneficial as any gardener will attest, but I cannot say the same for the BBC.
Can anyone remember them broadcasting the reason for the lack of effect from the Argentinian bombs in Falklands conflict?[Wikipedia]
In order to avoid the highest concentration of British air defences, Argentine pilots released ordnance from very low altitude so that their bomb fuzes did not have sufficient time to arm before impact.
The World Service reported the lack of detonations after receiving a briefing on the matter from a Ministry of Defence official.
The problem was solved by the Argentinians by improvised fitting of retarding devices, allowing low-level bombing attacks as employed on the 8th of June to devastating effect in the attack at Fitzroy on RFAs "Sir Galahad" and "Sir Tristram".
He describes the BBC as being more concerned with being "fearless seekers after truth" than with the lives of British servicemen. Colonel H. Jones levelled similar accusations against the BBC after they disclosed the impending British attack on Goose Green by 2 Para. Jones had threatened to lead the prosecution of senior BBC officials for treason but was unable to do so since he was himself killed in action around Goose Green.
I can't imagine a bag of shite being that much of a national liability.
Sorry for straying a little OT (and the outdoor language).
@ Simon Gardner
"I pointed out there is a scrupulously observed legislated balance (down to the last second of air time) during general elections in the electronic media"
For the purpose of debate let's accept that. By 'during general elections' I take it that you mean the period of time between the calling of a General Election and the closing of the Polls.
Now, would you care to comment on the behaviour and actions of the BBC at all other times? And would you also care to define 'electronic media'?
“Now, would you care to comment on the behaviour and actions of the BBC at all other times?”
I’ve always found them scrupulously fair. Painfully so. I can’t comment on Iain’s two programmes because I never watch them. I also don’t watch the tedious Question Time.
I would except that this tends to apply vis à vis Con/Lab. If you were a supporter or interested in a third party you’d have greater cause to complain.
(Except Vince Cable - without whom no news broadcast is complete!)
“And would you also care to define 'electronic media'?”
That’s a very good point. AFAIK the legislation covers TV and Radio. I’ve no idea about so-called “new media”. Perhaps they aren’t covered? I certainly expect the BBC, ITV/ITN and Sky to behave as if those laws applied with their net output. I’d be astonished if this wasn’t so.
But of course the newspapers and their own net outputs will continue to be overall right-wing biased with no attempt at balance.
And TV often takes its news lead from the newspapers so that introduces a further bias.
"I’ve always found them scrupulously fair."
Who cares what you think? You may believe that the Koran literally transcribes the word of God. You may think that the editor of the Daily Mail goose steps into his office each morning. You may believe that God transforms wine into the blood of Christ at holy communion.
What is at issue is those who believe that money is extracted from them (with menaces) in order to fund (what they believe is) a broadcaster which only exists because it serves the interests of a parasitic Leftist establishment.
I can see why you are in favour of this arrangement, indeed forcing people to pay for The Guardian/Independent/Mirror and making sure they are delivered to every household in the country each morning would no doubt be seen by you as a progressive development, but such conviction have absolutely nothing to do with a free society, and absolutely everything to do with the all too familiar totalitarian mind set of narcissistic Leftists such as yourself.
“You may think that the editor of the Daily Mail goose steps into his office each morning.”
You mean he doesn’t? Hardly.
Atheist bus • Canadian Atheist bus • Atheist buses in Barcelona & Madrid
The National Federation of Atheist Humanist & Secular Student Societies
The Labour bias on the BBC is now so blatent, but then thay are one and the same.
You hear no complaints from the Toty party so I asume they are happy about the situation. knowing that elections are lost not won.
The BBC news and current affairs needs breaking up. Some of this recession can be blamed on them not reporting the problems with this Government. The BBC does not act in the national interest.
Wikipedia notes: In early 1934, Rothermere and the Mail were editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Rothermere wrote an article, “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”, in January 1934, praising Mosley for his “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine”.
Simon,hate to mention it but this is 2009,not 1934.
This thread has now been totally wasted by the "windowlickers" [Guido, passim]. Credit to Simon Gardner for contributions to sanity. Any attempt at restoring reality is probably hopeless: but here's one last try.
Twig @9:37 PM is an object lesson, reviving the canard from Sandy Woodward via wikipedia. Why? Has Twig @9:37 PM not read the original? In full? For the record it is a "co-authored" book (with Patrick Robinson, a fictionalist, more often found in the context of horses and Boat Races). It appeared in 1992, and appears to be Woodward re-writing some history to burnish his pensions pot with a bit of angst.
To stick with the BBC point, though, what Woodward and the wikipedia article ignore is that, during the Falklands episode, the BBC were addressing two very different audiences. The domestic broadcasts were heavily censored. The World Service was less tramelled: to maintain any kind of objective credibility it had to be. Hence, the World Service reported what was freely available from other channels (AFP and the US news services, both with excellent Argentinian sources, as the obvious examples).
Yes, Twig @9:37 PM, I do remember the Falklands; and it was not quite what you represent. The Port Pleasant (a.k.a. "Bluff Cove") debacle is a case in point. The news of this was widely available from international sources hours before it was cleared for domestic use.
Let it also be remembered that Port Pleasant was a politically-inspired disaster. The RN's plan was to use Intrepid. It was the politicians who vetoed that, unwilling to risk a major asset. Instead the lighter, less suitable vessels were sent in. It may also be relevant that the Welsh Guards were not fully happy and co-operative with the implementing of the operation.
May I also suggest Twig @9:37 PM refers to Alastair Finlan's 2004 study, The Royal Navy in the Falklands Conflict and the Gulf War: Culture and Strategy? This suggests that the many failings of the RN shown up in the Falklands were institutional and cultural weaknesses. There is also a Sandhurst Symposium [The Falklands Conflict Twenty Years on: Lessons for the Future, 2005] which I have not seen.
The issue of the fuses was, indeed, reported by (note!) the World Service. It was hardly news: the Argentinian pilots, after thirteen direct hits to no effect, had observed and reported the problem. Perhaps we should observe in passing that many were British-made bombs with British-made fuses. The problem was that the pilots were wary of releasing at higher altitude (where they would be easy targets) while the Argentinians could not believe the light (i.e. inadequate) construction of the RN warships.
One last thought: as Finlan suggests, The court martial of any naval officer after the Falklands Conflict would have undoubtedly generated intense media and public interest in the service, as well as raising awkward political questions related todefence policy in the run-up to the 1983 general election. Or, to put it another way, Twig @9:37 PM, when one throws a loose squib into a thread, be careful what you wish for: you may get it.
dmc said... “Simon,hate to mention it but this is 2009,not 1934”.
And the fascist Mail has changed not a jot. With the possible addition of runaway misogyny (despite its high female readership). As the Americans say: Go figure.
Post a Comment