I want to return to the subject of a small snippet I wrote on my election night live blog..."First of all, WTF is Andrew Neil doing on Sky?! I know he's freelance but when you are the BBC's main political presenter you just don't broadcast for the opposition. Period. I suspect BBC head honchos will have been spitting into their G & Ts..."
Now I should admit I got this slightly wrong. BBC sources tell me that Andrew was given their permission to broadcast on Sky after they decided that he wouldn't be appearing on their own election night programme. This was sheer lunacy on their part. It was obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of politics that Scotland would probably be the issue of the night. There is no one - I repeat no one - in the BBC who knows Scottish politics better than Andrew Neil. He proved that from his first minute of broadcasting on Sky when he called the result exactly right.
So perhaps someone from the BBC could explain why Andrew Neil was surplus to their election night requirements.
problem is he's too Conservative for a balanced analysis (!)
ReplyDeleteI was very disappointed in the BBC coverage and the New Labour pundits they let prattle on about how bad a night it was for Cameron.
"So perhaps someone from the BBC could explain why Andrew Neil was surplus to their election night requirements."
ReplyDeleteToo dangerous. Might not have toed the party line. ("No one party can claim victory.")
Not enough hair.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC coverage was quite poor,although Dimbleby was ok as usual. You can imagine the thought process going through the producers head: "It's an election, let's rollout a Dimblebly." It's the only time they work.
ReplyDeleteReally Iain. How could we have allowed someone to appear on screen during the election and got the Scottish result right? Gordon would never have forgiven us. He's not speaking to us as it is.
ReplyDeletemight it just be that the Beeb realised that Neil's cringingly pro-Conservative bias wasn't suitable for election night - and decided to leave this role to Sky?
ReplyDelete"Not enough hair."
ReplyDeleteif only that rule kept John Reid off the box!
Iain you are scaring people. If what you are implying is true, then we must be living under some sort of hideous dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteHe probably did not wish to perform along side that clown Jeremy Whine...
ReplyDelete9.50 anon: I can guarantee that as long as you do exactly what I have decided is best for you, you will come to no harm under my benign rule.
ReplyDeleteMr Neil is not one of my approved spokespersons. That is why he did not appear.
GB
Andrew Neil was NOT exactly right. He thought that the SNP were going to walk it. In the event, they just squeaked it on the last declaration.
ReplyDeleteI agree with BB and TL who sussed this straight out of the box. Way too biased.
ReplyDeleteI'd add he's also probably way too expensive for this gig and would suggest that "main political presenter" is a bit rich.
Also that some of their staffers may well have no fly zones near them for Mr Neil?
He may have called the election right from the word go on Sky ... but that wouldn't have been a job he could have done on the Beeb.
I notice that the SNP are not as strong in the Borders and South of Scotland (though second in Galloway), whereas the Conservatives are still a force winning the Galloway & Nithsdale and Roxburgh & Berwickshire constituencies.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have a view on this ?
PS. I'm sure my first effort got through, so my apologies if this cooment is repeated.
Trumpeter Lanfried said...
ReplyDeleteToo dangerous. Might not have toed the party line. ("No one party can claim victory.")
- Spot on
Andrew Neil is about as loose a cannon as you get at the BBC. He might have wavered from the official line.
ReplyDeleteHe is, if not an out and out nationalist, a Scottish patriot, and no friend of Nu Lab. That would be enough to get him banned from election night coverage.
Seeing that it was John Reid setting the agenda for the evening rather than Dimbleby, then Andrew Neil would have rather upset the Reid boat.
ReplyDeleteMuch too dangerous..
I have to say I agree about Andrew Neil but he's been ignored for Newsnight and Political Editor as too biased/aggressive/entertaining for the mainstream...
ReplyDeleteOdessa Calling - re: Scottish election. The make up of the vote is roughly the same as for the past decade (in terms of left/right and pro/anti independence) but at the previous election the Socialists, Greens and independents took 17 seats and about 22% of the regional vote, this has fallen to a Green and Margo McDonald and 14.6% of votes across more parties, these were mostly won by a more organised SNP - Labours "disaster" was only from 50 to 46 seats, but the SNP gained 20 from the above and a handful of wins from all three. Traditionally the lowlands are more conservative, and showed little change (as you point out), while the central belt (esp West) is further left and has seen more of the shift from "other" parties to the SNP.
I know this getting long but the key is that the SNP were wrong footed by devolution and lost their way to the SSP, etc between '97 and '03 before reinventing themselves as an anti-new labour pacifist/liberal left-wing party in the new Scottish politics.
Neil's too down to earth for the up-their-own-arse middle England BBC types. Good old Radio 4 bias.
ReplyDeleteThe Labour Broadcasting Corporation studiously avoided any mention of the massacre of The Sandal Wearers in Torbay and Bournemouth.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Neil has a quick and enquiring mind and I am sure he would have been like a ferret down a rabbit warren after an answer as to why these particular results had happened. As this may presage a more widespread cleansing at the next election of West Country LibDems, it is no wonder it did not get a mention by the enemy's propaganda arm.
Having Andrew Neil pounce on it would not have been in the carefully ordained script at all.
Chris Paul, you presumably think it's OK for the Queen of Scots Labour, Kirsty Wark, to be on Newsnight analysing the results on Friday night? Her political links are very much stronger than Andrew Neil's.
ReplyDeleteIf the BBC are engaged in a liberal conspiracy to silence the likes of Andrew Neil, why do they:
ReplyDeletea) allow him to present one of their flagship political programmes
b) give him their blessing to present Sky's election coverage when they could just as easily not have done?
Like most conspiracy theories, this one falls apart under objective analysis and simply reflects the biases and prejudices of the people who expound it.
Yes, Neil would have made a great presenter on the night, but it's hardly earth-shattering news that the BBC turned to a stalwart like Jonathan Dimbleby - and certainly not evidence of some dark liberal conspiracy.
Perhaps the BBC are starting to realsie what everyone else has known for some eyars, that being that Andrew Neil is a Tory. you can't really have him on without a sneaky snide remark and the only person who finds him funny is Diane Abot, and that sums it all up for me.
ReplyDeleteanon 11:57...
ReplyDelete"but it's hardly earth-shattering news that the BBC turned to a stalwart like Jonathan Dimbleby"
Wasn't it David?
Like most know all anonymous commentators, your comment falls apart as soon as it is analysed, you don't even know who presented the show.
imho dimbo, as if by divine right, thinks he is entitled to first refulsal of all the big tv events, and i dont think he can take it that andrew neill is a more engaging and better informed presenter than he is.
ReplyDeletedimbo has really gone downhill, his sarcastic, cynical and self satisfied performances on question time are most unedifying.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete