<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Horsell&#039;s Mouth &#187; David Blunkett</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com/tag/david-blunkett/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com</link>
	<description>Politics, pedantry and personal interests</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:14:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Luvvies, Labour&#039;s Lost</title>
		<link>http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com/2009/09/luvvies-labours-lost/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com/2009/09/luvvies-labours-lost/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>simonashall</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Labour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Marr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Blunkett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gordon Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inaccurate journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laura Kuenssberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peter Mandelson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://simonashall.wordpress.com/?p=303</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a bit early to define a narrative from the Labour Conference in Brighton just yet but so far the most interesting thing coming out of the proceedings there is the attitude of the BBC. First, we have a surprisingly combative interview from the normally obliging Andrew Marr, who went so far as to raise [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<div class="topsy_widget_data topsy_theme_blue" style="float: right;margin-left: 0.75em; background: url(data:,%7B%20%22url%22%3A%20%22http%253A%252F%252Fwww.thehorsellsmouth.com%252F2009%252F09%252Fluvvies-labours-lost%252F%22%2C%20%22style%22%3A%20%22big%22%2C%20%22title%22%3A%20%22Luvvies%2C%20Labour%26%23039%3Bs%20Lost%22%20%7D);"></div>
<div id="attachment_304" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 302px"><img class="size-full wp-image-304" title="brown" src="http://simonashall.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/brown.jpg" alt="Flawed but not floored - can he turn it around" width="292" height="409" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Flawed but not floored - can he turn it around</p></div>
<p>It&#8217;s a bit early to define a narrative from the <strong>Labour Conference</strong> in Brighton just yet but so far the most interesting thing coming out of the proceedings there is the attitude of the <strong>BBC</strong>.</p>
<p>First, we have a surprisingly combative interview from the normally obliging <strong>Andrew Marr</strong>, who went so far as to raise with the <strong>PM</strong> the issue of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8277119.stm">his alleged medication</a>. Predictably, <strong>Brown</strong> dodged the question and instead went for the sympathy vote over his eyesight, something that <strong>David Blunkett</strong> &#8211; a far more robust and substantial man &#8211; would never have done. Whatever the answer, it caught me (and quite a few of the <strong>Tory Twitterati</strong> that I follow) out &#8211; one wonders whether this is the last Marr/Brown interview.</p>
<p>It obviously irked Marr to ask the question as much as it did Brown to have to answer it. The BBC man&#8217;s pleading that it was a &#8220;fair&#8221; question was followed up by some <strong>serious feigned interest</strong> in Brown&#8217;s sob story. Obviously I&#8217;m sorry he has a sight impairment &#8211; but it was noticeable how much detail he was prepared to give up on this in contrast with the actual question about prescription drugs.</p>
<p>Then we had <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8276049.stm">this </a>from <strong>Laura Kuenssberg</strong> (@BBCLauraK) &#8211; she really is a gem on top of a compost heap. Not only was she prepared to tell viewers the <strong>actual mood</strong> of the conference on Brown&#8217;s arrival (ie pretty dreadful) but also to lob some <strong>real questions</strong> at him about his law-breaking ministers and then reflect that the party activists (the BBC usual calls them crowds as if to ignore their handpicked pedigree) were making so much noise that he couldn&#8217;t hear her. And she hinted, quite correctly, that this was probably<strong> deliberate</strong>.</p>
<p>But look at the story headline &#8211; <strong>&#8220;Labour &#8216;should expose the Tories&#8217;&#8221;.</strong> Clearly the online staff have gone seriously off message &#8211; or on message with <strong>PM</strong>. It doesn&#8217;t reflect the downbeat message from LauraK and about Labour &#8211; or indeed much about Labour at all. It&#8217;s just a pop at the <strong>Conservatives</strong>.</p>
<p>Previous to this, of course, was <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8275129.stm">this beauty</a> &#8211; again courtesy of online staff &#8211; suggesting that Brown and <strong>Barack Obama</strong> are, after all, the closest of chums and that Obama doesn&#8217;t see Brown as a <strong>washed-up political liability</strong> or &#8220;<em>depressing to be around</em>&#8220;, as one of his staff leaked to the press. According to the BBC, this official line &#8220;<em>quelled rumours</em>&#8221; of an Obama snub. <em>No it didn&#8217;t</em> &#8211; and who are they to report that as <strong>fact</strong>? Any moderately sensible person watching the polls will realise that <em>the last thing Obama needs with his problems at home is to become embroiled in some tawdry scheme by a foreign political party to prop up their ailing government with lent popularity</em>.</p>
<p><strong>Obama isn&#8217;t my cup of tea but he&#8217;s certainly not a fool</strong>. And only a fool would consider anything other than refusing any more public airtime with Gordon than was absolutely necessary. Any suggestion to the contrary is completely counter-inituitive and total propaganda, <em>which the Beeb is only too happy to repeat</em>.</p>
<p>Going back to the polls, not even Obama could have found a way to spin a poll that suggests you are heading out of office positively. I can&#8217;t now find the link on the BBC website &#8211; maybe they&#8217;ve seen sense and pulled it &#8211; but <a href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2270">this poll</a>, which states <strong>41%</strong> of people think Brown is almost certainly going to lose is bad, bad news. Instead, the BBC concentrated on the <strong>48%</strong> of people who though Labour still had a &#8220;<em>slim chance</em>&#8221; of winning in 2010, along with the 11% who think he will win.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a <strong>silly question</strong> &#8211; you can&#8217;t ever rule out that a party has a &#8220;slim chance&#8221; of winning. I&#8217;m not surprised so many people ticked that box rather than commit themselves but it <strong>doesn&#8217;t reflect reality</strong>. The BBC is supposed to be here to present facts not spin to us that 59% of people think Gordon is still in with a chance next year &#8211; <em>of course he is, he&#8217;s taking part in the election.</em> They are more aware than ever that politics is <strong>self-fulfilling</strong> and by buying into this <strong>silly poll</strong> (I though they <a href="http://simonashall.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/friends-in-the-north/">didn&#8217;t report routine polls</a> anyway) they are just playing <strong>PM</strong> and <strong>the PM&#8217;s</strong> game for them. At our expense.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t expect the BBC to give <strong>DC</strong> a free ride. I don&#8217;t expect them to push through government PR work. But there is a bipolarity within the corporation at the moment between the political pragmatists that realise the <strong>New Labour</strong> years are <strong>95%</strong> drawing to a close and the politically-motivated staff who desperately want to play a hand in upsetting the odds with sly journalism. <em>It&#8217;s got no place in the BBC and they have no place on the public payroll</em>.</p>
<p>The BBC is a service, not a political tool. <em>I&#8217;m afraid quite a number of its staff work there for the wrong reasons &#8211; they should stand for election instead</em>.</p>

]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com/2009/09/luvvies-labours-lost/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

