Anyone catch Andrew Marr “interviewing” out lamentable Chancellor Darling this morning? I think the thing that most struck me was the gentle treatment Marr afforded this wretch whose period of tenure in his role has been characterised by serial disaster and poor judgement. (Albeit overseen by McDoom) Darling even got to claim that he thought Labour “could” win the next election without Marr expressing much surprise! Yes, and Darling also sees green shoots of recovery wherever he goes!

The main point here is that the BBC must know Labour is a busted flush and that it will be excised from power next June. So like good little comrades they go through the motions for McDoom and his followers but the strategic point for the BBC must be to box in Cameron in order that all our ever so vital public services – like the BBC – continue to escape the cold chill of economic recession and public accountability. Perhaps Cameron knows this since he wiggles around the subject, as in the interview Marr also carried out with him this morning. This worries me. Either Cameron is afraid of the BBC, or he is afraid to admit that the axe will have to be taken to the grotesque state sector, or he plans no such thing.

It’s always there.

The bias I mean. I’ve just watched Andrew Marr’s interview with David Cameron for his regular Sunday mornng show. The first minute or two of Cameron’s performance were used in correcting Marr’s premise that the Conservative position was just to let the recession “take its course”. Isn’t this so typical? The Conservative always placed on the defensive by the casual distrust of the BBC man? If you listen or watch carefully (painful I know) it’s always there.

Earlier on I heard the news report say that Icelanders were rioting over the handling af the credit crisis. This is an interpretation that the BBC prefers. Surely demonstrators are protesting at the occurrence of the crisis itself, and the economic management which brought it about? Cameron was under fire from Marr for not ‘getting the scale’ of things. No mention of Gordon’s not getting the entire economic management “thing” which could have mitigated or averted it. I would say that- given British banking’s swollen role compared with the British economy- Gordon’s management of gold, regulation, taxation and interest rates should very much be on the table as a cause of the world’s crisis. Instead we have Marr lamenting the lack of a positive Conservative response. Where’s the room for positive responses? It’s only damage limitation thanks to Gordon.

The last part of the interview, patiently fielded by Cameron, was Marr’s questioning of Osborne’s position. Prior to that we had “Business Secretary” Peter Mandelson spinning the economy for Gordon. No questioning of his suspicious reintroduction into UK politics, or his ability to take the flak that Darling or Brown should be facing.

It makes me sick listening to the skewed BBC coverage. But whether I listen or not, it’s always there.

Get Osborne! (save Brown)

Looking at the many valuable comments in the latest open thread, it’s amazing how many ways the BBC have found to get at George Osborne in recent days. Speaking from what I have seen, it was noticeable how Marr stacked his progamme this morning with better-then-average lefties like Doug Alexander and Dr John Reid (plus Jarvis Cocker for leftist chic), to foreground a lengthy interview with Osborne which began with the line from Marr: “Do you think your job is on the line this weekend?”

Sums it all up really- not the reality, that is, but the BBC’s preferred narrative. Alexander- the Secretary of State for International Development- was there to demonstrate how (in accordance with the Brown narrative) the crisis is global, first, and we are the victims, second, while John Reid was there to show how he was burying the hatchet and uniting behind Brown and to blame Osborne for not doing the same.

In fact Osborne performed superbly on the Marr programme, so despite Marr’s repeated attempts to bring up the world crisis in defending Brown, Osborne swept past him. Yet is he actually winning this argument? Difficult to say, because the BBC has so relentlessly depicted him as on the defensive, the “George Osborne under attack” meme. This has been partly justified by bringing up a so-called convention regarding commenting on Sterling which, as the commenters at B-BBC have noted, is bogus. Meanwhile David in the comments points to this article as a related note, where Brown “regrets” Osborne’s comments highlighting the risk to the pound. Surely in fact Brown regrets that his economic incompetence is being exposed? It is no good his shaking his head over that unpublic-spirited Osborne- it is Brown who has been frantically trying to look competent in situations he has been instrumental in creating. So far he has done only the most obvious things, like bail out faltering banks, huddle with world leaders and pronounce “routemaps” as he poses for photos.

Earlier I saw an BBC online article where Gordon was shown in a decidedly odd picture (actually used above) at the G20 meeting towering over the Russian President, the Russian’s eyes upraised to meet Gordon’s (ie. where on earth was Gordon standing in relation to Medvedev? [Update: apparently Medvedev is unusually small. This does not explain the particular photo with Gordon facing the camera and Medvedev looking up to his eyes, or indeed the very choice of this photo- why these two men and only them? Generally I think the BBC’s photo-story-telling is abysmal]). In a more sensible world Brown wouldn’t even have been able to take the reins of the Government a year and a half ago because his incompetence over boom and bust would have already been made apparent by a sentient fourth estate (Labour’s favourite bank Northern Rock was melting away as they feted Gordon). Instead, those who have the temerity to question the inevitably compromised economic wisdom of Gordon Brown are put in the media dock by the BBC-led media.

Meanwhile, Guido points to yet another angleof BBC bias in favour of Brown.


Well, I poured myself a hot cup of coffee and settled down to watch the Andrew Marr show on the BBC this morning. These are the sacrifices I am prepared to make for Biased BBC – though I recommend that you should not follow my example!

This was the political Left having a Sunday morning love-in. We had the odious anti-Semite Ken Livingstone, we had the wretched Margaret a Beckett, we had the ubiquitous Shami Bakrabarti, and to provide “balance” we had Carol Thatcher and David Davis. But having watched it, I conclude that Andrew Marr himself demonstrates relentless bias.

For example he listened to Shami Bakrabarti droning on in her ever- so-earnest way without interruption and I suggest the reason for this simpering deference is because the agenda that “Liberty” pursues is one that the BBC shares. When Carol Thatcher made comment on the many serious question surrounding the House of Commons Speak “Mad” Mick Martin, and she repeated a claim in one of today’s Sunday papers that he was “the worst speaker in the history of the House” Marr instantly jumped in to claim he knew of others who were much worse. How did he know this and on what basis does he compare this? Why did he not focus on the issues concerning THIS Speaker?

The Ken Livingstone interview was a sickening experience with the Mayor of London being permitted to make the most outrageous claims without any real comeback from Marr. For instance, Red Ken was able to suggest that Castro had achieved many great things during his years (of tyranny) and Marr decided to let it all pass. Livingstone got to propagandise with only the most gentle prodding coming back at the claims he made. In a way this was a perfect alliance – a grotesque Britain-hater like Livingstone showering praise on a monstrous thug like Castro on a platform generously provided by the BBC.

I then watched David Davis – the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary being interviewed on various points and the way I saw it Marr was essentially trying to get him to agree with the government position on 24 hour drinking. There were frequent challenges and interruptions throughout the interview and Davis struggled to make his point without being cut-off by Marr.
Finally, and with best comedic effect, we came to the Margaret Beckett interview. Unbelievably, Beckett is now the head of the “Intelligence and Security” Committee. Marr’s big interest was to get her to “admit” to the UK allowing the US to land its “special rendition” flights on UK soil. Marr, like the rest of his BBC pals, appears ready to believe the very worst about the USA administration – the Bush derangement syndrome runs deep here.

This was a vile programme, all carried out with a simper and a smile. Isn’t it time the BBC gave Shami Chakrabarti her own programme since it clearly can’t get enough of her whingeing? And shouldn’t the BBC now just drop ANY pretence it is interested in the Republican dimension to the US election – since all it does is drool over Obama and Hillary? Marrs programme is marred by a profound sense of left wing bias and he should take note of this. Come on Andrew, if you or your Beeboid acolytes read this, explain yourself.