A strange turn of phrase and tone on Today programme

The LIBOR low-balling story continues on but there was an odd moment in the Today programme's interview with Lord Myners this morning (from around 08:10), in fact there were several. First Lord Myners categorically denied that he did not speak to Paul Tucker or anyone else at the Bank of England and said he was sure that nobody else at the Treasury would have done so. I note that this does not include Ed Balls then no officially longer in the Treasury but very much Gordon Brown's chosen man for economic matters. Nor does the denial include the great clunking fist himself.

The next point was the way certain matters were part of whose responsibility, this was the whole problem with Gordon Brown and Ed Balls tripartite regulatory framework; things could fall between the three parties.

The most interesting part is from 4:50 as John Humphrys lays the groundwork for the 'if Labour figures did push for lower LIBOR then it was in the national/public interest'. Unfortunately for the BBC, even Lord Myners wouldn't agree to that line of thought. I think it is a line that the BBC may well push if they have to. Don't forget the basic BBC message - VOTE LABOUR.

BBC Today programme still deliberately misleading its listeners re latest Israeli Palestinian conflict and ceasefire

Yesterday the BBC Radio 4 Today programme broadcast an interview with  Dr Aryeh Kontorovich who lives in Beersheva in southern Israel and Dr Mona El-Farra, vice president of the Red Crescent in Gaza. This followed the usual biased BBC introduction. I won't comment on the interview as you can read all about in the article and comments at Biased BBC but I will remark that this morning's news summary at 07:30 included very little about the situation other than that has now been  a ceasefire which has resulted in Israel stopping attacking Gaza and that 200 rockets had been fired from Gaza at Israel since Friday. This is deliberately misleading as it makes it seem as though the rockets only started on Friday and are as a result of retaliations after Israel's attack of Friday on Gaza terrorists (or in BBC language - 'militants'). This is not a minor matter as it neatly turns the blame for starting this latest violence onto Israel, when the blame should be laid squarely on the terrorist groups operating within Gaza who have been firing potentially lethal rockets at Israeli civilians for many months.

It is not as though this information is hard to come by. The BBC could subscribe to the Twitter feed from QassamCount for updates every time a rocket is fired at Israel. The BBC could look at the feed from Challah Huakbar or even just '
Challah's Gaza Rocket Counter' on the same site. Alternatively the BBC could look at this Wikipedia page that lists Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2012. For even more detailed information the BBC could even look at this list of 'Palestinian ceasefire violations since the end of Operation Cast Lead'.

The real figures and facts are easily obtainable so why do the BBC allow interviewees such as Mona El-Farra to state that there have been no rocket attacks from Gaza.

"let me tell you that for the last four months there were no rockets against Israel and Palestinians respected the cease-fire."

Where was the correction from John Humphrys at the time or subsequently?

This is not a minor matter, by deliberately misleading their listeners Radio 4 push the Palestinian narrative of an evil, aggressive Israel opressing innocent Palestinians. It's not true and to pretend it is, is dangerous.

But not in every case

John Humphrys on the BBC Today programme at around 07:40 was discussing the replacement of Judge Eady with Judge Tugendhat to (in effect) run the libel case register. John Humphrys was making his usual approving noises about freedom of information overriding 'super-injunctions' and mentioned the case of John Terry that Justice Tugendhat allowed to be made public. I wonder where John Humphrys stands on the 'super-injunction' taken out some time ago by one of his BBC colleagues. I am of course unable to say who took out the super-injunction or why, but you can easily find the information on the internet if you so desire.

A super-injunction means that not only are the press stopped from publishing a story but that they are also banned from even alluding to the gagging order being placed upon them. This is on the grounds that if the press were allowed to report the injunction, it would probably run a piece accusing the claimant of trying to muzzle the press; which of course is exactly what they are doing.

This is one of the results of the BBC's hard work over recent weeks

The BBC's currency page shows what fears of a hung parliament have done to the markets:
Sterling down 2.33% today against the Dollar
Sterling down .86% today against the Euro
Sterling down 5.52% against the Yen

Is that what you wanted Jim Naughtie? Is that what you hoped for Nicky Campbell? Is that what you wanted John Humphrys? Is the champagne yet on ice at Broadcasting House?

Gordon Brown takes responsibilty, without accepting he was responsible

John Humphrys actually tried to take Gordon Brown to task in his 08:10 interview, a lot of the interview was about Gordon Brown's culpability for the financial crisis in the UK and do listen as Gordon Brown says he takes responsibility without really accepting responsibility. Gordon Brown also refused to explain why the 60+ business leaders were deceived and still claimed that the 2.5 million new jobs are not primarily made up of immigrants - here Migration Watch explains the truth of that statement.

The BBC news bulletin immediately after the interview, of course, summarised the interview from a very positive angle of what Gordon Brown claimed.


As an aside who would you trust on economic matters: Gordon Brown who is sees a 0.4% rise in GDP as a positive sign that we are coming out of recession or Sir Stuart Rose who managed his company to a 5.1% rise in sales in the last quarter.

"We'd just mutter a bit..."

The BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning had John Humphrys interviewing Chris Patten and others about the built-in anti-Conservative bias in the way constituency boundaries are constituted. John Humphrys ran the discussion as an interesting academic discussion. Somehow I think that if the system favoured the Conservative party and left the Labour party needing proportionally more votes per elected MP than the Conservatives, then the discussion with a Labour greybeard would have had more urgency and claims of unfairness. You see Conservatives (and the Republicans in the US) are meant to just 'suck it up' when they are the victims of unfairness whilst Labour (and the Democrats in the US) moan, whinge, whine and maybe 'man the barricades' in protest.

"It is an obvious statement that the prime minister would never mislead Parliament, clearly."

The BBC report two incredible claims. First that:

"The prime minister's spokesman would not comment on the leaked document, saying there were "a number of documents that would be around that would have within them assumptions at various stages of the planning process".

He added: "It is an obvious statement that the prime minister would never mislead Parliament, clearly.""

"obvious"? To whom? Not to me that's for sure.

The BBC also report that:

"The Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman Vince Cable told the BBC the Conservatives were trying to "make a big political issue out of this".

"I wasn't misled. I think we all realised, who have studied government documents, that cuts were on the way," he said. "

Am I right that Vince Cable and the BBC's line on this is that nobody was mislead because we all knew that cuts were coming so whatever Gordon Brown said in Parliament or at Press Conferences can be ignored because we all knew what was coming? If that is the BBC line then it is fundamentally wrong; if the leaked documents are real then Gordon Brown lied to the House of Commons and at the Press Conference in his reply to Fraser Nelson's straightforward question.

If a Conservative Prime Minister or indeed any senior Conservative politician, had been caught out in a similar way the BBC would be in full outrage mode: Michael Crick would be doing special reports for Newsnight, Jeremy Paxman would be in full sneer mode and John Humphrys would be exuding indignation from every pore. However as it is Gordon Brown, the story came, was under-reported, and is now fading away and being treated as "Conservative claims" and a non-story.

This story has really shone a spotlight on the BBC's pro-Labour bias and even David Cameron must realise the uphill battle he faces to overcome the BBC's blatant bias in the run up to the election and the anti-Conservative vitriol that will be spewed at him and his party should they have the temerity to win the upcoming general election.

John Humphrys seems to think that "we all knew" what the truth about cuts was so Gordon Brown denial is not really a story

Listen to John Humphrys Today interview with George Osborne and wonder at John Humphrys line of questioning. Can you imagine the BBC outcry if there was documentary proof that a Conservative Prime Minister had lied to the House of Commons; so why the soft-pedalling over Gordon Brown having done so? I think we all know why.


The BBC are now reporting this story in very bare detail:

"Leaked Treasury documents show the government is preparing 10% cuts in departmental budgets, shadow chancellor George Osborne has told the BBC.

Mr Osborne told Radio 4's Today programme the documents, which were leaked to the Tories, showed Gordon Brown "misled" Parliament.

"He told the House of Commmons that the Conservatives were planning 10% cuts and he was not," said Mr Osborne.

But the leaked documents includes "near 10% cuts" across government, he added."

I wonder how long before the Government spin machine comes up with a counter-story?

David Miliband on the Today programme

"Withdraw that slur"

It would seem that John Humphrys has struck a raw nerve this morning with his interviewing about the release of al-Megrahi.

Of course John Humphrys cannot interview a Labour minister as robustly as he did Alex Salmond earlier this morning and so did not follow up this line of questioning.

Something smells distinctly fishy about the "compassionate" release of Mohmed al-Megrahi and I wonder if we will ever find out the truth.

al-Megrahi

Have a listen to the 07:31 Today programme interview with Alex Salmond and see if you can spot where John Humphrys asks the important question and Alex Salmond avoids answering the questions asked.

The key passage starts at 07:15:
"What conversations have you had with British Authorities?"
Listen to the tone of Alex Salmond's voice

"Did the British government suggest to you whether they thought he should be let out, or not?"Spot the long pause and the evasive answer involving the word "recommendation" rather than "suggestion"...
"Not recommendation but dod they give you any indication as to what they thought?"
Another evasive answer.
"It was your understanding that the British government wanted him released?"
Another evasive answer using "recommendation" again


There is a truth to be discovered here and maybe John Humphrys will get a straight answer out of David "there are circumstances in which terrorism is justified" Miliband; but somehow I doubt it.

Listen and laugh in disbelief

Good grief even John Humphrys mus realise that there is a great deal of "swinging of the lead" involved in NHS illness absence but he just can't bring himself to criticise "the envy of the world".

"Tory cuts" v "Labour investment"

That is the "choice" that Labour strategists have decided is the one to push at every opportunity. Gordon Brown pushed the line at yesterday's PMQs and every Minister I have heard interviewed since the weekend has done the same.

To get around the claims and see the truth, I recommend that you look at these four links:
1. Fraser Nelson's piece in The Spectator's Coffee House that explains: "The stated Labour and Tory position on post-election cuts is now identical. The Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis is clear: Budget 09 proposes 7 percent public service spending cuts from Apr11-Apr14, and if you exclude health from the cuts everything else falls by 10 percent."

2. Dizzy Thinks piece today that explains why "What Brown is doing is taking everyone for idiots " and includes this graph that "plots what Brown predicted the level and path of debt would be in his Budget against what actually happened. The dotted line is the direction he said debt was heading in the coming years, whilst the solid line shows the true path of debt based on his own figure for the given year."As Dizzy swrites "Brown consistently did the opposite of what he said he was going to do year on year, either deliberately or because he's just stupid. So when he stands up in Parliament and rattles off projected figures, they should be taken with a pinch of salt anyway."

3. Burning Our Money who point out that "In the most recent Budget, his own Chancellor... gave us the biggest public spending cuts since Labour's last biggest public spending cuts in 1976." and that "So does Gordo not know any of this? Is he really that far gone? No of course not. He is simply telling the British electorate another of his Gigantic Lies. Just like all those lies he told when he was Chancellor himself."
There will be lots of other pertinent articles on the Burning Our Money website.

4. The Today programme interview with Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne and his shadow counterpart Philip Hammond. When even John Humphrys all but accuses Liam Byrne of deliberately avoiding admitting the real figures then you know the game is should be up for Labour.

BBC Today programme this moring - 8 June 2009

John Humphrys seems to be grumpier than normal this morning, I wonder why.

John Humphrys interview with George Osborne was a master-class in BBC/Labour attack interviewing. Cutting across George Osborne over and over again, attempting to slur the Conservative party by alleging all sorts of things about the Conservative party's new partner parties in Poland and the Czech Republic. Generally John Humphrys sounded both angry and dismissive of the Conservative's electoral success and George Osborne did well not to fight back with aggression.

John Humphrys interview with Nick Griffin was similarly angry, attacking the BNP, its elected MEPs and showing a complete lack of respect. I cannot remember John Humphrys being as agitated and angry when interviewing those on the hard-left some of whose views are at least as odds with those of the majority of the British people as are some of the BNP's.

John Humphrys interview with Harriet Harman was a much different exercise. He interrupted much less and more politely including an "I'm sorry" which was rather a contrast to his interview with George Osborne. The tone of the interview was one of anger but more with the circumstances than with the Labour party. He expressed irritation with Harriet Harman, it would be hard not to be, but also there seemed to be great sorrow at the state of the Labour party and the resulting prospect of a Conservative government.

How much does John Humphrys earn? We do all pay his salary after all.

I missed John Humphrys interview of Edward Leigh on yesterday morning's Today programme. But The Times reports on the interview and it sounds like it was a doozy:

"“We, the public who pay your salaries, John, should have an idea of what you earn. I mean, you do a very good job but for instance: do you earn more than the Prime Minister, John?” he asked on Today.

“Well, I’d love to be able to tell you that,” Humprys replied.

“Why don’t you?” asked Mr Leigh. “It’s a free country.”

“Well. . . well,” the caustic presenter stuttered. “As far as most presenters are concerned, and I include myself in that, we're not going to break ranks because it's for the BBC to make this decision. We're freelances.""

I believe the expression, "they don't like it up 'em" is apposite here...

"But he would say that wouldn't he?"

John Humphrys happy to query the accuracy of the gospels, would he be as happy to question the accuracy of the Koran?

Miss Derbyshire's comments were 'idiotic and flippant'.

The Mail reports that:

"A row broke out today over whether contestants on BBC TV's Mastermind programme are given help in advance over the questions they will face when they sit in the famous chair.

BBC broadcaster John Humphrys today criticised fellow presenter Victoria Derbyshire after she claimed she was offered a crib sheet for an appearance on Celebrity Mastermind, according to the Telegraph's Mandrake column.

The Mastermind host said Miss Derbyshire's comments were 'idiotic and flippant'.

The BBC Radio 5 Live presenter has insisted that her comments were misinterpreted and that she had merely been offered research guidance and not specific answers to questions."

If John Humphrys had ever had the misfortune to listen to Victoria Derbyshire's 5Live show then he would know that her comments are very often 'idiotic and flippant'.

John Humphrys has the tables turned on him

If you missed the Today programme yesterday with Philip Green neatly turning the tables on John Humphrts then James Kirkup has the details.

What's sauce for the goose... More BBC Today programme bias

From 07:09 John Humphrys badgered the Head of the British Bankers' Association Angela Knight as why none of her senior members would come on the Today programme and apologise for their part in causing the financial crisis. John Humphrys seemed most keen to say that yes these senior bankers were not 100% to blame but they should still apologise. Oddly John Humphrys has seemed less keen on getting an apology from Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling... I wonder why?

Have Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling screwed up yet again?

Burning Our Money has spotted something of great importance:

"We've just read the government's bank rescue plan. Worryingly, there's no mention whatsoever of those equity warrants we blogged yesterday.

As you will recall, the model we taxpayers want is the Warren Buffett Way. Wily old Warren put his $5bn into Goldman Sachs preference shares - just as our government is now proposing - but also insisted on a big helping of keenly priced equity warrants (the option to buy Goldman shares in future at a price fixed now, at today's firesale levels). So Warren will share fully in any future increase in Goldman's share price. Quite right too.

Darling has just been interviewed by Humphrys, and talked only of taxpayers benefiting from the dividends on the preference shares, not sharing in any future price appreciation. Sadly, Humphrys didn't know enough to ask the warrants question. But somebody needs to.

We should not be pumping equity capital into the banks unless we get a share in the future growth in the banks' value. That's obvious.

Isn't it?"

Don't expect John Humphrys to ask a decent technical question, he is way out of his depth in this area of discussion. It is also in John Humphrys interests for this plan to work it is after all a product (at least in part) of the Labour government.

Charles Clarke's interview on the Today programme this morning

Odd how John Humphrys, the interviewer, allowed Charles Clarke is allowed to state that Gordon Brown was a

"brilliant Chancellor of the Exchequer and part of the Blair-Brwon team which delivered for the first time...in the whole of Labour history ... a record of economic competence and effectiveness"

without this opinion being queried; I wonder why that might be? The Labour narrative, even amongst the anti-Brown camp, is that this has only been a problem since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister and that presentational changes could make the difference.