StatCounter

Showing posts with label Michael Crick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Crick. Show all posts

Saturday, 25 January 2014

A very perceptive tweet from Michael Crick

Michael Crick (@MichaelLCrick) tweeted at 2:20 PM on Sat, Jan 25, 2014:
On 1 Dec Balls said budget surplus goal by 2020 depended on economy; now it's a binding pledge. Has economy improved that much in 8 weeks?

I  look forward to the BBC asking Ed Balls this very question... Ha F***ing ha!Not a chance of the pro-Labour BBC doing any such thing.

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Now what is being suggested here by John Denham and Michael Crick?

So why would individual electoral registration be 'worse for Labour' let alone bad for labour? Do Labour benefit from weak electoral registration controls then? Who weakened the controls? Why did they do so? Should someone be held accountable?

Wednesday, 1 December 2010

PMQs and the BBC

The BBC manage to report today's PMQs as some sort of a draw but most interestingly the piece devoted to PMQs also includes this as a parting shot:
'The cables, obtained by whistleblowing website Wikileaks, also include a string of revelations about Bank of England governor Mervyn King's concern about Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne's lack of experience ahead of May's general election.'
Two points:
1) Why is this relevant to the coverage of PMQs, no other background briefing was given in the article?
2) If these negative comments about David Cameron and George Osborne are relevant why are the negative comments about Gordon Brown not mentioned?


Interestingly the usually very pro-Labour Michael Crick has to admit defeat on today's PMQs:
'David Cameron's quick trip back from Zurich was well worth it. He wiped the floor with Ed Miliband at Prime Minister's Questions, absolutely hammered him.

It was a huge mistake for Miliband to taunt Cameron with a William Hague quote about the Tories front bench being the "children of Thatcher", for Cameron inevitably retorted that Miliband was the "son of Brown".

That had government MPs in rapture, and dismayed members on the Labour benches.

Why instead didn't Miliband raise the Wikileaks remarks from Mervyn King about Cameron and Osborne's lack of experience and tendency to think of things only in terms of politics?

One thing Ed Miliband needs to learn is to stop repeating so many of his phrases, and sub-clauses. I imagine he does it to make himself heard above the noise, and to add emphasis, but it makes him look hesitant, nervous, indecisive and weak.

But one piece of advice for Cameron. He should avoid looking a touch too cocky when he has the upper hand.'
When even Michael Crick  calls PMQs for David Cameron rather than the labour leader you know it must have been a massacre... Strange how the BBC's news coverage is less forthcoming.

Sunday, 7 November 2010

'Solidarity brother, solidarity'

I have long pointed out the anti-Conservative bias spewed out by the BBC's Michael Crick, a man who is never happier as a journalist than when 'investigating' a Tory but who shows very little interest in investigating the left of British politics. So I was not surprised to read his views about the BBC 'journalist' strike - "I haven’t listened to the Today programme. I regard listening to or watching the BBC as strike breaking."

With such as Michael Crick and James "If we win the election"Naughtie in front of the microphone and such as Paul Mason in the control room, is it any wonder the BBC is as politically biased as it is?

Monday, 1 March 2010

The BBC are in full attack mode

I note that tonight's Newsnight will include this:
"The Conservative donor and deputy party chairman Lord Ashcroft has admitted he is "non-domiciled" in the UK for tax. How damaging has his affiliation been to the party? Our Political editor Michael Crick will be considering why the Conservative poll lead is narrowing."
I am assuming that Lord Paul, Lakshmi Mittal, Sir Ronald Cohen, Sir Christopher Ondaatje, Sir Gulam Noon, William Bollinger and Mahmoud Khayami will not be mentioned at all; after all why should they as they are lovely Labour donors not evil Tory ones.

Friday, 12 February 2010

Michael Crick questioning David Cameron again

Michael Crick is at it again, under the title "Ask the audience. Who was flanking Cameron at UEL?" Michael Crick writes: "Who were those students seen behind David Cameron on Monday while he made his speech on constitutional matters at the University of East London (UEL)?

"They weren't our students," my source at UEL tells me.
"We were puzzled when we saw the pictures on TV because there were so many white faces. Whereas the population of UEL is much more black and Asian."

And I'm also told that when the Student Union President Joseph Bitrus was asked on LBC radio today why the student audience looked so bored with the speech, Mr Bitrus too expressed puzzlement, and said that they weren't his students.

So did the Conservatives bus their students in from somewhere else just to be sure that Mr Cameron's speech got a good reception and there weren't any embarrassing protests?

Indeed, were the audience students at all?

I think we should be told. After all, one of the themes of Mr Cameron's speech was "transparency"."

A good question but has Michael Crick ever queried the make-up of audiences for a Labour leader's speech or appearance? Did Michael Crick ever comment on how Labour bussed in cheering crowds to acclaim Tony Blair becoming Prime Minister in 1997, or was he too busy quaffing champagne in Broadcasting House?

Thursday, 11 February 2010

Michael Crick demonstrating his ignorance or bias (addendum)

Further to my earlier piece regarding Michael Crick's deliberate or otherwise misunderstanding of voting systems. It strikes me that whilst Michael Crick is criticising David Cameron for opposing the Alternative Vote system when he was supposedly elected leader of the Conservative Party by just such a system, he has no word for Gordon Brown who whilst being such a fan of the Alternative Vote system was not elected to the position of Labour leader by such a system. Oh hold on, I think I see why, Gordon Brown and his team bullied and schemed so that there no opponents of Gordon Brown were able to garner enough votes to stand against him; that's so much more democratic...

Michael Crick demonstrating his ignorance or bias

Michael Crick's blog piece entitled "How 'AV' made Cameron Tory leader" demonstrates how Michael Crick doesn't let facts spoil a good anti-Tory story. Michael Crick writes:
"Mischievously, I looked up the voting figures for the Conservative leadership election last time round, in 2005.

Lo and behold, the votes from MPs in the first round were:

David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Ken Clarke - 38

It was only in subsequent ballots, after the weaker candidates, Mr Clarke and Mr Fox, were eliminated, and David Cameron picked up many of their supporters' second or third preferences, that he won through.

If the Conservatives had used "first past the post" in 2005, then David Davis would have won."
The key word here is indeed "Mischievously" as the Conservative Party leadership election was not held under the Alternative Vote system where electors rank candidates in order of preference and votes are redistributed accordingly until one of the leading candidates has more than 50% of the votes. It was a run-off election where after each round of voting one or more candidates drop out, there is more campaigning, another round of one vote per person voting; this process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes. I seem to remember that the French elect Presidents in just such a manner.

Either Michael Crick made an honest mistake, in which case one has to question whether someone with that little understanding of politics should remain as Newsnight's political editor or Michael Crick's anti-Tory views are so entrenched that he just couldn't refrain from 'having a pop' at the leader of the Conservative Party, in which case he is too biased to remain as Newsnight's political editor.

So I hereby call for Michale Crick to either resign from his position as Newsnight's political editor or be sacked by the BBC whether for incompetence or bias.

Thursday, 17 September 2009

"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.

Sunday, 30 August 2009

An excellent posting on Michael Crick's Newsnight blog

Beeb Bias Craig has managed to get a posting accepted onto Michael Crick's blog that is not quite what it seems.

"Well done Michael, a funny story that shows just what the Tories are like! This makes it your 6th post (out of 8) this month about the Tory Party. I've loved them all. Three have been firmly anti-Tory (well done again!), and the others merely slanted against the Tories (great!). None have been specifically about the Labour government (and why should they have been?). I know some people think you hate the Tories, but I hate them too and I don't see anything wrong in that. I think you're doing a great job. Go on Michael, keep socking it to them!"


It would appear that the BBC don't understand irony.

Looking at the next comment, it would seem that commenter A_View_From_France doesn't get irony either:
"CraigMorecambe, the joke is on you, especially when the Conservatives trounce Labour at the next election (Super Great!).

So yes, let Mr Crick continue with his pointless blog, all he is doing is ensuring that he will be looking for a new job sometime in the next 8 months....."

Monday, 24 August 2009

Monday morning catch-up

So much I wanted to post on this weekend but not enough time, so here's a catch-up post:

1. Over 25% of A-level students get A grade and something like a third of prospective entrants to University mathematics courses fail a maths exam.


2. The Times reports that: "A devastating official report suppressed by ministers has revealed that soldiers’ lives are being put at risk by “endemic” failures at the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The secret dossier blames “political fudge” and Whitehall incompetence for the plight of soldiers in Afghanistan who are provided with inadequate frontline kit."


3. My Own Doubts riffs on a theme I have touched on before as he explains why, contrary to the agreed media narrative, racism is a problem of the "left" not the "right".


4. The Spectator think that there is a "stench of realpolitik" about the release of al-Megrahi.


5. The Telegraph reported that:
"Britain's payments to the European Union will soar by almost 60 per cent next year, according to figures "buried" in government documents.

The Treasury statistics show that the UK's net contribution to the EU will increase from £4.1 billion this year to £6.4 billion in 2010/11.

The figures were published in the Treasury's annual Community Finances statement, which was slipped out last month just before parliament broke up for its summer recess. "
Do read this story as it reminds us of Tony Blair's duplicity and Gordon Brown's capitulation over the UK rebate.


6. This Telegraph article from last year may give us pointers on how Gordon Brown will look to raise money if he manages to somehow win (or avoid) the general election - raiding private pension funds in the name of serving the collective welfare.


7. The Mirror reported that: "John Prescott has landed his most bizarre job yet - as professor of climate change at a Chinese university.


8. A site that is becoming a daily must read for me,Beeb Bias Craig, takes Michael Crick to task for anti-Conservative bias in two wee researched articles - here and here.

9. The Mail reports that: "Traditional lightbulbs will disappear from our shops in just ten days.

All conventional pearl, incandescent lightbulbs are being banned by the European Union to slash energy bills and carbon dioxide emissions.

The move covers every type of frosted traditional bulb, from the 60 watt pearl bulbs used in table lamps to more specialised opaque 25 and 40 watt bulbs shaped like golf balls and candles.

Clear and frosted 100 watt lightbulbs will also not be on sale from September 1."

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

Michael Crick investigative journalist

Michael Crick's BBC blog carries the description:
"I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out."

So when I saw a piece headed "An apology" which started "Last Friday I failed to report a pretty big political story - and so did Newsnight" I wondered if Michael Crick was finally going to report on Baroness Uddin's problem with her expenses, I need not have worried for Michael Crick was off on another anti-Conservative story.

Back in February and March Michael Crick just couldn't get enough of reporting on Caroline Spelman and "nannygate" but for some reason he seems less keen to report on any Labour sleaze stories; why?

The BBC finally report the Baroness Uddin expenses story

Just a little behind the rest of the Main Stream Media, the BBC finally get around to reporting that:
"Labour peer Baroness Uddin is to be investigated over allegations that she used a reportedly empty flat to claim £100,000 in public allowances.

The House of Lords authorities are to look into the allegations, relating to a Kent property owned by the peer.

The Sunday Times said the peer stated this was her main residence and claimed a second home fee for a London flat.

Baroness Uddin said she "welcomed" the investigation, insisting that she had not broken the parliamentary rules. "

The BBC report Baroness Uddin's claim that:
"She said she had "regularly" stayed in the two-bedroom Kent "
Of course "regularly" could be a word chosen very deliberately as it makes the leads the reader to think it means often whereas it could just as easily mean once a month every month.

Will Newsnight now give Michael Crick a whole segment on this story as they did over the Caroline Spelman affair, or does the BBC only "investigate" "Tory sleaze" whilst helping to cover up for the Labour government?

Tuesday, 27 January 2009

Good boy Crick, good boy

Most of the media are full of the allegations about four Labour peers agreeing to take money to try and change laws. Meanwhile the BBC are trying to spin the story into one about House of Lords regulation and reform. And I note that Michael Crick has popped up with a reminder of the "Tory sleaze" story of last year - the Caroline Spelman Nannygate affair. Well done Michael; Gordon, Peter and Alastair will be pleased with you.

Friday, 20 June 2008

Michael Crick now attacking David Cameron via Caroline Spelman

Michael Crick is nowattacking David Cameron via Caroline Spelman, this time in his BBC blog. There is no sign of an investigation of any Labour cabinet ministers from the "impartial" Mr Crick.

Saturday, 14 June 2008

Michael Crick hard at work ridiculing Conservatives

Michael Crick was hard at work ridiculing David Davis and the Conservatives on Newsnight last night. I am not going to give examples, you can presumably waych his oh so clever piece on the BBC website. Let's just leave it that this man is an affront to democracy and come the revolution should be one of the first against the metaphorical wall.

Monday, 9 June 2008

The Caroline Spelman case

Even the BBC have had to finally move the Caroline Spelman "scandal" off of the News front page and indeed down to just a sidebar piece on the politics home page. Meanwhile I can find no recent stories on the BBC about the somewhat stronger and certainly allegations of more recent financial impropriety made against Ken Livingstone.

Why would the BBC prefer to major on alleged Tory sleaze from one year around ten years ago rather than Labour sleaze over more than five years during the last eight years?

Michael Crick has raised 32 questions about the Caroline Spelman case on his Newsnight blog, the comments show that most people are not fooled by this distraction device. Here are a few extracts:

"What about the questions that Michael Crick should answer?

Should he really have broken an 11 year old story with such little evidence, which looks to be based on very unfair misleading questioning of the nanny?"


"Were this a current affair I would support such questioning. However this is way way too old to care about now. From reports she and her party behaved reasonably to find and correct something that 'looked' wrong.


Given the fast movement over this issue in the last year or so, the possible shredding of expense documentation, NOW, this is a complete non story and only appears to be gross anti Conservative in house bias from the BBC.


I equally have no interest in 10 year old expense irregularities from times with different atmospheres on the issue from any party. Find a scandal of Harold Wilson's expenses, just bin it no one cares now.

Oh and MEPs, we all know the EU is corrupt, that is what we expect! They can not even sign off their accounts!

This all 'looks' like a plan devised after the crushing of Labour in the local elections by the BBC to shore up their soul mates."


"Another question for Mr Crick:

Why did you miss the Labour MPs paying their insurance premiums from their allowances and dig this old news up?


You have clearly nailed your political colours to the mast Mr Crick, and seriously damaged your credability."


"Ah the Salem Witch trials continue with Michael Crick as the Witchfinder General.

Shame he does not apply his diligent approach to Beckett, Blair, Brown, Harman etc.

Need I say more?

Clearly the TV Licence is being wasted once again. Time to franchise out the BBC Current Affairs Dept!"


"The great Michael Crick (pbuh) brings the searchlight of truth onto a 10 year old story

Given that there are 650-odd current MPs to investigate plus MEPs and MSPs why are you spending so much time on Ms Spelman?

Perhaps you might like to consider investigating the entire Kinnock family?

Where did the tip-off come from, eh?"


"So what questions are to be put to ed balls and yevette cooper - about their remote holdiay home suddenly becoming their 'main residence'.

They live in london and that is where their kids go to school. So why is their london house now consdered their 'second home' so being paid for by the taxpayer?

What about the massive mortgage x,00% the blairs used to launch their property empire?

Is there anyone at the BBC who has any independance?"



The BBC are in full attacking the Tories mode in a, hopefully, vain attempt to stop the Labour vote dropping any further. Quite how this is in any way the proper function of the UK's independent by charter national broadcaster I am not sure.