I have been highly critical of the FT for some time though not particularly because of political partisanship. I took that and its pasionate espousal of everything to do with the EU for granted . No, my grumble about them is they seem to have a very sketchy grasp of fundamental economics.
Now this criticism here could be dismissed as a ‘hatchet job’ from a rival paper muscling in on the market and Murdoch-owned. So judge it on its merits.
Ian Martin used to write for the Telegraph and was highly respected. He’s a thoroughbred and is as down-to-earth in his new stable as before.
Christina
=================================
WALL STREET JOURNAL 27.10.09
FT Watch: Brown’s Brother, the Energy Giant and an Attack on the Tories
By Iain Martin
First in an occasional series monitoring political stories in the pink paper.
Here’s a curious little number. Page 1 of the FT yesterday, and the boss of an energy giant has had a go at Conservative proposals to alter the planning system. The headline declared “Business leaders fear Tory delay to crucial infrastructure projects” and a chap from the CBI said that there was “huge nervousness” among business about a possible change to the planning regime under the Tories. (Given the climate, I am sure there is “huge nervousness” about a lot of things).
But then, after various “coulds”, we get to the supposed meat of a pretty thin story with the comments of Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of EDF Energy, the French company that plans to be the first to build new nuclear power stations in the U.K. Any delays caused by a transition to a new government, he said, could be “very, very damaging.” He then warns that a change of government might mean that six or 12 months could be lost “which we could not catch up”.
I am not sure these comments merited the excitable page 1 and page 3 treatment they were accorded. But it is interesting nonetheless that Mr de Rivaz is choosing to speak out this close to an election. I am certain it has nothing whatsoever to do with the identity of EDF’s “brand sustainability and external communications director.” He’s Andrew Brown, who just happens to also be the brother of the Prime Minister.
Mr de Rivaz is, I am sure, a man more than capable of thinking for himself and deciding to intervene in an area with political ramifications at such a sensitive time without the prompting of another. But it’s well worth being aware of the sheer coincidence of Andrew Brown’s role at EDF and the treatement this subject ended up getting in the FT.
PS: Read right to the bottom of the full story inside on page 3, however, and you discover that Mr de Rivaz’s concerns are far more nuanced than the page 1 attack job on the Tories pieced together by the FT, suggests. He warns Labour and the Tories not to exaggerate the differences between the parties ahead of an election, says there is a consensus on the need for new nuclear facilities and says that he just that he wants to get a move on “pouring concrete” (which is hardly surprising as he runs a company which wants, quite rightly, to make a good deal of money out of getting on with the job).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
28.10.09
FT Watch: The Not Very Severe Backlash Against Tory Bonus Plans
By Iain Martin
Second in an occasional series monitoring political stories at the pink paper
I hadn’t expected to find it necessary to pen the second installment of FT Watch so soon after the first. But then they produced this morning’s paper (sighs).
On the page 1 basement slot - which these days seems to be reserved for anti-Tory stories - was their coverage of George Osborne’s speech on Monday on capping cash bonuses and various related matters.
The headline on page 1 read: “City tells Osborne to wise up and dismisses plan to cap bank bonuses.” That’s pretty strong stuff… the City is telling Osborne to wise up? It has dismissed the plan to cap bank bonuses? This sounds pretty devastating for Osborne. I must read this, I thought.
Paragraph 1: And we’re off, the plans have been attacked as “simplistic”. Uh-huh, right. Paragraph 2: There’s a backlash, apparently. Oh excellent, I like a good backlash. Paragraph 3: “Senior City figures” are questioning the logic and practicality of the Tory proposal. Okay, when are we going to get to find out who these senior figures are? Oh look, here’s one. It’s someone called Miles Templeman, the director-general of the Institute of Directors (IoD), in paragraph 4. He says Osborne should be “wiser” (so that accounts for the wise-up in the headline) and find the right and appropriate mechanism rather than taking a simplistic approach (so that accounts for the use of the word simplistic in the intro).
But can Mr. Templeman really be said to represent the City in any remotely meaningful sense? Don’t be silly, of course not.
Then it’s paragraph 7 and the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry is telling us that “not for the first time this year, the City feels that politics is unfairly shaping pay and remuneration policy.” (Incidentally, not for the first time this year the taxpayers of Britain feel that they might be being taken to the cleaners by institutions bailed-out at great expense with their cash.)
But once again, I ask whether the London Chamber of Commerce can be said to speak for the City and, again, the answer is obviously ‘no’.
Then it’s paragraph 8 and the senior economic advisor at UBS is quoted - he at least works in the City but his quote is hardly inflammatory. He questions the direct link implied in the Tories plans between the cash used by the banks for bonus payments and their levels of lending. Ho-hum.
Paragraph 9 and an unnamed banker, who could be anyone really, says: “The Tories really will say anything.” Hmmm, and they’re not the only ones. Last paragraph now, and George Osborne gets 24 words to defend himself. And then, er, that’s it…
Life is too short to fisk the additional coverage on page 3 - including a panel headed “Just the facts: Crowd-pleasing measure offers no boost to lending”, which seems to offer only some of the facts - but I do note one choice quote half way into the copy: “The bonus stuff is all just so much tosh”. That’s from a banking insider, who could be any one of about 500,000 people.
Now, I am all for giving politicians a hard time; they usually deserve it. The Tories want to govern and so deserve robust scrutiny. I have made some pretty critical observations of Osborne myself in the past, particularly on his sticking to Labour spending plans for longer than was wise. But if you are going to say that “the City” is attacking the Tories and then fail to include a single quote from a senior figure in the City who could be said to speak for it, you’re inviting ridicule.
Posts
