Britannia Radio

Nick Bryant And The "Prevailing Wisdom"

>> SATURDAY, AUGUST 21, 2010

(Further to Robin's observations)

Ever since Tony Abbott challenged Malcolm Turnbull for the leadership of Australia's Liberal Party at the end of last year the BBC's Sydney correspondent Nick Bryant has, at almost every opportunity possible, dismissed the chances of the man he never fails to remind us is nicknamed the "Mad Monk". From his smirking obsession with Abbott's "budgie smugglers" to his quaint conviction that climate scepticism could lead to the dissolution of the Liberals, Bryant has reflected the sneering views of the Ozzie left.

When Abbott stood for Liberal leader Bryant said he lacked the "plausibility factor". When Abbott defeated Turnbull, and immediately announced that he would oppose Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation, the BBC journalist responded:

In what is already being billed as "the climate-change election", most observers predict a lop-sided majority for Labor, if not a landslide… By electing Mr Abbott, many commentators think that the Liberals have entered a sort of twilight zone - that they risk becoming a fringe party… By installing Mr Abbott, have the turkeys just voted for Christmas?

Bryant anticipated a snap election to coincide with the end of bushfire season which, he said, would allow the global warming message to be driven home with greater impact. When it became clear that his beloved Kevin Rudd didn't have the nads to go to the country Bryant posted an update saying it was wiser to wait:

It's a smart political strategy, for it will highlight and possibly deepen the fissures within Liberal ranks between those who think the party has no other choice but to support an ETS - John Howard proposed an ETS, after all - and the climate change sceptics and deniers. Labor is hoping that a weak Liberal party will be even be even more fragile by the time that parliament resumes. And, remember, that trigger can be pulled at any time the government wants.

Labor backed off a snap election not, as Bryant's spin would have it, because they hoped to capitalise on Liberal Party "fissures" but because opposition to ETS had given sudden momentum to the Liberals under its new climate sceptic leader.

Undaunted, and still with his finger firmly on the political pulse, Bryant began 2010 with a list of predictions, top of which was this:

1 - The election: If history is our guide, Kevin Rudd will win this year's federal election. After all, not since the great depression has an incumbent government been turfed out after just one term in office. Ever since he became leader of the Labor Party in December 2006, Kevin Rudd has enjoyed an unbroken run of high approval ratings, and it will surely take some unforeseen, game-changing event or scandal to put his government in jeopardy.

A month later Nick, along with the rest of the Rudd-supporting media, was in shock:

For this week the biggest, and most surprising, political headline came from a fresh opinion poll which showed the opposition coalition had pulled ahead of Labor for the first time in three years…The prevailing wisdom has always been that Kevin Rudd would win what is already being dubbed the climate change election - and win it handsomely. But in the month or so since Copenhagen, the prime minister has been largely silent on the question of climate change, and the opposition has filled the vacuum.

No worries though:

While there appears to have been a shift in the politics, there is by no means a sea change.

By June, following a succession of political missteps from Rudd and his party, often relating to green policies (fatalities from a mismanaged insulation project, dithering over further ETS legislation, a high profile battle with Australia's successful mining sector over a proposed super-tax) polling showed that the Mad Monk had become more popular than the PM. Shortly afterwards the Labor Party toppled its leader.

In December 2009 Bryant had suggested (somewhat optimistically?) that the new Liberal leadership's opposition to climate legislation could lead to the party's fracture and demise; eight months later it was Labor that polled lower in a federal election than any governing party since the war.

Perhaps Bryant should get out a bit more and meet a wider cross-section of the great Australian public. Alternatively, he could try a change of career: Nick Bryant and the Prevailing Wisdom is quite a good name for a Prog Rock covers band.

A DAY IN THE LIFE

As an experiment, I thought I'd pick a single story from yesterday's news and follow it throughout the course of the day on the BBC News Channel. I thought I'd choose whatever was the BBC's 'Cuts Story of the Day'. Yesterday it was the government's proposal in a consultation paper to cut the benefits of any drug addict who refuses treatment. A sensible-sounding idea you might think. Well, I'm not so sure now. Why? Because I watched every interview on the subject on the News Channel between 7.00am and 11.00pm and, with just one exception, they all said it was a big mistake.

Breakfast set the agenda:

"Drug addicts on benefits must seek treatment or they could have their
welfare taken away. That's the hard line being considered by ministers trying to
cut government spending. A similar policy was dropped by the previous Labour
government because of fears that addicts could be driven to crime to support
their habit."

In that single statement, there's a subjective judgement that this is a "hard-line" policy, as well as a presumption that the reason for any such policy is purely "to cut government spending" - not also to help tackle a major social ill.

First to be interviewed was Martin Barnes of the charity DrugsScope. He was critical of the proposal. Clearly a decent chap, he resisted the bait inKate Silverton's loaded question: "Do you think this is about dealing with drug addiction or saving money?" He said it was the former. Oh well, a beeboid can but try!!

As the News Channel-proper began rolling at 8.30 Tim Willcoxinterviewed...Martin Barnes of DrugsScope, who made the same criticisms again. To his credit, Tim did put several good questions to him (unlike Kate).

The same interview was reprised in full at 9.45.

So nothing but criticism of the government's 'hard-line' proposal so far.

At 11.45 Richard Tilt, from "the independent Social Security Advisory Committee" was interviewed. He too was also critical of the government. He went on to regret its decision not to bring up the issue of the de-criminalisation of drugs.

At 12.15 the criticism was ratcheted up, with Kirsty Douse, a young woman from the drugs agency Release, being highly critical of the proposal.

At 12.35 the one and only supporter of the proposal appeared - the Labour MP and former home office minister Alan Campbell (who I'd never heard of). Mr Campbell came across very well, refusing to play party politics. The nearest he came was to express, in passing, a hope that the government was doing it for the right reasons. This comment took up about 5 seconds in a 4 minute interview.

The interview with Mr Campbell was reprised at 1.40, though the most supportive first minute was cut! Worse, beeboid Julian Worrickerintroduced the truncated clip like this: "Well, earlier I spoke to Alan Campbell...and he told me the scheme would only be successful if it was done for the right reasons". Trust the BBC to pluck out of context a passing comment! Pure narrative-spinning!

The report by beebette Jude Kelly on the One O'clock News featured a reprise of some of the earlier criticisms. In a sop to impartiality it featured atiny excerpt from an interview with Tory minister James Brokenshire. This interview was never broadcast on the News Channel & must have been done just for the One O'clock News. Why was the full interview never broadcast on the News Channel (or anywhere else?). What else did Mr Brokenshire say? We'll never know.

The criticism was ratcheted up even more at 2.10 as Mark Linnell from the drugs charity Lifeline denounced the government's proposal as "a terrible idea" and a "policy written on the back of a fag packet" (a phrase beloved of Labour, coincidentally).

At 3.10, Howard Garrick, a recovering addict, and Savvas Panas(Howard's helper) from the Pillion Trust appeared. Howard said that if his benefits had been cut he'd have resorted to crime to get the money to feed his habit. Mr Panas was very critical of the government's proposal too, saying "this new policy is going to push those people further underground".

On the Six O'Clock News (seen by millions. Shame on them when The Simpsons is on Channel 4!!), Jude Kelly's report dropped Mr Brokenshire and any pretence of impartiality. Her report was prefaced by this: "Charities have warned that addicts will increasingly turn to crime and prostitution to feed their habit without proper support." Jude's report featured Barry Woodward, a former drug addict & dealer, who said the government's proposal wouldn't work. She went on, "Some who are familiar with the drugs world condemn what they call the blunt stick approach of benefits cuts". For 'proof' she turned to Ettan, a former addict, who condemned the proposal, saying it will lead to more homelessness & crime. No-one else was featured, no defence given.

The only new interviewee to appear on the News channel after that came at 8.15, and it was someone from the organisation I was expecting to appear all along - Steve Rolles of the pro-legalisation campaign groupTransform. He, in conversation with the very fragrant Sangita Myska, also strongly attacked the government's proposal. (Sangita didn't fail to mention"swingeing cuts").

There are two different conclusions a News Channel watcher might draw from this. On the one hand it could be the case that only politicians support this proposal. Everyone else, including all drugs charities, thinks its a very bad idea. So it is a very bad idea. Or you might instead suspect that the BBC has deliberately ignored all other supporters of the proposal in order to pump out nothing but anti-government propaganda all day long and that there might be a valid case for doing as the government proposes after all, even though we haven't heard it on the BBC. (I'll leave Martin to suggest another possible reason why the BBC might be resistant to the idea of a cutting the benefits of drug addicts!!)

Islam-O-Ubiquity

This week’s Any Questions and its loony appendage Any Answers.

For once the panel consisted of two estimable non-leftists, Douglas Murray and Baroness Ruth Deech, but their rational approach was counteracted by Quilliam founder Maajid whassisname and Alex von-something-to-do-with-Jeremy Paxman. Her PC fanaticism was more than enough to outweigh the others, with plenty left over for a rainy day.

The questions raised concerned Tony Blair’s ‘generosity’, the NY mosque, Lockerbie and Pakistan. The Islam theme interwove the programme, continuing throughout A.A.

Most of the callers thought Douglas Murray and Ruth Deech represented evil personified, but towards the end a courageous caller tentatively put forward the suggestion that the Islam theme permeated the BBC itself! Oohh Nooo!

In an ironically humourous twist of fate obviously engineered by the Jewish Lobby, the trail immediately following the programme was for the upcoming propaganda fest: “British Muslims, Father and Son.”
Laugh? I nearly split my sides.