Does Chloe Smith have unnaturally healthy skin – and why does she look like Ruth Kelly’s daughter? I think we should call a televised public meeting (a local channel or community radio venture?) and ask for every candidate to take part.
Chloe Smith looks like a hollow shell.
Not only do I not get texts that deal PROPERLY with their shortcomings ie not getting basic facts right on a programme entitled `Westminster Hour` about the political compositions of Councils they are now IGNORING the Liberal Democrats as they see fit.
Take for example this utterly nonsensical hollow `wooing the Gays` ding-dong battle. Did you hear anywhere about Nick’s posting on Labourlist regarding the need for Gay marriage. Well, did you? No, instead of actually reporting NEW IDEAS and INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS the BBC preferred to get in the middle of a manufactured fray between two tired old parties that don’t deserve the attention.
It’s sheer laziness on their part and if any Liberal Democrat starts saying `the BBC don’t matter` I’ll f**king scream. They fuckin’ do matter! It’s the same Corporation that does Wimbledon, Royal Ascot, Newsnight, Question Time and people turn to when something dreadful happens.
So what ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
I’ve had it up to the back teeth with their complaints department and their patronising replies.
What do people think? The only language they’ll understand is to just march on their building and hold up the traffic. Well, why not? At least it will make the news!
I ask because I was interested in viewing how the main contenders were presenting themselves online.
First up, I find the Conservatives are doing an excellent job of it – their website is fresh, clean-looking and can be found at the top of the list by googling `Chloe Smith`. There is also a Tory blogger third on the list. If you google `Norwich North Conservatives` you find another site that reflects what’s going on in the main one.
Secondly, for us, there’s a slightly tired-looking Prater Raines site that helpfully appears at the top of the Google search `April Pond`. Should a voter google Norwich North Liberal Democrats the same site is at the top of the list. April has done a nice video on it.
Thirdly, Labour have completely flunked the test. Googling `Norwich North Labour` didn’t bring up any official site and neither did tapping in `Chris Ostrowski` – well nothing political except for an Oracle employee and a potter! The rest of the listings weren’t very complimentary!
However, it was only when I typed in `Norwich Labour` that I managed to locate the official Labour site and see a video by Gordon Brown! Although what was said comes across as `motherhood and apple pie that only the best Labour baker would make` it is obvious Labour don’t see Gordon as a liability. If it was me I’d have put Chris Ostrowski vid on the Home page. Compared to both the Lib Dems and Conservatives their site looks comatose with an old-fashioned style that seems to say that they think they’re old-fashioned or are trying to reassure people that the good times are around the corner by being very 2007!
The Greens have done well in getting their sites to the top of the list including a Green supporters blog as the fifth one down.
As an aside you can almost tell which party the candidates come from just by looking! Chris Ostrowski looks very new Labour compared to the dashing Rupert Read! And Chloe Smith looks very `new Tory` compared to the individual April Pond.
Best of luck to April anyway.
Just heard yet another lazy Lab/Con ding-dong battle that ends up in stalemate – again without a third voice from the Liberal Democrats.
`My Gay rights are better than your Gay rights`!
So, Alan Duncan says that the Tories are `friends of Gays` while Angela Eagle says `look at your record`. We don’t get very far as the Tories always have a fightback response whether that be the number of shadow ministers with Civil Partnerships or that `the Tories have changed`. What’s needed now is to hear it from the backbenches and the grassroots. If the BBC REALLY wanted to earn their pay they can do a rehash of those dinner parties with hidden microphones amongst the Tory faithful.
All this was started by Labour to keep core voters out of fear – `don’t vote for those evil bastard Tories who’ll eat your lover(s)`.
All in all, a way of padding out a few minutes of the Today prog with a bitch fight and not engaging with the issues that need addressing – school bullying, Gay marriage etc.
Not to disparage the huge efforts required to fend off the challenges of other parties there have been three interesting indicators in seats that will prove difficult defences.
1. West Didsbury – although this was a `safe` Lib Dem seat it was interesting to note that after pouring the same amount of literature and after pouring as many resources into it this as us, Labour went up 2% with the Lib Dems going up 9%.
What’s informative is that the `intellectual liberal left` stayed with the Lib Dems, a bulwark of the vote in Manchester Withington.
2. Stepping Hill – Maggie Clay (RIP) made this into a safe seat and I think it was that that meant the Lib Dems fell back 6% although the Conservatives also fell back 1%. The Tories threw everything but the kitchen sink at it but couldn’t pull out a victory. Again the `professional middle classes` stuck with the Lib Dems, ignored Labour and the Conservatives. The Lib Dems also kept their votes `on the terraces` in Great Moor and similar people in other parts of the ward ignored Labour (again).
Surely, a fillip for our campaign in Cheadle?
3. Nonsuch – it would be interesting to hear what local campaigners thought. Happy smiles I would think with the Tory vote going down and ours going up in such a marginal seat as Sutton & Cheam.
On Sunday I complained about the `Westminster Hour` and its final feature on `Dave’s friends in the North` which featured the Lib Dems and their bid for seats in the North. You would have thought that a BBC programme of this niche listening would have known that both Newcastle and Sheffield Councils had Lib Dem administrations.
Not a bit of it, according to the BBC the Lib Dems `held the balance of power` on these Councils. It’s a bit like saying the Lib Dems `hold the balance of power` on Richmond Council.
So I fire off a complaint asking why they did it, how come such basic facts weren’t known to researchers etc.
The following is the inadequate reply:
Thanks for your e-mail regarding ‘Westminster Hour’ broadcast 28 June 2009.
I understand you’re concerned we made a factual inaccuracy regarding the Liberal Democrat Party during this particular broadcast and you feel a programme of this calibre should be more accurate.
Having looked at your previous correspondence, all I can do is reiterate what my colleagues have stated, that it’s not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes and we feel that over a reasonable period our coverage, regardless of the political Party, will reflect a diverse range of views and opinions.
I can assure you we don’t seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. We seek rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience.
However I fully acknowledge your concerns and have registered your complaint regarding ‘Westminster Hour’ on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also the production team responsible for ‘Westminster Hour’. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thanks you again for taking the time to contact us.
Erm, what has my history of complaining got to do with whether or not one of the key politics shows called `The Westminster Hour` gets basic facts right that sixth-form Politics students would be aware of?
The problem with the BBC is that it never answers complaints DIRECTLY. All it would have took is an apology `oops, must do better – we will endeavour to ensure that we get the compositional status of each Council correct before commenting on it`.
One wonders whether there really IS an agenda.
Well it couldn’t carry on, could it? I had a posting about this and now the defensive over-complicated obfuscation has come to an end as he’s `standing down`.
Oh dear – there was the harrying of the BBC regarding our own `rights` of expression. The glaring omission in the past year has been the lack of proper programming regarding the Economy. Where were the debates with the three Economics spokesmen with neutral academics to hand? Yes, after banging our heads against brick walls they came down a bit and Vince the Cable became a national figure.
Now, the BBC are reverting to their old lazy, flabby, self-indulgent selves. Too much of the Tory/Lab `aunt sally` knockabout. From now on I will be complaining about EVERY instance I hear the two tired Lab/Tory narratives.
We’ve come so far the past year – don’t let them get away with it!
When you have stories like this. Personally I’m bored after 5 minutes of morris dancing though the idea that there’s a story behind it would keep my interest.
Sadly, this level of imagination wasn’t employed by the headteacher of Chantry school who has provided a gift to the far-right.
Has it really come to the point that our culture is so dumbed-down that explanations can’t be given to all the students and things be put in context.
Rather like the person I canvassed who was worried about the banning of crucifixes and hot-crossed buns – another example of how this plays right into the far right’s hands.
