New government running scared already...?

[bawheid]

I see the Con-Dem coalition government refused to take part in Question Time last night unless the BBC removed Alastair Campbell from the panel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8709930.stm

Quite astonishing that in the week that the coalition agreement was published and the Queen's speech delivered that a government would refuse to take part.

Is this the "new politics" we were promised? An attempt by Downing Street to control the media? I'll have the old politics back thanks.

It seems the Tories and Lib Dems are quite happy to appear on Question Time next to Nick Griffin, but not Alastair Campbell.

[CropleyWasGod]

I see the Con-Dem coalition government refused to take part in Question Time last night unless the BBC removed Alastair Campbell from the panel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8709930.stm

Quite astonishing that in the week that the coalition agreement was published and the Queen's speech delivered that a government would refuse to take part.

Is this the "new politics" we were promised? An attempt by Downing Street to control the media? I'll have the old politics back thanks.

It seems the Tories and Lib Dems are quite happy to appear on Question Time next to Nick Griffin, but not Alastair Campbell.

Be honest. Would you appear on a programme like that with Malcolm Tucker and a plate of raw meat beside you?

[Danderhall Hibs]

It seems the Tories and Lib Dems are quite happy to appear on Question Time next to Nick Griffin, but not Alastair Campbell.

:thumbsup: I love this bit of "spin". :greengrin

[Beefster]

Bad mistake by whomever in the government made this decision.

However, they do have a point that, this week especially, there should have been a member of the opposition on the panel - either in addition to or replacing Campbell.

[bawheid]

Bad mistake by whomever in the government made this decision.

However, they do have a point that, this week especially, there should have been a member of the opposition on the panel - either in addition to or replacing Campbell.

It's up to the Labour party who they put forward, and it's up to the BBC if this is accepted.

I would have thought our new government, who are charging themselves with sorting out the country, would have been able to go toe to toe with Alastair Campbell. It seems they're not that confident in their own ability to communicate to the public.

I also see the toffs on the Tory backbenches are starting to grumble about the proposals for the increase in capital gains tax. Tough times ahead for Westminster's hottest new couple...

[Geo_1875]

Why would HM's Opposition consider it democratic to put forward an unelected "attack dog" as their official representative on a publicly broadcast debate where he can make completely unfounded claims without any comeback. Smacks of cynical sniping with the cover of deniability. Fairly typical of the anti- politics of New Labour.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I see the Con-Dem coalition government refused to take part in Question Time last night unless the BBC removed Alastair Campbell from the panel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8709930.stm

Quite astonishing that in the week that the coalition agreement was published and the Queen's speech delivered that a government would refuse to take part.

Is this the "new politics" we were promised? An attempt by Downing Street to control the media? I'll have the old politics back thanks.

It seems the Tories and Lib Dems are quite happy to appear on Question Time next to Nick Griffin, but not Alastair Campbell.

:agree: So much for bringing politics back to the people and engaging with the voters.

[bawheid]

Why would HM's Opposition consider it democratic to put forward an unelected "attack dog" as their official representative on a publicly broadcast debate where he can make completely unfounded claims without any comeback. Smacks of cynical sniping with the cover of deniability. Fairly typical of the anti- politics of New Labour.

If Campbell is making completely unfounded claims it's up to Dave's "fresh new team" to highlight them and discredit him. Instead they hid under the covers.

As for anti-politics, surely the state-controlled media the new inhabitants of Downing Street thought they could create last night, would be a perfect example?

[Leicester Fan]

There was a Tory and Lib mp on the panel last night. Lot of fuss about nothing.

[bawheid]

There was a Tory and Lib mp on the panel last night. Lot of fuss about nothing.

There was no Lib Dem MP on the programme. There was a Tory backbencher who is distancing himself from the coalition government more and more as each day passes.

The fuss is that just ten minutes into the job, Cameron is trying to bully and manipulate the BBC. New politics? Pah...

[Bad Martini]

Its aw pish.

We have a government telling us what to do, sitting 400 miles away, who won not ONE SINGLE NEW *****g seat here.

Also putting that aside, we have a "government" who (used to til it suited them) occupied almost polar opposite sides of the political spectrum...........then when they NEEDED eachother, they pull together and everyone who voted torrie and everyone who voted lib dem gets screwed so they can form some radge alliance...

I dislike Piers Morgan. His point was valid tho even if he is a prick. Nobody (torrie voter or lib dem voter) VOTED for a con-dem-alition........but that IS what they got, whether they wanted it or not.

Democracy....topped up with the tossers deciding for OUR good they will ensure nobody can topple them for FOUR YEARS.

Aw pish, as ah sais.

Bring on the independence referendum and let these dafties get on with it doon the road, pissing aroond and coming up with reasons not to appear on a topical and unbiased political talk show instead of sorting out the apparently pressing problems this country has, which they both represented polar opposite views on yet now all live happily ever after on.

Bawbags, the lot of them

ENDOF

[steakbake]

There was no Lib Dem MP on the programme. There was a Tory backbencher who is distancing himself from the coalition government more and more as each day passes.

The fuss is that just ten minutes into the job, Cameron is trying to bully and manipulate the BBC. New politics? Pah...

Yeah, he's just keeping up the usual bullying and manipulating of the BBC as carried out by the previous regime.

My objection is that the BBC seem open to being bullied and manipulated.

Campbell is a bawbag though.

[Bad Martini]

There was no Lib Dem MP on the programme. There was a Tory backbencher who is distancing himself from the coalition government more and more as each day passes.

The fuss is that just ten minutes into the job, Cameron is trying to bully and manipulate the BBC. New politics? Pah...

Indeed.

Gordon Brown was a dispicable and unlikable bawbag on many things.

But, to piss him and Labour off, we now have an even more dispicable, standsfornothinginparticular wee bawbag and his sidekick who couldn't run a piss up in a brewery.....

Happy days.

All that backed with a hole in the economy bigger than the hole in their collective erses oot which they generally speak and spout hot air and we've got a real recipie for optimisim eh :rolleyes:

Still...as long as we continue to do things that are clver such as paying EVERYONE in the UK (including those in warm countries i.e. ex-pats) £250 a year "winter fuel allowance", regardless of whether they need it (i.e. the 14% who DO actually need it) that's fine.....after all, Richard Branson, the Queen and various others all NEED the £250 don't they? Doesny matter...they git it anyway and there is "no mechanisim" to return it (thats a fact too) even for those who DONT want it ...

Erses, madness and we're all done for. The UK economy only has marginally better prospects than the yams bank account from where I am sitting.

[Bad Martini]

My objection is that the BBC seem open to being bullied and manipulated.

Campbell is a bawbag though.

Correct on both counts.

They are indeed ALL bawbags.

That's why we had a political debate in Scotland that didn't include any representatives from the Scottish Government.....even where "facts" conveyed by Brown, Cameron and Clegg were factually "incorrect" in Scotland.

Aw pish. Good old Beeb tho...at least they give us Wogan and plenty cricket and England friendlies north of the border.......just what we want when we pay the licence fee.

[bawheid]

Yeah, he's just keeping up the usual bullying and manipulating of the BBC as carried out by the previous regime.

My objection is that the BBC seem open to being bullied and manipulated.

Campbell is a bawbag though.

Yep, but credit to them for not crumbling under pressure from No 10.

Campbell is a bit of a bawbag. It's worrying that our shiny new magnificent government are scared of him.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Aw pish. Good old Beeb tho...at least they give us Wogan and plenty cricket and England friendlies north of the border.......just what we want when we pay the licence fee.

What cricket do the BBC show? When was the last time an England friendly was on the BBC?

We get Scotland away qualifiers and England home qualifiers on the BBC - seems reasonable to me.

[Woody1985]

Here's my very high level take on the new government. For info, I didn't vote.

Labour have overspent and practically run the country into the ground and I think that I'm correct in saying that without the global financial crisis that our finances could have been a lot better.

We have the tories who were going to slash every thing possible with no one reigning them in had they taken complete control.

The Lib Dems were never going to win and some of their policies were flimsy to say the least.

However, I actually think with our current position that a Tory and Lib Dem pact is the best outcome providing there is give and take and they work together for the good of the country. Yes, they'll grudgingly be working together for their own political gains but at the end of the who cares. If it's better than Labour pissing more money down the drain and stops the tories from slashing as much as they would have then good.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the number of public sector jobs that were created in the labour tenure were around the same, if not more, than those in the private sector. I'm no economy student but that would seem to me to be quite an artificial economy as well as an unstable one when public finances go tits up.

With around a 3rd of all jobs in Scotland in the public sector it may be better that there is a conlib coalition. Of course, a labour one would have been better for them but it could have been worse. I don't work in the public sector though.

[MountcastleHibs]

I think the government had every right to say that Alistair Campbell should be replaced by a front bench member of the Opposition. If it's so important to have a representative of the government on the show in the week of the Queen's Speech and the announcement of cuts, then surely it is also important to have a front bench member of the Opposition to challenge them, not some spin doctor who may very well be loyal to the Labour party and know a lot of the ins and outs, but is unelected and can't really effectively represent the Labour party and say what they would do differently.

I don't think it was about Downing Street trying to control the media, it was for the above reason. Perhaps if Campbell had been there as well as a front bench opposition member, it would not have been such an issue.

[bawheid]

I think the government had every right to say that Alistair Campbell should be replaced by a front bench member of the Opposition. If it's so important to have a representative of the government on the show in the week of the Queen's Speech and the announcement of cuts, then surely it is also important to have a front bench member of the Opposition to challenge them, not some spin doctor who may very well be loyal to the Labour party and know a lot of the ins and outs, but is unelected and can't really effectively represent the Labour party and say what they would do differently.

I don't think it was about Downing Street trying to control the media, it was for the above reason. Perhaps if Campbell had been there as well as a front bench opposition member, it would not have been such an issue.

Nah, that's not what it's about.

David Laws was due to appear on the programme. When the government found out Campbell was due to be on they demanded that the BBC remove him or Laws wouldn't appear. The BBC quite rightly refused to be dictated to by No 10.

Today's Con-Dem spin is that Labour should have had a front bench MP on. The reality is they're still sh*t scared of Mandelson and Campbell.

[AgentDaleCooper]

I think the government had every right to say that Alistair Campbell should be replaced by a front bench member of the Opposition. If it's so important to have a representative of the government on the show in the week of the Queen's Speech and the announcement of cuts, then surely it is also important to have a front bench member of the Opposition to challenge them, not some spin doctor who may very well be loyal to the Labour party and know a lot of the ins and outs, but is unelected and can't really effectively represent the Labour party and say what they would do differently.

I don't think it was about Downing Street trying to control the media, it was for the above reason. Perhaps if Campbell had been there as well as a front bench opposition member, it would not have been such an issue.
you're right here - they have every right to say that, and anything else. that would be free speech.

what they don't have the right to do is try to dictate the make-up of a panel that is supposed to be unbiased.

their problems with the selection alasdair campbell should have been dealt with on the programme, not by trying to bend the BBC's arm.

[Beefster]

It's up to the Labour party who they put forward, and it's up to the BBC if this is accepted.

I would have thought our new government, who are charging themselves with sorting out the country, would have been able to go toe to toe with Alastair Campbell. It seems they're not that confident in their own ability to communicate to the public.

I also see the toffs on the Tory backbenches are starting to grumble about the proposals for the increase in capital gains tax. Tough times ahead for Westminster's hottest new couple...

By that reasoning, it's up to the government if they put anyone forward.

I don't know what your criteria of a 'toff' is but I wouldn't class David Davis and John Redwood as that. Inverted snobbery only works if you're not talking about guys who grew up in working class families from council estates.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Today's Con-Dem spin is that Labour should have had a front bench MP on. The reality is they're still sh*t scared of Mandelson and Campbell.

Spot on - and after Campbell humiliating Adam Boulton on Sky the other week they were probably wary of it happening again.

Why do Labour have to send a front-bencher anyway? They're a party in transition, waiting on a new leader etc - so they sent one of their top boys from the last 15 years to make sure they were well represented.

[BroxburnHibee]

It's up to the Labour party who they put forward, and it's up to the BBC if this is accepted.

I would have thought our new government, who are charging themselves with sorting out the country, would have been able to go toe to toe with Alastair Campbell. It seems they're not that confident in their own ability to communicate to the public.

I also see the toffs on the Tory backbenches are starting to grumble about the proposals for the increase in capital gains tax. Tough times ahead for Westminster's hottest new couple...


Ridiculous decision whoever made it.

I'll be amazed if this coalition lasts a year.

The old tory party is alive and well - and they wont like being forced into this arranged marriage.

[bawheid]

By that reasoning, it's up to the government if they put anyone forward.


That's true. But the point is that they had put someone forward - David Laws - but then pulled back from that when they realised he might get a bit of a rough ride from others on the panel.

Weak.

[Danderhall Hibs]

By that reasoning, it's up to the government if they put anyone forward.

In the week of the Queens speech you'd have thought they would've put someone forward. :dunno:

[One Day Soon]

Yeah, he's just keeping up the usual bullying and manipulating of the BBC as carried out by the previous regime.

My objection is that the BBC seem open to being bullied and manipulated.

Campbell is a bawbag though.

First, Campbell easily outclasses most front benchers of all parties in both Parliaments.

Second, didn't the whole SNP episode of taking the BBC to court over the leader debates amount to an attempt to bully and manipulate the BBC?

[ronaldo7]

That's true. But the point is that they had put someone forward - David Laws - but then pulled back from that when they realised he might get a bit of a rough ride from others on the panel.

Weak.

He may have had a wee call from a journo re his expenses.

Another one who tries to excuse his downright contempt of the expenses issue by using his sexuality to cover up.

He should be sacked. They've had plenty time to sort this out

We'll see how the happy couple now deal with this:bye:

[da-robster]

First, Campbell easily outclasses most front benchers of all parties in both Parliaments.

Second, didn't the whole SNP episode of taking the BBC to court over the leader debates amount to an attempt to bully and manipulate the BBC?

Yes I would say that was an attempt to bully the BBC, weather it was justified or not is another question. But really, I don't think you can pick out any party as being worse than the others. Labour bullied them when they were in power, now the tories and the lib dems bully them, probably because it's a lot easier to attack the BBC then get anything done.

[steakbake]

First, Campbell easily outclasses most front benchers of all parties in both Parliaments.

Second, didn't the whole SNP episode of taking the BBC to court over the leader debates amount to an attempt to bully and manipulate the BBC?

1. Certainly he's made being a slippery ******* a profession at which he excels. What do you mean "outclasses"? Do you somehow admire him?

2. Yes, I would agree it was in addition to the fact that it was equally as pointless. However, that whole situation was clumsy. The SNP and some of their supporters would like to pretend that it was a unionist plot to undermine them. I very much doubt that. I think the media just wanted something for the public to gawp at in a pretty amateur attempt to try to make UK politics "as exciting" as American politics seems. Prime Ministerial debates indeed...

[One Day Soon]

1. Certainly he's made being a slippery ******* a profession at which he excels. Not sure that's something to be admired and applauded.

2. Yes, I would agree it was in addition to the fact that it was equally as pointless. So they're all at it - what's your point?

That is my point. They're all at it. Though I'm not sure anyone has produced any evidence of Campbell doing anything other than standing up to 'journalists' like Gilligan when they wrote stories they couldn't back up with evidence.

But surely Mr Bake this is too great a day for us to squabble? Let us sit back comfortably instead with our feet up and a glass of something very passable at our side while we contemplate the putrid and stinking hypocrisy of the Lib Dems as they begin to get what has been coming to them for some. Chin chin.

[steakbake]

That is my point. They're all at it. Though I'm not sure anyone has produced any evidence of Campbell doing anything other than standing up to 'journalists' like Gilligan when they wrote stories they couldn't back up with evidence.

But surely Mr Bake this is too great a day for us to squabble? Let us sit back comfortably instead with our feet up and a glass of something very passable at our side while we contemplate the putrid and stinking hypocrisy of the Lib Dems as they begin to get what has been coming to them for some. Chin chin.

Where's the "monicle has dropped out of my eye and into my champagne" smilie?

They might not have produced any evidence to Campbell's satisfaction, but equally as Campbell learned from the Iraq War, what does evidence really matter anyway?