It was always very clear that Starmer had nothing but contempt for the Labour left, or rather, traditional Labour supporters and members. He’s a Blairite and very much a creature of the establishment. But a few days ago he made this contempt overt when Richard Madeley interviewed him. Madeley stated that he’d been criticised for not giving the left a hard enough kicking at the Labour conference. This incidentally betrays Madeley’s own political bias. I haven’t heard anyone make that complaint, but then, I haven’t read the papers for a little while, so perhaps it’s a sentiment that exists in the metropolitan media bubble away from everyone else. Instead of taking issue with the verbiage, Starmer blithely answered the question to show what he was doing to suppress the left and the Corbynistas. A line of peeps on Twitter made their disapproval very clear, including Jackie Walker, Tom London, Natalie Strecker, Another Angry Voice and a Muslim chap, Hamza. They remarked on the hypocrisy of the media decrying abusive messages after the murder of David Amess, and then calmly using violent language themselves. But Strecker also made the point that Hitler and Pinochet also used violence against the Left. Absolutely. Fascism has always been an ideology of violence. The Futurists, a militant avant-garde art movement that became incorporated into Fascism, declared that it supported ‘the punch and the slap as the decisive argument.’ And the targets of Fascism are always ‘Marxist’ socialism, and ethnic minorities: Jews, Blacks and Muslims. People like Jackie Walker, Tom London, who is of Jewish heritage, and Hamza, as well as people like Prof. Gayle Letherby. Despite the fact that she’s 62, and describes herself as an educator, researcher, writer, and volunteer, as a woman from the left of the party it really does seem that there are people there who think she deserves a good kicking.
I don’t think Starmer wouldstoopto physical violence, but his supporters are bullies, and have abused Blacks, Muslims and other members of ethnic minorities, like Diane Abbott. This shows a basic thuggery in their character.
Mike’s pointed out that Starmer’s popularity is plummeting, and a large part of this is his contempt for the left, which he’s just broadcast loud and clear. As for Madeley, when he and his wife first appeared years ago I noticed that there was a general respect for Judy Finnegan not given to him. If you asked people what they thought of him, there was a muttered comment like ‘he’s a knob.’
After talking to Starmer about giving left-wingers a kicking, I agree.
This is a turn up for the books. Richard Madeley is probably the last person I would have considered an aggressive, uncompromising interviewer, trying to hold the government and the authorities to account. But on ITV’s Good Morning on May 29th, 2018, Madeley showed he was not prepared to put up with Gavin Williamson’s repeated failure to answer his questions about the Skripal poisoning. And so, rather than let him continue, Madeley ended the interview, wishing him good luck with his project for Africa.
Mike put up a piece about this yesterday, remarking that not only had Williamson not answered the question, he was carrying on with a smug smirk on his face. Mike wrote of Williamson’s refusal to answer the question
He was deliberately withholding, not only his opinion on his ill-chosen words about the Russian government, but information on whether the Conservative government acted prematurely in blaming Russia for the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
The Tory narrative that the Russian government was responsible has collapsed beneath a barrage of factual information suggesting otherwise, with no facts to support it.
If Mr Williamson had admitted his words were ill-advised, he would have been accepting that the anti-Russia stance was a mistake – and opening the UK government to an investigation into its own activities. So he was between a rock and a hard place.
And he thought he could brazen it out on TV because mainstream media interviewers are now notoriously soft on Tories.
Mike noted that this deference to the Tories had changed with Madeley’s actions, but was unsure whether it would spread to the Beeb because so many of the Corporation’s top news team are Conservatives. However, the public are also turning away from soft interviewers like Andrew Marr and Evan Davis, and this may force the BBC to adopt a tougher stance when interviewing Tory politicians.
Mike’s article also compares it to the incident, 21 years ago, when Paxman ended an interview with Michael Portillo because the future presenter of programmes about train journeys around the globe refused to answer a question on his party’s policy towards the single European currency. The incident happened in a good-humoured way, and Paxo was probably able to do it, according to Mike, because Portillo was out of Parliament at the time, and his political influence was due to be confined for the foreseeable future to being one of the commenters on Andrew Neil’s The Week.
RT, as well as a number of other news sites on YouTube, also reported the incident. Here’s RT’s video of it.
Way back in the 1990s Jeremy Paxman was called a ‘Rottweiler’ for his persistent, aggressive questioning of politicians on his show, and his refusal to take any nonsense from them. Which was shown in his repeated questioning of Michael Howard whether he overruled another Tory minister. His ‘take no prisoners’ style of questioning enraged the Tories, and Michael Heseltine actually walked out during one interview, ‘angrily tossing his mane’ in the words of Ian Hislop later that week on Have I Got News For You.
The Tories responded as they usually do by claiming that Paxman and the BBC were biased against them. There was an article in the Spectator comparing Paxman to a similar TV interviewer in the Republic of Ireland, who went in hard with establishment politicians, but didn’t dare adopt the same stance with Sinn Fein or spokesmen for the IRA. And so eventually Paxo left Newsnight, and went instead to harass university students on University Challenge.
Then when Labour got it a few years later, the Tories showed once again how two-faced they are by lamenting how sad it was that Paxo had departed from political journalism, because now the country needed him to interrogate Blair and co with his aggressive refusal to allow his guest to get away with talking nonsense.
And so began the situation that prevails today, when members of the government turn up on television with the attitude that they can more or less say what they want, without being corrected or pressed by the interviewer. Some of us can still remember how Nicky Morgan repeatedly refused to answer one of the Beeb’s interviewer’s questions when she was minister for education. This was when Tweezer decided that every school should be an academy. The interviewer asked her a question about the number of academies, that had to be taken over again by the state, and all Thicky Nicky did was to repeat a line about how terrible it would be if children continued to be badly educated through attending failing state schools. In fact, the number of failing academies was high – about 21 or so, I seem to recall. Thicky Nicky clearly couldn’t admit that, and so she carried on repeating government propaganda. Just as the interview ended, the journo said, ‘You know the number’. He was clearly annoyed and frustrated at Morgan’s failure to answer the question, and made it very clear.
It would solve a lot of problems if interviewers did adopt a more uncompromising stance, and did throw politicians off the programme if they didn’t answer their questions. Reith was an authoritarian, who supported Mussolini, but he was right when he said that broadcasting to the nation was a privilege, not a right. This is a democracy, and the role of the press and the media – the Fourth Estate, as they’ve been called – has traditionally been to hold the government to account. Of course, this collapsed at least a decade ago, when the media became dominated by a very few big proprietors, who made sure that their papers represented their interests and those of the Conservative government, including Blair’s Thatcherite New Labour.
It’s good now that some TV interviewers are tired of giving the government such soft treatment. And as I said, it’s remarkable that this should come from Richard Madeley, who would be the last person I would have thought would do it. But obviously he decided he’d had enough, and something snapped. All hail Madeley, news Rottweiler. And I hope this attitude carries on and spread, so that we get something like the media we deserve in this country, rather than the one that’s foisted on us by the Beeb, Murdoch, Dacre and the Barclay Twins.
Beastrabban\'s Weblog 