Row over BBC Question Time
- 28 May 2010 04:1553723In order to ensure accuracy I have bastardised a BBC news article
Downing Street refused to allow a government minister to appear on the Question Time programme unless Tony Blair's former adviser Alastair Campbell was removed, the BBC has said.
The corporation said No 10 complained about his presence on the BBC One show.
The programme's editor said the request to replace Mr Campbell with a shadow minister was refused as a point of "fundamental principle".
No 10 said it questioned his appearance instead of an opposition front bencher.
No representatives from the coalition government appeared on the show but Tory backbencher John Redwood was on the panel.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "In the week of the Queen's Speech the BBC booked Alastair Campbell in the place of an opposition front bencher to appear on Question Time - which we questioned.
"Before a final decision was made on who might appear on behalf of the government the BBC directly booked John Redwood MP."
Gavin Allen
Executive editor, Question Time said It is for Question Time, not political parties, to make judgements about impartiality and to determine who is invited to appear in the interests of the audience
Mr Campbell said it was "extraordinary" there was no member of the government on the show in the week of the Queen's Speech "regardless of who else is on the panel".
It is believed David Laws, the chief secretary to the Treasury, had been scheduled to appear on the show and at the end of the prog Campbell held up a frame photo of Laws much to the amusement of the audience.Nice one
Well so much for fairness and decency.That coalition promise didn't last long. I wonder how long the coalition will last. Piers Morgan suggested it would all be over by Christmas.Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter) - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
28 May 2010 06:2553724it does seem rather petty dosent it. - 28 May 2010 06:4553730So, which MP represented the official Opposition party?
- 28 May 2010 07:1353735Well done Marek..I was going to write about this item this morning myself. I was watching this and the whole thing was rather odd, when you have the government literally refusing to take part in the BBCs major politics show Question Time. Very odd. David Laws refused to take part. If you want to see a picture of the man in question he is now showing in pic form in Barrys Blog.
Yes he refused to take part because New Labours Communications director Alastair Campbell was on the panel. This is a completely weird scenario. You have allsorts of guys on the panel, and have always had allsorts of guys on the panel, for example guys who are /were arch Tories such as very right wing journalists from The Daily Mail and so on, and these appeared in addition, in addition, to Conservative politicians. So very often the balance was tilted towards the opposition which the Conservatives were then.
Its a pity. If government ministers will only appear if they like the other panellists then it becomes totally bonkers. My feeling is he did not fancy sitting on a panel that included two formidable left wingers in the shape of former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan and of course Labour Spin Doctor Alastair Campbell.
In the end it looked bad for the new government. They were being laughed at. Yes indeed Mr Campbell did produce a framed photo of Laws and all had a merry old chuckle. The story is running everywhere this morning and it doesnt look good at all. Its like the kid who went home from the football match in the park when the opposition scored and took his/the ball with him.email: dover7@msn.com - 28 May 2010 07:5653736Laws has come across as a spineless individual over this, I hope he shows more backbone when representing his constituents.
- 28 May 2010 08:1153738John Redwood, who at least has been a government minister, was on the panel. Ally Campbell and BGT Morgan have not sat in the House and and are media junkies. The only difference between Morgan and Campbell is, one prints lies and the other makes them up.
- 28 May 2010 08:2953739Perhaps Laws wanted to avoid being questioned as to why in the week he has announced a civil service recruitment freeze he himself has advertised for a £58000 a year press secretary( spin Doctor) as a spokesperson of Unite said " The stench of rank hypocrisy is beginning to waft from the so called new politics"
- 28 May 2010 10:0053748A similar thing happened here during the General Election when Gwyn Prosser refused to share a stage at The Hustings meeting in the Baptist Church on Maison Dieu Road with a representative from the BNP; the incredibly crap organising committee then bowed to the great (?) man's will and banned all minority parties from the meeting, including Vic Matcham who was justifiably angry over the decision.
My feeling is that we live in a democracy where all are allowed to have their say, and if anyone doesn't wish to share a screen/stage/whatever with a political opponent, irrespective of ideology or any pretext, then their wishes should be accepted and the event proceed without them. To bow to their demands becomes censorship, something that we're supposed to be opposed to in this country.
Gwyn Prosser or David Cameron, the principle is the same; if you don't like it, tough.True friends stab you in the front. - 28 May 2010 10:2653757I find it a strange row this but from what I have heard all is not what it seems.
There is a problem during the Queens Speech week to have representing the 'left' opposition to the Government two left wing journalists and not an elected Labour MP/Shadow Cabinet Minister. Its almost as if Labour's elected MPs are staying in hiding (nothing at all has been seen of Brown since the election despite his receiving his MP's pay...)
It is true that non-elected people, MPs and journalists are often on QT but usually there is an MP from 'their side' as well, particularly on a week like this.
In a way therefore it is understandable that the Government was not going to put up a Cabinet Minister but I am not really sure that it was wise. But then perhaps its time to put down a marker for the BBC in demanding a higher level of impariality than they have been showing and to keep to the terms of the licence fee and their Charter. - 28 May 2010 11:0753764Had Laws been comfortable in his position and the powers that be in the coalition comfortable in his ability then no doubt he would have gone ahead with the appearance. He and they took the easy option, it does not bode well.
- 28 May 2010 12:0853777Its more complex than that MRP. Laws is a very capable politician (for a LD!!!)
- 28 May 2010 13:5353789this is beginning to look like the new government are just as duplicitous, controlling and arrogant as the last one.
- 28 May 2010 14:3953796Quelle surprise.
- 28 May 2010 14:3953797Thats a bit silly Howard.
- Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
28 May 2010 16:1053805barryw,many a true word spoken in jest.howard might be right on this ocasion. - 28 May 2010 16:1653806What a pathetic argument this is. Redwood was the MP there representing the Tory party, who was the Labour MP representing the Labour party? Oh, shucks, there wasn't one. Defo quelle surprise, they are still licking their wounds and trying to sort out the internal mess left by TB/GB. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see a rise of the left with Ms Abbott at it's head.
At the end of the day there is only one real issue, and that is how the coalition are going to sort out the almight mess Labour has left behind. All other comments/media rubbish are mere bagatelles or smokescreeens. - 28 May 2010 16:1653807On the other hand John Redwood was an excellent turn. As a Fellow of All Souls he must surely be worth listening to?
- 28 May 2010 17:4953831fellow of what souls bob?
barry
you are deluding yourself if you believe that david cameron is not manipulative and controlling.
the facts speak for themselves.
he tries to silence the 1922 committe.
he has set a 5 year guarantee of office without any debate.
his cohorts now try to stage manage a debate on television.
he has appointed lefty nick as his side kick just to annoy the right of the party.
what has any of the above down to cut the deficit? - 28 May 2010 18:2653833Howard - you are simply wrong on every point.
The 1922 Committee was a matter of extending rights to junior members of the Government and was nothing about silencing them. If you knew anything about the Conservative Party you would know that silencing would never work as we are the party of individuals. That is why Cameron did a re-think, the Party spoke out.
There is absolutely no 5 year guarantee of office without debate. Utter balls. A no-confidence vote would still remove the government on 50% plus a single vote and then the Opposition would have a chance to form a Government, if they failed to do so it would then require a 55% vote of Parliament to call an election. This was all about transferring power away from the Prime Minister and to parliament because without this an election can be called at the whim of the PM. Note that under Labour the fixed term Scottish Parliament was set up on the same principal except they have a 65% threshold as a get out clause to call an election. Personally I dont think fixed term parlaiments are workable in our system but at least this was all about reducing PM powers.
This is also nonsense about stage managing a debate. Come off it Howard - your imagination is getting carried away. It was only about getting a Labour Shadow out of his/her bunker to face the public instead of hiding behind the odious Campbell.
As for lefty Nick.... We were provided with a hung parlaiment from which a Government had to be formed. I am a right winger and whatever Labour's stuttering spin machine tries to claim co-operation with Clegg is essentail to form a stable Government to deal with Labour's financial crisis. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Laws, is very popular with us on the right, make no mistake. Cameron appointed well in putting this LD in that position. We will have to put up with Clegg until we can get a Conservative Government with an overall majority.
Now Howard- please keep to the real world. - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
28 May 2010 19:1753834barryw,on your 1922 point about camerans rethink dont you mean u-turn.as it happens i dont have any confidence in this goverment.
and futher more its like the blind leading the blind down a dark ally.