Skip to main content

The Party's over

I becoming confused about where necessary restraint stops and the politics of envy begins.

The latest boondoggle from the BBC, after the absurdly overblown coverage of the US Presidential election and the even more bloated coverage of the Beijing Olympic games now seems to be the huge numbers of BBC people "covering"- well at least present at the Glastonbury festival.

Naturally the less well funded- or at least not publicly funded- sections of the media look with green eyes on the well upholstered expense accounts of the national broadcaster. In the face of repeated attacks from Murdoch media outlets, the BBC generally made a case that the money grubbing Philistines from News International "would say that, wouldn't they" and the great and the good who comprise BBC governors would generally look the other way.

However the Daily Telegraph- owned by the Barclay Brothers, who live in tax exile in Sark- may be made of sterner stuff. The poison that the coverage of MPs expenses has unleashed into the British political system may not stop at Parliament. The BBC management clearly does not understand that the culture of excess of the last 10 years has come to a very firm halt, and that green-eyed, jealous coverage of anything deemed to be excessive will become the norm across British life.

I for one would welcome greater restraint in the media, however as far as Parliament is concerned, I fear for the future.

With the effective banning of any extra-Parliamentary income for MPs, we must resign ourselves to our Parliamentarians being of similar calibre to their income peers: senior salespeople, for example.

Trim by all means, but for most MPs, the job was not about money- unlike, say the media. Sure there have been a few who lined their nests, but the price of being an MP- in divorce, ill health and alcoholism has always been high. Now, the unrestrained envy and opprobrium that the Barclay's have unleashed makes being a politician an even less attractive job.

At least the bloated BBC gets to go to Glasto, rather than an all-night sitting on the budget.

I fear that we must now expect pursed lips and tut-tutting to become the standard journalist fare for the near future. Thank goodness I am out of the country: this kind of hypocritical puritanism will be very unpleasant- even if some of it is indeed necessary.

Comments

Newmania said…
Interesting post that I have problems with the way the BBC is funded and its role anyway.
On MPs I quite agree , it will be the standards board all over again.


Good stuff
KelvinKid said…
This is tosh. The BBC expenses are modest for the industry, your condemnation of the Glastonbury coverage is elitist and patronising and your comment on second-job MPs naive.

The BBC does a great deal very well. If you don't agree with the public role of the BBC make a case based on that rather than the whimpering mendacious nonsense you're peddling here.
Cicero said…
The coverage of Glasto was so overblown that it is an obvious bondoogle. The number of BBC people involved was more than twice what any other equivalent event would have- and I am paying for it. Not tosh: outrageous helping themselves from senior BBC management- and you know it.
Newmania said…
The BBC expenses are modest for the industry, your

But the BBC are not in an industry , they are civil servants under no competitive pressurre . Teat suckling piglets due for the pot
Anonymous said…
"The number of BBC people involved was more than twice what any other equivalent event would have"

What equivalent events? There are none. It's like complaining about the coverage of Wimbledon. There is no equivalent event to those kinds of things in this country, and getting more presenters, crew, technical staff (407 people is not as many as you might think in broadcasting terms) etc than the private sector broadcasters would do is perhaps incorporated in the very definition of Reithianism. Those events are part of our cultural heritage and should be covered as much as possible.

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi