Liberal Vision

BBC ban on term “electoral reform” even more preposterous

As recently noted, the BBC powers-that-be have decided to ban the term “electoral reform” being used by its correspondents because the word “reform” sounds too positive (see previous post on why this in itself is preposterous).

But now it looks even more absurd!

The Prime Minister – who is standing with the NO campaign is still using that self-same term.  In his speech on Friday (and i will say this again!), arguing against AV, David Cameron himself uses the term “electoral reform” again and actually defines AV as a type of reform …quoted on the BBC website…

“(David Cameron) said he believed the Alternative Vote was “completely the wrong reform” and would be “bad for our democracy” – leading to unfair results and an unaccountable political system” (source bbc website)

If AV is -according to the PM – the “wrong sort of reform” ..then definition-ally it is “reform”. Any reason why we can ALL agree that this vote is about ELECTORAL REFORM – except the BBC? 

Surely there is something very odd going on…The Prime Minister of this country can make a speech against electoral reform in which he uses – once again –  the term ”electoral reform” … and in that speech define  AV as a type of reform (if the wrong one). That the BBC can report that speech, quoting the PM using the term “electoral reform” and showing the highlights of the speech in its website. BUT the BBC journalists are banned from using the term themselves? 

The dictat looks more preposterous and untenable with every day that passes. 

On a related issue – any reason why the main BBC News political story on AV runs with the title “Votes referendum: Cameron rejects Clegg AV call” . Is that really fair? to headline the story with reference to Cameron’s view (what’s wrong with “Clegg and Cameron go head to head over…..”) …. is it really impartial to list the PMs objections extensively at the top of the article and drop in Nick ’s arguments much further down the piece?  Maybe it doesn’t matter – but for a BBC that appears obsessive about impartiality this seems a tad..oh how can I say this…biased?

Tags: ban, BBC, David Cameron, electoral reform, Nick Clegg, no to AV, yes to AV

So why has the BBC banned the term “electoral reform” ?

About a fortnight a story emerged that BBC journalists had been sent an internal document from the top brass demanding that their staff stop describing “electoral reform” as “electoral reform”.

I raise it now (late) because having missed the revelation at the time I assumed “word had got out there” about it, so I let it pass. I am however surprised to find how few people who are usually “in the know” – don’t know. Here are the basics….

In an internal BBC memo leaked to The Independent, Ric Bailey, the corporation’s chief political adviser, said: “Please can we make sure that we don’t describe this – in our own scripts, headlines, etc – as the referendum on ‘electoral reform’. When the [BBC's] Guidance is published ahead of the referendum period, it will make clear that, in the context of the referendum, that is not an impartial term – ‘reform’ explicitly contains a definition of ‘improvement’.”

 So if “reform” is “not an impartial term” why is it that changes to the public services and laws of this country can be described in terms of “reform” by the Government – and parroted by the BBC…. NHS reform plans will strenthen NHS,says Government. BBC October 1st 2010. Welfare benefit reforms unveiled by Government. BBC October 2010. Government to press ahead with radical NHS reform plans. BBC December 15th 2010.  “When ministers drew up their plans for radical reform of the NHS, schools and the welfare system..” Norman Smith Chief Political Correspondent, BBC Radio 4 , February 2nd 2011. and so on……

Why is it that a term such as “electoral reform” causes such offence to the BBC but all other Government reform is OK?

You could argue I suppose that the reason why”electoral reform” is on the forboten list and “NHS reform” isn’t, is because there is to be a vote on electoral reform. But then surely that must mean that the BBC is openly admitting that it frankly doesn’t give a toss about the language it uses day-today, but does care when it comes to a vote.

Slack, lazy reporting on a day to day basis BBC? Maybe. But I suspect that it is not that. Could it be that the BBC is running scared of the Government? Could it be that the BBC has been got at by the highly influential No campaigners with their slick suits, armed with promises of who-knows what  post election by those in the corridors of power?  So BBC,  are you incompetent, lazy,or just plain “got at”. It doesn’t look good any way you look at it.

And here is why this is oh so puzzling.. “electoral reform” is a term that has been around longer than the BBC. It is part of the language of politics. Of democracy indeed. We all know what it means.

Significantly it was this Government  that made a pledge to introduce a vote on electoral reform. Not “electoral change”. Not “electoral alteration”.. It is there in black and white. A vote on electoral reform.. “We will bring forward a referendum on electoral reform” … (Coalition Agreement)… “Next May, there’ll be a referendum on electoral reform”; (David Cameron speech to Conservative Party) ..

And so, The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010-11 has thus been called, ever since, as the “electoral reform bill” by all the main news sources in the UK – including the  BBC….. “Lord Falconer and Lord McNally debate whether the house of Lords should pass the electoral reform bill”  (source BBC)….  “Peers’ threat to AV voting reform referendum defeated” (source BBC)…

 So if the Prime Minister and the Coalition Government can and have promised this country a vote on electoral reform -and  the newspapers and broadcasters of this land have thus described it, and the bill that will enable it, as “electoral reform” / “electoral reform bill”, for the last 12 months, why has the BBC decided in its infinite wisdom to ban the term now?  On whose say so?

The BBC should not be allowed to rewrite history, or skew the debate. Nor should any shiny suited boys, with an eye to their own future prospects, be allowed to threaten or cajole the BBC into actions that suit them now.

 Yes to Fairer Votes are writing a letter to the BBC condemning this action, which you can sign here: Reform” isn’t a dirty word: Cosign our letter to the BBC.  It is a start but it is almost certainly not enough if what we get in May is a free and fair vote. We need more questions raised in every public place, and to the BBC at every opportunity. And frankly, a lot more answers…

Oh…. and if any BBC employee  out there is willing to spill the beans and tell us what is really going on – please email me – I will happily publish your post – anonymously if necessary. Surely one of you cares more about journalism than just plain self interest?

Tags: ban, BBC, coalition, David Cameron, electoral reform, Nick Clegg

FN luvs NC

Catching up on a few things I missed over the last couple of days of conference. Here is an interesting article from Frazer Nelson (Spectator) that I urge you to have a look at. In his piece (yesterday) he wrote…

….” If Nick Clegg was a weak-willed, crowd-pleasing charlatan the the front page of yesterday’s Independent would not have read “Clegg: there is no future for the Lib Dems as a left party”.

Turning up to a Lib Dem conference and saying there’s no point in being a party of lefty protesters is like William Shatner telling delegates at a Star Trek convention to “get a life”. He wants them to be a mature party of reform – many of them prefer to throw stones. His stance at conference is certainly courageous.

And it fits a theme. For weeks now, Clegg has been surprising those (myself included) who did not take him seriously, by emerging as one of the boldest and most articulate advocates of reform. He is now advancing arguments about the need for tough-love welfare changes, taking on the teaching unions and shrinking the state”…

read full article here.

Tags: Frazer Nelson, Nick Clegg, Spectator

The new progressive consensus..

… was identifed back in November 2007…

Above is an interview on GMTV from November 2007. Mark Littlewood (once of this parish) is being cross examined by Steve Richards (of slightly leftie Independent fame). Littlewood nails it on the blue-yellow coalition. He is now Director General of the IEA (Institute of Economic Affairs) , the original free market think tank. Looks like the IEA might again be ahead of the curve!

Tags: Chris Huhne, coaltion, Conservatives, election 2010, IEA, Instirute of Economic Affairs, Liberal Democrats, Mark Littlewood, Nick Clegg, progressive concensus, Progressive Vision

The Lib Dems: dithering or duplicitous?

This is the first time in most of our life times that we are facing post-election coalition negotiations. It is therefore understandable – as this is new to everyone – that it will take a while to reach a conclusion.

BUT having watched unfolding events yesterday, and listened to various phone-ins this morning, it is clear that the country’s patience is running out. The Liberals are right on the cusp of screwing this up. If a definitive statement is not made in the next few HOURS (not days as some suggest) – then the Liberal’s standing with the electorate may be damaged for a decade – however good the final decision turns out to be.

Reports of the Lib Dems being in parallel talks with both Tories and Labour are not playing out well. Regardless of the facts of the matter, and in spite of statements to the contrary from Nick himself, this LOOKS, for all the world, as though the Liberals are putting party interests before those of the country. Trying to screw out a last few concessions from both parties by playing one party off against the other.

This is NOT the ”change” to politics that people signed up for. 

I know Nick, a little. I have no doubt that he is attempting to do “the right thing”. But perception is as important as fact. And the public perception is that self interest is being put first. 

Now comes the time for decisive leadership. He needs to get a grip and bring this thing to a close – and fast.

Having watched the tired old faces from Labour over the past 12 hours, trot out the Campbell-inspired lines on why a Lib/Lab/SNP/Plaid etc etc coalition is legitimate, I am more convinced than ever, that it is not. Even they don’t look very convinced as they mouth the words.

The Tories -the party with the strongest mandate as judged by the electorate – have moved a long way to accomodate the needs of the Liberals – and are sitting smugly on the moral high ground. The Liberals, in contrast, risk looking somewhere between dithering and duplicitous. Sorry that has to be said. 

So, Nick MUST act now. He has in my view has only one option – to go into full coalition with the Conservatives- step up to the plate – and get on with it.

The public will not forgive the Liberals for propping up a defunct Labour party, and a shambolic rag tag of nationalist and independent junior partners (each with a price tag attached to their support). An ugly looking alliance that has little chance of long term stability. Add to that the prospect of a Prime Minister that this country has no say in appointing or judging when they cast their vote for Labour last week and it just becomes an impossibility.

The only other option is to say – for all those demands for PR – that you can’t do a deal with either! One you cant agree with, the other one is too repugnant to contemplate. So you will sit at arms length from the least-worst, like a petulant child. If that is how you plan to sell PR to the public it’s a sorry one. You might as well give up on the idea of PR for good. 

So do a deal with the Conservatives  – take the full blown option – and do it now.

Tags: coaltion, Conservatives, Labour party, Nick Clegg