Why did BBC not cover 500k anti-far right march in main news programs?

Some 500,000 people march and rally in London against the far right - most would think, a major story for national broadcast networks, but not the BBC. The British state broadcaster failed to cover the march in its main national bulletins (5.30 and 10.10pm) on the day. A car crash involving American golfer Tiger Woods and a variety of sporting events were considered to have more news value. The BBC did cover the march on its regional version BBC London and online. Other broadcasters, such as ITV and Channel 4 mentioned the event, though not in depth. Public order seems to be the editorial framework adopted for such events. Ironically, the event organised by the Together Alliance was in response to the surge of the far right in the UK, as typified by a rally organised in London by Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley Lennon) and addressed by Elon Musk last year By contrast, this drew blanket coverage across the media. So, what is going on at the BBC? There has been a dumbing down of news going on for some years. This has, particularly, seen sport becoming a premier staple of coverage. But beyond this there has been an Americanisation of coverage, with viewers no doubt wondering at times, whether this country has become the 51st state of the US without their knowledge. What is alarming is the way in which the BBC has helped the advance of Reform and the far right, sometimes just by omission - as with the march. Increasingly, Reform politicians are being normalised as acceptable alternatives for government. At its worst, this approach treats the prospect of Nigel Farage as PM as an inevitability, rather than a possibility. A party of just 8 MPs (four of whom are defectors from the Conservatives) is offered the opportunity to comment on everything. There is no shortage of the oxygen of publicity. Take the BBCs flagship program Question Time. Reform or apologists for the party are given a place on the panel nearly every week. The exposure and treatment is far more favourable than for the Liberal Democrats (71 MPs) or Greens (5 MPs). Indeed, it is interesting to contrast the favourable coverage given to Reform with the hostile approach to the other rising force of the moment: the Greens. The hostility to the Greens and leader Zack Polanski is reminiscent of the approach taken to the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. The BBC hides behind it's charter and claims of the need for balance. This seems to now border on the absurd. Why for instance do programs like Question Time , Newsnight and news bulletins feel the need to give platforms to so many commentators from the far right. These programs literally provide second jobs for many at GBNews,the Telegraph and Sun. The great irony of ofcourse being that this group would all favour abolition of the BBC as a licence fee funded broadcaster forthwith. The most absurd recent interpretation of balance from the BBC concerned climate change, when for years the science was clear but the Corporation insisted on treating fossil fuel industry backed skeptics on an equal billing with those warning of the dangers. The BBC eventually caught up with reality, after much criticism of its position. The new Direct General Matt Brittin needs to take a long hard look at where the Corporation is positioning itself. It has made huge errors in the past, which need facing up to and addressing. Among these were it's part in demonising Corbyn and the climate change position. The promotion of Reform is the latest manifestation of such editorial misjudgement. The BBC needs to find a backbone and reconnect with it's founding principles of truth, neutrality and balance. At present it seems determined to normalise the abnormal, which could result in the far right taking power here very soon.

Review of Ruth at the Wilton Music Hall

This excellently crafted musical about the life and death of Ruth Ellis grips throughout. Ellis, the last woman executed in Britain, in 1955 has been a controversial subject over the years. Her family are still seeking justice. In this version, there is the double take with Ellis in her prison cell in dialogue with executioner Albert Pierrepoint. He is excellently played in fatherly fashion by Ian Puleston-Davies. Meanwhile, the story of Ellis's life go on in the split stage all around. Ellis is played by Bibi Simpson in the cell and Hannah Traylen during the life story. Mel-Li Yap plays Ellis as a child. There are also excellent performances from Connor Payne as abusive partner David Blakeley and John Faal as unrequited lover Desmond Cussen. Andy Morgan and Denise Silvey do an excellent job directing and producing this musical, keeping a nice pace and interlocking the scenes well into a strong narrative. The set design from Nicolai Hart-Hansen is clever managing to use a small space to create multifaceted story telling. The depiction brings a certain Marilyn Monroe imagery to the Ellis portrayal, particularly, the cell scenes. The musical essentially revolves around the two relationships. The first, abusive one, with racing driver David Stanley, the second with Pierrepoint for 21 hours in the cell before execution. The double standards of the 1950s are clear for all to see. The power imbalance between men and women, with the violence, control and patriarchal judgement all evident. There is a chilling parallel with society today. The songs ring out, illustrating the dialogue. One particular effective tune by the "working girls" brings down the lawyers and judge, who also happen to be clients. The Pierrepoint interchange delves into the iniquities of capital punishment. Ellis referring to the executions of innocent men Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans, while Pierrepoint insists there must be a deterrent. Though, Pierrepoint later, in response to Ellis's admission of killing one person, says he has killed over 400. The Pierrepoint scene ofcourse is a total fiction,seeing him interceding with the Home Office to try and get clemency for Ellis. In reality, there was a 50,000 petition but then Home Secretary, Gwilyam Lloyd George, rejected it. The hanging of Ellis, though, is said to have deeply effected Pierrepoint. He did his final execution two weeks later. Ruth is an excellent production, taking a well known story and introducing a number of more contemporary themes. The interchange of dialogue and music works well to bring a strong narrative to life. Well worth seeing. Runs till 28 March.

Labour needs to address its problems with Islam and specifically Gaza

The Labour Party seems to have a problem with Islam. Nowhere was this clearer than in the recent Gorton & Denton by-election, where the Greens picked up many ethnic minority votes, from those who would previously have voted Labour. On Gaza, the party was feeble in its approach, once Israel began it's onslaught. The approach being one of unquestioning backing for the Conservative governments unconditional support of Israel and all it did - following the attacks of 7 October on that country. The party responded harshly towards MPs, councillors and members, who stepped out of line. Motions condemning what was going on in Gaza were blocked. Councils remained largely silent. This, particularly, did not go down well in areas with large Muslim populations. There was a growing perception that the leadership was far more concerned about anti-Semitism than Islamaphobia. They are twin evils. The alienation of the Muslim population from the Labour Party was clearly evidenced at the last general election. Independents got elected, as the Muslim electorate left Labour. Locally, Ilford North MP, Wes Streeting scraped home by 500 votes - up against Independent Leane Mohammed. His majority cut from over 5,000. In neighbouring Ilford South, former council leader Jas Athwal saw the majority of 24,000 won by his predecessor Sam Tarry, cut to 6,894. The runner up was Independent, Noor Begum, who subsequently took Athwal's vacated council seat - one of the safest in Redbridge. The problem continues to fester. Senior Labour figures recognise a problem but it is difficult to see what is being done to address it. The Labour Government has certainly been better than it's Tory predecessors on Gaza, condemning much of what has gone on and recognising Palestine as a state. However, the government was slow to do anything about weapons being supplied to Israel. Adding to all of the problems the party has at present, the estrangement of so many voters over the issue of Gaza is likely to badly impact in the upcoming council elections. Some politicians who remained silent for so long seem to have found their voices on the issue. But the recent suggestion following the Gorton & Denton by-election that those who voted Green were extremists did nothing to help. The Greens did address Muslim and others concerns, communicating sensitively with some communications in Erdu - a major reason why they won. A lot more needs to be done, if the Labour Party is to heal the rift with the Muslim community. Some honesty on Gaza about what the Party got right and wrong would help. Also, to reassure Muslims and other ethnic minorities that the Labour Party still welcomes them. Less Reform light, especially on immigration. Failure to address these problems will see the split with these groups grow ever wider. And the electoral cost, especially in areas where Labour majorities were substantially reduced at the last general could prove catastrophic. The May regional and council elections offer an early test, where many councillors seem likely to pay the price for their long term silence on Gaza. What happens next is up to those in the Labour Party.

Review of Gordon Brown - power with purpose

Gordon Brown - power with purpose by James MacIntyre Published by Bloomsbury, £25 James MacIntyre presents a comprehensive and complimentary assessment of the life and works of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. MacIntyre visits all of the usual landmarks of Brown's life. The son of a Church of Scotland minister, emerging from the industrially run down area of Fife in Scotland. The new Labour reforming agenda shaped by himself and Tony Blair. The subsequent combustible relationship between the two men. A close relationship at the start, that drifted further and further apart in government, as Brown seemed to increasingly think he could not trust Blair. The question of the leadership always rankled. Brown believing the deal to be that when he stood aside in 1994, for Blair to become leader, the latter would do likewise 10 years later in 2004. The two men seem cordial today. Though, there is a great difference in their legacies. Brown has given much time, since quitting government, to charitable works, campaigning to eradicate child poverty and taking on the Murdoch press. Whilst Blair seems to have focused on making money, from what have often not appeared very reputable sources. This is a very favourable account of Brown, much direct quote from the man himself. No mention of things like the control freak tendencies that made sure he swept up enough MP nominations in 2007 to ensure that John McDonnell could not stand against him in a leadership contest. That said, Brown's achievements are substantial: almost halving child poverty, reducing pensioner poverty and redistribution of wealth (MacIntyre believes Brown the most redistributive Chancellor since 1945). Then, there were his 'save the world' actions during the financial crisis of 2007/8, cancellation of debt for poorer nations and later efforts to attain a no vote on Scottish independence. There are some interesting insights, such as that among Brown's close friends are Piers Morgan and Rowan Williams. Intriguingly, former Daily Mail editor, Paul Dacre, is also a close confidente On the Iraq war, MacIntyre reveals Brown as opposed but not coming forward at the time. Indeed, he suggests that had Brown joined Robin Cook and Claire Short in resigning, Britain would probably not have gone to war. So yes this is a comprehensive and very favourable account of Gordon Brown and his legacy. Something that has gained weight over the subsequent years. During 13 years of Labour Government,(1997-2010), there was 1.42% GDP growth (best in the industrialised world), a 3 million rise in employment, creation of Sure Start, the minimum wage and large amounts invested in public services like the NHS. Since then, there has been austerity, a botched Brexit and COVID - all of which has made the country poorer and the poorest worse off still as the shift of wealth to the rich has increased grotesquely. No one would say the years overseen by Brown and Blair were perfect but they look increasingly impressive, given what followed - right up to the present Labour government. So a good read, that provides a decent perspective, if overly generous in places.

Time to step up to the electoral plate!

The recent revelations concerning former British ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson''s links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have brought the political class into further disrepute. The decision of the Prime Minister to give Mandelson the ambassador's job in the first place raised big questions over his judgement. It is not the first scandal in recent times, bringing politicians into disrepute. Things have not gone well going back to the days of the expenses scandal in 2009. There have been many abuses highlighted, since. However, it is important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Branding all politicians as incompetent, corrupt or whatever can then help those who would like to do away with democracy altogether. There are plenty who would like to remove people's right to choose who governs. The world is increasingly being ruled by authoritarian figures, with no time for democracy. The hostile attitude to politicians, often manifests on the doorstep with comments like "they are all as bad as each other" followed by "I don't vote," as though it is some sort of badge of honour. This disillusionment is often born of parties in power who fail to deliver for the mass of people. The media also play a role, providing political coverage that has more in common with the soap opera genre, than the realities of people's lives. Not voting is nothing to be proud of, it is a total cop out. It is also massively disrespectful to all those people who fought and died down the centuries to get the vote. If the vote is pointless, why did the suffragettes and others give their lives to win that right? The vote is a very basic way to have some say in the way the country and our lives are run. Not voting means you become a bystander or onlooker on your own life - ultimate disempowerment. The vote allows people, come election time, to kick out those they deem to not be serving the people. It is no answer to say I'm having nothing to do with it. If decent people, who represent their communities, leave the political sphere then others will take their place. What is needed now is not to walk away but support and encourage committed people to come forward. In the main, the elected politicians are decent people. There are bad apples, so to speak, but the mass of MPs, councillors etc are good people doing the job for the right reasons. They seek to serve their communities. There is though always room for improvement. There are local elections coming up and a general election after that. A time for people to think about putting themselves forward for election. This can be as a member of a party or an independent. Good people are always needed, so think about coming forward to represent your community, come May. These are tough times but people need to be ready to stand up.

Extend free travel, rather than discriminating against the elderly by cutting the freedom pass

Extend free travel, rather than seek to cut the benefit for the elderly There has been much public debate about suggestion that there should be restrictions placed on the freedom pass for 60 pluses. A public spat saw TV presenter Kirsty Allsop taking issue with author Michael Rosen over whether someone as wealthy as him needed free travel. There are two forms of free travel for the over 60s. The Oyster 60 plus card is available, once someone reachs 60. It gives free travel on buses and trains and is funded by TFL. This card runs till state retirement age, when a freedom pass takes over. The freedom pass is funded by London Councils, covering trains in London and buses across the country. It was this card that London Councils were looking to review. The review began in January, quickly drawing a 60,000 signature petition opposed to change. The review was prefaced on rising costs that saw the freedom passes costing £333 million last year and predicted to rise to £372 million for 2026/27. A rankerous debate, quickly developed, into an attack on the elderly. BBC London didn't waste the opportunity to contextualise the story in terms of intergenerational conflict. This involved getting younger people asking why the elderly are getting such a benefit, while they have to pay full rate for increasingly expensive public transport. Leaving aside that elderly people have earned such rights by a lifetime of work and service, the bigger question surely is why cannot the younger group also have free travel. Indeed, everyone should be eligible. This direction of travel would couch the argument in terms of reducing inequality and improving the environment, rather than stoking intergenerational resentments. In a country, as rich as the UK, such things should be possible. Something that never seems to come into these arguments is why the mass of people should subsidise the lifestyles of the very rich. This includes private planes, destructive large vehicles, private education for their children and private healthcare. These excesses and the cost to everyone else rarely comes into the debate. Cheap and/ or free travel really is a no brainer. It enables people to get out to visit loved ones as well as attending and spending at a variety of businesses and attractions across the capital. This helps keep them going. There are resulting pluses for people's mental and physical health that are not always easily quantifiable in the land of bottom line economics. Add in the fact that train and bus passenger numbers are still below pre-Covid levels, why would anyone want to restrict incentives to get people using public transport? Fortunately, it would seem plans to cut the freedom pass have receded, with the 21 Labour London councils now opposed. (It would be a suicidal thing to do in an election year). However, the argument may return, in an effort to chip away at another hard earned benefit on the altar of austerity. Everyone should be prepared.