« ComRes: Tory lead doubles to 14% | Main | Labour's failed the working class on university admissions »

Comments

I listened to that interview. Humphreys conduct was a disgrace.

A disgrace? Don't be absurd. The interview was a little silly and pointless, I grant you. Mind you, it's amazingly hypocritical of Dave to say he'll end P&J politics and then spend his entire time adopting that approach. Characteristically two-faced. Which, of course, he is.

Why Oberon?

I agree with Oberon. Humphreys partisan outlook leads him into quite disgraceful attacks. he talks over people,he interrupts constantly, so that one could not hear the replies -actually, Humphrey was not interested in any reply, he wanted to make a left wing point. This leads to disjointed interviews, where the conclusion is to Humphreys satisfaction, but no one else's - unless they were Gordo, I guess.
DC coped with him very well I thought. Gordo in the same situation would have lost his rag long since. 10 out of 10 for DC.

Glad I missed it. Sounds like typical Humphreys. The Bullingdon stuff is so boring - did we get the bike with the car following behind as well?

It's not going away. You can see what you're getting here:

http://www.provokateur.com/
news/index.php/2007/03/02/bully-for-you/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/
news/news.html?in_article_id=435875&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

It was a terrible interview. Cameron was constantly interrupted and talked over. The questions could have been made up by a Socialist Worker student activist during an argument. Humphreys was more interested in the sound of his own voice and trying to humiliate Cameron than inform the public.

I've been a great supported of the BBC over the years, including on this site, but they must get their bloody act together and stop this nonsense. Marr at least is polite in his bias, Humphreys is a loose cannon whose interview style depends on whether he was on whisky the night before or not. And its doing "The Corporation" a lot of damage - or at least it will, do when the Tories regain power at least.

Hello,
It's John Humphrys not Humphreys if anyone is interested.

Bullington Club? Ye gods, the present Chancellor and Prime Minister are both signatories to the Scottish Claim of Right that puts the interests of the people of Scotland ahead of all other interests.

A bit more serious than a bun throwing club of half-arsed hoorays.

Humphrys - yes thanks englandism... but no thanks for the second bit - Present Chancellor and PM serious? Possibly, but in a serious but idiotic farcical and incompetent false way. Clowns.

It's "Bullingdon" not "Bullington", if anyone is interested...

ps, passing leftie - must be a boring day down at Millbank if the best you can do is hoover-up and spit out links to websites that are years out of date.

Back to chewing your nails about Thursday my little egalitarian anti-establishment friend.... :-D


...even I'm sounding like Humphrys now... NOBODY SPEAK!

from: Neil Winton
Did you all hear the part of the interview where Cameron said the minimum wage was a terrific thing and had helped the poor. Real Conservatives know that the minimum wage can't help the poor. Either the rate is set too low and is simply a grandstanding ploy, or too high and causes unemployment. The party will rue the day when it voted this snake oil salesman as its leader.

from: Oberon
Neil, Shut up.

Let's avoid too much Punch & Judy on this thread please!

:-)

Look, I'd like to continue sparring, but I've got to get over to Ealing to campaign for Boris.

Neil.... I'm sorry. :- (

I think its time that Humphrys changed his style. He thinks it's "holding politicians to account" but Evan Davies has shown us that you can do that on the Today Programme but still be a polite and decent human being. Humphrys' aggressive approach is consistent with the general brutalisation of behaviour that we see all around us. It drags us all down into the mire and does not add to the political debate. Its also very irritating to start the day with such an unconstructive exchange.

On reflection, actually, I think its time he and James Naughtie retired and the Today Programme looked for a couple more people like Evan Davies. There is a sell-by date for some people in some roles, and both James and John might be past theirs. Evan Davies has shown that there is life after Humphrys and Naughtie.

Cameron did very well though. My primary school age children, who are more concerned with style than policies, thought that Cameron won the exchange, as "the man kept interrupting but David Cameron didn't let him".

Nice to hear Cameron standing up to his critics. It would be nice if the Prime Minister occasionally did the same.

Snakeoil? Are Disraeli, Lloyd-George, Winston Churchill, Harold MacMillan, Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, or Tony Blair regretted by their respective parties? With the British public's attention span in politics you need to use a bit of snake oil to get its attention.

Passing Leftie, I don’t suppose you’ll ever agree that Cameron’s membership of Bullingdon is a trivial and irrelevant matter from the past (rather like whatever Gay Gordon got up to), but how many times must Humphreys ask about Bullingdon before we can agree that the subject has been done to death?

In the run up to local elections, don’t you think it would have been more interesting and revealing to explore, say, the differences in opinion between Cameron and Boris? Or could it be that Humphreys didn’t really want Cameron to be able to discuss meaningful issues?

The BBC should alternate between Humphreys and Andrew Neil.

Good interview and Dave did very well.

Fact is, you can't end "Punch & Judy Politics" - it's the Nature of the Beast and all the better for it in my opinion!

If PMQs is at the heart of this topic, it comes back to the fact that Gordon Brown cannot give a straight answer without resorting to tractor production statistics and Questions to the Leader of the Opposition, and the Speaker all too frequently lets him get away with it. In the circumstances it is perfectly proper to set about exposing the PM to ridicule and contempt even if this does attract the Punch & Judy label.

I posted the links because I didn't understand Humphrey's question "Had he caused the Bullingdon photo to be withdrawn from public use?" It's ridiculous. It's all over the internet, not withdrawn from anywhwere.

We know all know that Cameron is a cannabis smoking Old Etonian with an incredibly privileged background who has done nothing but PR and backroom work for the last Tory government. That doesn't preclude him from being a good prime minister, although it doesn't help much. There are plenty of other reasons why he won't be a good prime minister.

Punch and Judy politics? It is refreshing to see a politician who admits he was lying about his intensions. I'm sure we'd hear similar confessions if he were to get into power.

As for Thursday, I'm expecting heavy Labour losses, but hoping that Ken will squeak in. If not, it's bad news for Labour.

I agree that P&J politics are unstoppable - they're the nature of the beast AND NECESSARY. The public must be able to see and hear the differences between the parties otherwise they'll have no reason for voting at all!

The polls this week show the problem - the public are disgusted with Labour and in two polls that party shed 5% from its support. In one NO gain was shown by the Toriues and in the other the LibDems got 3 to the Tory 2.

There is no reason to vote Tory except that they're not Labour and even that idea doesn't appear to be catching on! Let's have MORE P&J and we might get to know what Cameron believes in!

I agree with Oberon, Humphrys attitude was a disgrace. He has forgotten what his job is and should be put out to grass. Interestingly, I found his sneering approach very reminicent of Livingstone.

In marked contrast, Cameron's reasonable approach, with a touch of exasperated humour, came across very well.

Andrew Marr was just as bad on Sunday. He lashed into Cameron (who gave as good as he got) with the usual BBC unflattering camera angle and cold background which they reserve for Tory interviews, and then cuddled up to David Miliband who was cosily seated on a comfy sofa next to nice Michael Palin and nice John Simpson and fed soft sycophantic questions. The bias was palpable.

Passing Leftie:

Cameron couldn't withdraw the picture from use even if he wanted to I suspect... the purpose of Humphrys question is to tell the viewer that he expects DC to be ashamed of his membership of the club and hence the photo. It's merely a smear attempt.

I don't give a crap whether Brown is from Scotland - or Argentina at that - nor what school he, Cameron or anybody else went to. It's policy vs. policy and personal integrity that matters - but all Humphrys wanted to discuss was an EXTREME cynical view of Cam's history/family. Useless and cheap journalism.

One other final point... Cameron didn't say he was lying about his intentions as you've said... he said he hadn't managed to get P&J politics out of PMQ's due to Brown's extreme ineptitude and the importance of highlighting this..... that's very different from lying.

It borders on the ludicrous that serious airtime is given to something as innocuous as the Bullingdon Club. Young boys enjoy that sort of thing and the camaraderie that goes with it. The Bullingdon Club is no different than a group of working class lads getting together for a few drinks and a laugh. I'm sure the lads at Eton work very hard and who would want to deny them a chance to let off steam every now and then. Boys that age are boisterous and full of the lust for life, they then grow up to be level-headed adults. Did John Humphrys ever experience youth himself?

Amen.

Andrew Marr was just as bad on Sunday. He lashed into Cameron (who gave as good as he got) with the usual BBC unflattering camera angle and cold background which they reserve for Tory interviews, and then cuddled up to David Miliband who was cosily seated on a comfy sofa

This is lunacy - taking paranoid anti-BBC hysteria to new levels.

Complaining about camera angles???? Come on people, get a grip. You seriously think the BBC has secret plot to undermine Tory spokesmen by lighting them badly?

johnC - David Miliband sat in the SAME chair with exactly the SAME background as David Cameron. The camera angle was also the same throughout. Take a look on the BBC iPlayer if you don't believe me.

These paranoid ramblings are absurd.

As for Humphreys and Today - anyone who's heard him rip into John Reid, Des Browne or pretty much any cabinet minister you can name recently can't seriously level a pro-Labour bias against the man. It's a measure of his even-handedness that he's as rough on the other side.

Posted by: StevenAdams | April 29, 2008 at 12:43
One other final point... Cameron didn't say he was lying about his intentions as you've said... he said he hadn't managed to get P&J politics out of PMQ's due to Brown's extreme ineptitude and the importance of highlighting this..... that's very different from lying.

He said he would do it, and from the very first question time went in prepared with questions which undermined this policy. He didn't make the slightest effort. Lie, then blame your political opponent's supposed ineptitude - I have to admire the bare-faced cheek of it.

'These paranoid ramblings are absurd.'

I only wish they were. The anti Tory bias of the BBC is frequently subtle and often discernible in matters such as lighting and camera angle. And I certainly saw David Miliband and not David Cameron sitting on the sofa beside Michael Palin joining in the cosy chat at the end of Andrew Marr's programme.

I was a fairly pointless interview, but Cameron came over OK - though why he has to apologise was being a member of a university club I don't know.

On the whole, Humphreys is much more willing to tackle taboo subjects like immigration or Europe than the usual Guardian types at the BBC.

Posted by: Passing Leftie @ 13.35
"He said he would do it, and from the very first question time went in prepared with questions which undermined this policy. He didn't make the slightest effort. Lie, then blame your political opponent's supposed ineptitude - I have to admire the bare-faced cheek of it."

This is, frankly, not true. David Cameron spent the first year as Leader being pretty damned amiable at PMQs if you ask me... granted, not with Brown at the ballot box.

I'm not sure what you expect him to do... bring the PM an Earl Grey and congratulate him on sterling work? The fact is, he took the sting out of Blair by working with him on certain issues (as mentioned... education, Iraq (until WMD's became a thing of the distant past) and Trident... but when Brown came to the box with no intention of ever answering a question with anything other than "...aaah, but what's the Tory policy..." as if it's our QT, Cameron started highlighting his failings in terms of:

Brown's indecisiveness
Pensions failure
Gold Reserve c*ck up
National budgetary deficit
Widening social inequalities
Bureaucratic waste

Seems fair if you ask me...

The anti Tory bias of the BBC is frequently subtle and often discernible in matters such as lighting and camera angle.

I should have better things to do with my time but this rubbish needs knocking on the head: I've just done a comparison of shots from the two interviews - the lighting is exactly the same in both, as is the background and the camera angle. What is your point in complaining about that specific interview?

As for the moment on the sofa at the end, that's a regular feature of the AM show and is always the person who was interviewed last. I've certainly seen Tories on that sofa cuddling up with the actors and celebs.

Complaining about this sort of thing is just petty and just makes Tory supporters look barking mad, spying conspiracy at every turn.

People at the BBC have far better things to do with their time than work out ways of making the Tories look bad by subtly changing the lighting.

Well Liberal Les thanks to you I've just rewatched the Andrew Marr programme (it was Martin Bell by the way, not John Simpson) and most of my original suspicions have been confirmed - Cameron was repeatedly interrupted throughout while Miliband was listened to in respectful silence. You may think that there was no intention by Marr and the BBC of trying to present the probable next Labour leader in positive contrast to Cameron (why else invite him on the programme and treat him so differently ?) but I'm afraid I don't.

They can prove it by inviting William Hague onto the programme after the interview with Gordon Brown and treating him in exactly the same way they treated Miliband. Bet they don't.

It's a measure of his even-handedness that he's as rough on the other side.

Possibly, but what you call "rough" I call poor journalism. On Bullingdon Humphreys revealed nothing but his own prejudices.

I watched the Andrew Marr interviews again. He interrupted Cameron 6 times and spoke over him for 22 seconds. By contrast he only interrupted Milliband 3 times and spoke over him for only 6 seconds.

Why should Milliband enjoy half the interruptions and a quarter the distractions?

You may think that allegations of bias are unfounded paranoia but even Andrew Marr doesn’t agree. It was he who said there is "an innate liberal bias inside the BBC".

To imagine that journalists don’t have blind spots or that they are able to totally put aside their own beliefs is naïve. The BBC should make more effort to employ equal numbers of left- and right-wing journalists and I cannot see how anybody could sensibly argue against that.

Passing Leftie passes by an awful lot, don't you think. Downing street Troll all over, if you ask me. Passing Leftie, more like "passing wind"!

Having just listened to the JH v Brown interview my overall impression is that Brown got a much easier ride than Cameron.

Humphreys missed one or two open goals:-

Al our economic woes are imported from America - consider government borrowing excesses

The banks problems stem from off balance sheet activities - consider off balance sheet PFI borrowings

Consevatives had the highest rate of taxes -remember the year when taxes amounted to 102% (or thereabouts) of income

My conclusion is that Humphreys was asked (told) to take it easy.

Nevertheless the thread was Cameron/Humphreys. Cameron did welll, remained both cool and charming. Bodes well for the future.

Compared to the easy run he gave Gordon Brown, Humphreys was undeniably far more antagonistic and contradictory in his treatment of David Cameron.

Like Andrew Marr, John Humphrys allowed Labour measurably more uninterrupted talking time. Four times he allowed Brown to drone on about tractor production for more than a minute (once for more than two minutes). Only twice did he give David Cameron the benefit of a full minute.

Humphrys also spoke for longer in Cameron's interview, even though the piece was almost three minutes shorter.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker