Bedtime reading for the Beebies about how once upon a time there was a theory...- a theory, see? Compare and contrast.

The Beeb:
'Researchers... say 70% of Switzerland's glaciers will disappear in the next 30 years, due to the effects of global warming.'

The alternative view:
'Glaciers have been receding for hundreds of years; that’s because we are still coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating.
It’s normal.'

Wish we'd hear the alternative sometimes, even if it would spoil the story.

Meanwhile, here, in case you were a little bemused about Mr Blurr's mixed bag, is the real trouble (non Iraq, largely) with Tony, as depicted brilliantly before the election in NRO.

Yay- get the lynch mob ready for Gallowsway- as Time reports the posse is [apparently- welcoming here suggestions about other British MP's who could be a subject of such revelations] about to 'out' the alleged UNscammer as part of a wider revelation of international figures involved in profiteering out of Saddam's corrupt regime- or maybe just ring the great bells of Bow, since something tells me history's guts will reject hideous George.

Marc at USS Neverdock alerted me to this story, and, if true, we could be looking forward to a second bite at having a decent election in Bethnal Green and Bow. Hooray if so. Also, I might ask of Mr Galloway- since he seems so enthusiastic about court cases- whether he oughtn't to think in terms of a different court and start dialogue with some defence lawyers.

Whilst nothing about the UK election actually sickened me, even Gallowsway's victory and crowing attempt to mire Blair in an Iraq-based demise, I would welcome a goodbye to all that. If Galloway does go down (a big 'if' since he's more slippery than a Tigris Trout), it might lead to an even bigger rollback of opinion on Iraq than this Max Hastings article demonstrates.

Despite his many flaws in his pursuit of an Iraq strategy, Blair deserves vindication on the geopolitical fundamentals, and to weather media round ups of anti-war-founded criticism such as this produced by the Beeb- comprising merely the usual suspects who have always supplied the Beeb with anti-war soundbytes throughout.

The Beeb's anti-war bias is well demonstrated by the absurdly one dimensioned analysis of John Simpson, who has done his best- with his BBC chums- to make Iraq the cause celebre of Blair's downfall. Marc also investigates this one. In it, Simpson claims, absolutely contrary to Max Hastings and his 'sources', that 'Iraq's civil war ' is 'worsening month by month'. Which goes to show that Simpson, like Gallowsway, hasn't forgotten who his Saddamite friends were- and hastens to see things their way.

The story of the election was probably the radicalisation of Northern Ireland's politics- and a test of Blairism will be Nelson Mandela's chum Peter Hain's ability to get his master's bidding done. NI focused website A Tangled Web predicted the UUP meltdown a long time ago, and continually repeated its prophesies until the fateful day for Trimble came. As the UUP should have heeded those warnings, so they should take this advice.

For an interesting analysis from across the water (the big water) try these guys

Meanwhile, this being VE day, Niall Ferguson is a history guy worth reading on the subject (via RCP)

Today I gorged on UK election commentary, on media great and small.

This might not be everyone's cup of tea but it satisfied me.

Among the mass of opinions expressed I came closest to agreeing with Matthew Parris, a writer for whom I seem to find a strange mixture of admiration, mild irritation, and fury. Still, I think he nailed what was really worth nailing in his current commentary, with his usual stylishness and hyberbole thrown in.

On the other hand I have reflected and thought that it was unwise to call Galloway the leader of a racist party- as I did yesterday, wishing to find a suitably progressive insult. They might be that, but hearing about Jeremy Paxman making Galloway look good completely turned me off that somewhat unstraightforward assertion.

There is though a much darker side to election 2005 than Parris's slightly bucolic prose brings to light. Melanie Phillips digs in, and I think effectually.

Not so bad as all thaaaat.

Mark Steyn (at least, his website) blogged the election, and aside from predicting a fall in turnout he did a very nice job as you'd expect.

He and Andrew McCann differ- as do most Conservative leaners- on whether it's A) The beginning of the end of the Conservatives, or B) The end of the beginning for the Conservatives.

I was sad of course that Tim Collins, my favourite Conservative I'd generally say, lost his seat, and that hideous George won one for himself by playing the race card so shamelessly. Really the man (hideous George) is beyond parody, beyond reproach.

Other notable things included the amazing disappearing Ulster Unionist party, typified by David Trimble's annihilation at the hands of the surging DUP. With Sinn Fein's vote hardening and the SDLP sinking, the region seems to be polarising. Another success for Mr Blair's bestridal of the international stage.

That the Prime Minister and I coincided over Iraq seems now to have been only a coincidence. Like Howard I would have favoured taking on the Saddamite regime whether 'WMD' or no- though Michael should have troubled himself to explain it better.

On the whole I think Howard has given the Conservatives heart. Blair's unpopularity over the war was not a Conservative issue, but it was one of the few trains departing the station when Mr Howard was waiting to board a train (and Howard's nothing but a decent man of his time). Still, despite that he managed to match the Liberals for whom this was an issue. We can discount RESPECT as a party for inner city racist vandals. On balance I think Andrew McCann has it right: it's the beginning of something for the Conservatives, allowing room for personnel development (post updated, slightly)- if you know what I mean.

Garton-ass (as Tim Worstall puts it) follows Gordon (see below post) in laying out the case for voting Labour to usher in a new- but strange, apparently- Liberal Britain.

As Tim points out this is rubbish masquerading as history. As I recall it from me history classes, the days of Liberals versus Conservatives were the days when a sensible, if often unacceptably languid, debate was had between the State not doing something, and the State doing something- all at a time when it was much harder for the state to wield any kind of apparata whatsoever.

These days it's dead easy for the Government to 'do something': it's call fiddling with absurdly complex and deliberately managerial taxation, and pumping it into artificially lowering unemployment by creating such various bodkins as 'classroom assistants' (nice though they naturally are) and the like.

Anyhow, What Blair definitely isn't is a classical Liberal- and the same almost goes without saying for Charles Kennedy. What the strange new birth might be, in fact, is a nation of state-fed puddings- stodgy, doughy, fatty and stupid.

Vote for Polly's head to explode. Hilarious end to a Worstall post. My cross is already on the paper, waiting to be popped into the box.

Gordon Brown has one thing wrong in his analysis of the political situation, and unfortunately it invalidates all the rest.

Says Gordon:

'So to anyone tempted to use this election to register their discontent: there are real consequences to a protest vote that risks inadvertently returning the Conservatives to power, and which by punishing Labour would end up punishing the people who most need Labour.'

What's wrong with this (the emboldening gives the clue)? NO-ONE needs Labour. No-one needs the No 11 kleptocracy to do their thinking for them. No-one one needs Gordon.

If Gordon's lucky they'll vote for him anyway, as fat people vote for an extra burger.

John Simpson's 'lesson' the Americans should learn in Iraq: 'you're crap and you know you are!'

In this article he returns to his favourite ground: that of journalists being hit by friendly fire, and takes time to reiterate his favourite 'violence is growing almost daily' meme. This line is used so often by the BBC that if I plotted a graph with every mention of 'growing violence', and expected to find a pattern which mirrored these assertions- as opposed to the real situation of ebb and flow- I would add to the 'growing violence' by dying of laughter.

Classic line from Denis Boyles, brought to me via A Tangled Web:

'If Howard wins, I won’t be unhappy, just astonished at the triumphant vitality of European political mediocrity, British accent and all.'

This is sadly my point of view too, though saying anything original about the election cooked up for us by our current crop of politicians is not an easy matter.

Gerard Baker gives it a go.

My point of view is that Howard hasn't done such a bad job. He needed to appear tough and professional and he has. Unfortunately he's been tough in a one-dimensioned manner, ruled it seems by assumptions about the electorate, about Blair, and about the Conservative party which are difficult to rally around. It's been politics by numbers; points supposedly hitting public concerns but treating the public rather like a child that responds only to carefully numbered, reassuring and repeatable lists. There is no argument, which for a lawyer is pretty extraordinary, and no joined-up thinking. Just lists of words. It's boring, and easy for Blair to seem, as Boyles says, the only 'the only sentient British politician in sight'.

The tragedy of having to say that Howard's a decent man trying to do a difficult job (which sounds so much like what we used to say about IDS, funnily enough), is that Blair is such a flawed character; like Clinton only his faults are more fundamental, more lulling, more damaging.

Fairplay.

It's not the BBC's fault of course, but it seems strange to me that when you predict the result of the election using the Beeb's swingometer, and you assume 35% each for the Conservatives and the Labour party respectively, you find the Labour party with 134 seats more than the Conservatives. Sounds fair to me- not.

The BBC Applies Sanctions

US/Private business investigating Chinese textile imports = ridiculous and self-interested.

EU/God knows who pulls the strings = serious and conciliatory ('the EU's trade commissioner on Friday made a plea for Westerners to avoid protectionist thinking.'-see second link above).

Funny how the Beeb don't mention that in fact, while the US government is under pressure from business affected by imports, EU textile manufacturers are also pressing the EU for limits to Chinese imports (not that we in Britain have any textile manufacture to get angry about protecting).

Bearing this kind of one-sidedness in mind, is it coincidental that America always has to bear the brunt of the anti-glob mob's ire?

Meanwhile, on the subject of China, Mark Steyn continues his thoughts on matters oriental in the Spectator Magazine.

The art of Steyn is quite a philosophical one. He builds on core themes, is unafraid to repeat points of view and even the means of their expression. I don't think this is really repetitious, any more than a philosopher who builds his theories from certain arguments which require reiteration is being repetitious.

One of the central ideas in the article about the 'sovereign individual' (the second Steyn link above) was that migrant workers in the West would return to their homelands (eg. China, India) as these opened up to trade and development, offering the chance for clever committed migrants to prosper by returning home.

Steyn had a bit of grief from some blowhards who thought he meant that China was a beacon of human rights- an issue he addresses in the second piece.

The main reason he concentrates on the EU and Canada as the likely fall guys in this projected trend, meanwhile, is what he fairly calls the 'death bed demographics' of their huge territories.

Block by block he builds what seems a likely framework for the future.

I suppose it's not surprising then, given this degree of insight on the part of one writer working with materials gleaned from many sources, that the BBC have pricked up their ears at the notion of immigrant re-migration- but their take is rather different. They focus solely on human interest stories and guess who the fall guys for this process are? Yep, the US- with it's relatively prosperous economy and naturally growing population about as conspicuous to the Beeb as the horizon is to an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Election Selection

In the BBC's coverage of the British election, they take care to include a page about Iraq's WMD's and the partys' stands on them. This is surprising, in a way, because I don't think Howard ever accuses the Prime Minister of fabricating the reality of Saddam's WMD threat- what he deplores is Blair's casual use of the broad brush WMD argument, and in a deceptively direct way he calls this lying. Strictly speaking I think Howard is right, and Kennedy is wrong in saying that Blair misled us. Kennedy sounds like a good guy as usual, but in fact is calling Blair a fool as well as a knave. Howard is in fact the moderate because he accuses Blair of playing fast and loose with facts, which is a safe bet with Mr Blurr. There is no doubt he and the Sun did that.

Meanwhile, the Beeb were only too pleased to state its own definition of Charles Duelfer's conclusions to add a spin to a band wagon which doesn't represent the views of the main political opponents to Blair. Howard of course should make this clear, but he doesn't seem to see the need, relishing any criticism of Blair rather than the right criticism.

However, Captain's Quarters in a well argued post says that the MSM, with of course the BBC at the fore, have jumped far too soon and far too clumsily onto Duelfer's WMD negatives. The story's an old one, but it's important not to lose sight of it.

Good times roll for the Beeb.

Just over a year ago the BBC were in crisis as Lord Hutton's report caused the departure of three key BBC men: Gilligan, Dyke and Dayvies (ok, Gilligan wasn't too key, but his symbolism was.)

As a long-term BBC critic I can say those were heady days, yet I didn't feel too optimistic because our success came down to the good fortune (thank Tone) of having an old-fashioned, undiplomatic judge, and a BBC which decided (wisely, in one sense) that drastic action was required.

That drastic action, which gave people like me so much entertainment, saved the BBC for another day. They won their battle to have their charter and license fee renewed.

I knew, at the time, it would have been better for us had Dyke and co. hung tough, played down the Hutton findings after having briefed their journalist friends to expect the worst, and been the target of the New Labour machine thereafter.

That having been avoided, the BBC needed only to wait for events. Apart from the re-election of George W. Bush, which was an event not really on the BBC's beat anyway (though they love to dabble), these have favoured the Beeb.

First and foremost of course was the charter renewal I've already mentioned. That gives the BBC the breathing space which none of their commercial competitors enjoy. I've no doubt they're taking pleasure in it.

Second is the fact that their general scepticism about WMD, always a political football, has been given cover by both the trend towards questioning the war from all points of the political spectrum, and the findings of the likes of Duelfer which give no concrete support to those who proposed a WMD inclusive argument. Other related 'good news' for the BBC, given their pitch pre-war, might be the failure of the Volker report to eviscerate the UNscam, and the success of Gorgeous George in using a libel case to sweeten the stench given off by the anti-war mob, while punishing some of the BBC's detractors.

Third is that, after sacrificing to appease New Labour, the Beeb have been rewarded not only by their charter renewal, but by the cover that comes from having reconciled themselves with the party that is likely to be in charge of the political situation in the 'base country' for the foreseeable future.

That's why the Beeb now seem far surer-footed, despite lapses which demonstrate their innate tendencies. Some examples of surefootedness here and here that I would call good journalism were it not for the fact that the only good journalism that comes from the Beeb comes when their ideological budget affords it. In other words, when it doesn't damage their ideological agenda. It's so much easier to control those tendencies though when they have a defensible position in the scheme of things, and an assured future. When the Augean stables looks set to remain a major employer, it isn't hard to get the stable-boys to keep trying to freshen the top layer.

So, am I downhearted? No, is the answer to that- because the whole exercise is about recognising the BBC's institutional nature, and feeling the weight of its velocity, so as ultimately to destroy it if it will not be radically altered. The Gilligan-Dyke-Dayvies phenomenon showed how deep the BBC's culture runs, and how important it is to the socialist project as it has been conceived in Britain. Two deep-dyed socialists (Dayvies and Dyke, especially Dyke) fell on their swords to save the BBC and deliver it into today's calmer waters. Only by understanding that can I hope, in a small way, to facilitate the perfect storm which will end the BBC and all it stands for.

A clear view of what makes Tony Blair an overwhelming favourite for the election emerges from this article by Micklethwaite and Wooldridge in the LA Times.

There's a pathetic predictability in the way they describe Howard's success in appealing to Conservative support:

'the Conservatives have run their best campaign in a decade, talking tough on "dog-whistle" issues such as crime and immigration (in which their core supporters respond instinctively, even if you cannot hear the whistle).'

Whether they realise it or not, they have encapsulated the very quality in the British public's mentality at present which makes Howard's pitch unfeasible. The view of dog-and-whistle Conservatives is very far from the reality, since today's Conservatives have to grasp hold of things that matter through a fog of opposition. The British people are currently blind to Blair's simplism, locked into a false consciousness of celeb laden Britpop-inspired anti-Thatcher soft-focus love-see-no-colour complacency. All Tony Blair has to do is pose with a few celebs and babble on about how he and Gordon have mastered the economy and he's, as Campbell is said to have said, home and dry.

What's tragic is that history's real opportunities are passing us largely by as Blair poses for the cameras. The economy is only successful because of previous decades' reforms and the dividends of globalisation. Blair and Brown are simply setting us up for a fall by signing a contract with bureaucratic dead-ends, with the longer term vista of Europe their only get out clause. All the time they are setting up new shibboleths, such as the new vows they are making to the NHS, which cannot be sustained in the new world order that is coming.

Oh well.

To get a flavour of the greek tragedy that is the modern Britain's mindset, this Melanie Phillips post is a good place to start.

Outrage! There ought to be some, though the fact that I have only heard about the BBC's rent-a-heckler scheme to barrack Howard, as far as the MSM is concerned, from the Telegraph and a little snippet on Sky suggests that it will slip smoothly down the well-worn memory sinkholes out there. (This first link is to BiasedBBC's snippet-summary.)

However, I have to say that I agree with David Vance that 'The BBC is a menace to democracy in this country and that is one more reason why it should be privatised.'

This follows from my agreement with the Rottweiller Puppy that 'The fact of it is that when you're actually bringing in demonstrators and filming them while they disrupt a political rally, you've stepped across the wire, so to speak, between filming the news and actually manufacturing it. This isn't documentary-making, it's political activism.'

One could add to that nascent chorus USSNeverdock's conclusion: 'What a pathetic, biased and bumbling organization the BBC has become.'

My own view (to add that) is that this incident is not surprising. Observing the Beeb's tendancy to highlight every utterance of Howard on the subject of immigration it's clear they feel he is one step away from warranting 'Griffining'. They've been itching to have a go at Howard for weeks, and in the spirit of over-zealous theologians if there isn't a heckler for Howard then it's time to go and invent some.

An interesting insight into the media world we live in is available if we contrast the BBC's unheralded manufacturing of stories (which, as we know from Gilligan and other incidents is something of a Jayson Blair-like habit on a grand institutionalised scale) with the reaction to a very simple Channel Five documentary gleaned merely from dropping in on life in average British Comprehensive schools. Laban Tall has that story.

A couple of things are confirmed a little for me by this story. One is that British schools are about as bad as your worst intuition might have told you. Another is that Channel Five is a place where interesting outcast programme-makers can find some of the interest they deserve.

Lifting my gaze for a moment from the squalidness of what can be called the detritus
of cool Britannia, I note that some big events are taking place around the world. This post from the diplomats at the New Sisyphus blog, and this from Mark Steyn, are sufficiently sobering to make me see that Howard's seriousness in taking on Blair, and the disservice that even the most moderate or supportive media are doing him, are really quite serious matters indeed. We need a serious leader for the coming years, and we can't afford a lame-duck Blair or a scheming Brown, but the MSM in Britain is likely to deliver us to them.

Bowing by the Beeb.

A new trend in BBC coverage seems to have been thrust at me recently: that of the deferential coverage of China. Report after report has told of the Chinese anger against Japan as though a)The population of China has spontaneously arisen in response to Japanese provocation and b)The Chinese government, having nothing to do with the public responses to Japanese actions, has acted to subdue them despite having sensible grievances against the Japanese. This is a good example.

Surely this is just a superpower flexing its muscles, and surely the BBC, with its usual fairmindedness, would act to balance out the scales, as it seeks to against the US hegemon (alleged)?

Oh, I forget, we have to be deferential and polite to the Chinese. Meanwhile British ex-servicemen and families, who suffered at the hands of the Japanese, are, I suppose, merely nursing old grievances- that is, according to my BBC schooling. The results of a search of the BBC site which used the words 'Japan British Prisoners war' can be viewed here. There are no immediate results relevant to the case of British prisoners held under appalling conditions by Japan, and this one, found on the second page, merely talks about a new tourist attraction founded on the slave railway between Thailand and Burma, yet the Chinese anger, 60 years on, it practically unquestioned by the BBC.

The only recent BBC entry which mentioned warcrimes and Japan, referred most directly to warcrimes- but John Simpson was talking about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which of course helped to hasten the end of the treatment of British POWs in ways unimagined by the Abu Graibised public consciousness. A serious film for the graphic modern mind remains to be made, if anyone can stomach it.

So let's summarise, on this St. George's day:

Grievances from British victims can be sidelined. Grievances from China must be mainstreamed. The only unequivocal warcrimes from the period that we will foreground are the Allied uses of the nuclear option against the vicious Japananese resistance.

That'll be balance, Beeb style.

Good News.

Warmest best wishes to Frank Gardner as he resumes his work following his convalescence in the wake of the awful attempted terrorist execution that he suffered in Riyadh last June. His life has been changed permanently, but he survived and is telling a little of his tale on the Beeb at the moment. Sadly Simon Cumbers wasn't so fortunate.

I'd also like to say, while I'm being a slightly above-decent fellow to the Beeb for a while, that I don't harbour any grudges towards any of them; not least someone I often snark at- Paul Reynolds. It's that they set themselves up at the head of a society I find it impossible to hold back from questioning that makes me seek to undermine their role- if possible.

Scum on top

After Paul Reynolds' tour de force contrasting The French success in maintaining their flagship enterprises with the demise of Rover, it seems very pertinent to link to this news report showing how trade with China can really be secured. I have to admit I was relieved to be led to understand that China wasn't interested in Rover, so that our foreign policy (such as it is under the Eurobrolly) wouldn't be determined by the flow of Yuan to Brum. Now we just have to watch for the French Cockerel trying to crowbar us into appeasing China via the CFP (Common Foreign Policy).

Samizdata, from which I discovered this latest French perfidy, also offered this interesting Observer half-condemnation of the Blairite strategy for Rover- sourcing the trouble right where it struck me it belonged, with Byers' promotion of the BMW-Phoenix deal.

It's the fact that the Guardian suite can produce this kind of sense that makes you weep for the Conservatives' incapability (in advance of their supposed poll failure):

'Now we are asked to believe the real plan all along was to ease the workers into redundancy, and to view industrial policy as an extension of the social security department.'

All of which turns me- almost, almost- to seeking religious succour in the comforting stability of the Roman Catholic faith, which unlike Rowan Williams has a semblance of self-respect.

In this vein it was amusing for me to find what a lot in common Larry from BlameBush had with Timthy Garton-Ash from the Guardian in their view of the new Papa- proving that the Graun hasn't yet croaked and been reborn as a sensible newspaper.