BBC sinks to new low with "spiteful" attack on UKIP
Saturday, May 4, 2013 at 10:20 Five Live Drive yesterday interviewed Dr Alan Sked.
Sked was the founder, in 1991, of the Anti-Federalist League which became the United Kingdom Independence Party in 1993. According to Wikipedia he left the party in 1997, accusing it of being "racist".
I knew there had been a falling out but I didn't realise the extent of Sked's bitterness.
UKIP, he declared on Five Live yesterday, is now an "authoritarian right-wing" party. He continued his attack and presenter Peter Allen sounded a bit surprised, even taken aback.
Sked's comments went largely unchallenged. Allen, an experienced journalist, was clearly aware that the interview was hopelessly one-sided. He appeared to cut it short before acknowledging that no-one from UKIP was there to defend the party.
A few minutes later he read out a couple of texts from listeners - one said Sked's comments were "spiteful" - but if anyone was spiteful it was the producer who invited Sked on the programme and must have known what he was going to say.
(I am frequently asked my views in advance of an interview. Producers don't like being taken by surprise. Quite often they have a preconceived idea of what they want you to say and if your opinion doesn't coincide with it they won't use you.)
Quite what the purpose of the Sked interview was - other than to portray UKIP as a bunch of extreme right wing racist homophobes - I can't imagine. Why, on the day of UKIP's greatest domestic success, would you give a platform to someone who resigned from the party 16 years ago?
There was no debate and Sked's opinions were so partisan it was laughable. This was a pity because I would have liked to have learned more about the Anti-Federalist League and its founder.
As readers of this blog know I am not a UKIP supporter. I support some of their policies and I obviously welcome Nigel Farage's support for an amendment to the smoking ban.
I know and like many UKIP supporters yet I still have reservations that the party is over reliant on Farage and without him it would be a lot less libertarian or indeed credible.
I have heard tales of chaos and discord within the organisation, and there are still too many clowns and fruitcakes (to use Ken Clarke's injudicious words) standing for election under the UKIP banner.
I even share Alan Sked's concern that some UKIP MEPs have "gone native" and enjoy the Brussels gravy train a little too much.
Nevertheless Five Live's conduct in inviting Dr Sked to attack the party unchallenged was outrageous.
Not that it did UKIP any real harm. When an item is that biased listeners will draw their own conclusions.
Instead it was yet another blow to the BBC's damaged reputation as an impartial political broadcaster and further evidence that, whether it is broadcasting from London or Salford, the corporation is hopelessly out of touch with ordinary people.
PS. I should add that Dr Sked is perfectly entitled to his views. I am not suggesting he or anyone else with a similar view of UKIP should be silenced.
This is about balance and the BBC. What were they thinking?
Reader Comments (6)
What I think is the real result of the local elections is the death of the what is known as the "Metropolitan Elite (ME)." Personified by The Guardian, The Independent and indeed the BBC. The middle class pseudo liberals and armchair socialists who when challenged by anyone else, try and close the debate down by screaming "racist, misogynist, homophobe and Little Englander."
Much of the ME are government paid and of course are in the vanguard of the nanny state. The internet in my opinion is largely behind the change.
Before newspapers had an online presence any politician questioning restricting immigration would be silenced or be forced to resign by being labeled "racist." However the silent majority have no political office to resign and keep putting those un-PC comments in The Guardian, not only on immigration but tobacco control. Labour eventually found out that were on the wrong side of the debate and have not really challenged the Tories on immigration and welfare for example.
Cameron is only too taken in by these people in wanting to get this influential group onside though they are a complete minority.
Today the coalition is in disarray and so I hope is the nanny state.
The nanny state in disarray, Dave Atherton? I do so much hope it is. And soon. At my age (77) the day when when people like me might once more enjoy a pint and a smoke in a pub, could come too late. They're an inhuman and merciless lot, these health moralisers.
Typical BBC but if any effect it will not be the one they hope for. Most people realising the Beeb is part of the 'elite' and pretty much beyond repair will just harden their attitude. As usual, the 'elite', cocooned as they are, don't realise it. They still think all is 'as usual', the champagne will still be delivered every week. They can't see it coming at all and it will be a massive shock to them. Prepare for the whingeing and whining.
I'd love to know how much the Nanny State has cost Britain to date, along with its predicted costs for the future; not only in terms of £££s, but also in terms of the deaths and misery for many. Economically it's cost a lot as well, when it only needs a bit of common sense to prevail.
No wonder the people's revolt has at long last begun. Common sense is a lot cheaper than 'Jobs for the boys'.
Tax-payers money being used to fund pressure groups and lobbyists promoting denormalisation, misery and death of the country's own citizens should no longer be tolerated.
Our country is big enough to cater for all of its legal citizens. The problem is, our Government choose not to do so.
So much for equality and diversity - only if your face fits.
Two pieces of the jig-saw missing.
I've just got a few words about the above Five Live radio interview. I don't know about you but I rarely listen to radio at all these days, and if Simon hadn't posted about it I would never have known or cared about it. You will have noticed that this interview wasn't put out in any of the mainstream BBC outlets. So in that respect it's completely irrelevant.
We must look to the horizon now and not waste mental energy on some half-wit shoddy interviews like this which will come and go as time moves on from UKIP's success.
Now to the substance of my comment.
To begin with I think it’s only fair to say that UKIP don’t just want to amend the ban they want to repeal it. Besides if they’re to hold the balance of power at the next general election then they will be in a position to demand and not request that this be the case.
Either of the other two parties will have to accede to UKIP’s demands whether they like it or not – that will be the price for any UKIP support, and knowing how desperately politicians crave power they will have to roll over.
But in my opinion there will be a need to fill two pieces of the jig-saw.
For a start they will need a good person to lend more credibility to any press interviews that come UKIP’s way in the run up to the next election. Their strategy will need to be carefully planned with the delicacy and precision of Mozart’s ‘The marriage of Figaro’, (which transcribes remarkably well from the orchestra to the military band), but who might this person be, and would he or she fit the right profile for UKIP, yes I think these two people would.
Mark Littlewood would be an excellent choice to begin with, and I hope he will get a call pretty soon. Mark is Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), and was chief press spokesman for the Lib-Dems. During his time at University he managed to fit in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.
My second choice is also first rate. She is Angela Harbutt who is articulate with a good grasp of politics and has written well for the ‘Hands off Our Packs’ campaign blog. Angela is also media savvy taking part in many interviews on radio debunking the myths surrounding tobacco control, and arguing against further draconian measures being introduced.
These two excellent people will give our cause massive impetus, but will also bring an element of libertarianism and good sound common sense to further bolster UKIP’s stance on several other issues like health, education and the NHS, which is what will be needed for UKIP’s campaign at the next general election to give them a more general appeal. This essentially means nobody can continue calling them a protest party. This is where our minds must now be focused.
To be truthful, Cameron and the coalition are effectively neutered on the issue of further tobacco control, it really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans what the health lobby or tobacco control have to say, now that UKIP is firmly in everyone’s face and knowing where they stand on the smoking ban issue.
The course for UKIP is inexorable, it will invariably culminate in them holding the balance of power and there is nothing that can be said or done to change that. The watershed has now been reached.
Mark and Angela your time is almost here – please be ready to step up to the plate when the call comes.
Hope you're reading this Nigel.
Mark and Angela are both Lib Dems, I think, so I don't know how they could become UKIP spokespeople unless they became members but I do agree that it's people of such high calibre that UKIP needs to get its message across.
One thing I do now know for sure is that my vote last week really counted. Should Lincs County Council try to bring in an outdoor ban it will be blocked by the new UKIP opposition. Should that happen at district level then we're still stuck with Metropolitan Elite in the LibLabCon. They should be wary, however, that implementing such an illiberal and spiteful move will lose them seats when their election comes around.