BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Adrian_Goodrich

Listed below are comments made by Adrian_Goodrich between Wednesday, 29th April 2009 and Tuesday, 21st July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Cameron aide emerges unscathed 10:28pm on 21 Jul 2009 Well seems that the story Nick thinks is the biggest one of the day (along with his non-report of his interview with Cameron) has not caused any embarrassment to the Official Opposition, despite the best efforts of the Grauniad and its allies over recent days. You would like to think though that if Labour did not employ the sort of spin-people it does, with the Prince of Darkness' shadow looming long over the fag end of this decaying administration, then Cameron would maybe not feel the need to employ the likes of Coulson?

But Nick, you looked like you did not enjoy it? From the tone of all of your piece, are we to take it that you feel a gross travesty of justice has occurred? It certainly comes across that way. Maybe you would avoid the charges of partiality leveled against you if you stated your actual opinion, separately from reporting fact which you could then be seen to do entirely neutrally? That way, people could be clear about your opinion and not try and deduce it. Are you allowed to do that? Serious question, although I fear that this will be another post to be moderated-off for being off-message.
Return of the soapbox 12:55pm on 21 Jul 2009 Is this the best the BBC's Political Correspondent can do after having interviewed the leader of the opposition?? Where is the story here? Where is the report on what he said in the interview? What did Cameron have to say about whatever you interviewed him about?

Where are the REAL journalists at the BBC?
Has the bonfire gone out? 9:06pm on 06 Jul 2009 Quangos would run far more efficiently and effectively if:

1. Members of quango boards were precluded from sitting on other quango boards.

2. Members of quango boards were precluded from "serving" if in the last 12 months they have "served" on another quango board.

3. At least half of the members of every quango board had a successful track record in the private sector real world.

4. Quango boards were incentivised to reduce the total cost of their quango, and were paid a bonus linked to cost reductions.

And that applies equally to the BBC Board of Governors.

I'll not comment on Nick's impartiality or otherwise in this latest blog post, since every single time I have suggested any lack of impartiality my comments have been modded-off as being "off topic" even though I have been commenting on what Nick wrote.

And as for Cameron...he needs to explain how he will avoid the trap of being persuaded to expand the quangos once in government. Or maybe he is best just keeping quiet till after the election so he does not get hammered by the endangered quangocrats, then hammer them back into the real world once he is in office? I'm not at all sure that making quangos more accountable is the answer; we managed for centuries without most quangos, so why do we need most of them now?
The PM uses the 'C' word: 'Cuts' 8:42pm on 01 Jul 2009 Just a thought: Brown talks about "investment" on one hand, and "asset sales" on the other.

Now all the world - except maybe Brown and his inner circle - knows that you "invest" in "assets".

So, let me see if I have this right? He is going to "invest" in assets at the same time as he is going to "sell" assets? And use the proceeds of the latter to (help) pay for the former?

Maybe it went past me a bit fast on that last bend, but if you sell assets to buy more assets then you are merely "replacing" not "investing"?

And if you are spending on current not capital account then you are not "investing" at all anyway, and its a lie to say you are?

Hmm.

Whichever way I look at it, I can't see how Brown can possibly be telling the truth.

But what do I know...?
Mandelson and markets 8:06pm on 01 Jul 2009 Robert:

"Or his real reason for abandoning the sale has as much to do with politics - with the fervent opposition to the deal of much of his own party - as with the scarcity of cash-rich purchasers."

Nail on head there, I suggest?

Would that your mate over on the politics blog was as brave as you are in raising alternative possibilities where Mandelson is concerned?
Honesty: The new battleground 7:37pm on 01 Jul 2009 Nick, that's yet another blog post that appears to have been written to cast Osborne in particular and the Tories in general as the bad guys.

Yesterday you described Osborne as "young and privileged" and asked why (in view of those characteristics) people should trust him. Nearly everyone reading those comments read them in the way you surely intended, which quite frankly was only a milder form of what we saw with "Smeargate" a few weeks ago - in my opinion.

So today, why haven't you made similar comments about Mandelson? Why not raise the...question... of why the voters should trust HIM given his track record of twice resigning in disgrace (and plenty else)?

Sir, I say you are behaving neither honourably and impartially.

And incidentally, I'm not on the Cameron/Osborne bus. I am not a member of the Tory party or in any way associated with them. Indeed, I am far from convinced they are the guys to lead us out of the disaster that Brown's economic policies have inflicted upon us. But I do not think it is any place of a senior employee of a public service broadcaster to display such clear partiality as you appear to be doing.
'A bit of a week' 5:02pm on 30 Apr 2009 #84 Fingertapper: "Utimately an electorate will demand more substance. Some of the Conservative cheerleaders on these blogs seem to think that all we have to do is kill off Bad Old Brown - then the sun will shine, the birds will sing, the little furry animals will come out of their burrows and all will be well for Middle England. I fear they are deluding themselves."

Not at all unreasonable. "Some".

I think though that "many", and like me not a cheerleader for anyone, recognise that whoever wins the election inherits a near-fatally poisoned chalice; that it will be many a day before we emerge from the darkness and back into the sun - if at all.

Along the way, we'll have to make the hard yards with higher taxes and a slashed public sector. Nick knows it; the Dear Leader knows it; Cameron knows it; I think most on here know it; and I'm sure you know it.

The minute Cameron - or anyone else - tells the public the truth though, opponents will scream the house down about "Tory Cuts" or "Tory Tax Hikes" whilst lying and misleading about what they would have to do themselves. Yes, most of us know Cameron is not being candid about the medicine required; and yes, I'm sure most of us can understand the reason why. The only time you can make any foul-tasting medicine palatable is when the patient finally understands the true nature of the disease, and accepts that taking it is the only way he will get better.
'A bit of a week' 4:30pm on 30 Apr 2009 Nick, after the pasting you got (again) last night over the impartiality (or otherwise...) of your Gurkhas piece, do I detect the slightest hints of you starting to hedge your bets now?

And even the teeniest hint from you that the Dear Leader might not, after all, have been the right man for the job in "...Donald Tusk pointed to his own country's fiscal rectitude, making the contrast with Britain all too obvious."? That last phrase seemed surprisingly unequivocal!

Mind you, loyalty - like authority and unlike virginity - can of course be regained, after a fashion anyway; so I'm not reading much into this one swallow yet.

But back to the Dear Leader and his increasingly-rotten administration: we are surely seeing here what we saw in 1996 and into 1997 - the start of the end-game for a government far too long in office? This is how it always starts...not with the really big things (the things the Dear Leader tells the house he is concentrating on...) but the little things. The little things that start to accumulate and aggregate, until the trickle becomes a torrent and the tide of public opinion turns too far for there to be any prospect of recovery.

When history comes to be written, I think it will be around now - and over something like Jacquigate or the Gurkhas - that the records will show we passed that tipping point; the point beyond which the crash for this government became inevitable.
Taking the political mood 10:59pm on 29 Apr 2009 Superb result for the Gurkhas, and for Ms Lumley and the other campaigners.

Superb result for democracy. Provided of course the Dear Leader respects the democratically-expressed will of the house.

Superb result too for Nick Clegg, it has to be said.

And superb result for those who realise they have to replace Brown ASAP if Labour is to have any chance at all come the election. The abstentions spoke volumes...

Mixed bag for Cameron, since it was Clegg's victory and it brings his nightmare of a new Labour leader before the election a lot closer.

Poor from Nick Robinson again though. So, its all the fault of his acolytes now, is it? Just for once, before the Dear Leader's career in politics ends as most do, can you bring yourself to actually hold him responsible for anything rather than just being a continual apologist for him? Your job is to report the news surely, not assist in the spin?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Adrian_Goodrich