If Nigel Farage (UKIP)

[noughtyforties]

See Trevor Kavanagh's political column in today's Sun for his take on the QT farce last week.

[Pilgrim86]

This is it:

IN the May local elections, UKIP insurgents swept to victory in Lincolnshire, grabbing nine out 11 council seats representing the people of Boston.

It was a major coup for Nigel Farage and a mark of public alarm over immigration which has famously seen the town’s population rocket by 20,000 in ten years.

Locals complained loudly at the time about crowded schools and pressure on health and social services in what has become known as Little Poland.

So it was astonishing on Thursday — barely six months later — to see Farage howled down by a BBC Question Time audience apparently made up of Boston folk.

The hostility from fellow panellists was predictable — apart from a vicious savaging by Tory defence minister Anna Soubry.

She led a pack including Labour’s Emily Thornberry, Greek-born Vicky Pryce, ex-wife of disgraced points-swapper Chris Huhne, and Rasta poet Benjamin Zephaniah in a chorus of disapproval.

Soubry scolded Farage as a rabble-rousing “scaremonger” who twists facts and turns immigrants into figures of hate.

Her charge might have had more force had Farage’s forecasts on immigration not been proved so accurate in the past. Farage might have hoped for support when he pointed out that, in just eight weeks, Britain will open its doors to 29million Romanians and Bulgarians.

Instead, he was shouted down for getting his figures wrong. There were only 27million Bulgarians and Romanians, Soubry snapped (incorrectly).

David Cameron, who is desperately trying to woo angry UKIP voters back to the Tory fold, was appalled by her rant.

Soubry, I am told, “adds interest and gaiety to the political debate” but she was not speaking for the PM.

Farage can look after himself and I am not his cheerleader. Normally he would take this in his stride.

But what was even more startling than Soubry’s tirade was the seemingly co-ordinated barrage of criticism he faced from the Bostonians themselves.

The microphone ranged from one outraged supporter of the free movement of peoples to another. Migrants contributed nothing to Lincolnshire but blood, sweat, toil and tears, it seemed.

The audience was stacked with questioners who appeared suspiciously well-rehearsed, self-confident and bullishly determined to be heard.

Most insisted immigration was a good thing, which may be true — up to a point.

But the most ardent supporter must surely be concerned that Britain’s population has already exploded by five million in ten years, with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) predicting it will grow by as many again in the next 14 years.

By 2037 it will hit 73.3million, says the ONS, rivalling Germany which dwarfs the UK geographically. Yet no extra homes, hospitals or schools are being built to accommodate them.

In Boston, this is a real hot potato. Last May, voters loudly complained that spoken English was rarely heard, newcomers are reluctant to blend in and there are no jobs for young locals.

So how did the fair and balanced BBC stumble on such a defiantly pro-immigrant audience?

I may have an answer. I was invited on to a recent Radio 5 debate on public trust in the BBC, following scandals over Jimmy Savile and executive pay-offs.

Before going on air, I was joined by a group of people who were to be part of the audience. Out of curiosity, I asked if they had requested a chance to take part?

Some had but others said they had been involved in previous phone-ins in which they had expressed certain views. Their names and opinions had been logged and they had received invitations to this debate as a result.

During the programme, these “members of the audience” were prompted to ask questions. Out of the blue, one of them tore into me over the Sun’s coverage of Hillsborough.

Fair enough — if this had been a truly random question. But it sounded very much like one he’d cooked earlier.

Could this explain how the BBC spices up its debates — by placing people in the audience who can be relied on to take a rehearsed and provocative line?

If so, is it so surprising that trust in the BBC is on the slide?

[qwerty]

"Question Time faces bias accusations over new editor's socialist past"

The BBC is facing fresh accusations of left-wing bias after it emerged that the new editor of Question Time has a history of writing for extreme socialist publications.


Full 2011 Telegraph article here:


Nicolai Gentchev, who will take the helm of BBC One’s flagship political programme in the summer when the production team makes its controversial move from Westminster to Glasgow, has written for International Socialism Journal and Socialist Review.
Mr Gentchev wrote an article in the International Socialism Journal in 1995 entitled “The Myth of Welfare Dependency”. He wrote: “Even capitalism’s supporters do not see an end to mass unemployment and low wages… all they offer is to make living on welfare so unbearable that even more people are forced off benefits and into conditions which were common… before the creation of the welfare state. While we fight to make sure such plans never become reality, we have to get rid of the system which has brought us to this point.”
The website of the International Socialism Journal says that it is associated with the Socialist Workers’ Party. The website continues: “The International Socialist Tendency unites revolutionary organisations around the world on the basis of workers’ power [and] revolution not reform.”
Mr Gentchev wrote for Socialist Review as late as 2003, when he reviewed the book Labour Party Plc by David Osler.
Philip Davies MP, a Conservative member of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said: “This probably comes as little surprise, but it is a further indication of left-wing bias at the BBC. We can expect more of the same from Question Time - audiences that are hostile to the government, left-wing panels and a left-wing agenda being
Mr Gentchev joined the BBC in 2006, and became a senior producer on Radio 4’s Today programme in 2008.
During his time on Today, Mr Gentchev produced a special series from Russia with Bridget Kendall looking at how the country had changed under Putin and in November 2009 travelled with reporter Andrew Hosken to Pakistan to produce a series of reports during the South Waziristan offensive.
He currently lives in Glasgow, where he is on secondment as the editor of Radio Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland programme.
Question Time’s move to Glasgow has been openly criticised by its presenter, David Dimbleby, who has insisted that weekly editorial meetings continue to take place in London.
The programme has seen the resignation of its current editor, Ed Havard, over the move, despite Mr Havard being very highly regarded by Mr Dimbleby.
The BBC also announced that Hayley Valentine, who was head of news at Radio 5 Live until last summer, will be Question Time’s new executive editor.
A BBC insider said: “No disrespect to Nicolai, who was very well regarded on the Today programme, but this is a big promotion for him. It would be interesting to know whether other candidates on higher pay grades turned the job down because it would involve moving to Scotland.”
A BBC spokesman said: “Nicolai joined the BBC in 2006 long after these pieces were published and it is nonsense to suggest they have any bearing on his impartiality.”
BBC Director of News Helen Boaden said: “Question Time has an outstanding new team to lead it. Nicolai and Hayley have a great depth of experience in the political institutions across the UK. They will ensure that one of the BBC’s most important programmes goes from strength to strength.”

[kingofnaves]

Apparently the woman who accused NF of scaremongering was from Manchester!!!

[green hats mate]

Going through hundreds of postings on the internet over the weekend the following points seemed to emerge ..
Non Bostonians sensed that the BBC had fixed an unrepresentive audience (claims of BBC busing a load of loonie lefties to most the programmes )
On Huffington Post online a poll was set up for votes on if Mrs Soubry was right to accuse Fararge of "scaremongering "  ,  20% voted in Soubrys favour ,     72 % in Farage favour .
Where were the immigrants in the audience ?
Most locals and many neutral though Farage had been "stiched up " by the BBC. (audience and panel selection )

If this did not leave us enough to debate on Sunday politics yesterday Mr Farage pointed out that in two years time Turkey will be in the EU therefore making 72million Turks free to enter the UK.

I'm not sure why the BBC would bus in "loonie lefties" or try to discredit him?  If anything, they seem  to be giving Mr Farage a disproportinately high amount of airtime in order to set out his views.  He has been on the show 14 times since 2009, more than any other politician. Surely they've had plenty of time to discredit him by now?

I recognised plenty of people in the audience, but would be interested to know what firm evidence there is that it was rigged?  Its a pretty serious allegation to be fair.

I have lived in Boston 73 years and recognised about 6 people in the audience including John Laight who submitted a question .    Not often Boston attracts visitors from Mansfield !!!!!!!
Having been out and about town since the show I have yet to meet anyone who think it was a fair representation of Boston , indeed I have had phone calls from other parts of the county with the callers expressing concern at the make up of the show .   As yet I have not had contact with any of my immigrant friends / neighbours with their take ,  but I suspect they will be disappointed at lack of representation
Politicly I think Mrs Soubry due to her performance is near the end of her political career.
If as some have suggested Farage was "stitched up" it badly miss fired as this as createthe impression
that UKIP have become a real force in politics
Dave Cameron had every right to be angry ,

[green hats mate]

Reading the Trevor Kavangh article Farage must be highly delighted , must be a voter winner for him an endorsement like that .
No christmas card from Mark Simmonds to Mrs Soubry .
Many sleepless nights for Mr Simmonds.

[noughtyforties]

And rightly so Pete, he treats the electorate round here with stunning contempt.

If there were a viable alternative I'd vote for them and break the habit of a lifetime.

[green hats mate]

Appearing on the Andrew Marr show this morning the displicable above mention Anna Soubry gifted
Farage and UKIP with loads of  votes by disgusting gutter like remarks aimed at Farage .
"looks (Farage) like somebody put their finger up hts bottom "   
Pity the party I have voted for over the last 50 years cannot find better rabble than this to represent the people of Nottingham .

[dubai camel]

Glad to see that UKIP don't have a monopoly on disgusting gutter like remarks.

Most UKIP representatives would be proud of such comments.

UKIP aren't capable of running their own party never mind a government.

[green hats mate]

Glad to see that UKIP don't have a monopoly on disgusting gutter like remarks.

Most UKIP representatives would be proud of such comments.

UKIP aren't capable of running their own party never mind a government.

I,ve voted tory for 50 years D C and the above applies to them , therefore they will no longer get my vote .