The Daily Politics 26th February 2016

Some readers may be interested in my appearance on this edition of The Daily Politics - topics covered include UKIP, Grammar Schools, Trident and the Labour Party

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0725m33/daily-politics-26022016

 

Some may not be.

Comments

[Paul Pelosi]

Andrew Neil was on form on today's Daily Politics. Poor Matthew Hancock, and what a car crash. It crashed into the government's latest 'dodgy dossier' which, naturally, paints a grim picture of Britain's future post -Brexit. We would be little different from a banana republic.

Neil asked Hancock; that being the case, why did David Cameron risk a referendum and why did he affirm that he would lead Britain out if the referendum vote mandated a Brexit? Cameron would then be prime minister of a virtually failed state - if you could believe the 'dodgy dossier'. Hancock stumbled over a waffled non-answer and Neil simply twisted the knife further and further. It was great to watch.

[David Taylor]

Further to this immigration situation , has Mr Hitchens or anyone here come across a Coudenhove-Kalergi prize ? that is awarded to someone for progress toward closer european integration , Mrs Merkel , Mr Rumpuy and the Latvian president have won it
previously .

[Mrs.B.]

Alan Thomas.
I meant gender neutral toys.

Does no harm to remind folk that a lot of things weren't broken and didn't need fixing!

[Alan Thomas]

Blimey. Mrs B, you are starting to sound, if I may say so, like one of those everlasting recorded messages that you get these days (you've got me at it now!) when you ring somewhere hoping to speak to a fellow human.

As I've said to you before, being around 10 years older, and having had a morning and evening paper round whilst still at school, I've possibly a wider knowledge of past times than your good self. I'm pretty certain that most of what you yearn for isn't coming back, but as I said in my last post, should the vote result in an exit I'll check progress with you on an annual basis.

Can't say fairer than that, can I?

[Mrs.B.]

Alan Thomas

I call my returns to the past, saner times.

I read today that getting your children into school in your own catchment area is a growing nightmare.
Not so 1977 and 1979. Not so when my children went to comprehensive, which was once my secondary. In fact as we were borderline, they could have the choice of another. In retrospect I wish I had chosen the other, although in time that went the way of my old school.
I don't need to educate my grandchildren who can now vote, on the reasons the infrastructure is groaning under the weight of too many people coming to this country.
One has been very enlightened by a forced move, which has enlightened them all.

This not calling paper boys and I presume girls as well, what they are, is laughable.
although I read there are moves to stop the young doing this job.
My brother and my husband both did paper rounds. My hubby used to clean the stalls down the livestock market as a lad and help the milkman sitting on the back of the cart.
My children did Saturday shop work and one did cafe work and my youngest grandson does the same serving, a bit of cooking, at weekends and school holidays.
That life experience, learning about people and attitudes is out in the real world.
Employers are now realising that having a degree doesn't mean they are ready for the real world of work.
They get more than an a classroom view on the world..that is worth an awful lot.
The problem is when Blair wanted more to go to university he wasn't thinking of those good honest trades.
Do you know I was helping a young person a year or so back who is less academic and there was no one to take a simple building course?
Like nursing, I read having to hunt far and wide for foreign applicants because we have failed to train out own.
Going back again, when I had my children early 70's, nurses needed no degrees.
We had auxiliary nurse in smart uniforms.
The wards were clean and the cleaners didn't dish up dinner as they did when my dad was ill late 90's.
I could come home after 9 days in hospital and have a midwife in each day, health vistor checks throughout the year. Clinics I attended, for weight and development checks.
The ads for bottle feeding were starting to come in and they added formula milk tokens to benefit payments.
Hence the rise in bottle feeding. Now they are not allowed to advertise, only follow milk as they try and undo the campaign to push bottle with unfair balance from all those years ago.
Plus I was educated to know that I was most fertile in my young years. How, simple biology lesson. No full blown sex education, simple facts.
We didn't have to have specific gender clothes or toys, because we had the common sense to play with what we liked.

[Alan Thomas]

Mrs B

Paper-boys!

By the time anything changes following the referendum - whatever the result - they will be as obsolete as kitchen-maids!

Whatever, I shall ask you - if I'm still around and kicking, and should we be 'out' - every year on the anniversary of the vote how many ticks you have alongside the items on your long list of 'returns-to-the-past' that you are looking for.

[Martin]

RE: Daily Politics... Hilarious! The Portes chap appeared visibly wounded after The Phitch had popped him back into his box. Hitchens just owned him.

[Mrs.B.]

It doesn't worry me that there isn't just one spokesperson for leaving the E.U.
All the political programmes and newsreaders and press reviewers want is a name they can talk up and talk down. It concerns them much more than it does ordinary folk.
I think it's wiser to have many voices.
I'm sure if we have an OUT vote then the E.U. will find some way of wheedling toward another vote. Which is why I hope it is a really decisive NO.
On education. I think the young working class that left school in my era. I was 15 in 69, lived in the best time.
Apprenticeships, City and Guilds, day and block release. College. Leaving with above average reading skills.
That cannot be said today.
Family life was still pretty traditonal. Our priorities were family still, drugs were not having an impact. Nor was drinking, only in certain families at pub closing time.
Nobody told us, when we should have children, nor that they would subsidise us for doing so.
Credit was scary in the 70's. Who knew that PIE was emerging as I was nurturing my babies at home.
Who knew that the young would become so sexualised. That education standards would fall so.
I can't believe talking to my daughter on Sunday that one of the community in her rural area has told her that Ofsted marked down the school because it is not multicultural enough.
It's a rural school. Now forced to cover all sorts of other issues. Next yea for 6 year old's it will be talking of different genders.
Less of this and more literacy would be more akin to my schooldays.
Now I read businesses are turning from University graduates, because they have no work experience.
We aren't to use the word paper-boy.
I cheered when Katie Hopkins managed to not be talked over by Andrew Neil, when she talked of not having a proper nativity.
I like Andrew Neil, but what Katie said was what I wanted said when my grandchildren were young, late 90's 2000's.

[Paul P]

@Kevin | 28 February 2016 at 04:49 PM

"Paul P, I think you will find that Andrew Neil generally gives labour politicians a far harder time than Conservative politicians which tends to reflect his Tory supporting political background in the media"

I just sensed on this occasion that Andrew Neil was impatient with what he evidently anticipated Mr Hitchens saying, and he wasn't disappointed as far as that went. Neil likes to trip people up on data rather than argue a general synopsis, however pertinent it may be. Natalie Bennett's general rambling over third rate tropes was chopped to pieces quite rightly, but she was nevertheless allowed to ramble on.

I sensed that Mr Hitchens felt impelled to rush his points because he knew he wouldn't be allowed more than a couple of sentences before getting the chop. This seems to happen at all his TV interviews, and especially on Question Time. It might be the case that Dimbleby et al think to themselves, 'Here we go again, another Hitchens rant', but if the rant is pertinent then it should be heard and its pertinent points discussed. And if the rant is negatively anticipated, why on earth did they have him on in the first place?

[Kevin]

Paul P, I think you will find that Andrew Neil generally gives labour politicians a far harder time than Conservative politicians which tends to reflect his Tory supporting political background in the media. Of course, PH would consider both existing parties of New Labour and Modernised Consevative to be 'left wing' Marxists. If by right wing you mean UKIP or a 'social conservative' like PH then I would agree with your analysis.

[Chris Redmond]

John Hodson wrote "Was I the only person struck by the fact that the statistician who mentioned the discrepancy between the official number of EU citizens in the country and those registering for NI numbers was so blinded by his own beliefs that when he mentioned the fact that he was being denied access to data because it might prove detrimental to the PM's case, he still couldn't see anything malign about it, a little bit odd?"

More than a little odd. He sought to chastise PH for suggesting the Govt was willfully withholding the information - a 'conspiracy' - whilst admitting that the Govt was indeed probably withholding the information: it was actually Neil who mentioned conspiracy theories.

Jonathan Portes asserted that PH was exaggerating considerably, and that there was no Govt "malign conspiracy to conceal things from the British public".

He then seemed to confirm everything PH suggested by admitting "but I do think that the British Govt is holding back on releasing information which would undermine the story that it as seeking to tell".

[Alan Thomas]

A week or so is certainly a long time in politics.

Only a few days back there were several readers here saying that what television needed was far more interviewers like Andrew Neil. Hmm...

And from a Deputy UKIP Leader last week to a critic this week we hear 'Nigel Farage is one of the two least trusted voices on Europe'. Hmmm...

Whatever next, I wonder.

[Frank Finch]

Mr H... as usual... gave as good an account of himself as the format allowed.

I wait... with bated breath... for the day that someone says to Andrew Neil... "It's clear that you do not want to hear the answer... so I'll shut up while you conduct this interview on your own and with yourself".

Problem being that Neil would probably interrupt them and prevent them from finishing their statement.

[John Hodson]

Was I the only person struck by the fact that the statistician who mentioned the discrepancy between the official number of EU citizens in the country and those registering for NI numbers was so blinded by his own beliefs that when he mentioned the fact that he was being denied access to data because it might prove detrimental to the PM's case, he still couldn't see anything malign about it, a little bit odd?

[Chris Redmond]

Andrew Neil is by far currently the best political interviewer on TV. He's naturally skeptical, is usually well-briefed and jumps on answers to his questions which are misdirections or dependent on spurious statistic.
Because he has interests and income outside of the BBC he doesn't have to tow the BBC line and narrative, and it shows.

PH was given more time to comment than is normally afforded to guests, and he's canny enough to answer questions with comments which usually exceed the remit of the original question, knowing that it's vital to grasp every opportunity to comment and milk the opportunity for as long as possible.
Neil and PH are big boys and I'm sure share a mutual respect.

Unfortunately, Neil's interview or rather interrogation of Natalie Bennett was rather painful to watch, as Neil came across as a bully when it reality it was Bennett who wasn't able to assert herself as the leader of a political party should be able to.

I'm glad that PH didn't include Michael Gove when naming those who he believed weren't really 'outers' in the referendum campaign.
Perhaps PH isn't entirely convinced of Gove's motives, but perhaps he's at least reserving judgement for now.

As a UKIP'er, I'm once again disappointed with the UK press and their addiction to personalities rather than real, important issues.

Net immigration is a major concern of the British public - we are told - yet we now know that the Govt is peddling outright lies which under-state the numbers.
The fact they won't release the real number confirms this, as obviously they would release the real number if it supported their 'commitment' to reduce immigration.

The press should be engaging in a feeding frenzy to obtain this information, yet instead they're stuck in the Westminster bubble, concentrating on the Cameron/Boris Tory leadership positioning narrative.
Of secondary importance is the Farage 'Grassroots Out' vs Carswell/Evans 'Vote Leave' conflict, so no examination of the issues surrounding the referendum whatsoever. It's all about identifying splits and then trying to rip those splits open as far as possible so the public can gape into the wounds.

It's juvenile, sensationalist, lazy journalism which will deprive the British public of serious debate and discussion of the real issues.

[Paul P]

@Kevin | 27 February 2016 at 12:18 PM

"Why did Andrew Neil invite the Green Party and UKIP spokespersons to comment on their stance on the referendum only to spend most of their interviews scoring cheap points about the state of their parties?"

BBC 'balance'. Intelligence has to be 'balanced' with looneyism. The BBC is driven by the inclusionist ethic bound up with the ideology of political correctness. Thus every male Dr Expert has to be 'balanced' with a female Dr Expert. Every white reporter must be 'balanced' with an ethnic reporter. Black was the preference until recently, but Arab/Asian, and ideally Muslim Arab/Asian, is taking over.

While left-wing must be 'balanced' by right-wing at the BBC, there is nothing stopping the interviewers continually interrupting right-wing guests when they do not receive the answers they want to hear. This is often the case in Mr Hitchens' appearances on BBC programmes. Left-wing opinion is allowed full rein while Mr Hitchens is frequently cut off in mid polemic.

As was heard on the Daily Politics, Natalie Bennett babbled acres of nonsense while taking up time in which intelligent discussion could have taken place. Mr Hitchens' admittedly now familiar case for grammar schools met with a, 'We've run out of time'.

[David Taylor]

I know Mr Hitchens has explained the process of selection for political parties , however , do any of the selected elite remember that they are elected to represent our interests and concerns , not every , tom , dick & harry from abroad ?

[David Taylor]

I watched this , interesting . The number of NI Nos issued was a surprise .
If you then add that item to description of the shambles of Governments described in Tom Bowers forthcoming biography of Mr Tony Blair , it is not at all surprising is it . Did , does any one in Government have any idea of what to do . " It is to emotional to deport any one " a government minister said this , good grief .

[M Freeman]

There is very little that Mr Hitchens says with which I can disagree and I am frequently outraged that his views are not voiced without constant interruption. I feel that dissenting voices and truly open debate are not welcome and that a leftist consensus will always find favour and will always prevail, to the detriment of true free speech and even democracy itself.

As a child of a nation whose accomplishments have contributed much to the world, I am ashamed and appalled to witness a British Prime Minister, cap in hand and rattling a begging bowl, reduced to begging before a German Chancellor and the heads of an assortment of nations who benefit greatly from our financial largesse but whose overall contribution is debatable to say the least, pleading for permission to do what is right for Britain. He asked for little and got less! We are a country which pays vasts sums to a foreign power, (the EU), forced to accept laws laid down by a foreign power and with little, if any, right of reply or redress to true justice. A foreign power dictates whom we must allow into our homeland and their rights and entitlements, that seemingly often trump our own but must be paid for by us, must be given precedence to the extent that we cannot even deport foreign criminals, terrorists and murderers! Cameron's mission has proven how futile it is to put our faith in foreign leaders who will always put their own interests first whilst demanding we pay the lion's share of the cost of their folly. Our own politicians have surrendered our sovereignty and given our country away. We are now merely a vassal state, owing homage to unaccountable foreign political superiors who are not elected by us and cannot be removed. Why would they act in our best interests and why would the nation want to continue as a subjugated people? We were not asked if we wanted to be part of a political superstate and we certainly did not give our consent! The will of the people is paramount and this is our one chance of recovering our dignity and precious freedoms. The country deserves to hear the arguments in fullness and fairness, hotly debated by all who can offer and articulate profoundly valid concerns.

I will always welcome sight of Mr Hitchens and the insights he has to offer and I hope he will feel sufficiently impassioned to enter this vital debate and that he will offer hope to all of us who yearn for a return to independence and true British parliamentary democracy.

[Valerie Arnold]

Regarding the figures relating to those "coming" to the UK and those applying for NI numbers!! When they arrive (usually without pass ports or ID, they tell us their "name", they then go from borough to borough/town to town and register under different names, they can them claim benefits in a host of aliases. They also do this with social housing, i have witnessed an African talking on his phone explaining to the other party how he has 5 council houses, all sublet, he had another going through, he said it was easy and told his "friend" he would show him how to do it, this was 3/4 years ago, I dread to think how many houses he has now.

[Peter Stephenson]

It seems that when our government is caught orchestrating deception and bare faced lies there is almost no one who can just call it for what it is. Thank goodness Peter is willing at least.
The entire country of Britain is begining to exhibit the Pavlovian characteristics of habituated battered wives syndrome.
We need to get back our sovereignty and use it to punish Cameron and his scallywag cohorts as much as we are able.

[Kevin]

Why did Andrew Neil invite the Green Party and UKIP spokespersons to comment on their stance on the referendum only to spend most of their interviews scoring cheap points about the state of their parties. The Politics Tiday programme did exactly the same with George Galloway. Junvenile and pointless political 'debate'.

[Michael Williamson]

What a complete waste of time it was, too many subjects and no real discussion of any of them. I didn't detect any bias neither Zoe Williams or Peter Hitchens were allowed much time to say anything worthwhile. I do wonder how much the animated graphics cost, they were, admittedly, well done but, are they really necessary?

[Kevin Peat]

If you want the result to be Out, Mr Hitchens, then the answer to "Does it matter that there are different groups wanting Out ?"

Should be a plain "No" because that's the truth of it. The referendum is not about electing a president or a ruling party. The Outs don't need to be slick and organised.

In fact it's far better that there are disparate groups. That there can be so many of them coming to the same conclusion but for different reasons is a good thing.

You are doing much to make an Out result less likely and I have come to the conclusion that you have a vanity problem.

[Tony Dodd]

I wonder if Zoe Williams is as irritating in real life as she appears on TV and in print?