R.S.V.P.

It'll never happen, but Mrs Rigby imagined how she would feel if she was invited to take part in a televised discussion and, for whatever reason, declined. Because that's always the option, isn't it - there's "Yes" and "No" in response to an invitation.

If she said, "No," would her potential host mind? Would they worry about losing such a useful contribution to their debate? Would they try to persuade her, sweet talk her and offer gifts? Would they bemoan their loss, and prop her photo on an empty seat?

Would they say, "Okay then, we'll get somebody else," and get on with making their programme? Or would they do what the BBC did yesterday, when ex-journalist and never-been-an-MP Alastair Campbell appeared on Question Time to 'represent' the Labour Party, and the Coalition government decided not to field a high powered government minister to balance his opinions?

The programme went ahead, as planned. The BBC wouldn't, obviously, cancel a long-running show solely because they couldn't persuade somebody very important to turn up and sit on one of their seats. The other panellists, by the way, were ex-politician Susan Kramer (defeated ex-MP), Piers Morgan (TV presenter, journalist), Sir Max Hastings (journalist) and John Redwood (MP for Wokingham)

The BBC has allowed this one programme, and one 'rejection' to take on a life of its' own, and to become more important than it really is. The BBC has made a fuss, and has allowed Mr Campbell to make a fuss too.

In short the BBC has allowed itself to become the news, instead of merely reporting the news.

It seems that the BBC, and Mr Campbell, were unhappy to have such an experienced serving politician as John Redwood on their panel because they had wanted somebody much more important - and they have been petulant, and Mr Campbell has been petulant too, even though it wasn't his show, they weren't his invitations.

Alistair Campbell - who has his own blog, just the same sort of self-opinionated thing as Mrs R and loads of other non-MPs, knows he's very important because his partner is Fiona Miller, who was Cherie Blair's advisor, and because he was as the BBC says "the most famous press secretary the UK has ever seen" - ended the show by holding up a picture of the politician he had wanted to confront. So was it his show, or was it the BBC's show?

So, after all this, would Mrs Rigby ever hope to be invited to appear on that, or indeed any other show produced by that particular broadcaster?

No, she wouldn't. Not ever, because she's wonder why she had been invited. She'd wonder what the agenda was.

You see, the BBC is meant to be the British Broadcasting Corporation and it isn't meant to be self-serving. It is funded by compulsory license fees and also receives state funding, from taxation. The BBC is meant to be politically neutral, and it is meant to be balanced in its output, and its' political shows are meant to help keep the public abreast of developments and controversies.

The BBC justifies its actions in a news article, which says

David Dimbleby said he would have "expected" to have had a government minister on the panel in the week that it unveiled its legislative agenda for the year ahead in the Queen's Speech.

Precisely!

And, you know, so would Mrs Rigby. And Mrs Rigby would also have "expected" to see other politicians on the panel alongside that government minister.

But the BBC, in it's wisdom, and to balance the words of that now vilified cabinet minister, put together a panel that did not include an opposition MP, not even a junior one, did not include a Scottish or Welsh MP. Did they ask Mr Salmond to be on their show? They don't say - and that silence says quite a lot.

The BBC put together a panel of journalists and ex-journalists, and they did it because they could.

[David Dimbleby] said it was up to "us on Question Time to decide who should be on the programme ..."

Quite!

And the BBC did decide, and sent out invitations, and at least one of their invitations was refused.

What were their contingency plans? Did they want the programme to be a serious political discussion, or did they merely want a government minister to be dissected by journalists?

A good host is a gracious host and learns to accept rejection.

When somebody is cornered, when they know they have made the wrong decision there are two things they can do. One is to concede gracefully and admit there was a mistake, the other is to turn on the offensive and make it appear to be somebody else's fault.

Mrs Rigby thinks the BBC was wrong, very wrong, to put together such a panel in such an important week. The BBC's choice of panellists belittled the importance of the new government, belittled the importance of their policies and opinions - because the BBC only thought it was worth getting journalists and ex-MPs to discuss matters of crucial interest to Britain and Britain's future.

The BBC should be asking itself why it hadn't invited either of the Milibands, either of the Balls/Cooper family. The BBC should question why Harriet Harman wasn't on the panel, or Mr Straw, or Mr Prescott, or Mr Blunkett - or even the Mr Brown, ex-Prime Minister.

The BBC should also consider whether they truly believe a journalist, any journalist, is of equal value and importance as any democratically elected politician.

It it time, Mrs Rigby thinks, for the BBC to take a long hard look at itself and for some of its highly paid journalists to investigate their own egos.

....

Pathetic!

more than 1,000 had made formal complaints to the [BBC], angry at the interruption to their television schedule on Tuesday night.

What's the betting that all, or almost all, of these complainants had demanded, and used, a convenient postal vote?

One viewer said: ‘I don't feel that there is any point showing a election broadcast, which is just showing Gordon Brown going to Buckingham Palace.

'If I or any one else wants to see this, theres the BBC News Channel, or online. This has ruined my television pleasure today when I just wanted to watch EastEnders.’

*shakes head*

But, maybe a lot of people couldn't be bothered to try to watch something else, didn't think about channel hopping to find something more 'interesting' than the election broadcast, because

The BBC News Special pulled in a peak audience of 11.5 million on BBC1.

....

Valentine's Day television.

Valentine's Day 2010 on the television (quoting Radio Times) -

10:15pm - 11:15pm
ITV
"Tony Blair was interviewed by Fern Britton, erstwhile giggling matron of This Morning, and that turned out to be explosive. So perhaps we can expect similar fireworks here as Prime Minister Gordon Brown gives his first big election-on-the-way interview to chortling Piers Morgan, a man more noted for asking pneumatic celebs about their boob jobs. What will they talk about, considering Brown has never had breast implants? The Chilcot Inquiry? What he thinks about Katie and Peter's marriage split? It's quite a coup for Morgan, someone who has never knowingly picked up a name without dropping it. (His diaries are packed with gleeful details of his cosy relationship with the Blairs: 22 lunches, six dinners, six interviews, 24 one-to-ones over tea and biscuits.) He says, "I have known Gordon Brown for 15 years... I have been trying to secure a Life Stories interview with [him] since the series was first devised, because he is an absolutely perfect subject for the show."

Radio Times reviewer - Alison Graham 

There have been so many 'leaks' about the content of this programme that many people won't bother because they think they've already seen, and read about, the 'juicy bits'.

It's doubtful that this programme, and indeed others in the same series, will have been unrehearsed. The questions will have been carefully chosen, the responses carefully worded for maximum impact on both the studio audience and television viewers - with the cameras helping out too, to prove and demonstrate empathy.

All television interviews are designed to do something - that 'something' will have been decided in advance, so if this is indeed an "election-on-the-way interview" then everybody involved will have been tasked with showing the interviewee in the best possible light - both visually and emotionally.

They will, no doubt, have been asked to help portray Mr Brown as a nice man, the message might  be, "Vote for me because I'm a nice person who has had tough times, and I'm much nicer than any of the others".

Then there will be the advertising breaks, perhaps these too will be 'on task', in the same way as teachers are advised to intersperse their "talk" with practical activities or diversions that reinforce "the message" of a particular lesson. Perhaps some of those government-sponsored , taxpayer-funded, global warming 'adverts', or something about drinking too much, or even something by a children's charity would help a bit.

All that effort, and all that planning, to make a programme that will be aired on the evening of St. Valentine's Day, when those not engaged in typical 'Valentine' activity might prefer something more to do with relationships - Jeremy Kyle for instance.

Ooh, now there's a thought!

....

Tower Block of Commons.

Tower Block of Commons :-

In this new four-part series the MPs leave Westminster and their comfortable homes to live for eight days and nights in tower blocks on different council estates in some of Britain's most deprived neighbourhoods. They will be living alongside and meeting a wide range of residents on the estates and coming face-to-face with issues that affect their lives: including gangs, immigration, drug addiction, poverty, crime, housing and unemployment.

The group of MPs in the first programme, which covered their first 48 hours on the estate, were Austin Mitchell (Lab) (in Hull), Ian Duncan Smith (Tory), Mark Oaten (Lib Dem) (in Dagenham) and Tim Loughton (Tory) (in Birmingham).

Ian Duncan Smith had to pull out because his wife needed some urgent medical treatment - please let her recover - so the first programme only looked at the experiences of three MPs.

They were meant to lodge with residents, but Austin Mitchell declined - and also brought his wife and his car along, she also took responsibility of sorting out their flat.

Each of the MPs was meant to hand over their personal goodies - cash, mobile phones, credit cards and so on, and they did - except Austin Mitchell and his wife who were filmed surrounded by newspapers and using a laptop.

The MPs were expected to wear clothes provided by their hosts, which was a bit of a culture shock, but they went along with it if only because they were advised that suits would lead to unpleasantness - but Austin Mitchell declined, because he'd already bought himself a leather jacket, and Tim Loughton decided to keep his deck shoes - he even checked with a newsagent that they looked okay.

To be honest, Austin Mitchell came across as a bit of a coward - unable to live without his creature comforts and his wife for eight days and even unwilling to visit the local eateries. Imagine what he'd be like on a camping holiday or in the military.

One thing that was particularly striking was that the young people in the programme knew virtually nothing about Parliament, had never seen pictures of Big Ben and they had no idea who their MP was - and these people have been through an education system that uses the National Curriculum which includes "Citizenship". KS3 Citizenship is outlined as follows :-

Education for citizenship equips young people with the knowledge, skills and understanding to play an effective role in public life. Citizenship encourages them to take an interest in topical and controversial issues and to engage in discussion and debate. Pupils learn about their rights, responsibilities, duties and freedoms and about laws, justice and democracy. They learn to take part in decision-making and different forms of action. They play an active role in the life of their schools, neighbourhoods, communities and wider society as active and global citizens.

The C4 website carries both testimonials and interviews from Mark Oaten and Tim Loughton. They are remarkably honest. Let's look at what Tim Loughton says

it was an exercise in showing communities which are clearly fairly disenfranchised and disengaged from politicians and the political process, to show them that actually, you can use MPs and other elected representatives to try and bring about change in your community. MPs are for everybody, and this is what the programme is partly about.

and, quite damningly for the current MP

It was Clare Short's seat, although nobody actually knew who their MP was. If that was my constituency, I would have been very, very worried about that. She's been the MP there for 26 years.

And now for Mark Oaten

I went along with the BNP when they were canvassing in one episode, to get a sense of what people were saying to them. It was very seductive. The BNP guys were basically saying 'You must be fed up with your house, you must be fed up with these living conditions. Do you understand if there were less people we could build houses, we could move you out of here. Why don't you vote BNP?'

And what I discovered, really, was that people were not racist, they were voting for the BNP because they were fed up with the other parties, and were desperate to get out of the tower blocks. They were looking for anybody that would say anything which might give them a glimmer of hope.

and

It has changed me as a MP. I feel less powerful and have less answers in many ways – it is a experience I would definitely recommend to other MPs – it helps to get you beyond the 20 minute surgery appointment and means a rural MP can understand an urban area better. Perhaps all MPs should swap seats every now and then to get an idea of the different issues facing different communities.

It will be interesting to see what Austin Mitchell has to say, because so far there is nothing from him on the C4 site, perhaps he has been too busy to comment or be interviewed, There is however his profile. There is nothing, yet, from Nadine Dorries either, possibly because her involvement has not yet been broadcast.

Let's hope that other MPs, of all parties, take the time to watch this series or at least discuss it with those who have taken part - because each and every one of them, new or old, needs to take off their rose-tinted specs and see the country, and 'society', they have created in the last 13 years. They also need to understand that it isn't just those who live in inner city tower blocks who are unhappy, disenchanted and feel as if they are disenfranchised.

As an aside ...

It's interesting, don't you think, in Harriet Harman's equal-opportunity, diverse, equal-voice, quota-driven, times that of the 646 who work at Westminster - of whom 349 are Labour, 193 are Conservative and 63 are Liberal Democrats - giving a ratio of approx 5.5 : 3.1 : 1  and of those 646 there were 15 MPs elected at the 2005 general election from an ethnic minority - the programme makers chose 1 Labour MP, 2 Tory MPs, and 1 Lib Dem MP as a  fair cross section of our Parliamentary representatives.
.

Reasonable and essential expenses.

Mrs Rigby wants MPs to show exactly what they've successfully claimed, and been given, by the fees office. She wants them to do it voluntarily, and to do it soon.

Mrs R doesn't want to see "redacted" lists, she wants to see exactly where her and Mr Rigby's money is, and has been, going.

You see, Mrs R got a bit annoyed after she followed Iain Dale's link and listened to Lembit Opik on the radio. She's sorry to single him out and write his name here for all to see, but in amongst all the news items about expenses this one struck a chord. He spent, and claimed, £700 for a television for his "second home". He'd tried to claim £2,500 for a presumably bigger and better one. The higher claim was rejected, so he bought it anyway - out of his own pocket - and put that television in his "main" home. That means he spent £3,200 on a pair of televisions, and got £700 back. Mrs R will concentrate on this £700 which was paid out by the fees office.

Using Jacqui Smith's "Court of Public Opinion", Mrs Rigby rules that this cost is unreasonable. There are two reasons she can think of right now.

1) Mrs Rigby knows that somebody earning minimum wage (£5.73 an hour) would have to work more than three 40-hour weeks to take home more than £700. (On National Minimum Wage somebody who works for 40 hours a week, excluding meal breaks, earns £11,918.40 - before national insurance and income tax deductions.) She wants to know why their taxes should buy an well-paid public servant's spare television.

2) Mr and Mrs Rigby can't afford to spend £700 on a single television for their only home. She's a bit irritated that any MP thinks it's okay to take the Rigby family's taxes and spend them so indiscriminately on themselves. She thinks a cheap television from a supermarket or electrical chain store is just as good for watching the news - if watching the news is why a television is "essential".

Mrs Rigby doesn't think expensive televisions are any more "reasonable", or essential, for an MP to do their job than cutting their grass.