In denial
Two groups under siege met today.
Both the BBC and politicians have lost public trust. Twelve MPs and eight senior broadcasters discussed our shared fate.The meeting was under Chatham House rules and I cannot discuss the full details. What I can reveal is the general theme. We concentrated on the recent speech of BBC’s Mark Thompson on trust. The BBC was shocked by the attacks of them for fiddling votes on such weighty subjects as naming the Blue Peter cat. Trust that has been built up over 80 years was undermined.
The BBC has re-sensitised their staff on the need to reforge the precious trust between BBC and its viewers and listeners. The mistakes will not be repeated.
MPs have been bowled over by a more serious loss of trust because of the expenses scandals. The mood of MPs is different. There is deep anger and resentment at the universality of the accusations. Unlike the BBC, we as a group have not accepted that we are culpable.
We certainly are to blame for failing to put in reforms that would have avoided the excesses and greed of a small number of politicians. No protestaions from us will alter the public's perception of sleaze. A painful process of reform is essential. But first there must be an acceptance that the system of expenses is indefensible. That is not going to happen overnight.
Eloquent Absence
More by luck than judgement I avoided minor ignominy yesterday afternoon.
I had an oral question number 19 on fuel charges. A sensible judgement was that I had no chance of being called in the 45 minutes allocated. Usually questions get no further than number 12. Today only question 7 was reached. Yesterday, three previous questions were withdrawn and I was called. But three MPs who had questions 20, 21, 22 decided not to turn up.
They will have been horrified this morning to hear the following broadcast on Yesterday in Parliament. Mr. Speaker: I call Anne Moffat; I call Anne Snelgrove. Is Sally Keeble here? No—what I can do is to move on to Topical question.
Had the three errant absentees been present and asked sharp questions it is very unlikely that they would have been broadcast. Their absence is more newsworthy than their presence.
Laughter denied
All round good guy David Taylor asked a genuinely funny question yesterday. He was rewarded with appreciative guffaws. Hansard reports:
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): I see from the Annunciator that, following these questions, the Chancellor is to make a statement that will help us to deliver on our 1983 manifesto pledge on banking. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether it will be 25 years before we deliver on our 2005 manifesto commitment to a full programme of action to support disabled people in leading independent lives and to increase their inclusion in the economy and in society?
Later I discussed with him the likelihood of Hansard recording the fact that the House laughed. Sometimes they do but there seems to be no rational rules. This time the laughter was not noted for posterity.
David has had bad luck with his jokes. In his first speech, he was brave enough to joke that a foolish government act was rather like, ‘Leaving Imelda Marcos in charge of a shoe shop, then returning two years later and expecting the entire stock to be still intact.’
The joke was well-reported but attributed to another MP. Don’t despair David. Keep informing and entertaining us.
Recent Comments