Monday Moan 23

Overblown sense of importance

The BBC makes headline news – on the BBC.  The BBC is ‘in crisis’ – according to the BBC.  The BBC ‘has not faced a greater challenge than this for, oh, at least 10 years’, according to the BBC.

I know the rest of the media has jumped on the various stories about the BBC – never being slow to hammer what is, for many of them, their chief rival.  So it is now, officially, a ‘really big story’.  We know this because the resignation of the Director General on Saturday evening, inconveniently after the main evening news programme had already been broadcast, was considered so important that a special News Report was slotted into the schedule to cover the event.

The UK media is not known either for its modesty about its own importance or for having a sense of proportion that relates in any way to the sense of proportion that might be accorded by the population at large.  But hang on a minute, please.  This frenzy of angst about the BBC stems from a couple of decisions made by the Newsnight programme – you know, the one that goes out at 10.30pm every evening, when its audience (apart from media and political people) consists of a man and his dog.  I wonder whether it was the man or his dog that complained?

The vast majority of the British public probably don’t care one way or the other what  Newsnight reports or does not report.  They certainly wouldn’t have thought the BBC was in crisis, at least until this was headline news on the BBC itself and then in the rest of the media.

Call me old-fashioned, but I much preferred it when the BBC concentrated on reporting the news rather than creating it.

Festival of Remembrance – what is it for?

The Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance in the Royal Albert Hall is a fixture in the annual calendar – always happens, always on BBC1, always the evening before Remembrance Sunday.  According to the Royal British Legion, the Festival commemorates and honours all those who have lost their lives in conflicts, and is both a moving and enjoyable evening.

Saturday’s Festival contained all the usual elements of marching bands, sombre presenter (Huw Edwards) and moving filmed clips of servicemen and others talking about their experiences.  It ended with what amounted to a short service of remembrance and the sight of thousands of poppies falling like snow from the ceiling of the Albert Hall onto the heads of the people below. The audience appeared to be mainly ex-servicemen and women and I am sure they found these elements to be very traditional and moving.

What I’m not sure about is whether they really thought that for the evening to be both moving and enjoyable they needed to be entertained by the likes of Rod Stewart, Amore, Laura Wright and The Overtones.  Obviously good publicity for that list of stars and wannabe stars, but what, in truth, did they add to the occasion?  Rod Stewart is one of many performers today who seem particularly reluctant to get out of the spotlight, despite advancing years making their inability to sing even more apparent than ever.  As for the rest, well let’s just say they are in a long, long line of ‘the most exciting new young stars’ who are thrust before us, shine brightly for a moment and then fizzle out like so many spent fireworks.  Fame, for most of them, will be fleeting.

 

Too close to call?

A big round of applause for the pundits the world over who bought into the expert view from American analysts that last week’s USA election was ‘too close to call’.

 

There was so much discussion about how Mitt Romney had closed the gap and the election was now on a knife edge that people actually believed it.  Only it wasn’t true – it wasn’t too close to call.  Obama won 332 electoral college votes against 206 for Romney.  In the popular vote (which itself counts for nothing) he won by 2.7%.  The 2012 results were closer than those in 2008, but given all the factors involved (see Moan 21) that is hardly surprising.

If this was ‘too close to call’ then maybe opinion polls shouldn’t be taken too seriously?  And maybe the pundits, the ‘experts’ who are wheeled out to give us the benefit of their experience and wisdom on such matters are all being paid just a little more attention and money than they merit?

 

Protecting families and businesses – or making political capital?

Rachel Reeves, the Labour Party’s Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has complained about the 3p per litre tax rise on fuel planned for January next year.  She says that with the UK economy "so fragile and prices still rising faster than wages", it would be "wrong to go ahead with another tax rise on families and businesses".

Amazingly, it seems that most people in the UK don’t want to pay more for fuel either – with a recent survey revealing that 85% of people had concerns about rising fuel prices.

 

OK, so let’s take stock:-

·        the automatic fuel tax rises which should apply in January were introduced by …….er, the Labour Party;

·       is anybody surprised that 85% of people have concerns about rising fuel prices?  I am.  I can’t believe it’s not 100% - but that demonstrates nothing more than that people don’t like tax or price rises;

·       will a 3p price rise really be a major issue?  Petrol prices have been up and down over the last couple of years, with 3p changes not uncommon in either direction.  So why would another change in January be any more damaging or noticeable?

Can’t help thinking that this is just another example of making political capital, no matter whether the issue merits it or not.  If the Labour Party was serious then surely it would be questioning the fact that over 60% of the cost of a litre of petrol or diesel goes to the Treasury – the highest figure in Europe.  Or is that one a little too tricky?