First Tim Wilcox, now Adam Boulton

Following on from Tim Wilcox's offensive statement whilst interviewing a Parisian Jew following the Islamist terrorist attacks in Paris, yesterday we had a similar line of questioning from Sky's Adam Boulton.



Because it seems that in medialand hatred of Jews can always be blamed on the actions, perceived or otherwise, of Israel.

Would Adam Boulton ask a British iman if fear or hatred of Muslims was excusable because of the actions of ISIS or Al Quaeda? How about the policies of Saudi Arabia, Iran etc etc etc...?

The BBC's obsessive vilification of Israel disgusts me, is Sky going down the same road?

Adam Boulton fail

I think you mean Magna Carta, Adam.

Did Ed Balls lie on the BBC in 2011?

Judge for yourself, first an interview with Andrew Neil for the BBC's Daily Politics


And then with Adam Boulton on Sky

I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to the veracity of Ed Balls's line of argument but just look at Ed Balls' staring eyes in the last part of the Sky video; is Ed 'Blinky' Balls trying desperately not to blink?

Writing of Ed Balls's relationship with the truth reminded me of a piece I wrote in 2011. Here's a long extract that you might find interesting (where did I find the time to write such long pieces as recently as 2011?):

'... the documents published overnight in The Telegraph that Ed Balls was a prime mover in the Gordon Brown campaign to replace Tony Blair as Labour leader and Prime Minister are quite shocking. Shocking but not surprising as I think we all knew where Ed Balls' loyalties lay and what he and his fellow conspirators were up to. However there was never any solid proof and so Ed Balls could use 'plausible deniability' tactics; no longer!

The plot, codenamed Project Volvo, was launched as London was under attack from Islamic terrorists in the 7/7 attacks; great timing?

It is also being reported that Mr Brown ordered Mr Balls to take a 'brutal' approach to cleanse the Labour Party of Mr Blair's influence.

If this subject interests you and it should, then The Telegraph is a must read to today as it lays out for us what Ed Balls was up to and what his priorities were during some difficult days during the last Labour government.

This is the document index

Do read through the documents they are fascinating, here's some of what The Telegraph discovered:
Here The Telegraph report on who Ed Balls' co-conspirators were and there are some familiar names (my emphasis):

'Around him, Mr Brown formed his “small group” of six that would win him the job of prime minister. Other members included Ed Miliband, now Labour leader, and Douglas Alexander, the current shadow foreign secretary. The team was completed by Sue Nye, another long-term aide; Spencer Livermore, who became Mr Brown’s director of political strategy in No 10; and Ian Austin, a former spin doctor who became an MP in 2005.

In July 2005, each of the members of the “small group” was given responsibility for different parts of the campaign.

Ms Nye, who became Baroness Nye last year, was in charge of recruiting business leaders and managing the relationship with the Parliamentary Labour Party, alongside Mr Brown. Tom Watson, Dawn Primarolo and Ann Keen were seen as key supporters in the Commons, as was Nick Brown, who was later Chief Whip.

Mrs Keen, who lost her seat last year, was Mr Brown’s ministerial aide, while Miss Primarolo was a long-serving Treasury minister. Mr Watson was one of several junior ministers who were to resign in 2006, forcing Mr Blair to tell the country he would be gone within a year.

Several figures were considered for managing the business aspects of the coup. Shriti Vadera, a former UBS banker who became a minister in 2007, was a key Treasury aide with excellent City links.

Alan Parker, the founder and chairman of the Brunswick Group PR company, was named as an adviser on image issues.

An unexpected name is that of Louis Susman, whom Barack Obama appointed as US Ambassador to Britain in 2009. He is mentioned in relation to fund-raising, though it is not clear what role he ever played, if any, in the plot.

Mr Miliband was in charge of developing policy, with the MP Michael Wills, later justice minister, and the Brown adviser Neal Lawson. Wilf Stevenson, who also became a peer last year, led the Smith Institute, the think tank where Brownite theories and concepts were developed.

Stewart Wood, a senior adviser to Mr Brown and a fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, was also handed policy matters. He has also been ennobled. Eric Salama is another key figure. Mr Salama is the chief executive of Kantar, part of the global communications company WPP, and was considered for a senior policy role.
Mr Livermore handled Mr Brown’s image, to make him a plausible prime ministerial figure. MT Rainey, an advertising specialist, and the film director Anthony Minghella were also suggested.

American consultants Bob Shrum and Stan Greenberg were involved in polling on Mr Brown and Mr Blair’s strengths and weaknesses . Mr Austin was in charge of media strategy, dominated by the spin doctor Damian McBride.'

Here The Telegraph show the document showing Gordon Brown's demands for the transfer of power from Tony Blair to himself; nowhere is a democratic vote mentioned.

Here  The Telegraph show a presentation that includes this does list Gordon Brown’s 'weaknesses':

'Humourless, dour, moody, aggressive, unapproachable'

And that's from one of his supporters. It would be interesting why his supporters thought that someone 'moody, aggressive, unapproachable' would make a good Prime Minister. Maybe Ed Balls saw something of himself in the 'moody' and 'aggressive' descriptions?


Of course the release of this documents raises some very interesting questions for the Labour Party and for the wider British public. More of those questions in a moment, but it would be interesting to know how The Telegraph obtained these documents? I suppose one should ask whose interests are served by the release of these documents? It would be tempting to say the Conservatives but I think that their long-term interests are served by keeping the vile Ed Balls near the top of the Labour party. Ed Balls turns so many people off with his smirking, aggressive and repellent personality as showcased almost every time he is interviewed, even by a friendly BBC interviewer. Maybe the leak came from a disgruntled Blairite, maybe someone (or a supporter of someone) who has recently lost out to Ed Balls and/or another of Gordon Brown's inner circle (such as Ed Miliband). Now who might fit that description? 

Leaving that aside, the release of these documents leaves the Labour party having to face the facts that the people who plotted to depose their party leader (the man who won them three general elections) and the people who denied so plotting, are now at the very top of their party. What sort of loyalty can the likes of Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander expect now that their past actions have been so exposed? Also I wonder how other figures in the Labour party feel now that they know for certain that Ed Balls is a plotter, who might he plot against next?


Meanwhile one Telegraph commentator seems to have rowed back from describing Ed Miliband in rather derogatory terms. Toby Young's piece is entitled 'The Telegraph's scoop will cut short Ed Miliband's time as Labour leader' but its URL indicates that another earlier title may have been dropped - 'http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100091597/telegraphs-extraordinary-scoop-is-proof-that-ed-miliband-is-gordon-browns-bch' I presume that last word was 'bitch'...


The BBC could not really ignore this story but they are downplaying it. There is just one article that I can find on it and that is already just the number 5 story on the front page. The coverage is sparse and ignores some of the more explosive revelations.The story does not even feature in the BBC's top stories on the Radio 4 08:30 news bulletin, anyone would think they were trying to downplay the story; I wonder why?

I also like the whining comment at the end of The Guardian's piece about the leak investigation:

'The investigation will raise questions about whether the new government was involved in the leaking of the papers.'

Yes that's the real story!


One fact that seems to be garnering too little interest is that Ed Balls has now been proved to be a liar. Ed Balls has denied several times that there was a plot to overthrow Tony Blair, he has indeed previously insisted he had "never ever" been involved in attempts to undermine colleagues. take a read of this Guardian piece from July 2010 about Ed Balls' BBC interview:

'Ed Balls, a Labour leadership contender and a close ally of Gordon Brown, today rejected suggestions that he took part in an "insurgency" against Tony Blair and insisted the differences between the two men amounted only to "creative tensions".

In a fractious interview on the BBC, he dismissed as "total, absolute nonsense" any idea that he had been party to a coup against Blair in 2006, which led to him announcing his intention to quit the following year.

...

He said: "I was the chief economic adviser to the Treasury. I was never involved in an insurgency, I was very close to Gordon Brown but I also saw Tony Blair very regularly, but we had our disagreements."'

In the light of the recently released documents why should anyone trust a word Ed Balls says again?'

Did you spot some of the names in that article? Not just Ed 'Blinky' Balls but Ed 'Junior' Miliband, Douglas Alexander, and the ever delightful pair of Tom Watson & Damian McBride. It's odd how this Telegraph story disappeared so quickly from the media and how the BBC managed to minimise any coverage at the time. I just thought you might like to be reminded of the story...

The Labour line that noone won the election is really winding up Sky's Adam Boulton

Why are no Conservative shadow ministers as firm with BBC interviewers as even minor Labour ministers such as Ben Bradshw are with Adam Boulton?

Democracy? "... I will take no questions this evening.."

Those were Gordon Brown's words after he announced that he would be standing down as Labour leader and Prime Minister. Doesn't that sum up Gordon Brown's attitude to democracy? His Labour party are roundly defeated in a general election and yet rather than accept defeat he and, as Adam Boulton describes "a cabal", in Number 10 are deciding the future of the UK without reference to their political party or even the cabinet. Sky's Adam Boulton declares that:

'"There is a cabal in Number 10, basically playing politics with the country's future.

"There's been no open consultation about this measure.

"We haven't seen the Cabinet meet, we haven't seen the Parliamentary Labour Party be recalled to a meeting - in fact, no Labour party meeting is scheduled until Tuesday," he continued.'

This looks increasingly like a Labour/Lib Dem done-deal; respect for democracy comes a pretty poor second to lust for power amongst the current occupants of Number 10 - Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell.


Here's the video of Gordon Brown's announcement, Adam Boulton's much watch confrontation with Alastair Campbell follows it...


Here's the Adam Boulton/Alastair Campbell 'interview'...

The thought that Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson and Gordon Brown are going to keep their hands on power in this country revolts me. If they think the people will accept this coup they are wrong: rev up the Audi and pass me a mask.







Here's Alastair Campbell being interviewed by Adam Boulton on election night and may help to explain some of the animosity between these two figures, although most of it is because Alastair Campbell prefers the media to be somewhat more compliant to his every whim, like the BBC - Iraq invasion excepted...

Adam Boulton endears himself to Peter Mandelson, not!

Peter Mandelson does not like answering questions does he. I did like the heckle when Peter Mandelson says "Adam you're not standing for election either..." and a voice says "neither are you!". Note the way Peter Mandelson stares at the audience and Adam Boulton daring him to argue with 'the Prince of Evil' and seems very fond of democracy for a man who has had to retire from politics in disgrace twice and is now an unelected very senior minister. Do watch the way Peter Mandelson closes down Nick Robinson and controls Ed and Yvette. Ed Balls's junior Mandelson.Campbell impression is as irritating as ever and his staring eyes are quite frankly scary. Meanwhile Yvette Cooper just looks as though she will cry if anyone questions her too hard.

It seems that even the tame media, such as Nick Robinson, are now ready to turn on Peter Mandelson and his acolytes who have controlled the reporting of the Labour party's policies since 1995. Peter Mandelson's "Let's be clear" is as key a sign of coming dishonesty as Gordon Brown's "to be honest".


From the same conference came Andrew Neil's questioning of Ed Balls. Andrew Neil being one (if not the only) senior BBC journalist to have rumbled New Labour for what it is and to have been willing to question them hard over tha last 10 years or so.
Apologies for the Peter Mandelson 'choices' reprise at the beginning. More Ed Balls scary staring eyes and Peter Mandelson cutting off debate as well as Ed Balls being better able to answer a question on Peppa Pig than cuts.

Gordon Brown - a really pleasant chap

Just see that stare from 0:44 to 0:46, what a joy to live and work with he must be.

A nasty look from a nasty man leading a nasty political party

This clip follows the one I blogged here of the Adam Bouton Sky interview with Gordon Brown.

And this one shows a bit more of the Studio reaction from Kay Burley than my original post.


Isn't Gordon Brown an absolute charmer?

Two pieces of seriously unsurprising news

The Mail reports the unsurprising news that Sky News political editor Adam Boulton says Mr Blair has a near contemptuous view of his successor's ability to bounce back and that Mr Blair believes Mr Brown may find an excuse to 'duck out' of the Election - which must take place by next June - possibly on health grounds.

I have rarely been so surprised by a piece of political news. But then came this from the same article; apparently

"Mr Boulton says: 'By propping up Mr Brown, Lord Mandelson has delayed the Election - and quite possibly facilitated the ratification of the treaty. This will doubtless endear him to EU leaders, who in turn might look all the more favourably on choosing Mr Blair as their president.'"

I am flabbergasted.

So Adam Boulton's years of political nous tell us that Tony Blair thinks that Gordon Brown is a political coward and that Peter Mandelson is more loyal to the EU than the UK; gosh!

Scepticism that you wouldn't get from the BBC

Adam Boulton on Sky News last night showing a lot more independence of mind and bravery than any BBC interviewer that I have heard interview a Labour politician.

I have to admit that I normally watch the BBC news until I get too irritated by the bias and switch off or walk out. Last night I watched Sky News and was very impressed by Adam Boulton, channel 501 may be a regular watch from now on.



Thanks to Iain Dale for spotting this piece of video.

Jacqui Smith's U-Turn and the BBC (update)

Further to my previous post about our Home Secretary, her inconsistencies and the BBC's assistance in covering up the affair, I have discovered that the Adam Bouldton interview also included the the following exchange:

Adam Boulton: "I can’t imagine hospitals necessarily welcoming the idea of having lots of young thugs coming into the wards or indeed of victims’ families necessarily wanting to people."

Jacqui Smith: "This is why we are working with the Youth Justice Board already to put this in place."

And yet the BBC are happy to push the Government line that Jacqui Smith never suggested that people convicted of carrying a knife should be made to visit stab victims.

It's our licence fee paying for this pro-Labour media outlet. The BBC could not bear to have a Conservative government and so will do all they can to prevent one from being elected. The quantity of mud/shit thrown by the BBC at Conservative politicians and the amount of protection offered to this Labour government is only going to increase.

Jacqui Smith's U-turn and the BBC

Sky are reporting that:

"In an interview with Sky's Adam Boulton on Sunday Live, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said youngsters caught with knives would be forced to confront the possible consequences by bringing them face-to-face with blade victims in hospitals...

"One of those proposals is that people caught carrying knives should be taken to see people in hospital who have been stabbed, or to meet the families of victims, is that correct?" Adam asked.

"It is," replied Ms Smith....

But now, the Home Office said they would instead only be expected to meet doctors to be educated about the injuries caused by knives."

So on Sunday the Home Secretary agreed that her new policy would involve

"people caught carrying knives ... taken to see people in hospital who have been stabbed, or to meet the families of victims"

whilst today her department say that they would only be expected to meet doctors.

This is confusing enough, but it is even odder is that the whole story has all but disappeared from the BBC news web site. If you search around the BBC site you will still find this page from yesterday evening (last updated at 20:57) entitled "Shock tactics for knife carriers", which starts thus:

"Young people who carry knives will be made to visit hospitals where stabbing victims are treated, in a bid to shock them into changing their behaviour. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said seeing "gruesome" injuries would be a tougher deterrent than sending all knife carriers in England and Wales to jail."

and continues later:

"Ms Smith told the BBC: "I'm concerned particularly about the way in which those who are carrying knives and those who are the victims appear to be getting younger."

She said the hospital visits would "make people realise that there is nothing glamorous about carrying a knife, it doesn't help you to be more safe and you will end up in serious trouble.

"I just think that's a better way of making people face up to the consequences of action and making them more likely not to carry knives again in the future.... Earlier she told Sky News it was "tougher" than imprisonment to make people "face up to the sorts of implications of young people carrying knives on our streets"."

Now the BBC are reporting that

"The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has denied suggestions of a Government U-turn over knife crime. Ministers had indicated that they wanted some knife offenders to be forced to see stab victims in hospital A&E units, to see the consequences of their actions. But Jacqui Smith, responding to a question from shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve, told the Commons that instead the visits would involve talking to doctors about the dangers of knives.">

You can see the video on that page. Jacqui Smith ends her answer thus:

"We are not, and I have never said we are, proposing to bring young people into wards to see patients"

I am confused; did the exchange with Adam Boulton reported at the top of this article take place? The video on the aforementioned Sky News page would seem to confirm their news article. In fact she goes on to confirm it from about 2:18 of that piece of video, talking about how seeing the injuries caused by knives would be a tough punishment. Do also contrast her Sky interview facing the camera with her House of Commons answer reading from a prepared statement. Does the word shameless cover it? Maybe David Cameron could raise this story at PMQs on Wednesday along with Gordon Brown's answer re Vehicle Excise Duty on 4 June.

You might ask why the BBC have decided not to query Jacqui Smith's story today? I think we all know why...

I am not alone

I have blogged before that I believe that if Gordon Brown called an election for this year it would be an election to lose just like 1992 was. Oddly, I was just looking at Adam Boulton's writings and saw this comment from his report on the Conservative Party Conference "I even talked to one financially savvy Tory MP who suggested this was an election to lose, like 1992, because the economic outlook is so poor."

NotaSheep would like to reassure you that although he may well be "financially savvy", he is not a "Tory MP".

Poodle Marr's interview with Gordon Brown

I have already blogged about Adam Boulton's disparaging reaction to the BBC poodle in chief's interview with Gordon Brown and included a transcript of Adam Boulton's comments. Now I have found a partial transcript of the interview:

"MARR: Right Prime Minister, let's start with what I suppose is the bleeding obvious: Are you going to call a General Election?

BROWN: I'll not be calling an Election and let me explain why: I have a vision for change in Britain and I want to show people how in Government we are implementing it.

And over the summer months we have had to deal with crisis, we have had to deal with foot-andmouth, we have had terrorism, we have had floods, we have had financial crisis - and, yes, we could have had an Election on competence and I hope people will have understood that we have acted confidently.

But what I want to do is show people the vision we have for the future of this country, in housing, in health, in education.

And I want the chance in the next phase of my premiership to develop and show people the policies that will . . . are going to make a huge difference and show the change in the country itself.

MARR: Two weeks ago when the polls looked very good for Labour you were clearly thinking about the General Election and you were moving events forward and so on and now when the polls are not good for Labour you have changed your mind.

BROWN: Well I think we would win an Election now, sooner or later and I've no doubt about that, but . . .

MARR: The polls in the marginal constituencies tomorrow and in today's papers are going to show . . .

BROWN: Yeah but . . .

MARR: . . . six points ahead for the Tories in the key marginals, three points ahead across the country . . .

BROWN: The polls go up and down, I've got no doubt we'd win an Election. I would relish the chance, obviously, to scrutinise and examine and forensically show how the Conservatives' policies would bring economic disarray to this country.

But, you know, as Prime Minister you have got a power and you have got a responsibility. Your power is that you alone make a decision about Election.

The responsibility, however, is to listen to people and to exercise that power with responsibility. So yes, I think I had a responsibility to consider it, to listen to what people were saying, to listen to what the opposition parties were saying, to listen to what people in my own party wanting an Election were saying, to listen to the public, I believe the public, the priority was not an Election but . . .

BROWN: But having made the decision I made it for the reasons I am saying. I want the chance to show the country that we have a vision for the future of this country and yes I could have a mandate or want a mandate for competence; but I want a mandate to show the vision of the country that I have is being implemented and practised.

MARR: Two weeks ago, apart from being ahead in the polls, what was the case for a General Election?

MARR: But . . .

BROWN: You've got to consider what the people put to you, as I say you have got a power as Prime Minister and all Prime Ministers have that power but you cannot exercise that power without listening to people, without considering what they have to say.

MARR: But your advisers were suggesting you went.

BROWN: Erm, there were people saying that you should go, there were people saying you shouldn't go. But you know, I made the decision for a different reason.

The decision I have made is because I want to get on with the job of change in this country and I believe I have got to show people that we are implementing the changes in practice and I believe that what we are really talking about now in Britain is the rising aspirations of British people.

They have got to be met in housing and home ownership, they have got to be met in education, they have got to be met in the health service and I want the chance to develop and show that the policies that we are developing for this will make a real difference, will make a real change in this country."


Thanks to the Mail on Sunday for the transcript.

This is not a complete transcript buut if you want to here the whole interview then you watch it in two parts at the end of this posting.


Andrew Marr lets Gordon Brown repeat his claims about a £5billion black hole in the Conservative plans without challenging him at all. The claim last week was £3.5billion black hole but I suppose we all know that the real rate of inflation in Brown's Britain is rather high. Just remember that £5billion sounds a lot but is less than 1% of Government spending. I have worked around accountants for all of my working life and if an Financial Director of a large company couldn't make a 1% saving in costs without damaging the company he would be a very poor Financial Director; I suppose the only conclusion we can draw from this is that Gordon Brown is a very bad Financial Director of Great Britain PLC.

You can read earlier criticism of Andrew Marr's poodle interviewing here, this time Andrew Marr's interview with Gordon Brown after the aborted Brownite putsch against Tony Blair.

Adam Boulton on Gordon Brown's interview with Andrew Marr

This is a transcript of the Sky TV news interview with Adam Boulton following Andrew Marr's poodle type interview with Gordon Brown. I think it shows that Andrew Marr and Gordon Brown are both held in really high esteem by Sky News and Adam Boulton in particular.

"Adam, one of the key points of that [interview] seemed to be the way [Cameron] started it, talking about Gordon Brown 'cancelling' the election. Presumably that's a message the Conservatives want to get through?"

[Adam Boulton] "They do and to be fair to them, it's a point they can make with some justification. In the coming days people will talk about media hysteria and the media ramping up this election.

"Let's be in no doubt about it: The reason why we were on election standby was because very senior officials close to Gordon Brown, and indeed Cabinet Ministers, told all of us that they were preparing for a general election and, if the polls were good enough, that general election would be called.

"Gordon Brown had the opportunity - I myself said to him 'If you want to stop this speculation, just say that there's not going to be an election this year' - he refused to do so at the time of his conference.

"This has nothing to do with the media. The reason why everyone has been so excited about a general election is the governing party - the Labour Party - and senior members and officials of it, have said that is what we are doing. Therefore, one can only say, now that Gordon Brown has finally said that he's calling off a general election, that the reason is, as they said to us, that the polling data is not there.

"All the talk about running the country, spelling out the future and all that, is so many words."

[Question to AB from the studio about Brown not having an election this year or next]

"Well, it's certainly what the Prime Minister said in his interview with Andrew Marr...he agreed with that. Again, it's an extraordinary situation, isn't it, that we don't know, even although we know what the Prime Minister's done, we don't know precisely how he said it.

"He's not like David Cameron, stepping out of his front door and talking to the cameras live. He's done some sort of interview that's apparently going to be held overnight. So, again, from that sort of style, people might draw their own inferences on who is on the defensive and who's on the front foot at the moment.

"And of course, it's an oppportunity David Cameron probably dreamed of, to come out of his front door, with some credibility and to accuse the Prime Minister of [Adam Boulton reads off his notes] 'indecision, weakness, humiliating retreat, opportunism and spin'.

"I mean, this is the disaster that Team Brown have brought on themselves by their hubris of thinking that they can go for a general election and winning it, and then bottling it when they see the polls are not so good. I mean, it is, whatever else, it will call into question the judgement of Team Brown and also their sincerity when they talk about the national interest because of the political caclulation which they have clearly now been caught by the headlights."

[Question from the studio about whether there is a crisis in Team Brown, given the advice he has received from his young advisers]

"It's all very well calling them young advisors. Let's remember that they are Cabinet Ministers - Ministers of the Crown - people like Ed Balls and Ed Milliband and of course, Douglas Alexander. All of them occupy lofty offices of state so their age doesn't really matter. They are very senior figures, apparently."
...
"At one level, this has been a political storm in a tea cup because at the end of it, Gordon Brown still has a healthy majority - he can still govern for 2 years or more - Britain is much the same today as it was 24 hours ago BUT if you're talking about trust in government, trust in the judgement of the people who are at the very top, there's no doubting it, they've shot themselves in the foot."


Thanks to CWOblog for that transcript.