“Absolute Bollocks!”

That’s just about what I think too

Bob Ainsworth, Labour’s Armed Forces Minister has featured in this blog in the past (October 5th. 2007) at the time of Gordon Brown’s “spin mission” to Iraq, I wrote;

It was all the more gratifying to watch Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth firmly put on the spot by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight, when the former Deputy Leader of Coventry Council twisted and turned like a snake dropped on the glowing embers of a camp fire!

Ainsworth had difficulty with his words and temperament back then, just as he appears to be having similar difficulties with his parliamentary language now. There have been numerous comments over the past few years from politicians and serving officers about the equipment shortages faced by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but blundering Bob appears not to see things in the same way, and his “obscene” outburst has created a new parliamentary precedent. However, at least it was straight forward, direct, and conveyed his disbelief, unlike the language of obfuscation used to withering effect by Works and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain, who now finds himself up to the neck in mire over his non declaration of funds for his deputy leadership campaign.

Hain is coming under increasing attack again, particularly within the blogosphere, Guido Fawkes has numerous posts revealing sources of income and endorsements for products in exchange for cash (at least so it seems), and Iain Dale featured a rather witty cartoon two days back.

But it is the stance of the BBC that is getting up my nose this morning, having mostly consigned the Hain affair to it’s political page of the BBC News website over the past week, today they wade into the ring with a story on the main page about George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, and £487,000 of donations, reflecting a report in The Mail on Sunday. These donations have been fully and openly declared to the Electoral Commission and Osborne is awaiting a ruling from the Commons Standards committee (at his own request)  to decide whether the sums should have been declared in the Register of Members Interests.  So far, it seems, all open and above board, very much dissimilar to Hain’s money washing through the Public Policy forum!

So, just why did the BBC decide to rehash this Mail story and give it such prominence? Balance, public interest, or plain bias?

My thoughts on the matter are exactly the same as Bob Ainsworth’s, “absolute bollocks!”