The Archers: Poor Nigel

It's all been said now. The speculation, the tweetfest, and the dissection of the 60th anniversary episode of The Archers are over.

On the whole, I think David Aaronovitch of the Times had the best post-mortem (as it were). Elisabeth Mahoney of the Grauniad was also very good. The Telegraph and the Mail were just nasty.

A few reflections:

Before the episode I was unsettled by Vanessa Whitburn promising an episode that would "shake Ambridge to the core" (#SATTC). I don't like spoilers. I think they ultimately damage drama. On the other hand, they can bring in new or lapsed listeners.

During the episode I felt that we were being teased. A number of threats were dangled, none too subtly, including the banner, Helen's health, Elizabeth's heart condition, Tony's drive to the hospital, and the emergency Caesarean. This made it hard to suspend disbelief.

I took part in the tweeting, which was great fun, but again helped to undermine the suspension of disbelief. Unlike some people, my enjoyment comes from pretending it's real, not from critiquing the craft.

Credibility was also undermined by the crude run-up to the accident - the alcohol, Lizzie's warning, David's "man or mouse" jibe, the wind, the frost, the wind, the dark, and Nigel's final melodramatic speech on the roof. I love The Archers and this episode did it no credit I think.

However, Nigel's scream, from someone we've followed for many years and who has nearly always been extremely calm and cheerful was, for me, terrifying:



I was definitely shaken by Nigel's death, if not the build-up, and I can see how the slow-burn repercussions of this event will indeed shake Ambridge for years to come. Mahoney's conclusion in the Guardian is spot-on that the "real drama will unfold from now".

One last thought: Everyone seems to hate Helen Archer (even Qwerty of the excellent pauseliveaction); but I think she's the most gorgeously self-destructive character on The Archers. She unwittingly accrues and generates misery relentlessly, and her story of constantly thwarted epiphanies is top-notch tragedy. Now that Ed and Emma Grundy have lost their zing, it's tragic Helen, scheming Matt Crawford and the deliciously dysfunctional Aldridges who are providing the best stories. But I suspect Lizzie Pargetter maybe returning to centre-stage...

Doctor Who: The Mind Robber

The Doctor moves the Tardis outside ordinary time and space to avoid a lava flow (which looks unintentionally rather like an excess of soap bubbles). They land in a white void.

While the Doctor goes to another room in the Tardis to begin repairs, Jamie & Zoe see images of their homes on the viewscreen. They are lured outside the Tardis, which dramatically explodes. There then follows a series of surreal encounters with an array of characters from literature including Gulliver, the Medusa, a unicorn, Rapunzel, and some life-sized toy soldiers.


How was it?

There is more mystery in this story than the previous ones in this catch-up, and the nature of this particular plot means the cruddy sets and effects are not the drawback they have been previously. However it is rather off-putting that the expanse of nothingness looks pretty much like an empty television studio; and the supposedly scary white robots look like cardboard teletubbies. Nevertheless, the premise is ingenious, and there is lots of nicely judged humour to keep things going.


Audience reaction 2010

After the last story, I decided not to inflict this one on my 21st century companions. I suspect their reaction would have been impatience with the whimsy, sardonic comments on Zoe's sparkly catsuit, and a more emotionally and intellectually engaging plot. But I think they would not have complained about the music, dialogue, acting or sets as they did previously.


Idle questions

• How did the inhabitants of this realm get there?
• Was the destruction of the Tardis fictional?
• Victoria is gone, replaced by Zoe. How does the Doctor choose his companions? Are there any consequences to plucking companions out of history?
• We saw another room in the Tardis in this story. We now know that it has many rooms. How are they created?

For an alternative view...

• A collection of praise at PageFillers.com
• A balanced review by John Bensalhia at Shadowlocked.
• A nicely baffled account at themindrobber.co.uk

Next time on LW's DW catch-up...
The Second Doctor's final story: The War Games.

BBC journalist gets Cable the wrong way round

The BBC Radio 4 PM programme considers whether Business Secretary Vince Cable can survive telling undercover reporters he has "declared war" on Rupert Murdoch.

Chief Political Correspondent Norman Smith says NO, and gives his reasons.

Smith then does a bravura 180 degree turn when BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson reports the opposite.

Listen to the programme for 3 minutes from about the 32 minute mark.

Here's the transcript:

---

Eddie Mair: Well let’s talk more about Vince Cable. As promised, our Chief Political Correspondent Norman Smith joins me from Westminster. ... Do you think Vince Cable can survive?

Norman Smith: Bluntly, no. I think the likelihood is he will be forced to resign. And at the moment, as I understand it, he’s locked in talks with Nick Clegg and others, and I imagine that is precisely what they are discussing: his resignation.

Because it seems to me his position as Business Secretary is fatally compromised. You cannot have a position where the Business Secretary is engaged in some sort of political grudge match, political vendetta, against an independent commercial organisation.

Never mind the idea of adjudicating over the BSkyB deal, because if he were to continue in that role it seems to me absolutely certain Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers would be all over it. There would be a judicial review. And it would be completely untenable.

He has also, it seems to me, compromised his position in government, by failing to tell David Cameron and Nick Clegg about these remarks. And so they went through the charade, at the news conference this afternoon, of lauding his position.

And there must be questions too, I would imagine, about his personal judgment, in making such indiscreet remarks to two complete strangers.

Now, set against that you have to say that there would be huge reluctance to see him go, because he is such a crucial member of the Coalition: he’s the second most senior Liberal Democrat. He would be the second Liberal Democrat to be forced out, after David Laws. So it’s a balance: when you look at all the things against him, I would say the pressure is for him to go. If they decide they’re willing to take that hit, then they could keep him. But I imagine it would be very difficult to keep him.

Eddie Mair: (10 seconds later) ... We’re just hearing from your colleague Nick Robinson that he will not be resigning from the Cabinet, Vince Cable; although it is still unclear whether he would stand aside from taking that BSkyB responsibility.

Norman Smith: Well clearly the balance is moving in the direction that it would be too damaging to lose him. And that, you know, perhaps, is an indication of how crucial he is to Nick Clegg. Because if he went, that would deprive Nick Clegg of another seasoned and experienced Liberal Democrat figure to fight the Lib Dem corner in government. He would have to be replaced by another Liberal Democrat one supposes, and there aren't a vast number of heavyweight Liberal Democrats to put in that position. So I imagine the view is being taken that actually, for all the difficulties, for all the problems, for all the question marks surrounding him, potentially the price of losing him would be even greater.

Eddie Mair: Norman Smith at Westminster, thank you.

---

What's wrong with this?

Aside from Norman Smith's skill in finessing the situation, there are a number of things that concern me about this exchange:

1. Smith shouldn't have framed his response as representing his own personal judgment on Vince Cable's behaviour.

Smith puts forward as his own personal views that Cable's "position as Business Secretary is fatally compromised"; that Cable is "engaged in some sort of political grudge match [or] political vendetta"; that Cable adjudicating the BSkyB deal would be "completely untenable"; that Cable "compromised his position in government, by failing to tell David Cameron and Nick Clegg about these remarks"; that the news conference was a "charade"; and that Cable's surgery conversation was "indiscreet".

There were plenty of such views hurtling around Westminster and the blogosphere today. These views are what count, not Smith's. So framing his response as summarising these views rather than as giving his own opinion would not only give a better appearance of impartiality but also a better account of the political situation.

My guess is that Smith was busy trying to keep up with developments in a rapidly changing situation and had insufficient time to prepare what he was going to say on PM; and so in his haste he framed his response as his own opinion, using phrases such as "it seems to me" (a phrase used three times), "I think", "I imagine" and "I would imagine".

2. Smith should have provided proper balance.

The views he expresses are all arguable. There were plenty of alternative views going around Westminster and the blogosphere.

Yet the only balance Smith provides is in noting that Cable is a "crucial member of the Coalition". That's a reason why Cable should stay, despite all the arguments given as to why Cable should go. It does not offer a challenge to any of those arguments. Smith does not report any opinions that Cable's position was not "fatally compromised", that Cable's remarks were hyperbole rather than reflecting a vendetta, that Cable might continue as Business Secretary so long as he passed the BSkyB decision to another minister, and so on.

The balance Smith presents then is between "He should go" and "The Coalition doesn't really want him to go", rather between "Many are saying he should go because X, Y, Z" and "Some are saying X, Y and Z aren't as bad as all that."

Were such alternative opinions expressed to Smith? How widespread were they? Who knows? Well, that's what we have Chief Political Correspondents for.

To be fair, there is not much time available in such news programmes to offer real balance. And summarising a range of sophisticated views in 90 seconds is hard. But Smith's account would be far more nuanced and interesting if he had made an attempt.

3. Smith should have been smarter about predicting the future.

This is easy to say after the event, but at the time this looked like Smith was going out on a limb. In response to Mair's question "Do you think Vince Cable can survive?" Smith could have said something like "Some are saying it very likely that Cable will be forced to resign". But instead Smith gave his "blunt" opinion "No". The outcome then undermines Smith's credibility, and by extension the credibility of the PM programme.

Should Mair have asked the question? Some people don't like journalists engaging in speculation, and would disapprove of Smith suggesting that that meeting between Cable and Clegg was to discuss resignation. I don't have a problem with such speculations, so long as they are interesting and more often accurate than not. Questions about "what will happen next" - and the implications - are what many of us are discussing. They also make for a much sharper programme because they force us to test our understanding of the situation.

The problem here was not that Smith was wrong: lots of people were predicting that Cable would go imminently. But Smith should have realized that the outcome was far from clear cut and that we would know very soon. So he needed to have distanced himself somewhat from the prediction.

In conclusion...

I think it was worth looking at this episode in detail because it points to a number of traps that news programmes need to navigate.

Firstly, Norman Smith could have looked a twit for saying Vince Cable wouldn't survive and then having to backpedal furiously two minutes later; but (in my opinion) he just about gets away with it.

Secondly however, Smith should be reporting views from Westminster, along with providing some analysis. He shouldn't be framing his response as representing his own personal judgments. He should be providing critical balance. And he shouldn't be going out on a limb with tricky predictions in a rapidly changing situation.

One danger of these traps, in my view, is that after the event it could look as though, according to the journalist, Cable should have gone.

Update 28 May 2012

Photo © BBC

Norman Smith's impartiality has now been brought into question by the Government's Director of Communications, Craig Oliver. There are remarkable similarities with the incident I outline above. I have posted further analysis here.

I've also attempted in that new post to respond to an objection to my discussion above, raised by a commenter on Guido Fawkes' blog:

What do you mean by "providing balance". I just read the transcript you linked to. Smith was giving his opinion as a political commentator on what he though the outcome would be.

He indicated the kind of things he thought would be under consideration and said he thought he would have to resign. After stating that opinion he said

"Now, set against that you have to say that there would be huge reluctance to see him go,"

The news then came in that it was announced he would be staying in the cabinet. Smith then carried on taking into account the news that had just come in. The outcome was not as he had anticipated but it did not mean the factors he had related would not have been be under consideration.

Your headline here seems to be "BBC reporter is not infallible and can't predict the future".

Is this really the kind of "evidence" that gets you so heated about the BBC?

As I see it, infallibility, predicting the future, getting heated, etc. are irrelevant. The key point is that Smith sees balance as fair-minded judgement between alternatives rather than as fair reporting and analysis. A fuller response is in the new post.

The Big Society v Liberalism

(wild cheering)

In the BLUE corner... from the Home Counties of England... weighing in at... not-very-much... with no knock-outs but one win on points... and with a right hook that's pulling punches... the challenger... BIIIIIG SOCIETEEEEEEE!!!!!

(wilder cheering, thunderous applause)

And in the YELLLOW corner... needing no introduction... from quite-a-long-time-ago... slightly doddery, but still standing... the very disputed heavyweight champion of political philosophies... IIIIIIIT'S LIIIIIIBERALISM!!!!!

(polite clapping)

I'm not sure Nick Clegg did exactly say that "Big Society = Liberalism", as reported, but he has said in the past that "David Cameron’s eloquent description of what he calls the Big Society is what I would call the Liberal Society". So the report is not very far off.

So what to make of this upstart idea "Big Society"?

I would suggest that the question is not whether the Big Society idea captures all of liberalism (pace Cameron the would-be political philosopher, the answer to that is obviously no), but whether the Big Society idea is compatible with the aspects of (what is commonly understood to be) modern liberalism that are relevant to Big Society themes; or, more specifically, how the Big Society compares with the contemporary vision of the Liberal Society.

Mark Pack of Liberal Democrat Voice has compared Cameron’s vision of the Big Society and mainstream Liberal Democrat beliefs in community politics, and found "grounds for agreement, grounds for disagreement".

Pack highlights a common dislike for an overly bureaucratic, centralised, top-down state. Such a state is not only inefficient but disempowering.

There is a consequent shared demand for (1) decentralisation of power, particularly in relation to planning decisions and control of local assets; (2) an unbundling of public services, so that anyone can offer to provide them; and (3) volunteerism and philanthropy.

The areas of disagreement or tensions that Pack notes lie firstly in language, such as whether one is primarily talking about personal responsibility or the freedom of the individual; secondly, in the extent of the decentralisation, whether simply to local government or beyond that to neighbourhoods and communities; but perhaps most pertinently in relation to the fraught question of who should provide public services.

My view is that the key tensions here are less about freedoms, localism and diversity, in relation to which Cameron conservatives and Lib Dems share a huge amount in common; and more about democracy:

• Not so much "Who takes which planning decisions?" but "How should the decision-makers be held to account?"
  
• Not so much "Who controls which assets?" but "How are stakeholders in the assets involved in decisions about those assets?"
  
• Not so much "Who should provide which public services?" but "How should providers be held to account?"
  
• Not so much "How do we support volunteerism and philanthropy?" but "How is it decided what should be left to volunteerism and philanthropy to provide?"

It is telling that Cameron's speech makes no mention of democracy or of councils, of mutualism or stakeholders; or even of "decisions". The closest he gets to mentioning accountability is in relation to public service providers being "held to account with transparent information to enable people to make informed choices". I would suggest he means consumer choice rather than stakeholder choice or voter choice. He also draws attention to a form of market accountability in that if the business community (taken as a whole) is socially responsible the result will be economic stability, lower taxes and minimal regulation. These two mechanisms may be liberal but there's no sense of direct democratic accountability for actions.

In conclusion, this is not at all a boxing match between ideologies: it seems we are all pragmatists now. It's entirely possible I've misunderstood the Big Society idea. However, my worry is that this agenda of decentralisation, public service unbundling and third sector growth will be pushed without sufficient attention to the kinds of mechanisms that would provide the democratic checks-and-balances that a healthy democratic society needs.

Betrayal

Dec 9 is not about betrayal. It's about honest but slightly naive people trying to squeeze a better deal for students from the Tories.

Who came out well from the tuition fees vote?

• Not the Conservative Party, which somehow omitted the plans to treble tuition fees from its manifesto and singularly failed to make the financial or libertarian cases for the proposals.
  


• Nor the Labour Party, which first introduced up-front tuition fees, which introduced loans instead of grants, which broke its pledge not to introduce top-up fees, which gave the Browne Review such a limited remit that it was bound to recommend increased tuition fees, and which now has no policy about the funding of Higher Education.
  
  
• Not the NUS, which failed to lobby Conservative MPs effectively and failed to mobilise Middle England to its cause, thanks to its careerist Labour and confrontational Socialist Worker elements.
  
  
• Not the universities, which effectively lost their case (not that many attempted to make it) that government investment reaps substantive economic, social and cultural benefits.
  
  
• And, arguably most of all, not the Liberal Democrat party, which jeopardised the only currency a political party has - the trust of the voters - by failing to honour the pledge made by each and every Lib Dem MP to vote against any increase in fees.

Three Futures for the Liberal Democrats and Tuition Fees

There are of course more than three possible futures for the Liberal Democrats and their wretched pickle about tuition fees.

But here are three futures:


Future 1: "The best policy in the circumstances"

Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and several Liberal Democrat members of the Coalition Government vote in favour of the bill on tuition fees, having wrung a couple more concessions from the Conservatives, and having abstained on an artificially-created and largely symbolic Commons vote relating to the level of the cap. The rest of the ministers and a few backbench MPs abstain (as allowed by the Coalition Agreement). The majority of backbench MPs vote against. The bill goes through.

Some commentators and students eventually acknowledge the benefits of the policy over the current situation, and there is scepticism about the role of the NUS, but the failure to honour personal signed pledges overrides all. The whipping of MPs on a bill that goes against party policy enrages the party membership, but the Coalition continues, with the Liberal Democrat Party's credibility severely weakened. The AV referendum is lost in a petty anti-Clegg vote. Within the government, liberal values are crowded out by authoritarian influences.

Clegg is consequently ousted in 2012, but the 2015 general election ends in disaster with MPs in university constituencies wiped out, whether they kept their pledge or not, and despite the Liberal Democrats being the only party with a policy to abolish tuition fees. Under FPTP, Labour forms a majority government with 41% of the vote.


Future 2: "The price of stable government"

Pressure from the grassroots, backbenchers, and ministers in vulnerable seats leads to a collective decision to abstain on the bill. However nearly all backbench MPs vote against the bill, along with some ministers, who resign from the Coalition Government. The bill falls, leading to an immediate motion of No Confidence.

This fails, and crisis talks between David Cameron and Nick Clegg eventually result in an agreement to continue the Coalition Government, provided there are no more such rebellions. The AV referendum is won, and a liberal government makes good progress in relation to civil liberties, social justice and climate change. However Nick Clegg's standing within the party is severely damaged, resulting in a leadership challenge in 2012.

He survives, and in the 2015 General Election the Liberal Democrats are seen as the plucky terriers who stood up to the Tory rottweilers and won. Enough additional seats are won to form a LibLab Coalition.


Future 3: "For the good of the party..."

The grassroots get organised enough to threaten the deselection of MPs who fail to honour their pledges. This, combined with plunging opinion polls and a sense of duty to their voters, causes the parliamentary party to present Nick Clegg with the fact that they cannot in good conscience do other than vote against the bill. Clegg argues fiercely that a renegotiation of the Coalition Agreement is impossible, but an impasse is reached. Clegg resigns.

The interim leader, Simon Hughes, presents the party's view to the Prime Minister. David Cameron notes that it would be a breach of the Coalition Agreement for Liberal Democrat ministers to vote against the bill, and should any do so they must leave the Government. The party votes overwhelmingly against bill, with Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and a few ministers abstaining. The bill falls, and Cameron calls an immediate General Election.

The Liberal Democrats are portrayed in the campaign as weak, divided and lacking the maturity to govern. Since the AV Referendum has not been held, the FPTP system applies, and the Conservatives form a majority government with 38% of the votes.

Warning: I am notoriously unreliable when it comes to predictions. Nevertheless, I love making them, because they help test the strength of my understanding of current political circumstances and of the variability of the factors affecting the future. This does have the consequence that I'm wrong a lot of the time! And certainly less to be relied upon than analysts who make few predictions, or vaguer ones.

At this moment in time my gut reaction is that the three futures described above are in descending order of likelihood. But I'm interested in hearing about alternative futures.