Do we really care more about Prince Philip than Barack Obama?

A strange decision by the "establishment" BBC.

Regular readers of this blog know that I'm not the biggest of Barack Obama fans. But I do recognise that he is the world's biggest, most important and perhaps most interesting political figure.

Evidently, the bosses at the Beeb disagree. From the Metro:

The BBC has downgraded Prince Harry, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, meaning their deaths are no longer important enough to interrupt normal programmes.

Princess Anne, Princes Andrew and Edward and the Countess of Wessex have also been removed from the "death list" although their departures will still be treated as major breaking news events.

They are now in a category known as "other notables" that includes Muhammad Ali, Bob Dylan, Mikhail Gorbachev, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair and Nick Clegg.

The new protocol has been drawn up by a group of senior BBC executives, including deputy director general Mark Byford. The details, seen by the Mail on Sunday, have been sent to all senior BBC news staff, editors, producers and reporters.

Category 1 consists of the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles and Prince William and remains unchanged. If they die there will be the immediate interruption of BBC1, BBC2 and the BBC News Channel, with an official announcement normally via a Buckingham Palace statement.

I get the downgrading of Anne, Andrew and Edward -- would even the Queen notice if they dropped dead? But Obama? Brown? Would people really care more about the (inevitable) death of the boorish and ancient Philip than they would about the sudden and shocking death of the leader of the free world?

Is Obama equal in importance only to Nick Clegg?? And does the hypothetical death of Wills affect our lives more than the hypothetical death of the British Prime Minister?

Madness. Sheer madness. And another arrow in the quiver (to borrow a phrase from the man sitting behind me) for those of us who argue that the BBC has a conservative, establishment bias.

 

 

 

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.