Show Hide image

Alastair Stewart: BBC election 'catastrophically wrong'

ITV News presenter criticises the BBC's "lavish" election programme at a time of economic trouble.

Veteran ITV News presenter Alastair Stewart has hit out at the BBC's election night coverage, criticising the corporation for staging a lavish set-piece show at a time when the country faces economic austerity.

Stewart, who anchored ITV News' election night coverage for the first time and chaired one of the first ever leaders' debates, said the BBC "missed the story" and failed to learn from previous election night mistakes.

"I thought they got it catastrophically the sense that it was just the wrong time to approach a results programme with a blank cheque. I don't think people watching expected that..." Stewart told Press Gazette.

He added: "In that cacophony of expensive graphics and that army of stars they just didn't actually get the story right."

Stewart rounded on the BBC decision to hold an election night Thames boat party - later unflatteringly dubbed the Ship of Fools - where Andrew Neil, former Sunday Times editor and presenter of the BBC's This Week show, interviewed a gaggle of celebrities about the election.

"They didn't learn the mistake we made five years ago when we had the party on the London Eye, " Stewart said.

"Andrew Neil is a brilliant political journalist and what a waste to have him in that mix."

ITV's comparatively low budget election night budget, Stewart said, didn't prevent it from using its network of "stringers" to more efficiently and quickly deliver news of which MPs won which seats.

Stewart was also upbeat about ITV's coverage of the first ever live leaders' debate in the run-up to the election where the primetime ITV1 show peaked at 9.9 million viewers.

"From a ratings perspective it was a loss leader, in the context of public service broadcasting and our brand it was perfection," he said.

The series of three leaders' debates - broadcast on ITV, Sky and the BBC on consecutive Thursdays up to the election on 6 May - came about after months of behind-the-scenes negotiations between the major political parties and the broadcasters.

The process was brought to a head in September when the head of Sky News, John Ryley, threatened to proceed even if participants from all the leading parties had not signed up.

"One of myths doing the rounds is that John Ryley and Sky single-handedly brought this off," Stewart said.

"Historically the truth is that BBC, ITV and Sky have for a very long time been gently lobbying to get leader's debates."

Stewart called Ryley's threat to "empty chair" anyone didn't want to participate in the debates a "misjudgement".

"The way to negotiate enormously delicate political matters is with the subtlety that Sue English at the BBC and Mike Jeremy and Jonathan Munro at ITV brought to the debate.

"There was very nearly a wobbly moment...You don't achieve moments of political history by threats and truculence."

Dominic Ponsford and Oliver Luft both write for Press Gazette.

Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn has transformed Labour from resisting social movements to supporting them

The opposition's new leadership has brought about a historic shift in its relationship with social movements.

“Another world is possible,” declared John McDonnell last month in his first major speech as Labour’s new shadow chancellor. These four words show how Labour’s leadership views its relationship with activists and campaigners outside the Westminster system. The slogan is the motto of the World Social Forum, an annual alternative to the ultra-elite World Economic Forum, formed by social movements across the world to struggle against, and build alternatives to, neoliberalism.

How times change. In a speech given at the George Bush Senior Presidential Library in Texas, United States, in April 2002, Labour leader and British Prime Minister Tony Blair offered his support to the administrators of the global economy, not those demonstrating against them.

He said: “It's time we took on the anti-globalisation protestors who seek to disrupt the meetings international leaders have on these issues. What the poor world needs is not less globalisation but more. Their injustice is not globalisation but being excluded from it. Free enterprise is not their enemy; but their friend.”

In 2002, Labour’s leadership wanted to take on social movements. Now, it intends to engage with and support them. “The new kind of politics” of Labour’s new leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is about more than focusing on issues over personalities and (anti-) presentational changes.

It is also “a new politics which is based on returning the Labour party to its roots. And the roots of the Labour party was as a social movement, representing the vast majority of working people in this country,” as McDonnell, Corbyn’s closest political ally, explains to the New Statesman.

Campaigners outside of the Labour party are excited. John Hilary, executive director of War on Want, a campaigning anti-poverty NGO, tells the New Statesman, “there’s a really positive impulse to the Corbyn/McDonnell leadership reaching out” to social movements. For Hilary, the immediate policy changes on TTIP – the EU-US investor rights, regulation harmonisation and non-tariff barriers deal negotiated behind closed doors – and a Financial Transaction Tax have already sent “a message to a disenfranchised part of the electorate that Labour is back”.

But, for the campaigners outside of the Labour party, this moment is not without risks. Political parties have a long record of crushing the autonomy of social movements.

“It’s important they aren’t incorporated or have to work on the terms of the political system. It’s a matter of a respectful relationship,” explains Hilary Wainwright, a political activist and founder and co-editor of Red Pepper magazine. Wainwright argues for “close engagement [between Labour and outside campaigners] that isn’t a bossy dominating one. One that seeks to collaborate, not govern”.

McDonnell agrees. “The most important thing,” he says, “is that all of the campaigns and social movements that are campaigning at the moment and those that will campaign in the future, need to maintain their autonomy from government and political parties. We respect that . . . Otherwise, we’ll undermine their vitality and their independence.”

To remain “strong, independent and radical” is “the most helpful” campaigners can be to Labour’s leadership, according to Hilary. Labour’s leadership “don’t look to us to make the sort of political compromises that they might have to do in order to hold a much broader spectrum of people together. What we can do best is hold that line as we believe it be right and support the Labour leadership in taking a line as close as possible to that”, he says.

The task for social movements and campaigners outside of the party is “to show how there will be popular support for radical and principled positions”, according to Hilary.

To win in 2020, Labour will “bring together a coalition of social movements that have changed the political climate in this country and, as a result of that, changed the electoral potential of the Labour Party as well”, says McDonnell. For Labour’s shadow chancellor, the people's views on issues are complex and fluid rather than static, making the job of politicians to bump up as close to them as possible.

Movements can help shift political common sense in Labour’s direction. Just as UK Uncut placed the issue of tax avoidance and tax justice firmly on the political map, so too can other campaigners shift the political terrain.

This movement-focused perspective may, in part, explain why the Corbyn campaign chose to transform itself last week into the Momentum movement, a grassroots network open to those without Labour membership cards. This approach stands in contrast to Blair’s leadership campaign that evolved into Progress, a New Labour pressure group and think tank made up of party members.

In order to allow movements the space to change the terms of the debate and for Labour to develop policy in conjunction with them, the party needs “to engage with movements on their own terms”, according to Wainwright. This means “the party leadership need to find out where people are struggling and where people are campaigning and specifically work with them”, she continues.

McDonnell says it will. He says Labour “want to work alongside them, give them a parliamentary voice, give them a voice in government but, more importantly, assist them in the work that they do within the wide community, both in meetings, demonstrations and on picket lines”.

This position is not one you would expect from McDonnell’s five more recent predecessors: Chris Leslie, Ed Balls, Alan Johnson, Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown. So, “this may seem like a unique moment if you’re looking just within the British context. But, if you look outside Britain it’s actually much more in touch with movements in many places in the world”, says Hilary.

He adds: “Political parties are going to have to have much more honest engagements between parliamentary politics and the social movement hinterland. For us, it just means that in a wonderful way, Britain is catching up with the rest of the world.”

McDonnell too sees this shift in how Labour engages with movements as “a historic change that modernises the Labour party”.

But, perhaps for Labour, this is a recurrence rather than a transformation. The party grew out of Britain’s biggest social movement: the unions. Labour’s new leadership’s openness to campaigners “modernises it by taking it back to being a social movement again”, says McDonnell.