Kuenssberg interview with Johnson cancelled.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Full inquiry needed here I feel. who sanctioned it in the first place, why, why was it scheduled for prime time etc, etc. Perhaps an inquiry could be extended to cover political coverage at election. Why were pundits saying there was all to play for and now giving the impression that there’s an election looming

[Nearly Sane]

So you want an inquiry into why some political pundits say some things? How would that work?

[ProfessorDavey]

Full inquiry needed here I feel. who sanctioned it in the first place,

Who sanctioned what?

why, why was it scheduled for prime time etc, etc.

Was it - evidence please. I think prime time is 8-10 on BBC1 - I'd be very surprised if a political interview (except during an election) was scheduled for that.

Perhaps an inquiry could be extended to cover political coverage at election. Why were pundits saying there was all to play for and now giving the impression that there’s an election looming

What are you on about - is that supposed to make any kind of sense Vlad?

[jeremyp]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/03/bbc-cancels-boris-johnson-interview-laura-kuenssberg-briefing-notes

It was a screw up by Kuenssberg.

I'm not clear why the BBC shouldn't interview Johnson. After all, he's a recent prime minister.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/03/bbc-cancels-boris-johnson-interview-laura-kuenssberg-briefing-notes

It was a screw up by Kuenssberg.

I'm not clear why the BBC shouldn't interview Johnson. After all, he's a recent prime minister.

Exactly - it seems perfectly reasonable for the BBC to interview a former PM. I know this is linked to the publication of his memoirs, but that is often trigger for a whole round of interviews and if that is reasonable for person X, why not for person Y even if person Y is a former PM.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/03/bbc-cancels-boris-johnson-interview-laura-kuenssberg-briefing-notes

It was a screw up by Kuenssberg.

I'm not clear why the BBC shouldn't interview Johnson. After all, he's a recent prime minister.

There is no reason why they shouldn't.
The questions here are why the audience for Eastenders are targeted? When has such a choice timing been given over to a prime minister? Why it coincides with Johnson's book?Why Keunnsberg given the controversial relationship? And why not for the One Show?

[Nearly Sane]

There is no reason why they shouldn't.
The questions here are why the audience for Eastenders are targeted? When has such a choice timing been given over to a prime minister? Why it coincides with Johnson's book?Why Keunnsberg given the controversial relationship? And why not for the One Show?

  Her name is spelt Kuenssberg

[Nearly Sane]

...
Was it - evidence please. I think prime time is 8-10 on BBC1 - I'd be very surprised if a political interview (except during an election) was scheduled for that.
...

Scheduled for 7.30pm on BBC1 on Thursday - see jeremyp's Guardian link.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Her name is spelt Kuenssberg

Maybe they need to look into what happened to the second "n".

[ProfessorDavey]

Scheduled for 7.30pm on BBC1 on Thursday - see jeremyp's Guardian link.

Not any more!

So I was correct - it wasn't scheduled in the 8-10 slot I mentioned.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not any more!

So I was correct - it wasn't scheduled in the 8-10 slot I mentioned.

For your information Professor, Prime time is no longer considered to be the hours when What's my line or Call my Bluff are transmitted. But when something like Eastenders is on.

[ProfessorDavey]

For your information Professor, Prime time is no longer considered to be the hours when What's my line or Call my Bluff are transmitted. But when something like Eastenders is on.

Actually prime time has limited meaning anymore as people watch whenever they choose on catch up.

But I disagree - in my view prime time wont start until 8. Up to that point is early evening and that's one of the reasons some big shows are placed earlier (e.g. Eastenders) specifically to boost ratings at a time which otherwise would be a bit early for peak viewing.

Backed up by this:

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=content-type&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1370006457967&ssbinary=true

Peak viewing on live tv is 8-9 and when you add in catch up, 8-10.

[jeremyp]

There is no reason why they shouldn't.
The questions here are why the audience for Eastenders are targeted?

That seems rather snobbish. You think people who watch Eastenders are too stupid to be interested in an interview with a former prime minister?

Or that people who are interested in what Johnson has to say but do not watch Eastenders can't turn on the TV at a time they wouldn't normally?

When has such a choice timing been given over to a prime minister? Why it coincides with Johnson's book?Why Keunnsberg given the controversial relationship? And why not for the One Show?

I suspect the demographic for the One Show is quite similar to that for Eastenders.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That seems rather snobbish. You think people who watch Eastenders are too stupid to be interested in an interview with a former prime minister?

Or that people who are interested in what Johnson has to say but do not watch Eastenders can't turn on the TV at a time they wouldn't normally?

I suspect the demographic for the One Show is quite similar to that for Eastenders.

There must be a reason why they targeted Eastenders other wise why not have it within a news and current affairs programme?
If I was snobbish why would I suggest it being shown during the one show? And since that is an interview show it would be more appropriate than popping it in front of the large audience expecting Eastenders.
It stank and fortunately we have tonight's episode of Eastenders in which Boris Johnson accidently bumps into Laura Keunssberg in the QUEEN VIC and the start to discuss Boris new book

[jeremyp]

There must be a reason why they targeted Eastenders other wise why not have it within a news and current affairs programme?
If I was snobbish why would I suggest it being shown during the one show? And since that is an interview show it would be more appropriate than popping it in front of the large audience expecting Eastenders.
It stank and fortunately we have tonight's episode of Eastenders in which Boris Johnson accidently bumps into Laura Keunssberg in the QUEEN VIC and the start to discuss Boris new book

My thought would be that they wanted to devote more time than a slot in a news and current affairs programme.

It's all moot now, anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My thought would be that they wanted to devote more time than a slot in a news and current affairs programme.

It's all moot now, anyway.

Other offers to interview him have been made although even Johnson must recognise that his presence is not useful if one is pushing the notion that labour = sleaze.

[ProfessorDavey]

My thought would be that they wanted to devote more time than a slot in a news and current affairs programme.

It's all moot now, anyway.

Exactly - this was planned as a specific programme - a one off interview with an ex PM.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me and doing it in this way would have meant it more likely that the interview would be more probing and challenging than the kind of chat-show sofa interview that you get on the One Show.

I wouldn't have been surprised if Kuenssberg wanted her own 'gotcha' Emily Maitliss moment.

Anyhow not happening now and probably won't happen at all as Boris has been prewarned of the line of questioning which presumably would be similar for a different interviewer at some other time.

[Nearly Sane]

Other offers to interview him have been made although even Johnson must recognise that his presence is not useful if one is pushing the notion that labour = sleaze.

Why would he care? He's a dishonest corrupt grifter with no principles hoping to make as much money as possible out of his vacuous lies.

And since Starmer has been bought and sold for a few suits,  while Angela Rayner lies about her dancing, Labour is mired in sleaze no matter what the blonde thug does.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would he care? He's a dishonest corrupt grifter with no principles hoping to make as much money as possible out of his vacuous lies.

And since Starmer has been bought and sold for a few suits,  while Angela Rayner lies about her dancing, Labour is mired in sleaze no matter what the blonde thug does.

Naive imo. The aim is to equate Labour with sleaze rather than Conservatism with sleaze.
It is after all Keunssberg’s bread and butter to do so.
In terms of Johnson being a Grifter, That brings us round to her fee, their fee and his fee. Is he still being paid for the interview?

[Nearly Sane]

Naive imo. The aim is to equate Labour with sleaze rather than Conservatism with sleaze.
It is after all Keunssberg’s bread and butter to do so.
In terms of Johnson being a Grifter, That brings us round to her fee, their fee and his fee. Is he still being paid for the interview?

Labour have associated themselves with sleaze very ably. You seeking to excuse them is your bias showing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Labour have associated themselves with sleaze very ably. You seeking to excuse them is your bias showing.

No I welcome, the return of funds and freebies. Kier hasn't been hairshirt enough. However the press and tory reaction has been hypocritical since investigating this kind of affair was not a thing until Labour got into power and when the next tory government I expect what Starmer has done to become a non issue again.

It seems once again to be one law for the party of wealth and another for those chosen to represent the striving and the struggling.

[Aruntraveller]

No I welcome, the return of funds and freebies. Kier hasn't been hairshirt enough. However the press and tory reaction has been hypocritical since investigating this kind of affair was not a thing until Labour got into power and when the next tory government I expect what Starmer has done to become a non issue again.

It seems once again to be one law for the party of wealth and another for those chosen to represent the striving and the struggling.

Perception dear boy, perception.

Starmer has not been smart enough. He should have seen this coming before he even took office. To ask the rest of us to tighten our belts, tough decisions on spending etc, and abolish Fuel supplement for pensioners whilst he is getting freebies for Taylor Swift, free glasses, etc., stinks of hypocrisy.

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but he asked for it.  He has been incredibly naive/corrupt even if the scale is small compared to Jenrick's latest revelation.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/what-donations-robert-jenrick-received-383671/

I fully expected Labour to commit to a new code of conduct which would have got rid of all this nonsense. Instead, all politicians are now tarred with the same brush. "They're all the same" "feathering their own nests" "just out for themselves".

Starmers stupidity on this doesn't serve politicians well, and doesn't serve the public at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but he asked for it.  He has been incredibly naive/corrupt even if the scale is small compared to Jenrick's latest revelation.

He has certainly been naive and it certainly appears hypocritical when expecting (some) others to tighten their belts, but I'm not sure there is any corruption.

For there to be corruption surely there would need to be some kind of pay-back for the gifts and I'm not sure there is any evidence for that. Much of the money for gifts seems to have come from Lord Alli, but I've seen nothing to suggest that he is expecting some kind of pay back, beyond wanting to support the election of a Labour government. There have been plenty of 'big' donors to parties (all parties, not just Labour and Tories) who appear to want to fund the party to help it get elected because they believe in the mission of that party, with no obvious 'agenda' other than that. Examples include Ashcroft for the tories, Sainsbury for Labour and LibDems, Connery to the SNP etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perception dear boy, perception.

Starmer has not been smart enough. He should have seen this coming before he even took office. To ask the rest of us to tighten our belts, tough decisions on spending etc, and abolish Fuel supplement for pensioners whilst he is getting freebies for Taylor Swift, free glasses, etc., stinks of hypocrisy.

And yet giving money to people who can afford to winter in warmer climes cannot be right. I agree he has made himself look as thick as shit. What he didn't spot but I did was the hypocritical venting of 14 years pent up frustration from the public on a Labour government unlikely to be vindictive towards them as opposed to a tory government who always get back at whoever crosses them.
When the hard headed tories return it will be freebies as normal without a peep.

[Aruntraveller]

I agree the winter allowance is in need of an overhaul in the way it is applied. Personally, I don't need it. But some do, and ensuring those people do receive it is the problem. If memory serves me correctly that was one of the reasons it was made universal in the first place, because it was best to cover everyone and cheaper to administer.

As to the "hypocritical venting of pent up frustration", undoubtedly a part of it. But that just leads me back to the fact that Starmer as a politician should have seen that coming.