Donal Blaney’s transatlantic Conservatism cannot be stressed too highly: this is the man who believes the US’ approach to healthcare is superior to the NHS. He is an unswerving supporter of Second Amendment rights. And his devotion to his own particular cause extended to his UK house sharing a name with that of Rupert Murdoch’s yacht.
During the interview, Blaney blamed the Conservative Party, Mark Clarke, the Guardian, and the BBC, which, for someone who is coming under pressure, and still believes that Fox News Channel is fair and balanced, is entirely understandable. But firstly, the role of Iain Dale cannot be allowed to fall from view.
Sneering denunciation and adherence to Olbermann's Dictum come together
Those who think I am being unduly harsh on the YBF founder might usefully consider what happened when the Guardian published a less than totally flattering portrayal of the YBF back in 2010. Then, we saw the sneering bully-boy Tweeting “RT @TimMontgomerie: Guardian faces commercial ruin if the Tories win ... Looks like @Robert_Booth'll be out on his ear", accompanied by “Nice touch 4 Grauniad to run weak hatchet job on the day my wife is taken into A&E by ambulance: classy work by @Robert_Booth #GuardianFail”. Robert Booth is still in post.
Bashing the Beeb - a Blaney staple
This dichotomy was on view during Dale’s interview: the portrayal of the YBF as a “Conservative Madrasa”, which Blaney has in the past been more than happy to talk up, was attributed in the retelling to David Davis, and its link to Blaney blamed on the Guardian. The YBF, he pleaded, was not a cult.
OH WHAT A GIVEAWAY
Thus Blaney did not address the question that Dale might have usefully put to him, that of entryism and infiltration. The YBF’s founder conceded that he was running Conservative Way Forward - Zelo Street regulars will recall that Elliott Johnson received his CWF redundancy letter from Griffin Law, Blaney’s legal practice - and did not have to explain how Conservative Future, the Tories’ youth wing, had recently been taken over by a top team who have been described as a “RoadTrip slate”.
Guardian bashing - another Blaney staple
This was most convenient to Blaney, who could also avoid having to explain how Mark Clarke had been behind the ousting of Sarah-Jane Sewell from CF in summer 2014 - thus demonstrating some less than savoury and principled behaviour - but still appeared front and centre at the YBF’s annual gathering the following December.
The conclusion could all too easily be drawn that Blaney did not have a problem with the summer 2014 ructions in CF, which also claimed former chair Oliver Cooper, whose fall from grace was so sudden - he had, after all, been in receipt of the YBF’s Dolphin Award only the previous year.
And NHS bashing too
Nor did Blaney have to explain why he had attended a barbecue at Mark Clarke’s house as recently as July this year. But he was given the opportunity to reveal that the 12th YBF annual gathering, which was to be held in Cambridge this weekend, was being “postponed” - for which read “cancelled” - and that this was the fault of the dastardly BBC.
An old friendship ...
Blaney claimed that Newsnight journalists had called two young female activists “on spec”, as he put it, to ask them about their experiences at the hands of Mark Clarke. The word “rape” was liberally bandied around by the YBF head man. Dale felt compelled to point out to his audience that there was nobody from the BBC there to answer the claims.
... that still endures
But the revelation that will leave some of Donal Blaney’s friends less than totally enamoured of him was his claim that Elliott Johnson had an interview with “Guido Fawkes”, which, it has to be assumed, means Paul Staines, and probably his new gofer Alex Wickham, as well, possibly, as his former sidekick Harry Cole.
All that was left, after all the deflection and hand-wringing, was for Blaney to dump on the Tory Party for what he called its “shambolic” response to the bullying scandal. He contrasted this with his claims of heroic resistance to Mark Clarke by himself and his pal Paul Abbott, without whose contribution, he asserted, Clarke would be enjoying cocktails at Chequers with the Prime Minister.
I should probably resist the temptation to comment on this, but here goes...
1. I have never hidden the fact that I know Donal. But I know in my own mind that this fact did not influence the interview at all. That's because I am a professional. I interview people I know virtually every day of the week. As does Andrew Neil. As does Jeremy Vine. As does Nick Ferrari. If I declared an interested every time I interviewed someone I knew I think it would be completely counterproductive.
2. I am not generally a shouty interviewer, and this therefore leads some to believe that I have therefore given a soft interview. Sometimes if you actually allow people time, they say things they might not otherwise say if their defences are immediately up.
3. The interview was supposed to last 12 mins. In the end it lasted 15. Of course everyone will have a view as to what could/should have been asked. My producer (who is not on the right) and I spent some time preparing what I would ask and I believe we got it right.
4. You write "Nor did Blaney have to explain why he had attended a barbecue at Mark Clarke’s house as recently as July this year." You can't seriously allege that I didn't quiz him on his relationship with Mark Clarke?
5. There is no area of substance that I didn't question him on. When conducting an interview like this, the interviewer has to remember his audience - and yes, there were questions of detail, which given more time I could have gone into, but for a Drivetime LBC audience I think I delivered an interview which achieved what it set out to. And had I never met Donal Blaney before I absolutely believe I would have asked him the same questions.
Given wars, mass murders, attacks on vulnerable home communities and attempts to inflict total media control by both ends of that cult......Don't you think "fascism" would be a more apt description?
Nor do I make the suggestion lightly. You need only look at the disturbing rise of the FN in France. And of course at that total arsewipe crackpot Donald Trump.
Thanks Iain, always happy for you to put your case.
"Counterproductive" to what? Your credibility?......Too right it would be. People have a right to know.
Your response only highlights just why mainstream media is held in such contempt by the public. There's never enough time or there's something you "didn't know" at the time or even that the respondent deceived or misled you. There's always some whining excuse.
Quoting the ex-Murdochite thuggish far right Neil only makes it worse. That fellow wouldn't be out of place working as a "guard" for G4S.
Nobody expects you to be "shouty" like the loony old tory Paxman. All we want is the truth. And you and people like you don't give it to us. But given your "connections," few of us really expect you to.
It takes all of thirty seconds to say you know somebody or have some sort of relationship.
Frankly, I wouldn't trust people like you to flick a switch, let alone broadcast to the world. There's nothing personal in it - it's your type I don't like and don't trust.
Who's style is this.....
Go to a club, snap an elite and sell it to The Sun?
Did the photo exist or was it a bluff based on knowledge or hearsay?
Either way, it is pretty cruel. No doubt they will keep saying its public interest.
Nice of Iain Dale to pop up and attempt to defend his "interview" - but not disclosing his relationship with the interviewee to his audience at that time is utterly indefensible.
Dale calls his behaviour of this matter "professional" - anyone with half a brain would call this sleazy.
As Paxo said, tripe.
Post a Comment