Holding Aloft Our Shining Trident – 4

The rumour I discussed recently has now become fact: the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, has confirmed that the cost of renewing the Trident Missile System will have to come out of the MoD budget – the Treasury will not be picking up the tab.

This is a direct rebuke to Liam Fox, minister with special responsibility for keeping foot out of mouth, who has been pitching the line that Trident’s capital costs should be met by the Treasury, given the national security implications. But from stories appearing across the news media today, there is a suggestion that the MoD spin machine is going in to bat for its minister.

Indeed, the line as given to the Beeb is that the capital cost of Trident replacement – at 20 billion notes, three billion more than when I last looked – is “half the annual defence budget”. As the cost would be spread over ten years, the comparison is spurious. The news as given by the Guardian and Maily Telegraph refrains from reprinting that one, although the reports there tell of the defence budget coming under “severe pressure”, and that Osborne’s decision is a “huge blow”.

For those who prefer a choice of broadcast voices, I did check the website of Rupe’s troops at Sky News (“first for breaking wind”), but they didn’t – as at 1135 hours today – even have the story at all. What to make, though, of those media outlets that have bothered to cover the story? The impression is given that Osborne’s decision is somehow unfair, and, as that impression does not vary even in the pages of the Maily Telegraph, this suggests the hand of the MoD at work.

Will they succeed in their spinning? Very doubtful. Push is slowly but inexorably coming to shove in the arena of defence spending. A 24/7 ability to deliver nuclear weapons is of little use against enemies whose arsenal consists of rifles, RPGs, IEDs, surface to air missiles, and an assortment of knives. Moreover, such enemies tend not to belong to any one country, and you need a country sized target when delivering nukes.

If we do decide to retain nuclear capability, there are less expensive options, as I’ve discussed previously. Trident cannot be sacrosanct: if the decision goes against its replacement, then the Royal Navy will just have to get over it.

What The Fox? – 6

There has, earlier today, been another development in the Shirley Sherrod case, and it’s come from Sherrod herself.

This morning, Sherrod announced that she was “definitely” going to sue Andrew Breitbart, whose BigGovernment website initially posted what was later discovered to be a selectively edited version of a recording of a speech she made to an NAACP gathering.

Her case may rest on proving that Breitbart, who claims to have been sent the tape already edited, edited it himself. Interestingly, Breitbart has not been responding to emails thus far today.

Maybe he’s visiting his lawyer.

A Load Of Bull

Decades ago, when my family took their very first package holiday, we visited the island of Mallorca. The resort reps, then as now paid not very much, pushed a range of excursions – for which, as ever, they earned a commission – to enable us to see more of the island. And that range included the bullfight.

We didn’t take them up on that one. And the supposed spectacle of the bullfight has declined over time, with some Spanish regions having little interest in it: the bull ring in the Canarian city of Santa Cruz de Tenerife had fallen into disuse by the late 80s, and it was no surprise when the Canaries banned bullfighting in 1991.

Then, last year, the city of Viana do Castelo in northern Portugal – a country where killing bulls in the ring is forbidden – banned bullfighting, with the city’s bull ring slated for demolition and redevelopment. I was not surprised: the bull ring in northern Lisbon was closed for some years recently, and is only a viable proposition through the addition of more of those “retail opportunities”.

So when the Spanish autonomous region of Catalonia, in a free vote, banned bullfighting yesterday, it was hardly a shock. The decline of bullfighting – the province’s only functioning bull ring is in Barcelona – and the move by Catalans to demonstrate independence of mind, have come together to end the practice.

The next of Spain’s autonomous regions to ban bullfighting may be Galicia. One to watch.

It Was A Hundred Days Ago Today

Today marks an anniversary that the oil industry might rather forget: it is a hundred days since the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf Of Mexico, the event that started the “spill” which has dumped crude into the Gulf and on to its beaches in huge amounts.

The use of the word “spill” may suggest something trivial, but this has seen serious amounts of oil leaked: tens of thousands of barrels at times have been gushing from the damaged well on some days.

Today, to mark that hundredth day, the HuffPo has put together a hundred images showing what happens when so much crude finds its way into the sea and on to nearby beaches. Some of the photos do not make for easy viewing.

Something to think about the next time you get the car out.

Picking On The Poorest – 6

After considering the latest “research” from the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance, I concluded that this was part of a drive to cut welfare benefits and abolish the minimum wage. Having also deduced that these actions were not altruistically driven, I also concluded that this was not good enough. Such moves, I believe, should be resisted, and, after the fullest debate, consigned to the scrapheap where they belong.

However, the question may then be simply put: what would I do? The benefits system does indeed suffer from poor take-up of some benefits, while here and there are overpayments, underpayments, errors, and all too inevitably, fraud. Even so, all of this is no excuse for the TPA’s solution, which would guarantee the removal of significant purchasing power from the economy, potentially making those “tough fiscal times” yet tougher.

Any examination of the benefits system should be non partisan, and that means Astroturf lobby groups like the TPA should be kept out of the process, as one would keep urban foxes away from the local kindergarten. Moreover, the rest of the right leaning “think tanks” may also be kept at arms’ length: Policy Exchange, the Centre for Policy Studies, and the Adam Smith Institute, this last a museum of outdated economic ideas whose inmates have fraudulently appropriated the name of the founder of economics.

Simplifying the range of benefits may be the way forward, and here a good idea has come out of the TPA report. However, merely telling that times are hard as an excuse for lowering the poverty line is out of order, and any such idea should be set aside. Also, the Government should restate their commitment to the National Minimum Wage, thus demonstrating to the TPA and all the other lobby groups that their campaigning in this direction is misplaced and should stop.

And then the debate can be had.

Blue Rondo A La Turk

The EU has spent decades on the admission of one country to the club, without giving any date for that admission, or even confirmation that the admission will ever happen. It’s a saga of delaying tactics that has carried on far longer than the longest treaty negotiation. And it needs to stop.

The country is of course Turkey, and thereby hangs the problem. Here is the ultimate test for the EU to show that it is not merely a Christian club. Modern Turkey is now a secular democracy, although its population is overwhelmingly Muslim, a product of the move by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to remorselessly, indeed ruthlessly, force his country to face West.

Nevertheless, a variety of EU member states, notably France and Germany (the latter always happy for Turkish labour, even parking its unemployed part outside its borders), have advanced a variety of excuses, and deployed yet more stalling tactics, to stop the talks on Turkish accession from making progress. From “associate membership” in 1963 it took 42 years to get to the start of “proper” membership negotiations.

So it’s been refreshing to see that the UK is not only on the side of Turkey, but willing to shake up the rest of the club. Credit where credit’s due to Young Dave: he has gone in to bat for progress on Turkish entry, with one very memorable line in his speech to the Turkish Parliament:

“I believe it is just wrong to say that Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit in the tent”

Cameron’s reference is to Turkey being part of NATO and effectively guarding the bridge between Europe and the Middle East. The country keeps a large standing army as part of that commitment.

For once, I agree with Cameron and will continue to speak up for Turkey’s efforts to be admitted to the EU. If Europe really is a union of member states and about freedom of speech, trade and movement, then it cannot fall back on any kind of religiosity.

Picking On The Poorest – 5

The so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance is not known as a source of philanthropy. So when it releases a report purporting to be of assistance to the less well off, the first question might be best directed at their own particular motivation. And, thanks to the candour of their so-called “Research Fellow” Mike Denham (or Wat Tyler, if you prefer) we can see clearly where the lowering of the poverty line, and the 55% “taper rate”, is heading.

Because where it’s heading is the abolition of the national minimum wage. This is not mere scaremongering: Denham blogged on June 7 last that “alongside a programme of welfare cuts, we need to junk the minimum wage”. Last week’s report is the welfare cuts, and, whatever the list of names on the front cover, Denham is the author of most of it (he is the one on rebuttal duty). If the poverty line were to be lowered, then the amount of earnings needed to hover just above it would be that much less.

This may, on the face of it, seem anachronistic, but in the world of Mike Denham, it makes complete sense. Here, the most recent significant economics textbook is probably Alfred Marshall’s Principles. It is a world where labour need only reduce its cost to enable the market to be cleared: wages remaining stubbornly high, or being “sticky”, are an aberration, as is lasting unemployment.

It is a worldview that does not allow for the possibility that jobs might just not be there, and as such, it is the kind of economics that failed us in the 1930s. Exhumed via the urging of Milton Friedman, high priest of economic quack doctory, in the late 70s and early 80s, it failed us again. Any further exhumation of this by now putrefying corpse will fail us once more, a certainty as sure as night following day.

That is not to denigrate Alfred Marshall: he told of the world as it was back in the nineteenth century. But that world has moved on. It is something that the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance, and their so-called “Research Fellow” Mike Denham, are clearly reluctant to concede. Like the calculation of the poverty line, it is a case of “because it used to be done this way”.

And that, once more, is not good enough.

Picking On The Poorest – 4

The report into reform of the welfare system by the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance contains lots of figures. The impression given – probably deliberately – is that this report is therefore authoritative. However, this is another area where a little examination suggests otherwise.

And one area where scepticism can be easily aroused is when the authors, more or less, tell their readers “trust us”. Near the top of Page 19, we are given a superb example of this: a figure on “non-pension benefit expenditure” turns out, when the footnote is consulted, to be from “Authors’ calculations”. Nobody familiar with the output of the TPA’s so-called “research fellow” Mike Denham will be surprised: he does rather a lot of this. And, without some further explanation, this kind of thing must be disregarded.

The cost of implementing the TPA’s solution is also on shaky ground: here we are introduced to something called “back-to-work providers”. These, the report tells, may be “public, private or voluntary organisations”. Sounds interesting. They may be rewarded by results. Yet nowhere in the report does the cost of these bodies get so much as a mention. They are most unlikely to do the work for nothing.

There is, however, some mention of administrative cost in Appendix B, table B.1: here it is stated that a 50% reduction in costs is assumed. The amount saved would be over a billion and a half notes, so if possible, it would be a useful saving. But then there would be expenditure on all the “back-to-work providers”, the benefits system would still be there and would still need administering, and there would be transitional costs associated with any new scheme, which are either ignored, omitted, or assumed to be part of the amount allocated.

As with the work on incentives, so it is with the figures. That is not to say that there is merit in looking afresh at the benefits system, but the TPA approach can be seen to be flawed. It is as if there was a component missing from their jigsaw.

However, thanks to the candour of one of the report’s authors, we can now find that missing piece. That comes next.

Picking On The Poorest – 3

Incentive to work is key, so the latest report from the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance tells us. And it is also used to spread characteristically misleading information about the benefits system.

For someone taking a job paying the minimum wage and at the same time losing all three of tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit, the TPA asserts, the extra income from working would be only an extra 26p an hour. However, as they fail to even estimate the number of people so affected, this can be assumed to be no more than a headline grabbing figure, and will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

The TPA do, however, quantify the number of households facing a “benefit withdrawal rate” of 60% or more: this is put at 2.5 millions. The “benefit withdrawal rate”, which becomes a “taper rate” when it forms part of the TPA’s proposals, refers to the amount of benefit lost per pound of money earned, so earning a hundred notes a week while losing 60 in benefits produces a rate of 60%.

Here, the marginal extra income from working at the national minimum wage comes out at 2.32. But what if the rate were even higher, leaving a mere two quid extra? Let’s consider that scenario. Would I get out of bed for another two quid an hour? Dead right I would: 80 notes a week more for working means working. But how can I be so certain?

Those at the least well off end of the spectrum inevitably have more needs than the amount of money available. Benefits do not bring affluence or comfort, whatever the comfortably off at the TPA might suggest. Every pound gets spent, whether or not the goods purchased meet with the TPA’s approval. Propensity to spend is at its highest here. That 80 quid extra may go on better clothing, more enjoyable food, or even a good session down the nearest bar. But it will get spent, and there will be little problem providing the motivation to take the work that delivers it.

Have the TPA investigated the area of motivation? Doubtful. There is nothing in their report to suggest that those subject to a 70% “taper rate” will be significantly less motivated to take work than those subject to a 55% one. We have to take that on trust. And that, not for the first time, is not good enough.

But at least the figures will be reliable in such a thorough and rigorous report, won’t they? Don’t bet on it – more next.

Picking On The Poorest – 2

Reading through the latest “research” from the so-called Taxpayer’s Alliance, the measures it proposes seem initially to be reasonable, attractive even, until they are subjected to a little stress testing. First of these is the argument for lowering the poverty line.

At present, the definition of poverty is 60% of median income. The TPA is urging that this be reduced to 50%. Together with this, they also lay out a new definition of household income, which excludes any benefit payments, as this is considered “circular and seriously misleading”, or put more directly, enables that median to be set lower.

Why reduce the poverty level? One argument put forward in the report is that this is how it used to be done. Along, no doubt, with a road network without motorways, smogs, poor food hygiene, a far higher cost of travel and therefore less mobility, appalling safety standards at work, and black and white television available in 405 line form only.

Here, it is useful to have the insights of one of the report’s authors: the TPA’s so-called “Research Fellow” Mike Denham writes the original “Burning Our Money” blog – under the hilariously original pseudonym of Wat Tyler – and through this medium, he allows us to get a flavour, however unpalatable, of the underlying philosophy.

Denham has argued that the poor are not really poor after all. Moreover, he has asserted that the present definition of relative poverty should be replaced by one of absolute poverty. Clearly, the sight of the less well off owning fridges and washing machines is, to some of the more affluent, distressing. But today’s employers are less forgiving of poor personal hygiene, so the ability to keep body and garments clean is not optional.

Also, I would argue that Denham is out of touch with another reality facing the less prosperous: many of these people have access to a car, for no other reason than that they are unable to get to and from work without one. Most employers expect their workforce to commute by car, a situation that has been exacerbated by the decline of the bus as a means of commuting. A car is no longer the luxury it once was: here, the clock cannot be rolled back.

The definition of poverty has been arrived at, not, as Denham suggests, by the “constant wailing of the poverty lobby”, but through a process of pragmatism and, yes, civilisation. Redefining poverty merely in pursuit of ideological purity, justified by the catch all excuse of “tough choices”, which is more or less what the TPA is urging, is not good enough. Moreover, it isn’t going to happen.

Next, I’ll look at those incentives to get folks back into work.

Picking On The Poorest – 1

Here in the UK, provision of welfare benefits costs a significant amount of money – rather more than 150 billions, in fact. So any significant saving in this area might be thought a good thing. However, when the proposals come from the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (representing less than one tenth of one per cent of taxpayers, and still no up to date accounts or list of donors), there is a natural tendency to scepticism.

And that scepticism is well placed: the publication last week of Welfare Reform In Tough Fiscal Times: Creating A Better And Cheaper Benefits System [pdf] by the TPA achieves its objective of simplifying the system while reducing its cost mainly through the use of one crude device, that of reducing the poverty line. Moreover, the report, while giving the impression of detailed costing and rigorous analysis, does not completely explain how much the system it proposes would cost.

Analysis of the TPA report is made less than straightforward by its sheer volume – much of it unnecessary. Parts of the text are repeated, some several times, while part of the appendices goes into an excessive level of detail on such items as computer records and payment frequency. One feature characteristic of much TPA “research” is the use of graphs and equations to demonstrate to anyone still awake that this is a learned and serious document.

But, surely, the themes it stresses – maintaining a “safety net” for the least fortunate in society while giving them an inventive to take up work – are sound? In themselves they are. But lowering the poverty line – not just its level but also its definition – coupled with the all pervasive “incentivising” does not tell us the full story. Fortunately, one of the report’s authors, by his candour, has told us where the TPA is really heading.

As ever, we start at the very beginning – a very good place to start. Stay tuned.

A Stroll Across The Astroturf – 16

An apology: no blogposts yesterday, and only the one on Friday. There’s a reason for this, and it lies with our old friends at the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (representing less than one tenth of one per cent of all taxpayers, and still no full up to date accounts or list of donors).

Last week, the TPA released another supposedly major piece of “research”, this latest on their suggestions for reforming the benefits system. The “report” stretches to a whopping 53 pages, although much of the bulk is caused by padding – there’s an awful lot of repetition in there – and unnecessary micro-specification of how a new kind of benefit would be delivered.

Put directly, the TPA have called for the poverty line to be lowered, so that those on benefits would cost the economy less. This is a course of action much in favour among those with a comfortable living standard and regular income – those that would remain unaffected by such action.

The excuse given by the TPA for this action is that this enables those out of work to become incentivised to get back into work. However, as I’ll be showing in a series of posts on this report, there is more than mere incentives in the TPA strategy, and thanks to the candour of one of the report’s authors, the missing pieces of the puzzle can be slotted into place.

The TPA “research” has already been given an initial filleting by Don Paskini on Liberal Conspiracy: anyone following the link and checking out the comments will see that the TPA deployed Matthew “C5” Sinclair, one of their Clever People Who Talk Loudly In Restaurants, to attempt rebuttal.

Zelo Street will be delving further than the LC post. More tomorrow.

Failure Among The Cotton Mills – 3

Continuing the saga of West Coast Railway Company (WCRC) and their pride and joy Scots Guardsman, there have been more developments. And, unfortunately, there have been more failures. The good news is that, as with the precautionary cancellation of part of the Cotton Mill Express tour recently, there was nothing that resulted in failure out on the road.

As I mentioned before, the problem on the Cotton Mill Express was the middle cylinder, more specifically the packing of the cylinder gland. This was fixed and, something I found surprising, Network Rail (NR) did not insist on a test run. The locomotive and its empty stock then left Carnforth for Scarborough to work the popular Scarborough Spa Express charters.

And then there was another problem: on Wednesday last, the tour got to Scarborough, and Scots Guardsman was again failed. It was once again fixed, worked the next day’s tour, but was then failed as a precaution because of yet another problem. Now, while I’m impressed by the ability of WCRC to keep up to the problems of the loco, those problems keep coming.

I know that steam operators take great pride in the appearance, performance and reliability of their charges, and am sure that WCRC are as hacked off as the punters at Scots Guardsman’s niggles, but isn’t it time for someone else to have a good look at this loco? I know that WCRC have (less than ideal) previous with the people at Crewe Heritage Centre, so perhaps it could stop by at the National Railway Museum? After all, they restore and look after steam traction too.

Just a thought.

A Peek At The Top Shelf – 4

The UK’s newest terrestrial broadcaster has a new owner: Channel 5 (or is it just “Five”?) has been sold to Richard “Dirty” Desmond, owner of a variety of adult oriented publications as well as the increasingly trashy Express and Daily Star titles, and for a sum far greater than any rival bidder was prepared to pay.

So what is the future for Five? There will still have to be proper news coverage – none of the vapid minority bashing of the Desmond tabloids will get past Ofcom. It’s rumoured that Desmond may negotiate down some of the previously agreed cost of imports from the USA, which will help the channel’s cost base.

But high on the agenda, I believe, will be more reality shows (it’s cheap) along with tie-ups with the Desmond papers, particularly the Daily Star (and perhaps OK! Magazine, too). Channel 4 is dispensing with the Big Brother franchise in the UK, and this would be a starting point: the real exclusives would appear first only in the Desmond press.

And other formats would inevitably follow. What is usually called “exploiting synergy” will be done remorselessly: Desmond wants to make money, and plenty of it. Look at all that potential revenue, Guv!

Phwooarr!

The Hurricane Blows Out

The obituary writers had plenty of time to prepare: Alex Higgins, who has died aged just 61, had been suffering with throat cancer for the past decade. Many of the tributes have told of his two world snooker championships, his temper, and his battle with the drink and the smokes, but that misses the real tragedy.

When Higgins first became a household name back in the early 70s, snooker had yet to become a big money sport. Players wouldn’t be flown or even chauffeured between tournaments: Higgins would often be seen waiting for the next train, having paid his own fare.

Sure, he made millions later on, but it was small beer compared to those who came later. And there was no restraint there when he blew it all on a variety of addictive substances and pastimes.

Not much of a reward for someone who put his particular sport on the map.

What The Fox? – 5

So, as the week draws to a close, has the Shirley Sherrod affair vanished from the Stateside screen? Well, no it hasn’t. And now the backsliding, repositioning and blame shifting has begun in earnest.

And those nice people at Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse) have been attracting a mounting tide of criticism, some of which their “stars” are finding hard to take. Over at MSNBC, the genuinely polemic “Special Comment” midweek by Keith Olbermann appears to have spurred colleague Rachel Maddow into laying into Fox with some relish.

Maddow put forward her take on the Fox agenda: that it was to frighten white voters into believing that blacks are coming after them, coming to take their jobs, their livelihoods. But what made for interesting viewing for the average Joe and Joanne was uncomfortable for Fox, so much so that Bill O’Reilly hit back the following evening in his “Talking Points Memo”.

This was classic Bill-O: he started by apologising to Shirley Sherrod, but then went on to pick at the rest of her speech to the NAACP, questioning her language and suitability for Government service. It was typically disingenuous: the language Sherrod used, and which caused O’Reilly such discomfort, was used to show how she had felt at first, before she realised that she had a duty to help all those less well off, whether black, white, hispanic, or whoever.

And then Bill-O made a big mistake: he patronisingly went after Maddow. Bad move. O’Reilly’s comments on Fox’ superior ratings, as she pointed out, were only used to allow him to evade the issue. After all, she pointed out, the wrestling and Spongebob got bigger ratings than Fox – so what? As Maddow showed, Fox in general and O’Reilly in particular are wrong on those little things called facts.

And that’s a fact.

What The Fox? – 4

Events have moved at some speed since it became obvious that Shirley Sherrod had been ordered to resign for something she had not done. Not only have a number of figures in the Obama administration made suitably grovelling apologies, and many media outlets acknowledge they were suckered by Andrew Breitbart’s misleadingly edited video, but Ms Sherrod has now been offered another job at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

But there is no expression of regret coming from the media outlet that screamed so loudly for her to be sacked, Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse). The instant judgment of racism chorused by Fox “stars” Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly has not been rolled back. Instead, Fox is now kicking the USDA and the Prez (who, rather like Pa Broon in the last months of his premiership) is somehow responsible for every decision taken in the vicinity of the Hill.

This morning, on Fox and Friends (featuring another blonde woman, but not Gretchen Carlson) the line was still pushing the Sherrod story in the present tense, as MMFA has observed. Meanwhile Ms Sherrod, who has refused Fox’ invitation for an interview as she does not trust them to be, well, fair and balanced, has appeared on NBC’s Today programme and spoken plainly about Breitbart, who has not as yet offered to apologise to her.

And speaking very plainly indeed on the matter on last night’s MSNBC Countdown was Keith Olbermann, whose “Special Comment” on the matter gives Fox and Breitbart (Olbermann calls the former a “perpetual fraud machine” and the latter simply “scum”) both barrels in some style. It needed saying and certainly got said: this is 24 carat Olbermann.

Bang.

Will Black Be Back?

Earlier this week, a 65 year old man was released on bail from a low security prison in Florida. The event would not have been otherwise significant, had it not been for the identity of that man: Conrad Black, former owner of the paper now known as the Maily Telegraph, ennobled in 2001, and whose worldview has included stating with a straight face that the UK should leave the EU and join the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA).

Black, a supposedly still wealthy man, spent his first night out of jail in his former Palm Beach house, recently sold off at a knock down price in settlement of a debt. His assets are apparently in Canada, but his bail conditions prohibit his leaving the USA.

Despite this less than promising start, there has been much media froth generated already, not least by Andrew “Brillo Pad” Neil, speaking to the Beeb yesterday evening, who said confidently that Black would be back, and looking for revenge. But, as the court case that saw him put in jail was in the US – and there are apparently many more lawsuits against him still outstanding there – it may be some time before he can credibly think of going after anyone in the UK.

And who would he be after? Well, as Roy Greenslade has noted in the Guardian, one target could be Tom Bower, who specialises in “unauthorised” biographies of public figures, and who has written one about Black. But here a note of caution might enter: the last one to sue Bower, Richard Desmond, came badly unstuck in the courtroom and lost. Better perhaps to follow the example of Richard Branson, who clearly disliked Bower’s biog, but said his piece and declined to take matters further.

In any case, Black is now yesterday’s man. The fact of his new status may not immediately register with him or those who, for whatever reason, idolise him. But, as the song goes, that’s just the way it is.

He would be best advised just to leave the stage.

What The Fox? – 3

Lest anyone think that the race baiting I mentioned earlier is some kind of isolated incident, there is also the case of Shirley Sherrod, demonised by our old friends at Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse) and subsequently forced to resign her position at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

A video relating events from over 20 years ago – well before Ms Sherrod took up her job at the USDA – has been selectively edited to suggest that she had discriminated on the basis of race. The editor will also be known to readers of this blog: step forward the face of the BigGovernment website, Andrew Breitbart, who was also a player in the heavily edited ACORN “sting” tapes.

However, the whole video reveals that Ms Sherrod did not discriminate on the basis of race, and the white farmer she talked of has confirmed this. Moreover, he is certain that without her help, he would have lost his farm. But for Ms Sherrod this has counted for nothing: the “story” has been incessantly flogged by Fox, with “stars” Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly weighing in against her.

As the video has been shown in its proper context, Andrew Breitbart has been attracting forthright criticism, notably from Eric Boehlert at MMFA, and apparently the decision to ask for Ms Sherrod’s resignation is being reconsidered. But at Fox the troops are unrepentant: Glenn Beck has theorised that Ms Sherrod “obviously has some Marxist or redistributionist qualities to her”.

And Andrew Breitbart, poster of the edited video, now says he “feels sorry for Sherrod” and that it was “the media” who went after her. No, Andrew, it was your selectively edited video and your pals at Fox who went after Sherrod.

Another day, another episode of race baiting involving Fox News, the organisation headed by one Roger Ailes, past master of attack politics and adverts, including ... yes, the Willie Horton one that did for Michael Dukakis.

Expect more of the same as the mid term elections approach.

What The Fox? – 2

Right now, over in the USA, a substantial storm is being forcibly brewed up in a relatively small teacup. And the forcing is being done by an organisation well known to anyone reading this blog: yes, it’s our old friends at Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse).

The story that Fox are pushing at present – another example of trying to frighten its overwhelmingly white audience with overhyped tales of fringe black groups – is another example (remember ACORN?) of the network taking a non-story, talking it up out of all proportion, then beating up on the rest of the broadcast media for (rightly, in this case) ignoring it. Fox can then claim to be fearless, investigative, trusted, and otherwise wonderful.

So what’s the story? Well, back at the 2008 elections, two members of a fringe group called the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) were hanging around a polling place in the city of Philadelphia. One of them was carrying a nightstick. The police were called and escorted the two off the premises. Subsequently, the one with the stick was served an injunction by the Department of Justice (DOJ) but the case was then dropped for lack of evidence.

So that’s it? Well, yes and no. For Fox, the narrative is clear: this was a case of voter intimidation. Worse, the DOJ has a problem – or is that some kind of Obama administration policy – with prosecuting black people. From this follows the suggestion that the Dems are behind some kind of vote rigging exercise. What has followed is that a disproportionate amount of airtime has been dedicated to the NBPP, with its leader occasionally brought on as a kind of pantomime villain.

The affair has been the making of Fox newcomer Megyn Kelly (she’s blonde, but aren’t all Fox women?) and has been used to kick the rest of the broadcast media by Bill O’Reilly, the “acceptable face” of Fox, recently restored to top of the ratings after a drop in viewing figures for the increasingly wayward Glenn Beck.

From this, we have the sad sight of the reliable and trusted faces of more mainstream channels having to justify why they haven’t been hammering this non-story like Fox. And, Megyn Kelly and Bill-O, if this is about voter intimidation, how about doing some proper journalism and finding a voter who got intimidated?

Because, if there isn’t a voter who got intimidated, there’s no story. Unless, of course, it’s just race baiting.