Row over Alastair Campbell on BBC Question Time panel

David Dimbleby explains the BBC's decision

Downing Street refused to field a Cabinet minister on Question Time because the panel featured Alastair Campbell, the BBC has said.

 

The show's executive editor Gavin Allen said No 10 had offered to put up a minister but only if Mr Campbell was replaced by a shadow cabinet member.

 

Mr Allen said he refused the request as as a point of "fundamental principle".

 

No 10 objected to the fact that former Labour communications chief Mr Campbell was not a shadow minister.

 

The row meant that, unusually, there was no representative of the government or an MP from the opposition on the programme.

 

Backbench Conservative MP John Redwood, who this week demonstrated his independence from the government by calling for its policy on capital gains tax to be scrapped, was representing the Conservatives.

 

He began the programme by saying he was "very happy to defend the coalition government, to represent it," in the absence of a minister.

 

The other guests were former Lib Dem MP Susan Kramer, and journalists Piers Morgan and Max Hastings.

 

'Extraordinary'

 

Introducing the programme, host David Dimbleby said he would have "expected" to have had a government minister on the panel in the week that it unveiled its legislative agenda for the year ahead in the Queen's Speech.

 

 

It is for Question Time, not political parties, to make judgements about impartiality and to determine who is invited to appear in the interests of the audience

 

Gavin Allen

Executive editor, Question Time

 

He explained that No 10 had made it clear that a cabinet minister was "available" to appear but only if Mr Campbell was replaced by a member of the shadow cabinet.

 

He said it was up to "us on Question Time to decide who should be on the programme not Downing Street".

 

Mr Campbell said it was "extraordinary" there was no member of the government on the show in the week of the Queen's Speech "regardless of who else is on the panel".

 

It is believed David Laws, the chief secretary to the Treasury, had been scheduled to appear on the show.

 

At the end of the show Mr Campbell held up a picture of Mr Laws and suggested that he had been due to appear.

 

Question Time executive editor Mr Allen said it was the "first time" in his three years in the job that No 10 had made such a demand.

 

'Influential'

 

Explaining why it had been "obviously refused", he said: "It is a fundamental principle of our independence that politicians cannot dictate who sits on the panel.

 

"It is for Question Time, not political parties, to make judgements about impartiality and to determine who is invited to appear in the interests of the audience.

 

"Parties are free to accept or reject those invitations but they do not have a right of veto over other panellists. Licence fee payers rightly insist that the BBC must be free from political interference."

 

 

Alastair Campbell on the government's refusal to debate with him on Question Time

 

Mr Allen said Mr Campbell was one of the most "senior and influential" figures in the Labour movement.

 

He added that when in government, Labour ministers had regularly appeared on Question Time when the opposition was represented either by a backbench MP or by an unelected panellist.

 

"It is not an argument or an objection that bears scrutiny," he added.

 

Explaining the government's decision, a Downing Street spokesman said: "In the week of the Queen's Speech the BBC booked Alastair Campbell in the place of an opposition front bencher to appear on Question Time - which we questioned.

 

"Before a final decision was made on who might appear on behalf of the government the BBC directly booked John Redwood MP."

 

'Cocky'

 

Writing about the row on his blog after the programme, Mr Campbell said he had "only learned as the programme started the reason why there was no minister".

 

And he mounted a strongly worded attack on what he called the Lib Dem-Tory coalition government's "idiotic decision to try to get me kicked off the panel by refusing to field a minister if I was 'the Labour voice'".

 

He added: "It suggested that since becoming the government despite their failure to secure a majority, the Tories have gone all cocky and decided they can start to dictate the terms on which impartial broadcasters go about their business.

 

"I may be a bit of a control freak but the idea of saying you can only have x if y is axed was way beyond my understanding of the rules of the game."

Mr Campbell was a key adviser to Tony Blair in opposition and was No 10 director of communications and strategy between 1997 and 2003 - when he stepped down from the role.

 

He recently returned to the limelight advising Labour on its general election strategy and was among those coaching Gordon Brown ahead of the leadership debates.

 

He was one of a close circle of advisers in Downing Street in the final hours of Mr Brown's premiership as the party tried and failed to negotiate a coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Never thought I'd actually agree with anything Alistair Campbell says, but IMO, he's spot on in this one... It certainly Is NOT for the Con-Dems to decide who the BBC chooses to have on the panel of Question Time and playing this absolutely childish game that they did is just a little bit like throwing your toys out of the pram... I find it absolutely hilarious that the Con-Dem hierarchy seems to find the presence of Alistair Campbell on Question Time more offensive than that of Nick Griffin..... :lol: :lol:

I agree with him wholeheartedly. As a Labour supporter I find it hilarious how no matter how much people from his own party resent him, the opposition hate him far more simply because he knows exactly how to play people and they get easily frustrated.

I agree with Campbell. However, given that John Redwood was the replacement and Susan Kramer was already on, it seems unlikely that David Laws was the cabinet minister expected to be on.

I agree with the tories

 

He has no business representing Labour, he is not a politician, has not been in the commons or Lords in an official capacity and was just a writer of press releases for a man that retired 3 years ago, I would not have had any objections to him being the 5th panelist in Piers Morgan's place but to represent Labour when he has never been a politician and doesn't currently work for them was wrong IMHO

 

Labour have over 250 MP's, no excuse not choosing one.

I agree with the tories

 

Shocker.

Shocker.

 

LOL Danny

 

You would be surprised how many issues me and tories are disagreed upon, I am anything but a sheep who blindly laps up every policy ;)

LOL Danny

 

You would be surprised how many issues me and tories are disagreed upon, I am anything but a sheep who blindly laps up every policy ;)

 

But in mainstream politics you may as well be, given that of the two other 'major' parties one you fundamentally disagree with and one may as well fold with the amount of power they have in the "coalition".

But in mainstream politics you may as well be, given that of the two other 'major' parties one you fundamentally disagree with and one may as well fold with the amount of power they have in the "coalition".

 

The Tories are my natural home but even when Maggie was in power I probably at best agreed with 70% of her policies, with Cameron it is about 40-50% but Lib Dems and Labour it would be nearer 10%

 

What an ironic title of 'Con-Dem coalition dictating to BBC..?'

Let's not forget the BBC has been a full on propaganda machine for Labour since early 2004 when Gavyn Davies resigned from the BBC. A situation where the BBC was unbiased over Iraq but later criticised for effectively not backing the government/Blair over Iraq/WMD. A situation which is obvious now that the BBC was correct and government was wrong. But the independence of the BBC has not yet returned and they are still the voice of new Labour/Alistair Campbell. <_>

Edited May 28, 201015 yr by Ricky

The BBC have the right to invite whoever they want on. But it's undeniably very disturbing that they tried to threaten them into dropping one of the panellists.

The Tories are my natural home but even when Maggie was in power I probably at best agreed with 70% of her policies, with Cameron it is about 40-50% but Lib Dems and Labour it would be nearer 10%

 

Yeuch yeuch yeuch. :puke2:

The BBC have the right to invite whoever they want on. But it's undeniably very disturbing that they tried to threaten them into dropping one of the panellists.

 

In a nutshell, that's my problem with the ConDem decision... How DARE they assume, well, any Party, assume it can dictate who the BBC invites on a panel show and who it doesn't... Ricky makes a valid point about the Dodgy Dossier disgrace, but this was the Hutton Report, which, as you all would know, I had a HUGE issue with... Yes, Ricky does make a valid point, but two wrongs hardly make a right, and to me the ConDems are as guilty as Nu Labor in their interference (or attempt at interferance) in the BBC... The facts are, NOBODY should be interfering in the BBC, not Campbell/B-Liar, and not Cameron/Clegg.....

 

I agree with the tories

 

He has no business representing Labour, he is not a politician, has not been in the commons or Lords in an official capacity and was just a writer of press releases for a man that retired 3 years ago, I would not have had any objections to him being the 5th panelist in Piers Morgan's place but to represent Labour when he has never been a politician and doesn't currently work for them was wrong IMHO

 

Labour have over 250 MP's, no excuse not choosing one.

 

Riiiighhht, and it was for these highly "principled" reasons was it Craig.... Or was it more to do with the fact that Alistair Campbell was about to expose Laws as an Expenses Thief and just royally embarrass the ConDem cabinet....... :rolleyes:

 

Riiiighhht, and it was for these highly "principled" reasons was it Craig.... Or was it more to do with the fact that Alistair Campbell was about to expose Laws as an Expenses Thief and just royally embarrass the ConDem cabinet....... :rolleyes:

 

I don't believe that Campbell was going to, that pic of Laws was just to mock him not turning up like HIGNFY put a tub of lard on the chair that Roy Hattersley was meant to be using, I don't believe that Campbell had that in mind with that pic I think the media are putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5

I don't believe that Campbell was going to, that pic of Laws was just to mock him not turning up like HIGNFY put a tub of lard on the chair that Roy Hattersley was meant to be using, I don't believe that Campbell had that in mind with that pic I think the media are putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5

 

Even if it was mate.. Like with Hattersley and HIGNFY before, Laws deserved to be mocked..... In fact, he deserves a lot more than that... He deserves a prison term for fraud.....

I don't believe that Campbell was going to, that pic of Laws was just to mock him not turning up like HIGNFY put a tub of lard on the chair that Roy Hattersley was meant to be using, I don't believe that Campbell had that in mind with that pic I think the media are putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5

No, Campbell wanted people to put 2 and 2 together and make 5. The whole idea that Laws was due to appear came from Campbell. But if Laws had appeared rather than Redwood that would have meant two Lib Dems and no Tories, a very unlikely scenario, so there was probably going to be a Tory minister. With all his contacts, I cannot believe that Campbell did not know on Thursday that the Laws story was about to break and he exploited that by spreading (probably) false allegations.

Even if it was mate.. Like with Hattersley and HIGNFY before, Laws deserved to be mocked..... In fact, he deserves a lot more than that... He deserves a prison term for fraud.....

Why should he be mocked for not going on a programme he wasn't invited to appear on?

Why should he be mocked for not going on a programme he wasn't invited to appear on?

 

So, he doesn't deserve to be mocked just for being a hypocritical fraudster then....? :rolleyes: I think he deserves rather more than a mocking as I've said, a mocking is the very least of what he should have coming to him...

 

And, it was probably in response to the ConDem Coalition central command acting all childish and chucking their toys out of the pram in the first place by throwing a tantrum and basically saying "we're not coming to the party if Allie is...". Kids eh..? :rolleyes:

 

So, he doesn't deserve to be mocked just for being a hypocritical fraudster then....? :rolleyes: I think he deserves rather more than a mocking as I've said, a mocking is the very least of what he should have coming to him...

 

And, it was probably in response to the ConDem Coalition central command acting all childish and chucking their toys out of the pram in the first place by throwing a tantrum and basically saying "we're not coming to the party if Allie is...". Kids eh..? :rolleyes:

Here is what is so ridiculous about the whole thing. He could have declared his London home to be his main home with his Yeovil home as his second home. If he'd done that, he would have ended up claiming more than he actually claimed.

Here is what is so ridiculous about the whole thing. He could have declared his London home to be his main home with his Yeovil home as his second home. If he'd done that, he would have ended up claiming more than he actually claimed.

 

Oh, so that makes it all alright then... You know, the fact that he only thieved a smaller amount than he could have.... :rolleyes: Oh, come ONNNNN dude, you really are stretching it here with this.... Is it the fact that he's a fellow Lib Demmer, you feel you have to defend the bloke...? Oh, and he's gay too, so, we shouldn't come down too hard on a member of a persecuted minority, even IF they're doing something fraudulent and illegal... Oh, fukk that sh!t, a crook is a crook, I dont care WHO they're boneing in their private lives, I DO care that they're bloody well boneing the public and then telling us that we have to tighten OUR belts and tolerate spending cuts to universities, etc..... -_-