Be Careful What we Wish For at the BBC

There's a right old rant in the Scotsman today about the BBC by Gerald Warner. There's also an interesting comment from Corrigan Reid, a blogger on the comments section of the Warner article.

Two thoughts on the rants. It's a lot to do with a detached management of the BBC who don't actually know what the license fee payers want and are attempting to be all things to all men (and women). The argument right now tends to revolve around very little of the BBC's output and it's a shame the whole thing is being dragged down (but they've only themselves to blame) into the mud. We should be careful what we wish for in all of this. The chances are that we're in danger of seeing a lot of what is great about the BBC being sacrificed for what is bad.

Things need to be got back under control and there is probably a good aspect to all that has happened over Ross and Brand. No, we can't turn the clock back and pay JR less but there needs to be some more mature management and business thinking at the Beeb. They are not a charity who can decide with seeing abandon to do what they like with the money we give them. It needs to be sorted and sorted quickly before we all have a lot to regret.

Auntie Out, Edgy Adolescent in, at the BBC

Throughout the whole debate surrounding Brand and Ross the one thing that keeps being said is, how important it is to have edgy humour on the BBC, how this somehow justifies the whole business of paying the huge salaries that are bandied about with abandon at the Beeb. The mantra goes something like this. If we didn't pay them the huge salaries then they would go to a competitor and that would be a disaster. Well let's look at what it is the BBC see as their remit and what we as punters see as their role in providing a raft of services on TV and radio.

Number one I'm not sure that ratings are what are the most important criteria for judging what the BBC do. Sure if nobody listened or watched then clearly they are not providing a service that is being demanded. However, with the plethora of channels and radio stations the whole business of broadcasting has been turned on its head. Much of the time it seems like the BBC behave like the Auntie of old and the rest of the time they think they are operating in a free market. That's the essential problem here. The Director General of the BBC gets £816,000 to do his job. Is it any wonder he is confused about what the going rate for any job is? That's £15,692 pounds per week! Over thirty times the average male weekly wage in Britain. Where in broadcasting is he going to get a salary like that elsewhere?

Last year the BBC’s Director-General, and his nine most senior colleagues had their salaries rise by 17 per cent; this was despite the phone in scandals. Their income of the BBC’s top executives totalled £4.96 million, which was a rise of up £708,000. During the same period the BBC licence fee increased by 3 per cent to £131.50 and most BBC employees got a 4 per cent pay rise. Hello? Is there anyone at home?

Back to edgy humour for a minute. Who is it that wants edgy humour? The thirty somethings according to Lesley Douglas the Controller who has just resigned. Well what about the rest of us? The idea that as a radio station you can be all things to all people is absurd. But the schizophrenic nature of Radio 2 is a weird one. They have driven the station younger and younger in profile, all the while leaving behind many people for much of the time. Why is this? Simple, so they can boast of being the biggest, most listened to Radio station in Britain. They equate this to best. Well there is a difference. They are, in part, the biggest because there is a lack of national competition.

Tonight on Radio 2 we have the Judy Garland Trail, followed by Friday Night is Music Night (light music from an orchestra), followed by James Bond stories and then Listen to the band, which is about brass bands. Is this the same station as gives us Saturday night with Russell Brand? What do the BBC think happens? People of a certain age tune in to listen to the light music of a Friday night but then are asked to clear off on Saturday evenings? Now I'm not saying that its possible to create a station that people of the target market age want to listen to 24/7 but they could do a great deal better than is being done. If Radio 1 caters for the under 25s what about the rest of us? Do they really think that past 55 people just drift off into a musical coma?

Like much of what is done in the name of broadcasting it is done from a media village in London that is out of step and out of tune with much of the rest of Britain. Only when and if they ever get to grips with this issue will things improve. Of course when people earn so much and operate in the rarefied air that many BBC Executives operate within it's unlikely to happen.

Smart Alecs?

I responded to the various comments on the subject of the BBC and comedy and used the term 'smart Alecs' to describe Messrs Ross and Brand.  It struck me as being very much at the heart of what all this is about. People are generally getting a tad fed up with smart Alecs speaking at them from their radio or TV studios. It's an interesting line which people in all walks of life can often cross over and usually it's only after they do that they realise that they have. But where did the term come from.

According to that indispensable reference work, Brewer's Dictionary of Phase and Fable (every home should have one) a smart Alec is. An American term for a bumptious, conceited know-all. The name goes back to at least the 1860s, but no one is quite sure who Alec is. The allusion may be to Aleck Hoag, a notorious pimp, thief and confidence man in New York in the 1840s.

Two things. . .bumptious is an under used word these days and how spot on Brewers are in their description of the two smart Alecs.

TV's Pandora's Box

With the news that Ofcom are to allow regional programmes to be reduced, principally because as a business it's unsustainable there's the inevitable outcry from all concerned and of course the SNP mantra of it's all an attack on Scotland gets dragged out. According to Pete Wishart, the SNP broadcasting spokesman, "This would be a backward step for broadcasting, just at a time when public and industry opinion has said we need a better and more relevant service for people in Scotland.

Welcome to the real world, one where businesses have to balance their budgets, not just spend, spend, spend. When the Pandora's box that is digital and satellite broadcasting was opened it allowed for the rampant growth of channels, most of which, as we all know, carry advertising. The simple fact is there's only so much budget to go around. The net result will always be a reduction in overall quality as broadcasters have to battle vainly to get some kind of bang for their production buck. And it's not just the SNP. Lib Dem Borders MP Michael Moore has trawled the rhetoric reservoir to come up with a gem. He said the recommendations were "made by people stuck in London offices who fail to understand the importance of regional news and diversity. What local viewers want to see is news that is directly relevant to them."

Well there's just not the money to achieve such an ambition. There are about 100,000 of us in the Borders. Compare that to many cities around the UK and do they get news that is as directly relevant to them in the same order of magnitude? Politicians just love to jump on the bandwagon of being seen to support their voters - which of course is their primary purpose. But driving around the Borders the number of satellite dishes is enormous; every one of us who has one has contributed to the demise of ITV as a great broadcaster. Choice is not always a good thing; too much choice is almost always a bad thing.

Should We Have a Scots Language TV Channel?

In the Scotsman this morning someone by the name of Paul Henderson Scott has written a piece saying, in short, that there should be a Scots language channel alongside the Gaelic TV channel to preserve the Scots language. While I concur that it would be wonderful to find a way to do such a thing the problem is on the one hand money and on the other hand the fact that the language is in decline anyway. All in all a bit of a catch twenty two. However, and isn't there always he says.

"A London-controlled broadcasting service naturally gave preference to the great majority of its audience south of the Tweed. This destroyed the self-confidence of many Scots by giving them the impression they lived in an unimportant backwater which had never achieved anything of importance. It also meant that English voices, and hardly ever a word of Scots, penetrated into virtually every household north of the Border."

It's this kind of thing that really undermines the whole argument. Haven't we got numerous Scots on TV? In high office? In Business? Do they speak Scots? Did any of this sap their confidence? No of course it didn't. Its about education and no one can tell me we should be educating Scottish school kids in the Scots language to go out into the world to prosper, at the expense of teaching English. Of course we should be teaching them to appreciate Scots literature, but the language of the world is English; mostly for reasons that have little to do with 'that damned government in Westminster." The challenge of educating children is, for reasons I don't understand, greater than ever, to add the Scots language into the mix will do nothing but confuse the issue.

Broadcasting Commission's Carping.

So the Scottish Broadcasting Commission has issued their interim report, somewhat anticlimactic, but then again what did we expect? According to Blair Jenkins its chairman "The main themes to emerge are a demand for more Scottish content. People are expressing a desire and appetite to see more programming of documentaries, history and heritage programmes." It goes on to say that Scottish broadcasting "suffers a lack of ambition" and is "missing out on Scottish talent and creativity" It also says. "People didn't feel the full diversity of life in Scotland was being reflected in their programmes."

There's a sense of inevitability about what the report is saying and a sense of they need to get out more. It's as though living in Scotland is some kind of vacuum in which we gaze endlessly at our historical navel and hanker after a diet of programming that is inward looking. We recently had the Top 10 of Scottish history from the BBC and they've announced another series about Scottish history There comes a point when there is such a degree of repetition of historical subjects that there's little point in continuing. I'm all for historical programmes but the level of audience that these programmes can attract must be limited, once you step outside of mainstream subjects. Now some might say, so be it the BBC is not about ratings, and I would agree. However, it's clear from the viewing figures that most people in Scotland share a love for the mainstream type programmes whether it's Coronation Street, Strictly Come Dancing, The X Factor or whatever else the rest of the UK is watching. Striking a balance seems to be the answer and reading what's been said about Scottish broadcasting has predictability about it. It's as though the Scottish Government has decreed that we must be more Scottish.

Much of what's made by broadcasters now has to compete on a world stage and there's an economic argument in all this that it's difficult to see how the Scottish Broadcasters can compete with if there's a greater amount of Scotland only programming. The Gaelic channel is already running into difficulties about the level of funding. The millions spent on programmes for around 50,000 potential viewers seems out of whack. I wonder if the commission would dare to suggest knocking it on the head and have the money redirected into mainstream Scottish programmes?

To say, as the report does, that Scottish broadcasters lack imagination feels like carping. It's a matter of opinion and that is what the interim report feels like. Politics and culture are usually unhappy bedfellows and we may all come to regret messing with things too much.

Scottish Broadcasting Commisssion - And There's More

There's a letter in the Scotsman this morning from Blair Jenkins repudiating the Scotsman's article on Saturday about the Broadcasting Commission. He says.

"I was surprised and disappointed at how misleading and inaccurate your editorial, "Lack of transparency in TV debate" (Opinion, 17 November) was.

Your "outrage" is misplaced and illogical. There is nothing secret about the work of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission. Evidence-taking sessions are on-the-record and taped and transcripts will be made public. All parties giving evidence know this and their comments will be there for all to see.

I would have expected better of your newspaper than to cast aspersions without a basis in fact. You attribute to me the view that this way of working "will allow broadcasters to talk about rivals" with the benefit of secrecy. I have never said this and it is patently untrue."

The first thing to say is that the Scotsman did not attribute the remarks on secrecy to Mr Jenkins it said. 'A spokeswoman for the commission said transcripts of the meeting would be made available at a later date.' She went on: "Oral evidence-taking sessions will not be held in public in order to ensure that those taking part do not feel inhibited in discussing or offering evidence or information which might be a commercial confidence and/or speaking frankly."

As for the matter of transcripts they said nothing different from Mr Jenkins, that they will be available at a later date. So why not let the press and public into the sessions when they are happening? Do they want to massage the results?

Scottish Broadcasting Commission Using the Wrong Camera

According to the Scotsman this morning the Commission set up by the SNP looking into broadcasting will cost £500,000 – a Quango by another name? How, you might think, can it? Well apparently Blair Jenkins the man that is heading it is getting £387 per day - still that's a lot of days, even if the other members of the commission, which includes the former First Minister Henry McLeish, get slightly less. The other breaking news concerning the commission is that it will be held in camera - the one that means in secret - although they've said transcripts of what was said will be published. The justification for this secrecy is the fact that commercial sensitive information may be brought up by the broadcasters they speak to, it was Channel 4 yesterday. They also say that people may be "speaking frankly"

Well you kind of hope they would be speaking frankly and if they are to publish transcripts later then why not now? I cannot help thinking that this whole thing is going to tell us exactly want the people setting up the commission want to hear. That is, Scotland should be producing more programmes, the ones that they already do should be better and there should be a greater emphasis on the regions, and in particular, Scotland. I also suspect, given the make up of the committee, that a Scottish Six will be recommended. Blair Jenkins as already said there should be more drama made in Scotland.

Alex Salmond has previously said the major channels should be spending at least 9 per cent of their budget north of the Border. However in recent years the BBC's budget has been cut from 6 per cent to 3 per cent in Scotland. There's little doubt that there should be ore sent in Scotland but the equation being touted is a touch simplistic. It implies that Scots viewers would have to only watch programmes made in Scotland by the BBC. Many of the most popular programmes are made in other parts of the country, notably London, and the whole country watches them. I dread to think what kind of TV we'd have if the BBC becomes the SBC. It's not that I fear the type of programming per se it's just impossible for an SBC to do the all round job for the money, especially given the potential size of the audience. The fact is an equation based on population is just stupid. The way TV viewing is done these days is that people are watching a plethora of channels. The SNPs approach to this is one based upon the old telly order when there was just a BBC1 & 2 and a couple of TV channels. The world's moved on and so should they. It's tinkering politics, based on the concept of independence above all else.

Big Money in Broadcasting

There's an article in this morning's Scotsman about pay for bosses of public sector businesses; the fifth highest paid is Mark Thompson - the BBC director-general who gets £788,000. Obviously this is an enormous amount of money and one assumes he's paid so much for the responsibility of running one of Britain's biggest companies and also because it's a very competitive market place for the top people in the entertainment industry. Two things come to mind. If you accept the perks you accept the responsibility and Mr. Thompson does not seem to think he has to answer for the BBC being found guilty of rigging phone in voting on a number of their programmes. The fact is though that no one ever seems to be responsible for anything these days.

Added to which is it any wonder that so many BBC presenters get salaries that are eye-wateringly large as it has become a cultural thing within the Corporation to 'need to pay this type of money' in order to attract the best. Interestingly eleven of the top 100 earners in the public sector are with Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator who were also involved in overseeing an industry riddled with fake phone-in scandals.

UPDATE

According to the Daily Telegraph ten people responsible for organising the 2012 London Olympics are each earning more than £175,000 a year, putting them in the top 100 aid public sector workers. The budget has almost quadrupled since London won the bid and now stands at £9.35 billion. Again is it any wonder?

Further UPDATE

In 2004/5 Mark Thompson earned £459,000, that's over a 70% increase in salary in two years or so. Is he really that good? In 2006 he earned £619,000, so that's 27% in just one year.

I started out thinking I was being a bit churlish in drawing attention to Mr Thompson's salary, it is after all a very subjective thing. However, raising his salary by so much during a period when the Corporation has had such a difficult time does seem excessive. Bizarrely given the tax he's paying, and bearing in mind he's effectively paid by us the tax payer and therefore the government then much of the increase ends up back in their (our) coffers.

Familes - The New Political Battleground?

Yes I know it's daft, but that's what it says on the BBC News' web site. I found a link to this BBC page highlighted on the BBC News home page. This is what it says.

What kind of family do you live in? Are you affected by the changes in family life? Would you be willing to interviewed by a BBC journalist? Cohabiting couples with children are the fastest-growing UK family type, according to an official report focusing on the 10 years up to 2006. The Office of National Statistics study found lone parent families are also growing, but married couple families remain in the vast majority. As families become the new political battleground, they are taking more diverse forms and face increased challenges as the 21st Century progresses.

As families become the new political battleground? Has the BBC lost the plot? Why an earth would families suddenly become some kind of political battleground? Clearly everyone living in this country is affected in some way by politics, are families more affected? Well, possibly only when there is some kind of change in tax allowances for married couples. Politicians and the BBC should know better than to think they can in some way get involved with altering/managing/changing families. Of course the upshot of being interviewed by some BBC journalist will be a skewed, empirical type of programme that tries to tell us this is what Britain is like.

As Interesting As Scotland Gets?

Tonight's BBC Scottish News at 6.30 led with the story of the Celtic fan who ran onto the pitch, against AC Milan, and tapped their goalkeeper on the shoulder. He received a 120 hour community service sentance today. The BBC managed to run this piece for close to five minutes, even asking people on vox-pops if he should have had a custodial sentence. Now you have to question whether a country that is, according to its First Minister, the third wealthiest in Europe really has nothing else more important to talk about?

A Slipper Before A Fall

All the fuss about the BBC, it's budget and planned cuts in news came into sharp focus this morning. Watching BBC News 24 the newsreader (presenter?) said. "Maybe it's the cold summer or maybe it's the trend towards wooden floors, and no carpets, but slippers are making a comeback." They then had a 7 minute feature with a 'fashion expert' discussing the merits or otherwise of slippers. The BBC does itself no favours, presumably this item was sanctioned by the same journalists/producers who are fearful over their jobs?

Skewed News

If Tuesday's 6.30 news was indicative of what a Scottish 6 would be like then we're in trouble. The first item up on the news was a lengthy 'in programme' trail for the Rangers European qualifier's match and this was followed by a piece about how the NHS in Scotland is not treating patients as well as in England over funding. This turned out to be a trail for a programme at 10.30 last night. Not that BBC Scotland is alone in this somewhat skewed approach to news but it's really not on.

Are We Really Getting The TV & Radio We Deserve

Jeremy Paxman's 'attack' on TV yesterday in Edinburgh rang bells with me. Much of what he said apples to radio and to news programmes.

It seems to me that one of the big problems with radio and TV is that its lost sight of what it should be doing. Content is the most important thing, not how we receive it nor the business of technology. Great content will always triumph over clever-for-it’s-own-sake TV and radio. We have programme controllers seemingly obsessed with trying to me-to rather than innovate (the Griff Rhys-Jones 'Mountain' series comes to mind as does ITV's 'Britain's Greatest Views'). Of course innovation is difficult, it requires ambition and above all else it requires risks to be taken. We've subjugated risk for a steady diet of shock.

Can the BBC really be in financial trouble with a budget of £3.5 billion? Well of course it can if it pays the kind of salaries that it does - including Mr Paxman. He earns approximately five times what the prime Minister makes. How many people need News 24? How many people watch it? How much does it cost to run it as a cost per viewer per year? I bet we’d be shocked at how much is spent.

As someone who lives a long way from Islington I have come to understand that many people involved in TV and radio are less in tune with the taste of the nation than they would like to think. We are far more small c conservative than TV would have us believe and are as often as not on a totally differnt page to those who live in the capitol. Are we really chomping at the bit for programmes that have people living off a rubbish tip as Channel 4 are about to broadcast?

Radio Slightly Gaga

In early 1961 BBC DJ Pete Murray “took a hefty swipe at rock –‘n’- roll” according to the Melody Maker. He was about to start a new programme on the BBC’s Light Programme and told the paper that he would play no rock. According to Pete “I hate rock ‘n’ roll. It must be the only form of music, which the majority of musicians who are playing it dislike too. They only do it because it’s popular with the kids. I reckon the people who play rock are those who hate it more than anyone else.” Pete, besides being the first person ever to say the ‘F word’ on air during his days as a Radio Luxembourg DJ in 1953, became one of the original Radio One DJs in 1967.

Here is The News - It's Out!

In 1939, and throughout World War Two, the wireless was King, radio ruled supreme and a man with a cultured accent saying, “and here is the news”, meant only one thing – the British Broadcasting Corporation – the BBC – London – facts – information – and most importantly it meant…..THE TRUTH.

The Second World War was the only time in history that the radio has been the preeminent source of news. After what was a shaky start in the early months of the war the BBC was soon beating the newspapers to the news; so much so that the Newspaper Owners Association complained to the government. When the war started the BBC’s first broadcast of the day was at 6 p.m. because up until that time news was reserved for the newspapers. The idea of radio news was still very much in its infancy and several times in the 1930s the BBC actually said at 6 p.m. “Here is the news, there is no news”, and promptly ended the bulletin. Against this background it makes their achievements even more remarkable.

Towards the end of the war the BBC, in one of its publications, quoted from the preface to Dryden‘s poem Annus Mirabilis. “To describe the motives, the beginning, the progresses, and successes of a most just and necessary war.” It portrays perfectly what the BBC’s correspondents, editors, newsreaders, commentators, givers of talks and the thousands of dedicated employees who worked for the Corporation achieved.

When the war began the BBC had no more of a clue than anyone else, as to how the war would progress, how long it would last – other than it would probably be long - nor what would be its outcome. They had to adapt to changing circumstances against pressures that ranged from the cultural to the technical, both on a personal level and a global scale. In particular the expansion of the war into far flung corners of the world created enormous demands on the broadcaster, and in particular a growing exigency for correspondents the longer the war went on. Throughout it all the BBC had to face criticism at home, attacks from the newspapers, carping from MPs and sometimes the wrath of its own listeners – but broadly speaking Britain and the World never lost faith with the BBC.

Today the BBC has a reputation that has been built upon their achievements during the Second World War. There have been some who have tried to bring the harsh glare of a revisionist’s spotlight on the work of the Corporation, theirs have been cheap shots and as often as not they have been misinformed. The BBC provided the soundtrack to six of the most turbulent years in Britain’s history, and did so while showing great resilience during the early years of the war under what were very difficult conditions. They did it with great skill, flair, imagination, dedication and tremendous tenacity, and they did it while never losing sight of their own imperative - “To tell the truth – in war as in peace”

Public Opinion?

There's a great big banner splash headline on the BBC's web site asking who is the greatest British monarch, Victoria, Henry VIII or Elizabeth I. When you vote you get this come up.

King Henry VIII
13.20%
Queen Elizabeth I
46.85%
Queen Victoria
20.44%
Someone else
19.52%
13931 Votes Cast
Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion

So what is the vote indicative of - Martian opinion? Of course it's this obsession with absolute correctness and not wishing to be sued. But that's not what it says. Are the BBC worried they'll get in trouble again?

Tilting At TV Masts and Satellites

The 'challenge' laid down by Alex Salmond over a long-term strategy for broadcasting is an interesting one. But let me say from the outset that seeing 'control of broadcasting handed over to Holyrood' does not auger well for a whole variety of reasons.

First off the idea that government in some why can really exercise a positive influence on the creative, commercial and strategic direction of broadcasting is dubious at best.

The idea that 'people in London' are deliberately failing to nurture Scottish talent is just daft. People go where the money is and even if we have Scottish owned, run and managed networks they simply won't be competing on a level playing field.

The commission proposed by The FM will be chaired by a former BBC Scotland news chief, Blair Jenkins, who has been asked to come up with a strategy for broadcasting in Scotland. Big problem. Mr Jenkins famously fell out with the BBC over staffing cuts and resigned. I admire his stance, but I fear for his impartiality. I had an exchange of emails some time back, when Mr Jenkins was still in his job, over the BBC's coverage of news from the Borders - his answers were evasive and far from helpful.

One last thought. We have the Scottish News on the BBC at 6.30. If there was that much news why isn't it better? It cannot be that the people delivering it and those managing it are that useless, can it? What will we get with a Scottish 6, world news covered by reporters with Scottish accents?

Broadcasting is just like politics. The big guns head south for greater glory and greater reward. It'll never be any different. Shrek is tilting at TV masts and satellites.

News Should Not Be A Business

Watching the BBC 6 p.m. news last night it is irritating and sad that their coverage of the attempted bombing took on such alarmist tones. Their reporter 'somewhere near Glasgow Airport' said, "People across Scotland are living in fear". No we're not! Of course there's concerns, but lets not get this out of proportion. The BBC’s political correspondent at Westminster said and I paraphrase. ‘The bombers are altering their tactics and instead of the security people looking for home grown radicalized terrorists they are now importing foreign nationals which is all helping to keep the terrorists one step ahead.’

By its very nature this is what terrorism is, but at the same time we seem to be doing a pretty good job in dealing with it - albeit with some luck thrown in. Not perfect, but then you wouldn't expect that. Equally ‘the terrorists’ are not some homogenous group of people and however well organized al-Qaeda is there is a limit to how effective that organization can be.

In the papers today there's the usual rash of stories asking what did the Home Office and the security people really know? What weren’t they telling us? Our news obsessed world, the competing nature of news providers and this desire to always be able to say things like 'worst ever', 'most', 'dire', 'dreadful', 'disturbing', or whatever other words designed to make us feel even worse is potential crippling. There needs to be a sense of perspective from news providers and a recognition that they are providing us with what is at its heart a service and not a business. Competition in the news rating wars is irrelevant to us as recipients of news.

Franklin D Roosevelt said in 1933 “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. We should heed those sentiments and so should the news media who have a duty to not stir up the fear of fear.

Scary or What?

This Wednesday there's a documentary on BBC TV about Cherie Blair by Fiona Bruce. Not let me declare myself here. I have little respect for Mrs Blair (not sure you’re in the minority there – Ed) and as newsreaders go Fiona Bruce has always seemed more about pouting than news. In today's Sunday Times there's an article about Cherie by Ms Bruce and it's a great trail for the programme if you are in to sycophancy - "she’s clearly got a brain the size of a planet."

"It’s hard to think of a woman who’s been more written about, except possibly Heather Mills McCartney. And everyone has an opinion about her." - Princess Diana maybe? Paris Hilton? Karen what's her name from that daft pop group?

"Until now, Cherie herself has said almost nothing" What? Has FB been on the same planet? There was all those bloody speeches for charity, that TV programme with Carole Caplin and then there were the tears over the flat buying fiasco - her 'my little lad' moment.

Perhaps most amazing of all is the revelation that "she’s very dedicated to her family as well. Leo used to have assemblies on Thursday mornings and Cherie told me how the prime minister had his cabinet meetings moved for a while so he could go to them, too." He's the bloody PM for God Sake, not stacking shelves in ASDA - come to think of it they probably wouldn't let him have the time off. If it weren't so serious you'd think it was from a spoof TV show. "Sorry George, could we delay the attack on Iraq as I've got Leo's assembly to go to?"

"All around her say Cherie will cope fine with civilian life" Of course she will. There's the money, the houses, the fame, the list goes on and on. I'm sorry but I just don't buy Ms Bruce's take on the "bird in the gilded cage."