Afternoon:
10°c
Marr-style questioning puts BBC licence fee ‘at risk’
Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor29 Sep 2009
The BBC licence fee will be in danger if the corporation continues to allow “intrusive” journalism similar to Andrew Marr's questions to Gordon Brown, a Cabinet minister warned today.
In the most serious sign of Labour anger over Marr asking the Prime Minister if he took “prescription painkillers or pills” to help him carry out his job, the Standard has been told that the BBC should be careful about abandoning the standards that allow it to receive taxpayer funding.
The minister said the £142.50 licence fee could only be justified if the public felt the corporation was different from other parts of the media: “The whole point of the BBC is meant to be that they do things the commercial market does not, that they have higher standards.”
Several Labour MPs are plotting to boycott Marr's flagship TV programme in protest at his intrusive question.
Senior backbencher and possible leadership contender Jon Cruddas said that the BBC interviewer's conduct had been "absolutely disgraceful" and he would no longer go on his show. Other MPs, including some ministers, are reconsidering whether to accept future invitations on the Sunday morning Andrew Marr Show.
Marr has faced heavy criticism at the Labour conference after he asked the Prime Minister at the weekend if he took "prescription painkillers or pills" to help him carry out his job. Schools Secretary Ed Balls last night questioned Marr's "integrity", telling a fringe meeting that broadcasters should not propagate false allegations put around by "malicious bloggers".
He added: "It's really important that those people in positions of responsibility, not tweeting to 2,000 people but broadcasting to millions, understand the nature of their power and responsibility."
Marr was also involved in a row with housing minister Ian Austin, who confronted the BBC man about his Brown interview in the main conference hotel.
Marr has defended his approach, but admitted that he "got it in the neck" at a Coalfields Communities Federation reception yesterday. Lord Kinnock and Lord Mandelson claimed he had simply repeated rumours spread by the "extreme Right-wing blogosphere".
Reader views (17)
So what these Labour Ministers are saying is that as long as you push our agenda we are happy. Question it or ask awkward questions then we will turn on you, just like Harriet Harmen and that Union bloke did yesterday.
Have these people no idea. Why not just take it on the chin? I wonder if they realise that The Sun will now probably devote the next 8 months to totally destroying the Labour Government.
And those people like Harriet Harman who aspire to lead the Labour Party, will need all the support they can get if they wish to get their message across to the UK Public once they are consigned to opposition.
They are simply too stupid, too arrogant and too dangerous.
- Ian Gilbertson, Newcastle, 01/10/2009 09:33
Report abuse
The whole idea of journalism is that they dig away at the image, and expose the truth.
If Mr. Jon Cruddas thinks it is a 'disgrace' that a journalist should ask a political leader questions about his fitness to lead, then he is out of touch with the British public.
If Mr. Jon Cruddas MP, does not want to go on National Television to represent the interests of his constituency then there are others who would appreciate the opportunity.
It seems obvious that Mr. Jon Cruddas's main interests are self promotion within the Labour Party, and not the local issue campaigns we would expect him to promote.
- Gordon Kennedy, Dagenham Essex, 29/09/2009 21:23
Report abuse
I suppose all those who have agreed with Andrew Marr have nothing at all wrong with them.
The fact is Andrew Marr has basically intimated that anyone who has to take prescribed medication is not fit to be prime minister so that must rule out most of the population over 50!!
We should also remember the rumours that followed Harold Wilsons departure and have only just found out he atually had early onset dementia but the stygma attached to this condition prevented the truth being revealed.
While those anti Brown seem to forget that Sir Winston Churchill suffured from bouts of depression and yet he had a war to win.
And we have not dealt with alchol something many prime ministers and presidents have depended on. Well in Gordon we have a presberterian.
I think that leaders of other parties need to decide whether they will also appear on Andrew Marrs show.
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, 29/09/2009 19:48
Report abuse
If even Marr is being targeted, then the Stasi state of NuLabour Britain is frightingly advanced.
- Frank, Dorchester Dorset, 29/09/2009 17:06
Report abuse
Oh so the Zanu Labor "control" the BBC [Brown Broadcasting Corp?]. One step closer to Orwell's 1984?
- James Macleod Ritchie, Oyster Bay Cove, 29/09/2009 16:44
Report abuse
Communism = control and repression.
Who the hell do these bloody politicians think they are? This vile Labour government have absolutely destroyed democracy in this country. The final death-knell will come on Sat. when the Irish will vote Yes on the EU constitution, because they need the money.
Vote right, vote right.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 29/09/2009 16:34
Report abuse
Doubt they will be around to change anything at the rate they are going
- Nigel Rush, Paris France, 29/09/2009 15:58
Report abuse
>>Marr-style questioning puts BBC licence fee ‘at risk
Good. Keep up the awkward questions, Mr Marr, and perhaps they will scrap the licence fee.
- Peter, Harrow, UK, 29/09/2009 15:49
Report abuse
Anyone remember these ZaNuLiebore people complaining about Jeremy Paxman's question to Charles Kennedy about his drinking, or about David Cameron's alleged drug use 15+ years ago? Also aren't several 'celebrities' in rehab for proscription pain killer addiction, so as this item has been all over the web for a fortnight (started by a 'number 10' instruction about the PM's diet) it was the correct that Andrew Marr asked this question, and now that the PM has answered it this should now be relegated to the non story it so obviously was - unless these ZaNuLiebore apparatchiks are seeking to 'bury some bad news'?
- Jim, London, 29/09/2009 15:04
Report abuse
And Labour MPs seriously think that we will be crying into our cereal on a Sunday morning if we don't see their sanctimonious mugs? They are more out of touch than I thought...
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one, 29/09/2009 13:56
Report abuse
Own goal. Loads of tories and lib dems and no labour faces on Marr's programme. Good news to most people.
- Jilly, London, 29/09/2009 13:24
Report abuse
Great,they have nothing to offer this country in any case,dead party walking,dead Labour MPs walking,cant wait for the election so we can cremate the rotting lot of them.
- Dave, london, 29/09/2009 12:58
Report abuse
I fail to understand why MP's think they will be inconveniencing Andrew Marr by this stance. Surely it is they who need to get their message across to the electorate between now and the next General Election.
Since the Labour Party is £9m in debt, I can't see them finding much money for their campaign.
In any event most of them will be out of a job soon so it hardly matters.
On the subject of Marr's question about Brown's alleged pill-popping. I would have thought they would have welcomed the opportunity to set the record straight.
Yesterday, I watched John Major's short speech in front of the cameras at Number 10 Downing Street, following the 1997 General Election. When it is Brown's turn, I just cannot imagine him wishing the incoming Administration well and respecting the choice that the nation will have made.
Hopefully, Labour will be out of power for a generation (or two) and work can start on rebuilding this great country of ours.
- Ian Gilbertson, Newcastle, 29/09/2009 11:20
Report abuse
I think this can only be a good thing, I'm bored of hearing Labour MPs (and unelected "Lords") bleating on about how, despite 12 years of letting us down, we should now believe that they are going to start getting things right.
- St, London, 29/09/2009 11:15
Report abuse
It might add a bit of balance for there to be less of Labour on Marr's show as its recently been a bit of a love-in for Labour and its supporters.
- Bardirect, London, 29/09/2009 10:29
Report abuse
Why are the labour party ministers so annoyed about this? It was a perfectly acceptable question. Anyway I thought Marr and his wife Jackie Ashley were labour supporters as Marr has been very timid in questioning labour previously. Could this annoyance by the labour party be due to the fact that the question asked has some truth in it? Anyway I would like to know the health of my prime minister and this question is asked all over the world about other country's leaders too, however for our non elected prime minister it seems to be a taboo question. Brown reminds me of a spoilt brat.
- Johnathan, ealing, 29/09/2009 10:05
Report abuse
This in the same vein as the rumour spread by others about an end to boom and bust????
- Alan, carlisle uk, 29/09/2009 09:36
Report abuse
