The Lemon Fool

I can't be the only one on here to have watched this. Three episodes that chart the battles inside the government from the referendum to the present day. Straight from the horses (politicians & civil servants) mouths. Gripping TV.

I can't watch it without feeling that Kuenssberg is acting like the narrator and interviewer, but at the time she was a big part of the "chaos", and was economical with the truth on the BBC then, and is still being so.

Scott.

I only watched the second and third episodes - the first episode, largely about Brexit, May and Boris, covered ground that normally throws me into a state of depression. Whereas at least the later Boris-and-Liz farce provided us with the occasional snort of mirth. And, thank god, we are now, for the time being, being governed by relatively intelligent and thoughtful beings of some sort. (Your views might differ.)

In fact I thought Kuenssberg was being pretty fair and balanced in her coverage of the two lunatics. She didn't spend hours and hours relating the ghastly details of Boris's Party Party period, as I would have done. Because, although it was the details where all the devils lay, there were so many of them that we'd have got bogged down pretty quickly and dammit, she only had three hours for the whole wretched saga.

I give her credit for cutting through to the key issues, supported by the invaluable interview material that she got from just about everybody who ever hated Boris - which included most of the senior Brexiteers. If those interviews hadn't been so revealing, she'd have had to return to her own hatreds, and she managed not to do that.

She was also good at not being sidetracked by the exact mechanics of the Mini-Budget catastrophe, because that would have meant getting out the chalk and the blackboard and teaching the viewers stuff about the bond markets which they'd never have understood. Instead, she stuck to the theme that the free markets would not and could not have reacted any other way.

That was good enough to get the job done, although IMHO she somehow allowed Truss to escape with too much of her bloated and distorted ego still intact. She wasn't as angry as me, that's for sure. But, as Boris would have said, them's the breaks.

On balance, I reckon Kuenssberg did a pretty good job within her limited 180 minute space, given that there had been enough dirt and squalor going on to keep a TV soap opera's writers busy for a couple of years.

Entertaining and enlightening. It won't stop the "good old Boris" brigade.

swill453 wrote:I can't watch it without feeling that Kuenssberg is acting like the narrator and interviewer, but at the time she was a big part of the "chaos", and was economical with the truth on the BBC then, and is still being so.

Scott.

That's ridiculous. A bit like blaming Robert Peston for the financial crash.

Redmires wrote:

swill453 wrote:I can't watch it without feeling that Kuenssberg is acting like the narrator and interviewer, but at the time she was a big part of the "chaos", and was economical with the truth on the BBC then, and is still being so.

Scott.

That's ridiculous. A bit like blaming Robert Peston for the financial crash.

If there are two folk in a room with a journalist, one who claims it is raining outside and the other that it is sunny - the job of the journalist should be to check and report the truth

Redmires wrote:

swill453 wrote:I can't watch it without feeling that Kuenssberg is acting like the narrator and interviewer, but at the time she was a big part of the "chaos", and was economical with the truth on the BBC then, and is still being so.

Scott.

That's ridiculous. A bit like blaming Robert Peston for the financial crash.

I also can't bring myself to watch it. Whatever I might feel about that administration at that time I've watched LK traipse around the UK and Europe for years now following PMs and ministers wherever they go seemingly with a remit to needle, upstage and embarrass.
I even find the play on words in the title irritates me. This kind of zeitgeist that insists on over use of words like chaos, crisis, shambles etc to describe the UK.

bungeejumper wrote:In fact I thought Kuenssberg was being pretty fair and balanced in her coverage of the two lunatics. She didn't spend hours and hours relating the ghastly details of Boris's Party Party period, as I would have done. Because, although it was the details where all the devils lay, there were so many of them that we'd have got bogged down pretty quickly and dammit, she only had three hours for the whole wretched saga.

When Partygate was kicking off in Dec 2021, Kuenssberg went missing from about the 3rd week of December for about 3 weeks and reappeared with the announcement she would be stepping down from current role and taking the Marr job. Bubble slowly deflated.

I always thought it was so that she never had to answer these questions: did you know about any of the 'events', were you invited to any of the 'events', did you attend any of the 'events'. The climate at the time was toxic and she'd have been unable to lie to any of those questions for fear someone who believed differently would come forward and contradict her - so she never faced the questions. It's very possible she (and many others with access) knew of some of the events, but only in hindsight did they see how this would appear when the scale of public reaction became more clear.

Dicky99 wrote:Whatever I might feel about that administration at that time I've watched LK traipse around the UK and Europe for years now following PMs and ministers wherever they go seemingly with a remit to needle, upstage and embarrass.

Needling politicians is a key part of what political journalists are there to do. If they don't needle, their interviewees can stay within their bubbles indefinitely, and that's how their lies don't get found out.

Most politicians do recognise that fact, awkward though it is for them. You could always tell when LK had Boris on the ropes, because he'd say "oh, now come on, Laura", presumably hoping that, if he used her name, some of his avuncular schtick might rub off on her. Kuenssberg, on the other hand, alwasys addressed him back as "Prime Minister", which was journalist-speak for "don't think you're going to slide out sideways by smarming me".

If you want to see what happens to a country when journalists don't needle, try France. The French press is the most obedient, un-provocative, well-behaved corps that you're ever likely to find. And that's why Mitterrand was able to get away with all those mistresses and all those children for all those years, and why all those dodgy state contracts were never reported at all, and why French priests were never challenged about all those goings-on with children.

And why nothing much ever seems to change at the top....

It's also why even the best French newspapers are not worth buying. And why when French people want to know what's going on in their country, they look to foreign news sources to tell them.

(Ex-Fleet Street) BJ

They should have got Philomena Cunk to do it.

GrahamPlatt wrote:They should have got Philomena Cunk to do it.

What ? To run the country after Liz Truss

swill453 wrote:I can't watch it without feeling that Kuenssberg is acting like the narrator and interviewer, but at the time she was a big part of the "chaos", and was economical with the truth on the BBC then, and is still being so.

Scott.

It was a brilliant review of events, even so. I found it informative on a deeper level than we were aware at the time and there was much to be gleaned from the interviews which though necessarily selective (it wasn't a legal enquiry!) did encompass views from all sides. I rate it therefore as being relatively unbiassed provided you weren't deaf to the various opinions.

We have lived through a period of high chaos starting around the time of the emergence of Farage and the Referendum, and whatever one's view or conclusion there was much to be learned from this series.
There is relief all round that this dreadful period is passing over and with the likes of Sunak and Starmer we are in calmer times. We can do without the highjinks, clowning and divisiveness which we have suffered during the recent past.

Well done Kuenssberg for placing events in context, and well done BBC for an excellent factual series.

Arb.

I quite enjoyed it - apart from the total cringe of watching the UK kick it's own ass repeatedly.

Saying that, I prefer to watch Euronews these days and they don't seem to have such a low opinion of the UK as we do of ourselves.

bungeejumper wrote:

Dicky99 wrote:Whatever I might feel about that administration at that time I've watched LK traipse around the UK and Europe for years now following PMs and ministers wherever they go seemingly with a remit to needle, upstage and embarrass.

Needling politicians is a key part of what political journalists are there to do. If they don't needle, their interviewees can stay within their bubbles indefinitely, and that's how their lies don't get found out.

Most politicians do recognise that fact, awkward though it is for them. You could always tell when LK had Boris on the ropes, because he'd say "oh, now come on, Laura", presumably hoping that, if he used her name, some of his avuncular schtick might rub off on her. Kuenssberg, on the other hand, alwasys addressed him back as "Prime Minister", which was journalist-speak for "don't think you're going to slide out sideways by smarming me".

If you want to see what happens to a country when journalists don't needle, try France. The French press is the most obedient, un-provocative, well-behaved corps that you're ever likely to find. And that's why Mitterrand was able to get away with all those mistresses and all those children for all those years, and why all those dodgy state contracts were never reported at all, and why French priests were never challenged about all those goings-on with children.

And why nothing much ever seems to change at the top....

It's also why even the best French newspapers are not worth buying. And why when French people want to know what's going on in their country, they look to foreign news sources to tell them.

(Ex-Fleet Street) BJ

Yes indeed BJ. For those who had the dubious pleasure to watch Macron being 'interviewed' by two leading journalists from France Television and TF1 on Sunday for 30 mins - all one can say is thank goodness we have LK and her ilk in the UK.

T7

BigB wrote:When Partygate was kicking off in Dec 2021, Kuenssberg went missing from about the 3rd week of December for about 3 weeks and reappeared with the announcement she would be stepping down from current role and taking the Marr job.

Either that, or she was keeping her confrontational nose deliberately out of the picture while her candidacy for the Marr job was being considered. I don't think that's very different from what other people in other professions might have done?

I always thought it was so that she never had to answer these questions: did you know about any of the 'events', were you invited to any of the 'events', did you attend any of the 'events'

The press always knows stuff that isn't being released to the public. When I was on one of the editorial desks we always had info that wasn't solid enough to release - such as BoE soundings on the forthcoming budget, or stuff that had been legally silenced by courtroom omertas. Dammit, we also knew who exactly was going to be in the new year's honours list, a good ten days in advance, but we'd have been drummed out if we'd blabbed. (We knew that we might also be denied future access to those privileged sources if we spilled the beans. )

Most of all, though, LK's team would have known at the time that there was nothing particularly juicy to be had from revealing yet another string of Downing Street parties. Especially since the Mail and the Express would have gone straight into vitriolic hyperdrive about all the lefties at the BBC, etcetera, etcetera (continued on page 94). Better, probably, to hold their fire until they had a substantial pattern of Number Ten misdoings to report?

OTOH, if you've got solid evidence that LK was at those naughty parties, I'm sure that m'learned friends would be eager to assess it. I wouldn't advise it, personally.

BJ

I wiah a competent journalist - any journalist - would do an in depth interview with 'He who thinks he can walk on water' Drakeford. A hatchet job is defintely needed on that deaf idiot.

R6

BigB wrote:

bungeejumper wrote:In fact I thought Kuenssberg was being pretty fair and balanced in her coverage of the two lunatics. She didn't spend hours and hours relating the ghastly details of Boris's Party Party period, as I would have done. Because, although it was the details where all the devils lay, there were so many of them that we'd have got bogged down pretty quickly and dammit, she only had three hours for the whole wretched saga.

When Partygate was kicking off in Dec 2021, Kuenssberg went missing from about the 3rd week of December for about 3 weeks and reappeared with the announcement she would be stepping down from current role and taking the Marr job. Bubble slowly deflated.

I always thought it was so that she never had to answer these questions: did you know about any of the 'events', were you invited to any of the 'events', did you attend any of the 'events'. The climate at the time was toxic and she'd have been unable to lie to any of those questions for fear someone who believed differently would come forward and contradict her - so she never faced the questions. It's very possible she (and many others with access) knew of some of the events, but only in hindsight did they see how this would appear when the scale of public reaction became more clear.

Why do you have it in for Kuenssberg? The above sounds like just a classic rant againts the messenger rather than being concerned with the greater problem - namely our politicians over that period.

Rhyd6 wrote:I wiah a competent journalist - any journalist - would do an in depth interview with 'He who thinks he can walk on water' Drakeford. A hatchet job is defintely needed on that deaf idiot.

R6

Try here: https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/s ... 0475387858 (I haven't listened to this)

Or here: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/m ... 0579634739 (have listened, and I thought he came over very well)

DM

Rhyd6 wrote:I wiah a competent journalist - any journalist - would do an in depth interview with 'He who thinks he can walk on water' Drakeford. A hatchet job is defintely needed on that deaf idiot.

R6

Clearly on topic

T7