Reader TTS

Despite the best efforts of the media, the public has so far been largely indifferent to the election campaign. Twitterstorms and floods, grandstanding and gaffes: all have simply failed to

register. A survey cited by the political scientist Matthew Goodwin found that, when asked what they had noticed thus far, 42 per cent replied: “Nothing at all.” In the case of the BBC, this

is not for want of trying. Last night’s Ten o’clock News led with the floods in South Yorkshire. The village of Fishlake had clearly suffered badly, but by no stretch of the imagination was

this a “national emergency”. Whether the poor people of Fishlake actually welcomed the arrival of political rubberneckers such as Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson, we were not told, perhaps

because nobody had bothered to ask them. Yet the BBC had managed to find an academic from Reading to say that the flooding of Fishlake had made her “frightened” about what might happen to

the whole country in 50 years’ time. The impression was given that the Prime Minister’s decision to hold a Cobra meeting was a case of “too little, too late”. Boris might be able to make a

cup of tea and even clear up his dog’s “business”, but apparently he had failed the Noah test. Naturally, David Shukman, the BBC’s science editor, laid on the climate alarmism with a trowel.

Viewers were told nothing about the direct causes of the inundation, such as building on flood plains or impacted soil due to intensive animal grazing — not to mention letting householders

concrete over their gardens. Presumably such explanations were deemed too dry and would also have meant assigning blame to local, not just national, government. Only John Pienaar, one of the

Beeb’s remaining reliably impartial reporters, spoilt the fun by observing that the politicisation of the floods was “entirely predictable”. Strangely, Newsnight ignored the floods “crisis”

in favour of what seemed to its editors a more urgent question: whether a free trade agreement with the EU could be negotiated in less than a year, as Boris Johnson has promised. For an

objective analysis of this arcane issue, who better for Emily Maitlis to interview than Rory Stewart, who was openly critical of the Government even when he still belonged to it and is now

standing as an Independent? As befits proper celebrities, interviewer and interviewee got on famously. Indeed, by the end they were all over one another to such an extent that one almost

felt like telling them: get a room! It was another story when Ms Maitlis turned to Daniel Kawczynski, whose job was to defend the Tory slogan “Let’s get Brexit done”. She came close to

accusing the Polish-born MP of disloyalty to his adoptive country for having tried in vain to persuade Warsaw to veto another Article 50 extension. Surely he was paid by the taxpayer to

represent Parliament, she insisted, not to hold talks with foreign powers? By the end of the interview she was shouting and jeering at Kawczynski. It was uncomfortable to watch and this

viewer at least was left wondering whether a BBC presenter would have treated a member of any other ethnic minority in this fashion. Perhaps Ms Maitlis would have been kinder if she had

known that her interlocutor had married his male partner last weekend. It is amazing that, despite such one-sided election coverage by the national broadcaster, the Tory lead over Labour has

remained solid. The latest YouGov poll even puts the Conservatives up two points at 42 per cent, with Labour on 28 per cent. The Brexit Party’s supporters appear to be abandoning ship since

Nigel Farage stood down their candidates in Tory seats. They are evidently inured to the bias of what some Remainers still like to call “the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation”. In a month’s

time, most voters will have decided what impact the parties and their policies are likely to have on their lives. They will have formed an opinion about whom to trust and whom to fear, who

is capable of running the country and who is not. Very few, it is safe to say, will have made these judgments on the basis of remote and hence unpredictable future scenarios. On polling day,

it is the here and now that will matter.