Beeb Bias Craig

CLOSURE NOTICE

2010-05-26T19:02:00.005+01:00

**
Sorry my friends, this blog is now officially closed.
*
When I started it, I intended to stop after the election. Though that intention faded as time went on, I will stick with it now. I need to write about something else, something I broke off writing about a year ago. I am itching to get back to doing that - a long-term project of mine. That's one part of it (the main part of it).
*
This is the other. You may still see me from time to time over at Biased BBC - which I will keep on reading - but I intend to avoid BBC News like a plague for a few months! You really can hear too much of James Naughtie and Carolyn Quinn, and see too much of Andrew Marr and Kirsty Wark. I am sick of the sound and sight of them.
*
Biased BBC will, of course, go on doing its magnificent, many-eyed work and the tireless eyes of Not a sheep (more an eagle than a goat) will not let the biased BBC rest either.
*
I want to thank you all for your support - and, at times of need, help. Thank you to all my followers. You have all been wonderful.
*
I must thank Not a sheep for all his encouragement, and his example, and Ctesibius, kindly Ptolemaic inventor of that killer tool, the interruption coefficient - available for all to keep using!

Thanks to Hippiepooter for his support and help and for honouring me by including me in his invaluable Biased BBC digests.
*
Also, thanks to my most long-term commenter, known only as Anonymous (there have been the occasional impostors adopting your name but you have always been the Anonymous!), who has shared so many of my grim experiences of listening to the Toady programme and the odious Carolyn Quinn. I have very much appreciated your comments.
*
Grant, you really must add Morecambe to your list of regular haunts (far fewer midges than Scotland, much sunnier than the Gambia). Your comments have made my day many a time, and I hope to keep seeing lots of them over at B-BBC. I almost always resisted the temptation to respond with a photo of John Prescott. Thank you Grant.
*

And thanks also to Andy C, whose support has been no less appreciated - and whose views towards the Rockies even I, with my superb views across Morecambe Bay to the Lakeland Hills, envy just a little bit. The idea of you reading my blog each day after looking out towards the Rockies helped inspire me to keep at it this year and to try to start again after the election. Thank you sir. Sorry for not being able to keep at it.
*
Thanks again to all and, lest this be turning into the longest Oscar speech in history, let you just say

Best wishes

Craig

EUROPIA THE BEAUTIFUL

2010-05-22T15:46:00.006+01:00

*
Arch-Europhile James Naughtie discussed "what lies ahead for the EU" this morning with arch-Europhile and former VP of the European Commission Lord Brittan and arch-Europhile historian (and consequent Lib Dem supporter) Timothy Garton-Ash. The discussion was thoughtful, not without interest and, inevitably, given the current 'existential threats' to the Euro, not entirely free from angst either, but nonetheless it was a meeting of Europhile minds of the kind an unbiased broadcaster might not have considered entirely acceptable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8698000/8698581.stm
*
Incidentally, our old friend James Naughtie gave us a fine Freudian slip this morning (highlighted, aptly, in red), asking Leon Brittan: "Sort of intrigued about the arrival of Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister. Not as intrigued as you will be since he used to work in your office in Brussels. (Why doesn't that surprise me?) Were you surprised when you saw the deal unravel and have you offered him any advice?" You can hope, Labour Jim, you can hope!
*
Lord Brittan, no less incidentally, was delighted, clearly preferring the ConLib coalition to a Conservatives-only government (Why doesn't that surprise me either?)
*
*
Coda: The Today website's headline for this piece is classic BBC:
*
********Eurozone 'must keep the show on the road'
*
As a summary of the BBC narrative, this can hardly be bettered!!
*

ANY QUESTIONS?

2010-05-22T12:18:00.008+01:00

*
This week's Any Questions featured a revealing encounter between Jonathan Dimbleby and a member of the audience (a typically left-wing audience, but then it was from just outside Swansea.)
*
The questioner, a Mr Greg Wilkinson, offered the panel a choice of questions (war and peace or equality and inequality) - much to JD's surprise. Dimbleby wanted to be able to ask Labour leadership no-hoper John McDonnell about the Labour leadership and prompted Mr Wilkinson to use what was clearly the agreed question about the Labour leadership. The bolshie Mr Wilkinson was not playing ball: "I was given a question to ask, but that's my question. She said 'Any question', this is my question." He asked an anti-American, pro-European, anti-war question instead. (For more on Mr Wilkinson:
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Pensioner-picks-date-protest/article-594221-detail/article.html)
*
Jonathan Dimbleby, clearly embarrassed, returned to the subject shortly afterwards, as he thought that the listening public might be "puzzled" about this exchange. He thought, naturally, that the listening public might leap to the conclusion that Mr Wilkinson's "I was given a question to ask" meant that the show's producers sometimes give their own pre-prepared questions to the audience for them to ask on their behalf - which, if true, would completely undermine the show's credibility. (Haven't we all suspected that from time to time though? And even more so about its sister show - or should that be 'brother show'? - Question Time?)
*
JD explained that what Mr Wilkinson meant was that because the show gets large numbers of questions from the audience each week the producers must pick a handful to be read out. This is sort-of obvious, but it puts on record the fact that what gets asked and who is chosen to ask the questions is entirely at the discretion of the programme's producers. If a question attacking the coalition comes up first, or a question calling for the scrapping of Trident comes up third, that happens because the shows producers have chosen it to happen. If a left-wing, anti-Israeli protester (like Mr Wilkinson) gets called on to ask a question, that's because he has been picked by the show's producers. Everything is filtered through their lenses. There's nothing random about the show. All very obvious really, but sometimes the obvious goes unnoticed.
*
As further evidence for all this, and in blatant disregard for the very idea behind the show, Jonathan Dimbleby then - after the four panelists had finished holding forth on Mr Wilkinson's question - simply went ahead and put the question Mr Wilkinson was supposed to have asked to John McDonnell, regardless. The programme's agenda was not going to be derailed that easily!
*

THE BRANDENBURG BAIT

2010-05-22T07:09:00.004+01:00

*
Alas for the hard-working taxpayers of Germany, their parliament (with understandable reluctance) has now voted to hand over huge amounts of their money to bail out the profligate Greeks.
*
Last night's Newnight led on the story. Well I say 'led on' it, but Peter Marshall's latest report started from a somewhat different angle, an angle familiar from so much of the BBC's coverage of this story, an anti-Cameron angle: "Well in two days the Eurosceptical new British leader has 'done Europe' - the power centres of Paris and Berlin. And the Europeans, struggling with their financial crisis, may well feel he's given them little more than small change. Everyone speaks of 'solidarity' but David Cameron was never going to divvy up funding, still less to surrender what he sees as British sovereignty".
*
Everyone from Shirin Wheeler to Kirsty Wark has been pushing this line: Europe (especially Germany) should be showing solidarity with the poor Greeks by bailing them out. This will save the Euro. Britain should not be standing on the sidelines but should be showing solidarity too and handing over more money. The British taxpayer would doubtless be as reluctant as the German taxpayer but, then again, when have the interests of the British taxpayer ever been at the forefront of the BBC's mind? Nor do Peter Marshall's comments take into account the fact that we Brits are at least as up to our eyes in debt as the Greeks - and, if rumour is to be believed again, very possibly even more so - so we will need all the money we already have to rescue ourselves, never mind rescue the Eurozone.
*
No, he was much more concerned to stoke up conflict between the new prime minister and the chancellors and presidents of Europe (just as he was doing on Thursday in Paris).
*
He kept plugging away at it: "Now struggling with the Euro crisis, Angela Merkel was wishfully thinking that Britain might lend a hand." David Cameron "disabused" her.
*
He still kept plugging away at it: "Even among critics of Angela Merkel here - and there are many - there's some resentment at Britain's refusal to to pay any part of the Great Euro Bailout", he said, before turning to one such critic, who sourly warned (to the accompaniment of Mr Marshall's nodding head) that, should we in the UK face collapse, our standing-aside now could seriously backfire on us. Who was this man? Remarkably, there was no caption to tell us and Peter Marshall forgot to tell us. (I bet he was a left-winger, probably from the SPD).
*
There was no stopping Peter Marshall. After giving us a pair of contrasting German vox-pops, the second of whom said that 'we're all in it together', he returned to his attack: "Not 'in this together', certainly not in the financial sense, is the UK and its new premier."
*
A new angle of attack followed. We saw Peter Marshall at the Cameron-Merkel joint press conference asking the new premier a question. We're so used to probing, mischief-making British journalists asking deeply embarrassing questions to our leaders that it's rarely shocking to hear them asking any question, even when putting it at a sensitive press conference between heads of government. This one was pure mischief-making: "One of the British diplomats is quoted this morning as saying it was 'crackers' for Mrs Merkel's government to act unilaterally against naked short-selling. Did you think it was 'crackers'? Did you tell Chancellor Merkel it was 'crackers'?"
*
David Cameron's diplomatic answer was then spun by Mr Marshall, in a classic instance of BBC editorialising, into something worse: "That was both a pointed rebuke for Germany's measures earlier this week that set the world's markets tumbling and it was yet another reiteration (sigh) of Britain's independence."
*
The spinning continued right to the bitter end: "The leader of Germany and the new leader of the UK say they get on harmoniously but on the key issue of the Euro there's discord and you can't help but hear that." Especially, if you're looking for it Peter!
*

SPECULATION

2010-05-21T15:39:00.008+01:00

*
Too much to catch up on, so I won't even try! So just a vignette.
*
Many of us suspected that the rumours (circulating for some time now) - that the last government acted a bit like previous Greek governments and deliberately hid the true scale of our national debt - were true. What is already a national scandal - the present level of our national indebtedness - (though it is not being treated as such by the political class or the BBC) may well be far worse than we feared. There have been statements from senior figures in the new coalition this week that suggest that they're finding lots of evidence for this. Sadly, they aren't producing it for us. If there is proof of systematic fiddling of our national accounts by Labour, our new government shouldn't act like members of a clubby, opportunistic political elite and merely suggest as much but then move on without seeking to punish the guilty parties (or party!). They should lay all the evidence before us and then call in the fraud squad. If Labour has been fiddling the books then calling in the fraud squad is hardly an unreasonable or an extreme response!!
*
Imagine for a moment that the rumours are true. Wouldn't you expect the BBC, regardless of who was in power then or now, to flood our airwaves with Panorama or Analysis specials investigating the scandal? Wouldn't you expect Today to pry and probe day in and day out to get at the truth? If the rumours are true and the coalition government produces the evidence in great detail and with complete candour, how could even the generally pro-Labour BBC fail not to investigate further?
*
These speculations arise as a result of the following depressing exchanges between John Humphrys and Norman Smith at 6.32am last Monday.
*

Discussing George Osborne's remarks about already having found skeletons in the cupboard, John and Norm immediately ditched this discussion and concentrated instead on the cuts the coalition would soon be enforcing - their scope and their immediacy, and their falling on "Mr and Mrs Average" - as well as the setting up of an Office of Budget Responsibility. Here Norm did at least mention, in passing, that economic experts thought that Alistair Darling's growth predictions were "bluntly bordering on the heroic". (It would have been far blunter though to say they were absolute rubbish, of course. And blunter still to say (with a hat-tip to Tarzan) they were complete Ed Balls. And, being even more blunt, to say that, far from being 'heroic', they were much more likely to have been extremely 'cowardly' in their reluctance to admit reality to the voting public prior to a general election.)
*
The really depressing bit follows, and it begins with a question from John Humprhys:
"And I suppose if one were being desperately cynical one might suggest that they've discovered all these skeletons in the closet at a convenient time because it enables them to say 'Look, we don't have any choice. Don't blame us for all these cuts and tax increases and all the rest of it. It's the other lot's fault. It's what they left us with."
*
It's odd, isn't it, that John Humphrys's 'desperate cyninism' anticipates, to an eerie degree, Alistair Darling's "It's the oldest trick in the book, blaming the last government" defence put forward on The World At One on the same day?
*
Is this going to be how the BBC reacts should evidence emerge that Labour has been systematically fiddling the books? To say that the Tories are just playing the oldest trick in the book, trying to deflect the blame for all these cuts and tax increases away from themselves and onto the last Labour government?
*
This is, very obviously, to ignore the fact that the present government isn't responsible for our national debt and isn't responsible for the cuts and tax increases that are going to happen. It is Labour, Labour, Labour that is responsible. Obviously and undeniably Gordon Brown's responsibility.
*
Well, not obviously and undeniably for the BBC, if Humph's question is anything to go by.
*
And how did Norman Smith respond to Humph's question? By countering it, or qualifying it, or softening it? No, by agreeing with it: "I mean, of course there is an element of politicking here and of course the new coalition administration will want to apportion as much blame as possible onto Gordon Brown's administration..." Well, to quote Not a sheep again 'No shit Sherlock'. But also to quote myself, 'Norman Smith is a Labour apologist.' To concede that there is an 'element of politicking' here is to state an opinion - an opinion harmful to the coalition. There may well be an 'element of politicking' here (or there may not be), but that doesn't mean that the coalition aren't correct in their charge against Labour. And more importantly, why should we have to pay to hear Norman Smith give us his opinion that there is an 'element of politicking' here? He should, like John Humphrys, keep his opinions to himself.
*
Moreover, if Gordon Brown's administration is to blame for the JAW-DROPPING level of national debt that our country and its taxpayers are liable for, and for the sheer scale of "the pain ahead" (as Norm put it) - and if it isn't no other party in the UK is! - why is it wrong to say so?
*#
No, if Labour are proven to have fiddled the nation's books to a scandalous degree I suspect that there won't be many Panorama or Analysis specials, nor much probing by Today.

A WARK DOWN (BAD) MEMORY LANE

2010-05-21T12:04:00.004+01:00

*
Last night's Newsnight contained a few echoes of one of the programme's most biased pre-election editions, chronicled here:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/liz-mckeans-very-biased-report-gavin.html
*
To mark David Cameron's first foreign trip as prime minister, meeting President Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace, Peter Marshall followed him to Paris. As soon as I heard Mr Marshall talk about "a history of upsets and insults", I thought 'They're bound to bring up George Osborne's joke about Sarko's height' ("the Sarkozy box" remark), from which particular molehill the programme had made almost as much of a mountain as the French. It wasn't too long in coming: "If British Euroscepticism has deep roots, there's a current bete noire here in Paris and he's the new British chancellor. It was the moment last August when Mr Osborne, at a business conference, poked fun at President Sarkozy's stature. That very personal insult appalled the French, whatever their political stripe. They felt it unforgivably rude" (Molehill, mountain). Cue a French leftist (not introduced as such of course), former Europe minister Noelle Lenoir, who called Mr Osborne "immature". Oh well, I suppose they had to bring it up, didn't they? And seek out someone from the Left to comment on it as well? As well at Mme Lenoir, Peter Marshall also sought out Cameron's "old sparring partner" Jean-Francois Cope of the Europhile UMP.
*
Who did Kirsty Wark talk to in the wake of this Tory-free report? The German ambassador , the French ambassador and...Chris Bryant, shadow minister for Europe. (Why Chris Bryant?)
*
And what was Kirsty's first question to the French ambassador "Ambassador, before we go on and talk about the future, let's talk about the state of the relationship before David Cameron came to power yesterday (sic), the unfortunate comments by George Osborne about President Sarkozy's stature, and on the other side what Sarkozy said about the fact that the Tories left the EPP, said that was "autistic and sad". The relationship has not been of the best up till now, has it?" M Gourdault-Montagne, being an ambassador (a role the presenter clearly doesn't understand), refused to play along and make the second part of his surname out of any more molehills but Kirsty Wark, never the diplomat, soon crashed into his answer and tried again: "And yet, and yet just months ago, sorry to interrupt you (yeah, sure you are!) and yet..are you telling me now that when President Sarkozy said it was "sad and autistic" of the Tories to leave the EPP, he was telling fibs?" When he replied diplomatically, she laughed at him derisively.
*
And on she went, turning next to the German ambassador and saying "And by the same token Angela Merkel was clearly very angry as well when the Conservatives left the EPP. She was supposedly furious about it. How do you create a relationship where you're saying that you actually want Britain to be part of the European discussions about what happens to the Eurozone but you don't believe, as it were, that they're in the right position?" Herr Boomgaarden gave the answer Mr Gourdault-Montagne should have given when Kirsty laughed at his answer: "I'm an ambassador of a country not of a party. That means I don't comment on party-party relations." Exactly.
*
I like Ambassador Boomgaarden. I've talked before about the BBC's keenness to get British taxpayers to fork out lots of money to save (a) the Greeks and (b) the Euro. When Kirsty shot off down this increasingly familiar line of BBC questioning, like a ferret down a spacious pair of trousers, he responded in a way that (however convincing you find it) made my wallet feel a lot happier:
*
Kirsty (interrupting): "And how do you exactly see evidence of that 'constructive new relationship'? Could it be down to how much Britain is prepared to put in to help the Eurozone's financial problems?"
Ambassador: "This sounds as if we need help for the Euro..."
Kirsty: "Do you not?"
Ambassador: "No we do not. The Euro is a firm, stable and wonderful monetary unit. It works. It went up today."
*
Again, like a determined ferret in the late, great Cyril Smith's trousers, Kirsty wasn't going to be deflected. My wallet looked worried again as she turned to the French ambassador and asked: "How do you want Britain to proceed? You already have this promise from Alistair Darling of the 8 billion euros (my wallet had forgotten about that!). Do you think there should be a further financial contribution from the British?" M Gourdault-Montagne said, sensibly enough, that the important thing was for Britain, and all other EU countries, to tackle its deficit - as that is the root of the problem. (Yes, cheers Gordon for making ours among the worst of all!!)
*
At least putting a question for once from a devil's advocate position, Kirsty's next question (another interruption) to the French ambassador again showed her complete inability to grasp the concept of ambassadorship and ask questions appropriate to a diplomatic role: "But ambassador, do you think Britain actually in the end...Britain was right to stay outside the Eurozone, wasn't she?" That's a question you should ask a politician, not an ambassador. "It's not up to us to say", he replied, speaking for the French nation but perhaps also speaking for ambassadors as a breed!
*
That she was playing devil's advocate (as all BBC interviewers should be doing at all appropriate times) was suggested by the way she put her next question: "Just finally Chris Bryant. You absolutely sure that Britain was right to stay outside the Eurozone for now and all time?" (Mr Bryant attacked the Conservatives and the coalition in both his answers, as if the election were still going on. Now how's that for "mature" politics? What would Mme Lenoir make of that? Thank goodness he's now a shadow of his former self!)

P.S. Why do BBC journalists think it's the done thing to remind foreign ambassadors about reasons to be angry with the British Conservatives? Who does that help? The French and Germans? No. The British? No. The British opposition? Perhaps. It's a strange practice, isn't it?

JIMS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

2010-05-21T09:27:00.004+01:00

*
Labour MP, and joint chair (hopefully not bought from John Lewis at our expense) of the Unite parliamentary group, Jim Sheridan was on Today this morning bellyaching about Ipsa (the "vindictive" Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority). James Naughtie was quick to "make it clear that this (the complaint against Ipsa) comes from all parties". Mr Sheridan got a sympathetic hearing. And more than that, he was extended a courtesy which I suspect might not have been extended to a Conservative MP with a comparable expenses record - Naughtie chose not to bring up any of his controversial expense claims - the plasma TV, the coffee table, the ivory leather bed, the Memory foam mattress, the new shower (etc), not to mention his enthusiastic use of the second home's allowance. He was also a very strong supporter of Speaker Martin, the Chief Trougher who famously fought tooth and nail against Freedom Of Information campaigners.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5354087/Jim-Sheridan-claimed-for-plasma-TV-and-leather-bed.html
*
A new parliament, but not a new MP and not a new story.

ON YOUR MARKS

2010-05-21T07:48:00.004+01:00

*
After attacking the 'Tory Right' for disapproving of "those pesky foreign laws" contained in the Human Rights Act (in his second post from under the gloomy ConLib ash cloud), Mark Easton has now moved on to the new immigration cap proposed by the coalition. His latest post attempts to undermine it:

Thinking cap
Mark Easton 14:06 UK time, Thursday, 20 May 2010

'It is the "mechanism" (to calculate the annual limit) that is going to be the really tricky bit', he says.

There isn't really a problem anyhow (thanks to Labour), or a least not a problem about too much non-EU economic migration: 'At the moment, the only non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK are those with enormous wealth, enormous brains or with specific skills in areas where Britain has an identified shortage.' So stop worrying that there's too much non-EU immigration and start worrying instead about the idea of a cap and too little non-EU immigration!

Opposition is growing, apparently, to...the new proposal: 'How will the mechanism prevent the cap damaging the national interest? There are already warnings that stopping people coming to the UK who have skills or investment we need would undermine another of the coalition's stated aims - to "support sustainable growth and enterprise".' (Funny, how some 'warnings' are considered worth mentioning, but others not).

Mark Easton has been caught out over his (mis)use of statistics before, most notoriously over knife crime. Migration Watch (who he doesn't quote) record an instance of this from during the election campaign which is well worth a read:
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefingPaper/document/191.
*
So, it's with a strong dose of wariness that we read: 'As revealed on this blog, official data show that the number of non-EU economic migrants employed in the UK is falling - down 76,000 last year compared with the year before.'
*
Am I missing something here (and I very well could be!) but surely this figure - even if taken at face value -, which is being used by Mark to suggest a long-term trend for falling non-EU economic migration - is very possibly nothing more than a short-term consequence of the fact that we were in a very deep recession last year? This figure could be nothing more, therefore, than a blip (a spike) caused by people choosing, for the time being, not to come to a country that in 2009 was deep in recession - a blip that might run counter to the overall trend. Merely quoting a large-looking number which suggests a very significant drop without putting it in the context of that deep UK recession, or even fitting it into the context of several years figures (for example, had the year before last year seen a rise of, say, 96,000, then combined with 2009's drop of 76,000 this would have resulted in a two-year rise of 20,000. Context is crucial with statistics) looks suspicious. Mark Easton's quoting of a one-off figure seems far too convenient. Or, as I say, am I missing something?

This is followed by a repeat of an earlier point: "Some sectors of the economy are already complaining that they cannot fill key vacancies." (With some eight million Brits 'economically inactive', isn't that truly extraordinary? A point Easton doesn't choose to make.)

He goes on: 'The cap could only apply to Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the existing points-based system, since those are the only two categories under which migrant workers from outside the EU can come to the UK.

Tier 1 is for "Highly skilled workers, investors and entrepreneurs". It is hard to imagine that these are the kind of immigrants the UK would want to ban.

Tier 2 covers "Sponsored skilled workers", mostly defined as "people coming to the UK with a skilled job offer to fill a gap in the workforce that cannot be filled by a settled worker". Again, it is difficult to conceive how, in the short-term, stopping these individuals would be good for Britain.'
*
This last point is the third appearance of the point made earlier.

Then it was back to a Labour 'achievement', which (if Mark is to be believed) has struck a balance which 'business' thinks is too restrictive but the new government thinks isn't restrictive enough: 'The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) was set up to offer "independent, transparent and evidence-based advice to government on labour market shortages that can sensibly be filled by migration". Only non-EU workers with a job and the right skills in a sector identified by the committee are allowed in.

Some British business leaders are already fuming that the MAC has not agreed to put their sectors on the list of skill shortages which would allow them to bring talent in from overseas.' (The fourth appearance of the point made earlier). 'The suggestion that we need a cap seems to imply that the government believes the committee has not been tough enough.'

It's woe, woe and thrice woe for the coalition then: 'So it is going to be interesting to see how the cap "mechanism" might work: set the limit high and there's no point in having it; set it low and Britain deprives itself of workers which benefit the UK ' (fifth appearance). 'The thinking cap will be worn.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/05/thinking_cap.html
*
Mark Easton's thinking cap will be worn too, trying to find ways to undermine this government.

WOE, WOE AND THRICE WOE!

2010-05-20T06:50:00.004+01:00

*
BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton earned a reputation for himself as someone deeply reluctant to criticize the former Labour government. He was, however, occasionally critical of the Lib Dems (usually when they diverged from the Labour line) but regularly critical of the Conservatives.
*
His blog presented a broadly sunlit view of Britain - a Britain far from 'broken', indeed largely healing nicely over the last, shall we say, fifteen years. Some might have applied the word 'Panglossian' to Easton's blog.
*
Suddenly though Dr Pangloss ("All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds") has vanished, and his creator Voltaire - satirical, critical, pessimistic - has taken his place.
*
The age of Labour sunlight, about which we all so ungratefully 'moaned', has passed. Bad times are coming (which have absolutely nothing to do with the previous pilot and crew of course!) and Easton is already impatient for this shilly-shallying new government (which has been keeping him, businesses, public services and charities waiting for years, no months, no weeks, no actually just a few days) to outline their terrifying plans - presumably so that he can get down to the business of criticizing them.
*
Britain under the ConLibs is going to be painted in very different, far darker colours, I suspect, by Mark Easton. The 'unjustified' fears we held under Labour will be replaced by 'justified' fears. The 'simple-minded', who never believed him when he said that things were 'all a bit more complicated than (we) had thought' (ie safer, better than before), will now doubtless find that things are 'a bit less complicated than Mark Easton had previously thought' (ie less safe, worse).

This was his very first post from the era of the new ConLib government. It's not a very warm welcome, is it? (Nor a particularly neutral one either):
*
*
Britain in the departure lounge
Mark Easton 11:44 UK time, Tuesday, 18 May 2010

Britain fidgets nervously in a deserted airport terminal. A black cloud of volcanic ash has forced all the engines to be turned off. We are hanging around waiting for the departures board to ripple back into life.

And we fear what it will tell us when it does.

The machinery of government has been put on auto-pilot, a silent glide until new ministers have been told what really happens if they press any of the cockpit buttons.

After years moaning at the crew, now they are in charge, but before they take over the controls they must listen to a pre-flight briefing explaining how it is all a bit more complicated than they thought.

I rang a departmental press office this week and asked if I could interview a minister about one of the new government's flagship policies. No-one was available. Why? Because they are still learning how they might keep the promises they made to the electorate.

So we sit and we wait.

Businesses, public services, charities: all must sit on their hands until the government flight plan has been published. It will be a few more days yet before the details of the route captain Cameron and co-pilot Clegg are planning for Britain.

The forecast is grim. Dangerous volcanic clouds drift overhead. Storms are on their way. Lightning strikes look certain.

Ashen-faced and white-knuckled, some of the passengers in the departure hall suffer a profound fear of flying.

Buckle up Britain. It is going to be a bumpy ride.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/05/britain_in_the_departure_loung.html

RIPPING UP HER REALITY CARD

2010-05-16T15:47:00.012+01:00

*
Following Jon Sopel's discussion with the delicious Miranda Green and Sarah Sands, The Politics Show went rift-hunting in Birmingham, sniffing out a disgruntled Lib Dem. This particular Lib Dem, interviewed by beebette Susana Mendonca, was so disgruntled he had just resigned from his party and joined the ultra-left Greens - which kind-of (as they say in Beebland) suggests where he's coming from (as did all of his subsequent remarks).
*
Susana didn't neglect to mention Charles Kennedy's disquiet and added that "we know that around a hundred Lib Dem supporters have actually left the party since that deal was made last week. I'm joined by one of those people..." Wow, a whole one hundred people!!!!
*
The beebette then asked the disgruntled Lib Dem, Eddie Hartley "You must be furious to take that course of action?" The jackass (a Labour chief whip Nick Brown lookalike) was.
*
Susana was wholly on his side, echoing and pre-echoing his words over PR and Trident. She went on to ask him "Now you're not the only one who's..er..basically left the party (no, there are around a surprisingly insignificant number of others, or so you keep telling us!). Do you think this will be a sign of things to come? What do you think's going to happen to the party?"
*
The jackass, prompted by the beebette (and I really do mean 'prompted'), then ripped up his Lib Dem membership card on camera. The beebette then, shamelessly, stood in front of the camera and said "And there we have it. One Liberal Democrat member there ripping up his card live on air. I suppose the message to the Liberal Democrat leadership couldn't be any clearer here." Nor could the message from the BBC be any clearer.
**
I hope the Liberal Democrat leadership is taking notes.
*
The utter stupidity and sheer brazenness of this report were made clear by Susana's final comments, which have to be transcribed in full to be believed: "I spoke to the party about how many people have actually left. They told me that a hundred or so have actually left the party." How many times does that need repeating? Well, maybe plenty of times because this, astonishingly, is what she had to say next: "But around 400 people have actually joined the party since that coalition was formed last week." Get that: 100 people have left the party, providing the BBC with its story, but 400 people have joined the party since the coalition was formed - a fact to be mentioned, just in passing, at the very end of a very biased report!
*
So, surely then the story isn't that Lib Dems are leaving the party because of the leadership's decision to team up with the wicked Tories but that the Lib Dems have had a net gain of 300 members as a result of that decision!!! That extremely fleeting concession to honest reporting having been given, what did biased Susana say next? Steel yourselves for some real BBC gall here: "So clearly keeping a positive gloss on it Jon." As opposed to the BBC, which was glossing it as negatively as it could, burying the facts in the process.
*
The BBC are beyond incorrigible and this report was beyond a joke.
*
*
CODA: Sopel called this travesty of a report "very interesting" and started his interview with Danny Alexander with the question "Well, we've just seen another membership card ripped up. What have you got to say to disaffected members?"
*
Incorrigible.
*
Sopel's interview with Mr Alexander was an absolute disgrace, which pursued all the angles the BBC have been pursuing in recent days with little subtlely and a little dishonesty. Sopel is not happy about this new government. For example, when Mr Alexander tried to state why the alternative options were not feasible Sopel stopped him dead and then overplayed his hand when he said that "all your former leaders seem to be holding their noses over the agreement". At one stage Mr Alexander accused him of "playing games". Sopel denied it of course, but it was the truth nonetheless.

MORE PRO-LABOUR SPIN FROM THE BBC

2010-05-16T14:43:00.012+01:00

*
The BBC are incorrigible....
*
(My uninventive title might earn me a 'No Shit Sherlock' award from Not a sheep!)
*
Going back to my final post from yesterday, I haven't been watching the BBC much this week but, despite that, I've already heard several disapproving/sarcastic mentions of the new coalition cabinet's lack of women, so I suspect there have been many more and that you will have heard some of them too.
*
This lunchtime's Politics Show provided only the latest example, as Jon Sopel said sarcastically, "Compensating for the lack of women in the cabinet, we're joined now by Sarah Sands and Miranda Green".
*
So we have a big problem, according to the BBC. The BBC likes to quote the killer figure - a cabinet of 23, featuring just 4 women.
*
Here's what they mean, with helpful colour-coordination (colours chosen at random!)

Prime Minister The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Deputy Prime Minister The Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP
Foreign Secretary The Rt Hon William Hague MP
Chancellor of the Exchequer The Rt Hon George Osborne MP
Secretary of State for Justice The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP
Home Secretary The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Secretary of State for Defence The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills The Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change The Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP
Secretary of State for Health The Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP
Secretary of State for Education The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP
Secretary of State for Transport The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP
Secretary of State for Environment The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP
Secretary of State for International Development The Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland The Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP
Secretary of State for Scotland The Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP
Secretary of State for Wales The Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP
Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury The Rt Hon David Laws MP
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster The Rt Hon The Lord Strathclyde PC
Minister without Portfolio (Minister of State) The Rt Hon The Baroness Warsi PC
*
The BBC, however, must take us for complete idiots - and, given that no-one seems to be pointing this out to them whenever they complain about the 'gender balance' of the new cabinet, perhaps with some justification - but this alleged 'terrible step backwards for women', about which they are getting so worked up, neglects one killer fact: The last Labour cabinet also contained just 4 women out of a cabinet of 23!!

Prime Minister The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP
Leader of the House of Commons The Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP
First Secretary of State The Rt Hon The Lord Mandelson PC
Chancellor of the Exchequer The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs The Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Justice The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department The Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP
Secretary of State for International Development The Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government The Rt Hon John Denham MP
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families The Rt Hon Ed Balls MP
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change The Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Health The Rt Hon Andrew Burnham MP
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland The Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP
Leader of the House of Lords The Rt Hon The Baroness Royall of Blaisdon PC
Minister for the Cabinet Office The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP
Secretary of State for Scotland The Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury The Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP
Secretary of State for Wales The Rt Hon Peter Hain MP
Secretary of State for Defence The Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth MP
Secretary of State for Transport The Rt Hon The Lord Adonis MP
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport The Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP
*
The BBC are trying to pull the wool over our eyes on this issue. They are condemning and mocking our new government for something Brown's last cabinet was no less guilty of. They didn't scream blue murder then, so why are they doing it now? And how dare they think we wouldn't notice?

It look as if they are going to chuck anything they can at this new government (especially one part of it) and will clearly not let any ideas of fairness or honesty get in their way. (Why change the habit of a lifetime?)
*
Labour got a honeymoon from the BBC in 1997 that just went on and on and on (arguably for 13 years, with a brief blip during the Iraq War). The ConLibs haven't even had a day's grace from the biased BBC.
*
UPDATE: After the Susana report (reviewed above), Sopel returned to his earlier point, in his sarcastic introduction to Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Danny (as opposed to Dougie) Alexander: "Well, in this new era of new politics we have something entirely new - Lib Dem cabinet ministers. Five of them. All men. "Male and pale" to use the phrase." A phrase, as I say, not used by Sopel and his kind about the no less 'male' or 'pale' final Labour cabinet. The BBC are truly, truly shameless. (And on the 'pale' front, I'll match lonely Baroness Scotland (1) with Baroness Warsi (1) No, the new government is no less 'hideously white' than its predecessor, despite what the BBC is trying to insinuate here).
*
PS Just a thought. Given that, as in this case, the Lib Dems (previously much favoured by the BBC) are now witnessing some collateral damage resulting from fire aimed at their coalition partners, the Conservatives, in the new spirit of the times, even they might begin to see the BBC in a new and less favourable light. I think a few e-mails to them are in order too.

RIFTS IN THE CON-LIB CONTINUUM

2010-05-16T14:17:00.005+01:00

*
The BBC's intention to focus relentlessly on potential rifts within the new coalition has already become bleedingly obvious.
*
Not a sheep has tweeted that the Politics Show has been rift-hunting today on the issue of Europe. Here's a further example on exactly the same subject from Shirin Wheeler on this week's The Record Europe, where she explored the question posed in her introduction: "But will the differences in their policies over Europe prove to be the fatal faultline in the alliance?"

DID YOU FEEL SLIGHTLY DIRTY?

2010-05-16T11:32:00.008+01:00

*
How has Gordcasting House been coping with the bad news (for it) following the election, when its man went down to just 29% and was subsequently prized out of Downing Street? Not that well by the sounds of it.
*
The programme obsessed about the Lib Dems &, as I would expect from BH, ignored the Tories - in much the same way that Today has been ignoring the feelings of Tories. Paddy O'Connell right away emphasized the importance of Charles Kennedy's having "sounded alarm at the new coalition" and went on to recall Roy Jenkins: "He left the Labour Party to co-found the SDP and for some that was an act of betrayal, for others a sign of one of the sharpest minds of the political landscape." (I strongly suspect that Paddy thinks that Nick Clegg has committed an act of betrayal too).
*
Paddy talked to Jenkin's biographer John Campbell, who thought that though, were he still alive, Jenkins would have been pleased at the "crack in the ice" of "sterile" left-right politics, he would have preferred it if there had been a "progressive" re-alignment of the Left beginning with a Lib-Lab coalition.
*
Next, it was off to Birmingham to talk to the Lib Dem deputy leader of the Con-Lib council there, Paul Tilsley. Paddy asked him: "And would you kindly be blunt? In your heart, when you shook hands with the Conservatives, were you scared and did you feel slightly dirty?" What a question! Can you imagine him asking that question (with appropriate amendments) to the Conservative leader of Birmingham City Council - in the unlikely situation of Paddy O'Connell ever talking to such a person? Mr Tilsley was "blunt", bluntly saying "No" to both questions. Sorry Paddy, it wasn't to be.
*
His next question began "And you're making cuts." He didn't follow this up, just made it as a statement (just as if he were a Labour Party politician, reminding the voters of something they ought to know) and then moved straight on, without giving Mr Tilsley the right to reply, saying "So let's get to the heart of this matter again. There's a tug between the head and the heart of your party and Charles Kennedy, the popular (word emphasized by Paddy) former leader, has implied that he can't see it working." That was the question. Having broadened the question beyond Brum, Paddy found that Mr Tilsley gave an answer he didn't want. The Lib Dem sighed and brilliantly called the alternative (i.e. the 'rainbow coalition') "the Dagenham solution - it's two stops from Barking." Paddy intervened to say "OK, let me just...forgive me...we would just like on another day your analysis of the national picture, but please stay in Brum because what I want to say is...". At which Mr Tilsley interrupted him and protested (good-naturedly) "But you were trying to get me out of Brum!" "Fair enough", said Paddy, and moved on.
*
From the Lib Dems, the programme moved on to Labour and the Miliband Brothers. (It was time for Paddy to look on the bright side, cross his fingers and wish upon a lucky star. ) We heard from "two friends and colleagues of their late father, the Marxist intellectual and international socialist Ralph Miliband, and also from one of his sons." Ah, it wouldn't be BH, would it, without either a Labour politician or a far-Leftist (or two)?! The friends of the old commie were "the activist co-editor of of Red Pepper magazine" Hilary Wainwright and "the historian and writer" Tariq Ali.
*
Paddy also went along to that 'Ed Miliband for leader' meeting we saw on the BBC a couple of days ago, making sure we heard the cheers and someone shouting out loudly "We love you Ed". (I don't think it was Paddy O'Connell himself.) He asked Ed a few questions, and here they are in all their challenging glory:
*
- "How's it going?"
- "It's early days?"
- "Did you know there's an event here, 'My Dear Brother'?"
- "How will you stand out from the rest of the candidates?"
- "What would Ralph Miliband have made of the candidate?"
*
Both Hilary Wainright and Tariq Ali - and the Milibands' mum by the sounds of it - want Labour to stop being Thatcherite opportunists and become a true socialist party again (and we all know what they mean by 'socialist' in this context). The intelligence of the Brothers was praised however.
*
Paddy O'Connell sounded happy with these people.

THE XX FACTOR

2010-05-15T15:31:00.007+01:00

I am wholly supportive of getting many more women into parliament and government (especially good-looking ones). However, despite such feminist ardour on my part, I found Nicola Standbridge's report on this morning's Today to be a deeply dissatisfying one.

Prompted by Lynne Featherstone (the fetching new Equalities minister) and her comments calling for more female representation in the top echelons of government, Nicola went to meet the Fawcett Society, an old feminist organisation that features quite regularly on Today. She called it "an antidote to Cameron and Clegg's cabinet of 19 men and 4 women." The Fawcetts have 7 women and 1 man in its daily meeting - which is, of course, much fairer!

We listened in to the discussion as the Fawcetts discussed the new Con-Lib coalition's attitude to women's equality and caringly-sharingly-positively agreed (unanimously) that it would "put the brakes on if not move it backwards". (I distinctly remember a leading Fawcett coming out for Labour during the election, so this is, perhaps, unsurprising.) Nic interviewed the chief of the Fawcetts, Labour-supporting Ceri Goddard (pictured). Nic treated her as the fount of all wisdom.

Where did Nicola look for foreign inspiration? To Bolivia and its communist president Evo Morales. (Ah, the BBC and its love of communists!) Evo has granted women "gender parity" - something the Fawcetts, of course, are extremely keen on. Nic talked to Ana Maria Romero, communist President of the Bolivian Senate. She "encouraged us to follow their lead". Nic asked her, "So would you say Cameron and Clegg are missing out with just 4 out of 23 cabinet members?" Red Ana said "yes" and, "though I don't like her", cited Margaret Thatcher as a sign that women can participate in British politics. Thanks for that insight Ana. Thanks for that insight Nicola.

At least Nicola did talk to someone who, despite being a feminist, doesn't believe in lists and quotas - the classicist Prof Mary Beard (who I always think of as the professor who said that the US "had it coming" when thousands of people were horrifically murdered on 11 September 2001). She, light-heartedly, cited a well-known example from Ancient Greece of a way for women to get what they want (here more political representation) - by refusing their menfolk sex. (That made Sarah Montague snicker!)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8684000/8684268.stm

*
A campaigning piece, of course, rather than a piece of reportage. Should the supposedly impartial BBC be conducting such pieces?

RIGHT ANGLES

2010-05-15T13:08:00.005+01:00

*
Another evolving angle on the BBC's attack on the new government has been to highlight the opposition to the coalition from Lib Dem supporters. This has already been noticed by several commentators on the B-BBC website.
*
Just considering the Today programme, the obvious point to make here is that Today has shown itself not to be interested in finding out how Conservative supporters are reacting to having to share power with the Lib Dems - even though there are three million more of them than their are Lib Dem voters. Not one report on Today this week has looked at that angle. Why not?
*
Here's all there has been:
*
MON 10/5
0835
What do Liberal Democrat members make of the negotiations with the Conservatives to form a coalition? Justin Webb reports from St Albans, where the battle for the parliamentary seat saw the Lib Dems jumping Labour to take second place.
*
WED 12/5
0713
The Liberal Democrats have taken up four cabinet posts and their leader Nick Clegg is David Cameron's deputy in the new coalition government. Today presenter Justin Webb investigates how the Lib Dems feel about the new alliance.
*
SAT 15/5
0810
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will address a special conference of his Liberal Democrat party this weekend in an effort to get members to endorse the coalition deal with the Tories. Many members have threatened to leave the party over the deal. Nick Starling a party member, and Simon Hughes MP and former president of the party, analyse how members have reacted to party's new relationship with the Tories.
*
*
Now, as Laban has posted, at B-BBC, Dan Hannan notes that the BBC are interested in hearing from right-wing Conservative politicians:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/05/its-bbc-here-wed-like-you-to-say.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100039829/its-the-bbc-here-wed-like-you-to-say-something-angry-stupid-and-preferably-racist-about-the-new-government

FLAWED-CASTING HOUSE

2010-05-15T11:01:00.007+01:00

*
Another quick glance backwards...
*
The recurrent anti-capitalist strain on Radio 4's Broadcasting House was in evidence again last week, with presenter Paddy O'Connell referring (gratuitously) in passing to Sunday as "an oasis free from stock market speculation". He used this phrase in his introduction to the final election pontifications of those erudite old lefties Anthony Howard and Peter Hennessy (who have been the programme's chief election pundits throughout the whole campaign), who went back down memory lane to Jeremy Thorpe in 1974 before cooing over Jim Callaghan.
*
The only other point to make about this (as was made by Deborah at B-BBC at the time) is that Paddy did his usual thing of leaping to Labour's defence. When Mr Howard brought up the now famous 'heated' telephone conversation last week between Clegg and Brown, Paddy stepped in to say "Although that was strongly denied in the briefings that were given..." and then to move the conversation swiftly on: "...but let me just ask you to nail this down then. What does the stopwatch say from history..." This blog is festooned with other (often far worse) examples of the same thing. (Just click on the label Paddy O'Connell at the bottom of this post).
*
If you remember back a week, you will recall that the BBC was still banging on obsessively about electoral reform (when they hoped this could wreck the chances of a Conservative-led government in perpetuity). Paddy O'Connell paused last Sunday to mention "one of the big events in Westminster this weekend". What was that seismic event? "The arrival of a crowd chanting for voting reform. They gathered outside one of the multiple meeting of the Liberal Democrats". We heard their chanting. (He was to return to the same (minor) event later in the programme & played us another clip from it!)
*
Paddy then went for a walk around London talking to people about the post-election uncertainty. He met newly-retired Labour MP Andrew McKinlay, Charles Kennedy and Michael Crick, a morris-dancing lady, a couple of workmen, a pro-Brown 'ordinary woman' and a psychotherapist called Lucy Beresford, who said that all this election uncertainty unsettles us because it reminds us of the uncertainty of our own date of death. I can truly say I'd never thought of it like that before!!
*
Another of Paddy's very selective use of listener e-mails followed. I have also commented on this abuse before. Why are they almost exclusively from left-wing listeners? This one, John Anderson (not John at B-BBC I would wager), said "David Cameron constantly emphasized during the campaign 'Vote Clegg & you might get Brown'. So I did. Now it looks as if I voted Clegg and I might get Cameron." Yes, John, you did and you did. Oh the irony!
*
Proportional representation was back on the agenda next as Paddy discussed its varieties with Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg of what he called the "independent research organisation" Democratic Audit. 'Independent' it and Dr Wilks-Heeg may very well be, but Democratic Audit is a Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust-sponsored offshoot of Charter 88, and so very much the BBC's sort of "independent" organisation (i.e. a left-leaning one).
*
A rare Tory on BH appeared for the paper review, albeit the somewhat semi-detached Michael Portillo. The other paper reviewers were Channel 4 News's political correspondent Cathy Newman and left-wing comedian Francesca Martinez.
*
Paddy's run-down of the front pages of the Sunday papers began, of course, with the Independent on Sunday (36.43-36.53) before moving on, no less 'of course', to the Observer (36.53-37.09) and talk of Lord Ashcroft. The Sunday Times (37.09-37.28) on the shambles of election day and the Sunday Express (37.37-39.44) on Brown's future brought up the rear. No space for the Sunday Telegraph on the Mail on Sunday.
*
The final seven minutes or so of the programme were the latest pages - written during the election - from newly-retired Labour MP & popular diarist Chris Mullin, read by the man himself. Mr Mullin is a very entertaining writer and has a refreshing detachment but he's still a staunch Labour partisan nonetheless and this was a sharply political piece. BH has given a platform to many Labour MPs over the past year, with Conservatives far, far thinner on the ground.
*
There was just time for two more listener e-mails before the show ended. The first came from a Mrs Glenys Burgess: "Am I the only one to see the irony in news reporters repeatedly saying 'we need a decision for the markets'? The markets, with their massive self-centred mismanagement, have done more than most to create this situation." I wonder why Paddy picked up on that one! More anti-capitalism! The other was a joke (and not a bad one) from a Gerald Toranto: "When Caroline Lucas won Brighton Pavilion, was I the only one to wonder what the second prize was?"
*
If you thought The Andrew Marr Show was biased just try its simultaneously-broadcast Radio 4 counterpart. Broadcasting House is far subtler in its bias but the bias is even more pervasive.
*
(That wasn't as "quick" a glance backwards as I thought!)

HOBBY-HORSES FOR COURSES

2010-05-15T08:47:00.004+01:00

*
How has The Record Europe been going on in my (semi-continuing) absence?
*
Going back to 2nd May (prior to the election), we find the programme plugging the BBC line on Greece. Not 'why should Greece be bailed out by European taxpayers for its years of reckless spending, creative accounting, tax evasion and public sector profligacy?' but "We'll be asking how Europe's politicians can wrestle control back from the markets and save Europe's single currency." Maybe Greece doesn't deserve to be saved from the markets and maybe Europe's single currency doesn't deserve saving either. That, however, was something Shirin Wheeler and co. were unwilling even to entertain.
*
Shirin's introduction went on: "Also on the programme, Europe's consumer groups plead with the EU institutions to stand firm against airlines in upholding passenger rights in the wake of the disruption caused by the volcanic dust cloud from Iceland".
*
The BBC has been berating the poor Germans (and, yes, I do feel for them over this) over their reluctance to fork out their hard-worked-for money to bail out the feckless Greeks. Shirin slammed the Northern Europeans for "dithering" over the rescue of prodigal Greece and said that the German tabloids have "been screaming in protest" - hardly a neutral way of putting it! The sensible Angela Merkel, not keen on the bailout - like the majority of her countrymen - was presented as playing party politics over the issue: "What's not helping (helping who exactly Shirin? The feckless Greeks? The Europhiles cause?) is a critical election in the German state of Nordrhein Westphalia..." German cold feet (bad!) were contrasted with EU commission resolve (good!): "Europe's monetary affairs commissioner Olli Rehn attempted to calm and reassure."
*
No UK politicians (all home no doubt, campaigning for the general election) were involved in the following discussion between a German liberal, a Portuguese socialist, a member of what Shirin called "the centre-right Fine Gael" (though centrist would be a far more accurate description) and a Belgian member of the Dedecker List (aligned to our Conservatives, so - in Shirin's eyes - an out and out "boo!").
*
As I've noted before German liberals (the FDP) are not like our left-leaning liberals, being emphatically pro-business. (Will our liberals change, now that they are in power?) They have been the party most hostile to the idea of bailing out our feckless Greek friends. So Shirin interrupted the German liberal (Wolf Klinz) and took him to task over the issue, accusing him (and his party and coalition government) of "foot-dragging". The German liberals are, however, clearly not wholly united on the issue and this German liberal - a German MEP with a plum job as chairman on a EU committee (CRIS) - had clearly "gone native", as so many Eurocrats seem to do, and was somewhat critical of his own Conservative-Liberal government's position on the issue. This established, Shirin went a bit easier on him. Only a bit though. After Herr Klinz (who seems like a pleasant enough chap) accused his own country's media of failing to "calm down the situation", which got a firm "Yes!" from the supposedly impartial presenter, Shirin, with yet more breathtaking bias, assumed a haughty air, interrupted him again and said "Your own colleagues don't really help, talking about exit from the Euro, do they?" And having slung that barb at him, she did what she usually does to UK Conservatives or UKIP spokesfolk and - without giving them the right to reply - moved on to another guest. Such behaviour could not be less improper from a supposedly impartial presenter. (When he returned later there was another question critical of the German government and another heckle from Shirin!).
**
Go the German Free Democrats!
*
Guy Mitchell from the highly pro-European Fine Gael, asked about the spead of the contagion, said that that it wasn't so much the markets (Shirin's point) as unscrupulous people "willing this to happen" and "out for the kill" but added that Greece's situation was largely the fault of the Greeks themselves. Fair points, I'd say. Fine Gael is (to its great credit) supporting Fine Fail's drastic recovery plan. As he was making that very point, Shirin cut him off and turned to the Portuguese socialist, Vital Moreira, in order to move the conversation away from such good sense and back to the more comfortable territory (for her) of market-bashing. She asked him about the credit rating agencies attitude to Portugal and said "this is the trouble, isn't it? It's not according to any rationality?"
*
Like Mr Mitchell, Mr Moreira bridled at the comparison between his country and Greece, making some valid points to back this up, but then said that his government had acted properly and that it was the speculators who are to blame for the current crisis.
*
At last she came to Derk Jan Eppink, the "Belgian Conservative". Within a matter of seconds Shirin was in on him, forcefully contradicting him. Why? Because Mr Eppink had immediately made clear that he understood the German public's concerns and said that Greece should have dropped out of the euro. Another "on the other hand" was not long in coming. Intriguingly, though, Mr Eppink declares himself to be "pro-Euro". (That declaration, made later in the discussion, didn't stop him being interrupted again as soon as his Eurosceptic side re-emerged).
*
When Mr Mitchell returned and had the temerity to say that the Greeks should obviously only be bailed out if they are taking strong and credible measures (like Ireland) to get their own house in order, Shirin plunged in passionately to defend the Greek (Socialist) government's actions so far.
*
When Mr Moreira complained of "schadenfreude" on the part of Eurosceptics (following some wise words from the Belgian Conservative), Shirin did not keep quiet and allow him to make his point. No she intervened to sympathise with him, saying "Well, there's some of that around certainly."
*
The left-wing/Europhile bias on this programme is often choking in its intensity.
*
*
If you still doubt that (and why would you?), the programme's second subject area - EU legislation to protect passengers' rights against the wicked airline companies - was discussed with... can you guess?
*
A representative of the airlines? A British Conservative?
*
No, a spokesman (David McCullough) from the Brussels-based lobby group that represents all the European consumer rights' organisation across Europe, which supports the legislation, and a Labour MEP (Brian Simpson) who helped draw up the legislation. Shirin was with them all the way, saying that "we've heard all the right words from the European institutions, Brian Simpson, but what can you, as chair of the Transport Committee, and the European commission, with whom you're working closely on this, do about this?" Head nodding throughout, Shirin did not interrupt either Mr Simpson nor Mr McCullough, nor did she play devil's advocate for the airline companies in her questions to Mr Simpson and Mr McCullough. Far from it. All her questions came from the 'take tough action' angle. All of them.

Mr McCullough and Mr Simpson (4 questions, 3.12, IC of 0) could both be right of course. As they agreed with each other, however, isn't it the duty of a neutral presenter to challenge them?: *
*
*
A week on (9/5) and what was Shirin Wheeler's opening question? Not "Is Europe asking too much from the European tax-payer in its steps to rescue Greece? Should Greece be asked to leave the euro?" but "Is Europe asking too much of Greece? Is the price for rescue too high?" The BBC is relentless once it has a narrative in place.
*
Who were Shirin's guests to discuss the issue? Stravros Lambrinidis, a Greek Socialist, Ioannis Tsoukalas from the Greek Centre-Right, Daniel Gros from the pro-European Centre for European Policy Studies ("one of Brussels's leading think tanks", according to Shirin) and Ronald Janssen from the European Trade Union Confederation.
*
Shirin questions Mr Lambrinidis gently but Mr Tsoukalas more toughly, accusing his party (New Democracy) of "political game-playing" by not backing the socialist government over its austerity measures. (I think she's right, but should she have said it?) She also pressed the trade union rep over the same issue, saying that surely they too should be supporting the socialist government's austerity measures, before returning to the BBC narrative and agreeing with Mr Janssen's final point - and quoting Labour's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz to back it up!! Stiglitz says the measures will weaken the Greek economy. So, having offered the Greek Socialist government her support, Shirin then moved on to attacking the demands for austerity placed on the Greek economy, as imposed upon Greece by the IMF and the Eurozone.

She was then back on her hobby horse again, asking Mr Gros "And what of Europe's own role in this? As bad actually. You know, the foot-dragging, the lack of responsibility?" This is an opinion. (Why is she giving us her opinion?) Has Europe's "foot-dragging" been a bad thing? When Shirin talks of Europe's "lack of responsibility" (doubtless meaning the Germans and us!), shouldn't the answer have come "'Europe' isn't mainly responsible. The Greeks are." She kept banging away at it, asking later: "And this is the point. In the absence of the fiscal architecture, which I think is what people call it, there has been a lack of solidarity as well. Surely it's about time that is demonstrated." Mr Gros is closer to the Germans on this. Hence Shirin's closer questioning of him.

Available on BBC World, the BBC News Channel and BBC Parliament, and always available on the BBC website's Europe page, the programme may have a limited reach but that's surely not an excuse for it to be so shamelessly biased week in and week out.

DISPROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

2010-05-14T21:21:00.005+01:00

*
The batteries are still re-charging but...
*
**
Interesting times these (hopefully not in the sense of the famous Chinese curse).

What do you make of the 55% bar set for MPs to vote for dissolution? The BBC (who I've returned to today, just for today) is clearly obsessing about the issue.
*
The BBC's Clare Spencer presents a sequence of 'expert' views: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2010/05/daily_view_parliament_dissolut.html
*
Strangely, the opponents featured in Clare's article come from the Right and the Left, while the supporters are solely drawn from the Centre and the Left. Where is the support from the Right? There is some, because I've read and heard it elsewhere.
*
This clearly reflects a fascinating sense of confusion reigning across the political spectrum.
*
This morning's Today also showed this in the contrasted and surprising responses of all its interviewees on the issue (Peter Hennessy, Robert Hazell, John Gummer - the main surprise being that Prof Hazell and Mr Gummer agreed, seemingly to the chagrin of Evan Davis).
*
This morning's Today also showed that there is at least one group of people in the country who aren't in the least confused on the issue - the BBC. They have simply come out in opposition to the idea.
*
Clare's sequence grossly favours one side of the argument - and it isn't the new government's side. Whichever side you are on here (if any), you will surely agree that her presentation is deeply biased. I could speculate as to why she (and her BBC colleagues) might want to show that 'expert' opinion largely believes that the Con-Lib coalition is in the wrong...but I won't!
*
The article's structure is a classic 'bias sandwich'- a sandwich with sceptics on top, supporters in the middle, and then - for the final word - another sceptic. (Actually, six are outright opponents. Only Douglas Hurd is really a sceptic).
*
Also, the sceptics outweigh the -philes by some margin. We get seven opponents of the government's position to just three supporters. Moreover, every single one of the first six views presented is that of opponent. Is that fair?
*
Simple colour co-ordination will make plain the extent of the imbalance (blue for sceptics, brown for supporters). Above and beyond my previous two points you'll see the contrast in word-count between the two sides is vast.
*
Moreover (and finally), just look who comes first!! A Labour MP!!!!
*

Daily View: Parliament dissolution rules change
Clare Spencer 11:02 UK time, Friday, 14 May 2010

Commentators discuss the coalition government's move to introduce a new mechanism for the dissolution of Parliament. The plans would require 55% of MPs to vote for dissolution, this is higher than the simple majority required for a vote of no confidence.

Labour MP Paul Flynn says the Liberal Democrats should be ashamed:

"Today a tiny sharp thought pierced the sensitive brains of conscientious LibDems. They have signed up to the illiberal power-hugging cheat of 55% majority for a confidence vote. There is no argument for this except party advantage to the Tories. It's a shameless, blatant denial of democracy.

"When they sober up, the LibDems morphing into Con'Dems will remember their past indignation at alleged Labour sins on democracy and freedoms during the past thirteen years. The Con-Dems have proved their mettle.

"They have slashed a basic tenet of democracy within thirteen hours."

In the Law blog Head of Legal Carl Gardner argues against the move:

"This proposed legislation, though, seems to aim at preventing an election even if 54% of MPs want one. That is wrong in principle, it's undemocratic, and it must be opposed.

"What it would mean is that if the coalition broke down, the Con-LibDem administration would end too. Of course. But there wouldn't and couldn't be an election. Instead, a minority Conservative government would be able to carry on - its 306 seats giving it a blocking minority of 47% - and as long as it kept discipline it could rule without the confidence of Parliament. Bear in mind that this could happen the moment this new legislation comes into force, which is presumably intended to be soon, so that government could go on, effectively behind Parliamentary barricades, for months or for several years. Even for this to be theoretically possible is, I'm afraid, outrageous and unconscionable. Whatever government we have, it must be accountable to Parliament."

Iain Martin says in the Wall Street Journal that he thinks the 55% rule is a "very dangerous constitutional innovation":

"It has slightly sinister sounding connotations, as though a ratchet effect might operate. If it is being suggested that 55% of votes is needed to express no confidence in a government this year (all in the interests of strong government, you understand) then why not 60% or higher at some point in the future?

"It is rather stretching things to try and present this piece of proposed gerrymandering as 'Political Reform.' It is actually designed to ensure that even a walk -out of the whole Lib Dem parliamentary group couldn't actually bring down this government. This would weaken Parliament and strengthen the hand of the executive considerably - when it is only weeks since both parties were talking of doing the opposite."

Lee Rotherham at Conservative Home says the change would betray "the most basic and fundamental principles of how a democracy works":

"A majority of MPs could vote down a government, and yet it could keep on trundling in power.

"I am not sure where this idea came from; it has rather a tinge from the days of the sacked European Commission.

"Having pondered the revolutionary change last night and pored over Erskine May this morning, the reality seems even more striking. I could find in its many pages no actual definition of what constitutes a majority in Parliament. The centuries-old presumption is that it is a majority of one. Ink is expended explaining Speaker Addington's decision of 1796, and three decisions by Speaker Denison between 1860 and 1870, where votes were tied and the Speaker's vote (and his deputy's) counted. But beyond that, the definition of a majority is so obvious it requires no comment or definition.

"That is the measure of the revolution at hand."

A senior lecturer in the school of law at Aberdeen University, Scott Styles is reported in the Times as pointing out a few problems with the plans:

"Firstly, Cameron is renouncing his right as PM to dissolve Parliament at a time of his choosing. Politically this seems unwise but legally it is unproblematic: in effect, the government is surrendering a right.

"The second and much more fundamental problem is the raising of the bar of a no-confidence vote in the government to 55% rather than simple majority of those MPs present and voting. This is a major and fundamental alteration in our constitution and what is being changed is not a right of the PM but a power of the Commons."

The constitutional and government expert from Queen Mary University Peter Hennessy says on the BBC Today Programme that the idea is "iffy":

"You can't actually create hurdles that make it easier for you to last in power. It just looks all wrong."
**************************************
Supporting the 55% rule, Alan Travis says in the Guardian that it shouldn't scare voters:

"But it is worth asking if the controversial 55% rule set out in the Lib-Con coalition agreement needed to force an early general election really is a conspiracy against the opposition parties or a legitimate stabiliser for an infant coalition taking its first steps.

"The first thing to clear up is that there does not appear to be any change in the rules surrounding a vote of no confidence. A government could still fall on a simple majority of MPs. The text of the coalition agreement appears clear. It only refers to providing a vote for the dissolution of parliament, that is, the calling of a general election."

Will Straw asks in Left Foot Forward whether 55% too low:

"All this begs the question of whether 55 per cent is too low a threshold for a dissolution resolution. If the point of a fixed term parliament is that the governing party cannot dissolve parliament to suit itself, perhaps the threshold should be two-thirds as in both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly."

Iain Roberts argues in Lib Dem Voice that the reality is different to the critics' description:

"So this proposal makes no difference to motions of no confidence and gives MPs power they've never had before to dissolve parliament, moving power from the Executive to the Legislature. Whilst the percentage might be a little low, the basic principle is both sound and democratic."
**************************************
Former foreign secretary Douglas Hurd discusses the proposal with presenter Andrew Neil on the BBC's Straight Talk:

Andrew Neil: You say you hope the coalition lasts for five years. How long do you think it will last?
Douglas Hurd: Well, I'm not 100% in favour of fixed Parliaments, because I think you can have circs, we may get into circs where the existing Parliament is just not working.
AN: You just need a change?
DH: Well, you need a change, and somebody has to produce that change. Now, there's a proposal now that it would be 55%, something of that kind, a substantial majority of the House of Commons has to vote for change. Well, maybe that's adequate, I'm not quite sure.
AN: But doesn't that leave you a little bit uneasy, this requirement that you can only bring a five-year Parliament to an end if you get a 55% majority in a vote of no confidence?
DH: Yes, it makes me slightly uneasy. I'm prepared to live with it because there is that 55% rule, I'm prepared to live with it, but, you know, I'm a Tory really, and Tories believe in a strong prime minister and a strong prime minister is somebody who can actually say at the end of an evening, of a bloody evening, 'well, that's the way you want it, right, I'm off to the Palace.'
AN: It continues, this changing of our constitution with not too much debate or forethought, Mr Blair did a lot of that - remember the argument over the Lord Chancellor? - and now we're saying, here was something that everybody understands, that when a government loses a motion of no confidence in the Commons, it is finished; either there's an election or it has to, the Queen invites someone else to form a government and here is something that both of us were brought up with, suddenly gets changed in a back-room deal.
DH: It suddenly gets changed, but of course it won't be a back-room deal; it will be thoroughly debated and mulled over, not least in the House to which I belong. The House of Lords has become a real expert in interpreting the constitution and many governments haven't liked that.
AN: And may not get through?
DH: May get changed. I mean, there will be a debate, there will be a discussion, there ought to be a discussion exactly as you say.

TOMORROW IS JUST ANOTHER TODAY

2010-05-14T17:53:00.009+01:00

*
The main 'controversy' of the day - the 55% threshold for any precipitous dissolution of parliament - was one of yesterday's main stories on Today. (I posted this first thing on Saturday morning!!)
*
John Humphrys kicked off the 6.10 paper review with some Tory-bashing from The Daily Mirror (9.37-10.12) followed by some more Coalition-bashing from The Independent (10.12-10.51). Evan Davis was next, discussing the 'debate' on the Left about how to respond to the coalition - starting with some sour-grapes Tory-bashing from Johann Hari of The Independent (10.59-11.31), followed by Martin Kettle of The Guardian (11.31-12.08) hoping for salvation from the 'reactionaries' courtesy of the Lib Dems. Finally, John Humphrys turned to The Sun's interview with David Cameron. (12.08-12.40). So the anti-government Left got 82% of the action, the pro-government Right just 18%.
*
Next John Humphrys turned to BBC political correspondent Peter Hunt. His first "question to Mr Hunt? "It is hitting a few problems Peter, the government?" Peter's reply? "Yes." The 55% threshold "is causing concern at the moment in public from senior Labour figures, some Conservative privately. And I think that's not going to go away, the concern". Mr Hunt then quoted the criticisms of Lord Falconer. And a half-hearted attempt to put into words what supporters of the move are saying (especially the Lib Dems), he then returned to the attack: "But it's the devil of this 55% that is concerning constitutional experts, senior Labour figures...I mean one constitutional expert said "they're doctoring the constitution, they're priming the pitch" and senior Tories in private...I think the problems for the government will be if senior Tories come out in public to express their views."
*
Nick Cosgrove, one of the BBC's gaggle of left-wing business correspondents, was flagging up more problems for the new government - and seeing who saluted. After talking of 'grim times' for private equity companies, part of that 'grimness' arising from the "proposal by the new coalition government to raise capital gains tax", Cosgrove went hard at it with his main guest Keith Ludeman, CEO of the rail and bus operating company The Go-Ahead Group. Straight away we got "You've got a new transport secretary Philip Hammond to deal with in the new government. Are you optimistic about the coalition and its attitude to your industry?" Mr Ludeman was not going to be drawn into party politics but welcomed some of the coalition's priorities. "That may be the case," replied Nick sceptically, "but transport is going to be low down the list of priorities, below things like health and the police, so we're going to see cuts in the transport budget". (As if we weren't under Labour!!). "Cos the Liberal Democrats actually wanted real cuts in rail fares in their manifesto, which would be disastrous for you?" was the next question. Then Cosgrove bigged up a Labour policy: "What about the free bus passes for the over 60s? I mean that's been very popular. Do you think we can afford them as a nation? Should they be ditched?" He then quipped "I'm sure you get free fares in any case." Mr Ludeman didn't snigger back, probably because he doesn't and wouldn't think of abusing his position in that way. (He's a private sector boss after all, not a public sector manager). Mr Ludeman refused to bite on any of Cosgrove's hooks and was an impressive guest.
*
John Humphrys (6.29am): "Over the next couple of weeks Radio 4 will be taking us back to the 1980s. Here's Carolyn Brown." What did Carolyn say? "We'll have three dramas set against the momentous events of that decade. We begin tonight with a satirical look at the Wapping dispute." The title of the play? "Greed All About It." Do you suspect that all the remaining dramas are going to be similarly negative about that evil decade of Conservative rule? Coming up on 17th May, according to The Radio Times, we will get: "Afternoon Play: The End of the World: It's 1983: The Cold War is raging, Thatcher is in government, Britain is in recession and 17-year old Simon, living in the shadow of Sellafield, is haunted by fears of nuclear holocaust. When he falls in love with Tasha, a beautiful anti-nuclear activist, he sees his chance to make a difference." Is a play on the Miners' Strike (from the perspective of the striking miners naturally) or about the sinking of the Belgrano (not The Falklands Play I bet!) still to come? The BBC have their view of the 1980s. I have mine.
*
With the 6.41 paper review, would fairness win out and the Conservative-backing papers get both the first crack of the whip and the lion's share? Well, no. Still this review was certainly an improvement on the one half an hour earlier. It began again though with the Mirror's Tory-bashing attack over the 55% bar (41.26-41.48) followed by more critical comments from the Guardian (41.48-41.52). The Daily Mail calls it "a shabby stitch-up", so it too got a mention (41.52-41.56). The Cameron interview with the Sun followed (41.56-42.14) with John Humphrys repeating what he said last time but at less length, then came the Telegraph's news of Sam Cam's own "drastic pay cut" (42.14-42.31). Evan then brought us the Independent on Bercow (42.38-42.44). It wouldn't be a Today paper review featuring John Humphrys without the Independent!
*
Humph then discussed DC's first trip as PM to the "potentially more hostile territory of Scotland" with Scotland editor Brian Taylor. (Neither forgot to mention that the Tories have just one seat up there). We were treated to Mr Taylor's opinion that Mr Cameron's statement that he's "going to govern Scotland with respect" (quoted by Humph in a tone of total incredulity) is "a bit vacuous".
*
The ever-present Peter Hennessy was present after 7 o'clock to discuss the protocol for new prime ministers, according to the Today website, but actually was mainly there to discuss the 55% bar. He was "very, very surprised" at the "very, very iffy politics" of the proposal. We learn from his use of the "prime the pitch" phrase that he was the constitutional expert quoted earlier by Peter Hunt (as I suspected). "I really don't think it's on and I'm not in the least bit surprised that people are very worried indeed about it. It creates a very, very poor impression for the new politics". (He's been in too many studios with Norman Smith recently, as the hyperbole is catching).
*
The next section was about Labour: After losing power for the first time in 13 years, is the New Labour project finally over? Two newly-elected Labour MPs, Rachel Reeves (I.C. of 0) and Chris Williamson (I.C.of 0.7), discuss how the party is trying to re-invent itself. John Humphrys presided, asking among other things: "And what about that word 'progressive', that Chris Williamson just used, and people are using all the time now? Maybe you should call yourselves 'The Progressive Labour Party' or 'Labour progressives' or something?"
Humph talked sarcastically about "Nick and Dave" "loving each other" and "almost physically hugging each other"
*
The 7.41 paper review began with another attack on the new government from the Guardian: 41.47-42.00, but the Telegraph followed (42.00-42.20) & then we got the FT's take (briefly) on Europe's economic woes (42.20-42.29). Humph took over and went straight to the Independent and its attacks on the coalition (42.29-42.42). He read this out in a serious tone before adopting a larky tone as to read out the Sun's enthusiastic response to the coalition's first few days (42.42-42.48). Evan Davis took over again & went straight back to the Indie (42.48-43.02) for its take on the first cabinet meeting...before he turned to the Times (43.01-43.11) for a description of Baroness Warsi's dress! John Humph took over again and it was straight back again to the Indie (43.11-43.49), this time for a justice story. They do like the Independent!
*
I mentioned the following segment in my previous post - actually, due to my topsy-turvy methods of composition, it seems like a subsequent post!! - (and note the opening sentence of the Today blurb, which should surely have read "A number of MPs, mostly from the Labour Party, have condemned..."):
0821
MPs have condemned the new government's plans to introduce fixed-term five-year parliaments and raise the threshold at which parliament can be dissolved to 55 percent of a Commons vote. Professor Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit, UCL, and John Gummer (I.C. of 0), a former Tory minister and party chairman, examine the pros and cons of the proposals.
I would just add that Prof Hazell, who has been quite keen in the past to attack the Conservatives over their constitutional agenda - and has been, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, a regular on the BBC doing just that -, by pouring cold water on the fuss over 55% ensured that he, unlike Prof Hennessy, wouldn't get a mention in Clare Spencer's article.

OUT OF OFFICE MESSAGE

2010-05-07T17:30:00.004+01:00

*
Well, what a state of affairs...! Won't somebody please put a stake through Labour's heart!!!
*
Thank you all for your kind words and your encouragement throughout the election - and before. I has been very much appreciated. The BBC has generally lived well down to expectations (with the odd bright exception), and sunk below a fair few too.
*
I am now going to give myself a couple of weeks off from the BBC and from blogging - a fortnight without Marr, Naughtie, Carolyn Quinn, Norman Smith, Crick (etc)!
*
The batteries need recharging.

Not a sheep and B-BBC, of course, will be watching the biased Beeb as vigilantly as ever in the mean time.
*
Best wishes to you all,

Craig

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 29

2010-05-06T05:39:00.003+01:00

Well, the BBC's electioneering blog kept at it right to the very end. As of 9pm yesterday evening, it had featured 18 posts quoting Gordon Brown, 10 quoting Nick Clegg and just 6 quoting David Cameron. It wasn't over! After 9pm we were taken to a final Brown rally and 'treated' to two more posts featuring substantial campaign quotes from the Great Helmsman, raising his tally to 20. The BBC blog surpassed itself in terms of bias in its final two days (I presume it's over now - the blog I mean, not the bias!)
*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians:
*
Wed 4/5
*
Labour - 32
Conservatives - 15
Lib Dems - 14
Greens - 3
Plaid Cymru - 3
UKIP - 2
SNP - 2
Alliance - 1
*
As testimony to the BBC's partisanship, I think this is pretty damning.
*
Now for the running (final) total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 29 days?
*
Labour - 742
Conservatives - 558
Lib Dems - 471
SNP - 75
UKIP - 42
Plaid Cymru - 42
Greens - 33
BNP - 22
DUP - 8
Independents - 4
English Democrats - 3
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
Christian Peoples Alliance - 2
SDLP - 2
Sinn Fein - 2
UUP - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1
Alliance - 1
*
As candles begin to be lit in BBC studios across the nation and prayers said for the health of the Great Leader, the BBC should fall into purdah today. Norman Smith & co's lips should be sealed.
*
All that remains to be done now is to vote.

PROTECTING THE EMPEROR

2010-05-05T20:40:00.002+01:00

*
The BBC's live election blog is giving its all for Labour today. So far Labour are again well ahead on the number of posts reporting their sayings and doings.
*
Whenever something is reported about the Conservatives it is being countered by some criticism from Labour. Thus Cameron's all-night campaigning is described and shortly after we get Kevin Maguire's take on it:

0649: Kevin Maguire, of the Labour-supporting Mirror, tells GMTV Mr Cameron's round-the-clock campaigning is "desperate".

And later the ever-not-pictured Prezza:

0913: Former Deputy PM John Prescott has some tongue-in-cheek words of sympathy for the night-workers who have met David Cameron on his marathon pre-polling trip around Britain. He tweets: "It's hard enough working nights but to have someone repeatedly shouting 'change' at you must get on your nerves!" Read John Prescott's tweets.

Similarly news that Simon Cowell is backing the Tories is immediately followed by tweet from BBC election blog regular Charlie Whelan:

0813: Simon Cowell comes in for some criticism from Gordon Brown's former spin doctor Charlie Whelan for supporting the Tories. He re-tweets a message from LadyMyler, saying: "So multi-millionaire, LA-dwelling, tabloid-wrangling Simon Cowell Comes Out for the Tories? Who'd have thunk it?" Read Charlie Whelan's tweets.

In contrast Labour and Lib Dems spokesman come and go (taking of anything but Michelangelo), without being trailed by snide comments from their opponents.
*
Posts that quote Gordon Brown himself are everywhere. And this is what comes in his wake, as Lloyd noted over at B-BBC:

1215: The BBC's Katie Townsend says: Somewhat of a missed opportunity here in Bradford with Gordon Brown. He delivered a powerful and heartfelt speech about the risks the country faces under a Conservative government. But his lecturn seemed to be facing the wrong way and not towards the hundreds of people who had excitedly gathered to see him. It seems Labour were only expecting around 60 people. As he finished the PM emerged to give them a wave but he really could have whipped up this crowd very easily.

Counting up the posts that quote just the party leaders alone (from 6am to 9pm) shows the extent of this extraordinary imbalance:
*
Cameron - 6
Brown - 18
Clegg - 10
*

GOVING IT TO 'EM AGAIN

2010-05-05T18:01:00.004+01:00

*
I know from reading the comments on the B-BBC blogsite that I am far from alone in finding this morning's Today programme deeply biased.
*
The continuous talk/promotion of hung parliaments (right up to the bitter end - or as some call her 'Mary Riddell'), coalitions and proportional representation was one source of irritation. That the panel of voters from Birmingham and from the Labour stronghold of Manchester were also inclined towards hung parliaments, coalitions and proportional representation - and, it seems, towards Labour - was another.
*
Then there was the latest left-sided broadside from the programme's regular election contributor Will Self, chatting to Labour's Geoffrey Robinson and promoting a socialist worldview. Why exactly has he been the programme's regular election guest? Why only him?
*
Then there was Steve Hewlett of The Guardian (and Radio 4's Media Show) chatting about the press's influence on the election with Emily Bell of...The Guardian and Labour-supporting Times journalist David Aaronovich.
*
Above all though, it was the contrasting treatment of the party spokesmen that made this such a fitting finale to Today's biased election campaign. The contrast between John Humphrys's aggressive interview with Michael Gove (6 interruptions, I.C. of 1.1) and Sarah Montague's gentle interview with Alan Johnson (0 interruptions, I.C. of 0) could hardly have been stronger - and falls into the standard pattern not just for this election but for the last year (at least) on Today. Oddly though, her interview with Vince Cable was the strongest on interruptions (6, with an I.C. of 1.7) though it wasn't a tetchy one by any stretch of the imagination.

There was hope though for us all in Michael Gove's latest scrap with John Humphrys. Michael Gove certainly has 'got it'. Here's the interview's scheme, with some choice quotations:
*
9.13 Q1
9.16 A1
9.24 Interruption 1/Q2
9.34 A2
(9.39 muttered comment)
9.55 Interruption 2/Q3
10.13 A3
11.02 Interruption 3/ Q4: (JH:) "As you say there is this sense of change in the air. People want change. And what's extraordinary, and we found it ourselves from the groups of people we've been talking to...they actually want, HUGE number of people, those many undecided of course, but they also want a hung parliament, which proves that they're desperately unhappy with the electoral system that we have now, and what you're NOT prepared to say to them is 'We will change that electoral system so that voting is fair and every vote counts' and that's something that you - alone of the three main Westminster parties are not prepared to say."
11.43 A4 (MG): "We will change the voting system to make every vote count, we will make it fairer.."
11.47 Interruption 3 (JH:) "No you won't. You won't have PR."
11.49 A4 (continued) (MG:) "We will make sure...That's your preferred method. We will make sure that every vote matters in the same way by making sure that every constituency is the same size..." (etc)
12.09 Interruption 4
JH "No, no, forgive me, I'm not going to let you do another little party political there. It's fine.."
MG: "Will you let me answer any question?"
JH: "Well, I..I.."
MG: "You've interrupted every single one of them so far John"
JH: "Ooooh, no, no. Not true but never mind. You always say that when you come on. We expect that. Now look..."
MG: "But you always interrupt me."
JH: (laughing grimly) "Can I ask a question?"
MG: "Of course."
JH: "Good."
12.25 Q5: (JH) "Let me challenge what you've just said about your fair voting proposals because of all the academic research that's been done, all of the serious academic research that's been done, says it not the size of the constituencies or the make-up of the constituencies that affects whether a vote is fair or not. You know that and I know that. So what I am asking you is why you will not introduce or at least allow a referendum on a system that the academics, disinterested academics, regard as being fair, which is proportional representation. You might not like the outcome of PR but whether you should give people the opportunity to vote for or against it is the question."
13.08 A5
13.12 Interruption 5
13.19 A5 (continued)
13.41 Interruption 6/Q6 (JH:) "You're treating the audience like fools! You're treating the voters like idiots!"
13.45 A6
13.59 Q7 (JH:) "I was suggesting merely that you give the electorate a chance to vote on this and the reason you won't, you know and I know, is that if you did your party would be ripped apart. They'd take your head off or they'd slice you up like a banana, if you prefer than metaphor."
14.15 A7, beginning: (MG:) "Once again John, a magnificently eloquent question, which would be better suited to a party political platform than to a neutral interrogation."
15.09 Interview ends

Of Michael Gove's first charge - that John Humphrys had so far interrupted his every answer (which Mr H denied) - Mr Gove was quite correct.
*
Of Mr Gove's second charge that PR is Mr Humphrys's - or the BBC's - "preferred method", I think we can say that this certainly seems to be the case!
*
Of Mr Gove's third charge - that JH's questions "would be better suited to a party political platform than to a neutral interrogation" - I think that anyone reading the above questions, with all their loaded terms of phrase, their disinterested academics and "all serious research", their "you know and I know"s (etc) will have to say "Spot on!" to that too.
*
Another 'Attaboy!' is in order.

RADIO MOSCOW

2010-05-05T05:58:00.003+01:00

*
We learned at the beginning of yesterday's BBC internet election coverage that David Cameron was beginning a 36-hour campaign-a-thon, but you would have been hard pressed to discover much of what he was actually saying, especially about anything important. We do learn though that he said that he wasn't going to miss his rally in Belfast "for the world".
*
On the other hand, Gordon Brown's every move was chronicled throughout the day, with post after post reporting Brownite propaganda, with plenty of serious point-scoring quotes and adoring crowds. I wonder if this this is what it was like in Russia in 2004, when Vladimir Putin was facing re-election, and the state media went into overdrive for him!
*
A smattering of mildly supportive tweets and 'have your says' for the Conservatives was set against a deluge of ones critical of the Conservatives (and often supportive of Labour). I will number-crunch tonight, when I get in from work, to give you the proportions.
*
UKIP did, at last, get a few mentions yesterday, though one was about a 'UKIP scandal' - not much of a scandal, of course - following some passionate words from Norwich North trouper Glenn Tingle, and another was about Lord Pearson's comments about the taste of venison (doubtless after being asked about stag-hunting by some idiot on 5Live).
*

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 28

2010-05-05T05:42:00.002+01:00

*
Well thanks to you, here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians - and a very dramatic sets of results it is too:

Tue 3/5
*
Labour - 32
Conservatives - 15
Lib Dems - 8
UKIP - 4
SNP - 1
Plaid Cymru - 1
Greens - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
UUP - 1
SDLP - 1
*
The screw is tightening yet further. The BBC blog is clearly going all for Labour.
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 28 days?
*
Labour - 710
Conservatives - 543
Lib Dems - 457
SNP - 73
UKIP - 42
Plaid Cymru - 39
Greens - 30
BNP - 22
DUP - 8
Independents - 4
English Democrats - 3
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
Christian Peoples Alliance - 2
SDLP - 2
Sinn Fein - 2
UUP - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1

YET ANOTHER HOLDING POST

2010-05-05T04:57:00.004+01:00

*
Thank you everybody for all you help. Not a sheep and hippiepooter have supplied me with the info for yesterday & I will now try out your suggestions Lloyd, as I'm still out of action!

I'll record all today's radio and TV shows. They ain't getting away from me!

Cheers Craig
*
PS 20.15pm 5/5: Thanks Lloyd for the 'proxy' site. It's doing the trick nicely.

ANOTHER HOLDING POST

2010-05-04T20:52:00.004+01:00

*
A lost evening.
*
I still can't get into any BBC sites, whether they be Today, The World at One, BBC News. I can't see any comments on the B-BBC blog that suggest that this is a nationwide problem. It's only the BBC sites that are a problem for me. So, if anyone can get access to the BBC via the internet I would be very grateful if you could copy and paste the BBC's live election blog for today - if it has been up and running! If I'm unable to get access to it before today's posts disappear into a black hole, I might need your help!
*
Thanks and goodnight, sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite...
*
zzzzzz

HOLDING POST

2010-05-04T17:58:00.007+01:00

*
Well, I've missed all the fun of a Labour PPC who thinks that Gordon Brown is our worst ever prime minister & I can't get into any BBC sites at the moment (they all appear to be down. Is everyone else having this problem?), so while I wait for the chance to find out what Jim Naughtie has been up to on Today or what those Stakhanovites over at the BBC blog are writing today, here's an amusing picture courtesy of Tory Bear:

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 27

2010-05-04T06:30:00.002+01:00

*
Reading yesterday's BBC's internet election blog was like reading Tass from thirty years ago (and yes Gordon Brezhnev is still fighting fit and beloved of the people).
*
Anyhow, here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians:
*
Mon 3/5
*
Labour - 22
Lib Dems - 16
Conservatives - 13
SNP - 1
Plaid Cymru - 1
DUP - 1
BNP - 1
English Democrats - 1
*
The screw is tightening. Nothing from UKIP for three days running now.
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 27 days?
*
Labour - 678
Conservatives - 528
Lib Dems - 449
SNP - 72
UKIP - 38
Plaid Cymru - 38
Greens - 29
BNP - 22
DUP - 8
Independents - 4
English Democrats - 3
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
Christian Peoples Alliance - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1
SDLP - 1
UUP - 1

QUOTAS

2010-05-03T15:54:00.003+01:00

*
The BBC live election blog is at it again, messing up my daily figures by using lots of banal/trivial quotes from the Conservatives to boost their quota but using lots of serious/significant quotes for Labour and the Lib Dems. My criteria is simple - to count every post that uses direct/indirect quotes from the party politicians. Yes, my figures show a significant and growing Labour lead (so pro-Labour bias) but they don't register the triviality of so many of the Conservative quotes chosen to appear on the BBC blog - quotes that don't help them get their message across. This underestimates the extent of the blog's anti-Conservative bias. I didn't think about that at the start, and now it's far too late. I should have run a parallel survey that monitored the value of the quotes I have been recording.
*
Here are some more examples of what I mean:
*
0946: In Blackpool, David Cameron is talking to voters. As the sun shines, he compliments one man on his tie and says its great to be back in the Lancashire resort. Wife Samantha is by his side.

0951: The Tory leader is looking at a community garden. He and wife Samantha take turns to point at the denuded flower beds, or are they vegetable patches? The latter, it seems, as one gentleman explains how much people enjoy eating the produce. Mr Cameron says his daughter has a "novel" approach to gardening, simply throwing seeds everywhere in the hope that they will grow.

1009: David Cameron, who has just signed his contract for young people in Blackpool, says his party takes nothing for granted and that the election remains "wide open". Promising to continue trying to persuade people to the last moment, he adds: "There's real work to do. There's millions of people still to be persuaded."

1359: David Cameron is talking to young people at the City of London academy. He's been joined by wife Samantha and double Olympic gold medallist, rower James Cracknell. The first question is what football team does he support - cue groans from those assembled when Mr Cameron says Aston Villa. He then backs Chelsea to win the Premier League - cue more groans. "I've lost all the north London votes there," he says.

As Ryan discovered, the BBC are keeping count too. They will be including such dross too.

A CRICK GLANCE BACK

2010-05-03T14:20:00.002+01:00

*
Something I only saw out of the corner of my eye (metaphorically-speaking) on Newsnight a week or two ago was looked at full on by a blogger new to me but well worth a read:

Anything you say will be taken down...

Misconstrued, misunderstood, distorted and twisted beyond credibility.. and then used against you.

In this case I am talking about what David Cameron said in the Paxman interview for Panorama today, what Michael Crick said about it, and indeed what the press in the North East and Northern Ireland have said about it.

What David Cameron actually said was that the public sector was too large a part of the economies of several parts of the UK (In Northern Ireland the public sector accounts for 68% of GDP and in the North East 63%) and so the solution is to increase the size of the private sector. Obvious really.

However this has been turned on its head into swinging cuts in both areas. This is not what he said, meant or intended. It is a clear distortion.
Posted by Benedict White
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2010/04/anything-you-say-will-be-taken-down.html
*
If you pop over to Not a sheep's site you'll see a scoop from Benedict that you might find very interesting...
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/05/gordon-browns-replacement-of-bank-of.html

OUT OF KILTER

2010-05-03T12:48:00.008+01:00

*
The balance between the individual and the state was the theme of this morning's Today programme. The balance between the Today's programme's treatment of the three old parties is mine.
*
There were three big political interviews.
*
The first was a thoughtful one conducted between James Naughtie and Labour's John Denham, all very civilised on Jim's part, all very party political on John's.
*
The last was a less philosophical one between James Naughtie and the engaging Lib Dem David Laws, where Naughtie seemed more interesting in tying the Lib Dems to the Tories. Still, it was far from being a hostile interview.
*
What of the central interview? This was between Evan Davis and Conserative Michael Gove. Evan is more than capable of thoughtful interviewing (it used to be his forte) but this was no thoughtful interview, being full of aggressive interruptions and cynical comments. Michael Gove eventually had to criticise him for being so cynical - entirely reasonably - and then, good man!, went on to say that Today (among many other programmes) always concentrates on government initiatives and that he was glad today to get the rare chance to talk on the programme about exciting non-government initiatives. He's not wrong about that.
*
John Anderson (whose ideas, when I first began looking at how to use interruption coefficients a year or so ago, have helped shape all my subsequent actions) notes, over at B-BBC:
The intro was that Tory ideas are a "hodgepotch". Now that's a nice unbiased start! Then described as a "great fluff". And "half-baked".
*
What do the interruption coefficients tell us here?
*
John Denham (James Naughtie) - 0.4
David Laws (James Naughtie) - 0.5
Michael Gove (Evan Davis) - 1.4
*
Breaking down the Denham and Gove interviews shows the following:
*
John Denham

34.14 Q1
34.22 A1
34.58 Q2 (long & ponderous)
35.37 A2
36.13 Interruption 1/Q3
36.17 A3
36.30 Interruption 2/Q4
36.46 A4
37.38 Q5
37.54 A5
38.37 Q6
38.47 A6
39.27 Q7
39.40 A7
40.03 Interview ends

Michael Gove

10.47 Q1
11.00 A1
12.o2 Q2
12.30 A2
12.44 Interruption 1/Q3
12.54 A3
12.57 Interruption 2/Q4
13.05 A4
13.16 Interruption 3/Q5
13.35 A5
13.39 Interruption 4
13.42 A5 (continued)
13.44 Interruption 5/Q6
13.52 A6
14.13 Interruption 6/Q7
14.25 A7
14.27 Interruption 7
14.34 A7 (continued)
14.42 Interruption 8/Q8
14.49 A8
15.00 Q9
15.18 A9
15.22 Q10
15.26 A10
15.28 Interruption 9/Q11
15.45 A11
15.51 Interruption 10/Q12
16.09 A12
17.28 Q13
17.41 A13
17.48 Interruption 11/Q14
18.02 A14
18.06 Interruption 12
18.09 A14 (continued) - a brilliant answer!
19.34 Interview ends

It other words, it's the standard Today programme pattern.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8657000/8657637.stm

PAUSE FOR THOUGHT

2010-05-03T12:05:00.004+01:00

*
Hope you are enjoying your bank holiday.
*
A walk for me and the family along the Lune, with sunlight falling on the water, sand-martins darting out of holes, a wood full of flowering garlic and bluebells running up the slopes. Blossom everywhere, hardly a 'Vote Labour' sign to be seen, and a medley of birdsong filling the air instead of the inane twitterings of James Naughtie and Evan Davis. Ah, to be in England now that Spring has come!
*
Enough of that! Now back to the twitterings of James Naughtie and Evan Davis...

SUSPICIOUS MINDS

2010-05-03T08:13:00.003+01:00

*
The dangers of lurking paranoia must always be guarded against vigorously, BUT (and get the white coats ready!)....
*
After Andrew Marr's initial 15-minute blitz on David Cameron over Tory cuts, Tory taxes and Tory evasiveness, his next question was "What would be your priorities for the first 100 hours if you became prime minister?" Mr Cameron's answer was allowed to go on unchecked. I thought at the time that this was a generous question and that the answer was allowed a generous amount of time.
*
What happens later? Peter Mandelson leads the charge to accuse the Conservatives of arrogantly taking the voters for granted and assuming that they had already won the election, as well as for going against convention and talking about what they would do immediately on taking office (if that's a convention, it's a strange one).
*
Radio 4's 7 o'clock news this morning led its election coverage with Mandy's denunciations.
*
So, was that Andrew Marr and Peter Mandelson I saw on Saturday night behind a grassy knoll, concocting a plot to embarrass David Cameron by making him look arrogant and presumptuous, which Mandy would then accuse him of being?
*
Perish the thought!

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 26

2010-05-03T06:49:00.003+01:00

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians.
*
Sun 2/5
*
Labour - 16
Conservatives - 11
Lib Dems - 8
SNP - 3
Plaid Cymru - 1
DUP - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
UUP - 1
SDLP - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 26 days?
*
Labour - 656
Conservatives - 515
Lib Dems - 433
SNP - 71
UKIP - 38
Plaid Cymru - 37
Greens - 29
BNP - 21
DUP - 7
Independents - 4
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
English Democrats - 2
Christian Peoples Alliance - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1
SDLP - 1
UUP - 1

OH, HOW PREDICTABLE!

2010-05-02T15:56:00.003+01:00

*
A rather interesting (and depressing) report from the Labour stronghold of Dagenham by Shaun Ley on this lunchtime's The World This Weekend was followed by a discussion on a 'new politics', 'minor parties' and independents by former independent MP/BBC reporter Martin Bell, Mike Nattrass of UKIP and, as the representative of the 'big parties', Chris Grayling for the Conservatives...
*
...As if!!!!
*
No, the discussion took place between former independent MP/BBC reporter Martin Bell, Adrian Ramsey of the Greens and, as the representative of the 'big parties', Tessa Jowell for Labour.

SOPEL BOX

2010-05-02T14:59:00.005+01:00

*
The debate between the potential foreign secretaries and the voters of Stourbridge on today's Politics Show found William Hague on the receiving end of the lion's share on Jon Sopel's interruptions and questions. Discounting those interruptions where Jon Sopel cut his guests short for reasons of time or to go to the audience, William Hague was interrupted 9 times, while both David Miliband and Ed Davey were interrupted just 4 times.
*
David Miliband wasn't so lucky with the audience!
*
P.S. It says something about the BBC's live election blog that they saw fit to quote only one of the three politicians on the show. Can you guess which one? Clue: he always pronounces the word 'year' as 'yah' and his daddy was a Marxist professor.

LABOUR UNITED

2010-05-02T13:26:00.005+01:00

*
Back to Gordcasting House, and taking things up from where I left off...

Will has already commented that those lefty heavyweights Peter Hennessy and Anthony Howard were back again (for a fourth week) to reminisce and pontificate about elections then and now. This week's archive clips and their judgements thereon can only be summed up as Will summed them up: "Callaghan & Wilson were fab. Home was a grotesque & they couldn't utter Thatcher's name." (Mr Howard sneaked in the word "bogus" to describe Mrs Thatcher's speech on entering Downing Street).
*
Will continues "That was followed by a newspaper review. Arch lefty journalist John Sergeant, former Labour parliamentary candidate & BBC face, John O'Farrell & actress Jenny Seagrove. I switched off after the introductions, before hearing that Seagrove may have been as left as the other 3 (inc Paddy). Wiki tells me Jenny is an animal rights activist & vegetarian so probably Green rather than Labour, but still left."
*
You will be intrigued, Will, to find this though about Jenny Seagrove. She too is a Labour Party supporter!!
http://www.labour.org.uk/wales/labour_leads_fight_against_bnp_thugs
http://iwc2.labouronline.org/165220/back-the-ban
*
Both John Sergeant and John O'Farrell made noises supportive of Gordon Brown.
*
Will's final comment says it all: "The BBC obviously really don't feel the need to observe neutrality, do they?"

HE'S GOAT THE MEASURE OF THE BBC

2010-05-02T13:17:00.002+01:00

*
Talking of predictions born of BBC predictability (thanks again to Hippiepooter for that phrase)...
*
Not a sheep, who knows the ways of the BBC as well as anyone and who has been on this story for months, made a prediction yesterday about the BBC poll tracker. Guess what? It came true:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/05/poll-tracker-on-money.html
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/05/opinion-polls-and-bbc.html

OH JOY!

2010-05-02T13:14:00.002+01:00

*
Did you know that Radio 4's election night coverage will be presented by (arguably) its two most biased presenters, James Naughtie and Carolyn Quinn? I think I'll give that a miss then!
*

GORDCASTING HOUSE

2010-05-02T12:06:00.004+01:00

*
Steve Munslow
Might be worth listening to Broadcasting House tomorrow morning. I just heard a preview at the beginnng of Loose Ends:
"Politics - and we'll ask if ill-informed voters have a right to be heard". Yes, literally. I can't think what might have inspired this.
*
Was Steve right in his suspicions about 'Broadcasting House'?
*
Well, presenter Paddy O'Connell didn't directly broach Mrs Duffy specifically, though he had only recently given the answer to the question "How long had Cyril Smith been MP for Rochdale?" (The answer was 20 years).
*
Paddy's "we'll ask if ill-informed voters have a right to be heard" question was put like this:
"Well, do you or I have to right to air views, if heaven forbid, they're uninformed or out of date with the latest estimates of the IFS. Should be do our homework before we open our mouths?" Seemingly without irony, he said "Text us at once to tell us what you think." (Surely he must have been joking?!)
*
He discussed it with two people, former Question Time editor and Conservative Party presentation chief Nick Pasani and an ex-philosophy professor Jamie Whyte, who now writes for The Times, who thinks "people don't have a right to their opinions" or "a right to be heard" and doesn't think "the BBC or anybody else has the obligation to give you airtime."
*
Paddy, as ever in this sort of debate, only ever questioned from one side of the argument, whichever guest he was talking to. And as soon as you read his second question you'll know exactly who he had in mind:
*
1. To NP: "Nick, you've made a career out of giving people airtime. Should we...should you have?"

2. To NP: "And is it, if I hear an opinion and know that it's right, what's the right percentage of deficit versus GDP, or is resonance, I see a pensioner and she reminds me of me?"

Mr Pisani answered this question as if Paddy had directly asked about Mrs Duffy, so he knew what/who Paddy was getting at.
*
3. To JW: "And to you James Whyte, do you sympathise with that view? It's about emotional intelligence, I don't have to get to the nitty-gritty, I just have to trust."

4. To NP: "And Nick do you admit that it doesn't matter if it's informed then, it's about spectacle? Sometimes its fine to bleat without actually backing up what you're going on about?"
*
5. To NP: "How important to debate have been moments when voters speak from the heart maybe not from the textbook?"

When Nick mentioned a woman on this week's question time who harangued the politicians, saying "you lot work for us, listen to our opinions", Paddy intervened to ask:

6. To NP: "But it was style over substance her contribution?"
*
(The Olympian Mr Whyte added that it was also "absurd". He thinks "there is a serious problem with the fact that so many people vote". He wants a "randomised" electorate! Talking of philosophers, Plato was regarded by Karl Popper as an enemy of democracy - with very good reason. Is Mr Whyte a Platonist too? He's fully entitled to his view, of course, and fully entitled to give it on the BBC - under my way of thinking!).

7. To JW: "James Whyte, do you have views and opinions which you can't back up with facts yourself, personally in your life?"

8. To NP: "We are told this is a time for leadership, the country needs horrible decisions taken economically. To you first Nick Pasani, is the problem that if we have a consumer culture of politics where it is not appropriate to be rude to voters, where ultimately I am selling my pitch as a politician, am I able to lead?" (A good question though, despite the left-wing assumptions underlying it).

9. To JW: "James Whyte, when you go into the booth do you know the right percentage of deficit to GDP. Have you done your homework on this big economic question?"

So yes, Stewart was right about who inspired the Broadcasting House question. It was indeed Mrs Duffy - ill-informed, bleating Mrs Duffy.

EVEN MORE ON MARR

2010-05-02T10:57:00.002+01:00

*
More on Marr's agenda...
*
Following The Andrew Marr Show for a year now has revealed an ongoing strategy on the programme's part. This is not only to keep asking Conservative spokesmen about cuts (far more often than their Labour counterparts) - as I mentioned in the previous post - but also to suggest in interviews with Conservatives (far more than their Labour counterparts) that they are not being clear/honest ("straight", as he often puts it) about their economic plans, especially on cuts and taxes - as if Labour and the Lib Dems are being clear/honest!!:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-marr-met-george.html
(see also http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-marr-met-peter.html)
*
Do you remember what happened to Philip Hammond and Alistair Darling when they were last on? Mr Hammond was set up by a mischief-making film, whereas Mr Darling was warmly welcomed without any mischief - or a film. (If you don't - and why would you! - please click here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/marr-on-very-biased-form.html).
*
Here again Marr laid tripwires in front of his Conservative guest with a film (though not anything near as unpleasant a tripwire as that laid in front of Mr Hammond!)
*
In this film Marr spun the Mrs Duffy story (which he could hardly ignore) away from Labour and onto politicians in general. We don't like them and they don't like us, he said. Then he spun it away from politicians in general and onto the Conseratives. As proof of his point he took from a bookshelf the diaries of Alan Clark, who he made clear to mention was a Tory MP, saying sniffy things about the proles, and then drew out another book from "another Tory MP" , Gyles Brandreth, also expressing discomfort at having to deal with the proles. He then discussed the matter was another ex-Tory MP, Matthew Parris.
*
All this is by the by. The film's final section moved on to the topic that dared not speak its name when he talked to Brown and Clegg - the deficit, cuts and taxes: "In the election campaign politicians have flinched from the truth of taxes and the truth about what's being planned". This is rich coming from Andrew Marr!! He 'flinched' from asking about it to either of the other party leaders. The BBC refused to explain why in their reply to me.
*
After the film ended, Marr began his introduction to David Cameron with these words: "So is there the slightest chance of hearing more straightforwardly about the tough stuff ahead..."
*
He was then straight off into it!
*
I've also mentioned before the way Marr keeps trying to persist in the 'you Tories are not being straight with us' line regardless of anything his Tory interviewee actually says (see the first link above). I've also mentioned how he has that bad habit for an interviewer of adding his own criticism of the Tory interviewee then moving the conversation on to something completely different and not allowing the interviewee a right to reply to that criticism. Marr combined the two things today, ending the main section on cuts with this: "But you're not really telling us much more aboit how you're going to deal with the deficit. Let's move on..."
*
Bias that's predictable is hardly shocking any more. Inaction by its victims is the bigger issue.

MORE ON MARR

2010-05-02T10:23:00.003+01:00

*
Breaking down the David Cameron interview (which lasted 23 minutes) into its consistuents topics shows the extent to which Marr dwelled (as I confidently predicted he would) on spending cuts and tax rises:
*
Cuts, deficit - 15m 26s (67%)
Priorities - 3m 20s (14.5%)
Hung parliament, campaign - 3 m 0s (13%)
Living Wage - 1m 18s (5.5%)
*
That is 2/3 of the whole interview spent discussing the subject Marr chose not to talk to Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown about at all!!! He even paused midway through the interview only to return to the subject again nearly 5 minutes later!
*
Compare that to Nick Clegg 's interview last week:

Hung parliaments, Clegg personally - 11m 7s (49.7%)
Immigration - 7m 32s (33.7%)
Trident - 3m 42s (16.6%)
Cuts, deficit - 0m os (0%)
*
Or to Gordon Brown's the week before:
*
Hung parliaments, campaign, the Queen - 12m 18s (48.5%)
Immigration - 5m 21s (21%)
Bankers - 3m 11s (12.5%)
Ash cloud - 2m 40s (10.5%)
Afghanistan - 1m 56s (7.5%)
Cuts, deficit - 0 m 0s (0%)
**
This is probably to place to reprint my complaint to the BBC after the Gordon Brown interview. I think you will see why!
*
Whenever David Cameron is interviewed by Andrew Marr, Mr Marr concentrates on asking him about Conservative cuts, yet when Gordon Brown was on this Sunday Andrew Marr did not ask him about cuts at all.

For months now, Conservative politicians have faced questions from Mr Marr about cuts. Why didn't he ask the Labour leader about what cuts he will make, how much will be cut from each spending department, how many jobs will be lost as a consequence?

Why does Andrew Marr seem to want to connect the idea of 'cuts' just with the Conservatives rather than with Labour?

The interview with Gordon Brown lasted 25 minutes. There was time.
*
Marr's agenda has been blindingly obvious for months. This was its crowning glory!

PREDICTIONS BORN OF PREDICTABILITY

2010-05-02T09:29:00.006+01:00

*
Where to begin with today's interview with David Cameron on the Andrew Marr Show?
*
First by sitting in judgement on my own prophecies. How did I do?
*
1. That much more time will be spent this week on serious policy subjects. BULLSEYE!
*
2. That there will be many more subjects discussed, allowing Marr to swoop, attack then fly off onto something different, thus denying Mr Cameron the chance to expand on his explanations. WRONG, because it was cancelled out by prediction 3. This was, however, where the vast bulk of the interruptions came (16 of them), so David Cameron didn't get much chance to expand on his answers. Note also that, unlike with the Brown and Clegg interviews where the interruptions flew largely during the more 'trivial' subjects, here they flew during the most important subject. That increases their disruptive value to the interviewer (and the interviewee).
*
3. That Marr will spend most time discussing spending cuts - the topic he didn't discuss with Messers Brown and Clegg - banging away at exactly how much will be cut, where will it be cut from, how many jobs will be lost, etc. BULLSEYE!
*
4. That this interview will result in a higher interruption coefficient than the ones for Brown (1) and Clegg (1.4). WRONG. It was 1.1, only slightly higher than Brown's and lower than Clegg's
*
So my score is 2/4.
*
Oh, well. Mystic Craig turns about to be as 'mystic' as Mystic Meg!

HORS D'OEUVRES

2010-05-02T08:02:00.002+01:00

*
Sunday morning on Radio 4 means Broadcasting House (aka Gordcasting House). As a taster, here's a comment from the B-BBC blogsite:

Steve Munslow
Might be worth listening to Broadcasting House tomorrow morning. I just heard a preview at the beginnng of Loose Ends:
"Politics - and we'll ask if ill-informed voters have a right to be heard". Yes, literally. I can't think what might have inspired this.

Sunday morning on BBC 1 means Andrew Marr. This week it's David Cameron. Last week, following Marr's past record and basing it on my breakdown of his latest interviews with Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, I made the following predictions:
*
1. That much more time will be spent this week on serious policy subjects.
2. That there will be many more subjects discussed, allowing Marr to swoop, attack then fly off onto something different, thus denying Mr Cameron the chance to expand on his explanations.
3. That Marr will spend most time discussing spending cuts - the topic he didn't discuss with Messers Brown and Clegg - banging away at exactly how much will be cut, where will it be cut from, how many jobs will be lost, etc.
4. That this interview will result in a higher interruption coefficient than the ones for Brown (1) and Clegg (1.4).
*
It's entirely in Andrew Marr's hands to prove me wrong on all four counts.
*
I could add a couple more of course:
*
5. That Marr will bring up Cameron's posh background & 6. return to the subject of Lord Ashcroft, but I suspect that this time he won't be that shameless!
*

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 25

2010-05-02T07:13:00.004+01:00

*
Sometimes you have to smile. I saw that one of the BBC's live election bloggers yesterday was our Lib Dem-loving friend Sarah Bell, so I thought 'Will the Lib Dems get a lot of mentions today?' Well, let's see! Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians.
*
Sat 1/5
*
Labour - 11
Lib Dems - 9
Conservatives - 4
SNP - 1
Greens - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 25 days?
*
Labour - 640
Conservatives - 504
Lib Dems - 425
SNP - 68
UKIP - 38
Plaid Cymru - 36
Greens - 29
BNP - 21
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
English Democrats - 2
Christian Peoples Alliance - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1

TWELVE MINUTES OF BALLS (OR WAS IT AN HOUR?)

2010-05-01T19:48:00.008+01:00

*
This week's Question Time, which gave every impression of drawing a sizable chunk of its audience from the Labour Society at Birmingham University, produced the following Dimbledata:
*
*
Who got most time to speak?
*
1. Ed Balls (Lab) - 11 minutes 56 seconds
2. Vince Cable (LD) - 10 minutes 45 seconds
3. Liam Fox (Con) - 9 minutes 13 seconds
4. Janet Street-Porter (woman) - 7 minutes 23 seconds
5. Alex Salmond (SNP) - 7 minutes 15 seconds
*
*
Who received the most interruptions from David Dimbleby?
*
1. Vince Cable - 8
2. Liam Fox - 7
3. Ed Balls - 5
4. Alex Salmond - 2
4. Janet Street-Porter - 2
*
*
Who scored the highest interruption coefficient?
*
1. Liam Fox- 0.8
1. Vince Cable- 0.8
2. Ed Balls - 0.4
3. Alex Salmond - 0.3
3. Janet Street-Porter - 0.3
*
*
Who was asked the most supplementary questions by David Dimbleby?
*
1. Vince Cable - 11
2. Liam Fox - 9
3. Ed Balls - 5
4. Janet Street-Porter - 3
5. Alex Salmond - 1
*
*
Do you know, I really can't stand this programme!!

WHO'S LEFT OUT?

2010-05-01T12:36:00.011+01:00

*
Dateline London's extreme left-liberal bias has thrown up the remarkable situation of having UK politics largely discussed by left-wingers. I've also noted before that the representative of the British press on the panel tends overwhelmingly to come from the Left (see my earlier list).
*
Would that change during the general election? Time for an update:
*
Well, week one (10/4) saw the appearance of New Labourite Steve Richards of The Independent. Week two (17/4) saw Conservative-supporting Janet Daley of The Sunday Telegraph (Janet was the first centre-right UK journalist on the show since 20/2!!!) Week three saw Michael White of The Guardian. Who was it this week? Yasmin Alibhai Brown of The Independent.ependent.
*
If they give us either Janet Daley or Ann Leslie once every six or seven weeks they seem to think they've done their bit for impartiality!!!
*
Instead of giving you a picture of any of these fine people, or even Gavin Esler, I will instead offer a photo of one of Yasmin's companions today, the far-left Portuguese writer Dr Eunice Goes. (I chose her completely at random of course).
*
Referring to the story of the week, Yasmin Alibhai Brown said the broadcasting of Gordon Brown's private views was "unfair" and said that "personally...there was something bigoted about how she was going on about immigration". The lovely Eunice thought that "the public at large are not too bothered" about the story. (Funny, they were talking about it where I work). At least the usually sound Saul Zadka of AI London was on hand to talk of Brown's "completely insincere" apology and the "contempt" Brown seems to have for such working class people. Henry Chu of the LA Times, one of the usual crop of liberal Americans (there has never been a Republican-supporting American journalist on this show since I began watching it a couple of weeks ago), backed Yasmin ("Everyone is entitled to their views in private.")
*
When the conversation turned to immigration, Mr Chu made reference to the "nasty" way the issue came up in 2005 but he was going too cautiously for Yasmin Alibhai Brown who, characteristically, leaped in hysterically to denounce the media for pandering to this talk of immigration as being a bad thing. Naturally, Eunice Goes agreed wholeheartedly and sung the praises of mass immigration. Gavin Esler intervened at this point to back up Eunice, saying "I've conducted some public meetings and ordinary members of the public have said precisely that, our health service could not exist without people who are migrants." When Saul raised the point that many people think immigration has been "excessive" and that the UK is a rare example of a country that doesn't know how many immigrants it has, he was leaped on by all and sundry, including the supposedly impartial host. Saul tried to continue but was shouted down by Yasmin Alibhai Brown. Gavin Esler did not ask her to let Saul speak. Eunice had a few angry goes at him too. Ah, the old rallying cry of the Left against the Right: "Shut up!!"
*
Incidentally, for regular viewer of Dateline (if there are any, other than me and Martin at B-BBC!), the role usually provided by French lefty Marc Roche was this week taken by Eunice Goes, who said "most of the Conservative MPs who will come to parliament on May 6th, they are not urbane, metropolitian guys like David Cameron. They are, most..many of them, climate change deniers, homophobes, xenophobes and supporters of the death penalty." Yasmin Alibhai Brown loved it and laughed uproariously. That's the quality of commentator they have on Dateline!
*
The late stages of the show brought attacks on Rupert Murdoch and the Murdoch Press. When Yasmin had finished her attack on them, she praised Sky News for not being partisan. Gavin Esler just couldn't stop himself from chipping in "They've not been Fox News in other words!". Cue liberal laughter. Well, I'm going to chip in too: "They've not been BBC News either then!"

SMEARING UKIP

2010-05-01T09:43:00.007+01:00

*
UKIP have been complaining for some time about the BBC's attempts to link them in the public's mind with the BNP.
*
Hippiepooter has brought to my attention some examples of this, both from BBC political correspondent Brian Wheeler. The first comes from his review of the BNP's latest party election broadcast:

The UK Independence Party must have thought it had cornered the market in the anti-politics vote with its "sod the lot, vote UKIP" poster.

But in this election broadcast, BNP leader Nick Griffin goes further still, urging people to use their vote to "get your own back" on the entire political class.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8647630.stm

His second comes from a review of UKIP's latest party election broadcast (and a very snide piece of reporting it is too):
*
The theme of the broadcast is "straight talking" - like the BNP in their broadcast, Ukip are starting from the premise that the public now think all mainstream politicians are liars and crooks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8651489.stm
*
And I can add Mark Easton to the list of smearers:

The big three Westminster parties have tended to brush to one side the point that lots of our inward migration comes from the EU and none of their policies would do anything about that. Only UKIP and the BNP would withdraw from the European Union, a prerequisite for restricting Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians from coming to work in Britain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/immigration_by_numbers.html

And now BoBs on the latest B-BBC open thread has picked up on possibly the worst of the lot. As he notes, "The ever helpful BBC informs us that the BNP and UKIP are basically the same party ... WTF". It begins:
*
Two parties who have entered the Westminster election race in the hope of winning their first seats are the British National Party and the UK Independence Party.
Central to both organisations is the notion of being British, however that has often led to the BNP being accused of racism and UKIP being accused of being anti-European.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/scotland/8653809.stm
*
The worst case I know of this came during an edition of The Politics Show courtesy of Jon Sopel. Sorry for doing this, but I'll have to quote myself here at some length:
*
Short extracts from interviews with each of the candidates for the leadership of UKIP followed. I would love to know how long the actual interviews lasted from which these crumbs were drawn and what questions were asked. Here the focus, initially, was firmly on immigration - and Sopel had the clear aim of painted UKIP as a far-right party analogous to the BNP.
*
First came Gerard Batten MEP. He said that immigration should be reduced to a trickle and that Sharia Law is unacceptable in this country. An unhappy-looking Sopel said "I'm sure that Nick Griffin wouldn't disagree with anything you've just said."
*
Next came front-runner Lord Pearson, who Sopel clearly had in his sights. He was labelled a "former Tory" (boo!) and "old Etonian" (boo!), and a "field sports campaigner" (boo!)" and as the man who invited Geert Wilders to the Houses of Parliament (boo!). Wearing a sour expression, Sopel asked him "So is there a danger you could be confused, UKIP and the BNP?" When the lord answered (slowly), Sopey interrupted and twisted his words: "Are you saying that there's a fine line between UKIP and the BNP?" The over-polite peer should have replied "No, you twit, of course not - and, unless you're thick, you know I didn't."
*
The mere councillor came next, Alan Wood - "chairman of Fittleton Parish council", a man who "breeds spaniels". "Do you respect Lord Pearson?" asked Sopel. "No I don't", replied Mr Wood. "Are you saying that if he's elected people will think you're too close to the BNP?", asked Sopel. "Yes", replied Mr Wood. Job done for Sopel!
*
Next up was Mike Nattrass MEP. He was labelled a "former member of the right-wing New Britain"(boo!). 'Right-wing' is usually BBC code for a fascist nut. Mr Nattrass is absolutely no such thing, but how are BBC viewers to know that the 'right-wing' New Britain was not a fascist organisation, like the BNP? This is a low subliminal smear. *
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/11/ukip-get-full-sopel-treatment.html
*
I think we should all be on the alert for more examples of this.
*
P.S. Here's another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/regions/west_midlands/8578858.stm
*
And another from Stephanie Flanders:
The UK Independence Party and the British National Party also often focus on the economic impact of immigration: on wages, productivity and jobs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8634469.stm

WHAT?!

2010-05-01T08:57:00.006+01:00

*
Before I move on from yesterday's BBC internet election coverage, here's a post from the BBC's polling expert last night:
*
2205: Two of the latest polls show that only 5% separates the parties in first and third place, while in the other the gap is just 4%, says David Cowling, editor of BBC political research. "All three polls keep this election firmly in hung parliament territory, with Labour the largest party," he says. "It is still a genuinely close three-horse race."

And that was it for last night on the polls.

This puzzles me because there were (as far as I can see) only two polls last night, and neither bares any resemblance to the figures Mr Cowling is describing:

Harris/Mail
Conservatives - 33
Lib Dems - 32
Labour - 24

YouGov/Sun
Conservative - 34
Labour - 28
Lib Dems - 28

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php

What on earth is going on here?
*
The BBC blog this morning isn't mentioning any of those polls but, surprise surprise, it has already found space for this:

0843: Former Labour spin doctor Charlie Whelan tweets some good news for the party in Wales: Western Mail poll in Wales. Lab 37.5 Tories 23.5 Libs 21 Read Charlie Whelan's tweets

HAVE THEIR SAY

2010-05-01T07:24:00.006+01:00

*
The BBC's live election blog continues to foreground tweeters and have-your-sayers from the Left. Complete with my guesses as to which party they will be voting for - and the odd heckle or two -, here are all of the examples from yesterday (excluding party politicians):

2211: LongJumpKonan writes: This debate was very interesting because they revealed some aspects of what they want to do if they become prime minister. Gordon Brown seemed very sensible to me because in such difficult times it is important that the leader of the country is skilled and experienced. Nick Clegg seemed also fairly acceptable to me and what he said made sense. Only David Cameron didn't convince me because he contradicted himself many times during the debate.Have Your Say LABOUR

2054: deemiller writes: I believed in Gordon Brown, he was informative on all issues, and I really believe this man is the one to steer us through the economic recovery. Nick Clegg said he would give everyone a £10,000 tax allowance per annum, but he wasn't very clear about what percent he would put on the rest of one's income, or how many tiers of tax there would be. As for David Cameron, I remember it was the Conservatives who put an end to apprenticeships and instead created the dreaded YTS which was a total disaster. On May 6th I will be voting LABOUR - common sense (sic) must prevail. Have Your Say LABOUR

(Following the Guardian coming out for the Lib Dems and the Times coming out for the Conservatives:)
2044: axelsegebrecht from Woking, UK tweets: Should the media be taking sides? (Aw, diddums) Read axelsegebrecht's tweets LABOUR

1845: jml1970 writes: Will be interesting to see how UKIP and BNP poll this time, since immigration has become more of an issue than the politicos expected. None of Tories/Labour/Lib Dems has any policies beyond fiddling around the edges, and UKIP/BNP are now the only parties which reflect the views of those with a fairly robust anti-immigration stance. Have Your Say ????

1653: Michael Tew, from Sheringham, Norfolk, writes: In all the debate so little has been said about Afghanistan. Why should we succeed where 113,000 Russians failed? It is not our war and our presence is likely to incite acts of terrorism here. How many millions and, more importantly, dozens of lives would be saved by our withdrawal?Have Your Say RESPECT

1631: Kevin Wu, from London, writes: The UK election seems fairly undemocratic because Labour could have the third of the votes and the most seats in the House and because if I am in a very safe seat my vote counts for nothing if I choose an alternative party. However, I like having an MP for my constituency as it gives a clear link from the House to the public. Have Your Say CONSERVATIVE

1516: NewViking writes: How far back do Mr Griffin and his followers have to go before they find an immigrant in their own families? Not far I would think. Have Your Say ????

1331: Synthjock tweets: On the evidence of last night, Tories are targeting the 'bigot vote'. Feeling strong compulsion to emigrate. (Don't let us stop you!) Read Synthjock's tweets LABOUR

1302: Protest Voter writes: All the election coverage is now of no interest to me - I have already submitted my postal vote. Rather than squander my democratic right on any of the candidates, I decided to undertake the only sensible option: I have voted for nobody, I spoiled my ballot paper.Have Your Say NOBODY

1246: Suumac tweets: Not sure having Blair on the Labour trail is a good thing...too many raw feelings still associated with his name. Read Suumac's tweets ????

1035: Bertie Hanson writes: I am most definitely not changing my voting preference. It's Labour. I come from near Rochdale, and I sincerely hope that no-one is diverted by the 'bigot' reports. I don't mean to offend, but bigotry is alive and well in this country. (I don't mean to offend either, but so is stupidity). Let's see the debate turn to the economy. Much respect on that to Gordon Brown. (Spent all of our money like there was no tomorrow, raided and ruined our pensions, sold our gold at bargain basement prices, left us without adequate resources when the economic crisis struck, borrowed like a wild gambler in good times and bad, saddled us - not him, us! - with a national debt of unprecedent scariness, leaving us at risk of losing credibility with the international markets at best and national bankruptcy at worst, and guaranteeing that we taxpayers will be paying off his debts for at least a decade. Yes Bertie, much respect to Gordon Brown on that.)Have Your Say (I just have!) LABOUR

1025: Phil from Abingdon writes: I am still a very undecided voter. (Jesus wept again!) All I know is that I intend to vote in this election. I am not alone among my peers - for the first time since I can remember (I am 31) everyone is talking about the election. Go into any pub or coffee bar and it is the primary topic of conversation.Have Your Say DUNNO

1009: Duncan from Bristol writes: As a 29 year old living in Bristol, which is a very liberal city, I feel the Liberal Democrats have been seriously underestimated. I think we're set to see a very large turn out on polling day, particularly from people under 30. I certainly will be voting LibDems both for my MP and local councillor.Have Your Say LIB DEM

0945: MichaelBoyd from Grantham writes: I was going to vote for Lib Dems but last night's debate has convinced me to back the Tories. Clegg has run out of steam and the thought of having Gordon Brown as prime minister unelected once may be regarded as a misfortune; to have him unelected twice just looks like carelessness.Have Your Say CONSERVATIVE

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 24

2010-05-01T07:15:00.002+01:00

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians.
*
Fri 30/4
*
Conservatives - 20
Lib Dems - 19
Labour - 18
BNP - 4
Plaid Cymru - 4
Greens - 3
SNP - 3
Christian People's Alliance - 1
UKIP - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 24 days?
*
Labour - 629
Conservatives - 500
Lib Dems - 416
SNP - 67
UKIP - 38
Plaid Cymru - 36
Greens - 28
BNP - 21
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
English Democrats - 2
Christian Peoples Alliance - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1

ANYONE FOR A TEA-PARTY?

2010-05-01T06:27:00.003+01:00

*
BBC economics correspondent Jonty Bloom has been known to step beyond reporting into outright advocacy, usually for higher taxes or more government spending (clear evidence for which can be found by clicking here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search/label/Jonty%20Bloom). My wallet always goes into hiding at the mere mention of his name.
*
So it's hardly a surprise that this was Jonty's take on what the would-be prime ministers had to say about national insurance, in response to Robin Lustig's repetition of Gordon Brown's charge that the Conservatives would take £6 billion out of the economy and damage the recovery:
*
"I think the Liberals and Labour came across quite strongly with the line that it is not possible really to save that sort of money in the first year without damaging the economy and that we will have to talk about tax increases."
*
Was that Jonty talking sides on the issue?
*
He went on (and steel yourselves, wallets everywhere):
*
"More generally the big elephant in the room I think was actually that there will need to be far more tax increases than that..."
*
Ah, Jonty Bloom and the necessity for more taxes...!

CLOSE-UPS ON LAST NIGHT'S LEADERS DEBATE

2010-04-30T21:39:00.004+01:00

*
A curious question raised by several contributors to last night's live debate at Biased BBC (and other sites) was why the BBC seemed to be turning its cameras onto Gordon Brown disproportionately as he shook his head or laughed derisively at something one of his opponents (nearly always David Cameron) said.
*
Well, being a countaholic, I've gone back and added up all the close-up reaction shots. (Don't worry, I had some great music on in the background, by my lookalike!)
*
In the first twenty minutes, it was pretty much horses for courses between Brown and Cameron (12 close-up reactions for Cameron, 13 for Brown). Watching live, I too had originally thought that Brown was getting more. However, this wasn't the case (at this stage!) and I think I can say why. Cameron kept his head very still during his close-ups, while Brown's head was up to all sorts of whacky, attention-seeking (and getting) antics. That made his close-ups hard to miss, while Cameron's were far less conspicuous and easy to miss.
*
In the second twenty minute period, it was 4 to Brown and 2 to Cameron and in the third twenty minute period it was 5 to Brown and 4 to Cameron.
*
So, so far only very small leads for Brown and not much evidence of BBC bias in its up of close-up reaction shots.
*
The last half an hour, however, was very different. This is why Llew & co were getting hot under the collar - and rightly so.
*
Here there were no close-up reaction shots of David Cameron shaking his head or laughing at some silly thing Gordon Brown (or Nick Clegg) was saying. None at all. There were, however, ten of Gordon Brown doing just that.
*
So, Brown got 31 in total, Cameron 18 - moving towards double.
*
And Nick Clegg? He was way behind either!
*

FULL OF EASTON PROMISE

2010-04-30T20:42:00.004+01:00

*
Mark Easton used The Daily Politics Crime Debate to launch a sustained assault on the Conservatives (17 questions, 8 interruptions), and a lesser assault on the Lib Dems (4 questions, 3 interruptions). He left Labour alone (2 questions, 1 interruption). Observers of Mark Easton know that this is far from untypical. Still, the BBC's live election blog promised today that he had blogged about the use of inaccurate statistics by the three big parties, so I clicked expectantly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston
*
He certainly mentions 'the three big Westminster parties', but whose figures does he look at in detail? The Lib Dems and, you guessed it, the Conservatives. You will not find the word 'Labour' anywhere in his article.
*
This man is biased to the core and he is far from ashamed to show it.

NOT MAKING FRIENDS WITH NIGEL

2010-04-30T17:35:00.013+01:00

*
There are several ways to look at the remarkable levels of bias in this morning's Today programme.
*
The first is to compare the respective lengths of each interview with a party politician. Given how many parties were interviewed, this comparison becomes especially telling. Here are the results in descending order::
*
1. Peter Mandelson (Labour) - 11m 12s
2. Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) - 4m 29s
3. Caroline Lucas (Green) - 4m 16s
4. Vince Cable (Lib Dem) - 4m 5s
5. William Hague (Con) - 4m 0s
6. Nigel Farage (UKIP) - 3m 44s
*
Why was Mandy given getting on for three times more air-time than anyone else? Why was Nigel Farage granted the least time? Why did William Hague get less time than either Nicola Sturgeon or Caroline Lucas?
*
Note also that Mandy got the prize spot at 8.10, the spot all politicians want.
*
The second way is to compare the interruption coefficients (the number of interruptions/the length of the interview.) Again these make dramatic reading, particularly for one party, and will be given in descending order:
*
1. Nigel Farage (Evan Davis) - 2.3
2. Vince Cable (Evan Davis) - 1.2
3. Nicola Sturgeon (James Naughtie) - 0.9
4. William Hague (Evan Davis) - 0. 5
4. Peter Mandelson - (Evan Davis) - 0.5
5. Caroline Lucas (Evan Davis) - 0.2
*
If that suggests that Nigel Farage got a HUGELY rougher ride from Evan Davis than either Peter Mandelson or William Hague, or anyone else for that matter, well the suggestion is borne out by the facts. (The William Hague interview might have contained a lot more interruptions but it was conducted down a phone with a very audible one-second delay, which always makes interrupting tricky). Nigel Farage was interrupted 8 times, Caroline Lucas just once.
*
A third way is to compare the interviews schematically. I haven't the time to do schemes for them all, so I'll just compare the two most extreme interviews - Evan's interviews with Nigel Farage (go Nigel!) and Caroline Lucas:
*
Nigel Farage:
*
0.22 Q1
0.29 A1 (24s)
0.53 Q2
1.05 A2 (4s)
1.09 Interruption 1/Q3
1.16 A3 (1s)
1.17 Interruption 2/Q4
1.19 A4 (6s)
1.25 Interruption 3/Q5
1.28 A5 (17s)
1.45 Interruption 4
1.49 Q6
2.05 A6 (2s)
2.07 Interruption 5/Q7
2.20 A7 (19s)
2.39 Q8
2.48 A8 (7s)
2.55 Interruption 6/Q9
3.17 A9 (8s)
3.25 Interruption 7/Q10
3.28 A10 (16s)
3.44 Interruption 8/Q11
3.47 A11 (4s)
3.51 Interview ends

Caroline Lucas:
*
0.22 Q1
0.28 A1 (45s)
1.13 Q2
1.34 A2 (41s)
2.15 Q3
2.45 A3 (46s)
3.31 Interruption 1/Q4
3.55 A4 (37s)
4.32 Interview ends
*
The contrast could hardly be sharper. Caroline Lucas was allowed to be expansive in her answers and to put across her vision at the end (before she ran out of time). Nigel Farage was barely allowed to string a couple of sentences together without being disrupted by interruptions. Indeed he spoke for 51.5% of the interview, while Evan Davis spoke for 48.5%. Call that interviewing? Debating - or arguing - more like!
**
A fourth way, and just sticking with these two interviews, is to compare the substance of the questions (or points) put by the interview. Are they hostile, contradictory, neutral or supportive?
*
Here are Evan's contributions:

Caroline Lucas

1. Have you been disappointed by the intensity with which environment issues have been debated during this campaign?
2. Right, so it is clear you are different to the other parties. One of the key things about the Green Party, as I understand it, are ultimately you think we ought to put less emphasis on material consumption. We have, if you like, to reconfigure the culture of consumption. Am I right in that?
3. Well give me a scale of how big an impact a Green vision or a Green government would be if we had one. Let's take the example of flights. You know, what sort of number of flights, what sort of change in the number of flights would you expect in say after ten years of a Green government? Are we talking a 100% reduction in the number of flights, a 5o% reduction, a 10% reduction, a lower growth rate in the number..? Just give me some sense of the scale of impact you want to have.
4. But you're sounding a little less ambitious than I might have thought. I mean if it is just a matter of saying no more flights, we replace the domestic flights with trains and some of the near-continental flights with fast trains, that's not going to do it, is it? That's not going to give us human beings kind of an extra twenty minutes on this planet in terms of the scale at which we're burning the resources and putting them into the atmosphere.

Nigel Farage

1. Do you think there's been enough honesty from the other parties about their plans about taxation and spending in this election campaign?
2. Well, 50 billion pounds in Year One plus honesty means you will be able to tell us in an amount of detail what we are going to lose in Year One of our UKIP government.
3. No the 45 million, no the 45 million...is it 45 million? Isn't that a gross figure not a net figure?
4. Right, so that's a bogus figure then, isn't it? The net figure is the relevant figure.
5. OK, so the first thing that goes is everything we've spent on...
6. But Mr Farage you were the one who said we need honesty, you're the one who said we need to cut 50 billion out of public spending straight away and then citing you're example you come up with something like the Equality and Human Rights Commission! It's not going to be 50 billion! We don't spend 50 billion of quangos like the Equality and Human Rights Commission...
7. We also...we spend tens of millions of pounds on the quangos but some of them are ones that are actually providing very substantive services, they're not just ones that are providing equality and human rights and things like that.
8. Do you think it's really that easy (laughing) to draw a line between front line services and back office services? I mean you're probably counting a teacher as a front line service presumably....
9. Yes, but a lot of those MOD people are kind of engineers and others who are repairing vehicles or testing things, scientists. I mean, these are not people who are useless. They are people who are doing a very important job. Of course there probably are some bureaucrats, aren't there. You don't really have any idea do you how many are doing useless activity and how many are doing useful activity because you haven't...
10. And how much does that take you towards your 50 billion in the first year?
11. You haven't told us either. You haven't given us the detail either, any more than the others have!
*
With the Green leader Evan Davis was thoughtful and spoke quietly and slowly. With the UKIP legend he was excitable, aggressive and loud. He spent almost all of his interview with Nigel F contradicting his every statement. His tone with Caroline was friendly, with Nigel it was full of scorn and felt at times more like a dressing down than an interview.
*
There are doubtless several other ways of recording such extraordinary bias but that's enough for now. I can't listen to that interview again, lest my temples explode!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/default.stm

WHAT DID THEY THINK IN A LABOUR STRONGHOLD?

2010-04-30T06:39:00.006+01:00

*
If you remember, last week's The World Tonight post-debate analysis took Ritula Shah to Reading University to talk to voters - four students, one the head of the uni's Labour Society - to get a "completely unscientific" survey of reactions to the second, with predictable anti-Tory results. Where did she go last night? She went to a working men's club in Stoke-on-Trent, which she described as a "Labour stronghold".
*
She talked to four more voters (with apologies to them for having to guess the spellings of their names) - club committee member Anthony Munday, who "has been a Labour voter all (his) life", unemployed student Stephen Mulluck, small businessman Tony Wally, who has always been "a proud Labour voter", and Bill Cawley "who lives in neighbouring Leek but who is involved in local politics here in Stoke." (I looked him up. He's a Green). There was a mix of views about who performed best, but the general view (except for the Green) was that David Cameron did worst and that Gordon Brown got the best of it. Who were they going to vote for though? Well, the results were intriguing (so not a completely pointless exercise). Stephen, the unemployed student from Liverpool, said "I've always been pin-pointed on what my decision is going to be. It's got to be Labour for me." However, Mr Munday refused to say (I suspect BNP!) and Mr Wally said he was still undecided. Oddly, the Green Party councillor Mr Cawley said he was undecided too. (Is there no Green candidate in Stoke-on-Trent?)

Why didn't Ritula canvas opinion in a marginal?

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 23

2010-04-30T06:11:00.003+01:00

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians.
*
Thur 29/4
*
Labour - 55
Conservatives - 50
Lib Dems - 44
SNP - 6
UKIP - 3
Plaid Cymru - 3
Greens - 2
BNP - 1
English Democrats - 1
Social Democrats - 1
*
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 23 days? Well, Labour are now clearly unassailable:
*
Labour - 611
Conservatives - 480
Lib Dems - 397
SNP - 64
UKIP - 37
Plaid Cymru - 32
Greens - 25
BNP - 17
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
English Democrats - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1

MORE INSTANT REACTIONS

2010-04-30T05:53:00.004+01:00

*
After the previous pair of debates the BBC's live election blog reported most of the instant polls.
*
This week they only reported one:
*
2224: Some instant reaction. A ComRes poll suggests David Cameron did best, with 35% of respondents saying so, with Nick Clegg on 33% and Gordon Brown on 26%.
*
They ignored:
*
YouGov: Cameron (41%), Clegg (32%), Brown (25%)
Populus: Cameron (38%), Clegg (38%), Brown (25%)
ICM: Cameron (35%), Brown (29%), Clegg (27%)
*
YouGov was out as early as Comres. Isn't it revealing that Pravda chose not to include it?
*
They do have this though:
*
2202: The BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones tweets: Tories say David Cameron is well ahead in the betting market, Tweetminster say Clegg is ahead on sentiment. Read Rory Cellan-Jones's tweets
*
And this:
*
2225: Mixed reactions to the debate are coming in on the BBC's Have Your Say website. David O'Brien thinks "Cameron has a solid team, they have a strong heritage and they look energised to make things happen," while J McGhee believes "Brown is the only one who knows what he's talking about". Clyons agrees with the LibDem Leader: "Clegg is right - we need a German style coalition". Have Your Say
*
And, perhaps as a present to his colleague Sarah, the BBC blogger chooses this:
*
2254: I am 20 years old, I did all the things the government says you should do. Go to College, get qualifications, earn more money, and save. And yet, I'm working part-time in Burger King, desperately trying to move in with my partner. So, my vote is going with Clegg. The £10,000 tax limit will help me loads. Have Your Say
*
If the BBC has any integrity, it will begin its internet coverage today with a listing of all the polls.
*
*
INSTANT UPDATE: Well, it has! It's grudging though, isn't it?
*
0619 Good morning. The post-debate analysis is already underway. Some "instant poll" news. They suggest David Cameron did best last night - YouGov for The Sun put him on 41%, against Nick Clegg on 32% and Gordon Brown on 25%. But a ComRes poll for ITV News suggested the result had been much closer with Mr Cameron on 35% to 33% for Mr Clegg and 26% for Mr Brown. (Not that much closer for Brown though!!) The BBC's poll expert David Cowling said we'll have to wait for the weekend polls to see if it's likely to have any affect on voting day.

0623 Our expert says the ComRes and YouGov polls registered no change for Nick Clegg from the second debate, an increase of 5 points for David Cameron and a drop of 4 points for Gordon Brown. Meanwhile a Sky News poll of polls had the Tory and Lib Dem leaders tied with an average of 33% against the PM on 27%. That's probably enough polls for now...

I bet it is!

INSTANT REACTION

2010-04-29T22:08:00.003+01:00

*
Norman Smith, after some initial hedging, calls it for Gordon Brown and then explains why at some length. He came back again and again to Gordon Brown, and his attacks on the Tories.
*
The initial polls disagree:
*
Comres
Cameron 35%
Clegg 33%
Brown 24%
*
YouGov/Sun
Cameron 41%
Clegg 32%
Brown 25%
*

BEWARE THE EADES OF APRIL

2010-04-29T15:40:00.004+01:00

*
So Today talked only to Friends of Gordon...What about last night's The World Tonight?
*
David Eades talked to...Matthew Taylor, the very likable but Labour-supporting blogger and former party general secretary (and former director of the IPPR). Matthew was, as you would expect, saddened but saw chinks of light. He was as fair-minded as ever. What though of the BBC's David Eades? He seemed much more supportive of Gordon Brown than even Matthew Taylor (a Blairite, of course), intervening to say "He was quick to make amends though. That clearly must have helped?" The rumours that Mrs Duffy might sell her story to the papers and that she has been signed up to a PR agency were eagerly mentioned by Mr Eades (nudge nudge, wink wink) and his next question wanted Matthew to speculate on which paper Mrs Duffy might sell her story too. Yes, let's discredit Mrs Duffy!
*
After a report from Dartford, Kent by Paul Moss about voter (or non-voter) opinion about immigration, Mr Eades returned to Matthew Taylor and if "the parties...get it"? Not 'Does Labour get it?' of course. Matthew spoke up for Labour on the issue (whilst being fair-minded about the problem facing politicians in general.)
*
And that was it on the story of the day!!!!

ONE PALTRY FACT

2010-04-29T14:46:00.003+01:00

*
Another vignette from this morning's Today programme...
*
I think Jim Naughtie wanted us to learn a fact today - that the Conservatives are running fourth in Scotland, according to the opinion polls. He told us that before 7 o'clock. He repeated it as he introduced us to the SNP-Conservative marginal of Angus at 7.40. Then he repeated in again at the end of the programme (8.55). I will quote just one example, the final one, just to give you a flavour: "Decision day a week away. One element in the overall picture is going to be the result from Scotland, a distinct political community. To summarise, 59 seats, 1 of them held by the Tories in the last parliament, but they're running fourth in the polls. Labour are well ahead." (Earlier he described the Tory strength in parliament as "one paltry seat").
*
Naughtie's ponderous on-air essay from Angus would have had both SNP and UKIP listeners fuming, as it was both Unionist and pro-European in tone. (The SNP less so, as Naughtie was talking them up at the expense of the Conservatives). Naughtie said that past concerns about EU fishing quotas were now outweighed by the realisation that Europe (especially the French and Spanish markets) is vital for the area's economic success.
*

FRIENDS OF GORDON

2010-04-29T13:36:00.004+01:00

*
So how did this morning's 'Today' deal with Bigotgate?
*
Norman Smith was in his usual 6.32 spot, and preferred to talk about tonight's election debate, discussing Brown's gaffe in that context only before moving on to Nick Clegg and David Cameron. Except for the obligatory paper reviews, that was all there was about the story in the first hour.
*
Gordon Brown didn't need to 'phone a friend'. Today did it for him. James Naughtie turned to the big story at 7.09: "The most painful aspect of the affair for Gordon Brown may well be the accusation from his opponents that this reveals the truth about his personality. Is that fair?" (Is it "fair", incidentally, for Naughtie to say that it is just his opponents who are saying this? Plenty of journalists and commentators from across the political spectrum and across the media have been saying it too.) "Well, we're joined from Shetland, as it happens, by an old friend of the prime minister's, who was a student with him when he started on the long political road that has lead to this moment, Dr Jonathan Wills."
*
"I don't recognise this monster that we get from people like Andrew Rawnsley of The Observer and Trevor Kavanagh in The Sun this morning.," he began. "It doesn't really help to demonise people. It's more important to understand them." He went on to talk about "the son of the manse". (I don't know about you, but if I hear that phrase one more time my radio might find itself flying half way to Gambia!)
*
And that was it for the second hour. A friend of Gordon (being interviewed by a friend of Labour).
*
At 8.10 Nick Robinson appeared and talked to James Naughtie. Nick appraised the situation fairly enough, pointing out why yesterday was so bad for Brown but why tonight still gives him the chance to turn things round again.
*
Who was up next? A political opponent? A pair of journalists from each wing of the political spectrum? A friend of Mrs Duffy's? No. After Gordon's friend came Labour's Alan Johnson. Mr Johnson defended both Mrs Duffy and Gordon Brown. Brown's an "unspun politician", was Mr Johnson's angle. (This is the quote now headlining the Today website, so it's their angle too). Naughtie asked some pertinent questions at the beginning of the interview, interrupting Mr Johnson five times, but the pressure was hardly intense and Naughtie quickly ceased fire. He then agreed with him that people will understand Brown's two-faced behaviour ('Who hasn't done it?', they both said), then stood back helpfully as Mr Johnson made his long "unspun politician" speech. The interruptions, by this stage had stopped. They didn't restart.
*
One late question shows just how useful to Labour James Naughtie can be in a tight spot: "Finally, isn't it clear that across the country something remarkable is happening? Now after yesterday it's a time for straight talking, after that episode. That's meant to be your forte". (Where's Diane Abbott and those sucky-sucky sounds she made to Keith Vaz when you need her?). 'Where's he going with this?', the listener would have been wondering. Is he going to ask something that would really put Mr Johnson on the spot at last? Hardly. This was the question that demanded such a straight answer: "Isn't this the oddest election you've known? What's going to happen in the next week?" Famously the shortest phrase in the King James Bible is "Jesus wept." I couldn't help remembering that nugget of information at just that moment.
*
And that was it for the third hour and for the programme.
*

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 22

2010-04-29T06:01:00.003+01:00

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians. As you can see, Labour won by several miles. They got off to a flying start, then (after Bigotgate had got into its stride) they were quoted again and again and again, defending the oh-so-contrite, oh-so-hard-done-by Brown.
*
Tues 27/4
*
Labour - 36
Conservatives - 9
Lib Dems - 7
UKIP - 2
SNP - 1
Plaid Cymru - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 22 days?
*
Labour - 556
Conservatives - 430
Lib Dems - 353
SNP - 58
UKIP - 34
Plaid Cymru - 29
Greens - 23
BNP - 16
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
English Democrats - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1
Respect - 1

BIGOTGATE IS RUBBISHED

2010-04-29T05:26:00.005+01:00

*
The BBC blog went into overdrive last night to 'protect the emperor'. Any lingering semblance of balance vanished:

2125: Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman says "gaffe" is the wrong word to describe Gordon Brown's comments about Gillian Duffy. She tells the BBC News Channel's Campaign Show he will be "very concerned" at the hurt he has caused.

2146: Former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy says "real people" have been "unanimous" in saying the Gordon Brown episode will not influence their votes.
(About which, please see Paul's comments about The Campaign Show on the Biased BBC Open Thread)

2148: Former Labour deputy leader Margaret Beckett says the media are using Gordon Brown's comments and apology as an excuse not to talk about policy.

2153: Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader, says Gordon Brown has made character an issue during the election campaign, meaning it is not easy for Labour to say now to reverse that decision.

2330: Asked about the furore over Mr Brown's comments to pensioner Gillian Duffy, immigration minister Phil Woolas tells the BBC that "obviously it was not the best point in the campaign". But he says Labour will be able to move on from it and he does not believe it will affect the outcome of the election

And then, yet another have-you-sayer sticking up for Brown:

2249: Neil Scott from Walsall, UK, writes: What I've "learned" today is that Gordon Brown has a different private face to his public face, just like everyone else. I'm tempted to change my mind and vote Labour now, just to show how sick I am with the holier-than-thou media who think the general public are idiots who need drip-fed opinions and treat people like Mrs Duffy as pawns. Have Your Say

Again I ask, was this sort of thing the ONLY thing tweeters and have-you-sayers were saying?

Checking out Have Your Say (with all its 'removed by the moderator' comments), there are a lot of Brown defenders and Labour supporters there for sure (as one commentator Phil Thomas noted "Either I'm out of touch with the public or this board has been hijacked by the Labour press office."), saying what a shame it is for him, that Sky's to blame, it's all hype, that Mrs Duffy is probably a bigot, vote Gordon, etc.. but there is also quite a lot of criticism of Brown too, plenty for the folk at the BBC blog to pick from to provide a spread of public opinion. They chose not too. How the hell can they justify that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/gordon_browns_remarks_your_rea.html?page=2#comments

BIGOTGATE BREAKS

2010-04-28T21:05:00.004+01:00

*
The running commentary at B-BBC shows the BBC in confusion over 'Bigotgate' http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-thread_27.html. The comments on the 'mother ship' blog are fascinating, reflecting closely the shifts and turns in the BBC's coverage of the story.

All I can add is a complementary review of the BBC's own running commentary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent

How did the BBC's live election blog cover the unfolding story of 'Bigotgate'? Well, for the first few minutes they veered uneasily between reporting the breaking news and ploughing on with what they had been doing all morning - plugging Labour's agenda (here reporting Gordon Brown's policy statements on The Jeremy Vine Show).

Then something remarkable happened. The BBC behaved for the following few hours like an impartial broadcaster! It didn't last long, but it was good while it lasted.
*
Reaction began to come in and first blood went to the Conservatives:

1308: Conservative Party chairman Eric Pickles tweets on what is now known as #BigotGate on Twitter: "Every voter should know that Brown's view of the electorate is you either agree with him or you are the enemy." Read Eric Pickles's tweets

This was the first we heard of the word "bigot" - and it came not from a BBC reporter but from Eric Pickles. (Mr Pickles breaks news faster than the Beeb it seems!) Did they know about Brown's use of the word "bigot" before then? If so, why hadn't they mentioned it earlier?

Then it was over to a Labour defender, Joan Ruddock, then another (a "Labour spokesman".) From then on a judicious balance of pro- and anti- Brown voices were heard. (Mandy got two bites of the cherry, of course). I would describe the mix of views offered by the BBC blog as exemplary, and it stayed that way until about 4.30pm.

There was no spin from Nick Robinson either, except that he didn't mention the fact that Brown called Mrs Duffy a "bigot":

1329: It's a disaster for the prime minister because Mrs Duffy is typical of the white working class traditional Labour voter Gordon Brown needs to hold on to. Now she is saying she won't be voting Labour, says BBC political editor Nick Robinson. What we have seen is no huge surprise, as he often flairs up in private. If we hadn't had heard the off-camera words, this would've been a lively election moment, which would've been to the prime minister's credit.

Rory Cellan-Jones later became the first BBC reporter to use the b-word:

1355: A firm which tracks "sentiment" on Twitter says Gordon Brown's ratings plunged deep into negative territory after the "bigot" incident. Lexalytics' chart shows his score falling to the lowest levels we've seen in this campaign. The volume of tweets also hit very high levels, increasing tenfold in 20 minutes, says the BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones.

The comments on the Biased BBC blog show that this was happening on the BBC News Channel too, though not for quite as long. The tone of the comments from my eagle-eyed allies began to change as the afternoon wore on - and so did the BBC's blog.
*
Pro-Labour Bias returned - with a vengeance.

It sounds as if it was gradual on the BBC News Channel. On the BBC blog it was sudden and dramatic. At 16.38 a pro-Brown deluge began (featuring, among others, actor Simon Pegg, Labour-supporting pollster Peter Kellner and Alistair Campbell) and it continued for over two hours.

Suddenly, the tweeters and have-your-sayers all began to speak up for Brown - all of them!!:

1638: Regarding the coverage of #BigotGate, Enhughesiasm tweets: And to think the media were getting so close to having to actually talk about policies. They must be delighted. Read Enhughesiasm's tweets

1739: Regarding Gordon Brown's "bigot" gaffe, Michael Driscoll from Walton-on-Thames writes: What a storm in a tea cup. I'm a floating voter and this event would have no bearing whatsoever on my vote. Surely policies are the right benchmark to cast your vote on. The press seem thrilled to have got this soundbite.Have Your Say

1758: Bruno writes: I can't say I'm Mr Brown's biggest fan, but I do think that anyone's private conversation should remain so - private. If you go earwigging you should expect to hear things you don't like. Have Your Say

1910: Paul From Oakley Vale writes: As an ex-BBC producer and former sound recordist myself I want to know when the reprimand will be applied to a) the sound recordist who carried on recording when a prime minister was clearly "off-camera" and in the private confines of his own car. And b) the reprimand to the opportunist news producer who exploited the sound recordists mistake for their own aggrandizement. Standards of decency and professional conduct have clearly been breached here. Have Your Say

2022Ruralwoman writes: While I look forward to crash Gordon taking a long holiday in a few days' time, I actually feel quite sorry for him. That grumpy off-the-record comment will haunt him forever. Have Your Say (well, that one is support of a back-handed kind!!)
*
Is that really typical? Does the whole nation (except us) feel sorry for Gordon Brown, as this suggests? Are all the millions and millions and millions of "bigots" out there really happy at being regarded as such by the Labour leader?
*
The early afternoon showed what the BBC could be if it tried. The late afternoon and early evening showed what the BBC is, sadly.

THE MORNING BEFORE...

2010-04-28T19:39:00.005+01:00

*
Reviewing the BBC's live election blog (so far) today reveals fascinating insights into BBC bias.
*
The first substantial post of the day began at 6.45 with "Have unveiled their secret weapon?" Their "secret weapon" turned about to be Sir Alex Ferguson, who is well-known as a Labour supporter, so hardly "secret."
*
What followed througout the morning was a long sequence of posts that quoted Labour figures advancing their party's cause, or (more often) attacking their opponents. On and on they went. From 8.00 until 12.15 (when a short post gave the first hint of the catastrophe for Labour to come) there were 9 posts that meet my criteria of using direct or indirect quotes from Labour politicians, and many others about Labour that don't. I think they are all worth quoting for the sake of posterity:

1147: Gordon Brown defends his policies on education, immigration, the deficit, health and "helping people" in a sparky exchange with a woman in Rochdale. Starting off with heckling from a distance, the woman ended up telling him about her grandchildren and travel delays from ash. Mr Brown even complimented her choice of coat today - red. DESCRIPTIVE

1133: From hairdressers to tree-trimmers, Gordon Brown continues his push to meet the voters with a visit to a community scheme in Rochdale. DESCRIPTIVE

1109: Mr Brown takes up the offer of a visit to the hairdressers in Oldham, but declines a trim, opting instead to talk business. The customer in the chair looked quite bemused, as a media scrum surrounded the small shop, reports Jane Hill. DESCRIPTIVE

1017: An entrepreneurial Oldham hairdresser comes right out and offers Mr Brown a haircut if he has five minutes to walk across the road to her salon. He'll even get a discount. He does have a TV debate coming up on Thursday...DESCRIPTIVE

1011: Phil Woolas is relishing his job as compere, saying he'll be like Robert Kilroy-Silk - talkshow host, reality show contestant and former MEP. Presumably Mr Woolas isn't planning an appearance on Big Brother. TRIVIAL

1003: PM Gordon Brown praises the success of neighbourhood policing, saying it's important to him that everyone feels safe in their homes and streets. In an echo of his predecessor, he says: "We are the party that is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime." SIGNIFICANT

0954: Phil Woolas gets a rousing round of applause as he introduces "the boss" (that's Gordon Brown, in case you were unsure) to the audience at the Oldham community centre. DESCRIPTIVE

0944: The community centre in Oldham has been festooned with red balloons and rosettes for the visit of the prime minister, reports Jane Hill. His question-and-answer session could take about 45 minutes. DESCRIPTIVE

0930: While his ministers have been explaining crime and spending pledges to reporters in London, Gordon Brown is on the verge of a visit to a CCTV monitoring centre in Oldham, where he'll also take questions from the public. DESCRIPTIVE

0903: Lord Mandelson comments on continuing speculation about a hung parliament. With a straight face, he says Lib Dem Nick Clegg is sometimes talking to "the man in the moon, happy to go into a coalition with him". SIGNIFICANT

0853: Greek troubles are mentioned again, and Lord Mandelson is asked: Could we go the way of Greece? He says that it shows the "fragility" of the situation, so it would be wrong to take risks with the recovery. "Britain is not Greece," he says. SIGNIFICANT

0846: Katie Piper appears after Alan Johnson and outlines the role CCTV played in her case. She was badly injured when an attacker threw acid on her face on a busy high street in daylight. CCTV was key to securing a conviction. She says when she feels uncomfortable in public, she'll move to be near a CCTV camera. SIGNIFICANT

0843: Home Secretary Alan Johnson outlines the problems, including binge drinking and teenage pregnancy, but says Labour has the solution. He then moves on to CCTV and its role in policing. People could have the right to request CCTV in some areas, he says. SIGNIFICANT

0837: Labour's Lord Mandelson says Britain needs answers to problems it faces. He begins his speech with criticism of the Tories about its "misuse" of crime statistics. SIGNIFICANT

0831: The Labour press conference is about to get under way with Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Communities Secretary John Denham in a "rare appearance," reports Laura Kuenssberg. They'll be focussing on CCTV and cutting down on crime. Appearing with them will be Katie Piper, who was badly hurt in an acid attack by a boyfriend. DESCRIPTIVE

0822: "Fantasy politics" is how David Miliband describes the Tories and Liberal Democrats when the issue of a hung parliament is put to him on the BBC Today programme. How about sharing Downing St with Nick Clegg? "Our leader is Gordon Brown, we have chosen our leader. We're not having the leader of other parties telling us who our leader should be." DESCRIPTIVE

0819: With the stock exchange nervous about events in Greece, Foreign Secretary David Miliband praises the IMF for action on helping the Eurozone country during its financial crisis, but he criticised David Cameron for comparing the British and Greek situations as similar. "Let's put the Greek bit out of this equation," he said. SIGNIFICANT

0808: Following Tuesday's appearance of an ex-EastEnders actress at a Tory event, another one has stepped into the campaign. Michelle Collins, aka Cindy Beale, is fronting a video criticising Tory plans to give tax breaks to married couples. DESCRIPTIVE
*
As you can see, that's a lot of coverage (18 posts) - and it's almost entirely free from criticism (the one exception being the slight dig at John Denham), or indeed of any clouds of negativity. All is sunshine and friendly banter with the public (oh, how deliciously ironic!) Labour could hardly have wished for better coverage. Moreover, as you can see, Labour's campaign messages are quoted across a wide range of subjects. That could only be seen as a great success for them.
*
*
How does this compare to the BBC blog's treatment of the Conservatives between those hours? I think you'll agree it could hardly be more different:
*
1210: Shadow chancellor George Osborne tells the Institute of Directors that under a future Tory government, there will be a new sign erected over the country, saying "Britain is open for business". He also wants to see a more balanced economy, with a banking sector that supports the British economy rather than one which "enslaves" it. SIGNIFICANT

1159: Shadow chancellor George Osborne sets out his stall on the economy at the Institute of Directors conference. The parties have been defending their spending plans amid claims they are not being upfront about the scale of future cuts. DESCRIPTIVE

1049: A thirsty Mr Cameron thanks his hosts, makers of a world-famous beverage, and then drops a heavy hint - "they haven't given me any yet". Campaign donations have increased since the televised debates began, so maybe he's hoping for a bit more in the final few days. TRIVIAL

1037: David Cameron is facing some tough questions from the Coca-Cola workers. Immigration, child tax credits, homeownership, the benefit system, foreign takeovers of British companies, and planned cuts have all been raised. DESCRIPTIVE

1025: David Cameron asked workers at Coca Cola in Wakefield what the secret recipe was for Coke. They answered that's the $60m question. TRIVIAL
*
And that's it! Only one post (out of a not-so-grand total of 5!!!) reports a Conservative politician putting across a campaign message.
*
The posts at 10.25 and 10.49 fall within my criteria of using direct/indirect quotations, despite being utterly trivial and not very helpful to the Conservative cause (compared to all those serious points being made by Labour), and so they will have to appear in my figures tomorrow. They don't deserve to!!
*
Moreover, unlike with Labour, Mr Cameron is reported as "facing some tough questions". It's not all sunshine and friendly banter here. The post at 11.59 frames George Osborne's coming speech with general comments about criticisms of the parties over their not being "upfront" about spending cuts. Why mention that in this particular post, rather than in a separate post? To tie the idea of "not being upfront" about spending cuts to Mr Osborne in particular perhaps? Most importantly of all though, why was nothing other than the quip of Mr Cameron's about not being offered a drink quoted from Mr Cameron. It seems he answered a lot of questions on a lot of subjects. The BBC saw fit not to report any of them!!

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 21

2010-04-28T19:08:00.002+01:00

*
Left for work very early this morning (startling blackirds and security guards in the process), so there was no time for this. So, better late than never, here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians
*
Tues 27/4
*
Conservatives - 23
Labour - 22
Lib Dems - 17
SNP - 7
Greens - 2
Plaid Cymru - 1
UKIP - 1
Mebyon Kernow - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 21 very long days?
*
Labour - 520
Conservatives - 421
Lib Dems - 346
SNP - 57
UKIP - 32
Plaid Cymru - 28
Greens - 23
BNP - 16
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
English Democrats - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1
Respect - 1

SCHADENFREUDE

2010-04-28T18:32:00.007+01:00

**
Nothing whatsoever to do with BBC bias this (as I've been away all day and have missed all the fun, so entertainingly chronicled on the Biased BBC blog) but here's a rare non-BBC-based post ....
*
A very long day at work, but not unenjoyable. And then to come home, switch on ITV News and see Gordon Brown's gaffe, life-long Labour voter Mrs Duffy's double-take on hearing what he had said about her, Brown's visible wilting as the tape was played back to him on The Jeremy Vine Show and his absurd forced grin/gurn as he emerged from Mrs Duffy's house after rushing back to apologise to her. Ah, happy, happy days!! In the immortal words of Nelson, May the Great God, whom I worship, grant to my Country and for the benefit of Europe in general a great and glorious victory...Whoops, wrong Nelson. I mean't:

And now we know, as Tom Bradby said on ITV News, that Gordon Brown believes that anyone who raises concerns about immigration is "a bigot" - which, given that most people in the country (according to all the polls) hold such concerns, makes a large majority of voters "bigots" in his eyes.
*

PS I was clearly far from alone from having this reaction. Here's North Northwester's take (which which I wholly agree):
http://theyrejokingarentthey.blogspot.com/2010/04/bigotry.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theyre-joking%2Farent-they+%28They%27re+Joking%2C+Aren%27t+They%3F%29

BALLS AND OPEN GOALS

2010-04-27T20:18:00.004+01:00

*
Catching up with yesterday's The World at One finds Martha Kearney interviewing Ed Balls and beginning her interview not by asking about matters relating to the Labour Party but about something relating to the Conservatives: "I began by asking him about the criticism raised about the Conservatives' schools policy by the Tory leader of Kent County Council, Paul Carter. He told the BBC today that he had some concerns over the impact the Conservatives' planned foundation schools could have on the funding of other schools in the area."
*
In response did Ed Balls say, 'Sorry Martha, I'll pass on that one. Let's talk about our policies instead'? Amazingly, he didn't!! No, he attacked David Cameron and Michael Gove. I never saw that coming! Nor did I forsee that he'd spend most of the rest of the interview attacking the Tories too. I'd always thought he was such a pleasant, positive chap. Martha must have been so surprised at Ed Balls's uncharacteristically nasty behaviour that she let his attacks go on unchecked. Yes, that must be the explanation.
*
Nurse!

PHOBIAS

2010-04-27T18:23:00.009+01:00

*
A Tory candidate (Philip Lardner) has been suspended from his party today for making a 'homophobic' remark on a website. Yesterday a Labour candidate (John Cowan) was suspended from his party for making an 'Islamophobic' remark on a website.
*
Someone who didn't report the John Cowan story yesterday was our old friend Michael Crick. He made no mention of it on Newsnight. He did blog about it though. However, I note that he only posted about Mr Cowan at 16.08 today &, of course, he coupled the old news about Mr Cowan with the breaking news about Mr Lardner. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/04/latest_candidate_suspensions.html *
*
So, Michael Crick didn't think Labour's Mr Cowan worth mentioning yesterday, or this morning, or early this afternoon. Yet within minutes (possibly seconds) of news breaking of a Tory candidate being suspended he rushes panting to his laptop, doubtless sending cats and kids flying in all directions, and his fingers become a blur of activity. Suddenly, he remembers Mr Cowan. Well, he could hardly not mention him if he were about to mention the errant Tory Mr Lardner!
*
Another prediction: Michael Crick might mention the 'racist' John Cowan on tonight's Newsnight (a day late), but only because he will almost certainly feel the overwhelming urge to mention - and doubtless dwell on - the 'homophobic' Philip Lardner.
**
*
UPDATE The BBC website covers both stories:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8647206.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8644018.stm
*
Note how the Labour one features only the comments of people from the Labour Party, and highlights a Labour Party spokesman's 'anger'. The Conservative one, however, features the violently hostile views of a political opponent, Labour's Chris Bryant, and chooses to highlight them too!
*
This pattern has been observed before.
*
The BBC article on Mr Lardner begins: Tory election candidate Philip Lardner has been suspended for describing gay people on his website as "not normal", the party has confirmed.
*
The article goes on to quote the 'offending' words (which don't describe gay people as "not normal", as the BBC alleges, only their behaviour. Can they not see the difference?)
*
"As your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage.

"I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it.

"Toleration and understanding is one thing, but the state promotion of homosexuality is quite another."

CLAPTRAP

2010-04-27T17:48:00.003+01:00

*
The lead election story on the BBC News website tonight is 'Election: Parties battle over family and crime plans'. This has three sub-headings:
*
*****************Cuts questions
*****************'Toddler tax'
*****************'Claptrap'
*
The latter pair are direct quotes from Labour attacks on the Conservatives. 'Claptrap' immediately preceeds excerpts from a speech by David Cameron on the 'broken society'. It is a quote from Alan Johnson featured four paragraphs later, after the Cameron extracts (thus book-ending them)!
*
Labour and Lib Dem spokesman "attack", "tell", "argue" and "say". Only the Conservatives have to "defend" themselves:
*
In south London, Mr Cameron defended his depiction of British society as "broken".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8645508.stm

A typical BBC article.

ALL ROADS LEAD TO BIAS

2010-04-27T16:39:00.007+01:00

*
Crime was the theme of this morning's Today programme, and several acts of GBH were carried out against the Conservatives during the course of it. Indeed, the whole programme seemed to be structured in such a way as to make the mugging of Chris Grayling at 8.15 its focal point.
*
It began with Mark Easton telling Justin Webb that Labour were right about the crime figures, and that crime shot up under Ma Thatcher and the Conservative Gang but fell back again after Labour's Untouchables came to power. After initially sketching each party's view of whether crime is rising or falling, Justin turned to Easton and joked "I wasn't going to ask you who's right and who's wrong Mark." He might as well have done. Easton's description of what has happened to crime over the last thirty years would have been music to Alan Johnson's ears. The stats he used are those of the opinion-poll-like British Crime Survey, recommended by Easton as the best way of judging the figures.
*
Justin Webb then interviewed Chris Huhne. He gave him a very easy ride, but got him to agree with Easton that crime has been falling significantly under Labour. Just one interruption in five minutes saw a very low interruption coefficient here of 0.2.
*
Alan Johnson came on at 7.33. There were no audio clips from crime victims before his interview, no academics critical of Labour's record, indeed no pre-prepared ambushes whatsoever. He was simply interviewed. Evan Davis was the interviewer and he did plenty of interrupting (achieving an IC of 1.5). As to why the public remains unconvinced by the official statistics, he got Mr Johnson to concede that it wasn't just the Tories who were guilty, but when Al said it was the Conservative-supporting media (ie. 'The Daily Mail'!) as well Evan gave an 'Ah!' and let matters rest - for the time being. His next interruption was merely to say "'It's all working now' would be your perception?"
*
The next phase of the interview did get a concession that not everything was rosy in the garden, though it was laced with a repetition of the good news: "Just want to clarify. Because we are saying that crime is down and violent crime is down I think it's very fair to point out, I thought you'd like to comment on this, that the drop in violent crime is primarily domestic crime, acquaintance violence. If you look at muggings or violence committed by strangers, I know you would want to clarify, that has really barely budged over the last 15 years. It just carries on more or less level, doesn't it?" When Mr Johnson said that domestic violence has gone down by 50%, Evan chipped in supportively "Very dramatic." Mr Johnson repeated "Very dramatic." Still Evan did get him to admit that muggings were "stable" and "not going down".
*
He next returned to his original point and said, as well as the Conservatives and the media, maybe you have contributed to the public's fear by all those law and order bill...and promptly wasted the rest of the interview (two minutes) ploughing this minor point - a minor point which only served to reinforce the BBC narrative: Crime has fallen since the Conservatives left office. The Conservatives are lying over the crime statistics. Vote Lib-Lab. Shouldn't Evan have used those remaining minutes to interrogate Mr Johnson over some of his manifesto pledges?
*
Before Chris Grayling came on we heard an audio clip from an OBE-winning woman from Bristol, Mary Smith, who said that crime has dramatically fallen in her area, then an interview with Prof Rod Martin, a crimologist at Bristol University. "Can we nail this business of violent crime first of all," said Justin Webb. "I don't want to get bogged down in statistics and want to talk about other things, but when the Conservatives say we live in a more dangerous country thanwhen Labour came to power, I mean in so far as we can say, can we say that that's true or false?" Prof Martin thinks the Conservative position is "not defensible". That, surely, is why Today invited him onto the programme!!! To reinforce the message, Justin asked "So they are simply flat wrong when they make that allegation?" "Yes", replied Mr Martin. Such were the tripwires laid in front of Mr Grayling.
*
Everything in this programme seemed to lead to this interview. Mark Easton's initial 'analysis' of the crime figures, which 'refuted' the Conservatives and showed that crime has fallen significantly under Labour, the easy interview with Chris Huhne (which plugged away at the same point), the part-flattering, part-probing (but far from hostile) interview with Alan Johnson (which plugged away at the same point), Mrs Smith saying that crime has fallen on her estate, Prof Martin saying that crime has fallen significantly under Labour...all leading to 8.15, Evan Davis and Chris Grayling.
*
The interruptions flew again, even more so that with Alan Johnson (I.C. of 1.8). This time, however, it was straight down to business, there were no supportive interruptions and Evan's tone (and I like Evan Davis, so I'd rather not say this) was noticably tarter than with Alan Johnson. He debated which crime figures to trust with Mr Grayling, advocating the British Crime Survey (asserting, at one stage - in echo of Easton, that they are "the best statistics") against Mr Grayling's preference for the recorded crime figures. This was a dialogue of the deaf. Evan Davis later rubbished Mr Grayling's anecdotes, heckled him ("We always have!") and did that thing I always think interviewers should NOT do - disagree with their interviewee then change the subject without granting him a right to reply ("Well, we've had gangs, we've had problems with teenagers for as long as we've recognised the existence of teenagers. Just to follow up with a quick, specific policy proposal of yours, I think on knife crime...")
*
The Today programme's aim was clearly to show that the Conservatives are wrong on crime. Listeners would be forgiven for believing them. I have to admit I found myself being persuaded by the BBC line. Chris Grayling's inability to get past Evan Davis's constant interruptions didn't help. I am armour-plated against BBC bias, so if even I find myself struggling to believe the Tories on this one, either the Tories are very wrong...or the biased BBC has done a very good job indeed. I think I know which it is. The whole thing stank of a set-up.
*
Like yesterday.
*

WELL HUNG

2010-04-27T06:26:00.004+01:00

*
Before I leave for a second longer-than-usual day at work, here's the latest post on the BBC's live election blog:

0621: Three new polls out today show how close the race is now between the three biggest parties - with only 4- 5% between them. A ComRes poll for ITV News puts the Tories on 32%, Lib Dems on 31% and Labour on 28%. An ICM poll for the Guardian puts the Tories on 33%, Lib Dems on 30% and Labour on 28% and a YouGov survey for the Sun puts the Tories on 33%, Lib Dems on 29% and Labour on 28%. A three-horse race it is then - expect the hung parliament chatter to continue.

They mentioned these polls yesterday evening (as did Michael Crick, who was almost salivating over them). Now they mention them again. They haven't done that before. I (rhetorically) wonder why!

That last sentence in the BBC post (and can't you just smell the enthusiasm in it!!) - "A three-horse race it is then - expect the hung parliament chatter to continue" - is a prediction anyone could have made, given the sheer amount of chatter on the subject across the BBC yesterday.

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 20

2010-04-27T05:50:00.002+01:00

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians. Labour are now 100 posts ahead of the Conservatives.
*
Mon 26/4
*
Labour - 26
Conservatives - 20
Lib Dems - 17
Greens - 3
SNP - 1
UUP - 1
Plaid Cymru - 1
Respect - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 20 days?
*
Labour - 498
Conservatives - 398
Lib Dems - 329
SNP - 50
UKIP - 31
Plaid Cymru - 27
Greens - 21
BNP - 16
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Mebyon Kernow - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
English Democrats - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1
Respect - 1
*

UNJUST(IN) BEHAVIOUR

2010-04-26T20:50:00.004+01:00

*
Bupendra at B-BBC (good man!) picked up on some more biased behaviour on the Today programme:
*
Same old, same old on The Toady Programme.

Justin Webb interviewing Tory Nick Herbert and a couple of others I'd never heard of about The Countryside.

Webb straight into Nick Herbert with...

Can I ask you first of all, Nick Herbert, are you the party of the hunt?

And how important is the reinstatement of hunting with hounds to that general picture?

Ok. We'll come to those things (reviving the rural economy, rural unemployment and rural services, which Mr Herbert had brought up) in a second. Let's get hunting out of the way out of the way first of all.

It is a fact, isn't it Nick Herbert, that your party leader wants to bring it back. He's not going to force his party down that road, but he wants it back?

But he personally wants it back...

Yeah alright, Justin, we get it. The Tories are very bad people who want to kill foxes. Now if you want to talk about the countryside how about the economy, housing, education, services, farming etc. You know, relevant, important stuff rather than stuff you can use (you think) as a stick to beat the Tories with.

Credit to Nick Herbert who swatted Justin away.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-thread_8124.html
*
A spot-on analysis.
*
This debate on rural policy lasted 9m 33s. The first 3m 28s were spent on fox hunting.
*
After this interruption-filled probing of Nick Herbert and a lesser grilling for the 'third way-over-fox-hunting'-advocating Lib Dem David Heath (one of my favourite Lib Dems - as I've mentioned before. He was one of the few Lib Dems to go against his party and honour his election pledge on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty), Justin Webb turned to Hilary Benn (who had already had his chance to slag off the Tories over fox hunting).
*
What searing question did he ask Wedgie Jnr?: "Ten thousand homes, Hilary Benn, ten thousand homes in rural areas and homes coming soon. This is what you're promising?" Reading out a manifesto pledge is hardly a demanding question!! Nick Herbert gets grilled on fox hunting; Hilary Benn gets a Labour manifesto pledge read out! Amazing!
*
What happened next was scarcely less amazing. Did Justin return to Nick Herbert and read out one of his party's proposals? No he didn't. He read out another of Labour's lovely promises to bring sunshine and smiles to the nation: "Nick Herbert, two things. The homes and the broadband. Labour promising a potentially large-scale home buildings (sic), as Hilary Benn says, which in a sense has already started. But also the idea that in rural communities it is just no acceptable in the future for you not to have access to high-speed broadband."
*
What do the interruption coefficients tell us? Things are bad enough already for Justin, surely they can't show any further bias, can they? Oh yes they can!
*
Nick Herbert - 1.2
Hilary Benn - 0.8
David Heath - 0.7
*

GOVING AS GOOD AS HE GETS

2010-04-26T18:20:00.007+01:00

*
B-BBC readers will be up on this story already (and there have been some excellents comments there about this already), but a few more things can be said.
*
Today this morning decided that the biggest story of the day was some criticism of Conservative education policy made by a Conservative council leader, Paul Carter from Kent. As the programme began, John Humprhys read "The news headlines this morning. A Conservative council leader has said that Tory plans to allow parents in England to set up their own schools could damage state schools."
*
As the newsreader read out the gist of the story I immediately spotted some misreporting: "Free schools, as they are known, would be established outside local authority control, using money that would have been allocated to the state sector." My understanding, based on a little reading on the subject and from watching an otherwise incredibly biased Newsnight report on the subject a couple of months ago, was that 'free schools' were state schools - albeit state schools outside local authority control. That's what the Conservatives have always said. That's what Michael Gove went on to repeat to John Humphrys.
*
Gillian Hargreaves, the BBC's education(al establishment) correspondent, then reported, saying "this intervention is embarrassing." She emphasized that Mr Carter "isn't against choice in education but he thinks the funding of free schools could be unfair to councils because money will be diverted from local education authorities". She continued, "He's not alone in his unease. The head of Hampshire's children's services, who is also a Conservative, says local councils must have the chance to turn a school around rather than give parents and charities the immediate right to set up a new school."
*
Gillian's full report can be read here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8640576.stm
*
It details the concerns of both men at some length. Several things quickly become clear from reading the men's carefully filleted words (rather than merely attending to the BBC reporter's framing of them). Both men's concerns are nuanced, even in the excerpts we get (and, unsurprisingly, their support for the concept of free schools is skirted over very briefly in indirect quotation while their reservations are dwelt on across several paragraphs in direct quotation. (I wish we could hear the full interviews with both men). Also Cllr Carter is just as concerned about Labour's academies as he is about Conservative free schools. You wouldn't have got any sense of that from just listening to the Today programme.
*
Then we here from that trusty stand-by in times of need - the unnamed man, who goes a lot further than either of the named councillors:
*
Another Conservative councillor who runs education services in one of England's cities, but who does not want to be named, says he "is not a fan of the free schools policy".

He points out (which makes it sound as if he is just stating the fact of the matter) if parents were able to set up free schools in his area - a city with a growing population - it would make strategic planning a nightmare.

What of Michael Gove's rejection of the story? It gets one short paragraph!!!!
*
What follows in the rest of the article, which still leads the BBC's Education page and, amazingly, which still hasn't been updated since 7:05 GMT? We hear a steam of criticism of the Conservative plans.
&
There are two paragraphs from The Institute for Fiscal Studies then, under the sub-heading 'Privilege the few', we get four paragraphs of pure Ballsian Tory-bashing bile from Ed Balls. Next come two 'attack paragraphs' from Lib Dem Sarah Teather. Then two more from head NUTter Christine Blower.
*
UPDATE (even before I've published this post!). Gillian has now updated her article (18.16 GMT). Michael Gove now gets two short paragraphs to defend his position (and a short video clip)!!! WOW!!!. Generous eh?!

Why hasn't she outlined the robust defence Mr Gove gave on the Today programme? What happened to the idea of a right to reply? Surely a half dozen paragraphs at the very least from Michael Gove would only have been fair, given the length of the article and the sheer amount of criticism contained in it - all of which remains from this morning, except that Ed Balls loses one of his four paragraphs (he still has one more than Michael Gove!!!) - and given the scope of Mr Gove's case as made (under fire) this morning.
*
Just from reading this article (in both versions) you can tell that Gillian Hargreaves might not be the most impartial of reporters.

Gillian Hargreaves had a little chat with Justin Webb at 6.36am, giving only the criticisms without the nuances. The chat ended with Justin saying "Briefly Gillian. A bit of a blow?" "Yes", she replied. "It is embarrassing for the Conservatives and privately several councillors have told me this policy has not been thought out properly, certainly not when it comes to funding ".
*
The Daily Mail's take on this includes these points - which (if they are all true!) raise yet more questions about the BBC's behaviour:
*
The BBC was criticised today for claiming senior Tory council figures have reservations about plans to let parents and charities set up their own schools.
With just 10 days to go before polling day, leader of Kent County Council Paul Carter accused the broadcaster of attempting to create division in Conservative ranks.
It contacted Tory council chiefs in an apparent bid to drum up any criticism about the party's education scheme and then, to the delight of Labour, led with Mr Carter's comments in its news bulletins this morning.
The BBC leapt on comments from Mr Carter, which simply repeated concerns he had already raised earlier this year, to argue that he was calling into question Tory plans.
Mr Gove insisted that existing schools' budgets will be untouched because the plans would be funded by slashing waste in the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
And other council chiefs, including Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Merrick Cockell, and Stephen Castle from Essex County Council, also fully backed them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1268885/General-Election-2010-BBC-claiming-Tories-divided-flagship-schools-plan.html

*
******

*

Well, didn't Michael Gove do well! We are in what Hippiepooter would call 'Attaboy!' territory! Trouncing John Humphrys (I.C. of 2.2), correcting the BBC's distortions and getting the message across about BBC bias with force, intelligence and good humour, he showed his colleagues the right way to deal with the Beeb. It has given me hope that the Conservative leadership isn't as sanguine about BBC bias as we (with ample justification) thought. Listen again here, and enjoy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8643000/8643459.stm
*

THE BBC'S LIVE ELECTION BLAG

2010-04-26T05:53:00.004+01:00

*
There was a lot about consitutional change on the BBC's live election blog yesterday and, with just one exception, all the posts on this theme were in favour of it.
*
Here is a selection from last night's blog, including (gratuitously on my part) something you might like to know about Ed Balls and one or two other things besides:
*
2354: Michael Kay, Reading writes: Politicians are talking about electoral reform as if it's assumed that 51% of MPs should be able to change the constitution for ever. The real reform we need is to create a written constitution that can't be changed at the whim of the current government. Have Your Say

2224: So much for a relaxing day with the kids. It turns out Nick Clegg spent part of his day off in the casualty department of Kingston Hospital, south-west London. His wife Miriam fell and fractured her left elbow while shopping on Saturday afternoon. The Lib Dem leader had intended to spend the day with his three young sons, who he hadn't seen for three weeks after they became stranded in Spain during the flight ban. It never rains, as they say.

2155: Children's Secretary Ed Balls has been issued with a £60 fine for driving while using a mobile phone, it has emerged. Mr Balls told the Daily Mirror it happened last Sunday when he was driving from Yorkshire to London with his wife, fellow Cabinet minister Yvette Cooper, and their children. He did not want to wake the kids, he explained, so took the phone off its hands-free cradle - and was almost immediately spotted by police. He says he supports the law 100%.

2120: Harry Naylor from Birmingham writes: A number of politicians seem to be talking about a hung parliament as if it is something the country will have decided upon if the election on May 6th produced that result. Surely if we end up with a hung parliament it will be because the country can't reach a consensus on who should be in charge?Have Your Say

2051: His party may be behind in the polls but at least one survey has given Gordon Brown something to smile about. He was voted the politician with the most trustworthy grin by those well-known pollsters at, ahem, Jurys Inn. Some 4,000 people in the UK were shown photos of 20 celebrity smiles - top half of the face covered - and asked to choose which they trusted most. The PM finished sixth behind winner Stephen Fry, David Beckham and Cheryl Cole but was seven spots ahead of David Cameron, with Nick Clegg languishing in 17th. And to think people mocked his YouTube videos.

2010: YvonneConnell from Bexleyheath in Kent writes: Ignored and disenfranchised - that's how I feel, living in a constituency that no political party is targeting. The Tories presumably expect to win the seat so, given that I'm not a Tory, what's my incentive to vote? Where are the candidates? I need more than a bland leaflet to judge their suitability as my representative in parliament, but how do I get to see and hear these invisible candidates?Have Your

1932: Philip Justice from Sutton in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire writes: A hung parliament may not look so good in six months when the party not in power is whining on and the other two are breaking all their promises and blaming each other. Put someone in charge and hold them responsible for what they do.Have Your Say

1905: andypic tweets: Whatever else happens in this election, I earnestly hope it's the last ever in the UK with first-past-the-post systemRead andypic's tweets

1849: Jeremy from Greenwich writes: If first past the post can allow a party with 28% to have the most seats then it is wrong. Why are the Conservatives against change?Have Your Say

1833: The SNP is more than half-way to its target of raising £50,000 by the end of Monday to fund its planned legal action to force the BBC to include a Scottish representative in Thursday's prime ministerial debate on the economy. Deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon says it has now received more than £26,000 in donations.

1746: Lord Owen reckons Nick Clegg is the first Lib Dem leader to put himself in a position to deal with either Labour or the Tories. "If you can't work with one, you can't bargain with the other. This puts him in a much better negotiating situation." The former Labour cabinet minister, SDP leader and ally of the old Liberal Party adds that a coalition speaking for more than 50% of the electorate could deal more effectively with the economic deficit than a party with a slim majority.

1730: Support for independence would rise in Scotland if the Tories win the general election, a new poll has suggested. The YouGov survey of 1,001 people for Sky News found that 31% of voters would vote for independence if a referendum was held now, with 54% saying they would vote "no". People were then quizzed about how they would vote if the Conservatives won and a referendum on independence were held two or three years later - then, 40% of voters said they would back independence, with 43% voting "no".

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 19

2010-04-26T05:42:00.002+01:00

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians. Normal BBC bias persists!
*
Sun 25/4
*
Labour - 15
Conservatives - 8
Lib Dems - 7
SNP - 6
DUP - 2
Plaid Cymru - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 19 (long) days?
*
Labour - 472
Conservatives - 378
Lib Dems - 312
SNP - 49
UKIP - 31
Plaid Cymru - 26
Greens - 18
BNP - 16
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Mebyon Kernow - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
English Democrats - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1
*
Labour are now within a whisker of achieving a century over the Conservatives.
*

BLITHE BELLS

2010-04-25T16:50:00.004+01:00

*
The Lib Dems are having a great day on the BBC's live election blog.
*
As well as getting the first mention of the day (mentioning their 'greenness'), they receive four problem-free posts on Nick Clegg's performance on The Andrew Marr Show, followed by a tweet that could have come straight out of the mouth of the BBC's Sarah Bell herself:
*
1017: nitawol tweets: I wish Andrew Marr would let Nick Clegg answer his questions and stop interrupting all the time.
*
You might expect other 'tweeters' or 'have your sayers' to be quoted criticising the Lib Dems, just for the sake of balance. No such thing happens. Instead we only get more posts supportive of the Lib Dems, including:
*
1421: Another senior defence figure has added his support to the Liberal Democrat policy on the Trident nuclear deterrent system. Four days ago, four former generals said Britain should be prepared to scrap it. The former Chief of Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, said tough decisions had to be taken on future defence budgets. "I would like us to see us looking far, far more seriously at a cheaper version so that we can stay as a nuclear power," he told BBC Radio 4's the World This Weekend.
*
This is old news. Lord Guthrie called for such a review days ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8632619.stm
*
Ryan reports that notorious Lib Dem-supporting beebette Sarah Bell is working on the blog today.
*
*
UPDATE To be fair, I see that an anti-Lib Dem 'Have Your Say' is now on the blog:
*
1719: David in Surrey writes: Nick Clegg is beginning to sound arrogant and petulant. It is not his decision to choose the PM. It is very dangerous when you begin to believe your own hype. Inexperience is starting to show through.
*

STITCHED UP LIKE A U-KIPPER (Part 2)

2010-04-25T15:07:00.004+01:00

*
So how did The Politics Show deal with UKIP's Maddy Westrop? Remember what Maddy told us: "I don't know why they interviewed me yesterday and I don't know what they are going to edit me to be saying. Everything was deliberately confused and I felt manipulated...Really they had their own agenda."
*
What was BBC reporter David Thompson up to? Let's compare how he introduced 'the others' in the Stourbridge election.
*
"Will Duckworth's the Green candidate here, but get this...the Lib Dems have actually asked him to stand down." Cue Will's moment of glory, as he got his own back on the Lib Dems!
*
"UKIP's Maddy Westrop thinks her old mate Nigel Farage was a bit too rude to the president of the European Council when he told him he looked like a low-grade bank clerk. Maddy's not afraid to speak her mind. " Cue Maddy, and her 14 seconds of airtime. (14 seconds!!)
*
"And local businessman Alun Nicholas is standing as an independent." Cue Alun.
*
Now we know what the BBC were up to. "They said Nigel F was rude", reported Maddy. David Thompson said that very thing in his introduction &, as Maddy so accurately put up, "manipulated her" into getting her to say what they wanted her to say - that Nigel Farage was rude. That is a fascinating insight into BBC bias (for which, thanks to Maddy!). Mr Thompson wanted to get at Nigel Farage and UKIP, and worked his socks off to get Maddy to say something he could use against them. Isn't that disgraceful?

Maddy said, "they also had me and the Green candidate right there (amicably) arguing about energy policy and they didn't want to record any of it. They don't want the public to know our policies at all. Our stance against global warming alarmism is a complete vote winner and we can't put it across."
*
As Maddy also forewarned us, "then they wanted a shot of me and the Green guy and an independent candidate (with five aston martins and a bit of an attitude) to be filmed looking through a window at a party - excluded from the party they were having with the three big parties.
I refused. They got very stroppy and said I didn't understand television. I said I was married to a BBC journalist and did. I pointed out we came first in the election just a year a go and they are ignoring us and not allowing the electorate to know our policies. They want to make the story instead of finding it!" Seeing Thompson's silly film, with its party imagery, I am so glad Maddy scuppered it. Hence, perhaps, Thompson's snide and patronising "Maddy's not afraid to speak her mind."
*
Maddy finished her e-mail "I have no idea what they will do with the footage they got. I suspect traps and distortions. Do tell everyone that they misled us and set us up for a fall."
*
Yes. Yes they did.
*
*
P.S. Next week the three 'main parties' get a final fling on the show. I make another prediction. David Thompson will mention that Margot James, the Conservative candidate in Stourbridge, is a millionaire.
*

STITCHED UP LIKE A U-KIPPER

2010-04-25T14:48:00.004+01:00

*
I have never before seen The Politics Show feature extended highlights from another BBC programme, but that's what we got today in a section ostensibly devoted to looking at 'the smaller parties'. There were several minutes worth of extracts from Lord Pearson's encounter with Jon Sopel on the BBC's News Channel's Campaign Show. They were carefully filleted extracts of course, specially cut to make Lord Pearson look as silly as possible, complete with ludicrous looks of mock-bewilderment from Sopey himself.
*

SAVED BY THE BELL

2010-04-25T13:51:00.005+01:00

*
Compare and contrast the coverage of today's midday election meetings, courtesy of Sarah and friends at the BBC Live Election blog:
*
*
CONSERVATIVES
*
1307: This from the BBC's Chris Buckler - Ed Balls' name gets booed when shadow education secretary Michael Gove mentions him at a school rally in Gormersal in West Yorkshire. The parents blame the education secretary for blocking their plans to set up a new school in the area. DESCRIPTIVE
*
1257: Mr Cameron tells people who are campaigning for their own school that they are "an inspiration" for what they're doing and his party would help people like them realise their dream. He says they demonstrate his belief of bigger society. SIGNIFICANT
*
1243: David Cameron, also dressing down for a Sunday but wearing a tie-less navy shirt to Mr Brown's white, has arrived in Gomersal, West Yorkshire, where he will make a speech on education. He's surrounded by people wearing green. DESCRIPTIVE
*
*
LABOUR
*
1230: He focuses his attack on the Tories, claiming they would allow nurseries schools to charge top-up fees, cut child tax credits for the middle classes and remove child trust funds from people earning £16,000 or more. He says Mr Cameron is planning on doing that while cutting inheritance taxes for the richest. SIGNIFICANT
*
1226: Mr Brown says his party would give fairness to young people by creating 1m new skilled jobs, to the world by protecting the environment with bold promises on climate change, and in democracy with a referendum on changes to the political system. SIGNIFICANT
*
1219: Gordon Brown, minus a tie (it's Sunday after all), is addressing an event in Harrow. He's talking about how his party's policies are rooted in the politician's favourite buzzword, "fairness". SIGNIFICANT
*
Labour is allowed to get its key messages across. I see from ConservativeHome that the Conservative message on education today was a detailed and substantial one. Shame it wasn't reported:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/04/david-cameron-and-michael-gove-give-conservative-education-policy-a-big-push.html

VIOLENCE AGAINST EUROSCEPTICS

2010-04-25T12:42:00.006+01:00

Throughout the short history of this blog, I've chronicled the bias of Shirin Wheeler (pictured) of the BBC's Europhile flagship The Record Europe. (It's one of my unpopular hobby horses!) Woe betide any UKIP or Conservative spokesman who dares to speak out against Europhilia! Regulars may know that the leader of the Conservative MEPs, Timothy Kirkhope, in particular, keeps getting himself slapped down by Shirin. (I sometimes suspect masochistic tendencies on his part, as he always comes back for more!).

On today's edition Mr Kirkhope was interviewed alongside an Austrian Green (Eva Lichtenberger) and a Belgian Liberal (Dirk Sterckx again). The subject was European co-operation on transport in the wake on the volcanic ash fiasco. The Green lady and the Liberal-from-the-non-country both want much closer EU harmonisation. Mr Kirkhope doesn't. Shirin talked over the end of his first answer (not thinking it worth listening to) and then barged in, in classic Shirin Wheeler fashion (after exhanging knowing smiles with the Austrian Green), to contradict his second answer, saying "No, no, no, surely, are you saying it's up to the pilots? That's like saying it's up to the fishermen to decide...(indecipherable)...fish or not." The I.C. here was 1.3.

In contrast, Labour MEP Claude Moraes, speaking in favour of close EU harmonisation over legislation to protect women against violence, was allowed to speak at length, without contradiction and with only a supportive interruption (I.C. of 0.3). He was joined by a German liberal (Silvana Koch-Mehrin, pictured), who also supported close EU harmonisation over the controversial measures.

ANOTHER DOG WHISTLE

2010-04-25T12:34:00.002+01:00

*
I forgot to mention this question from Andrew Marr to Nick Clegg: "You're just as posh as David Cameron, aren't you?"
*
Firstly, so what? And secondly, why the sly, Ballsian dig at Cameron (disguised as a dig at Clegg)?
*

YES WE CAN!

2010-04-25T11:48:00.005+01:00

*
I read that a Labour Party supporter wrote this inspirational e-mail to Gordon Brown this morning:

"We keep reading that we're on course for a hung parliament, or that David Cameron is on course for a narrow victory, but remember this...Roughly a third of us haven't yet decided whether to vote at all and of those certain to vote more than 3 million people haven't decided who they are going to vote for. The commentators telling you today what is going to happen on May 6th are the same ones mugged by the Lib Dem surge. There is bags of time to go. Anything can still happen".

In the light of all the opinion polls today showing that the Conservatives have re-asserted their lead and that the gap between them and Labour is getting much wider again - and maybe, according to IPSOS Mori, the Lib Dem bubble is bursting too -, it was clearly designed to boost morale in Downing Street. Labour can still win. The pundits could all be wrong. All we have to do is believe.
*
Only joking.
*
Those words were actually spoken by Andrew Marr this morning. Marr has never cast doubt on the pundits before, and has never been shy about mentioning the latest opinion polls ever since the beginning of the year (when the Conservative lead plunged). Suddenly, and with the word 'today' firmly emphasized, on the very day when Labour's fortunes look precarious again (according to the polls), Marr tells us not to trust the pundits, speaks out for the possibility of something other than a hung parliament, or a narrow Conservative majority, and forgets to mention the polls. Why would that be?

MORE DOG WHISTLES

2010-04-25T11:21:00.004+01:00

*
Paddy O'Connell, and his election pundits on Broadcasting House - Peter Hennessy and Anthony Howard - looked back into the archive to examine a couple of examples of what Paddy called 'covert or overt racism' in previous elections. Cue Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech (to a conservative political meeting, we were told) and Patrick Gordon Walker, the Labour MP defeated by the Conservatives after a racist campaign in Smethick in 1964. Prof Hennessy thinks 'dog whistle' politics has taken the place of 'overt racism'.
*
Another dog whistle may have been blown here.

MYSTIC CRAIG

2010-04-25T10:15:00.007+01:00

*
After last week's helpfully shallow interview with Gordon Brown (for more on which please see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/marr-ginal-seats.html) this week Andrew Marr turned to Nick Clegg.
*
Being a Labour man through and through, Marr gave Mr Clegg a tougher ride than Mr Brown. The interruption coefficient was 1.4 (31 interruptions in under 23 minutes), compared to 1.0 for Brown. Still the trivial subjects (comparatively-speaking) consumed almost exactly half of the interview - and one key issue was again glaringly conspicuous by its absence.
*
Here's how the interview broke down by topic:
*
Hung parliaments, Clegg personally - 11m 7s (49.7%)
Immigration - 7m 32s (33.7%)
Trident - 3m 42s (16.6%)
Cuts, deficit - 0m os (0%)
*
I'm going to make a few predictions (in the light of my complaint about last week's programme, see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/25-minutes-and-yet-not-one-question.html). The first is that next week's interview with David Cameron will see the total percentage for all the serious policy subjects shoot up to well above 50% (I'll guess, just for fun, at 75%), as Marr drills away at issue after issue. Secondly, I expect there will be more issues covered than were covered with Nick Clegg today and Gordon Brown last week, as Marr swoops, attacks then quickly flies off again onto something different, denying Mr Cameron a chance to expand on his explanations. Thirdly, and most importantly, I predict that Marr will ask Mr Cameron about spending cuts and the deficit and that he'll spend most time on that very subject, banging away at exactly how much and where from and how many jobs will be lost, etc. (If he does, the substance of my complaint will have been borne out).
*
As soon as I saw 'the Great Chieftain of the Pudding Face' Alex Salmond on my screen I should have blogged a prediction that Marr would ask him about cuts. He did indeed (2 questions). Marr isn't an SNP man.
*
My main prediction, however, is that David Cameron will be interrupted more than either Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown. I am going off past experience here:
*
When all three leaders were interviewed during last year's party conferences, these were the interruption coefficients (as ever, the higher the I.C. the greater the more interruptions there were in proportion to the length of the interview):
*
Brown - 1.0
Clegg - 1.3
Cameron - 2.1
*
When Marr began this year with three set pieces interviews, the ICs were:
*
Brown - 0.8
Clegg - 1.2
Cameron - 1.4
*
So far during this election, it's been:
*
Brown - 1.0
Clegg - 1.4
Cameron - ???
*
My prediction for David Cameron next week? 1.8!!
*
Come on Andrew, prove me wrong on all counts!!!!