THE WEEKLY DAILY POLITICS

*
The Daily Politics is, as pointed out previously, the fairest of the BBC's leading current affairs programmes by some way, but it is not totally beyond reproach. Here's a short overview of the week.
*
Monday featured Lord (Tim) Bell (Conservative) as its main guest (I.C. of 0.7 for Andrew Neil and Boris Johnson was given time to plead for more money for London (I.C. of 0.6 for Andrew Neil). Alex Salmond was interviewed (without interruption) for over 5 minutes by Anita Anand (I.C. of 0). Lib Dem tax policy was discussed with Lib Dem spokesman Jeremy Browne (I.C. of 1.3 for Andrew Neil) and Alex Henderson of Price Waters Henderson (who was critical).
*
The main guest on Tuesday's programme was Sir Menzies Campbell. As ever, and even Andrew Neil is not immune from this, this partisan Liberal Democrat politician was treated with a degree of respect that is rare on the BBC, treated as if he is an 'independent' foreign affairs expert. His I.C.s were 0.2 for Andrew Neil (very low for this interviewer!) and 0 for the fair Anita, who said "We are very lucky to have Sir Ming Campbell with us in the studio." Would she say that about William Hague? Sir Ming was treated with respect not just during discussion of the war in Afghanistan but also during the interview with the newly-elected UKIP leader, Lord Pearson. Lord Pearson was not accorded the same respect, earning Andrew Neil an I.C. of 1.6. Andrew queried his 12,000-acre estate and his tax allowances and said "We haven't got much time" after far too short a time. (Well, create time then!) Andrew Neil may be a lovable rogue but he can be really chippy about 'privilege' sometimes. Lord Pearson remained cheerful throughout. Sir Ming was also accorded the maximum respect while mischief-making over David Cameron's plan for a Sovereignty Act during an interview with Conservative Mark Francois (I.C. of 0.8 for Andrew Neil). The last topic, on which Sir Ming talked unusual good sense, was what Anita Anand calls (putting on a funny voice) "elf and safety", and here Quentin Letts of The Daily Mail was the other guest (and as good value as ever). A Brownie-point there!
*
Wednesday was Prime Minister's Questions day & this very often seems the worst day for any centre-right viewer to watch on the programme (perhaps because the producers load it that way, it being the most watched edition of the week). Still, even here both John Hutton (one of the most likable of the Labour crowd) and Andrew Lansley were interrupted at the same rate by both Andrew and Anita. However, the soon-to-be-installed first minister of Wales Carwyn Jones was accorded a free ride and there was a remarkable film from leftie actor Brian Cox, a man who was not keen on old Etonians or Tories ("There's a risk, a very serious risk, that we might have a Tory government next year, a government that comprises a bunch of old public school boys.") Coxie himself declared "I'm a Labour supporter" - and it showed! He'd also, in the past, produced a party political broadcast for the Labour Party. This was another!! Cox, chippy Andrew Neil, Anita and an amused John Hutton then ganged up on public-school educated Tory Andrew Lansley. What fun!
*
Left-wing (but beautiful) Jo Coburn joined Andrew on Thursday to give Lib Dem economic spokesman Lord Oakeshott a free ride on bankers' pay, annoying Orla Guerin came on to talk about Pakistan and a chap she called "Obama bin Laden" (Ha ha ha!), and the main guest was interesting former chief government advisor Sir David King (interesting but left-wing, as he banged on about "rampant consumerism and greed" and "how important it is we examine Al-Queda's popularity among Islamic people in the region") Andrew Neil disapproves of the Afghan War, and takes no pains to hide the fact. This was made very clear again during his interview with anti-war Labour MP Kim Howells. This love-in scored an I.C. of 0, and Andrew ended it by saying "I have a feeling we're going to see you again quite soon." So do I!! Professor King then went head-to-head with 'sceptical environmentalist' Bjorn Lomberg on climate change.
*
Yesterday, when Anita was home alone, entertaining ex-Conservative minister Gyles Brandreth (very funny on Mandelson and Brown) was on with joint-main-guest Bonnie Greer, a lady of the Left but an interesting one. Anita alone usually means bias and, though she wasn't particularly aggressive today, it is notable that her only significant interruption during the discussion on Labour's class-war tactics between sleazy Labour practitioner Steve McCabe and cute Conservative Justine Greening was against Justine, resulting in an I.C of 0.4 against McCabe and an I.C. of 0.8 against Justine. When the topic turned to drugs, specifically 'legal highs', the guests were Steve Rolles, Guardian-friendly head of drugs think-tank Transform and Lib Dem Chris Huhne. Mr Rolles was in favour, broadly-speaking, of the legalisation of all drugs (an idea that needs thinking about in my view) whereas I've still no idea where Mr Huhne stands (that's Lib Dems for you!). Bonnie was 'liberal' on the subject, and so (interestingly) was Gyles. So that was four people taking a 'liberal' stand on drugs. Hardly balanced is it? (And I say that while being 'liberal' myself on the subject). At least Anita (to her credit) essayed a little devil's advocacy in some of her questions. Naughty though was Beeboid Giles Dilnot' s sneer at "Lord Pearson of I-Own-Half-Of-Scotland". The BBC's disrespect for UKIP continues.
*

THE DAILY POLITICS

*
The Daily Politics is undoubtedly the most unpredictable of the Beeb's current affairs programmes, with a decent balance of presenters between the right-of-centre Andrew Neil and the left-of-centre Anita Anand and Jo Coburn - though, as their respective interruption coefficients clearly demonstrate, Andrew Neil is by some way the most likely of the three to interrupt his 'own side' - and, therefore, the least biased. (Please click on their respective labels for the proofs of this).

That said, the programme is not completely free of the corporation's strong bias towards the Left, as a look at the last three days reveals.
*
Monday's was the most balanced of the three shows, in several respects. The main guest was John Cassidy, a liberal English journalist on The New Yorker. The Chilcott Inquiry, on the other hand, was discussed with Michael Howard and the fearless Andrew Gilligan. Then came a remarkable debate on climate change with a warmist, Professor Bob Watson, and a sceptic, Professor Fred Singer. That's the sort of debate the Beeb should stage much more often.
*
Yesterday's programme was far less balanced in its choice of guests. To discuss parliamentary reform, the producers invited on the Conservative Sir George Young. The main guest, however, was the sort of businessman the BBC likes - a liberal one, an ardent green, keen on keeping the ban on fox-hunting and pro-pacifism. This was Mark Constantine of the 'natural cosmetics' store Lush. He also got to present his own film. Then to discuss the row between the Local Government Association and OFSTED there was a Labour MP, Barry Sheerman (interviewed by Anita Anand, I.C. of 0). Then, to cap it all, came a discussion on hung parliaments. between yet more voices from the Left, the 'Independent Labour' MP Clare Short and snooty Michael White of The Guardian.
*
Today's PMQs-centre edition was much more wide-ranging, with Ken Clarke and Jacqui Smith as main guests. Matthew Oakeshott of the Lib Dems was on hand to discuss the government's secret loans to RBS and Lloyds (and got a roasting from Andrew Neil in the process, I.C. of 1.9). The Calman Commission on Scottish devolution was then discussed with Mike Russell of the SNP. I suppose you could say that that's three for the Left, and one for the Right - but at least it's fair across the parties (except UKIP). The tilt to the Left was clearest though with the choice of Bianca Jagger, a true left-winger's left winger, as the programme's final guest. She also got to present her own film (another bit of green propaganda).
*
So, although The Daily Politics is the best the BBC can do, it's not perfect by any means.

WHERE DOES ANITA STAND?

*
The Daily Politics ran a short piece about Conservative Barnet council's new funding experiment - so called 'easy councils', where essential services will be paid for out of council tax but that a whole range of other services (also currently paid for through council tax) will be offered only if wanted and if people are willing for pay for them. The analogy, of course, is with the no-thrills airline Easy Jet.
*
This was followed by a studio discussion, hosted by Anita Anand. What was Anita's view? Were she unbiased we would, of course, never know, as she would simply ask devil's advocate questions from a stance of opposition to supporters of the scheme and ask devil's advocate questions from a supportive position to opponents of the scheme.
*
She certainly started by asking questions from a stance of opposition to a qualified supporter of the scheme - the ever-excellent Susie Squire of the Taxpayers' Alliance. First came "So, he said it was popular but is it right? Is it morally right? And is it what we really want in our society?". Next she asked, "So how do you then police against the example that was given...'I don't walk that street. I'm not paying anything for the cleaning of that street. That's up to them.'?"
*
Next she turned to Kate Green of the Child Poverty Action Group, an outright opponent of the scheme. Yes, Anita's first question was put from a stance of support, in true devil's advocate fashion: "Oh well Kate Green, you protect what's important and those things that are a matter of choice, a memorial bench, you could survive without that, you know, pay extra if that's what you want?" But then, with her second question, she gave up devil's advocacy and switched to asking a question (or making a statement) from a stance of opposition to an opponent of the scheme: "There are those who also fear the complexity of a system like this." Kate Green, unsurprisingly, shared this concern. (Who are "those" people, by the way?). Then she turned to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of The Independent (oh yes, her!) and asked this doyenne of the Left, "You know I started off asking Susie is this good for society. It sounded like a lofty question, but the thing is shouldn't we actually care about everyone who lives in our area? Shouldn't we think actually it's up to me to pay for that as well?". Yasmin, unsurprisingly, shared Anita's concern. She then asked Sarah Sands of The Evening Standard a general question about whether she welcomed the scheme, then turning back to Susie Squire opined that "altruism will be trumped by economy-saving measures."
*
So out of the first 7 questions, one was general, one was asked from a stance supportive of the scheme, and five were asked from a position opposed to the scheme. All the passion was in the latter. Can you guess, therefore, where Anita Anand stands on the issue?
*
Now the final question raised the total of 'supportive' questions to two, but it was loaded with praise for her very-left-wing guest: "Would you be more comfortable, Kate Green, if there were good people like yourself on this council of the wise, who would decide, look, this is indispensable, this is important but, you know, these are things you could pay for and here's a price list?"
*

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - ANITA ANAND

*
Andrew Neil's left-wing co-host on the Daily Politics Anita Anand can usually be relied on to beat up on a Tory, or UKIPer, or English Democrat - especially when left to her own devices. October was no exception in that respect:

08/10 Alun Cairns Conservative 2.9
30/10 Mark Field Conservative 1.8
14/10 John Hutton Labour 1.7
02/10 Greg Clark Conservative 1.5
28/10 Chris Grayling Conservative 1.2
20/10 Alan Duncan Conservative 1.1
28/10 Peter Hain Labour 0.9
12/10 Dan Hannan Conservative 0.9
08/10 Ruth Davidson Conservative 0.8
02/10 Margaret Beckett Labour 0.7
16/10 Khalid Mahmood Labour 0.6
21/10 Caroline Flint Labour 0.6
21/10 Nick Herbert Conservative 0.5
30/10 Lord Desai Labour 0.4
07/10 David Davis Conservative 0.4
16/10 Alex Salmond SNP 0.4
13/10 Richard Kemp Lib Dem 0.3
19/10 Lord Myners Labour 0.2
06/10 Michael Portillo Conservative 0.2
20/10 John McFall Labour 0
14/10 Theresa May Conservative 0

The high I.C. scored against John Hutton has skewed the results slightly because Anita vehemently attacked him over Sir Thomas Legg - for defending Sir Thomas against all those poor hard-done-to Labour MPs. This was not an anti-Labour attack. Far from it. (Similarly, her remarkably aggressive assault on Labour's Barry Gardiner yesterday was an assault on his defence of the sacking of the horse-riding-averse, not-so-cannabis-averse Dr David Nutt and Mr Gardiner's own hard-line on drugs.)
*
Still, these are Anita's interruption coefficients for October:
* over
Conservatives - 1.03
Labour - 0.64
SNP - 0.4
Lib Dems - 0.3
*
This seem pretty clear-cut, but what of her behaviour over the last five months? There are 53 interviews to consider and these are even stronger proof of active bias:
*
UKIP (1) - 2.8
Conservatives (18) - 0.98
English Democrats (1) - 0.8
Labour (22) - 0.5
Lib Dems (7) - 0.43
SNP (3) - 0.4
Greens (1) - 0
*
This emphatically demonstrates left-wing bias against the three right-of-centre parties, and a far softer line on those of the Left. Quelle surprise!

WHAT'S PETER FROM HARTLEPOOL GOT TO SAY, ANITA?

*
Today's The Daily Politics must have received a lot of e-mails on the subject of MPs' expenses. As Anita Anand said, "It's one of those subjects when people e-mail even before we've come on air!" I wonder how many they actually received. I think it would be interesting to know. Even better, they should all be put on their website, so that we can see exactly what their viewers are saying. That way no-one will think that Anita is being selective (in the bad sense of the word) when she chooses just two of those e-mails to read out on air, and one contains an attack on the Tories.
*
Here they are in full:
*
"The MPs should repay the money. They morally knew they shouldn't have been claiming in the first place. Their egos, their greed are now deflecting precious time and energy from the nation's serious problems".

"Although many claims, made by MPs can be seen as outrageous and greedy, the really big scandal is still not making the headlines - mortgage claims, capital gains on second homes. Please, please put a politician, particularly a Tory, on the spot over the issue and explain why it's right that an MP makes a sometimes hefty capital gain from financial transactions that could be largely funded by the taxpayer".
*
So, one makes a general point about MPs as a whole, while the other one makes an attack on the Conservatives! Did no-one specifically attack Labour? What proportion of all the e-mails received attacked the political class as a whole? What percentages (roughly, or precisely) attacked each party? How representative was the second e-mail? How will we ever know if it was actually highly unrepresentative, and if Anita Anand chose it only because she saw that it contained a dig at the Tories? I am deeply suspicious about this. (What's new?!)
*

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - ANITA ANAND

*
Andrew's sidekick Anita Anand got a broader brief. Here are her figures:

Susan Kramer Lib Dem 1.3
Lord Razzall Lib Dem 1.1
Sadiq Khan Labour 1
Robin Tilbrook Eng Dem 0.8
David Blunkett Labour 0.4
Roy Hattersley Labour 0.3
Charles Kennedy Lib Dem 0.3
John Denham Labour 0.2
Chris Grayling Conservative 0
Bernard Jenkin Conservative 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
English Democrats - 0.8
Lib Dems - 0.7
Labour - 0.5
Conservatives - 0

The Eng Dem result was predictable, the Conservative one not.

JULY'S I.C.s - ANITA ANAND

Throughout the course of July's editions of 'The Daily Politics', Anita Anand interviewed 15 politicians.

Here are her Interruption Coefficients, in descending order of toughness:

Glenn Tingle, UKIP (14/7) - 2.8

Grant Shapps, Conservative (1/7)- 2

Gerald Howarth, Conservative (13/7) - 1.4

Roy Hattersley, Labour (3/7)- 1

Chris Ostrowski, Labour (14/7) - 0.9

Chloe Smith, Conservative (14/7)- 0.7

April Pond, Lib Dem (14/7) - 0

John Hutton, Labour (15/7) - 0

Lindsay Hoyle, Labour (13/7) - 0

Rupert Read, Green (14/7) - 0

Ming Campbell, Lib Dem (15/7) - 0

Tessa Jowell, Labour (8/7) - 0

David Davis, Conservative (15/7) - 0

Danny Alexander, Lib Dem (1/7) - 0

Alex Salmond, SNP (8/7) - 0

Number of interviewees from each political party:

Labour - 5

Conservatives -4

Lib Dems - 3

UKIP - 1

Greens - 1

SNP - 1

Average number of interruptions for each political party:

UKIP - 2.8

Conservatives - 1

Labour 0.5

Lib Dems - 0

Greens - 0

SNP - 0

We can now compare this with Anita's performance in June, when her two highest I.C.s were also scored against politicians to the right of centre (Michael Gove, 1.2 & Louise Bagshawe 1, both Conservatives) and where her average number of interruptions per party were 1.1 for the Conservatives, 0.8 for the SNP and 0.4 for Labour.

Conclusions

Anita Anand's stats strongly suggest persistent bias towards the Left, and against the Right. Please click on the label for Anita Anand to find out how she achieved such a high score against poor Glenn Tingle of UKIP, and such a low score against the Greens and the Lib Dems.

THE TINGLE FACTOR

Today's 'Daily Politics' featured interviews with five of the candidates to replace Ian Gibson as MP for Norwich North, all conducted by the fragrant Anita Anand.

Here the Interruption Coefficients do tell a lot of the story:

Chris Ostrowski (Labour), 0.9
Chloe Smith (Conservative), 0.7
April Pond (Lib Dem), 0
Rubert Read (Green), 0
Glenn Tingle (UKIP), 2.8

Were I to represent this graphically, the spike for the UKIP candidate would be so sharp it could have someone's eye out!

Poor Mr Tingle. Not only does his name sound like a character in a 'Carry On' film, he only gets 1 minute and 8 seconds to speak and, to add insult to injury, is interrupted 3 times for his pains.

Considering the content of the interviews, the one with Glenn Tingle was also, by some way, the most challenging. Here are three of Anita Anand's questions/interruptions:

"Have you been running a negative campaign here?"

"Accusations that it started 0ff in a jingoistic, even racist way."

"But wasn't there an incident where, I don't know, there was gunfire heard somewhere? You called a press conference, you talked about immigration laws being lax and saying it was immigrant gangs. There was no evidence of that at all."

Such hounding, such harshness is a sure sign of significant anti-Right bias, especially if contrasted with the treatment of the other party candidates, particularly the left-wing Liberal Democrats and Greens (who were not interrupted at all).