EVEN MORE ON MARR

*
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

*
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

*
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

*
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!
*

ANOTHER DOG WHISTLE

*
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!

*
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?

MYSTIC CRAIG

*
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!!!!

MARR-GINAL SEATS

*
As aghast characters in genteel sit coms say, 'Ye gods!'
*
Andrew Marr's interview with Gordon Brown was one that plumbed new depths in deliberate shallowness and bias.
*
When Marr next interviews David Cameron what's the betting that most of the interview will be spent discussing Conservative policies, especially cuts, cuts, cuts, and that Marr will hammer away at where those cuts are going to be, exactly how much will be cut from each spending department, whose jobs are going to be at risk from Tory cuts (etc)? Was Brown asked about Labour policy on cuts, or pressed on our ruinous national debt? Not at all!!!!
*
Marr began by asking about the ash cloud. (With David Cameron, or course, he might well have begun by asking about the ashcroft). I suppose that's fair enough. Brown is still prime minister and this is a serious matter, though it did give Brown the chance to play his favourite role - the statesman-in-a-time-of-crisis.
*
The one area of serious policy discussed at some length was immigration. Marr did press Brown somewhat on the figures, but without bringing up the issue of Brown's ongoing 'manipulation' of the figures. Brown slid easily through Marr's fingers.
*
Marr then turned to the campaign and asked him "What did you learn from that experience?" Brown read out the entire Labour manifesto in response, uninterrupted. When Brown spun the following gentle question about his presentation skills into an attack on Tory economic plans, Marr introduced "a pretty astonishing story for a lot of people from The Sunday Times this morning about Goldman Sachs, going to pay massive, massive bonuses again to a huge number of people based on three months work." Brown slid into an easy attack on bankers, adopting his statesmanlike pose again. His own share of the blame in shaping the banking climate in this country prior to the economic bust was slid past by Marr, who asked "You've said to me yourself before that you regret not getting more of a handle on bank regulation in the past. Is it because the political class generally were sort of mesmerised by bankers, and their language and their glamour and so on". The 'political class'!! Who was in power Andrew? Labour! Brown struck a moral pose again.
*
Almost all of the rest the interview discussed the frothier side of politics, with question after question about Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems and hung parliaments. How will you deal with Nick Clegg next time? Do you dislike David Cameron on a personal level? Suddenly the interruptions - which for the first half of the interview were rare things - became common. Odd how that happens with Andrew Marr and Labour politicians! Interruptions are thin on the ground when it matters on the big issues of the day, but thick on the ground on more gossipy topics that might be absorbing to the Westminster Village but which, by pure coincidence, don't run too much of a risk of stinging Labour in the backside if pursued by an interviewer.
*
As further proof, this second half of the interview did pause briefly to discuss Afghanistan. Marr interrupted just once here and, after spending less than two minutes on this most important of subjects, moved on for a very long, final fling on Nick Clegg and hung parliaments again, and Brown's future and what the Queen's role would be if no-one won a majority, blah, blah, blah.
*
Now the interruptions really flew, as speculatative question followed speculative question. I agreed with Brown (yeah, I know!) when he protested that competing visions and policies rather than speculation are likely to be of more value and interest to the viewer. They are to this viewer! Yet on Marr went, repeating himself. Brown had already said, more than once, that he thought the election was 'wide open'. For some very strange reason, towards the end of the interview, he asked Brown if he thought the election was 'wide open'?!
*
Call me cynical, but all this sort of repetitive flim-flam seemed to be a way for Marr to avoid asking Brown difficult questions about the deficit, the truth behind the unemployment figures, cuts, crime, education, Europe, health, etc. This time would have been far better spent talking about some of those.
*
Amusingly - and annoyingly - the interruptions suddenly and conspicuously stopped when Brown began attacking the Conservatives on inheritance tax. You could hear Marr withdrawing from what might have been another question about hung parliaments just to give Brown the chance to make his silly little point.
*
Here's how long was spent on each topic?:
*
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%)
*
Due to all those late interruptions on matters of flotsam and jetsam, the overall interruption coefficient was precisely 1.

4-0

*
Last week's paper reviewers on The Andrew Marr Show were two anti-Tories, Ruby Wax and John Sergeant. I sulked "There'd better be at least one rightie on next week's paper review!" Not a sheep advised me not to hold my breath, and I'm glad I took his advice or I'd now be in hospital! Today's paper reviewers were also both lefties.
*
The first was comedian/actor Chris Addison (Ollie in The Thick Of It), who has said:
"It's very difficult, if you were brought up as a child during Thatcher's period, to ever contemplate being a Tory. There is no way I can physically bring myself to vote Tory. That will stay with me till I die."
http://www.politics.co.uk/interviews/culture-media-and-sport/interview-chris-addison-$1321521.htm
He defended Brown today against The Daily Express.
*
The other was Kirsty Young (of Desert Island Discs), whose leftism I record here:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/01/we-are-all-to-blame.html
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/01/bbcs-house-mag.html
Here she had another go at The Mail on Sunday's take on things.
*
Still, unlike last week, neither screamed blue murder against the Conservatives. We can be thankful for that, at least.
*
So, for the sake of balance I'm sure the makers of the Marr Show will pick only righties for the paper reviews of both their next programmes. My breath will not be held!!

ATTABOY!

It was very heartening to hear Lord Pearson put the issue of BBC bias at the forefront of the viewers' minds on this week's Andrew Marr Show.

*

UKIP have always been receptive to my e-mails and have actively sought more information on BBC bias (unlike another party I could mention). Lord Pearson was in charge of this campaign prior to his election as party leader and it is clearly a subject still very close to his heart. Hurray!!!

*

Marr brought up an Observer story about a UKIP donor. Lord Pearson used this to mention his think-tank Global Britain, "most of the activity of which goes on monitoring the BBC, you'll be pleased to hear, particularly the Today programme, and I think it is the Global Britain research which forced the BBC into its only and first-ever inquiry into the balance of its coverage of the European Union. The independent inquiry found unequivocally that the BBC was very biased in favour...".

*

At which point, of course, Marr interrupted. What he asked brought a smile to my lips: "I'm now smyhging (I can't make out the word!!) that I'm being watched myself."

*

"You're being monitored", confirmed Lord Pearson with a laugh.

*

He is indeed. He is indeed.

WAXING HYSTERICAL

*
The Andrew Marr Show featured a characteristally over-the-top Ruby Wax on its paper review. She repeatedly laid into David Cameron in the most unpleasant terms imaginable. He's so abnormal he doesn't even seem to belong to the same species as her, she said at one stage. (Lucky him!)
*
Her fellow paper reviewer was John Sargeant, who's hardly a fan of the Conservatives either.
*
There'd better be at least one rightie on next week's paper review!!

TAKING THE MICHAEL

*
This week's Andrew Marr Show closed with a debate between three party old-timers: Michael Howard, Paddy Ashdown and Lord (help us!) Neil Kinnock.
*
Who was the only one to be interrupted? Michael Howard.
*
Who got least time to speak? Michael Howard.
*
Who was the only one of the guests not to have Andrew Marr "mmm" with approval at something he said (usually an attack on the Tories)? Michael Howard.
*
Finally, the endings of whose answers kept being talked over by Marr? Michael Howard.
*
On the timings, here's how things worked out:
*
Paddy Ashdown got 4 minutes 56 seconds
Neil Windbag got 4 minutes 25 seconds
Michael Howard got just 2 minutes 44 seconds
*
On a different point, Lord Ashdown had a real (and enjoyable) go at Andrew Marr for saying that Nick Clegg had no chance of becoming prime minister & complained that Lib Dem policies are ignored in favour of crystal-ball gazing. Marr was having none of it, but Lord Ashdown was absolutely right. I've always felt a bit of sympathy with the Lib Dems over this. It must be frustrating if you want to talk about your policies but all that every BBC interviewer wants to ask you about is what you'd do in the event of a hung parliament. That said, it hardly works against them. Lib Dem policies are not closely examined by the BBC (Andrew Neil excepted, of course) and they have plenty of policies that might make them far less popular if they widely known (on Europe or crime, for example) and others that might collapse like a house of cards at the first whiff of reality. It's this lack of probing (again Andrew Neil excepted) that ensures Vince Cable's reputation for infallibility.
*

EVEN ANDREW MARR CAN'T TAKE SUCH A LOT OF BALLS

*
Andrew Marr interviewed Michael Gove and Ed Balls today - and he gave Balls the hard time! Will wonders never cease!
*
Balls was on blood-boilingly bad form today, turning every answer into an attack on the Conservatives, lying shamelessly about Michael Gove (saying that Mr Gove had spent most of his interview attacking Labour, which he most certainly had not! Andrew Marr picked up on this and pointed it out. Well done Andrew!) and generally behaving like a spoiled kid. Even the bit on the sofa and the end saw three digs from Balls at Michael Gove (including a nasty class gibe at the end). Only Ed Balls could use a discussion about daylight saving to attack the Tories over trades unions! Even Andrew Marr couldn't take this embarrassingly unpleasant performance lying down. He strongly challenged Balls's myriad evasions over cuts and over the BA strike and tried again and again to get him to talk about Labour policy.
*
In contrast Michael Gove was reasonableness personified and the interview was good natured and positive.
*
The interruption coefficients were these:
*
***Michael Gove - 0.8
***Ed Balls - 1.6
*
If Andrew Marr were like this every week - not just once in a blue moon -, going for any party's spokesman who is being evasive and discussing rationally with any party's spokesman who answers honestly and rationally, there would be no problem with his programme.
*

AND BEFORE I FORGET...

*
Time for one of my apologies for a blogging drought again today.
*
Just time to return to Andrew Marr's latest programme and bring out something I should have brought out more fully on Sunday. I mentioned that Marr often says nice things about Alistair Darling to Alistair Darling (and via him to us the voting public)
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/marr-on-very-biased-form.html
*
The specific compliment that Marr keeps on giving Mr Darling is this: "You famously gave a gloomy but accurate account of what might be coming ahead of the recession as it was about to hit us and you were pretty much proved right..."
*
How different this is to the lesson drawn by Alex Brummer The Daily Mail:
Indeed, a consistent theme of Darling's budgets has been his rose-tinted economic forecasts. The most misleading occurred in the spring of 2008 when he predicted only a minor downturn. In fact, Britain and the global economy was heading into the deepest slump since the 1930s.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1260470/Budget-2010-Smoke-mirrors-politics-spite.html#ixzz0jAbeodAt
*
Mr Darling smiled appreciately at Andrew Marr's latest paean to his wisdom and foresight, as well he might.

MARR ON VERY BIASED FORM

*
What a contrast in greetings!

Andrew Marr began his interview with Alistair Darling with words that would have fallen sweetly on the chancellor's ears: "Last week's better than expected figures on the public deficit does make Wednesday's budget more intriguing that it might otherwise have been." I've noted before Marr's warm words in his introductions to Alistair Darling. At least this time there was no personal praise, as on previous occasions! (That came later in today's interview). "Well. I'm joined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer now. Welcome!" "Good morning," replied Mr Darling. "Good morning," replied Marr. How civilised!
*
The first question was then bowled, underarm: "Let's start by asking about the bank issue, the bank tax. Your government has said pretty clearly that you want to move by international agreement. The Conservatives have said they will move on a bank levy even if there isn't international agreement. Don't they have a point that it's time to take a lead on this?"
*
Compare that to the treatment handed out beforehand to his Conservative shadow Philip Hammond.
*
There were no warm introductory words here, only mischief-making: "The Conservative said if they win the general election they would introduce a unilateral tax on banks regardless of whether or not it gets international agreement. That will be news, or would have been news, to the Chief Secretary of (sic) the Treasury Philip Hammond because...shadow chief secretary I should say...because this is what he said not so long ago, a few weeks ago, on Newsnight." A clip followed of Mr Hammond (being harried by Jeremy Paxman) saying that international agreement would be necessary before such a tax was brought in here. Fair enough, you might say, but surely only if a similar embarrassing clip had been played before Alistair Darling's interview - there must be a large stock of such clips where the chancellor said one thing then and another thing now! No, the trap was set just for the Tory.
*
When the clip ended, Marr turned to Mr Hammond and said "Philip Hammond joins me now." He didn't get any 'welcome!' Mr Hammond nonetheless politely said "Good morning", but he got nothing in return - except the first question, which was bowled fast: "So a huge change of tack. Why?"
*
Also compare how Marr behaved during the first answers given by each interviewee. Mr Hammond's was interrupted after just twenty seconds. Mr Darling's first answer, which culminated - as the question clearly invited it to do - in an attack on the Tories, lasted exactly 1 minute 22 seconds, uninterrupted!! Several more very long, interrupted answers were to come and Marr's first interruption came with an apology for interrupting! Marr's holding back during this part of the interview - where the economy was discussed at length - was something to behold. Only when the trivia of politics was discussed (for just one minute) did two trivial interruptions come flying in close succession.
*
Comparing the timings each got, Alistair Darling got twice as long as Philip Hammond (13 minutes on the dot to just under 6 1/2 minutes for Mr Hammond). Yet he was far less closely questioned, receiving 15 questions in that time as compared to 12 questions for Mr Hammond. Mr Hammond was questioned in detail, Mr Darling more generally.
*
Pure unadulterated bias!

MARR'S DAY

*
Andrew Marr was as gentle as a lamb this morning. He seemed to really enjoy his interviews with Kumi Naidoo, the new head of Greenpeace, and author Ian McEwan. Both focused on 'climate change' and politics. His interview with Lord Adonis, who looked pretty happy himself after the glowing introduction Marr gave him, was a trouble-free zone for both parties. Even Ken Clarke went unmolested today.
*

NEVER MIND THE BATTLE, IT'S WINNING THE WAR THAT COUNTS

*
Well, this morning Andrew Marr made an attempt to make up for months of bias on the party donations story by tackling his old dinner party buddie Harriet Harman on the issue of Labour's big donors.
*
He had to of course.
*
William Hague had challenged him last week to explain why he had failed to ask any Labour spokesman about Labour's equivalent lack of clarity over its big donors while, in complete contrast, asking so many questions to so many Conservative spokesmen over so many months about Lord Ashcroft. A rattled Marr promised that he would question the next Labour Party figure to sit on his sofa on the issue if the Conservatives answered the question about Lord Ashcroft's non-dom status (hardly a fair deal, as I said last Sunday!!). The question has now been answered, so Marr couldn't do anything else but quiz Ms Harman on the issue. If Mr Hague hadn't challenged him last week & forced him into that very public deal, would he have grilled Harriet Harman over the matter to anywhere near the same extent? I very much doubt it.
*
How did he do? Well, he flung a few names at her, pointed to equivalences and pressed her on why she was refusing to tell us whether these Labour-backing moneybags are, or are not, non-doms. She floundered, and tried to talk on and on about Lord Ashcroft. He interrupted her a lot, though he also let some of her attacks run on longer than he should have done.
*
William Hague specifically challenged Marr on not asking Labour about its large-scale funding from the Unite union. So Marr asked Harriet Harman about trade union funding in general (not mentioning Unite by name), but failed to challenge her extremely feeble answer. He obviously only asked this question because he had no choice but to ask it. If he didn't ask it William Hague would have had him banged to rights for breaking their 'deal'.
*
Call me an old (well middle-aged) cynic, but all this was surely nothing more than an attempt by Andrew Marr to cover his own back. More importantly, he can now go back to questioning the Tories on Lord Ashcroft right up to the general election, week in and week out, and if challenged - as he was by Liam Fox before the interview with the Mad Hattie - will be able to say 'but I pressed Harriet Harman on that!' It will be his 'get out of jail free' card and I confidently predict that he will use it in the coming weeks.
*
Why am I so sure? Because firstly, after asking the Conservative defence spokesman about Afghanistan and defence spending, he then leaped straight onto Lord Ashcroft. Dr Fox, as mentioned above, challenged him about bias & Marr moved quickly on to the opinion polls and hung parliaments. Note though that he then returned to the subject of Lord Ashcroft immediately after!! And secondly because during the paper review he had said "Well I have a pretty clear thought that this will be a subject during the election campaign. It's going to go on and on and on." I bet it is, and I bet Andy Marr will be helping make it go on and on and on.
8
This blog will record all his future questions from Andrew Marr about Lord Ashcroft & compare their number to all his future questions about Lord Paul, Mr Bollinger, Sir Ronald Cohen, Mr Mittal, et al.
*
Liam Fox's point was specifically made about Marr's questioning of Vince Cable, where there was indeed not a single question about dodgy Lib Dem donors (of whom there are more than one). Marr hadn't after all made a deal with William Hague last week to question any Lib Dems on the issue, and clearly felt himself to be under no obligation to do so!
*
So William Hague won this battle with Andrew Marr but Marr will go on trying to win the war.

WHEN MARR MET PETER HAIN

*
Before George Osborne's appearance Andrew Marr had interviewed Labour rogue Peter Hain. The tone of this interview could hardly have been more different.
*
There were jokes between the two of them, and Marr didn't immediately rip into Hain the way he did with George Osborne; indeed, his first question, asking about the narrowing of the opinion polls to just 2%, would hardly have been an unwelcome one, and gave Hain the chance to bash the Tories at length. The next volley of questions asked about when the election would be (as if Brown would tell him), again hardly damaging questions - unlike all the questions put to Mr Osborne. Then Marr asked about Hain's reaching out to the Lib Dems. Ouch!, I don't think. During the long answer to this Marr began an interruption with an apology for being about to interrupt, then when Hain said he wanted to finish his point, Marr meekly fell back and allowed this vile man to go on spewing his anti-Tory venom.
*
And that was it! No questions about the economy, none about a lack of clarity from Labour over spending cuts, nothing about questionable Labour donors, nothing about anything of substance whatsoever - just a load of easy, trivial questions and lots of space for the Labour minister to go on and on and on about the 'right-wing reactionary Tories'.

Earlier in the show Marr had said he'd be talking to Peter Hain about "unemployment, bankruptcies, huge debt levels, all of that." He talked to Peter Hain about none of that!

From all this you'd think Andrew Marr was a Labour supporter, wouldn't you!!

WHEN MARR MET GEORGE OSBORNE

*
An opinion poll for The Daily Politics (Friday's election) showed that a certain proportion of the public remains confused about Conservative economic policy. The BBC has been absolutely relentless in telling us that the Conservatives have been confused - and confusing - and lacking in clarity (etc) on the matter in programme after programme. Andrew Marr has always been one of the keenest advocates of this line of attack on the Tories - outside the government. Keen watchers of his programme (for whatever reason) will have heard him tell Tory spokesmen of very stripe, on countless editions of his show, that their policies on this issue or that issue are confused and not clear. Nothing that happens in the course of the interview (however clear the Tory spokesman may be) will make Marr change tack.
*
So it came as no surprise to me that this was the man's first question this morning to George Osborne: "One of your colleagues was quoted in 'The Times' yesterday as saying the problem is everyone knows there's going to have to be deep cuts but you can't scare the electorate and that's where the slight confusion in the Conservative message has come from." This line of questioning continued for many minutes (as it always does), with Marr at one stage telling Mr Osborne (using The Telegraph as cover), "you need to be crystal-clear and you're not being" and, shortly afterwards, "Just not sure exactly how big a choice it is, because you won't tell us."

When Mr Obsorne was very clear about cutting Corporation Tax, spelling out how it would be done, precisely where the savings would come from and exactly how much it would cost, Marr was not happy. His next question ploughed on, at a higher pitch, with the same old line about: "you won't tell us". I've seen all his interviews with Alistair Darling and he never gets anything like this sort of treatment. On and on it went, with Marr getting wilder and wilder in his body language, loudly interrupting and contradicting ("No we won't because you won't tell us!", "I'm not taking about the values, I'm talking about the numbers!). This whole line of attack took up nearly twelve minutes.
*
If you could have predicted all that, there's something else that was even more predictable: Marr asking yet again about Lord Ashcroft (though he bungled his initial attack here by naming Stuart Wheeler, the wonderful UKIP donor, instead of Lord Ashcroft!!). Marr asked if there was "any chance at all of you coming clean on Lord Ashcroft?" At last George Osborne 'grew a small pair' and said what I would have said as a new wave of interruptions was beginning to break over him: "I notice you never ask Labour politicians sitting here about the tax status of some of their very big donors." How true! Marr got very excited in response, his arms flying about like Mr Tickle, and immediately interrupted loudly, "I'll do you a deal now. If you'll tell me in clear terms about Lord Ashcroft's tax status, I promise the next Labour politician sitting there I will go after them on that. It's a fair offer!" George's 'pair' shrank again, as he failed to say exactly what needed saying here: "What's fair about that?!?! You've been asking us about this for months, but you've never asked any Labour politicians about Lord Paul. You explain that Andrew! Is it because you're a Labour supporter? Will you come clean about that!!"
*
Come on George Osborne, stop being so nice!!!
*
The resultant interruption coefficient was a high 2.0.

MARR PROSTRATES HIMSELF BEFORE THE GREEK KING

*
David Vance, guiding genius the Biased BBC website, describes this morning's Andrew Marr interview with George Papandreou, socialist Greek prime minister (and third king of the Papandreou Dynasty), with characteristic pithiness, as "fawning". http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/greece-not-so-bad.html#comments. Marr let so many questions go begging that a new vagrancy law should be brought in just to deal with this man's interviewing technique. Then came his interview with Peter Mandelson, which result in a high I.C. of 1.4 but let so many questions go begging on Labour's astonishing mishandling of the economy as to constitute a whole army of missed opportunities. As well as David's post, the comments are very well worth reading - as they form a fascinating mini-debate on how best to take the battle to the BBC. (And you get to read Martin's latest comment about 5Live as a bonus!)
*