SPECULATION

*
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.

INSTANT REACTION

*
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%
*

FRIENDS OF GORDON

*
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.
*

CALM DOWN, CALM DOWN!

*
I'm still scrambling to try and catch up with last week's programmes and have landed on last Wednesday's The World at One (dominated by Election Call to Nick Clegg). Ken Clarke's scene-stealing performance at the Conservative Party press conference, where he warned of the dangers of a hung parliament (comments attacked on the programme by economist George Magnus, who was one of the signatories to that letter to the FT defending Labour's economic plans, and defended by...no-one) was described by an excited Norman Smith. 'How has it gone down with his colleagues?', asked Martha. With all his usual hyperbole, Norm replied "With huge alarm" .
*
Norm's colossal problem is that by massively inflating every single completely catastrophic dilemma facing the calamity-prone Tories every second of every minute of every day and overstating things to an absolutely huge extent disastrously weakens the impact of what he is saying. He should calm down.

A WEEK IN POLITICS

*
What has the largely left-liberal The World Tonight (Radio 4) been up to this week?
*
19/4 Presenter David Eades
*
The World Tonight, being the Radio 4 current affairs staple with the most international perspective, is its channel's most Europhile show. For the volcanic ash story, it turned straight to the European Commission, specifically its spokeslady (and former Labour Party official) Helen Kearns.
*
For an Icelandic perspective, it turned to Alda Sigmundsdottir, introduced by David Eades as "an Icelandic blogger and journalist". As soon as I hear such a vague description from the BBC I always suspect they will turn out not to be politically conservative. Alda's blog is http://www.icelandweatherreport.com/. She also writes for The Guardian's 'Comment is Free' and The Huffington Post. So not conservative then.
*
The programme then discussed the Lib Dems. Here balance entered, as Iain Martin, the centre-right commentator from The Wall Street Journal & Sunny Hundal, editor of Liberal Conspiracy (and, like Alda, regular contributor to The Guardian's 'Comment is Free') discussed the wave of Cleggmania that swept the nation, according to the BBC that is.

*
20/4 Presenter Robin Lustig
*
This edition didn't go to the European Commission for more on the volcanic ash story. Instead it went to Lord Adonis.
*
2. Obama's bank plans were discussed with "Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the IMF and co-author of a bestselling book on the crisis called '13 Banks'". He voted for Barack Obama.
*
*
21/4 Presenter Robin Lustig
*
This was better. The issue of unemployment led, in the wake of news of a rise. Martin Weale of the think tank The National Institute for Economic & Social Research. He never strikes me as a partisan for any party, and I've found no evidence that he is either. A real independent expert! Whatever next? Similarly, Jonty Bloom's report from Liverpool featured Prof Peter Stoney from Liverpool University (who is in favour of the free market) and Andy Beach from Unison & John Moores University (who isn't). The debate between Yvette Cooper, Theresa May and David Laws resulted in the following interruption coefficients:

Theresa May - 0.5
Yvette Cooper - 0
David Laws - 0

Theresa May was the only one Robin interrupted.
*
An interesting interview on Brasilia (and other soulless planned cities) between Robin Lustig and Jonathan Glancey of 'The Guardian' (them again!) followed.

Unfortunately, the programme then returned to the volcanic ash story and its relentless Europhilia, bringing to us the issue of a 'Single European Sky': "Well the European commission has wanted for many years to introduce a unified air traffic control system for all of the European Union. It's known as the Single European Sky. After all, says the Commission, there's already a single market and a single currency so why not a single sky? I asked the Belgian MEP Dirk Sterckx, who is a member of the European Parliament's transport committee, what exactly would a single sky mean in practice?" Every time an MEP is introduced without any details of party affiliation I just know that he's not going to turn out to be a conservative. Indeed he isn't. Dr Sterckx sits with our Liberal Democrats in the European parliament. He is in favour of a single European sky, of course. What effect has The Great Volcano Crisis had on the argument, wondered Mr Lustig? "We've seen that the public turns towards Europe", Dirk said. And what of the reluctance of national governments to give up their powers? "Very illogical" he thinks. (There can be no controversy over the choice of the next guest: Mike Granatt "used to head the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the cabinet office". He has served as press officer for both Labour and the Conservatives.)
*
For an American perspective on the upcoming second prime ministerial debate, Robin turned to Styrker Mcguire of Newsweek, Gavin Esler's liberal best buddy on 'Dateline: London'.
*
*
22/4 Prime Ministerial Debate special, presenter Robin Lustig.
**
This was pretty well handled, with a well-balanced panel of pundits, but...
*
Before the debate:
*
Norman Smith, intriguingly using (but completely mispronouncing) the word 'hyperbole' - a word I often apply to his way of over-painting problems for the Tories (Has he been reading me?!) - kicked things off. He used a fair amount of hyperbole here (such as "huge" and "absolutely colossal"), concentrating almost all of his opening remarks on the pressures facing David Cameron ("There is massive pressure on him". Even if Clegg were only to do OK, it would be "a disastrous outcome" for the Tories. "So enormous pressure tonight").

After the debate:
*
I've already reviewed Norman's instant reaction/spin in a previous post.
*
He returned after the 10 0'clock news to spin again. He conceded that both Cameron and Brown had done "considerably better" this week, but was soon back to his old ways, saying again that Clegg "emerged as the winner" (no ifs, no buts). Can you guess which clip he first chose to illustrate the debate? Clegg's atrocious attack on the "nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists, homophobes" who sit alongside the Conservatives in the Eurolandic parliament. He then said "actually Gordon Brown had a number of good lines". There was no such praise for David Cameron though. Who's surprised?
*
Ritula Shah was out with the public, or more precisely with students from Reading University. A "completely unscientific poll" in the students' union bar saw a landslide for Clegg. Then four of the students were gathered. One, an American, remained undecided, liked Clegg's foreign policy but said that, looked on objectively, Cameron probably won. The second likes the Lib Dems but said that Brown is "someone" he "supports quite strongly". The third also said she admires Brown. The fourth is president of the university's Labour Society! So 'dunno, Brown, Brown and Brown'. How very representative!!

Following Peter Kellner of YouGov and Rory Cellan-Jones on Twitter, blogs, facebook came "a satirist's eye". The satirist Robin talked to was Alistair Beaton. Wikipedia describes him as "a Scottish left wing political satirist". Robin forgot to tell us that "at one point in his career he was also a speechwriter for Gordon Brown." That said, he was very even-handed in his barbs. He won't be writing speeches for Brown after this!!

23/4 Presenter Ritula Shah
*
This edition began with Greece and presented two sides of the New Greco-German War. For the German view we had Michael Gahler, "an MEP from Mrs Merkel's party". (Ah, he's been labelled so we know he's a conservative!) For the Greek side we got Yanis Varoufakis, professor of economics, university of Athens, who criticised German delays. He worked here in England for some time before, as his webpage puts it, he "escaped Maggie's England for Sydney, Australia".
This may suggest where he comes from politically!!
*
Mark Simpson then reported from Northern Ireland on the debate over there, talking to justice minister David Ford from the Alliance Party. Some 80's music was then played, before Mark said "the theme was from the 1980s, and so was the line of questioning for Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams. Was he an IRA leader during the Troubles? He repeated that he wasn't and said it was pointless even talking about it". Sir Reg Empey, Peter Robinson and Margaret Ritchie followed, with the "hardline" (as Mr Simpson put it, using his only label) Jim Allister of the TUV adding a comment towards the end.
*
Finally, the 0.2% rise in GDP was described by Ritula as "slightly less than expected". "Slightly?" Is a difference of 0.2% in terms of growth figures "slight"?

INSTANT REACTION

*
In the immediate wake of the latest prime ministerial debate (which YouGov/The Sun's instant poll has just called for David Cameron, with Nick Clegg second and Gordon Brown in last place) Radio 4 has just featured its most biased reporter Norman Smith calling it squarely for Clegg. He said that Mr Clegg frequently 'dominated and controlled' the debate (not what I saw) and that 'the Clegg bandwagon is still rolling'. "And it seems to me actually he often got the better of some of the arguments," he enthused (especially on immigration).
*
Robin Lustig's panel was far more realistic. The Lib Dem spokeslady Miranda Green was nuanced, saying that her leader did very well but adding that the constant bickering during the debate would do all the party leaders no good. She also mentioned Mr Cameron's more intelligent strategy of presenting himself as the outsider. Matthew Parris said "I don't agree with Norman Smith at all. I thought David Cameron was much, much better." I agree. Lance Price said Brown started off well, but got patchy toward the end & Nick Clegg lost his USP.
*
Now I am off to bed!!
*

NORM!

*
Norman Smith, the BBC's Tory-bashing chief political correspondent, was in discussion with James Naughtie (no slouch himself on that front) this morning. They were discussing how the meteoric rise of Nick Clegg is effecting the campaign. Being Norman Smith, this became a discussion purely about how Cleggmania is hurting the Conservatives. That Labour are, according to the polls, now in third place and that there are signs that they have been hit almost as badly as the Conservatives by Lib Dem surge, was not something Norman wanted to talk about, not even for a second. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8629000/8629040.stm
*
Naughtie's opening question ended with the words 'That must be what's worrying the two bigger parties?' Norman's first answer set the stage for everything else he was going to say: "Well it's certainly profoundly worrying the Conservative Party." (That's the first time I've heard him use the word 'Conservative' in ages. He always uses the word 'Tory' instead). Nothing would steer him away from the Tories and their 'dilemma'.
*
Even James Naughtie, one of the most biased of all BBC interviewers, later pointed out that "one poll put Labour in a miserable third place".
*
*
This was their second discussion of the morning. Go back an hour and Norman Smith was saying "In Tory circles it reminds me a bit of that moment in Apollo 13 when, you remember, the astronauts radioed back down to Housten to say, "Housten, we have a problem." The Tories have a real problem and they know they have a real problem." After Naughtie reminded him that Apollo 13 got home safely, he persisted (with his usual hyperbole) "So they know they have an absolutely profound problem."

DECLINE AND FALL

*
How did the Today programme deal with last night's debate?
*
Well, Norman Smith, chatting to Evan Davis, agreed with the general view that Nick Clegg won. Being Norman Smith though, he also tried to boost Gordon Brown (who all but one poll - duly mentioned by Evan - shows to have clearly lost the debate) and diminish David Cameron. Of Brown's 'controlled aggression' (as he described it), Norm said "I think that by and large worked for him." So a measured success for Brown. Cameron, however. was at a 'disadvantage' on three separate counts, which (we were told) all "conspired to work against him last night." (Sometimes I wonder if Norman Smith is just Charlie Whelan in disguise!)
*
Of course while the election is going on (and on) the BBC's very other biases bubble along as usual. The left-leaning think-tanks are still taking centre-stage, with an interview based on a report on terrorism by Jamie Bartlett of Demos. The BBC rule seems to be: If it's not the IPPR it's Demos.
*
At 7.10 James Naughtie discussed the technological aspects of the response to the debate with Steve Hewlett, the Guardian writer who fronts the BBC's Media Show. The polls said Naughtie "came up with several conclusions but one standing out - that Nick Clegg...had had a good night". That Brown had had a bad night was a conclusion that didn't stand out for Naughtie. Among other things they discussed "the worm" - the heart-monitor-like impression-gatherer. Ben Page of MORI last night (on the BBC' 1o o'clock News and Newsnight) confirmed that Gordon Brown came out worst on this measure too, winning much a more "muted" level of approval throughout. Messers Naughtie and Hewitt ignored this and instead chose to emphasize that Gordon Brown "by and large outpaced the others both of the others" on the economy.
*
Next up we were in Manchester with Evan Davis and Paddy Ashdown. Paddy was given the gentlest of rides (I.C. of 0), being asked for instance to "adjudicate" between Brown and Cameron's performances, and agreeing with Evan that Nick Clegg "hurt" Mr Cameron more. "I think that's a very interesting point Evan, " he said. "I think that's dead right". I, however, remember Mr Clegg's exasperated snort at Brown's umteenth attempt to butter him up, which blew sand in the face of Brown's bleedingly obvious strategy.
*
I refer you to Not a sheep for the next segment, where a panel of ordinary voters were gathered:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/04/unbiased-vox-pop.html
*
What followed was frankly infuriating: A piece on a play called Posh about the Bullingdon Club, which gave BBC's arts editor Will Gompertz the chance to talk about "an unflattering portrayal" of "young priveleged men" and remind us that "the Bullingdon Club featured Cameron and Osborne and Johnson". It mirrors Evelyn Waugh's Decline and Fall, he said. "This is the decline and fall of this generation of aristocrats and social elite who feel they are owed everything they have and a living". "It's about the upper classes deriding the poorer people". This was merely a description of the play of course. Nothing more. Perish the thought. Harry Mount, a writer and former Bullingdon member, was then interviewed - so as to prolong the theme - and encouraged to say that it was a silly thing to do to join the club. Mr Mount is David Cameron's cousin.
*

For another take on this, here's Stuart at Biased BBC:

I listened to the Today program this morning on Radio 4. We had Pope Clegg being talked up, a discussion about the Bullington Club - a play - a tinge of tory bashing, and finally we had 4 or 5 people from the (hardly politically well balanced) streets of Manchester talking to Evan Davis on what they felt about the TV debate last night. (I lived in Manchester for many years and its great, but it wasn't politically balanced).

I hope the BBC are going to examine the communist connections in the Labour party when the candidates were 19 (or even better, produce a play), they do a show somewhere in Buckinghamshire where they invite people off the streets of a beautiful English village somewhere to comment on politics, and finally, stop broadcasting their biased views of the performances last night - Mr Robinson you are the weakest link.
*
*
UPDATE (17/4 11.15am) Here's more from Stuart:
*
I heard the Today program again this morning. Evan Davis has moved from Manchester where he interviewed people regarding polical opinion, to another more politically balanced location, Liverpool where he interviewed people in Toxteth regarding their voting tendances.
*
Where next for Evan? Glasgow?

NORMAN'S 'WISDOM'

*
Looking back on Today's daily anticipations of the various upcoming manifesto launches finds Norman Smith acting, as ever, as anticipator-in-chief.
*
On Monday, chatting to John Humphrys, he prepared us for Labour's launch, playing it with a very straight bat. Ignoring JH's sarcastic opening question ("And Norman, are you excited?" ), he called it a "deliberately restrained manifesto" and faithfully reported Labour's explanations for why this is the case. He talked of their theme of "spreading excellence" and then spent a surprising amount of time faithfully outlining Labour's ideas for police reform. There were no doubts or criticisms cast whatsoever.
*
On Tuesday, again chatting to John Humphrys - and, as always, using the word 'Tory' rather than 'Conservative' throughout' - Norman turned to the Tories. He sketched out some of their ideas and then drew out what he regards as the essential philosophical difference between them and Labour: "The choice basically is between a Cameron government which would be suspicious of big government solutions, of more legislation, and would look to empower individuals against the Brown government which would view the state as enabling, empowering. helpful..er..rather than leaving it up to the individual to sort out difficult situations for themselves." This description was going fine until that last clause, which makes the Tories sound uncaring - as if they merely want us all to sink or swim by ourselves. 'The vulnerable' beware! An implied criticism then followed, as he described the Conservative...sorry Tory...manifesto as "somewhat light, shall we say, on deficit reduction". How forthcoming Labour was on Monday he didn't say.
*
Wednesday saw Norm and John talking about the Lib Dems. Norm outlined what the Lib Dems say about their own virtues, dropping in mentions of Labour's dependance on "big union money" (though not mentioning Unite by name) and the Conservatives' dependence on "wealthy businessmen, like Lord Ashcroft." Norm cautioned about overcrowding on the "trust terrain", saying that Labour have been saying '"You can trust us on securing the recovery, and you can trust us on public services with various guarantees for public services" and the Tories saying "We're going to trust the people"'. He said the Lib Dems could be encouraged by how things were going before moving onto a favourite theme of his: "So we do begin to move into what I would call hung parliament territory. Just looking at a couple of the polls today (he certainly was doing literally that, ignoring the third poll that proffered the hope of a small Tory majority!) again holding out the prospect that there could be a hung parliament."
*
For much more on the BBC's shennigans with polls, here's a link that will carry you to all Not a sheep's keen-eyed reports on this ongoing scandal:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/search/label/Polls

THE WORLD AT ONE, AT ONE, AT ONE

*
After its abysmal performance last week The World at One has a lot of ground to make up this week if it's not to be judged irredeemably biased.
*
Its coverage of the manifesto launches has been carefully choreographed. Each programme begins with a report on the launch followed by short reaction clips from the opposing parties. Then Martha Kearney considers some key policy areas and interviews some experts who are critical of the party's plans. A leading politician from the party concerned is then interviewed. Finally, the BBC's anti-Tory correspondent Norman Smith delivers his judgement.
*
*
Prior to discussing Labour's manifesto with Lord Mandelson on Monday, Martha talked to two critics - firstly Labour-supporting businessman and candid friend Sir Gerry Robinson, who is not keen on foundation hospitals, then Tony Butler, the former chief constable of Gloucestershire, who had some concerns about Labour's policing agenda. Peter Mandelson followed. This nigh-on-seven-minute-long interview concentrated nearly all of its interruptions during a short spell towards the end when Martha question his Lordship about the part-privatisation of Royal Mail. Other than that he got an easy ride. Norman Smith also gave Labour an easy ride in his assessment of their manifesto, using very measured language rather than his usual hyperbole.

The only breach of the programme's carefully choreography came later in this edition when another Labour pledge was assessed - on the national minimum wage and the idea of a 'living wage'. Ray Furlong explored the question "What difference will it make?" He talked to Diego, an immigrant Columbian cleaner, who described how much his life would improve if Labour's plan were widened to embrace the likes of him - point echoed by those "campaigners" who "see it as at least a small step in the right direction". One such, Matthew Bolton from London Citizens, who had "lobbied Labour on the manifesto pledge", was flushed with success but also wanted more. No voices against the idea were canvassed by Mr Furlong. Lord Digby Jones, former trade minister under Gordon Brown and ex-director of the CBI, was then interviewed by Martha. He loved the idea and wants it to become "aspirational" but he warned, reasonably enough, that we have no money left to keep promising this sort of thing.

This programme, incidentally, closed with a panel discussion, chaired by Martha, that featured Lord Digby, along with two Guardian-reading types - Josephine Fairly, who founded an "organic chocolate factory" and is a leading light in the Soil Association, and - from the far-Left - Marina Warner, a cut-glass-voiced "expert on fairy tales" (and a believer in one of them, written by a certain Mr K. Marx, by the sounds of it.) Ms Fairly attacked Liam Fox over Tory foreign policy while Ms Warner described the expenses scandal as a "skirmish to prevent us looking at the more serious problems which is basically the inequality of distribution of wealth and that fact that we no longer think there can be a philosophy of politics because we're being run by the finance economy that we actually think is irrevocable". She defended Labour, praised Europe and talked of "the others, on the Right" with their "dangerous" stuff about immigration.


The following day's programme turned to the Tories. Prior to Martha's interview with George Osborne, not two but three critics appeared. Why the extra critic?
*
There were no candid friends here. Conservative education plans were criticised by Emma Knights of the National Governors' Association, then their policing policy was rejected by Gloria Laycock, "a professor of crime science at UCL and a former advisor to the Home Office", and finally their plans to involve people in politics were rubbished by Andrew Russell, "a senior lecturer in politics at Manchester University". Well might George Osborne have said the following: "You did manage to choose three people who were pretty cynical about the public being involved in anything, as far as I could tell, the three interviews I've just listened to. It was all about Whitehall knows best how to police communities, and Whitehall knows best how to run schools and Whitehall knows best how to take decisions over your life and..." At which point Martha interrupted him. Despite a dodgy phone-line, Martha managed to interrupt him more consistently than she did Lord Mandelson. Norman Smith was back to his usual self afterwards (with hyperbole everywhere). There were difficulties for the Tories, they had nothing new to say on policy, their strategy on tackling the deficit is "already compromised", etc.
*
Shaun Ley was in Preston. It's one of many key marginals here in the North West (including the fair seaside resort of Morecambe). Jonathan Tonge, prof of politics at Liverpool University, talked of "Ashcroft money", a phrase Shaun picked up on, saying "and both those issues, Ashcroft money and immigration, we'll be talking about tomorrow..."


Today it was the Lib Dem manifesto launch. Vince Cable was preceded by two critics (note, not three): David Buik, "a market analyst with BGC Partners. He's also a supporter of the Conservative Party", said Martha (just to make sure we know where he's coming from), and John Whiting of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. Mr Whiting was measured in his criticism. Not so Mr Buik, who went in all guns blazing (good man!) The interview with Vince was, surprisingly, the toughest of the lot. Martha interrupted him more than either of the others. (Has she been watching Andrew Neil?) Norman Smith's assessment was certainly less reverential than his assessment of Labour but not as loaded as his assessment of the Tories.
*
Two ordinary voters appeared later in the programme. What had appealed to them so far? One said said Labour's pledge to get young people back to work, the other said "Labour are the only ones who have said actually there is going to be a national insurance rise which in my eyes just scores points for honesty." The BBC's plan is clearly working, if those reactions are typical.
*

DUCKING THE ISSUE

*
A minor point, but indicative nonetheless. Norman Smith (Tory/Tories 4, Conservative/Conservatives 0) appeared on this lunchtime's The World At One to spin Gordon Brown's congenital inability to answer a straight question: "In his reply Mr Brown rephrased the tax question as an argument about protecting public services". Would it really have been a breach of BBC rules on impartial reporting to tell it as it really is: "Gordon Brown didn't directly answer David Cameron's question, but instead chose to rephrase it as an argument about protecting public services"? Even that was far too much for Norman.

BUTTING THE BBC

*
Please check out Not a sheep's analysis of the BBC's battle-plan for the election:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/04/election-narrative-has-been-set.html

*
(I'm particularly pleased to see that he too has his eye on Norman Smith, the BBC political correspondent who I like to call 'The BBC's anti-Tory correspondent', because that's just what he is).

*

I'm on holiday this week, so my blogging will sometimes be heavy, sometimes very light. Today it will be light, tomorrow quite heavy, and Friday very probably clinically obese. (That's when the females of the family are off to Cheshire Oaks, a retail paradise for those who like shoes but hell-on-earth for most men. Shoe shop, clothes shop, shoe shop, clothes shop.....How can just one place contain so many shoe shops? The female population of China could all be fashionably fitted out with new shoes just by going to Cheshire Oaks.)

NORMAN SERVICE RESUMES

*
Eddie Mair was missing from yesterday's PM and was replaced, as is now beginning to happen with worrying regularity, by Carolyn Quinn. She was soon talking Tory tax proposals with Norman Smith and Norm was soon up to his usual tricks: "There is though, I think, a risk that they may overreach themselves on their tax promises."

*

TORIES, TORIES, TORIES

*
Norman Smith, the BBC's Anti-Tory Correspondent, discussed Brown and Mandelson's latest attacks on the Tories with John Humphrys at 6.35 this morning. As I've mentioned before, this man hardly ever uses the words 'Conservative' or 'Conservatives'. It's, almost without exception, 'Tory' or 'Tories' with him. Just in this one short spell today, Smith's tally of 'Tory/Tories' was 8, with 'Conservative/Conservatives' on 0. Not even Michael Crick racks up such totals. Only John Prescott and Peter Hain can match Norman Smith in this regard. Tories, Tories, Tories, Tories, Tories...

MACAVITY JNR RETURNS

*
It was only yesterday that I wrote this:

Even BBC political correspondents need a holiday, so let's be charitable and assume that's the reason why Norman Smith, the BBC's anti-Tory Correspondent, has been missing from the Today programme's airwaves throughout the National Insurance debate of the last few days.

Well, it seems I was being too charitable.
*
The third most important story in the world, according to the home page of the BBC News website, is Gay B&B remark sparks row. When you click into the article, guess who's back?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8602371.stm
*
Yes, Norman Smith:

The BBC's political correspondent Norman Smith said Mr Grayling's stance "put him at odds with the law".
The BBC's Norman Smith said it was "awkward and embarrassing" for the shadow home secretary, who would have to enforce equality legislation should the Conservatives win the election.

So he wasn't on holiday after all, just lying low (like Michael Crick) to avoid having to report bad news for Labour (as here over NI).
*
That's a lesson for me: Never give the BBC the benefit of the doubt!
*

NORM!

*
The rage of righteous Labour against its wrongdoing elders, reported by John Humphrys, was I note also the theme of blog favourite Norman Smith. Noble Labour, betrayed by a few errant sheep! "What's striking is that the real anger about this whole saga is not to be found on the opposition benches, it's not David Cameron or Nick Clegg, it is among Labour MPs."
*
'Is it going to be hard for Gordon Brown to resist calls for a parliamentary inquiry?', asked John Humphrys. "No, I don't think so", replied Norm.
*

ON AND ON AND ON

*
So it's been another Lord Ashcroft day at the BBC. The non-story that just won't die was back again, zombie-like, to stalk the studios of the BBC.
8
I clicked onto the Today website a couple of hours ago and listened to this morning's programme. It featured one of the most pointless and frankly tedious interviews I've ever had the misfortune to sit through - Evan Davis asking arcane question after arcane question on the issue to an infinitely patient William Hague. This nonsense went on for nearly thirteen minutes and was both preceded by and followed by some anti-Tory insinuations from Nick Robinson. (Where did it all go wrong for Nick Robinson?). http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8574000/8574008.stm
*
It came about because a Cabinet Office document about Lord Ashcroft was leaked to the Today programme this morning. With Labour in the mire over Gordon Brown's forced retraction of (some of) his lies over defence spending and the party's umbilical ties to the Unite union coming in for telling criticism, what could have been more convenient for Labour than a leak that puts Lord Ashcroft and the Tories at the top of the news cycle at the BBC? And what better programme to leak it to than the Today programme? The Today programme, as the leaker(s) would have surely have known, leaped on the story like a pack of starving hyenas.
* The
For a commentary on how Today handled this please click on the comments on the Biased BBC website: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/open-thread_17.html. Starting at the beginning with It's all too much and Cassie King, you will read some angry and insightful reactions to it all as it unfolded.
*
I note in passing that the BBC's Anti-Tory Correspondent Norman Smith reported for duty in the programme's first hour. (Try keeping him away!) He blaahed on and on, adding "inevitably it will fuel Labour and Lib Dem demands for more answers as to when he (Mr Hague) knew what." Labour and Lib Dem demands indeed! What about BBC demands? They are at least as keen as Labour and the Lib Dems! Nowhere in this discussion between Norm and Justin Webb did either speculate as to who had leaked this official document or as to why it had been leaked today? A revealing omission. The leaker(s) may have been banking on Norman Smith. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006qj9z/console .
*
Not a sheep compares the BBC News website's enthusiasm for the Ashcroft story with its reluctance to dwell on the Brown/Chilcot story:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/whats-news.html
*
The World at One followed, leading with Lord Ashcroft. (Of the BA strike and Brown's lies, however, no time for discussion was found). Martha Kearney began "Just to remind you of the details of all this" before doing just that, boringly. Norman Smith was back, of course, playing us a clip from today's select committee meeting where a Labour baroness who was present when the 'deal' was done in 2000 was questioned by the committee's Labour chairman. (The Conservatives boycotted the meeting, regarding it understandably as nothing more than a political stunt.) Another attendee, the civil servant who brokered the deal, Sir Hayden Phillips "conceded", said Norm, that he "was - to put it mildly- very far from being a tax expert" (Norm is never sparing with superlatives) unlike the more "tax savvy" Lord Ashcroft and his Tory representative James Arbuthnot. The insinuation here, of course, is that the wicked Tories pulled the wool over Sir Hayden's eyes. "Now there was also criticism of the role of William Hague with Labour MPs (yes Labour MPs!) questioning how Mr Hague could not have have known about Lord Ashcroft's tax status since cabinet office documents released today ('released today'?! 'Leaked today' surely?) show that he'd been kept informed about the final deal reached by Mr Arbuthnot."
*
When the story was at its most feverish a week or two ago, I noted that the BBC seemed to be ringing around the Conservative Party to find any Tories who were willing to criticise Lord Ashcroft, finally alighting on Barry Legg and Elizabeth Peacock - both of whom lost their seats in the 1997 general election. Guess who followed Norman ('Don't mention the leak') Smith? Yes, Barry Legg again. Mr Legg did indeed criticise Lord Ashcroft, calling for him to be sacked, and - remarkably - defended the various Labour and Lib Dem non-doms against any defence of equivalence. At least he did also defend William Hague (so that's only two out of three for The World at One!).
*
In fairness space was also given to Ian Liddell Grainger, one of the Conservative MPs who boycotted the committee. He gave a very robust performance, and challenged the BBC to say when it received the leaked document, as if it received it "before 12.00 yesterday" then it proves that the government leaked it. The BBC, he said, could clear the matter up by providing just that bit of information.
*
The story has also led PM. Peter Hunt replaced Norman Smith. but said much the same sort of thing (just without the superlatives). Still at least this programme didn't fixate on the story, and Eddie Mair's discussion with Andrew Hoskins of ComRes about the public's reaction to all these sort of stories (Labour and Unite as much as the Conservatives and Lord Ashcroft) was an interesting one.

The leaker must be delighted at the BBC's obliging behaviour.
*

MACAVITY

*
I got so caught up with Any Questions and Question Time yesterday that I neglected the Today programme. Norman Smith moved on (for a day at least) from spinning against the Conservatives to spinning for Labour. "BBC chief political correspondent Norman Smith examines where the PM might stand," says the website blurb, as Smith previewed the day's big event, Brown's turn at the Chilcot Inquiry:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8551000/8551019.stm
*
Why was Brown so quiet before the start of the Iraq War? Well, said Smith, his "reticence...can perhaps be explained by the fact that Mr Brown was chancellor, the war was not his business". Hmm.
*
Throughout the week Norman has been informing Today listeners of Labour views on Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives. On Friday, as Brown faced the Chilcot Inquiry, did he canvass the views of the Conservatives on Gordon Brown and Labour? Of course not. He previewed the day's big story by talking to:
*
Eric Joyce, Labour
Peter Kilfoyle, Labour
John Kampfner, editor of The New Statesman (2005-8)
Tam Dalyell, Labour
Lord George Foulkes, Labour
*
Odd to have only Labour voices, isn't it? Not really, this is Norman Smith after all.
*
*
Something unusual did happen though on yesterday's Today. Evan Davis talked (just before 7.00) to Mats Persson of the Euro-sceptic think tank Open Europe. Had I been listening live, instead of using 'Listen Again' on a Saturday afternoon, I might have spat out a cornflake or two in shock!!

JUST ANOTHER DAY AT THE BIASED BBC

*
Tom Bradby, political editor at ITN, challenged Liam Fox over Lord Ashcroft on tonight's 6.30 News. He also challenged Lord Mandelson, quizzing him on Labour money-bags Sir Ronald Cohen. Is Sir Ronnie also a non-dom? "Labour ministers are desperate to keep this story going," said Tom, before adding "but not so good at answering their own questions." Given Labour's own poor record on dodgy donations in recent years and the ongoing questions about many of their present big-money donors, Tom noted that it was "a bit rich" for them to try and take the moral high-ground on this story. (Many Labour figures are shameless enough to do anything.) Tom added, "the Liberal Democrats are frankly not much better." The difference between this (questioning all sides) and the BBC's out-and-out side-taking is startling.
*
Lord Ashcroft has been cleared of wrong-doing today by the Electoral Commission.
*
This morning's Today paper reviews again only featured critics of Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives from the press.
*
Indeed, being the pairing of James Naughtie and Justin Webb, a tally of mentions from the pick of the papers (over the three paper reviews of the day, at 6.10, 6.45 and 7.43) produces a predictable list:
*
The Guardian - 7 mentions
The Independent - 6 mentions
The Times - 4 mentions
The Daily Telegraph - 3 mentions
The Daily Mirror - 2 mentions
The Daily Mail - 2 mentions
The Sun - 1 mention
The Daily Express - 1 mention
*
That's the same total for The Guardian and The Independent as all the others put together!
*
Norman Smith, the BBC's Anti-Tory Affairs Correspondent, was back, chatting to Justin about Lord Ashcroft (of course). Accusations against the Conservatives were aired, questions were raised of Lord Ashcroft and the Conservative Party. At least Justin Webb asked about whether the Cabinet Office's full-knowledge of the deal let the Conservative Party off the hook. Norm said "only partially I think" (clearly meaning 'No!") and, without dwelling on the implications for Labour of Justin's question, simply went back to his job of putting the Labour case: "I think the reason it doesn't entirely get the party of the hook is that the view certainly among Labour politicians is that William Hague should have asked an awful lot more questions", he began. Then came the usual bit of outright spin, complete with Norm's characteristic hyperbole: "But as I say for the Tory Party, you know, they are it seems to me suffering now considerable collateral damage from this whole affair." No mention of Sir Ronnie Cohen there then, nor any questions for Labour.*
*
Later extended clips were played of past encounters on the issue between the BBC (Paxman, Marr and Lustig) and William Hague. If ever the day comes to question Harriet Harman about any of its donors, how many clips will the BBC be able to play back then? Any?
*
Nick Robinson again stressed the importance of the story at some length, adopting a high moral tone, despite the deficit and the war in Afghanistan. In contrast Tom Bradby on ITV News tonight expressed considerable scepticism about its importance. Nick again ignored any questions for Labour. He accused and raised questions only of the Tories. He speculated about how damaging it would be if the Electoral Commission found against Lord Ashcroft on the legality of his donations, saying it would be 'dynamite' if it judged his actions illegal. Well, it didn't and they aren't, so that's that!!
*
Norman Smith was on again as news broke of the Electoral Commission's judgement in favour of Lord Ashcroft. He discussed it with Martha Kearney on The World at One. Norm outlined the allegations against Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives with some fervour before (and it must have choked him to say it!) conceding that the EC gave them a clean bill of health, and that it would be "a huge, huge relief" for the Conservative Party. From what Martin says on the Biased BBC blogsite Jon Sopel, interviewing Jenny Watson on the EC, was not so willing to concede anything to the Conservatives.
*
Martha then interviewed the man who brought the case to the Electoral Commission, Labour's John Mann. Now, all credit to her, she did ask him (briefly) about Labour donors. Conservative donor Lord Kalms was also interviewed and duly criticised Lord Ashcroft. Worst here was a disgraceful piece from a reporter called Bob Walker from the marginal of Loughborough. He staged an anti-Tory stunt to highlight what Lord Ashcroft's money is achieving (though, given the small amount he now gives to the Conservative Party, it quite likely not to have been his money at all). Some clever Conservative leaflets were held up to public contempt by the stentorian Mr Walker.
*
More questions came on PM from Ross Hawkins. Ross did hint that Labour and the Lib Dems were electioneering (as is the BBC!) and spoke to a former Conservative MP who is calling for Lord Ashcroft to resign, Barry Legg (who lost his seat in 1997). Carolyn Quinn then spoke to another former Conservative MP who is calling for Lord Ashcroft to resign, Elizabeth Peacock (who also lost her seat in 1997). They must be ringing around! Carolyn mentioned, very much in passing, that Labour had its own questionable donors. That she felt she had to mention it a few times suggests that the BBC now realises that it's been on dodgy ground in terms of bias so far on this story (to put it very mildly), but the fact that she only mentioned it very briefly in passing suggests that this is a cynical attempt to try and build a small database of quotes for the BBC to call upon should they be very seriously challenged by the Conservatives over this.
*
Carolyn Quinn then turned her odious attention to the question of how all this might play with the voters. Cue a pollster. Guess who? Yes, back after just a couple of days absence from Radio 4 was Lady Ashton's husband, Labour-supporting Peter Kellner of YouGov. His links were not mentioned, but then again they never are! If the Ashcroft story runs into next week, Mr Kellner said, "it might become very bad news for David Cameron." He mentioned "the old Watergate question, 'who knew what and when'".
*
Still to come is Question Time of course. And will Michael Crick make it four nights in a row on Newsnight?
*
Just another day at the biased BBC.
*

MOSTLY MARTHA

*
If you want to hear BBC bias in full flow just take a listen to the closing politicians' panel on today's The World at One http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qzp7z.
*
Martha Kearney did everything in her power to disrupt Conservative Nick Herbert (a pet-project of mine!), especially to stop him from going on the attack over Lord Ashcroft. Interruptions flew at him. Nonetheless he challenged anti-Tory BBC political correspondent Norman Smith's spin (which had prefaced the discussion) and denounced the BBC's bias over the issue. Martha quoted Monday's gentle chat with Lord Paul as proof that the BBC hasn't been biased (!) but one very feeble swallow doesn't make a summer and there's been nothing but winter and not a swallow in sight at the BBC over the issue of Labour's questionable donors for many, many months. Mr Herbert was also up against Hilary Benn and Jo Swinson, though they were (as you can see) the least of his worries! Martha allowed Mr Benn especially all the space he needed to have a good go at the Conservatives. (At least he was brief about it).
*
The interruption coefficients were:
*
Nick Herbert - 2.0
Hilary Benn - 0.4
Jo Swinson - 0
*
Andrew Neil remains the only one of the big names at the BBC to ask tough questions of all sides. (Eddie's away, leaving the dreadful Carolyn Quinn in charge of PM).