WHAT DID THEY THINK IN A LABOUR STRONGHOLD?

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

Why didn't Ritula canvas opinion in a marginal?

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"?

THE WORLD TONIGHT, PART 1

*
How has that most consistently left-liberal of Radio 4 current affairs programmes The World Tonight been getting on recently?
*
Mon 12/4 The programme reviewed Labour's manifesto. Ritula Shah's expert was none other than Prof Colin Talbot, who seems to be the BBC's favourite academic. For once he didn't attack the Conservatives, but instead (like Labour supporter Sir Gerry Robinson on The World at One) criticised Labour's policy on foundation hospitals, and public service reform in general. So an attack from the Left. Then Ritula jointly interviewed Labour-supporting Steve Richards of The Independent and Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome, displaying a little impatience with Tim and giving Mr Richards both the first and the last word. No BBC analysts were tasked with fisking the Labour manifesto.
*
Tue 13/4 The programme reviewed the Conservative manifesto. The first difference in approach was that, whereas on Monday's programme the criticisms of Labour by the Tories and Lib Dems were briefly read out by Ritula, here we heard audio clips from Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg attacking the Conservatives. The second difference was that the BBC's Stephanie Flanders "has been running a fine tooth-comb through the Conservative plans" and was invited on to give her verdict. She was distinctly unimpressed. "Are we any wiser?" asked Ritula. "I'm afraid not", replied Stephanie. Thereafter, it was all about her repeated surprise at what wasn't in the Tory manifesto. She was surprised so often her eyebrows might very well have achieved lift-off and now be orbiting around Saturn.
*
The third difference, following on from this, was the much greater time spent scrutinising the Tory manifesto than Labour's. Conservative education policy was closely examined. Vox-pops from London were canvassed on whether the idea of parental involvement in schools is a good idea or not. The results were mixed, but the final words of the final vox-popper, left hanging in the air, were 'I'd be sceptical'! That said, there was a balanced report on charter schools in New Orleans from the BBC's Zoe Conway followed by Dr Anthony Seldon, who was broadly supportive, though he also had some concerns. Tuesday's equivalents of Messers Richards and Montgomerie were Philip Stephens of the Financial Times and Nick Wood "a public relations consultant and former Conservative media director". The former was critical, the latter supportive. Guess which one was repeatedly interrupted by Ritula Shah?
*
Wed 14/4 The programme reviewed the Lib Dem manifesto. Audio clips of criticism from Gordon Brown and David Cameron followed, meaning that the Lib Dems did as badly as the Conservatives in this respect. Only Labour didn't get this sort of treatment! That said the clips here were much shorter than those directed against the Conservatives, so it turns out that the Conservatives fared worst after all. Here both Brown and Cameron got just 8 seconds each to have a go at the Lib Dems. Compare that to Tuesday, when Brown got 29 seconds and Clegg got 19 seconds to attack the Tories. The Lib Dems (like the Conservatives, but unlike Labour) also got a review from Stephanie Flanders, who offered a balanced appraisal of it rather than the wholly negative review she gave the Tories. Will the Lib Dem reputation for honesty help them in the general election, wondered Robin Lustig. He asked Helen Coombs from IPSOS MORI.
*
What of tax cuts? Mark Littlewood, of the economic think tank The Institute of Economic Affairs and former head of media for the Liberal Democrats, and Martin Ivens of The Sunday Times were the interviewees here. Mark is that rare thing, a free-market-loving Lib Dem, so he wasn't wholly without criticism of his party's proposals. Robin Lustig asked all from questions from the left-side of the argument.*
*
Later in the programme, the BBC returned to one of its key election themes, as Robin said "Now here's a political question for you. What do the following prime ministers all have in common: William Gladstone, Lord Salisbury, Anthony Eden, Harold McMillan, Alex Douglas Hume? The answer is that they all went to Eton. And if the Conservatives win the election on May 6th David Cameron will become the 18th Old Etonian to join the prime ministerial ranks." Paul Moss then reported on the links between Eton and politics, complete with the strains of The Eton Boat Song and a Tatler writer called Ticky Hedley-Dent (perish the thought that she was invited to take part because of her posh name!). Blairite David Aaronovitch put the boot in.
*

DEFLECTOR SHIELDS TO MAXIMUM!

*
If you thought Newsnight was bad....
*
Further to my previous post, Mark Easton's attention-deflecting story about MPs and their freebie holidays amazingly led last night's The World Tonight instead of what even Michael Crick on Newsnight admitted what a more serious story, the case of the 5 Labour/1 Conservative politicians caught out by Dispatches over cash for access, the sort of thing that brought down the forces of hell on Neil Hamilton & co in the mid 1990s: "It's ten o'clock. This is 'The World Tonight' with Ritula Shah. A BBC investigation has found widespread abuse of Commons rules by MPs who've failed to declare in full trips paid for by foreign governments. We'll be hearing from the former parliamentary standards watchdog."

How stupid to they think we are? Do they think we can't see that this remarkable coincidence of timing - two sleaze stories on the same day - is far too convenient for Labour and its supporters? That we can't see which is worse (though both are bad)? I'm not a man for conspiracy theories, but this really smacks of conspiracy!
*
Ritula continued, "Downing Street has said there's no need for a government inquiry into claims that former ministers secured changes in policy on behalf of private companies." Ah well, that's all right then! As usual the BBC quotes the Labour denial first.
*
The news bulletin that followed made the point the BBC wants us to take onboard from its new story: "The research identifies more than 20 MPs representing all the major parties".
*
The BBC has a woeful record over investigating MPs expenses. The Daily Telegraph and Channel 4, whose Dispatches featured the glorious Heather Brooke (the real heroine of the story) some time before the Great Expenses Scandal erupted last year, have been the media pioneers here. The BBC has much preferred to pass over the issue. It has never been a leader. Now suddenly, on the very evening of Channel 4's latest moment of glory over the issue, out comes this (less important) story, which just happens to catch Conservatives as well as Labour MPs. How long have the BBC been sitting on the results of their 'investigation'? Have they been waiting for just this moment, when their beloved Labour Party is hit especially hard by an expenses story? Did they release the results tonight merely as a spoiler aimed at Channel 4 - which is the most charitable interpretation I can think of? Or did they scramble through the Register of Members' Interests today to cobble something together? Watching how the BBC has been spinning this story so far leads me to only one conclusion as to their motive here - to help the Labour Party in its hour of need.
*

KELVIN MACKENZIE SHOCKS RITULA SHAH AND FRIEND

*
Last night's The World Tonight was a minor classic. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r4syf
*
The most consistently left-liberal of all the Radio 4 current affairs staples, it began by discussing John Venables with Harry Fletcher of the probation officers' trades union NAPO, then presenter Ritula Shah debated the issue with Kelvin MacKenzie, ex-editor of the Sun (and a very rare visitor to the programme) and Richard Garside, Guardian-writing director of Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London - one of the programme's usual left-wing academics. I laughed out loud at Ritula's outrage at some of the things Kelvin was saying. Her interruptions started flying as Kelvin got more and more 'right-wing' in his remarks. Such things are simply not said in the very prim and proper world of The World Tonight!
*
Business as usual followed with a report on Italy's political divisions over Silvio Berlusconi from the BBC's Anti-Berlusconi correspondent Duncan Kennedy. We all know whose side Duncan's on - and it ain't Silvio's. All the usual digs at his appearance were present and correct.
*
We were now half way, so Ritula paused to tell us what was coming up: "In a moment David Cameron gets help on the economy for Sir James Dyson but could Lord Ashcroft stain the party's reputation?" Ah, Lord Ashcroft. Nick Robinson duly appeared.
*
Still, there was Miles Templeton of the Institute of Directors. Ritula spoke for 'many' (or so she claimed) when she asked "But in your manifesto today you talk about cutting the budget deficit rather than raising taxes. Is it an either/or situation? Many people would say it isn't?" Many on the Left especially.
*

BLOOM AND THE BABY BOOMERS

*
I blogged a couple of weeks ago about a certain BBC reporter:

Whenever I listen to a Jonty Bloom report on 'The World Tonight' I start to feel anxious about my wallet. Jonty's always after more public spending, and that means he's after my money.

Well he was at it again on tonight's programme.
*
The topic was the 'unfairness' of the disparity in wealth between the baby boomer generation and the younger generation and Bloom was back on some of his favourite themes. As ever he had a leftie professor to back him up, this time John Hills of the L.S.E. (more about whom can be found here http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/j.hills@lse.ac.uk).
*
"Much of that unfairness will be sorted out over time", said Jonty. "Many young people will inherit a lot of money when their parents die; however that won't be evenly or fairly spread around, says Professor Hills" (as indeed he does).
*
Bloom goes on. "Such inequalities between the generations and in coming years between those who inherit and those who don't can, of course, be sorted out by government action". Bloom is always after more government action (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-wallet-trembles.html and http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/12/pre-budget-bias.html).
*
What does he mean? Well, we know Jonty likes Inheritance Tax and is not ashamed to let us know about it (even though most of us don't agree, according to polls that the BBC doesn't like) - see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-bloomin-bias.html - so he continues, "by, for instance, making baby boomers pay more inheritance tax or capital gains tax on their homes, work longer or have smaller pensions".
*
"You might think it would be a brave government that suggested such things," he says, "but John Pawsey and Janet Galley (who he meets in a West End hotel) would be willing to help others". Indeed (they say) they would, Janet adding "I don't have a problem with using taxation to support the population generally." How lucky for Jonty to have met a couple who (say they) support his love of taxes (more about which please see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/bloomin-bias.html). Of course, people always say this sort of thing & we all know hardly any of them really mean it!! People tend to be in favour of other people paying taxes. (How cynical of me!)

After this piece of naked left-wing propaganda came a political discussion on the same subjected, hosted by Ritula Shah. It featured David Willetts for the Tories, Kitty Ussher for Labour and Stephen Williams for the Lib Dems. Mr Willetts was asked 5 questions and interrupted twice, Kitty was asked 3 questions and interrupted once, Mr Williams was asked 3 questions and not interrupted at all.
*

MORE ON 'THE WORLD TONIGHT'

*
Rounding up the remaining editions of The World Tonight this week, Monday's programme (hosted by Ritula Shah) was the best, if only because it featured a fine discussion on quangos between Sir Alistair Graham (that admirable ex-chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and chair of Berwick Labour Party) and Mark Wallace of the (also admirable) Taxpayer's Alliance. The discussion was prefaced by BBC favourite, Professor Tony Travers of the Beeb's favourite academic institution, the L.S.E. (who said that quangos had "mushroomed...particularly since the 198os").
*
Of course, there was also plenty about 'climate change' (as if it ever stays the same!), with two AGW-believers tussling over the effectiveness of carbon-trading. One, Bruce Duguid ("head of investor engagement at The Carbon Trust") , was in favour; the other, Chris Hope ( "an economist at the Judge Business School at Cambridge University" ), thought carbon-trading was merely "a first step" and wanted more direct taxes on emissions ( "'trade' is more of a dirty word than 'tax'", said Professor Hope.) A report from Brazil followed on the U.N.'s REDD programme (The United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, to give it its very full title), during which only supporters of the scheme spoke. (Well, what's new there!). It's "not cheap", we were told. I bet.
*
Tuesday's programme was presented by David Eades. It featured another such report, this time from Obama's Chicago, where Robin Lustig had flown to find out just how 'green' a city it really is. Again, everyone spoken to was in favour of 'doing something about climate change', though there was a lively debate about coal-fired power stations. Commissioner Suzanne Malec-McKenna (appointed by Democrat mayor Richard Daley) was grilled by Lustig (with two interruptions) over the issue, after he (and we) had heard from two green activists and a Democrat alderman (Joe Moore) who are involved in the campaign against the power stations. Lustig's report was preceded by an interview between David Eades and Peter Stott of the Met Office - and a leader author of the IPCC report (though that curiously was not mentioned), who was on to assure us that man-made global warming is real and thay world temperatures really are soaring despite this and despite that.
*
The day's inhuman bombings in Baghdad prompted a BBC invite for a professor at Baghdad University who has been seconded to the the Beeb's favourite academic institution, the L.S.E. (His name sounded like Sahd Zavad). This chap, who with all possible respect I would label a 'nut', attacked the "failing" policy of the Iraqi government and "the occupying forces" and, when asked who was guilty of the bombings, said "Of course if I were a member of the government the easiest and ready-made accusation is Al-Qaeda and the Ba'ath Party members. But it's not the truth." Who did he blame then? "Members of the government are involved", he asserted. Anyone else? "Foreign elements...Israel, Iran." Ah yes, Israel! The nutty professor had earlier also said this: "this new character in Iraqi politics - the violent nature of the political differences between the political parties as well" . New? Well, he's Iraqi so he should know but...I seem to heard something about there being a long history of political violience and savage killings in the country even before Saddam Hussein got into power, and after Saddam Hussein got into power Iraq was, shall we say, not exactly free of political violence, was it? Just who was this professor? Was he a Ba'athist supporter?
*
A preview of the Pre-Budget Report (due the following day) saw a report on "anxiety across the public sector" from Jonty Bloom. He visited a community college in Newquay - "a success story and it wants to stay that way." Jonty said, "It all adds up to a very successful system but it's not been cheap and...the headteacher worries about where the money is going to come from next year." *

There was a rare interview with a Bush era state department official, Wayne White of the Iraq Intelligence Unit. David Eades interrupted him three times in less than three minutes. That rarely (if ever) happens with a Democrat on The World Tonight.
*

PRE-BUDGET BIAS

*
Wednesday's The World Tonight was the worst by far. Hosted by Ritula Shah, it focused mostly on the day's big story - Labour's shameless Pre-Budget Report. It was unquestionably biased towards Labour.
*
First came a chat between Ritsy and BBC economics correspondent (and unabashed leftie) Jonty Bloom, during which Jonty gave the government a glowing review. The scary news that Labour will need to borrow an extra £178 billion this year alone "could have been a lot worse", according to Bloom. Mr Darling was "very generous to pensioners", and "the economy is not doing quite as badly". Bloom is openly hostile to raising the threshold on Inheritance tax (please see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-bloomin-bias.html for the details on this) and said of the freeze on Inheritance Tax announced in the P.B.R. "that'll effect people with big estates, the rich basically" . People with a house worth just over £300,000? Are such people all 'the rich'? This was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party. Another was to follow.
*
The next commentator was Richard Murphy of the Tax Justice Network which, Ritula said, "lobbies for a more progressive taxation system". He was another leftie, who approved of the Inheritance tax freeze and thought the anti-banker legislation was a step in the right direction ("an attack on the disparity of wealth in our country"), though he wanted much more action against the rich. He got 1 minute 33 seconds.
*
Next up was Dave Prentice of UNISON, who condemned proposed public sector pay cuts. He got 41 seconds.
*
We did then get a banker - George Mathewson, formerly of R.B.S. - though he only got 12 seconds!
*
Finally a bit of balance was restored with a debate between Labour-supporting pollster Peter Kellner and Anne McElvoy of the London Evening Standard.
*
Jonty Bloom returned later with a second Labour Party political broadcast, advocating the need for more government spending on the UK's infrastructure. All of his four 'talking heads' agreed on the need for this.
*
Ritula Shah's introduction to Bloom's report pretty much says it all: "Our economics correspondent Jonty Bloom now reports on the importance of government investment to the British economy". First up was Cross-Rail: "So it's just as well that the government is spending a small fortune on Cross-Rail", Bloom opined after talking to a chap who says "What's keeping us going is public sector spending." He then went to a school in Nottingham "transformed" thanks to the generosity of this glorious people's government (all hail the prime minister). "It's a huge undertaking, but better schools are only one of the things Britain will need in the coming years - new and faster rail links, better roads, broadband internet access, new power stations and massive amounts of money for green projects like wind farms are also needed." (As they used to say at school: "Discuss.") Again, Jonty Bloom strays from reporting into open advocacy.
*
He ended by sounding a warning to the country against electing a Conservative government: "Our economic rivals around the world, but especially in Asia, are using this recession to increase intervention in their infrastructure, providing a tonic to their economies during the recession and making them better placed to compete with us when growth returns. What many in business fear is that in the rush to cut government spending and reduce borrowing we here will be doing the exact opposite."
*
Alistair's cheque's in the post, Jonty.
*
The programme also featured a report on the Palestinians. Of course it did.

THE WORLD TONIGHT

*
The World Tonight is the thoughtful, foreign-affairs-dominated mainstay of Radio 4's current affairs coverage. It's a kind of idealised version of The Guardian and, like The Guardian, has a pronounced left-liberal bias. Or is that just how it seems? Though I've had a busy working week (with overtime!) & haven't had much time to blog (only to count interruptions), I've recorded the contents of all of the last eight editions of the programme to see just exactly what it covers and just who the programme invites to speak. This is what I found.
*
4/11 This edition began with Afghanistan and featured an interview by Robin Lustig with a sceptical Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats (I.C. of 0.3). The following discussion of MPs expenses & spouses featured one of the few MPs willing to whinge about it in public, Charles Walker of the Conservative Party. The interview was somewhat challenging (I.C. of 0.8). The issue was then discussed with Allegra Stratton of The Guardian. After a discussion of opposition protests in Iran with BBC regular, Professor Ali Ansari of St Andrews University (a frequent contributor to The Guardian, Independent and Observer), the focus turned to the Tories and their European policy. The matter was discussed with a highly critical Sylvie Goulard. Robin introduced her as a 'French MEP and president of the French European Movement'. Though we can infer that she's an ardent Europhile, Robin forgot to tell us which party she belongs to. It turns out that she's a Liberal (as regulars could have guessed already from my colour-coding of her name!). So, all in all, a strong left-liberal bias on this edition.
*
5/11 This edition was not so clear-cut. We had an interview with a female Afghan charity worker who wanted coalition troops to stay in her country and a report on the Fort Hood killings. Then the government's policy of Quantitative Easing (Q.E.) - i.e. printing money - was discussed with two people who were (with reservations) supportive of it (George Magnus and Jan Raldolph). Paul Moss then reported from Germany, where he chatted to former bosses of the communist GDR who are still proud and unrepentant about their dour old tyranny. The Trafigura story was then discussed with a lawyer called Martin Day and a Ivorian chap called Claude Gohourou, who claims to speak for the toxic poisoning victims. Finally came a hymn of praise to President Lula of Brazil, a centre-left president obviously, by the BBC's own centre-left economics correspondent Jonty Bloom. More hagiography than report, it would have brought a blush to Lula's bearded cheeks if he'd have heard it!
*
6/11 Afghanistan again led this edition and Robin Lustig discussed the matter with (a) someone who advised President Obama during his election campaign, Marvin Weinbaum, and then (b) Patricia DeGennaro, a professor at NYU who regularly blogs for the left-liberal Huffington Post. A spot of left-liberal bias there for sure. More on the Fort Hood killings and a report on whether TV helped bring down the Berlin Wall (and a piece on Santa School - yes, about training santas) led to a bit of AGW chat with the head of the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat, Yvo de Boer. An interesting report on the U.N.'s conference on migration in Athens by the Beeb's Malcolm Brabant quarantined a couple of sage voices from the Third World (protesters) who opposed migration on the grounds that it harmed their countries (depriving them of skilled people) between two advocates for migration, William L. Swing of the International Organisation for Migration and the U.N.'s Peter Sutherland, who got the last word (hymning the glories of migration). (Note that no-one from, say, Migration Watch got a look-in here).
*(Not
9/11 Ritula Shah took over for this edition and the opening discussion of nuclear power centred on interviews with Lib Dem leftie Simon Hughes, an opponent of nuclear power, and a newly-converted Stephen Tindale (former head of Greenpeace) - who supports it to 'save the planet'. A balanced argument on nuclear power certainly, but a debate between people on the Left nonetheless. The BBC's Roger Harribin then added this thoughts. Next up came a discussion on the fall of the Berlin Wall between the Economist's liberal-minded Edward Lucas (formerly of the BBC and The Independent) and left-wing Neal Ascherson of The Observer. This was followed by a report on the Tories and poverty by Jonty Bloom - an ill-informed piece in which Jonty referred to "the Tory party of Wilberforce and Gladstone" . Now, does anyone with an interest in British history spot what's wrong with that statement? (Clue: check Wikipedia's entry for the famous Liberal Party prime-minister W.E. Gladstone!). A discussion about Yemen with Ginny Hill of Chatham House and The Guardian (naturally) and an interesting piece on China and Africa rounded off the programme. Left-liberal bias here? Yes, in spades.
*
10/11 This was a remarkable edition of the programme. It opened by discussing Gordon Brown, a grieving mother and The Sun with Charlie Beckett of the L.S.E.'s journalism think-tank POLIS. Presenter David Eades might have been expecting a defence of Brown and an attack on The Sun from such a source. He didn't get either and the result was a satisfyingly testy encounter. A piece on those poor Palestinians followed from Bethany Bell (complete with obligatory side-sweeps at wicked Israel) and Mahmoud Abbas's declaration that he intends to cease being Palestinian president was discussed with one of his chums, Ziad Asali of the American Taskforce for Palestine. The bulk of the programme, however, was a debate at Chatham House, hosted by Robin Lustig, on the Copenhagen Climate Change conference. It was prefaced by a report from the BBC's enviromental(ist) correspondent Richard (Since Kyoto "the scientific case for man-made climate change has strengthened significantly") Black and featured the voices of various Green activists, as well as Joan Ruddick, Labour's climate change minister, a climate-scarer from Grenada and someone from the Union of Concerned Scientists. All four of Robin's guests fully bought into the AGW agenda too, and every single one of Robin Lustig's questions came from the same stance. The panel consisted of disgraced Labour ex-minister Elliot Morley (though his career-sinking expense claims were not brought up); Steve Rayner, professor of science and civilisation at Oxford University; Mike Hume, professor of climate change and founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia; and Cleo Paskal of the Energy, Environment & Development programme at Chatham House (and the liberal Toronto Star).
*
11/11 With Robin Lustig back in charge, this edition looked at the economy and interviewed John Philpott of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and John Cridland of the C.B.I., as well as featuring a report from Bishops Stortford by our old friend Jonty Bloom. Bishops Stortford has one of the lowest rates of unemployment, so that was obviously the place for the BBC to go on a day when the latest unemployment figures came out. Divided Cyprus, the Glasgow North East by-election (due the following day), and aliens and Christian theology were also discussed. Orla Guerin reported from Pakistan (a report that sounded exactly like every other report she's ever filed). Today's Afghanistan spot consisted of an interview with Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, yet another voice from the liberal wing of American politics.
*
12/11 At last, another centre-right voice (the first since Charles Walker)! Immigration was the hot topic and Robin Lustig conducted a joint interview between Labour's omnipresent Phil Woolas and Harriet Sergeant of the Centre for Policy Studies. Other pieces examined ivory trading in Zambia, Japan's relations with the U.S. and the thoughts of Russia's President Medvedev. Afghanistan today was discussed by (you guessed it!) two more voices from the left-liberal end of U.S. politics - former Clinton administration official Karl Inderfuth and long-term Bush-basher David Corn of liberal-progressive magazine Mother Jones. Any chance of hearing any American interviewee who isn't from that end of U.S. politics on The World Tonight some time soon?
*
13/11 The Obama administration's decision to try the 9/11 Guantanamo inmates in civilian courts in New York was first up for discussion. Doing the discussing with Robin Lustig were (a) a lawyer for the Guantanamo crowd, Tara Murray of Reprieve and (b) Tony Ortega of the very-liberal Village Voice (described by the very-liberal Robin Lustig as a "venerable New York newspaper", who praised the current administration and bashed Bush. More voices from just one side of U.S. politics. The undoubtedly venerable Douglas H. Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was the sage consulted over Asia-U.S. relations. I don't know what his politics are (though he wrote this, which is suggestive: "Obama decided early on that among the many messes he inherited from George W. Bush, China policy was not one of them.") Also discussed were time-zones, local elections in Kosovo, China and its carbon emissions, the Glasgow North East by-election result (discussed with Hamish McDonnell, formerly of The Scotsman) and the government-owned rail company, East Coast, which has taken over the running of the mainline on the East Coast from National Express.
*
I think all this conclusively proves that there really is a left-liberal bias at the BBCs The World Tonight.

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - RITULA SHAH

**
Ritula Shah of The World Tonight and PM is not generally one of life's most aggressive interviewers - though she has her moments.
*
Anecdotally, this month provided a classic case of biased left-wing interviewing, as outlined here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/ritulaistic-bit-of-tory-bating.html.
*
What though of her interruption coefficients for October?
*
07/10 Phil Woolas Labour 1.2
23/10 Philip Hammond Conservative 1
13/10 Sir George Young Conservative 1
02/10 Sir Malcolm Rifkind Conservative 0.4
06/10 Eric Pickles Conservative 0.3
19/10 Ed Miliband Labour 0.3
07/10 William Hague Conservative 0.2
23/10 Vince Cable Lib Dem 0
08/10 Michael Gove Conservative 0
12/10 Geraldine Smith Labour 0
10/10 Desmond Swayne Conservative 0
13/10 Barry Sheerman Labour 0
*
Her averages for October show that it's pretty much even-stevens between Labour and the Conservatives, though there's an almost obligatory I.C. of 0 for Vince Cable!:
*
Conservatives - 0.41
Labour - 0.38
Lib Dems - 0
*
How typical is this? Well, looking back at the 41 interviews I've covered since June, it's fairly typical. They reveal a slight anti-Tory bias, and a bit of a soft spot for the Liberal Democrats:
*
Conservatives (15) - 0.42
Labour (21) - 0.31
Lib Dems (5) - 0.08

A RITULAISTIC BIT OF TORY-BATING

*
Ritula Shah (of Radio 4's The World Tonight) conducted a double interview last night with Philip Hammond of the Conservatives and Vince Cable of the Liberal Democrats. The topic was the economic recovery, or lack of it. Ritula was not even-handed in her interviewing (to put it mildly), both in the contrasting treatment of her guests and in the pro-government-intervention stance that all her questions came from (to both interviewees, even the pro-government-intervention Dr Cable). http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qtl3
*
Here is an outline of how it went:
*
14.25 Question 1 (to PH): "Philip Hammond, now is not the time to put the brake on government spending. That's what Danny Blanchflower seems to be saying there. Isn't that borne out by today's GDP figures?"
14.57 (abortive interruption) "But they're already 0 point.."
15.06 Question 2 (to PH): "But they're already at 0.5% and there isn't any growth as yet".
15.50 Question 3 (to VC): "Vince Cable, is fiscal deficit the priority or should we be looking at more quantatative easing?"
16.16 Question 4 (to VC): "But that's overall government intervention though?"
16.30 Question 5 (to VC): "Where do we go from here?"
17.08 Question 6 (to PH): "Would you support that point of view?"
17.32 (abortive interruption) "But..."
17.46 (interruption/Question 7 (to PH)): "But what concrete steps would you take if you held the reins? For instance would you put VAT back up in January?"
18.13 (abortive interruption) "But what..."
18.20 (interruption/Question 8 (to PH)): "But what would you say to somebody like Danny Blanchflower who says that steps like that could tip us into depression?"
18.47 (abortive interruption) "Vi..."
18.53 (interruption/'Question' 9 (to VC): "Vince Cable?"
*
As you can see, Ritula Shah interrupted Philip Hammond three times (scoring her an I.C. of 1.0), whereas she did not interrupt Vince Cable even once (I.C. of 0). She also tried to interrupt Mr Hammond on four more occasions, which she never once did to Dr Cable!
*
Moreover, note that most of Ritula's questions to Philip Hammond asked about matters specific to Conservative Party policy (including criticisms from Danny Blanchflower), unlike the very general questions asked to Vince Cable (who was, as so often, treated more like an independent economist than a party politician).
*
All in all, a clear-cut case of Beeb bias.
*

EUROPE, EUROPE, EUROPE

*
The BBC have not just been busy hunting out all manner of -philes and -phobes in the Conservative Party, concerning the issue of a European referendum, they've also been busy phoning high-ups from Europe centre-right (federalist) grouping, the E.P.P.. After Eddie Mair (PM)was put through to the German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (who criticised Cameron's policy), Ritula Shah (The World Tonight) talked to Cecilia Malmstrom, Sweden EU affairs minister (who criticised Cameron's policy).
*
They are pulling out the stops over this one.

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - RITULA SHAH

Ritula Shah, the other presenter of The World Tonight, has scored in the following fashion in September:

Gerald Howarth Conservative 1
Barry Sheerman Labour 0.6
Philip Hammond Conservative 0.5
Lord West Goat 0.4
David Tredinnick Conservative 0
Barry Sheerman Labour 0
Sir Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
Conservative - 0.5
Labour - 0.3
Lib Dem - 0.1

AUGUST'S I.C.s - RITULA SHAH

*
Ritula Shah of The World Tonight didn't do too many domestic interviews in August, but here's what she did.

29/8 Gerald Howarth, Conservative - 0.8
22/8 Mike Gapes, Labour - 0.5
5/8 Malcolm Wicks, Labour - 0.3
19/8 Stephen Williams, Lib Dem - 0
17/8 Gisella Stuart, Labour - 0
27/8 Lord Ashdown, Lib Dem - 0
10/8 Ann Widdecombe, Conservative - 0

Her averages are:
Conservative - 0.4
Labour - 0.3
Lib Dems - 0

JULY'S I.C.s - RITULA SHAH

Though a regular presenter of 'The World Tonight' Ritsy has had a quiet month, at least as regards carrying out interviews with UK politicians. Only 2 interviews then, both (naturally) with Labourites.

Here are the interruption coefficients for Ritula Shah:

*

Harriet Harman, Labour (4/7) - 0.7

Sally Keeble, Labour (7/7) - 0

*

How does this compare with June's figures, when Ritsy was busier? Then her averages were o.4 for the Tories, o.4 for the Lib Dems & 0.3 for Labour.

Most of the interviews, though, were again with Labour politicians. In June & July, she has conducted 10 interviews with Labour, 3 with the Conservatives and one with the Lib Dems.

That said, the the I.C.s provide no proofs of bias for Ritula Shah. She is free to leave without a stain on her character.