MARR ON VERY BIASED FORM

*
What a contrast in greetings!

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

...AND ON AND ON

*
Even the debate on social care for last night's Newsnight special ended early to allow space for David Grossman to talk to Kirsty Wark about Lord Ashcroft. This was in the 'other news' section at the end of the programme - a section that glided with unseemly haste over the BA strike and cuts to university funding. The first item on the 'newspaper front pages' section was, inevitably, the Guardian's story about Lord Ashcroft.
*
At least The World Tonight dwelt on another BBC obsession: Israel and the Palestinians!
*
The BBC News website, however, is not prepared to move on. They show themselves to be truly tenacious propagandists for Labour.
*
The site has got a trumped-up story about two of the stars of Dragon's Den, and its home page links to it as the story on its Business section (ignoring 'BA strike talks to resume later'): 'Dragon's Den star breathes fire over non-doms' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8575626.stm.
*
The fire-breathing 'dragon' is Duncan Bannatyne. One of the other 'dragons', James Caan, is a non-dom, and Mr Bannatyne uses him an an 'case study'. Of course, the 'case study' is then applied to the specific circumstances of a certain Conservative donor:

"Mr Bannatyne, a Labour party donor who has publicly backed Gordon Brown, also waded into the row over Lord Ashcroft, but denied he was doing it for political ends.

"In my opinion no one should be allowed to be an MP sitting in the House Of Commons, sitting in the Houses of Parliament, sitting in the House of Lords, unless they are fully dominated [sic] in Great Britain and pay British taxes," he said."

COIFFURED LITTLE HEAD

*
This morning's Today was back on the topic of the Conservative Party's 'far-right' European associates, with yet another reporter being dispatched to do Denis MacShane's dirty work for him:

Every year on March 16th World War II veterans place flowers on a monument to commemorate their friends and comrades who died defending Latvia against Stalin's Soviet invaders.

But these veterans fought while serving in Hitler's army, wearing the uniforms of the Waffen SS.

Many of those who take part in the event are members of nationalist groups, such as the far-right Fatherland and Freedom party, the party that sits with the Conservatives in the European Conservatives and Reformists group in the European Parliament.

Correspondent Damien McGuinness went to this years commemoration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8571000/8571843.stm
*
The report's 'independent expert' is one Chris Hales, introduced by Damien merely as a 'historian'. Have a good read of Mr Hales's blog and you'll see that he's a very partisan leftie, regularly denouncing the British Conservatives (with particular bitterness towards 'bloated Etonian' David Cameron (with his 'coiffured little head') and 'the egregious Thatcher') and all other such 'reactionaries'. Even German Liberals are far too right-wing for him! http://christopherhale09.blogspot.com.
*
In Mr Hales's Trotskyite 'past' (nostalgically recalled in his blog), I bet he was the sort who shouted 'fascist!' at anyone to the right of Tony Benn! (Those were the days!) He doesn't seem to entirely grown out of that silly habit.
*
Note how the BBC, without qualification, calls Fatherland and Freedom a far-right party (as Mr Hales does in his blog). This terminology is strongly disputed by the Conservative Party.
*
(Incidentally, talking of Damien McGuinness, Happy St Patrick's Day to you all!)

AN OWEN GOAL

*
I thought I'd begin my listening experience of this morning's Today programme with Justin Webb's interview with shadow Northern Ireland secretary Owen Paterson over the UUP's attitude to the devolution of policing and justice. I chose it because I guessed there would be a fair few interruptions (knowing of the tried-and-tested scientific formula Justin Webb + Conservative spokesman = lots of interruptions).
*
Still, even I was surprise at just how soon Justin Webb interrupted Mr Paterson. Please take a listen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8557000/8557147.stm.
*
4 seconds - that's how long it took for Webb to interrupt him. Eight more interruptions followed in an interview that lasted under 4 minutes. The initial frenzy ebbed as the interview neared its end but even so the resultant I.C. was a whopping 2.5.
*
Talking of 'whopping', had I been Mr Paterson I'd have verbally whopped Justin Webb for carrying on in such a rude manner. Sadly he, Owen Paterson, did no such thing. He took it on the chin. They always take it on the chin. Compare that to Labour's Phil Hope (yesterday), who moaned after being interrupted just twice in four minutes!!
*
If Conservative spokesmen don't go into the Today studio fired up to fire back at the slightest provocation they will always be treated like this. Some of the Today presenters are out to get them. They will, consequently, not get their case across and they'll lose the argument by default. The Tory Party will lose the election (and we'll all be lumbered with the Lib-Lab pact) if the likes of Owen Paterson don't take the fight to the likes of the biased presenters of the Today programme.
*
It can be done, as DB points out on the Biased BBC blogsite (though note that it's done by a Tory backbencher. Promote that man!):

Conservative MP Graham Stuart appeared on the Victoria Derbyshire show this morning to discuss Lord Paul after the non-dom Labour peer had chickened out of an interview at the last minute. Stuart took the opportunity to have a bit of a go at the BBC (his segment begins approx 12.30 in - available for 7 days):

"Imagine a Tory donor who'd bought a company, run its pension fund into the ground, bought the assets back for pennies in the pound, who became a privy counsellor even though he wasn't qualified while personally funding the leader's leadership bid - they (sic) would be a massive story and yet somehow the BBC runs day after day on Lord Ashcroft, who as far as I can see has done nothing wrong, and gives Labour an easy ride. It takes me back to the tales we had of the champagne bottles in 1997 and I'm afraid the BBC remains biased and fails to ask the proper questions of those who are currently in power."
http://www.bbcbias.co.uk

OVER THE HILLS TO IAIN DALE...

*
Iain Dale makes a telling point today:

The editorial choice:

Which story does the BBC put in its prime slot at 8.10 am on the Today program. A Prime Minister accused by military top brass of dissembling, or the Ashcroft story that they have covered on the hour, every hour, of every day of the last week....for the BBC there was no choice about it, they banged on with the Ashcroft story, today raising it in another guise of party funding, the BBC is so transparent in its bias.

Tim Montgomerie adds, "You know the answer. 'Today' did cover the military chiefs' attack on Brown but only after they'd flogged the Ashcroft story one more time in that 8.10am slot." http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright
*
Exactly!

TIM WHEWELL TELLS A FIB

*
When you become conscious of a particular angle that the BBC is taking on a world issue, you soon begin to notice just how much they push that angle, sometimes beyond the point of honesty.
*
I've been tracing over the past few months (and have posted on it here at regular intervals) the negative way that the BBC has been reporting the austerity packages put in place to tackle the economic crises in certain European countries - first Ireland, now Greece. The emphasis has been put on the hostility of the public sector - and their unions - to spending cuts. We had all those reports from Ireland featuring the leader of the Irish TUC but ignoring all supportive voices for the Irish government's measures. Now we are getting Beeboid after Beeboid telling us about the strikes and violent demonstrations that are 'ravaging' Greece over public spending cuts, and implying that the austerity measures there are very unpopular.
*
Time and time again experts from outside the BBC, especially from Greece, have been invited onto, say, PM or The World Tonight, and dropped in the fact that public opinion polls in Greece now show something like 70% support for the Greek government's austerity measures. They have never yet been asked about that by the BBC interviewer, they've always volunteered it. This shows that the demonstrators in Greece (violent and non-violent) are shouting for a minority of Greek public opinion.
*
That being the case, why did Tim Whewell on last night's Newsnight say, "Tackling the country's massive public debt is so unpopular that some politicians want to deflect the blame"?
*
Why did Whewell say such an untrue thing? Why are so many BBC reporters trying to say that the austerity measures in Greece (and before that in Ireland) are "unpopular" with the public?
*
It couldn't be because they want to scare people here in the UK about 'swingeing cuts' could it?
*
Whewell, incidentally, was behind one of the worst pieces of anti-Tory propaganda of last year: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/11/kaminski-again.html
*#
*
As a coda to all this, last night's The World Tonight reported from Iceland on the coming referendum and another of the BBC's biased reporters, Stephen Evans, said "The anger of the Icelandic people has global ramifications, particularly as Greece and Ireland contemplate swingeing cuts in public spending." 'Swingeing cuts' eh? There's that phrase again!

ANOTHER DOWN-er FOR THE TORIES

*
PM took another pop at the Tories tonight, following where last week's Politics Show went and visiting North Down to discuss the "problems" faced by the 'Tory-UUP pact'. Reporter Mark Simpson said the deal had "run into trouble". (The sitting UUP MP has rejected the pact completely.)
**
The report was balanced in its spread of opinions, but the BBC is clearly determined not to be balanced in its choice of which constituencies to focus on for the coming general election, just as it wasn't balanced in its choice of which constituencies to focus on during the Great Expenses Scandal of last year.

GUESS WHO ABOUT GUESS WHAT?

*
Michael Crick was in danger of wetting himself last night as he brought more 'fascinating' news (zzzzzz) on the Lord Ashcroft story. The 'fascinating' news was based on the Lustig interview with William Hague. "It raises all sort of questions", said Labour-supporter Crick, before raising some of them himself.
*
He'll doubtless be back with more on Lord Ashcroft tonight, then tomorrow night, then next Monday night, then Tuesday night...(etc)... probably right up to polling day.

WHEN THE RED, RED ROBIN...

*
Robin Lustig may be one of the Beeb's gentlest interviews but his left-liberal bias is like an overpowering aftershave. You could smell it everywhere on last night's The World Tonight.
*
Except when interviewing a 'climate change sceptic' or a rare right-wing academic, he is not much of an interrupter. Out of all the interviews that fall within the scope of my I.C. survey, not one has gone above an I.C. of 0.9. Until yesterday.
*
Robin's interview with William Hague over Lord Ashcroft resulted in an I.C. of 2.0, with 6 interruptions in just 3 minutes. This is more than double the previous record, suggesting a high degree of personal interest in the matter from Mr Lustig. Mr Hague's plea, "It's high time the BBC now moved on", will clearly fall on stone-deaf ears.
*
Mr Hague returned at the end of the programme for a three-way debate about foreign policy with Ed Davey of the Lib Dems and David Miliband for Labour. More anti-Tory bias was revealed even here, as Robin Lustig asked William Hague 8 specific questions, Ed Davey 5 and David Miliband just 4 (twice merely saying "David Miliband?" to the foreign secretary). Both Mr Hague and Mr Davey were interrupted twice, whereas Mr Miliband was interrupted just once. Mr Miliband also got the long, 'thoughtful' questions, whereas Mr Hague got the shorter, sharper ones.
*
What topics did Robin raise in the debate? The EU's role in the world, non-proliferation and climate change.
*

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).

STEARING US TOWARDS ONE SIDE

*
Fairness was discussed at 7.19 on this morning's Today programme:

Who should pick up the bill if a mentally ill person is put in a care home outside the area where they live? That is the question that will be argued in the High Court today in a dispute between two local authorities: the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and Sutton Council. Colin Stears of Sutton Council outlines the issue.

The programme's treatment of the dispute, however, was far from fair. As you can see from the above blurb, only one side of the dispute was present. Councillor Stears, given a sympathetic hearing by John Humphrys, is a Lib Dem and Sutton is a Lib Dem council. Hammersmith & Fulham, however, is a Conservative council. Why was no-one from Hammersmith & Fulham invited on to give their side of the story?

A NEVER-ENDING STORY

*
Michael Crick was back at the end of last night's Newsnight discussing...guess what?...Lord Ashcroft. He wasn't reporting any fresh investigations of his own mind you, merely reporting the lead story in today's Guardian. There are more questions that need answering, apparently (though none of them seem to concern Labours non-dom donors). The Guardian is not giving up, Michael Crick is not giving up.
*

THE ASHCROFT PAPERS

*

At the risk of harping on about James Naughtie, his contributions to the first paper review of this morning (6.12 am) began with the Lord Ashcroft story. He started with The Times (yes, not The Guardian for once!). The Times has been heavily critical of Lord Ashcroft, so Naughtie read its headline, then a short extract from the accompanying article, then a longer extract from its condemnatory main leader. Then he moved on very briefly to The Daily Mirror (anti-Tory) and The Sun (pro-Tory). His second appearance mentioned the FT's report on the falling pound. Naughtie adopted an incredulous tone and said "It makes the assertion that this is entirely because of the shrinking Conservative lead in the opinion polls." The way he emphasized the word "assertion" showed what he thought of the idea.

*

In the second paper review (6.44), after John Humphrys had dealt with The Daily Telegraph's support for Lord Ashcroft, Naughtie reviewed the anti-Ashcroft papers, The Guardian, The Mirror, The Independent and The Times, dwelling this time on the Independent's leader column.

*

In the third paper review (7.40) The Telegraph's (and Sun's) support vanished, leaving us merely with a litany of anti-Ashcroft opinion from of The Guardian, The Independent, The Mirror and The Times, read out by by John Humphrys. Naughtie, following on from John Humprhys, moved on to another story altogether. Could he not bring himself to read out something supportive of the Tories from, say, The Telegraph? He was soon to find time for Greg Dyke in The Guardian though.

*

NAUGHTIE RUNS AMOK WHILE THE TORIES LIE LOW

*
Oh dear! In contrast to their spirited behaviour yesterday no-one from the Conservative Party was willing to go onto the Today programme this morning to discuss Lord Ashcroft with James Naughtie. (Naughtie told us that himself, naturally.) Perhaps the Conservative Party believes that the story should not be fed and that it will go away. If they believe that then they're clearly 'bonkers' (as Jim himself would put it). It won't go away, because the BBC (and their various allies) won't let it go away.
*
By not putting someone up to take on Naughtie and have a right good brawl with him about BBC bias, the Today programme's most blatantly pro-Labour presenter was allowed free range to skew the story to his own political ends. This being James Naughtie, that's precisely what he did.
*
Listeners, of whom there are a few million (many perhaps still floating voters), were therefore deprived of a Conservative perspective. Indeed, beyond his BBC colleagues Naughtie only discussed the matter with one man, the pollster Peter Kellner - another well-known Labour supporter and husband of the until-recently-completely-unknown EU foreign minister Baroness Ashton. (Couldn't they have sought a Conservative defender in the press or the blogosphere to put the Tory case? Why didn't they do so?)
*
Naughtie took all three sections on the story, and was clearly up for it.
*
First came his discussion at 6.35 with anti-Tory BBC political reporter Norman Smith. Norm began by saying, "well, my sense is there are still a number of loose threads flapping in the wind", which is what Labour and the Lib Dems are also saying. He picked at a fair few of those threads, as Labour and the Lib Dems are doing. Indeed, all Norman Smith did here was to outline the criticisms of the Tories from Labour and the Lib Dems. He didn't even bother to try and put the Tory response. Naughtie, supposedly the impartial interviewer, joined Norm in outlining yet more of these criticisms, describing such questions as "politically explosive". Neither Norm nor Naughtie mentioned any of those non-doms whose wide pockets have been laid open to Labour and the Lib Dems. Nor did they so much as hint at the hypocrisy of both of those parties over this issue. It sounded like a Labour strategy meeting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qzgyk
*
Naughtie began the 7.09 section with the words "There are at least two sides to the story of Lord Ashcroft". That sounded promising. Was he going to say, "There are the criticism of Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives, but there are also questions for Labour and the Lib Dems to answer"? Though this is indeed the case, anyone who thought that this interviewer would say anything like that would be truly 'bonkers'! No, the 'two sides' worthy of mention were, for Jim, firstly, whether Lord Ashcroft had failed to honour his promises and, secondly, when David Cameron first knew of his non-dom status. Let's now replay that opening clause: "There are at least two sides to the story of Lord Ashcroft." Now we can see that each of the 'two sides' mentioned by Labour Boy Jim is anti-Tory one! http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8544000/8544691.stm
&*
Labour Boy Jim went on to assess, with Lady Ashton's husband, the influence that Lord Ashcroft's money has had in the marginals. Even The Independent found (rather embarrassingly for them) that Lord Ashcroft had only given a small proportion of donations to the Conservative Party since David Cameron became Conservative leader. Most had come from small donations from ordinary folk. Everywhere yesterday were Conservative voices pointing out that Labour has significantly more rich non-dom donors than the Conservatives, and the Lib Dems have (at least) one too. And that's not even considering the money (and bought influence) from the trade unions. (The comments on Nick Robinson's blog absolutely rout Nick, Labour and Lib Dems, on these points). Naughtie, of course, mentioned none of this. He only wanted to talk about Lord Ashcroft and "disproportionate spending" by the Conservatives. Ed Balls could not have been more focused on 'getting' the Conservatives. I keep trying to tell Tory politicians (by e-mail) that Naughtie really is out to get them. He really is out to get them!
*
Lord Ashcroft and his "great deal of money" are "certainly a bit of an embarrassment" for the Tories, said Naughtie, returning to the subject with Nick Robinson at at 8.23. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8544000/8544821.stm An excited Naughtie called it "The Ashcroft Affair". He again chose not to bring up the Labour and Lib Dem donors. At least Nick Robinson touched (ever so indirectly) on the issue of Labour's own non-doms, if only to argue, very unconvincingly, that Lord Ashcroft's story is the most important. His case is different certainly, and he's an influential man for sure, but necessarily more important? That is open to debate Nick, as the comments on your blog show.
*

MICHAEL GOVE STRIKES BACK

*
It's finally happened - possibly too late, but hopefully not!

Michael Gove put the biased BBC on notice that the Conservative Party will be watching it closely from now on. Last night's Newsnight inevitably led with Lord Ashcroft, and a report by Michael Crick. Then Michael Gove came on to be interviewed by Kirsty Wark. All Kirsty's guns were fired, resulting in a very high I.C. of 2.3, but Mr Gove not only stood his ground but fired back. He demanded to know why the BBC had not been pursuing Labour and the Lib Dems over their non-dom donors and when Kirsty kept weakly repeating that she was sure all parties would be questioned over everything over the coming weeks (which in itself would hardly make up for years of anti-Tory bias on this issue!) he made it clear that his party would be on their case if this isn't so.
*
Good! About time!
*
I'm only human, so forgive me for hoping that all my e-mails to the Conservatives in recent weeks (including a few to Mr Gove) might just have helped sow a few seeds in them about BBC bias. Maybe, maybe not. Then again, the sheer scale of the BBC's anti-Conservative bias over this issue (as over so many others) hardly needs me to point it out to them and, hopefully, huge numbers of other people have been telling them similar things (though they shouldn't have needed either telling or prodding).
*
Let's hope that every Conservative and UKIP politician from now on fires back in the same way against BBC bias. It's the only way.
*

LORD ASHCROFT

*
Sorry for the dearth of posts today (normal business will resume tomorrow, when my monthly list will also appear), but for an overview on the BBC's coverage of the Lord Ashcroft story here's Not a sheep:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-this-bbc-wording-misleading.html
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/bbc-are-in-full-attack-mode.html
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/nick-robinson-tells-only-part-of-labour.html
*
Besides the BBC News website and Nick Robinson's blog (dealt with by Not a sheep), I've so far only had the chance to listen to The World at One. Its cast list for the Lord Ashcroft story consisted of:
*
- Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrats, 2 min 21 sec, no interruptions, I.C. of 0.
- Lord Paul, Labour non-dom donor, 3 min 44 sec, no interruptions, I.C. of 0.
- Gordon Prentice, Labour, 2 min, 1 interruption, I.C. of 0.5
- Michael Gove, Conservative, 2 mins 45 sec, 3 interruptions, I.C. of 1.2
*
Messers Huhne and Prentice laid ferociously into Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives, Huhne especially waxing righteous (and hypocritical). Lord Paul was given a very soft ride by Martha Kearney. Michael Gove's powerful defence of the Conservatives' position, in contrast, was splattered by a plethora of abortive interruptions from Martha, as well as the three full-bodied specimens mentioned above. She repeatedly tried to stop him from naming the equivalent Lib Dem and Labour non-doms - which, given that neither Mr Huhne nor Mr Prentice had been in any way impeded in their attacks on Lord Ashcroft and the Tories was, to say the very least, hardly fair.
*
*
In fairness to her, when Michael Gove returned for an interview about his schools policy, prefaced by an interview with the wonderful but critical Chris Woodhead, he was not interrupted This sank his overall I.C. down to 0.6. Sadly, this part of the interview lasted under 3 minutes, hardly time to do justice to the argument.
*
*
The programme closed with Mark Worthington's report from Ipswich, discussing council funding for the arts in the light of coming cuts. The spokesman for Suffolk County Council made his case for getting more for less, but Mark immediately commented that "these words offer little reassurance" for the theatre and museums of the borough. Suffolk County Council is Conservative-controlled.
*

SELECTING LABOUR

*
Education lawyer Anita Chopra was one of the guests on the closing education debate on this morning's Today. She's unaligned to any political party (according to my very thorough Google search) and sounded studiously neutral on matters of politics throughout.
*
The other guest was a very different kettle of fish - Fiona Millar, 'chair' of Comprehensive Future and 'significant other' of chief-killer-of-decency-in-politics Alastair Campbell. Justin Webb, in introducing her, said she "campaigns for education provision for all". (Why did he simply parrot this completely vacuous cliche? Who isn't in favour of education provision for all? Nobody!!!!!!)

Ms Millar made attacks on selection and faith schools - and, you won't be too surprised to hear, on the Conservatives. This attack on the Conservatives came as the result of a generous-invitation-to-attack-the-Tories-disguised-as-a-question from Justin Webb. He allowed the all-too-inevitable attack to flow unabated and unchallenged. Job done for Labour, job done for Justin!
*
Justin sounded sniffy about the idea of choice in his introductory remarks and his questioning of the lawyer (who represents parents who are unhappy with the school they are offered) was noticeably more brusque than his questioning of the choice-hating La Campbell. Indeed, for all his interruptions (not that there were many), Justin didn't ask a single challenging question of Fiona Millar. He did, however, ask Anita "Anita Copra, is that a potential issue here, people just look, glance, at admissions tables, at league tables for exams, and actually make decisions that aren't really necessarily the best for their children?". So, the only substantial question of the entire segment comes from the Left perspective that opposes one of the few New Labour principles I enthusiastically agree with - proper measurement of schools performance (the practice of course is something else!!).
*
Justin questions from a Left perspective here. The programme's choice of guests is tilted towards the Labour Party. That's the Today programme for you! That's the BBC for you!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8542000/8542374.stm

!"2

Today didn't just speak to Labour supporters, it also talked to an ex-Labour-supporting novelist who left the Labour Party because, through its support for Bush and the Iraq War, he no longer found it left-wing enough, Hanif Kureishi. He followed straight on from 'civil rights leader' Jesse Jackson, who Justin Webb valued for his "friendly but critical analysis" of Barack Obama. All Justin's questions came from a stance pretty much identical to Rev. Jackson's, criticising Obama only from the Left. This was not good interviewing by Justin Webb ("some people say that he's been too timid in fighting back against those interests", "It's a reasonable point, isn't it, that Americans do have a strange view of the government - they both are involved it and yet dislike it, and yet his critics say, especially his critics on the Left, that actually he cold have punctured all of that if he'd been willing to go to Congress with a plan of his own early on and say back me.")

*

*

The Conservatives were not excluded, however, as the Today website makes clear: "Why are UK voters so unsure about the Tory party? They had a 26-point poll lead 18 months ago, but according to a YouGov Sunday Times poll, that lead is down to just two points. David Cameron addressed the Tory Spring Conference yesterday and himself admitted that his party faced a "real fight". John Strafford who runs the Conservative Campaign for Democracy, and Editor of Spectator Fraser Nelson, discuss what Cameron and his party have done to deserve such a drastic fall in support in the crucial run-up to the general election." Justin and Nick Robinson discussed the difficulties facing the Conservatives before John and Fraser did battle. Justin Webb interrupted them both, especially Mr Stafford. Together the conflicted Conservatives got just over 3 1/2 minutes of BBC airtime.
*
*
Council spending cuts and 'severe austerity', in Evan Davis's words, were the main story of the day. BBC reporters from Yorkshire and the Midlands reported the disapproving view of the unions before L.S.E. professor, Guardian columnist and long-standing BBC favourite Tony Travers, described as a 'local government expert', presented his opinions. He didn't single out the government for criticism. Later left-wing BBC Home Affairs editor Mark Easton also quoted the unions ("a dark period of rationalisation and savings, cuts to jobs and services as the unions prefer to describe it") before characteristically putting Labour's point of view (without balancing it with criticism of the government from the Conservatives'): "Central government is keen to avoid blame for damaging local services and makes the point that local budgets are already agreed till 2011." This is the 'to be fair' principle, easily applied to your friends.
*
Then came the big political interview of the day with Labour's communities' secretary John Denham, who immediately began by saying that Mark Easton was right.
*
Now came the redeeming feature of this typically biased edition of the programme: Evan Davis got tough with John Denham, strongly resisting his immediate attempts to attack David Cameron and forcefully and repeatedly pressing the Labour minister to come clean over his party's spending plans, even pointing out at one stage that Labour ministers seem incapable of answering such questions.This is something neither Marr nor Naughtie (nor most other BBC interviewers for that matter) would have pursued with anywhere near as much vigour (if at all) and this rebounds to Evan's credit. The I.C. was a high 1.8. There's still hope for the lad (despite recent lapses)!
*

WHEN MARR MET GEORGE OSBORNE

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

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

IT'S ALL GREEK TO HER

8
The main topic on this week's The Record Europe was the EU's response to the crisis in Greece. Presenter Shirin Wheeler's various biases were to the fore.
*
Her introductory report (which, in passing, dismissed Nigel Farage's star turn as a mere "sideshow") talked of the wave of strikes hitting Greece, complete with the obligatory images of police beating demonstrators (anarchists actually), saying "Cutting pensions, raising taxes and the retirement age, the plans aren't going down at all". This ignores the fact that opinion polls in Greece show strong public support - a significant majority - for austerity measures. Shirin is not alone at the BBC in slanting the story in this way. Is it because the Left instinctively thinks all strikes just must be good? Or maybe because the BBC is 'institutionally biased' against public spending cuts and cannot but share the sentiments of the Greek protesters? Or is it because strong 'austerity' measures (as in their coverage of Ireland) are associated in their mind with the British Conservatives?
*
She continued, "As well as this, Greece is being investigated over reports that at the time of the launch of the euro back in 1999 those in charge cooked the books to make the grade for membership. The Greek prime minister George Papandreou and his socialist ministers, who only won power in the autumn, are already feeling beleaguered and unsupported". Here's the second layer of bias. Shirin's sympathy for the new socialist government (and she stressed the word 'socialist') also showed up in her later questioning. The previous conservative government is getting all the blame at the BBC. But who exactly was "in charge" when Greece "cooked the books to make the grade for membership" in 1999? It was the Socialists (in power from 1993-2004)! Did she not know that (surely unthinkable in a 'widely respected' BBC reporter!)? Or does the careful phrasing of 'those in charge' reveal that she did know that but just wasn't letting her viewers in on the fact (in the interests of socialist solidarity maybe?)? This inconvenient detail is a truth few at the BBC seem interested in pointing out, so Shirin is not alone in this.

And, of course, it's now all the speculators' fault: "The real drama lies in how the EU might help to stop speculators gambling on the fortunes of Greece and the rest of the Eurozone. The jobs and livelihoods of millions could depend on this." That the EU, including the UK, should be helping Greece out in this regard was the motivating principle of all Shirin's questions throughout the following studio discussion.
*
That studio discussion involved four guests:
*
- Vicky Ford, British Conservative
- Peter Skinner, British Labour
- Stavros Lambrinidis, Greek Socialist
- Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, German Liberal
*
Can you guess which one was interrupted the most? The answer to this fiendishly difficult question will follow this fine picture of Toledo by the Greek:
*

8
Yes, it was Vicky Ford, the British Tory. She was interrupted four times, resulting in an I.C. of 1.6. The British Labour MP, Mr Skinner, was not interrupted once (I.C. of 0). Vicky's first answer was interrupted after 19 seconds, then again after 19 more seconds, then after 27 more seconds and finally after just 6 more seconds. Mr Skinner's first answer lasted 52 seconds, without interruption. As they say in Brussels, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
*
Shirin's final interruption of Vicky Ford was the most heartfelt: "But I mean you can't just stand...This is what the British politicians have been doing a little bit, which is sort-of standing on the sidelines saying 'it's nothing to do with me'". She also put that point about British politicians 'standing on the sidelines' to the Labour MEP and, for some reason, also to the German Liberal. Well Shirin, let the Greeks go to the IMF, was Vicky's answer (when she got a chance), which sounds like the right answer to me. Not to Shirin Wheeler though.

Now, in fairness to Shirin here was another discussion later in the show, out in the halls of the European parliament, with Timothy Kirkhope (Con) and Sarah Ludford (Lib Dem), where - in a turn up for the books - it was the Lib Dem who was interrupted rather than the Tory (I.C. of 0 for Mr Kirkhope, I.C. of 0.4 for Ms. Ludford).

CHANCER NOT CHANCELLOR

*
The Conservatives' 'Death Tax' poster earned them a lot of criticism from the BBC (several examples of which are mentioned on this blog). The charge was of 'negative campaigning'. Conservatives were asked about it, again and again - and their opponents were invited to 'tut tut' over it. The question here is whether the BBC will question Labour Party people - and give their opponents a clear run at goal - whenever they bring out a 'negative' poster? We'll soon find out because Labour is just about to do so!

This weekend, the party is releasing more pre-election campaign material. An image of shadow chancellor George Osborne is accompanied by the slogan 'Chancer not Chancellor'". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8539619.stm

That's about as 'negative' as campaigning can get, isn't it?
*
The article quoted from contains no editorial asides suggesting that this new Labour poster might be considered 'negative'. Is this a sign that there's not going to be any such BBC brouhaha over this poster?