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!

JUST IN TIME

*
The Advertising Standards Agency has given young Ed Miliband a red face by ruling that two government adverts using nursery rhymes exaggerated the threat posed to Britain by 'global warming'. This newsworthy story was reported in the Sunday papers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7440664/Government-rebuked-over-global-warming-nursery-rhyme-adverts.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7061162.ece
*
The BBC held off on the story for a few days before launching a series of defensive manoeuvres.
*
Catch while you can Justin Webb's Today discussion with Torin Douglas (6.43am)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006qj9z/console
*
Justin here spins the story to put Labour in the least embarrassing light possible: "So just in a few words Torin, this is sort of a score draw, isn't it, between the government and those who complained? Some of the adverts passed and a couple, on almost a technicality, not." Torin replied, "I think you're right on that. Yep."
*
Justin returned to the subject later, first closely questioning Guy Parker of the ASA then very gently interviewing Ed Miliband himself. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8571000/8571728.stm
*
Give Justin a Tory to interview and the interruptions will fly, but present him with a Labour Climate Change secretary and you'll hear very few interruptions (just one today). There were few questions and they were all bowled underarm.
*
That belated BBC News website article on the story has already been relegated to the margins of the Science and Environment page. Look for 'Monkeys learn more from females' (actually much more my sort of story!) and go down two items: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm. It is also clinging precariously to the margins of the Politics Page after a short stay there too http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm).
*
The links to other newspapers in the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8571353.stm)
do not include either The Times or The Telegraph, which were running the story four days ago - doubtless for that very reason i.e. that they'd already covered it four days ago!! Fellow laggards like The Independent, however, do receive links. Mr Miliband's defence is quoted at length and his interview with Justin Webb is also linked too - though not the preceding interview with Mr Parker of the ASA for some (guessable) reason. One of the 'cleared' government ads is featured in full, so you can enjoy this public 'information' film at your own leisure!
*
The BBC has grudgingly done its bit by covering the story (days late) and playing down its embarrassing aspects for Labour. Now it can move on and never mention it again.

NOT A LAMB IN SIGHT

*
Not a sheep blogged this morning that the BBC is ignoring another political story of considerable importance:

Labour's coming NHS cuts

The Telegraph reports that: "Hundreds of NHS wards to be shut in secret plans"
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/labours-coming-nhs-cuts.html

*
Labour's secret plans for swingeing cuts are criticised in The Telegraph by Norman Lamb of the Lib Dems, so it's already an election issue - or should be. I've waited a few hours to see if anything pops up anywhere on the BBC News website but, nine hours on, the story is still nowhere to be seen.
*
Here's Not a sheep's conclusion:

NHS cuts planned by Labour and of course not a word on the BBC who prefer to concentrate on speculation about Lord Ashcroft. Labour know big cuts will need to be made post the election, the BBC know that this is the case but there is a general election campaign to be won for Labour so it's shhhh don't scare the Labour voters and let the truth go hang. I would be disgusted if I had not predicted this so long ago.

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!

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!!

SNIPING AT BARONESS ASHTON

*
The BBC News website's Politics Page contains an article called 'Under fire', and the sub-heading 'Brussels sniping tests Lady Ashton's EU diplomatic skill'. The word sniping implies malice and underhand behaviour. (To snipe is 'to attack a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. anonymously or from a safe distance.'). The BBC sub-heading thus casts an aspersion on Lady Ashton's many critics - an aspersion which, if you read the article proper, is completely unwarranted. Her critics are very open and very serious:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8546108.stm
*
The baroness was interviewed on this morning's Today by man of the moment James Naughtie. I can do no better here than quote DB's spot-on headline on the Biased BBC blogsite: 'Naughtie: Can I Plump Your Pillows, Lady Ashton?' http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/naughtie-can-i-plump-your-pillows-lady.html No interruptions and no challenges, and this obsequious question: "You're a hundred days into the new job now. I mean, this is the kind of long term work that you have to do. Do you feel at all drained by some of the arguments that have been erupting in Europe about the settlement after the Lisbon Treaty was ratified and the way the appointments were made and so on?" DB dryly comments, "What touching concern for her "long term work" and the wearisome distractions she has had to endure, the poor never-elected thing." Indeed!

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)!
*

MISMANAGEMENT, WHAT MISMANAGEMENT?

&

I've noted before occasional World Tonight presenter Felicity Evans's tendency to intervene whenever Labour comes under attack. Felicity (pictured left) now sits alongside Adrian Masters as co-presenter of Wales's politics show Dragon's Eye and in her interview with Welsh Lib Dem leader Kirsty Williams (pictured right) she made her first interruption as soon as Kirsty criticised Labour's mishandling of the economy, asking "Why do you say 'mismanagement of the economy' though? Would the Liberal Democrats not have stepped in to save the banking system from collapse?" Yes Felicity, Labour have been great for Britain, haven't they?

WHEN MARR MET PETER HAIN

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

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

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

WHEN MARR MET GEORGE OSBORNE

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

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

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?

AN EYEBROW-BEATING FOR MR DARLING

8
Yesterday morning's chat between Norman Smith and John Humphrys saw Smithie moving the bullying story on. He said that politicians, journalists and the general public were keen to move on from this uncomfortable episode. The phrase move on came up again and again.

The BBC News website would clearly like to do as Norm wants us all to do but can't, thanks to Alistair Darling's eyebrow-raising revelations about how Brown's inner circle unleashed the forces of Hell against him, not to mention immigration minister Phil Woolas's jaw-droppingly unpleasant comment about Mrs Pratt and enemy-of-the-people Max Clifford's surprise decision to represent Mrs P's interests.

The Woolas story is, in classic BBC fashion, buried away in an unmarked grave. The article is headlined 'Brown 'very upset' by bullying claims, says Ed Balls'. You will need to scroll down to Paragraph 25 (after lots of warm words about Brown from Balls, Mrs Brown and His Lordship Sugar) for three short paragraphs on the story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8529809.stm

What's almost funny about the article on the Darling revelations is the way the BBC writer keeps bringing in the Tories. Mr Darling himself brought them in, but the Jeff Randall interview and the way it's been reported elsewhere (from The Telegraph to The Guardian) makes it clear that the chancellor's mentioning of the Conservatives was pretty much a side issue. The BBC writer, however, wants to make it share centre stage with the main revelations about McBride and Whelan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8533168.stm

These are the opening pair of paragraphs:

Chancellor Alistair Darling has said 10 Downing Street and the Tories unleashed "the forces of hell" after he forecast the worst recession for 60 years.

He said supporters of Gordon Brown and the Conservatives had briefed against him on "a weekend you could have done without" after his interview in 2008.

Give this guy McBride's old job in Downing Street!

MR SMITH GOES TO DOWNING STREET

*
Going back in time (as I have a habit of doing) and re-visiting yesterday's Today finds John Humphrys chatting to Labour-leaning BBC political correspondent Norman Smith at 6.32 am. Smith was in full 'Protect the Emperor' mode, presenting Number Ten's case without criticism. He reported the allegations - which he insisted did not come from Number Ten itself - that Mrs Pratt is nothing more than a Tory Stooge, on the extremely dubious logic that her office is "next door to" a Conservative constituency office (!!!!), that Ann Widdecombe is (now was) a chief patron of her charity (thus ignoring Labour MP Anne Snelgrove's crucial early support) and that David Cameron had just e-mailed her his support, without qualifying them in any way. (On the first point I used to live opposite a brothel!) That this just might have been nothing more than a disgusting and risible smear wasn't even entertained at this point by either Norm or John.
*
The Tory stooge accusation, later repeated by Lord Mandelson and others, remains completely unproven. Smith also reported the Brownites' allegation that Mrs P. had a personal animus against Gordon Brown, which was of course another completely unsupported allegation (i.e. another smear). Messers Smith and Humphrys again didn't think it worth raising even the merest whiff of doubt about it.
*
Smith then reported Labour's second line of attack on the credibility of her charity/business and then the third, that Mrs P. had breached confidentiality. I have to say I think she did, and shouldn't have done - but, in her defence (a defence not put by Smith of course) she didn't name any names, leaving the broken confidences anonymous broken confidences! Smith piled on the agony here, saying "and I have to say that is a criticism not just made by friends of the prime minister but indeed by other bullying helplines," "at least one" of which criticised her on their website. ("At least one"? What does that mean? How many exactly? Was there really only one at the time? If so, that would make it yet another smear.)
*
In conclusion Smith presented both sides of the issue, though one gets a more positive (and longer) spin (guess which one!) than the other: "Some people will conclude that his explosions of anger, his alleged bullying, do raise fundamental questions about the appropriateness of him in Number Ten. Others will say 'look, it just demonstrates he is a determined and committed character, he may get angry but it shows he cares about what he does and they may well argue that Number Ten, highly pressurised job, but what an earth do you expect?'"
*
From the beginning this was little more than Labour propaganda, served neat.

I'M NOT HAPPY!

John Humphrys, about whom I wrote a few complimentary things recently, blotted his copy-book this morning by treating Christine Pratt, the head of the anti-bullying helpline, to an inquisition of the Spanish variety while (despite plenty of interruptions) giving Anne Snelgrove, Labour MP and member of Brown's inner circle a far less rigorous going-over. That Ms Snelgrove had handed over e-mails critical of Mrs Pratt and her husband to the Today programme while refusing to commit herself to any of the allegations they contain, and then accused Mrs Pratt of making unsubstantiated allegations against Brown, all the time refusing (like a petulant child) to share the same interview with her, tells you all you need to know about Anne Snelgrove and the sort of company the prime minister keeps. John Humphrys was lamentably weak in pushing these points. Not so though in his handling of Mrs Pratt. The senior politician was treated much better than the far less powerful member of society in this interview - how apt given the allegations against Gordzilla! The I.C. for Anne Snelgrove was 1.6, that for Mrs Pratt 2.1. Shame on John Humphrys! Then there was Sarah Montague's crack to Nick Clegg about many of our best prime ministers being bullies. Shame on Sarah Montague! The political class are a disgrace, aren't they?
*
Sorry for waxing a bit hot there. I'm not in a jolly mood. There's something of the mafia mentality about this government, and some of their media supporters. Coming in from work and seeing that disgusting, smeary Prescott interview really got me going. You just know that the likes of Mandelson, Brown, McBride, Prescott, Draper, Watson, Maguire, Snelgrove, Balls et al would stop at very little to stay in power. The Conservatives lack that killer instinct, which is probably why they won't win power. Funny old world isn't it?

Sticking the knife in tonight (though the crime figures won't show it) is BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/02/bullying_helpline_under_scruti.html. Yes, there's no doubt about it, this lady is going to be destroyed.
Wo'
Worse may still be to come. Michael Crick must surely make an appearance on Newsnight. Surely somehow this will all be made to look very bad for David Cameron and the Tories. (UPDATE: I called that one wrong! Despite beginning his report with news of Tory support falling in the polls, he didn't attack over the story.)
*

YOU AIN'T HEARD NOTHING LIKE THE BIASED QUINN

*
Only Westminster Hour would choose to begin last night's programme with bad poll news for the Tories. On a day dominated by a deeply embarrassing story for Gordon Brown and the Labour Party, Carolyn Quinn kicked off the discussion between Mr Forsyth and Mr Smithson with news of the the shrinkage of the Conservative lead over Labour to just 6%.
8
This, however, was not the worst of it. Carolyn seemed deternimed to play down the bullying story at every turn. Her question to Mike Smithson, "Will they (the Labour Party) be helped or hindered by today's revelations?", was an odd one for starters. Then to James Forsyth came "James, there have been denials of course from Number 10 about the allegations. I've spoken to senior cabinet ministers who 'well my eye-witness account is not that he's violent, but then there are the charges that he's aggressive to more junior staff?" Then came "Mike, the prime minister's response, he's strong-willed, he's determined, isn't that a good response to this, that yes he gets angry, but he gets angry for a purpose, he gets angry with himself?" When the politics panel came (late) to the topic, there came this question to Conservative Douglas Carswell: "And if we're talking about anger, about anger management, I mean let's face it, there must be times when David Cameron and Nick Clegg have had a bit of a temper tantrum, haven't they Douglas? Have you ever seen David Cameron lose his temper?"
**
Last Monday I pointed out that, given that last week's panel featured only a Labour and Lib Dem spokesman, this week it would probably be just a Conservative and a representative from a smaller party. Well no. We got the Tory (Mr Carswell) but we also got Labour again (Tom Harris) and another Lib Dem (Matthew Oakeshott). I'm keeping count, and that means that the Tories are now behind and owed one. Lord Oakeshott had plenty of goes at George Osborne and David Cameron, and praised Gordon Brown. The Lib-Lab pact grows stronger by the week.
*
The sheer viciousness of the Labour Party, from the Smeargate Affair to the sickening bullying of the lady at the Anti-Bullying helpline today (I've just witnessed John Prescott getting particularly smeary about her on Sky), via all the myriad personal attacks on David Cameron over the last couple of years, might lead a BBC prcsenter to steer clear of pointing the finger at the Tories over the issue of negative campaigning. Of course not. William Hague's accusation that Brown is pushing the UK yet deeper into debt as a scorched earth policy to make life tough for an incoming Tory government lead Carolyn to ask "Douglas, are you happy with that tack?" and then interrupt him to ask "But do you like negative campaigning like that?" Carolyn Quinn has been engaged in negative campaigning against the Conservatives for years.
*

GENETIC BIAS

*

The Politics Show today featured a discussion about the D.N.A. database between Alan Johnson, Chris Grayling and Chris Huhne.

*

Now I'd have expected the BBC's left-liberal instincts (especially the latter) to come through and lead to wholesale questioning by Jon Sopel of the idea of keeping any innocent person's genetic information. Not a bit of it. None of his questions came from that angle. He interrupted Chris Grayling twice (I.C. of 0.8), which was expected, but he always interrupted Chris Huhne twice, and tried to interrupt him more times as well (also an I.C. of 0.8), which I wasn't expecting. Only Alan Johnson, returning from an earlier interview on 'Bully' Brown, emerged relatively unscathed (I.C. of 0.3 here).

*

This followed a short introductory package by Sopel in which he featured a chief constable, Chris Sims, who supported the government's position, as well as the mother of Sally Ann Bowman, who also supported the government's position - though she wanted it to go even further. Where was Liberty? They always ask Liberty usually!! Only supporters of the Labour government's position then, oddly. Just before the end of his introduction, Sopel said of the Scottish model (pictured) "This is the system the Conservatives would like to see in the rest of the country but there's a warning from the police", at which Mr Sims returned to give that warning. So not just only supporters of the Labour government's position, but a warning about adopting the Conservatives' favoured approach!

*

That must be why The Politics Show denied its Guardianesque instincts and embraced the government's illiberal position on the DNA database: There's an election due! Every other consideration must be set aside until after the election.

**

THAT WAS A PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTING HOUSE ON BEHALF OF...

*
Not even the BBC could ignore Observer columnist Andrew Rawnsley's revelations about the sheer unpleasantness of Gordon Brown. They can, of course, try to take the sting out of it though.
*
Paddy O'Connell on 'Broadcasting House' (Radio 4 at the same time as Marr) interrupted Lance Price, who was telling us about Brown's behaviour towards secretaries, typists and drivers, to say "I should say that, as I've read it this morning, the book says he's also got a softer side, being incredibly solicitous at times of family emergency and bereavement".
*
He then tried to dismiss it all: "I wonder if the fair-minded listener thinks here's a book, here's a new look newspaper, here are the chattering classes chattering".
*
After the next piece (on the Irish economy), O'Connell read out an e-mail from "Simon Gough, who's our listener", saying "This is a media obsession. The electorate are more interested in politics than in personality". That was the only e-mail he read out.
*
The programme's paper review ignored the story completely. The guests must have been told not to talk about it. Or, given what a left-wing bunch they were, they chose not to talk about it.
*
*
The section on the Irish economy took the form of an interview with Irish finance minister Martin Mansergh. It was prefaced by remarks from O'Connell that are absolutely in keeping with the BBC's narrative on this story.
*
I've noted here before - in fact every time I've heard the BBC report on the strong actions taken by the Irish government to tackle their economic disaster - that they frame the debate in such a way as to present the Irish government and its actions in the worst possible light. Several of these reports have only featured critical voices and voices from the Left, especially the trade unions. Why? Because the Irish government's resolute cutting of public spending and its urgency are not something that the BBC (or the Labour Party) wants to present in a good light. Paddy said that the Irish government "has already instituted a package of tax rises and of spending cuts that union leaders say is a charter for exploitation. One said 'take one job at any price or emigrate'."

*
The interview went so badly that at first I really did think it was a spoof! Mr Mansergh, however, mustn't be used to being interviewed by the likes of the BBC. He even got told off by Paddy O'Connell. Paddy brought up the conflict between our economists over the issue of when to start cutting in earnest. When Mr Mansergh said, "Yes I read read the Financial Times this morning..." and began laughing, for some reason, O'Connell interrupted and said in a very disapproving tone of voice "Yes, and you're laughing. It's no laughing matter, is it?" "No it isn't", replied Mr Mansergh contritely. "Let's just run through the cuts that you made...", Paddy said and moved on to do just that.
*
*
This whole edition of the programme stank with bias. After reading out that e-mail about the listener's request for serious discussion of policy (i.e. leave off Brown), O'Connell brought up David Cameron's Woman's Hour interview with Jenny Murray and the Conservative leader's statement that 'a broader conservation at home' is the best kind of conversation. This was followed by an actual spoof on what Cameron had said - though not a very funny one - from Helen Lederer and Howard Ward.
*
And this wasn't the only dig at the Tories. More subtle (and interesting) was the programme's Who Do You Think You Archive section, which featured transsexual Nina Smith (formerly Nigel Smith), who wanted to hear a clip from the 1970 Conservative Party conference where Nina, then Nigel, spoke out against the Conservatives' proposal to lift the arms embargo on South Africa. This reminded BH listeners of the Conservatives' past transgressions over apartheid. Nigel Smith left the Conservative Party in 1972.
*
Then came the paper review. We had Susannah Clapp, doyenne of left-wing critics at The Observer (who attacked Boris Johnson), Kathy Lette, an avowed Labour supporter and all-round self-parody of a mouthy Australian feminist comedienne ("I think Cameron's a charisma wrap in a vacuum, so I'm glad Labour is doing well", she said) and, finally, left-wing journalist and novelist John Lanchester, who also had a dig at the Tories. What a balanced crowd that what! A Labour election rally couldn't have contained more lefties!!
*

DON'T LEAVE US AGAIN EDDIE!

*
While Eddie's away the Quinns will play! Yesterday's PM, presented by leftie lassie Carolyn Quinn, was one of the worst I've heard for ages.
*
It featured an extremely soft interview by BBC economics 'guru' Nils Blythe of Peter Mandelson in the wake of Brown's right-wing-bashing speech at the Policy Network conference. Three easy questions and no interruptions from Nils, lots of Brown-nosing and attacks on the Tories from Mandy.
*
A report by Andrew Harding from Argentina on that country's posturing over the Falkland Islands saw Andy neglect to mention that Argentina's posturing (but beautiful) president is a socialist. Had the fair Cristina (pictured with all the inevitability of a Paxman sneer) been a right-winger you can bet your bottom peso he'd have thought it worth mentioning - especially as there was criticism of her from various Argentinians.
*
The programme then mounted the green platform and spent what seemed like an eternity discussing a row between the government (represented by Lord Hunt) and an electricity generator that wants subsidies to transfer from coal to renewable 'biomass' energy. Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson stuck his oar in here. Carolyn's questions tended towards Darren's position while she was interviewing the Labour lord.
*
The programme stayed on the same platform for a report by BBC science correspondent Palab Gosh on electric cars in America, and how they could save us from our gas-guzzling cars, which are "pouring carbon dioxide into the planet's atmosphere." He talked to a broccoli-juice drinking (no, honestly!) Californian couple who believe their solar-panel fitted sports car points the way to the future.
*

ALLYSON POLLOCK AND JIM PILLOCK

*
Who did James Naughtie talk to about Scotland's social care service, which was to be discussed at Andy Burnham's 'emergency conference' today?
*
He talked to Allyson Pollock of the Centre for International Public Health Policy at Edinburgh University. She campaigns against private involvement in the NHS (not that Naughtie told us that, of course, when introducing her) and writes for two left-wing newspapers, The Guardian and The Herald.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8523000/8523441.stm
**
You might expect her pro-public-sector views (reflected in Scotland's system) to chime with Jim's and you'd be dead right. He asked her no hard questions at all. Several of those he did ask merely invited her to explain how the system works. His question about the cost brought the statement from Allyson that "there are huge savings in this because...", at which Naughtie leapt in enthusiastically to back her up, "Well, that's the point that's often not made. It's a way of saving money in other costs." Well might her immediate response have been "Indeed it is!" If you thought that was a pretty biased intervention, try Naughtie's next question: "In other words what lies behind your argument is if you decide that you want to do it and it's a good thing it can be done and it is affordable." Again, how could begin her answer with any other word but 'indeed!' Allyson Pollock if anything sounded a bit startled. She's was clearly not expecting such openly supportive interviewing. Still, she immediately relaxed again (as well she might) and went on.
*
Naughtie's performance on today's Today was awful.
*
In advance of the interview Naughtie talked of Mr Burnham's wish for cross-party consensus and reminded his listeners that the wicked Tories 'broke off' private discussions on the subject last week. , b*
*
UPDATE
*
Interestingly Thursday night's Newnight also mentioned this glorious Scottish care system, but (and all credit to him for this) Gavin Esler asked "I mean Scotland has it's own system, which is quite different but which is also proving to be quite expensive, because it's very difficult to finance it." Now that's something Naughtie didn't point out. Quite the reverse.