THE ILL LUCK OF THE IRISH

*
The decisive public spending cuts made by the Irish government (in contrast to our own Labour government) came under the critical eye of this morning's Today programme:

The Irish economy - once the Celtic Tiger - is one of the worst-hit by the
worldwide recession. Unemployment currently stands at 12% and the country is
12bn Euros in debt. Last week the Irish government brought in what many are
calling the severest budget in the nation's history. Wages for public sector
workers were cut, and welfare spending was reduced, and anger is growing that
the country's poor seem to be paying for the mistakes of the rich. Correspondent
Mike Thomson reports from Dublin.

You might have expected that a balanced report would have followed this introduction (though that would suggest that you don't know the biased Beeb very well!). Mike Thompson's report, in fact, turned out to be woefully biased against the Irish government and its actions - and by extension the actions of any party (the Conservatives? UKIP?) that might consider following their example here in the U.K. It was pure left-wing propaganda.
*
Adopting a concerned tone of voice throughout, Thompson roamed around Dublin. He talked first to "Fintan O'Toole, veteran columnist of the Irish Times". The Irish Times is Ireland's equivalent of The Guardian, and Wikipedia notes that Mr O'Toole holds "generally left-wing views." He attacked the Irish government for deflecting blame away from itself and onto "an allegedly underperforming and overpaid public sector" (in Thompson's words). A teacher, Ann English, followed. "She too believes that...public sector workers here have been unfairly blamed for all the country's ills". Father Peter McVerry followed and denounced "cuts in dole money, child benefits and a host of other social services. This he insists is both wrong and unjust." (He also attacked the rich. Checking him out he's "a socialist, activist, author and Jesuit".) Many of the red priest's 'troubled youths' added further criticisms. Then, to bolster his contention that "trouble could be on the way" - Thompson talked to Jack O'Connor, president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. To the sound of a merry-go-round, Thompson then reached his point: "And what goes round might also come around for the people of Britain. Fintan O'Toole." O'Toole backed his point.
*
Not a Sheep points out a few lessons from this:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/12/bbc-today-programme-always-something.html
*
To give some redress, later in the programme Sarah Montague interviewed Ireland's Europe minister Dick Roche. The interview lasted just less than half the time that Thompson's totally oppositional report took to make its case. Is that fair?
*
This is not the first instance of this. Please see here http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/12/robin-leftig.html
and you'll see what I mean. I suspect it won't be the last either.
*

SIBERIAN SNOW FALLS ON ANDREW LILICO

*
Where James Naughtie and Justin Webb went yesterday, Sarah Montague went today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8413000/8413170.stm
*
Go to the Today programme website (see above) and you'll see this:

7.48 The government has praised its own policies for better than expected
unemployment figures, and has said that future unemployment would have been
even higher without government action. Professor of human geography at
the University of Sheffield, Daniel Dorling, discusses the
government's claims

You can click on the 'listen' icon and hear all that the left-wing professor (and frequent Today programme guest) has to say, as he praises Labour and condemns the Conservatives, advocates public spending and deprecates cuts.
*
Look further down the page and you see this:

0847 Professor of human geography at the University of Sheffield, Daniel
Dorling, said on the programme that cutting public spending and public sector
jobs was not an inevitable or efficient way of reducing the deficit. Andrew
Lilico, who sits on the shadow Monetary Policy Committee run by the Institute of
Economic Affairs, reacts to Professor Dorling's comments.

Inexplicably, here you cannot click on a 'listen' icon. There isn't one! To hear it you must go to the 'listen to full programme' option (how many people ever do that?) and scroll forward 2hrs and 48 minutes!! What possible reason could there be for not allowing the same sort of easy access to this interview that was granted to all the other interviews between 7.00 and 9.00am. It's almost as if the pro-government expert were being placed in the limelight at a parade in Red Square while the anti-government expert was being sent to the radio equivalent of Siberia. Truly bizarre.
*
This is not all.
*
Danny Dorling of the Left, got 4 minutes 29 seconds' worth of interview time, whereas Mr Lilico of the Right, got only 2 minutes 27 seconds (i.e. two minutes less).
*
Danny Dorling of the Left was interrupted once, whereas Mr Lilico of the Right was interrupted twice.
*
Danny Dorling of the Left therefore earned Sarah Montague of the BBC an I.C. of 0.2, whereas Mr Lilico of the Right earned her an I.C. of 0.9.
*

WEBB UNWOUND

*
The same edition of Today (14/11) saw Naughtie's colleague Justin Webb conduct a very gentle interview with Labour's Hilary Benn (1 interruption in a long interview, I.C. of 0.2).
*
His other significant contribution to the programme was this:

Are bankers planning to leave London in response to the supertax on bonuses and
what they perceive as hostility to their trade? Stuart Popham, chair of City
UK,
a new organisation formed to promote financial services and Will Hutton
of the
Work Foundation discuss the importance of financial services to the
country.

In the same left-wing spirit as the Naughtie-Hammond interview, Justin Webb asked 4 questions of Mr Popham but only one of Mr Hutton (who was only on the programme last week). He didn't interrupt Will Hutton at all but interrupted Mr Popham twice in under 2 1/2 minutes (I.C.s of 0.9 against Stuart Popham and, obviously, 0 against Mr Hutton).
*
Webb's own point-of-view wasn't disguised. In his introductory words he described the reports in the papers about bankers saying they would leave London as "chatter".
*
0.26 Q1 (to SP): "Stuart Popham first of all. What..do you know people who are going?"
0.30 A1 (SP)
0.44 Interruption 1/Q2 (to SP): "So is this more of a warning shot than an actual, sort of, people packing their case and going?"
0.49 A2 (SP)
1.06 Q3 (to SP) "Is it your case though that the government with the supertax has overstepped the mark?"
1.12 A3 (SP)
1.28 Q4 (to WH): "Will Hutton, you'd be happy to see some of them go, wouldn't you?"
1.31 A4 (WH) - note that Will Hutton's answer goes on, uninterrupted, for 1 minute 7 seconds!
2.38 Q5 (to SP:) "Stuart Popham?"
2.39 A5 (SP)
3.13 WH interrupts and takes over (at 3.14 Justin Webb backs this verbal coup d'etat with the words "Will Hutton". Mr Popham is still talking but is stopped by this. This maybe should count as a third interruption by Justin Webb!). Will asks Stuart Popham a question.
3.43 Q6 (to SP): "Stuart Popham?"
3.44 A6 (SP)
4.00 Interruption 2/Q7 (to SP): "Yeah, but the point is th..Stuart..the point Will Hutton made, Stuart Popham, is that London does still provide an incredibly important base for banks and an incredibly stable base for banks, and actually to complain about instability, particularly with regards to tax, is really to rather miss a wider and more important point". (Justin, taking Will's side. Shouldn't he have asked Hutton a challenging question here instead of Mr Popham -for the sake of fairness?).
4.15 A7 (SP)
4.31 Interruption: "OK Stuart Popham, Stuart Popham, we've out of time I'm afraid, and Will Hutton, thank you both very much." (Unlike the interruption Naughtie used to round off the Hammond-Huhne interview, this one really was because they were out of time - the 8.00 News beckoned).
*

NAUGHTIE UNBOUND

*
Here's how the Today website introduced this morning's remarkable bout between Phillip Hammond and James Naughtie (with Chris Huhne of the Lib Dems acting throughout as Naughtie's second.)

All MPs and peers would have to pay taxes
in the UK under legislation that would be rushed through if he became prime
minister, David Cameron has said. Shadow chief secretary to the treasury Philip
Hammond discusses the proposal with Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman
Chris Huhne.

*
The statistics tell a lot of the story. Phillip Hammond was interrupted 16 times by Naughtie (an extremely high I.C of 3.5), Chris Huhne only once (I.C. of only 0.4) - and even that interruption was not aimed at Huhne but made so that the over-excited Naughtie could have yet another go at Mr Hammond. Hammond was subjected to an inquisition, especially over the Left's bête noire Lord Ashcroft, while Huhne was only asked just one question in over 8 minutes. If that isn't proof of bias I don't know what is.
*
Here's how the interview went:
*
0.34 Question 1 (to Phillip Hammond): "Let's try and be as clear as we can about this Mr Hammond because it's a confusing matter to many people. (Is it really Jim?) Is this proposal one which will mean that if you sit in the Lords and the Commons you cannot be a so-called non-dom?"
00.49 A1 (PH)
1.o3 Q2 (to PH): "Does that mean that you couldn't have a fortune elsewhere on which you paid taxes outside this country?"
1.08 A2 (PH)
2.02 Q3 (to Chris Huhne): "Right Chris Huhne, is that clear?" (That was the only question Huhne was asked!! A toughie, eh?!)
2.03 A3 (CH, speaking uninterrupted for a minute)
3.04 PH answers CH
3.25 CH interrupts and takes over again (again speaking uninterrupted for a minute)
4.24 Q4 (to PH): "Is that your view Phillip Hammond?"
4.26 A4 (PH)
4.29 Interruption 1 (after just 3 seconds of Hammond's answer!!)/Q5: "Because the problem you've got here with Lord Ashcroft, a deputy chairman of your party, is, I quote him from his website, "If home is where the heart is then Belize is my home." (Should Naughtie have asserted this this is a problem?)
4.41 A5 (PH)
4.43 Interruption 2 (this time just 2 seconds of Hammond's answer!!!): "It's not sentimental, it's a business statement." (The end of Naughtie's hostile interruption is unintelligible because Chris Huhne chips in to agree with Naughtie and Phillip Hammond struggles on.)
4.52 a quiet "OK" from Naughtie (signalling that Huhne can interrupt again? Whatever, Huhne begins to interrupt here)
4.55 a louder "OK" from Naughtie (Huhne's interruption becomes stronger)
5.00 Naughie helps Huhne take over. Huhne alone.
5.12 Hammond begins to interrupt back (with Naughtie's backing, "Phillip Hammond, quickly!" )
5.21 PH takes over fully after Huhne has finished his point
5.35 Abortive interruption, "Let me.."
5.41 Interruption 3/Q6 (to PH): "Let me ask you one question. Mr Hammond, let me ask you a question about Lord Ashcroft (you've already one Jim!!), because he is a deputy chairman of your party (as you've already mentioned Jim!!) and one of it's big backers. Is he a non-dom?"
5.50 A6 (PH)
5.54 Interruption 4 (after only 4 seconds of Hammond's answer)/Q7 to PH: "You don't know? Do you know?"
5.55 A7 (PH)
5.56 Interruption 5 (after only 1 second of Hammond's answer)/Q8 to PH (with an over-emphatic tone of voice): "You don't know whether the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, who sits in the House of Lords, is a non-dom or not?"
6.01 A8 (PH)
6.11 Interruption 6 (after 10 seconds)/Q9 (sternly) to PH: "And what exactly were those commitments, just remind us?"
6.14 PH struggles on gamely
6.16 Interruption 7 (after 2 seconds)/Q10 (loudly) to PH: "Have been, have been met, aren't going to be met, have been met, you're saying?"
6.20 A9 (PH)
6.24 Interruption 8 (after 4 seconds)/Q11 to PH: "What were the commitments that were made?"
6.26 PH struggles on gamely
6.31 Interruption 9 (after 5 seconds)/Q12 to PH: "And what were they?"
6.32 PH gives up
6.34 Q13 to PH: "So when you and others say, in a phrase that Mr Hague and others have used, is (sic) fulfills the obligations that were imposed on him at the time he became a peer, (emphatically:) you don't know what those obligations were. (Brusquely:) Is that correct?"
6.46 A10 (PH)
6.47 Interruption 10 (after 1 second)/Q13 to PH: "Does Mr Cameron know?"
6.48 PH struggles on gamely
6.54 Interruption 11 (after 6 seconds)/Q14 to PH: "So Mr Hague will know whether he's a non-dom or not?"
6.56 PH struggles on gamely
7.01 Interruption 12 (after 5 seconds)/Q15 to PH: "But hang on, you see, you...the problem is David Cameron's saying he wants..."
7.06 PH struggles on gamely
(7.07 "Well")
7.12 Interruption 13 (after 5 seconds)/Q16 to PH: "But not before the election?"
7.13 PH struggles on gamely
7.21 Interruption 14 (after 8 seconds. What took him so long??!!)/Q17 to PH: "But to be clear since you can't legislate from in opposition..."
7.24 PH struggles on gamely
7.26 Interruption 15 (after 2 seconds), "No, well.." (at which Chris Huhne interrupts and takes over).
7.27 Chris Huhne alone
7.42 Interruption 16 (against Chris Huhne!!!!!)/Q18 to PH:"What you're saying..hang on, Mr Hammond, just to be finally clear about one thing, we won't know what Lord Ashcroft's tax position is until after the election, is that correct, because you can't legislate?"
7.54 A11 (PH)
8.11 Interruption 17: "Phillip Hammond, Chris Huhne, thank you both." (There was no need, other than sheer rudeness, to cut Mr Hammond off here so abruptly.)

This belligerent questioning of a Conservative contrasted not only with Naughtie's treatment of the Liberal Democrat in this same interview (including two long, uninterrupted answers) but with another Liberal Democrat David Laws in an earlier interview. This lasted nearly 3 1/2 minutes but contained only 2 questions and no interruptions (I.C. of 0). Law's first uninterrupted answer lasted 54 seconds, his second uninterrupted answer no less than 1 min and 40 seconds! Naughtie's tone was as thoughtful and gentle as could be.
*
A Labour councillor, David Sparkes, was also interviewed by Biased Jim - 3 questions, no interruptions (I.C. of 0).
*
Naughtie should be ashamed of himself. A complaint will be sent, with full details of Naughtie's many previous crimes against impartiality.*
*
*

*
*
*
Afterthought (as of 9.15 pm): Will Michael Crick be able to resist talking about this on tonight's Newsnight? I bet he's begging the programme's producer to ditch some important story or other & let him present a (biased) report on the issue. Will he get his way? Or will the British Airways strike, Copenhagen and a host of other bigger stories put a dampener on Crick's Tory-bashing aspirations? We'll see.
Update: The answer was 'no'. So much for my powers of prediction!

OCH, THAT'S NAE FAIR

*
For anyone who doesn't watch BBC 1 in Scotland, or the BBC's Parliament Channel, The Politics Show: Scotland is available on the BBC i-player. Today's edition confirmed many of the points I have made (intermittently) on this blog about the programme's various biases. I have suggested that the show's presenter Glenn Campbell is a leftie sympathetic to Labour and the Liberal Democrats while being unsympathetic to the Conservatives and SNP.
*
The Pre-Budget Report of Alistair Darling and the coming Scottish S.N.P. Budget was discussed in a joint interview between the Scottish government's finance secretary John Swinney (of the SNP) and Labour's Andy Kerr. The interview could not have been less evenly handled! Though Mr Swinney got a little bit longer to speak (4 minutes 40 seconds to Mr Kerr's 4 minutes), he was interrupted 5 times while Mr Kerr was not interrupted at all. The I.C.s work out as 1.1 against John Swinney and 0 against Andy Kerr. Kerr was allowed to ramble along to the very end of his answers (with no great coherence at times) while Swinney was badgered throughout. Case proved I'd say as regards anti-SNP/pro-Labour bias. (I, naturally, don't care for either party!)
*
The issue was also discussed with Tavish Scott, affable leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Here there was only one interruption, resulting in a small I.C. of 0.3. Further proof!
*
There were no Conservative on the programme. The nearest we got to a Conservative was Iain McMillan of the Scottish C.B.I., described (in typical left-wing terminology) by Glenn Campbell as "the bosses' organisation". This interview resulted in the day's highest I.C. of 1.3 (with 9 interruptions). During the interview Campbell called public-private initiatives "a rip-off" and spoke up for the public sector. This may be a questioner's stance, but it's not a surprising one for this interviewer (who is now appearing nationally as an occassional presenter on Radio 4's PM.)
*

FRIENDS OF MANDY

*
I'm still catching up on my weekly round of BBC programmes & have a couple of short observations to make about this week's run of PM.
**
When you have separate interviews with spokesman from various political parties on the same day, with the same interviewer, and on the same subject, bias is most easily spotted. Wednesday was Pre-Budget Report day & representatives of the two main parties and the Liberal Democrats were interviewed by Eddie Mair. Compare the amount of time each got, & you'll see bias:
*
Liam Byrne (Labour) - 5 minutes 22 seconds
Vince Cable (Lib Dem) - 3 minutes 37 seconds
Phillip Hammond (Conservative) - 2 minutes 36 seconds
*
Check out the interruption coefficients too and you'll find more evidence:
*
Phillip Hammond - 1.7
Liam Byrne - 1.1
Vince Cable - 0.3
*
Eddie characteristically redeemed himself - though not his producers - (retrospectively) by also giving Labour's evasive David Lammy a good going-over on Tuesday edition (I.C. of 1.3) as he tried passing the buck (in classic Labour fashion) over a bungle over student loans. That is why, almost alone among the regular BBC interviewers, I still have some time for Eddie Mair.*
*
Worse was a report on Friday's edition into TV satire/drama about Westminster politics, presented by Becky Milligan. The three talking heads in the report were all Labour Party people - retired Labour MP Joe Ashton, writer (and friend of Mandelson) Robert Harris and Hazel Blear's former advisor Paul Richards. There was absolutely no reason for this, as the report was not about how Labour was represented in such programmes but about how Westminster politics in general has been represented over the years. Why the Labour Party monopoly then?
*

BALLS, BORIS AND THE RED BARONESS

*
The main political interviews on The Andrew Marr Show scored identical I.C.s of 1.2. These were for unpleasant schools secretary Ed Balls (on unpleasant form) and entertaining mayor of somewhere-in-the-South Boris Johnson (on sparkling form, stonewalling with aplomb over the question of what he'd have done about bankers' bonuses).
*
In his introduction Marr promised us Boris and made reference to him and "fellow Etonian David Cameron." Labour and the Labour-supporting-parts-of-the-BBC's class war against the Conservatives was brought up again during the interview, when Marr asked "Do you think there are enough old Etonians at the top of the Conservative Party?". Still, with only a reference to Nancy Mogg to come, the subject was nowhere near as dominant as I was expecting given the pro-Labour sympathies of this particular interviewer. It could have been a lot worse.
*
The only other feature of the show worth pointing out is the latest appearance - the fifth this year - of left-wing Labour peeress Baroness Helena Kennedy on the paper review (one more than anyone else).
*
For a little more on this (and some evidence that Andy is something of a hypocrite, please see Guido at http://order-order.com/2009/12/13/boris-smirks-at-marr/

GAVIN SHOW HIS HAND YET AGAIN

*
Today's Dateline London with Gavin Esler pitted the always-good-value right-winger Janet Daley against three left-wingers, the ghastly Abdel Bari Atwan, Obama-fan Greg Katz, and the BBC's favourite commentator on Pakistan, Shahed Sadullah (a left-winger with both charm and intelligence) - and, of course, Gavin Esler.
*
Gavin Esler was up to his usual tricks, defending Barack Obama whenever needs called. Even his first question contained a nugget of praise for the Democratic president: "Barack Obama was humble when he collected his Nobel peace prize but he was clear that there is such a thing as a just war, necessary to preserve peace." OK.
*
When Janet Daley said Obama's speech was aimed at the home market and aimed at "satisfying the lobby" that thought he was "dithering", Esler interrupted to say "And they were satisfied" before losing heart a little and adding (in a trailing-off fashion) "some of them, I mean..." (which Janet wisely picked up on).
*
Gavin then got into this exchange with Greg Katz:
Esler: "Greg, should he have got it?"
Katz: "No, no..."
Esler: "He possibly thinks that, of course"
Of course Gavin. Barack is ever so 'umble.
*
The four-against-one situation arose over the issue of the Iraq War, where all three of the other guests rounded on Janet Daley. Esler did not stick up for her (by playing devil's advocate on her behalf); instead he joined the attack: "But Greg was pointing out that many of us just bought it". Janet pointed out that he'd misunderstood her point - as he had. Fancy that, a liberal Beeboid not listening properly to one of his right-of-centre guests!
*
Janet is also a 'climate change denier', in BBC parlance (of course, she's no such thing - she's a global warming sceptic). I must note here the little exchange between Gavin and his appalling friend Bari (Atwan) here. Esler, playing devil's advocate, said " There are some people who think that this whole climate change thing (no, Gav, man-made global warming thing!) is a way of transferring money from rich countries to poor countries" but as Atwan was beginning to reply Esler added, with a smile, "Palestine is not included in that." Sucking up to that odious extremist Atwan and socking it to the Israelis at the same - result Gavin!!
*
Unusually Gavin Esler did interrupt Atwan at one stage, but only to defend Gordon Brown. Bari was attacking our prime minister for giving loads of money to the banks but not giving as much to poor countries, when Gavin interrupted with a laugh "Well, you could say without saving the banking system (just the banking system, surely the world?) there'd be no money for poor countries, no money for anything."
*
After Janet had launched an assault on the hypothesis of man-made global warming Esler asked Mr Sadullah "As you know, the alternative view - and there is an alternative view! - by the supposedly majority of the scientists consulted by the U.N. is that countries like Bangladesh, for example, will really suffer because tides will rise, it's a low country, there'll be more storms. That's the beef." As Janet Daley commented, "Maybe."
*
The final topic was bankers and their bonuses. Here Gavin Esler released his inner leftie and bashed away without even a show of balance (though not much coherence either): "Well that seems to me to be the interesting question. Do we expect bankers or is it that some of the bankers just don't get it or is it something that people will just give up banking and take up, you know, become street buskers if they don't get their huge bonuses?" (Well put!) "Well I understand this doesn't effect those who've got it written in their contract that they get a bonus, which is a lot of them" (Is it?) "...in Switzerland or something."
*

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.

ROBIN LEFTIG (2)

*
Now back to Thursday's The World Tonight, again presented by Robin Lustig. This began by discussing the meeting of minds between President Sarkozy and Gordon Brown (because Gordon is now following Sarko's line on regulation). Who did Robin invite on to discuss the issue. "I asked the French MEP Sylvie Goulard should we now believe them when they say they agree?" Sylvie had a bit of a dig at Sarko and praised the EU. I've complained about this before (http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/11/world-tonight.html). Again Lustig neglected to tell us where she stands politically. Like last time (4/11), he did not tell us that she is a French Liberal MEP. (She's also president of the ultra-Europhile French European Movement). This is 'bias by (not) labeling'. The other guest was centrist Financial Times foreign editor Gideon Rachman.
*
An initiative by three U.S. senators on 'climate change' (ie. man-made global warming) was discussed with Rob Bradley of The World Resources Institute, "an environmental think-tank in Washington" and the BBC's environment(alist) correspondent Richard Black.
*
The World Tonight is particularly obsessed about Israel and the Palestinians. The Egyptian government's moves against tunnels into Gaza, which Lustig helpfully reminded us is thought of by every single one of its 11/2 million inhabitants as "the world's biggest open-air prison", were discussed with one man, Chris Gunness of the UN agency UNRWA. You may recognise the name, as Chris was a former BBC correspondent. He regards Israel as an "occupying power."
*

ROBIN LEFTIG

*
As detailed previously, Radio 4's The World Tonight has a good claim to be the BBC current affairs programme with the most pronounced left-liberal bias. In the next few posts I will be working my way backwards through the week's programmes, starting with last night's edition.
*
This was presented by Robin Lustig.

The 'Copenhagen' features at the start of the programme centred on an interview with leading AGW-advocate Ed Miliband of the Labour government. This unchallenging interview earned Robin an I.C. of 0, not surprisingly. Then Andrew Harding filed a report from Mali, whose tone may be guessed from Lustig's introduction: "Well, if you want an example of what international financial help can do to help poorer countries confront the effects of climate change take a look at Mali in West Africa".
*
The left-wing bias though really kicked in later, when Lustig discussed the contrasting approaches of the governments of the U.K. and Ireland to the current economic crisis. "Now there were two distinct approaches to getting out of an economic mess on view this week. Don't cut public spending too much or too fast was the British approach. Ensure that you're well out of the recesssion before you start trying to reduce government debt. But in Ireland the government sees it differently. £31/2 billion of public spending cuts, pay cuts of between 5 and 15% for public sector workers, a 20% pay cut for the prime minister".
*
To say the programme took sides would be an understatement. "Would it work on this side of the Irish Sea? Well not according to Jack O'Connor of the Irish trade union SIPTU." Mr O'Connor was a 'talking head' and talked for 38 seconds, praising the British Labour government and condemning the Irish government.
*
What happened next? Robin followed him with these words: "And these Irish street cleaners weren't too impressed either". Cue the only other 'talking heads', who also condemned the Irish government's moves (for 45 seconds).
*
Is all Irish opinion opposed to their government's moves? Do opinion polls in Ireland show this sort of total opposition to the measures announced by the Irish government? Are The World Tonight's talking heads really representative of Irish public opinion, or only of Irish left-wing opinion?
*
A discussion followed. "I asked Kevin Daly, UK economist at Goldman Sachs, and the journalist and historian Francis Beckett." Beckett is a true left-winger. Lustig did not mention any of this of course, but he's a Guardian, Independent, New Statesman-sort of journalist and a 'tribal Labour' sort of historian, who loves the unions and loves to bash the bankers.
*
Mr Daly said something intriguing - that a large majority of Irish voters back their government's strong measures, according to the opinion polls (they are "very popular", he said) . If true, that flies in the face of what the feature's introduction was implying and suggests The World Tonight was trying to spin us a fast one. That the Irish government's strategy might be closer to that of an incoming UK Conservative government hardly needs saying.

BOG-STANDARD 'NEWSNIGHT'

*
Last night's Newsnight began with a report from Richard Watson on business students, mainly from South Asia, who are having a tough time of it here during the recession. The issue was discussed with just one guest - Keith Vaz, the Labour stool of the Home Affairs select committee (I.C. of 0 for Martha Kearney). The 'Foxy Knoxy' story followed, featuring an interview with her father, Curt Knox. This was preceded by a report from Peter Marshall, who's only talking head was this blog's old friend Annalisa Piras, the left-wing Italian journalist from L'espresso magazine (who appears regularly on Gavin Esler's liberal love-in, Dateline London). Finally came the obligatory 'climate change' report, with Christian Fraser trying to pretend that any major changes to the Nile Delta must be down to man-made global warming, and that 'something must be done'.
*
A bog-standard edition of Newsnight then.

ALL ABOUT THE GENERAL

*
Last night's deadly dull (yet oddly annoying) edition of Question Time was well down to the programme's usual standards, with loons a-plenty in the audience. The programme turned into something of an inquisition of Tory-supporting General Sir Richard Dannatt. Facing the music with him was William Hague. Also present were Salma Yaqoob, leader of Galloway's Respect, Labour's Bill Rammell, Lord Ashdown and Piers Morgan. The programme came from Wootton Bassett and concentrated solely on the present wars. Labour's shameful Pre-Budget Report was not discussed.
*
Dimbleby's Tory-bashing began early. After Bill Rammell's first, interruption-free answer (which lasted nearly two minutes to the 'question' "Bill Rammell?"), he asked his first question to the Conservative shadow foreign secretary at 5.07 ("William Hague, do you want to answer that?"). Mr Hague began his answer at 5.09 ("Yeah well..") but got no further because at 5.10 in sprang Dimbleby with the evening's first interruption! ("You've said yesterday you want to double the payment..."). The second interruption was not too long in coming (at 6.08: "What about the money though which the lady in the front was talking about?"). Hague was the only panellist interrupted throughout the first question.
*
The second question brought the first interrogation of General Dannatt, with 4 interruptions flying during his first answer: At 14.06 came interruption 1 ("Is it being done by amateurs?"), followed at 14.18 by interruption 2 ("Well hold on, hold on. 2003? You said in December 2009 my own dealings with Gordon Brown were mixed. I will say in my last 3 encounters, after having got back from Afghanistan, I felt he was beginning to get it. That's 8 years in!" (Audience laughter)). Interruption 3 came at 14.45 ("One has to take the government screaming and kicking to agree to the things that are needed. Do you stand by all that?"). Interruption 4 came at 15.21 ("No but do you, do you, sorry, do you agree with General Viggars, and you appear to describe the prime minister as an amateur in this field because it took so long for him to get it, that the government is costing lives by the way that the political parties (sic) are leading, the way the prime minister and the cabinet are leading this Afghanistan War. Is that what you're saying?").
*
Morgan was attacking Blair & his cabinet allies over Iraq, reaching the point of saying "it was a lie" when Dimbleby crashed in to spare Labour's blushes, "No but that isn't the question, the question...no wait a minute, don't don't don't go there..there are a lot of things to talk about. Come to the question, which was are amateurs in charge and are they costing us lives, that's what the accusation was from Gen Viggars."
*

When Bill Rammell said that he & Gen Dannatt had a good working relationship, Dimbleby swiftly re-entered are turned the fire on the general: "Do you agree with that?", interrupting him almost immediately at 19.20 ("The decisions I mean, not that you got on well!"). The general didn't quite know what to say to all this, so Dimbleby very rudely interrupted him to pass it back to Mr Rammell (19.26 "All right, go on then" and a further "all right" to shut the general up.
*
Bill Rammell did not escape unscathed though. He was interrupted at 20.37 - once in just under 1 minute 4o seconds ("And this is also about you, as a politician and an amateur, described as such, yes? And about a prime minister who, according to General Dannatt, took a long time to get it.").
*
William Hague was not so lucky. His answer began at 23.54. Interruption 1 crashed in at 23.57!!!! ("You agree with what he's been saying about the last 6 years?"). Again a second interruption was not long in coming - at 24.29 came "You, but come, come to the chase ..do you think ministers in charge of this, as Paddy's suggested, and as Viggars suggested, have been amateurish in the way they've been approaching this?"
*
During the third (and final) question, Bill Rammell was pressed on the allegations of Labour smears against General Dannatt, and interrupted twice. Dimbleby asked him if he would apologise. When Rammell denied all allegations of smearing, Dimbleby spun to Richard Dannatt and said "Why did you say you were smeared if you weren't?". "Well, because I was!" was the general's reply! The general had been interrupted three times already by David Dimbleby during the course of this question, but was to face very hostile questioning from Lord Ashdown. Lord Ashdown, of course, received no interruptions from Dimbleby, though (in fairness to the presenter) the latter did challenge him about the disgraceful behaviour of the shameless Labour rogue Lord Foulkes.
*
Dimbleby's unquenchable thirst for Tory-baiting was at its worst here, as he tried stirring it for William Hague and the Conservatives. He began interrupted Richard Dannatt again at 53.36 "They (ie the Tories) bumped you into it, or whatever you say, yes? You didn't mean it to come out?" When Gen Dannatt said "They didn't leak it" , Dimbleby leaped in, saying "Or maybe they did! William Hague..." Gen Dannatt insisted on finishing his point before David Dimbleby insisted on pursuing his own point: "William Hague, it was the Conservatives who announced that he was going to become a peer and was going to advise them, wasn't it?"
*

BIAS BY LABELING

*
Ah, it's just like old times again!

*

Popping onto the Politics page of the BBC News website (as of 6.30am today), there were two headlines relating to the latest expenses revelations:
*
**********MP denies £20K bell tower claim
*
**********Conservative MP to repay £9,500
*
So one's clearly an errant Conservative MP. What's the other? Is he by any chance also a Conservative MP? No, it turns out that he's a Labour MP.

**
It was a running sore throughout the first great outbreak of the Expenses Scandal that headlines relating to errant Tories would have the word 'Tory' - or less frequently 'Conservative' - in them but ones relating to errant Labour MPs would regularly lack the word 'Labour'.
*
As I say, just like old times again!

QUIZ OF THE DAY

*

Today's Daily Politics ran a quiz on the latest MPs' expenses revelations. There were three questions.

*

Question 1

"Did Jackie (sic) Smith bill us:

(a) £611 for a replacement double bed?

(b) £244 for a DVD player?

(c) £555 for a new television?"

Answer: All of the above.

*

Question 2

"Who claimed for three garlic peelers?

(a) Tony McNulty

(b) James Arbuthnot

(c) David Cameron"

Answer: Conservative MP James Arbuthnot

*

Question 3

"Who claimed for the fitting of two tiled cartoons to their bathroom?

(a) Liam Byrne

(b) Lembik Opik

(c) Ken Clarke"

Answer: Conservative MP Ken Clarke.
*

Fancy that, two Conservative MPs fingered as troughers, one Labour MP and no Lib Dems!! Note also that the 'D.P.' team put Cameron up as an option, but not Brown or Clegg.

*

Here are some other questions the programme might have asked. See how you fare!

*

Unasked question 1

"Who claimed £2,700 to redecorate his downstairs toilet?"

(a) Douglas Hogg

(b) Chris Huhne

(c) Gordon Brown"

(Answer at the bottom of the post!)

*

Unasked question 2

"Who claimed £105 for a chimney sweep?

(a) Sir Peter Viggars

(b) Douglas Alexander

(c)Yvette Cooper"

(Answer at the bottom of the post!)

*

Unasked question 3

"Who claimed over £1,000 on a water cooler?

(a) Nick Clegg

(b) Tim Yeo

(c) Ed Miliband?"

(Answer at the bottom of the post!)

*

While you're working these out, here's a picture of a bell tower - surely the new symbol of the Expenses Scandal!

*

Bonus question. Some swine claimed £20,700 of our hard-earned money to rebuild his bell tower. Was it:

(a) Labour toff Quentin Davies?

(b) Labour toff Harriet Harman?

(c) Labour plutocrat Shaun Woodward?

Answers

Unasked question 1: Gordon Brown

Unasked question 2: Douglas Alexander

Unasked question 3: Ed Miliband

Bonus question: Labour toff Quentin Davies

*

THE FALL(ON) GUY

*
Martha Kearney weekly 'politics panel' (The World at One), which always follows Prime Minister's Questions, today featured Sally Keeble for Labour, Michael Fallon for the Conservatives and Lord Thurso for the Lib Dems. Though not a stand-out example of biased interviewing, it's an example nonetheless in that the only significant interruption was made against the Conservative and the Conservative received 4 questions (if you also count the interruption, which also functioned as a further question), as against 2 each for the Lib Dem and the Labourette, despite Mr Fallon receiving half a minute less interview time than Mrs Keeble. Moreover, all his questions were specifically about Conservative policy (and a couple contained a component of criticism), whereas neither of Lord Thurso's questions were about Lib Dem policy (indeed one question was an open invitation to back Labour's spend-your-way-out-of-recession policy - which he, in part, did) - and one of Sally's was as much about Conservative policy (Inheritance Tax) as it was about Labour strategy.
*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qptc
*
Here are all Martha's contributions. See what you think.
*
Part 1
(
11.46 Q1 (to MF): "First of all, Michael Fallon, the measure on bankers' bonuses, there's obviously a clear political point to that, what will the Conservative response be do you think?" 11.56 A1 (MF)
12.11 (Interruption, against MF): "So you're going to join in the banker-bashing are you?"
12.30 Q2 (to SK): "Because it is a huge amount of borrowing, isn't it, the budget deficit, the biggest since the Second World War Sally Keeble?"
12.36 A2 (SK)
13.13 Q3 (to JT): "John Thurso, this was the message the chancellor was attempting to drive home again and again, wasn't it, is that the government has intervened, it's increased spending this year, the fiscal stimulus and so on, in order to promote recovery? What do you think about that?"
13.25 A3 (JT)
14.15 Martha: "Sally?"
14.16 A4 (SK)
14.50 MF takes over (with plenty of chuntering from SK)
15.10 Martha leaps in, and moves on
*
Part 2
*
25.28 Q 4 (to SK): "Let's have a look, Sally Keeble, at some of the politics of this. This is billed as 'the class-war PBR' and I think it's perhaps in some ways lived up to it, hasn't it? The attack on bankers' bonuses, that freezing of Inheritance Tax, presumably to draw a line between your policy and the Conservatives's , who were offering a very different policy on Inheritance Tax. Is this likely to work do you think?"
25.47 A5 (SK, who attacks the Tories)
26.29 Q5 (to MF): "Michael Fallon, is there a risk that if you begin public spending cuts too soon you jeopardise what most people, including some people in the Bank of England, think is a fragile recovery?"
26.40 A6 (MF)
27.16 Q6 (to JT): "John Thurso, the chancellor has spelled out departments which he is going to protect, so the Health Service, he said our police force and schools - crucial he says for our future - but that means the other departments are really going to take a hammering, doesn't it?"
27.30 A7 (JT)
28.17 SK takes over
28.48 Q7 (to MF): "Is there Michael Fallon a risk for your party in the so-called austerity strategy that if you bang on too much about...Sally Keeble's calling them 'savage cuts'... that people won't want to vote for change, which was what David Cameron's original U.S.P.,wasn't it, he was talking about, you know, sunlit uplands?"
29.05 A8 (MF)
29.22 Martha: "We'll have to leave it there, I'm afraid."
*

YESTERDAY'S 'TODAY' THE DAY AFTER

*
The main story on yesterday's Today programme was public sector pay.
*
At 7.09 the issue was discussed with Labour's Phil Woolas.
*
It was returned to at 8.21, where it was discussed with Tony Travers of the L.S.E., then further discussed with BBC perennial Ken Livingstone of the Labour Party and engaging Labour blogger (and former Blair advisor) Matthew Taylor of the R.S.A. (Why?) The whole thing was good-natured.
*
The subject was returned to again at 8.53 where, for the first time, a voice from the Right was heard - Andrew Haldenby of Reform, who was jointly interviewed with that most left-wing of union leaders, Mark Serwotka of the PCS union. It was noticeable that John Humphrys's sympathies lay with the latter during this closing item as Mr Haldenby was interrupted 3 times, whereas Mr Serwotka was only interrupted once.
*
5.00 Question: "Isn't that an entirely fair point Andrew Haldenby?"
5.03 Answer (AH) "Well if there's any tax uncollected the government should definitely go and collect it..."
5.08 (Interruption by JH) "Well there is. We know there is."
(AH's answer then continues)
5.24 (Interruption by JH) Question: "But why do we have to cut it in half in four years. Why is that..that is, as Mark Serwotka (sic), that's an arbitrary figure, arbitrary time frame"
5.30 Answer (AH): "Well it probably need to be done quicker than that..."
5.32 (Interruption by JH): "Why?"
*
Mark Serwotka had to put up with nothing like that.
*
Why so many voices from the Left on the issue? Why only one from the Right? Why was the voice from the Right treated in a somewhat tougher way? The answer might have something to do with BBC bias. (I bet you never saw that coming!)
*
(The programme also featured another Labour minister John Denham and Ratna Lachman from the anti-racism think-tank JUST discussing the government's so-called Prevent programme, which hopes to tackle Muslim extremism, whereas - as Ratna says - the real focus should be on far-right extremism!!!!)

THE WRIGHT MEN TO ATTACK TORY TOFFS

*
At the same time that Andrew Marr was doing the unexpected on BBC1, Paddy O'Connell and friends were doing the very-much-expected on Radio 4's Broadcasting House. The issue of Tory Toffs was very much on the agenda, and Labour MP Tony Wright's son Ben Wright (of the BBC) was not about to let it rest.
*
I will copy and paste something from the B-BBC website:
*

freddo41:
*
"This morning’s Broadcasting
House decided to deal with Gordon Brown’s ‘Eton’ attack on the Tories by sending
a reporter to find out if Labour backbenchers agree with this plan of attack.
Guess what? They did!
So we had a collection of Labour MPs putting flesh on
the bones of the original attack.
The reporter’s conclusion? That this
approach may have failed at Crewe and Nantwich but this time it could work. So
all very positive.
And the reporter? Ben Wright, son of veteran Labour MP
Tony Wright.
How very cosy."

It certainly was cosy. Ben talked to Labour MPs John Grogan, Martin Linton and Gordon Prentice. All three were, as freddo41 says, supportive of the Labour 'attack line'. Prentice bashed the Tories and said "It's the old country set writ large" and brought up that Bullingdon Club photograph. (What about Ed Ball's Oxford photograph?) Linton personally attacked Zak Goldsmith, as well as the Tories in general. Does every Labour MP really approve of this shabby, hypocritical tactic? That's what we'd gather from Tony Wright's son's report.

*

This was preceded by BBC reporter Rajini Vaidyanathan chatting to presenter Paddy O'Connell about how Gordon Brown was "seen to have landed a killer blow on David Cameron with his talk of the playing fields of Eton" Which raises the obvious question, "Seen by who? By Labour, the Guardian, the BBC?" She also said that Dave has "spent much of his time as leader re-branding the party, showing that it's not just for toffs". He may well have re-branded the party, but "showing that it's not just for toffs" was no part of that re-branding. Did the Conservative Party of Mrs Thatcher, John Major, William Hague and Michael Howard really have the image of being a party of toffs, as Rajini implies? I'd have thought not, except in the mind of an amnesiac, leftie Beebette. *

BIAS WITH BROWN EYES

*
Back (by request) is The Record: Europe with Shirin Wheeler.
*
This week's highly typical edition saw two panel discussions. The only UK politician featured in the first was Labour's Richard Howitt, who was interrupted once (I.C. of 0.3). Shirin Wheeler is not given to interrupting Labour politicians at all, so Mr Howitt was very unlucky!!
*
'Widely-respected' Shirin's second discussion featured the Labour chairman of the Commons EU Scrutiny Committee Michael Connarty, Lib Dem head of the Lords EU select committee Lord Roper and newly elected UKIP MEP David Campbell-Bannerman. I bet you can guess how this went. Mr Connarty was not interrupted at all, Lord Roper was interrupted once and Mr Campbell-Bannerman of UKIP was interrupted 3 times!! Their respective I.C.s are 0, 0.4 and 1.5. This sort of thing happens week in and week out.
*
Mr Connarty was also the first and the last to speak, having 4 bites of the cherry - as against
3 for Lord Roper and Mr Campbell-Bannerman. (The latter also spoke for the least time).
*
Here are brown-eyed Shirin Wheeler's full stats for the period in which my clipboard has been in action:
*
21/09 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.9
6/12 David Campbell-Bannerman UKIP 1.5
11/10 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.5
08/11 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.2
15/11 Martha Andreasen UKIP 1.2
11/10 Nigel Farage UKIP 0.9
01/11 Paul Nuttall UKIP 0.7
08/11 Charles Tannock Conservative 0.7
08/11 Graham Watson Lib Dem 0.7
08/11 Derek Clarke UKIP 0.6
08/11 Glenis Willmott Labour 0.5
6/12 Lord Roper Lib Dem 0.4
04/10 Syed Kamall Conservative 0.3
6/12 Richard Howitt Labour 0.3
25/10 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 0.2
04/10 Graham Watson Lib Dem 0
11/10 Fiona Hall Lib Dem 0
11/10 Richard Howitt Labour 0
25/10 Stephen Hughes Labour 0
04/10 Arlene McCarthy Labour 0
25/10 Chris Davies Lib Dem 0
18/10 Caroline Lucas Green 0
22/11 Cathy Ashton Labour 0
15/11 Derek Vaughan Labour 0
15/11 Vicky Ford Conservative 0
01/11 Jean Lambert Green 0
*
Her averages are some of the starkest I've recorded:

1. UKIP (5) - 0.98
2. Conservatives (7) - 0.83
3. Lib Dems (5) - 0.22
4. Labour (8) - 0.11
5. Greens (2) - 0.00
   

Couldn't be clearer evidence of left-wing bias, could it?
*
*
Here's some more.
*
Coming back to the three-way discussion between Connarty, Campbell-Bannerman and Roper,
the first question went to Mr Connarty, and it was one asked from a Lisbon-is-a-good-thing stance: "Michael, can I ask you first of all, you've got the Lisbon Treaty. It's in force. It's supporters promise a greater role in national parliaments in scrutinising new legislation. Do you think that's true?" (Michael Connarty is also a Lisbon supporter).
*
The second question went to Lord Roper. It too came from a pro-Lisbon position: "But I mean, Lord Roper, the treaty does say that if two-thirds of national parliaments want to club together and sent something back to the European Commission they can. Isn't that an advance?" (Lord Roper, also a Lisbon supporter, thought it was!)
*
To David Campbell-Bannerman came this question, also asked from a Lisbon-is-a-good-thing position: "What it doesn't do though it seems is it doesn't take away powers from national parliaments, does it, the treaty?" (David, not a Lisbon supporter, disagreed!)
*
Shirin, who's won an award for her programme from the European parliament, then asked Mr Connarty, "Michael Connarty, the European parliament does undoubtably gain a lot of power. It's the big winner from the Lisbon Treaty, isn't it? Is that indirectly good news for the House of Commons, House of Lords as well?"
*
Connarty turned this answer into an attack on UKIP and, taking up his words, Shirin Wheeler asked Mr Campbell-Bannerman, "You're not there to defend British interests?"
*
Bizarrely, after only 15 seconds of his answer to this joint attack, David C-B was interrupted and shut up by Shirin (before getting anywhere near making his point), "Oh let's talk about that sort of thing another time. Lord Roper, back to the issue of scrutinising EU legislation." Typical! "Now it's true what David Bannerman (sic) says. There is a transfer of power to the EU, to the parliament in a lot of areas (note the side-shift from what David Campbell-Bannerman said to what Shirin Wheeler wanted him to have said!). Doesn't this mean that the process of scrutiny has to be even better, particularly in areas like criminal justice, budget, that sort of thing, and are you (the House of Lords EU select commitee) up to the job?"
*
The next question went to the UKIP MEP: "This is the first meeting of the Lords and MPs you're taking part in as an MEP, isn't it David? How do you want to see that process continue? You've heard from Michael. Are you going to bring things back to this place?" (He wants to bring everything back to the British parliament Shirin, that's why he's a member of UKIP!).
*
This time only 11 seconds-worth of Mr Campbell-Bannerman's answer went free before Shirin butted in again, this time to defend the Labour MP: "But Michael's not saying he wants to decide on those things here but that the Lords and Commons should have a say in scrutinising."
*
He continued but before he could finish Shirin interrupted for a third time: "Well the two gentlemen to your left and right are shaking their heads, so - briefly - (to Lord Roper) you're not doing the job properly, says David?"
*
It was shortly after than Shirin intruded into someone other than Mr Campbell-Bannerman's answers, butting into Lord Roper to ask again about his House of Lords committee: "But are you actually doing the business though? You might have a lot of committees."
*
Her last question, to the Labour MP, was simply, "Michael?"
&
Soft on the Left, tough on the Right - that's Shirin Wheeler for you. Respect!
*