BBC Complaints: The link you need!

Sunday, 25 April 2010

STITCHED UP LIKE A U-KIPPER

*
I have never before seen The Politics Show feature extended highlights from another BBC programme, but that's what we got today in a section ostensibly devoted to looking at 'the smaller parties'. There were several minutes worth of extracts from Lord Pearson's encounter with Jon Sopel on the BBC's News Channel's Campaign Show. They were carefully filleted extracts of course, specially cut to make Lord Pearson look as silly as possible, complete with ludicrous looks of mock-bewilderment from Sopey himself.
*

SAVED BY THE BELL

*
Compare and contrast the coverage of today's midday election meetings, courtesy of Sarah and friends at the BBC Live Election blog:
*
*

CONSERVATIVES
*
1307: This from the BBC's Chris Buckler - Ed Balls' name gets booed when shadow education secretary Michael Gove mentions him at a school rally in Gormersal in West Yorkshire. The parents blame the education secretary for blocking their plans to set up a new school in the area. DESCRIPTIVE
*
1257: Mr Cameron tells people who are campaigning for their own school that they are "an inspiration" for what they're doing and his party would help people like them realise their dream. He says they demonstrate his belief of bigger society. SIGNIFICANT
*
1243: David Cameron, also dressing down for a Sunday but wearing a tie-less navy shirt to Mr Brown's white, has arrived in Gomersal, West Yorkshire, where he will make a speech on education. He's surrounded by people wearing green. DESCRIPTIVE
*
*
LABOUR
*
1230: He focuses his attack on the Tories, claiming they would allow nurseries schools to charge top-up fees, cut child tax credits for the middle classes and remove child trust funds from people earning £16,000 or more. He says Mr Cameron is planning on doing that while cutting inheritance taxes for the richest. SIGNIFICANT
*
1226: Mr Brown says his party would give fairness to young people by creating 1m new skilled jobs, to the world by protecting the environment with bold promises on climate change, and in democracy with a referendum on changes to the political system. SIGNIFICANT
*
1219: Gordon Brown, minus a tie (it's Sunday after all), is addressing an event in Harrow. He's talking about how his party's policies are rooted in the politician's favourite buzzword, "fairness". SIGNIFICANT
*
Labour is allowed to get its key messages across. I see from ConservativeHome that the Conservative message on education today was a detailed and substantial one. Shame it wasn't reported:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/04/david-cameron-and-michael-gove-give-conservative-education-policy-a-big-push.html

VIOLENCE AGAINST EUROSCEPTICS

*
Throughout the short history of this blog, I've chronicled the bias of Shirin Wheeler (pictured) of the BBC's Europhile flagship The Record Europe. (It's one of my unpopular hobby horses!) Woe betide any UKIP or Conservative spokesman who dares to speak out against Europhilia! Regulars may know that the leader of the Conservative MEPs, Timothy Kirkhope, in particular, keeps getting himself slapped down by Shirin. (I sometimes suspect masochistic tendencies on his part, as he always comes back for more!).

On today's edition Mr Kirkhope was interviewed alongside an Austrian Green (Eva Lichtenberger) and a Belgian Liberal (Dirk Sterckx again). The subject was European co-operation on transport in the wake on the volcanic ash fiasco. The Green lady and the Liberal-from-the-non-country both want much closer EU harmonisation. Mr Kirkhope doesn't. Shirin talked over the end of his first answer (not thinking it worth listening to) and then barged in, in classic Shirin Wheeler fashion (after exhanging knowing smiles with the Austrian Green), to contradict his second answer, saying "No, no, no, surely, are you saying it's up to the pilots? That's like saying it's up to the fishermen to decide...(indecipherable)...fish or not." The I.C. here was 1.3.
*
In contrast, Labour MEP Claude Moraes, speaking in favour of close EU harmonisation over legislation to protect women against violence, was allowed to speak at length, without contradiction and with only a supportive interruption (I.C. of 0.3). He was joined by a German liberal (Silvana Koch-Mehrin, pictured), who also supported close EU harmonisation over the controversial measures.


*


*

ANOTHER DOG WHISTLE

*
I forgot to mention this question from Andrew Marr to Nick Clegg: "You're just as posh as David Cameron, aren't you?"
*
Firstly, so what? And secondly, why the sly, Ballsian dig at Cameron (disguised as a dig at Clegg)?
*

YES WE CAN!

*
I read that a Labour Party supporter wrote this inspirational e-mail to Gordon Brown this morning:

"We keep reading that we're on course for a hung parliament, or that David Cameron is on course for a narrow victory, but remember this...Roughly a third of us haven't yet decided whether to vote at all and of those certain to vote more than 3 million people haven't decided who they are going to vote for. The commentators telling you today what is going to happen on May 6th are the same ones mugged by the Lib Dem surge. There is bags of time to go. Anything can still happen".

In the light of all the opinion polls today showing that the Conservatives have re-asserted their lead and that the gap between them and Labour is getting much wider again - and maybe, according to IPSOS Mori, the Lib Dem bubble is bursting too -, it was clearly designed to boost morale in Downing Street. Labour can still win. The pundits could all be wrong. All we have to do is believe.
*
Only joking.
*
Those words were actually spoken by Andrew Marr this morning. Marr has never cast doubt on the pundits before, and has never been shy about mentioning the latest opinion polls ever since the beginning of the year (when the Conservative lead plunged). Suddenly, and with the word 'today' firmly emphasized, on the very day when Labour's fortunes look precarious again (according to the polls), Marr tells us not to trust the pundits, speaks out for the possibility of something other than a hung parliament, or a narrow Conservative majority, and forgets to mention the polls. Why would that be?

MORE DOG WHISTLES

*
Paddy O'Connell, and his election pundits on Broadcasting House - Peter Hennessy and Anthony Howard - looked back into the archive to examine a couple of examples of what Paddy called 'covert or overt racism' in previous elections. Cue Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech (to a conservative political meeting, we were told) and Patrick Gordon Walker, the Labour MP defeated by the Conservatives after a racist campaign in Smethick in 1964. Prof Hennessy thinks 'dog whistle' politics has taken the place of 'overt racism'.
*
Another dog whistle may have been blown here.

MYSTIC CRAIG

*
After last week's helpfully shallow interview with Gordon Brown (for more on which please see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/marr-ginal-seats.html) this week Andrew Marr turned to Nick Clegg.
*
Being a Labour man through and through, Marr gave Mr Clegg a tougher ride than Mr Brown. The interruption coefficient was 1.4 (31 interruptions in under 23 minutes), compared to 1.0 for Brown. Still the trivial subjects (comparatively-speaking) consumed almost exactly half of the interview - and one key issue was again glaringly conspicuous by its absence.
*
Here's how the interview broke down by topic:
*
Hung parliaments, Clegg personally - 11m 7s (49.7%)
Immigration - 7m 32s (33.7%)
Trident - 3m 42s (16.6%)
Cuts, deficit - 0m os (0%)
*
I'm going to make a few predictions (in the light of my complaint about last week's programme, see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/25-minutes-and-yet-not-one-question.html). The first is that next week's interview with David Cameron will see the total percentage for all the serious policy subjects shoot up to well above 50% (I'll guess, just for fun, at 75%), as Marr drills away at issue after issue. Secondly, I expect there will be more issues covered than were covered with Nick Clegg today and Gordon Brown last week, as Marr swoops, attacks then quickly flies off again onto something different, denying Mr Cameron a chance to expand on his explanations. Thirdly, and most importantly, I predict that Marr will ask Mr Cameron about spending cuts and the deficit and that he'll spend most time on that very subject, banging away at exactly how much and where from and how many jobs will be lost, etc. (If he does, the substance of my complaint will have been borne out).
*
As soon as I saw 'the Great Chieftain of the Pudding Face' Alex Salmond on my screen I should have blogged a prediction that Marr would ask him about cuts. He did indeed (2 questions). Marr isn't an SNP man.
*
My main prediction, however, is that David Cameron will be interrupted more than either Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown. I am going off past experience here:
*
When all three leaders were interviewed during last year's party conferences, these were the interruption coefficients (as ever, the higher the I.C. the greater the more interruptions there were in proportion to the length of the interview):
*
Brown - 1.0
Clegg - 1.3
Cameron - 2.1
*
When Marr began this year with three set pieces interviews, the ICs were:
*
Brown - 0.8
Clegg - 1.2
Cameron - 1.4
*
So far during this election, it's been:
*
Brown - 1.0
Clegg - 1.4
Cameron - ???
*
My prediction for David Cameron next week? 1.8!!
*
Come on Andrew, prove me wrong on all counts!!!!

CALM DOWN, CALM DOWN!

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

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 18

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians. Normal BBC bias is resumed!
*
Sat 24/4
*
Labour -19
Conservatives - 9
Lib Dems - 6
UKIP - 1
BNP - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 18 days?
*
Labour - 457
Conservatives - 370
Lib Dems - 305
SNP - 43
UKIP - 31
Plaid Cymru - 25
Greens - 18
BNP - 16
Independents - 4
DUP - 4
Independent Network - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Mebyon Kernow - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
English Democrats - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1
*
David at B-BBC might be intrigued to know that the TUV's manifesto launch was ignored.

Saturday, 24 April 2010

WHOOPS!

*
This is not the first time that the BBC's live election blog has had a dig at UKIP over spelling. Today's example is:
*
1326: Bit of a slip-up from the UK Independence Party. They've misspelled Camborne with an extra "u" - wrongly making it "Cambourne" - in a campaign poster in the Cambridgeshire constituency.
*
But UKIP have the last laugh:
*
1606: Thanks to one eagle-eyed reader I've realised that in my haste to bring you all the latest, breaking election news I accidently misplaced the constituency of Camborne and Redruth in Cambridgeshire. It is, of course, in Cornwall. Sincere apologies.
*
What (s)he doesn't realise is that (s)he's also misspelled 'accidentally'!!

LOOKING THROUGH A WINDOW

*
If you thought that the BBC Politics Show's coverage of the election campaign in Stourbridge was biased and superficial (they can't mention the Conservative candidate Margot James without mentioning that she's a millionaire), just have a read of this from Maddy Westrop, who is standing there for UKIP:

The BBC are swizzers.

I don't know why they interviewed me yesterday (22nd April) and I don't know what they are going to edit me to be saying. Everything was deliberately confused and I felt manipulated.

They said Nigel F was rude and that I wasn't UKIP but a Tory and that I was splitting the Tory vote. They also made out I was pro-immigration. I did try to battle everything but I have no idea how they will edit it. They put several questions at once quite often. Really they had their own agenda.

They also had me and the Green candidate right there (amicably) arguing about energy policy and they didn't want to record any of it. They don't want the public to know our policies at all. Our stance against global warming alarmism is a complete vote winner and we can't put it across.

In all the time they have had (Feb to May), they have not once asked me about UKIP policy.

Then they wanted a shot of me and the Green guy and an independent candidate (with five aston martins and a bit of an attitude) to be filmed looking through a window at a party - excluded from the party they were having with the three big parties.

I refused. They got very stroppy and said I didn't understand television. I said I was married to a BBC journalist and did. I pointed out we came first in the election just a year a go and they are ignoring us and not allowing the electorate to know our policies. They want to make the story instead of finding it!

I have no idea what they will do with the footage they got. I suspect traps and distortions.

Do tell everyone that they misled us and set us up for a fall.

*
Maddy. *
I will be watching The Politics Show tommorow very carefully.

25 MINUTES, AND YET NOT ONE QUESTION

*
My complaint...
*
Whenever David Cameron is interviewed by Andrew Marr, Mr Marr concentrates on asking him about Conservative cuts, yet when Gordon Brown was on this Sunday Andrew Marr did not ask him about cuts at all.

For months now, Conservative politicians have faced questions from Mr Marr about cuts. Why didn't he ask the Labour leader about what cuts he will make, how much will be cut from each spending department, how many jobs will be lost as a consequence?

Why does Andrew Marr seem to want to connect the idea of 'cuts' just with the Conservatives rather than with Labour?

The interview with Gordon Brown lasted 25 minutes. There was time.

...elicited this response...
*
Dear Mr

Thanks for your e-mail about 'The Andrew Marr Show' shown on 18 April.

I understand that you feel that Andrew Marr consistently asks David Cameron about Conservative cuts when he appears on the show, but you believe he didn't ask Gordon Brown the same questions about Labour cuts when he was a guest on the show on 18 April. I note that you believe that Andrew seems to be trying to connect the idea of cuts with the Conservative Party rather than the Labour Party.

We've raised your concerns with the Editor of 'The Andrew Marr Show' and he's provided the following response:

"Senior Labour politicians have been asked about cuts - and tax rises - on the Marr show over the past few months. The truth is there will be budget cuts whoever is in power after the election.
It is also true that David Cameron has said that Labour's plans for reducing planned spending and working to reduce the deficit were inadequate and that a Conservative government would implement reductions "faster and deeper".

Being even handed and applying the same rigorous approach to each party does not mean asking each politician the same questions. For instance the issue in the first debate where Gordon Brown provided answers that were least appreciated by those polled afterwards - the area where all the indications are that he performed least well compared to his two fellow leaders - was on immigration...so the producers decided that they would begin the interview with Gordon Brown with this topic. There would not be a similar reason to choose the same topic with David Cameron whose responses on this subject met with more popular approval."

We do appreciate your taking the time to express your concerns and so please be assured that I've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Once again, thanks for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

L....... B........
BBC Complaints


GRRRR!!!

*
It seems that the composition of the audience during the election for Radio 4's 'Any Questions' is not governed by any rules of impartiality. Both Not a sheep and Freddo41 have recorded their shock at last night's edition:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgvj
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-thread_21.html
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/04/any-questions-yes-where-did-you-find.html
(Warning: Do not listen to this programme unless you have steeled yourself in advance).
*
Conservative Caroline Spelman was repeatedly hissed and booed for saying nothing very offensive, while Jack Straw was whooped and cheered to the rafters for saying nothing very exciting. (God, how I hate whooping audiences). All attacks on the Conservatives (whether from Sir Ming Campbell, Jack or the questioners) were greeting with joyful hysteria. This was not an audience representative of anywhere - other than a Labour student rally! Stomach-churning stuff!
*
The tiny dribble of applause for any statement of support for the idea of celebrating St George's Day and flying the English flag, as well as the Muslim questioner who didn't want to feel English, or even British by the sounds of it (just a "citizen"), made the result of Jonathan Dimbleby's question to the audience a foregone conclusion: "Can an immigrant unequivocally celebrate St George's Day?" he asked. "Overwhelmingly in this audience, including our questioner - I saw her hand go up - no."
*
Never mind 'balanced parliaments' shouldn't there be 'balanced audiences' during a general election? Shouldn't there be some rules about it, as there are (it seems) with Question Time?
*
When the South Park question came up (the makers of this wonderful programme have received death threats for portraying Mohammed as a bear) and Justine Roberts of Mumsnet began cringing in the face of joyless Islamism, followed by Jack Straw, I reached for the off-switch - only to pause when Sir Ming Campbell stood up strongly in favour of freedom of speech, without equivocation. Well done old man! (The whooping support of the audience lessened my enjoyment of the moment though!!)
*
Perhaps inspired by this, Caroline Spelman spoke cautiously but sensibly. I particularly liked "Perhaps you don't know this, but if you don't like what you hear on the BBC, if eight of you complain, then there is a formal complaints process." I wonder why she had that in her mind at that moment!! She then somewhat spoiled it by rounding things off with a cringe of her own. She got a tiny smattering of applause and some boos for her pains!
*
(The dim-witted questioner, incidentally, said "Personally I dislike South Park. I think its crass. I think it's distasteful and...(wait for it!!) ...I never watch it." )
*
The final ask-the-audience was "Who would have preferred to be at the pub than here at Any Questions?" Almost everyone in the country I hope!
*
So, eight people=a formal complaint. If Caroline Spelman sends one, and me another...
*
*
UPDATE: David has now taken this up at B-BBC and says something I forgot to say but which I feel strongly. I felt so sorry for Caroline Spelman. Unlike some other Conservatives, Caroline has always replied to my e-mails. That shows courtesy, at the very least. She wasn't protected by Jonathan Dimbleby, who is no St George.*
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/any-questions.html
*
And I'm heartened to see this comment from an old favourite at B-BBC (who, under various amusing guises, if I'm not mistaken, has been easing himself back into the swing of things recently):
*
Ronald Todd
*
Will the BBC use the same audience they had for Any Questions at the leaders debate?
*
God forbid! David Dimbleby is quite enough!
*
*
UPDATE: A highly enlightening post from DB at Biased BBC:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/any-questions-again.html

A WEEK IN POLITICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 17

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians. Flipping heck! A landslide for the Conservatives!
*
Thurs 23/4
*
Conservatives - 29
Labour - 19
Lib Dems - 10
BNP - 7
Plaid Cymru - 3
SNP - 2
UKIP - 1
Greens - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 17 days?:
*
Labour - 438
Conservatives - 361
Lib Dems - 299
SNP - 43
UKIP - 30
Plaid Cymru - 25
Greens - 18
BNP - 15
Independents - 4
DUP - 4
Independent Network - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Mebyon Kernow - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
English Democrats - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1

Friday, 23 April 2010

A GRAND NIGHT OUT...FOR MRS BALLS

*
There was an early exchange between David Dimbleby and William Hague on last night's Question Time that seemed to show characteristic Dimbleby bias:
*
Dimbleby: Last week he did 26% to Clegg's 43% in terms of winning
Hague: Well the figures are much better for him this week
Dimbleby: Yes, he did 30% to Clegg's 33%
Hague: Or 36 to 32, depending on the survey
Dimbleby: He hasn't overtaken Clegg. It's still Nick Clegg as the most honest, Nick Clegg as the person most people would vote for.
*
Having either been caught out, or having made an honest mistake (and what looked like dawning realisation on his face that William Hague had been right suggests that the latter possibility should at least be considered), Dimbleby then 'fessed up, initially somewhat grudgingly: "The poll I was quoted was Comres. There was also a poll for The Sun by YouGov which had David Cameron admittedly ahead of Nick Clegg, 36, you're quite right (pointing to Hague), Nick Clegg on 32, down from 51" and then covered up his embarrassment by suddenly growing very animated and saying "the people who decide of course are you, the audience" before invitating an audience member to speak. Bias, caught out and unwillingly corrected? Or am honest mistake, (eventually) willingly corrected? You decide.
*
This next point, however, cannot be so easily excused. After badgering Mr Hague, he turned to Yvette Cooper and asked: "Yvette Cooper, why do you think Clegg gets top marks for honesty of all three, way ahead, 43%?" There was no follow up question, asking "Why did Gordon Brown lose out to Nick Clegg again, 33% to 30%?". Nor, after his 'clarification' did he return to her to ask "Why has Gordon Brown come third again, 29% to David Cameron's 36%?" Why not?
*
Later in the programme David Dimbleby sent a swarm of questions/interruptions flying at William Hague, but he also launched several surprisingly stinging forays against Sir Ming Campbell. Only Labour's fragrant Yvette Cooper ('Yvette' to David Dimbleby) escaped almost entirely unharmed. This, as you know, is far from unusual with David Dimbleby. Far too many Labour politicians come away pretty much unscathed from Question Time.
*
*
Who got most time to speak?
*
1. Yvette Cooper - 11 minutes 46 seconds
2. Sir Ming Campbell - 10 minutes 41 seconds
3. William Hague - 10 minutes 20 seconds
4. Ann Leslie - 7 minutes 10 seconds
5. Elfyn Llwyd - 6 minutes 3 seconds
*
*

Who received the most interruptions from David Dimbleby?
*
1. William Hague - 10
2. Sir Ming Campbell - 8
3. Ann Leslie - 4
4. Elfyn Llwyd - 3
5. Yvette Cooper - 3
*
*

Who scored the highest interruption coefficient?
*
1. William Hague - 1.2
2. Sir Ming Campbell - 0.8
3. Ann Leslie - 0.6
4. Elfyn Llwyd - 0.5
5. Yvette Cooper - 0.3
*
*
Who was asked the most supplementary questions by David Dimbleby?
*
1. William Hague - 14
2. Sir Ming Campbell - 10
3. Ann Leslie - 5
4. Yvette Cooper - 4
5. Elfyn Llwyd - 3
*
*

In less than a week's time David Dimbleby will host the final prime ministerial debate.

CRASH GORDON

*
The worse than expected growth figure for the first quarter of 2010, a lowly 0.2%, suggests that Britain's recovery is crawling forwards painfully. Last out of recession and still struggling, we owe very little to this Labour government - though we do owe a vast amount to foreign lenders, due to Brown's reckless borrow-and-spend-now policies during the boom years. We owe most to our own grit and determination and enterprise.
*
The article on the BBC News website' s home page gives a decent amount of coverage to the reactions of the main biggest political parties (Labour gets only a few dozen more words than the Conservatives).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8639255.stm
*
Its flaw is this gloss by BBC political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue, who "said the growth figures were a boost for Gordon Brown in that there were very real fears of a slide back into recession."
*
Well, that's one way of looking at it.

LUCKY DOUGIE

*
Spokesmen for the parties who took part in last night's prime ministerial debate took to the Today programme this morning. Labour's Douglas Alexander struck gold in getting an unusually gentle Sarah Montague (I.C. of just 0.2), whereas both Danny Alexander from the Lib Dems (I.C. of 0.6) and William Hague (I.C. of 1.2) got John Humphrys! The interruption coefficients tell much of the story here.
*

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 16

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians.
*
Thurs 22/4
*
Conservatives - 48
Labour - 45
Lib Dems - 35
SNP - 8
Plaid Cymru - 3
Greens - 2
UKIP - 2
BNP - 2
Independent Network - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 16 days?:
*
Labour - 419
Conservatives - 332
Lib Dems - 289
SNP - 41
UKIP - 29
Plaid Cymru - 23
Greens - 17
BNP - 8
Independents - 4
DUP - 4
Independent Network - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Mebyon Kernow - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
English Democrats - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1

BY GEORGE!


Happy St George's Day to you all!



In honour of Grant I shall toast my country with a glass of Drambuie!