TOMORROW IS JUST ANOTHER TODAY

*
The main 'controversy' of the day - the 55% threshold for any precipitous dissolution of parliament - was one of yesterday's main stories on Today. (I posted this first thing on Saturday morning!!)
*
John Humphrys kicked off the 6.10 paper review with some Tory-bashing from The Daily Mirror (9.37-10.12) followed by some more Coalition-bashing from The Independent (10.12-10.51). Evan Davis was next, discussing the 'debate' on the Left about how to respond to the coalition - starting with some sour-grapes Tory-bashing from Johann Hari of The Independent (10.59-11.31), followed by Martin Kettle of The Guardian (11.31-12.08) hoping for salvation from the 'reactionaries' courtesy of the Lib Dems. Finally, John Humphrys turned to The Sun's interview with David Cameron. (12.08-12.40). So the anti-government Left got 82% of the action, the pro-government Right just 18%.
*
Next John Humphrys turned to BBC political correspondent Peter Hunt. His first "question to Mr Hunt? "It is hitting a few problems Peter, the government?" Peter's reply? "Yes." The 55% threshold "is causing concern at the moment in public from senior Labour figures, some Conservative privately. And I think that's not going to go away, the concern". Mr Hunt then quoted the criticisms of Lord Falconer. And a half-hearted attempt to put into words what supporters of the move are saying (especially the Lib Dems), he then returned to the attack: "But it's the devil of this 55% that is concerning constitutional experts, senior Labour figures...I mean one constitutional expert said "they're doctoring the constitution, they're priming the pitch" and senior Tories in private...I think the problems for the government will be if senior Tories come out in public to express their views."
*
Nick Cosgrove, one of the BBC's gaggle of left-wing business correspondents, was flagging up more problems for the new government - and seeing who saluted. After talking of 'grim times' for private equity companies, part of that 'grimness' arising from the "proposal by the new coalition government to raise capital gains tax", Cosgrove went hard at it with his main guest Keith Ludeman, CEO of the rail and bus operating company The Go-Ahead Group. Straight away we got "You've got a new transport secretary Philip Hammond to deal with in the new government. Are you optimistic about the coalition and its attitude to your industry?" Mr Ludeman was not going to be drawn into party politics but welcomed some of the coalition's priorities. "That may be the case," replied Nick sceptically, "but transport is going to be low down the list of priorities, below things like health and the police, so we're going to see cuts in the transport budget". (As if we weren't under Labour!!). "Cos the Liberal Democrats actually wanted real cuts in rail fares in their manifesto, which would be disastrous for you?" was the next question. Then Cosgrove bigged up a Labour policy: "What about the free bus passes for the over 60s? I mean that's been very popular. Do you think we can afford them as a nation? Should they be ditched?" He then quipped "I'm sure you get free fares in any case." Mr Ludeman didn't snigger back, probably because he doesn't and wouldn't think of abusing his position in that way. (He's a private sector boss after all, not a public sector manager). Mr Ludeman refused to bite on any of Cosgrove's hooks and was an impressive guest.
*
John Humphrys (6.29am): "Over the next couple of weeks Radio 4 will be taking us back to the 1980s. Here's Carolyn Brown." What did Carolyn say? "We'll have three dramas set against the momentous events of that decade. We begin tonight with a satirical look at the Wapping dispute." The title of the play? "Greed All About It." Do you suspect that all the remaining dramas are going to be similarly negative about that evil decade of Conservative rule? Coming up on 17th May, according to The Radio Times, we will get: "Afternoon Play: The End of the World: It's 1983: The Cold War is raging, Thatcher is in government, Britain is in recession and 17-year old Simon, living in the shadow of Sellafield, is haunted by fears of nuclear holocaust. When he falls in love with Tasha, a beautiful anti-nuclear activist, he sees his chance to make a difference." Is a play on the Miners' Strike (from the perspective of the striking miners naturally) or about the sinking of the Belgrano (not The Falklands Play I bet!) still to come? The BBC have their view of the 1980s. I have mine.
*
With the 6.41 paper review, would fairness win out and the Conservative-backing papers get both the first crack of the whip and the lion's share? Well, no. Still this review was certainly an improvement on the one half an hour earlier. It began again though with the Mirror's Tory-bashing attack over the 55% bar (41.26-41.48) followed by more critical comments from the Guardian (41.48-41.52). The Daily Mail calls it "a shabby stitch-up", so it too got a mention (41.52-41.56). The Cameron interview with the Sun followed (41.56-42.14) with John Humphrys repeating what he said last time but at less length, then came the Telegraph's news of Sam Cam's own "drastic pay cut" (42.14-42.31). Evan then brought us the Independent on Bercow (42.38-42.44). It wouldn't be a Today paper review featuring John Humphrys without the Independent!
*
Humph then discussed DC's first trip as PM to the "potentially more hostile territory of Scotland" with Scotland editor Brian Taylor. (Neither forgot to mention that the Tories have just one seat up there). We were treated to Mr Taylor's opinion that Mr Cameron's statement that he's "going to govern Scotland with respect" (quoted by Humph in a tone of total incredulity) is "a bit vacuous".
*
The ever-present Peter Hennessy was present after 7 o'clock to discuss the protocol for new prime ministers, according to the Today website, but actually was mainly there to discuss the 55% bar. He was "very, very surprised" at the "very, very iffy politics" of the proposal. We learn from his use of the "prime the pitch" phrase that he was the constitutional expert quoted earlier by Peter Hunt (as I suspected). "I really don't think it's on and I'm not in the least bit surprised that people are very worried indeed about it. It creates a very, very poor impression for the new politics". (He's been in too many studios with Norman Smith recently, as the hyperbole is catching).
*
The next section was about Labour: After losing power for the first time in 13 years, is the New Labour project finally over? Two newly-elected Labour MPs, Rachel Reeves (I.C. of 0) and Chris Williamson (I.C.of 0.7), discuss how the party is trying to re-invent itself. John Humphrys presided, asking among other things: "And what about that word 'progressive', that Chris Williamson just used, and people are using all the time now? Maybe you should call yourselves 'The Progressive Labour Party' or 'Labour progressives' or something?"
Humph talked sarcastically about "Nick and Dave" "loving each other" and "almost physically hugging each other"
*
The 7.41 paper review began with another attack on the new government from the Guardian: 41.47-42.00, but the Telegraph followed (42.00-42.20) & then we got the FT's take (briefly) on Europe's economic woes (42.20-42.29). Humph took over and went straight to the Independent and its attacks on the coalition (42.29-42.42). He read this out in a serious tone before adopting a larky tone as to read out the Sun's enthusiastic response to the coalition's first few days (42.42-42.48). Evan Davis took over again & went straight back to the Indie (42.48-43.02) for its take on the first cabinet meeting...before he turned to the Times (43.01-43.11) for a description of Baroness Warsi's dress! John Humph took over again and it was straight back again to the Indie (43.11-43.49), this time for a justice story. They do like the Independent!
*
I mentioned the following segment in my previous post - actually, due to my topsy-turvy methods of composition, it seems like a subsequent post!! - (and note the opening sentence of the Today blurb, which should surely have read "A number of MPs, mostly from the Labour Party, have condemned..."):
0821
MPs have condemned the new government's plans to introduce fixed-term five-year parliaments and raise the threshold at which parliament can be dissolved to 55 percent of a Commons vote. Professor Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit, UCL, and John Gummer (I.C. of 0), a former Tory minister and party chairman, examine the pros and cons of the proposals.
I would just add that Prof Hazell, who has been quite keen in the past to attack the Conservatives over their constitutional agenda - and has been, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, a regular on the BBC doing just that -, by pouring cold water on the fuss over 55% ensured that he, unlike Prof Hennessy, wouldn't get a mention in Clare Spencer's article.

OUT OF OFFICE MESSAGE

*
Well, what a state of affairs...! Won't somebody please put a stake through Labour's heart!!!
*
Thank you all for your kind words and your encouragement throughout the election - and before. I has been very much appreciated. The BBC has generally lived well down to expectations (with the odd bright exception), and sunk below a fair few too.
*
I am now going to give myself a couple of weeks off from the BBC and from blogging - a fortnight without Marr, Naughtie, Carolyn Quinn, Norman Smith, Crick (etc)!
*
The batteries need recharging.

Not a sheep and B-BBC, of course, will be watching the biased Beeb as vigilantly as ever in the mean time.
*
Best wishes to you all,

Craig

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 29

Well, the BBC's electioneering blog kept at it right to the very end. As of 9pm yesterday evening, it had featured 18 posts quoting Gordon Brown, 10 quoting Nick Clegg and just 6 quoting David Cameron. It wasn't over! After 9pm we were taken to a final Brown rally and 'treated' to two more posts featuring substantial campaign quotes from the Great Helmsman, raising his tally to 20. The BBC blog surpassed itself in terms of bias in its final two days (I presume it's over now - the blog I mean, not the bias!)
*
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:
*
Wed 4/5
*
Labour - 32
Conservatives - 15
Lib Dems - 14
Greens - 3
Plaid Cymru - 3
UKIP - 2
SNP - 2
Alliance - 1
*
As testimony to the BBC's partisanship, I think this is pretty damning.
*
Now for the running (final) total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 29 days?
*
Labour - 742
Conservatives - 558
Lib Dems - 471
SNP - 75
UKIP - 42
Plaid Cymru - 42
Greens - 33
BNP - 22
DUP - 8
Independents - 4
English Democrats - 3
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
Christian Peoples Alliance - 2
SDLP - 2
Sinn Fein - 2
UUP - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1
Alliance - 1
*
As candles begin to be lit in BBC studios across the nation and prayers said for the health of the Great Leader, the BBC should fall into purdah today. Norman Smith & co's lips should be sealed.
*
All that remains to be done now is to vote.

PROTECTING THE EMPEROR

*
The BBC's live election blog is giving its all for Labour today. So far Labour are again well ahead on the number of posts reporting their sayings and doings.
*
Whenever something is reported about the Conservatives it is being countered by some criticism from Labour. Thus Cameron's all-night campaigning is described and shortly after we get Kevin Maguire's take on it:

0649: Kevin Maguire, of the Labour-supporting Mirror, tells GMTV Mr Cameron's round-the-clock campaigning is "desperate".

And later the ever-not-pictured Prezza:

0913: Former Deputy PM John Prescott has some tongue-in-cheek words of sympathy for the night-workers who have met David Cameron on his marathon pre-polling trip around Britain. He tweets: "It's hard enough working nights but to have someone repeatedly shouting 'change' at you must get on your nerves!" Read John Prescott's tweets.

Similarly news that Simon Cowell is backing the Tories is immediately followed by tweet from BBC election blog regular Charlie Whelan:

0813: Simon Cowell comes in for some criticism from Gordon Brown's former spin doctor Charlie Whelan for supporting the Tories. He re-tweets a message from LadyMyler, saying: "So multi-millionaire, LA-dwelling, tabloid-wrangling Simon Cowell Comes Out for the Tories? Who'd have thunk it?" Read Charlie Whelan's tweets.

In contrast Labour and Lib Dems spokesman come and go (taking of anything but Michelangelo), without being trailed by snide comments from their opponents.
*
Posts that quote Gordon Brown himself are everywhere. And this is what comes in his wake, as Lloyd noted over at B-BBC:

1215: The BBC's Katie Townsend says: Somewhat of a missed opportunity here in Bradford with Gordon Brown. He delivered a powerful and heartfelt speech about the risks the country faces under a Conservative government. But his lecturn seemed to be facing the wrong way and not towards the hundreds of people who had excitedly gathered to see him. It seems Labour were only expecting around 60 people. As he finished the PM emerged to give them a wave but he really could have whipped up this crowd very easily.

Counting up the posts that quote just the party leaders alone (from 6am to 9pm) shows the extent of this extraordinary imbalance:
*
Cameron - 6
Brown - 18
Clegg - 10
*

GOVING IT TO 'EM AGAIN

*
I know from reading the comments on the B-BBC blogsite that I am far from alone in finding this morning's Today programme deeply biased.
*
The continuous talk/promotion of hung parliaments (right up to the bitter end - or as some call her 'Mary Riddell'), coalitions and proportional representation was one source of irritation. That the panel of voters from Birmingham and from the Labour stronghold of Manchester were also inclined towards hung parliaments, coalitions and proportional representation - and, it seems, towards Labour - was another.
*
Then there was the latest left-sided broadside from the programme's regular election contributor Will Self, chatting to Labour's Geoffrey Robinson and promoting a socialist worldview. Why exactly has he been the programme's regular election guest? Why only him?
*
Then there was Steve Hewlett of The Guardian (and Radio 4's Media Show) chatting about the press's influence on the election with Emily Bell of...The Guardian and Labour-supporting Times journalist David Aaronovich.
*
Above all though, it was the contrasting treatment of the party spokesmen that made this such a fitting finale to Today's biased election campaign. The contrast between John Humphrys's aggressive interview with Michael Gove (6 interruptions, I.C. of 1.1) and Sarah Montague's gentle interview with Alan Johnson (0 interruptions, I.C. of 0) could hardly have been stronger - and falls into the standard pattern not just for this election but for the last year (at least) on Today. Oddly though, her interview with Vince Cable was the strongest on interruptions (6, with an I.C. of 1.7) though it wasn't a tetchy one by any stretch of the imagination.

There was hope though for us all in Michael Gove's latest scrap with John Humphrys. Michael Gove certainly has 'got it'. Here's the interview's scheme, with some choice quotations:
*
9.13 Q1
9.16 A1
9.24 Interruption 1/Q2
9.34 A2
(9.39 muttered comment)
9.55 Interruption 2/Q3
10.13 A3
11.02 Interruption 3/ Q4: (JH:) "As you say there is this sense of change in the air. People want change. And what's extraordinary, and we found it ourselves from the groups of people we've been talking to...they actually want, HUGE number of people, those many undecided of course, but they also want a hung parliament, which proves that they're desperately unhappy with the electoral system that we have now, and what you're NOT prepared to say to them is 'We will change that electoral system so that voting is fair and every vote counts' and that's something that you - alone of the three main Westminster parties are not prepared to say."
11.43 A4 (MG): "We will change the voting system to make every vote count, we will make it fairer.."
11.47 Interruption 3 (JH:) "No you won't. You won't have PR."
11.49 A4 (continued) (MG:) "We will make sure...That's your preferred method. We will make sure that every vote matters in the same way by making sure that every constituency is the same size..." (etc)
12.09 Interruption 4
JH "No, no, forgive me, I'm not going to let you do another little party political there. It's fine.."
MG: "Will you let me answer any question?"
JH: "Well, I..I.."
MG: "You've interrupted every single one of them so far John"
JH: "Ooooh, no, no. Not true but never mind. You always say that when you come on. We expect that. Now look..."
MG: "But you always interrupt me."
JH: (laughing grimly) "Can I ask a question?"
MG: "Of course."
JH: "Good."
12.25 Q5: (JH) "Let me challenge what you've just said about your fair voting proposals because of all the academic research that's been done, all of the serious academic research that's been done, says it not the size of the constituencies or the make-up of the constituencies that affects whether a vote is fair or not. You know that and I know that. So what I am asking you is why you will not introduce or at least allow a referendum on a system that the academics, disinterested academics, regard as being fair, which is proportional representation. You might not like the outcome of PR but whether you should give people the opportunity to vote for or against it is the question."
13.08 A5
13.12 Interruption 5
13.19 A5 (continued)
13.41 Interruption 6/Q6 (JH:) "You're treating the audience like fools! You're treating the voters like idiots!"
13.45 A6
13.59 Q7 (JH:) "I was suggesting merely that you give the electorate a chance to vote on this and the reason you won't, you know and I know, is that if you did your party would be ripped apart. They'd take your head off or they'd slice you up like a banana, if you prefer than metaphor."
14.15 A7, beginning: (MG:) "Once again John, a magnificently eloquent question, which would be better suited to a party political platform than to a neutral interrogation."
15.09 Interview ends

Of Michael Gove's first charge - that John Humphrys had so far interrupted his every answer (which Mr H denied) - Mr Gove was quite correct.
*
Of Mr Gove's second charge that PR is Mr Humphrys's - or the BBC's - "preferred method", I think we can say that this certainly seems to be the case!
*
Of Mr Gove's third charge - that JH's questions "would be better suited to a party political platform than to a neutral interrogation" - I think that anyone reading the above questions, with all their loaded terms of phrase, their disinterested academics and "all serious research", their "you know and I know"s (etc) will have to say "Spot on!" to that too.
*
Another 'Attaboy!' is in order.

RADIO MOSCOW

*
We learned at the beginning of yesterday's BBC internet election coverage that David Cameron was beginning a 36-hour campaign-a-thon, but you would have been hard pressed to discover much of what he was actually saying, especially about anything important. We do learn though that he said that he wasn't going to miss his rally in Belfast "for the world".
*
On the other hand, Gordon Brown's every move was chronicled throughout the day, with post after post reporting Brownite propaganda, with plenty of serious point-scoring quotes and adoring crowds. I wonder if this this is what it was like in Russia in 2004, when Vladimir Putin was facing re-election, and the state media went into overdrive for him!
*
A smattering of mildly supportive tweets and 'have your says' for the Conservatives was set against a deluge of ones critical of the Conservatives (and often supportive of Labour). I will number-crunch tonight, when I get in from work, to give you the proportions.
*
UKIP did, at last, get a few mentions yesterday, though one was about a 'UKIP scandal' - not much of a scandal, of course - following some passionate words from Norwich North trouper Glenn Tingle, and another was about Lord Pearson's comments about the taste of venison (doubtless after being asked about stag-hunting by some idiot on 5Live).
*

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 28

*
Well thanks to you, 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 - and a very dramatic sets of results it is too:

Tue 3/5
*
Labour - 32
Conservatives - 15
Lib Dems - 8
UKIP - 4
SNP - 1
Plaid Cymru - 1
Greens - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
UUP - 1
SDLP - 1
*
The screw is tightening yet further. The BBC blog is clearly going all for Labour.
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 28 days?
*
Labour - 710
Conservatives - 543
Lib Dems - 457
SNP - 73
UKIP - 42
Plaid Cymru - 39
Greens - 30
BNP - 22
DUP - 8
Independents - 4
English Democrats - 3
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
Christian Peoples Alliance - 2
SDLP - 2
Sinn Fein - 2
UUP - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1

YET ANOTHER HOLDING POST

*
Thank you everybody for all you help. Not a sheep and hippiepooter have supplied me with the info for yesterday & I will now try out your suggestions Lloyd, as I'm still out of action!

I'll record all today's radio and TV shows. They ain't getting away from me!

Cheers Craig
*
PS 20.15pm 5/5: Thanks Lloyd for the 'proxy' site. It's doing the trick nicely.

ANOTHER HOLDING POST

*
A lost evening.
*
I still can't get into any BBC sites, whether they be Today, The World at One, BBC News. I can't see any comments on the B-BBC blog that suggest that this is a nationwide problem. It's only the BBC sites that are a problem for me. So, if anyone can get access to the BBC via the internet I would be very grateful if you could copy and paste the BBC's live election blog for today - if it has been up and running! If I'm unable to get access to it before today's posts disappear into a black hole, I might need your help!
*
Thanks and goodnight, sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite...
*
zzzzzz

HOLDING POST

*
Well, I've missed all the fun of a Labour PPC who thinks that Gordon Brown is our worst ever prime minister & I can't get into any BBC sites at the moment (they all appear to be down. Is everyone else having this problem?), so while I wait for the chance to find out what Jim Naughtie has been up to on Today or what those Stakhanovites over at the BBC blog are writing today, here's an amusing picture courtesy of Tory Bear:

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 27

*
Reading yesterday's BBC's internet election blog was like reading Tass from thirty years ago (and yes Gordon Brezhnev is still fighting fit and beloved of the people).
*
Anyhow, 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:
*
Mon 3/5
*
Labour - 22
Lib Dems - 16
Conservatives - 13
SNP - 1
Plaid Cymru - 1
DUP - 1
BNP - 1
English Democrats - 1
*
The screw is tightening. Nothing from UKIP for three days running now.
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 27 days?
*
Labour - 678
Conservatives - 528
Lib Dems - 449
SNP - 72
UKIP - 38
Plaid Cymru - 38
Greens - 29
BNP - 22
DUP - 8
Independents - 4
English Democrats - 3
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
Christian Peoples Alliance - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1
SDLP - 1
UUP - 1

QUOTAS

*
The BBC live election blog is at it again, messing up my daily figures by using lots of banal/trivial quotes from the Conservatives to boost their quota but using lots of serious/significant quotes for Labour and the Lib Dems. My criteria is simple - to count every post that uses direct/indirect quotes from the party politicians. Yes, my figures show a significant and growing Labour lead (so pro-Labour bias) but they don't register the triviality of so many of the Conservative quotes chosen to appear on the BBC blog - quotes that don't help them get their message across. This underestimates the extent of the blog's anti-Conservative bias. I didn't think about that at the start, and now it's far too late. I should have run a parallel survey that monitored the value of the quotes I have been recording.
*
Here are some more examples of what I mean:
*
0946: In Blackpool, David Cameron is talking to voters. As the sun shines, he compliments one man on his tie and says its great to be back in the Lancashire resort. Wife Samantha is by his side.

0951: The Tory leader is looking at a community garden. He and wife Samantha take turns to point at the denuded flower beds, or are they vegetable patches? The latter, it seems, as one gentleman explains how much people enjoy eating the produce. Mr Cameron says his daughter has a "novel" approach to gardening, simply throwing seeds everywhere in the hope that they will grow.

1009: David Cameron, who has just signed his contract for young people in Blackpool, says his party takes nothing for granted and that the election remains "wide open". Promising to continue trying to persuade people to the last moment, he adds: "There's real work to do. There's millions of people still to be persuaded."

1359: David Cameron is talking to young people at the City of London academy. He's been joined by wife Samantha and double Olympic gold medallist, rower James Cracknell. The first question is what football team does he support - cue groans from those assembled when Mr Cameron says Aston Villa. He then backs Chelsea to win the Premier League - cue more groans. "I've lost all the north London votes there," he says.

As Ryan discovered, the BBC are keeping count too. They will be including such dross too.

A CRICK GLANCE BACK

*
Something I only saw out of the corner of my eye (metaphorically-speaking) on Newsnight a week or two ago was looked at full on by a blogger new to me but well worth a read:

Anything you say will be taken down...

Misconstrued, misunderstood, distorted and twisted beyond credibility.. and then used against you.

In this case I am talking about what David Cameron said in the Paxman interview for Panorama today, what Michael Crick said about it, and indeed what the press in the North East and Northern Ireland have said about it.

What David Cameron actually said was that the public sector was too large a part of the economies of several parts of the UK (In Northern Ireland the public sector accounts for 68% of GDP and in the North East 63%) and so the solution is to increase the size of the private sector. Obvious really.

However this has been turned on its head into swinging cuts in both areas. This is not what he said, meant or intended. It is a clear distortion.
Posted by Benedict White
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2010/04/anything-you-say-will-be-taken-down.html
*
If you pop over to Not a sheep's site you'll see a scoop from Benedict that you might find very interesting...
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/05/gordon-browns-replacement-of-bank-of.html

OUT OF KILTER

*
The balance between the individual and the state was the theme of this morning's Today programme. The balance between the Today's programme's treatment of the three old parties is mine.
*
There were three big political interviews.
*
The first was a thoughtful one conducted between James Naughtie and Labour's John Denham, all very civilised on Jim's part, all very party political on John's.
*
The last was a less philosophical one between James Naughtie and the engaging Lib Dem David Laws, where Naughtie seemed more interesting in tying the Lib Dems to the Tories. Still, it was far from being a hostile interview.
*
What of the central interview? This was between Evan Davis and Conserative Michael Gove. Evan is more than capable of thoughtful interviewing (it used to be his forte) but this was no thoughtful interview, being full of aggressive interruptions and cynical comments. Michael Gove eventually had to criticise him for being so cynical - entirely reasonably - and then, good man!, went on to say that Today (among many other programmes) always concentrates on government initiatives and that he was glad today to get the rare chance to talk on the programme about exciting non-government initiatives. He's not wrong about that.
*
John Anderson (whose ideas, when I first began looking at how to use interruption coefficients a year or so ago, have helped shape all my subsequent actions) notes, over at B-BBC:
The intro was that Tory ideas are a "hodgepotch". Now that's a nice unbiased start! Then described as a "great fluff". And "half-baked".
*
What do the interruption coefficients tell us here?
*
John Denham (James Naughtie) - 0.4
David Laws (James Naughtie) - 0.5
Michael Gove (Evan Davis) - 1.4
*
Breaking down the Denham and Gove interviews shows the following:
*
John Denham

34.14 Q1
34.22 A1
34.58 Q2 (long & ponderous)
35.37 A2
36.13 Interruption 1/Q3
36.17 A3
36.30 Interruption 2/Q4
36.46 A4
37.38 Q5
37.54 A5
38.37 Q6
38.47 A6
39.27 Q7
39.40 A7
40.03 Interview ends

Michael Gove

10.47 Q1
11.00 A1
12.o2 Q2
12.30 A2
12.44 Interruption 1/Q3
12.54 A3
12.57 Interruption 2/Q4
13.05 A4
13.16 Interruption 3/Q5
13.35 A5
13.39 Interruption 4
13.42 A5 (continued)
13.44 Interruption 5/Q6
13.52 A6
14.13 Interruption 6/Q7
14.25 A7
14.27 Interruption 7
14.34 A7 (continued)
14.42 Interruption 8/Q8
14.49 A8
15.00 Q9
15.18 A9
15.22 Q10
15.26 A10
15.28 Interruption 9/Q11
15.45 A11
15.51 Interruption 10/Q12
16.09 A12
17.28 Q13
17.41 A13
17.48 Interruption 11/Q14
18.02 A14
18.06 Interruption 12
18.09 A14 (continued) - a brilliant answer!
19.34 Interview ends

It other words, it's the standard Today programme pattern.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8657000/8657637.stm

PAUSE FOR THOUGHT

*
Hope you are enjoying your bank holiday.
*
A walk for me and the family along the Lune, with sunlight falling on the water, sand-martins darting out of holes, a wood full of flowering garlic and bluebells running up the slopes. Blossom everywhere, hardly a 'Vote Labour' sign to be seen, and a medley of birdsong filling the air instead of the inane twitterings of James Naughtie and Evan Davis. Ah, to be in England now that Spring has come!
*
Enough of that! Now back to the twitterings of James Naughtie and Evan Davis...

SUSPICIOUS MINDS

*
The dangers of lurking paranoia must always be guarded against vigorously, BUT (and get the white coats ready!)....
*
After Andrew Marr's initial 15-minute blitz on David Cameron over Tory cuts, Tory taxes and Tory evasiveness, his next question was "What would be your priorities for the first 100 hours if you became prime minister?" Mr Cameron's answer was allowed to go on unchecked. I thought at the time that this was a generous question and that the answer was allowed a generous amount of time.
*
What happens later? Peter Mandelson leads the charge to accuse the Conservatives of arrogantly taking the voters for granted and assuming that they had already won the election, as well as for going against convention and talking about what they would do immediately on taking office (if that's a convention, it's a strange one).
*
Radio 4's 7 o'clock news this morning led its election coverage with Mandy's denunciations.
*
So, was that Andrew Marr and Peter Mandelson I saw on Saturday night behind a grassy knoll, concocting a plot to embarrass David Cameron by making him look arrogant and presumptuous, which Mandy would then accuse him of being?
*
Perish the thought!

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 26

*
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.
*
Sun 2/5
*
Labour - 16
Conservatives - 11
Lib Dems - 8
SNP - 3
Plaid Cymru - 1
DUP - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
UUP - 1
SDLP - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 26 days?
*
Labour - 656
Conservatives - 515
Lib Dems - 433
SNP - 71
UKIP - 38
Plaid Cymru - 37
Greens - 29
BNP - 21
DUP - 7
Independents - 4
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
English Democrats - 2
Christian Peoples Alliance - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1
SDLP - 1
UUP - 1

OH, HOW PREDICTABLE!

*
A rather interesting (and depressing) report from the Labour stronghold of Dagenham by Shaun Ley on this lunchtime's The World This Weekend was followed by a discussion on a 'new politics', 'minor parties' and independents by former independent MP/BBC reporter Martin Bell, Mike Nattrass of UKIP and, as the representative of the 'big parties', Chris Grayling for the Conservatives...
*
...As if!!!!
*
No, the discussion took place between former independent MP/BBC reporter Martin Bell, Adrian Ramsey of the Greens and, as the representative of the 'big parties', Tessa Jowell for Labour.

SOPEL BOX

*
The debate between the potential foreign secretaries and the voters of Stourbridge on today's Politics Show found William Hague on the receiving end of the lion's share on Jon Sopel's interruptions and questions. Discounting those interruptions where Jon Sopel cut his guests short for reasons of time or to go to the audience, William Hague was interrupted 9 times, while both David Miliband and Ed Davey were interrupted just 4 times.
*
David Miliband wasn't so lucky with the audience!
*
P.S. It says something about the BBC's live election blog that they saw fit to quote only one of the three politicians on the show. Can you guess which one? Clue: he always pronounces the word 'year' as 'yah' and his daddy was a Marxist professor.

LABOUR UNITED

*
Back to Gordcasting House, and taking things up from where I left off...

Will has already commented that those lefty heavyweights Peter Hennessy and Anthony Howard were back again (for a fourth week) to reminisce and pontificate about elections then and now. This week's archive clips and their judgements thereon can only be summed up as Will summed them up: "Callaghan & Wilson were fab. Home was a grotesque & they couldn't utter Thatcher's name." (Mr Howard sneaked in the word "bogus" to describe Mrs Thatcher's speech on entering Downing Street).
*
Will continues "That was followed by a newspaper review. Arch lefty journalist John Sergeant, former Labour parliamentary candidate & BBC face, John O'Farrell & actress Jenny Seagrove. I switched off after the introductions, before hearing that Seagrove may have been as left as the other 3 (inc Paddy). Wiki tells me Jenny is an animal rights activist & vegetarian so probably Green rather than Labour, but still left."
*
You will be intrigued, Will, to find this though about Jenny Seagrove. She too is a Labour Party supporter!!
http://www.labour.org.uk/wales/labour_leads_fight_against_bnp_thugs
http://iwc2.labouronline.org/165220/back-the-ban
*
Both John Sergeant and John O'Farrell made noises supportive of Gordon Brown.
*
Will's final comment says it all: "The BBC obviously really don't feel the need to observe neutrality, do they?"