THE XX FACTOR

*

I am wholly supportive of getting many more women into parliament and government (especially good-looking ones). However, despite such feminist ardour on my part, I found Nicola Standbridge's report on this morning's Today to be a deeply dissatisfying one.

*

Prompted by Lynne Featherstone (the fetching new Equalities minister) and her comments calling for more female representation in the top echelons of government, Nicola went to meet the Fawcett Society, an old feminist organisation that features quite regularly on Today. She called it "an antidote to Cameron and Clegg's cabinet of 19 men and 4 women." The Fawcetts have 7 women and 1 man in its daily meeting - which is, of course, much fairer!

*

We listened in to the discussion as the Fawcetts discussed the new Con-Lib coalition's attitude to women's equality and caringly-sharingly-positively agreed (unanimously) that it would "put the brakes on if not move it backwards". (I distinctly remember a leading Fawcett coming out for Labour during the election, so this is, perhaps, unsurprising.) Nic interviewed the chief of the Fawcetts, Labour-supporting Ceri Goddard (pictured). Nic treated her as the fount of all wisdom.

*

Where did Nicola look for foreign inspiration? To Bolivia and its communist president Evo Morales. (Ah, the BBC and its love of communists!) Evo has granted women "gender parity" - something the Fawcetts, of course, are extremely keen on. Nic talked to Ana Maria Romero, communist President of the Bolivian Senate. She "encouraged us to follow their lead". Nic asked her, "So would you say Cameron and Clegg are missing out with just 4 out of 23 cabinet members?" Red Ana said "yes" and, "though I don't like her", cited Margaret Thatcher as a sign that women can participate in British politics. Thanks for that insight Ana. Thanks for that insight Nicola.

*

At least Nicola did talk to someone who, despite being a feminist, doesn't believe in lists and quotas - the classicist Prof Mary Beard (who I always think of as the professor who said that the US "had it coming" when thousands of people were horrifically murdered on 11 September 2001). She, light-heartedly, cited a well-known example from Ancient Greece of a way for women to get what they want (here more political representation) - by refusing their menfolk sex. (That made Sarah Montague snicker!)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8684000/8684268.stm

*
A campaigning piece, of course, rather than a piece of reportage. Should the supposedly impartial BBC be conducting such pieces?

RIGHT ANGLES

*
Another evolving angle on the BBC's attack on the new government has been to highlight the opposition to the coalition from Lib Dem supporters. This has already been noticed by several commentators on the B-BBC website.
*
Just considering the Today programme, the obvious point to make here is that Today has shown itself not to be interested in finding out how Conservative supporters are reacting to having to share power with the Lib Dems - even though there are three million more of them than their are Lib Dem voters. Not one report on Today this week has looked at that angle. Why not?
*
Here's all there has been:
*
MON 10/5
0835
What do Liberal Democrat members make of the negotiations with the Conservatives to form a coalition? Justin Webb reports from St Albans, where the battle for the parliamentary seat saw the Lib Dems jumping Labour to take second place.
*
WED 12/5
0713
The Liberal Democrats have taken up four cabinet posts and their leader Nick Clegg is David Cameron's deputy in the new coalition government. Today presenter Justin Webb investigates how the Lib Dems feel about the new alliance.
*
SAT 15/5
0810
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will address a special conference of his Liberal Democrat party this weekend in an effort to get members to endorse the coalition deal with the Tories. Many members have threatened to leave the party over the deal. Nick Starling a party member, and Simon Hughes MP and former president of the party, analyse how members have reacted to party's new relationship with the Tories.
*
*
Now, as Laban has posted, at B-BBC, Dan Hannan notes that the BBC are interested in hearing from right-wing Conservative politicians:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/05/its-bbc-here-wed-like-you-to-say.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100039829/its-the-bbc-here-wed-like-you-to-say-something-angry-stupid-and-preferably-racist-about-the-new-government

FLAWED-CASTING HOUSE

*
Another quick glance backwards...
*
The recurrent anti-capitalist strain on Radio 4's Broadcasting House was in evidence again last week, with presenter Paddy O'Connell referring (gratuitously) in passing to Sunday as "an oasis free from stock market speculation". He used this phrase in his introduction to the final election pontifications of those erudite old lefties Anthony Howard and Peter Hennessy (who have been the programme's chief election pundits throughout the whole campaign), who went back down memory lane to Jeremy Thorpe in 1974 before cooing over Jim Callaghan.
*
The only other point to make about this (as was made by Deborah at B-BBC at the time) is that Paddy did his usual thing of leaping to Labour's defence. When Mr Howard brought up the now famous 'heated' telephone conversation last week between Clegg and Brown, Paddy stepped in to say "Although that was strongly denied in the briefings that were given..." and then to move the conversation swiftly on: "...but let me just ask you to nail this down then. What does the stopwatch say from history..." This blog is festooned with other (often far worse) examples of the same thing. (Just click on the label Paddy O'Connell at the bottom of this post).
*
If you remember back a week, you will recall that the BBC was still banging on obsessively about electoral reform (when they hoped this could wreck the chances of a Conservative-led government in perpetuity). Paddy O'Connell paused last Sunday to mention "one of the big events in Westminster this weekend". What was that seismic event? "The arrival of a crowd chanting for voting reform. They gathered outside one of the multiple meeting of the Liberal Democrats". We heard their chanting. (He was to return to the same (minor) event later in the programme & played us another clip from it!)
*
Paddy then went for a walk around London talking to people about the post-election uncertainty. He met newly-retired Labour MP Andrew McKinlay, Charles Kennedy and Michael Crick, a morris-dancing lady, a couple of workmen, a pro-Brown 'ordinary woman' and a psychotherapist called Lucy Beresford, who said that all this election uncertainty unsettles us because it reminds us of the uncertainty of our own date of death. I can truly say I'd never thought of it like that before!!
*
Another of Paddy's very selective use of listener e-mails followed. I have also commented on this abuse before. Why are they almost exclusively from left-wing listeners? This one, John Anderson (not John at B-BBC I would wager), said "David Cameron constantly emphasized during the campaign 'Vote Clegg & you might get Brown'. So I did. Now it looks as if I voted Clegg and I might get Cameron." Yes, John, you did and you did. Oh the irony!
*
Proportional representation was back on the agenda next as Paddy discussed its varieties with Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg of what he called the "independent research organisation" Democratic Audit. 'Independent' it and Dr Wilks-Heeg may very well be, but Democratic Audit is a Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust-sponsored offshoot of Charter 88, and so very much the BBC's sort of "independent" organisation (i.e. a left-leaning one).
*
A rare Tory on BH appeared for the paper review, albeit the somewhat semi-detached Michael Portillo. The other paper reviewers were Channel 4 News's political correspondent Cathy Newman and left-wing comedian Francesca Martinez.
*
Paddy's run-down of the front pages of the Sunday papers began, of course, with the Independent on Sunday (36.43-36.53) before moving on, no less 'of course', to the Observer (36.53-37.09) and talk of Lord Ashcroft. The Sunday Times (37.09-37.28) on the shambles of election day and the Sunday Express (37.37-39.44) on Brown's future brought up the rear. No space for the Sunday Telegraph on the Mail on Sunday.
*
The final seven minutes or so of the programme were the latest pages - written during the election - from newly-retired Labour MP & popular diarist Chris Mullin, read by the man himself. Mr Mullin is a very entertaining writer and has a refreshing detachment but he's still a staunch Labour partisan nonetheless and this was a sharply political piece. BH has given a platform to many Labour MPs over the past year, with Conservatives far, far thinner on the ground.
*
There was just time for two more listener e-mails before the show ended. The first came from a Mrs Glenys Burgess: "Am I the only one to see the irony in news reporters repeatedly saying 'we need a decision for the markets'? The markets, with their massive self-centred mismanagement, have done more than most to create this situation." I wonder why Paddy picked up on that one! More anti-capitalism! The other was a joke (and not a bad one) from a Gerald Toranto: "When Caroline Lucas won Brighton Pavilion, was I the only one to wonder what the second prize was?"
*
If you thought The Andrew Marr Show was biased just try its simultaneously-broadcast Radio 4 counterpart. Broadcasting House is far subtler in its bias but the bias is even more pervasive.
*
(That wasn't as "quick" a glance backwards as I thought!)

HOBBY-HORSES FOR COURSES

*
How has The Record Europe been going on in my (semi-continuing) absence?
*
Going back to 2nd May (prior to the election), we find the programme plugging the BBC line on Greece. Not 'why should Greece be bailed out by European taxpayers for its years of reckless spending, creative accounting, tax evasion and public sector profligacy?' but "We'll be asking how Europe's politicians can wrestle control back from the markets and save Europe's single currency." Maybe Greece doesn't deserve to be saved from the markets and maybe Europe's single currency doesn't deserve saving either. That, however, was something Shirin Wheeler and co. were unwilling even to entertain.
*
Shirin's introduction went on: "Also on the programme, Europe's consumer groups plead with the EU institutions to stand firm against airlines in upholding passenger rights in the wake of the disruption caused by the volcanic dust cloud from Iceland".
*
The BBC has been berating the poor Germans (and, yes, I do feel for them over this) over their reluctance to fork out their hard-worked-for money to bail out the feckless Greeks. Shirin slammed the Northern Europeans for "dithering" over the rescue of prodigal Greece and said that the German tabloids have "been screaming in protest" - hardly a neutral way of putting it! The sensible Angela Merkel, not keen on the bailout - like the majority of her countrymen - was presented as playing party politics over the issue: "What's not helping (helping who exactly Shirin? The feckless Greeks? The Europhiles cause?) is a critical election in the German state of Nordrhein Westphalia..." German cold feet (bad!) were contrasted with EU commission resolve (good!): "Europe's monetary affairs commissioner Olli Rehn attempted to calm and reassure."
*
No UK politicians (all home no doubt, campaigning for the general election) were involved in the following discussion between a German liberal, a Portuguese socialist, a member of what Shirin called "the centre-right Fine Gael" (though centrist would be a far more accurate description) and a Belgian member of the Dedecker List (aligned to our Conservatives, so - in Shirin's eyes - an out and out "boo!").
*
As I've noted before German liberals (the FDP) are not like our left-leaning liberals, being emphatically pro-business. (Will our liberals change, now that they are in power?) They have been the party most hostile to the idea of bailing out our feckless Greek friends. So Shirin interrupted the German liberal (Wolf Klinz) and took him to task over the issue, accusing him (and his party and coalition government) of "foot-dragging". The German liberals are, however, clearly not wholly united on the issue and this German liberal - a German MEP with a plum job as chairman on a EU committee (CRIS) - had clearly "gone native", as so many Eurocrats seem to do, and was somewhat critical of his own Conservative-Liberal government's position on the issue. This established, Shirin went a bit easier on him. Only a bit though. After Herr Klinz (who seems like a pleasant enough chap) accused his own country's media of failing to "calm down the situation", which got a firm "Yes!" from the supposedly impartial presenter, Shirin, with yet more breathtaking bias, assumed a haughty air, interrupted him again and said "Your own colleagues don't really help, talking about exit from the Euro, do they?" And having slung that barb at him, she did what she usually does to UK Conservatives or UKIP spokesfolk and - without giving them the right to reply - moved on to another guest. Such behaviour could not be less improper from a supposedly impartial presenter. (When he returned later there was another question critical of the German government and another heckle from Shirin!).
**
Go the German Free Democrats!
*
Guy Mitchell from the highly pro-European Fine Gael, asked about the spead of the contagion, said that that it wasn't so much the markets (Shirin's point) as unscrupulous people "willing this to happen" and "out for the kill" but added that Greece's situation was largely the fault of the Greeks themselves. Fair points, I'd say. Fine Gael is (to its great credit) supporting Fine Fail's drastic recovery plan. As he was making that very point, Shirin cut him off and turned to the Portuguese socialist, Vital Moreira, in order to move the conversation away from such good sense and back to the more comfortable territory (for her) of market-bashing. She asked him about the credit rating agencies attitude to Portugal and said "this is the trouble, isn't it? It's not according to any rationality?"
*
Like Mr Mitchell, Mr Moreira bridled at the comparison between his country and Greece, making some valid points to back this up, but then said that his government had acted properly and that it was the speculators who are to blame for the current crisis.
*
At last she came to Derk Jan Eppink, the "Belgian Conservative". Within a matter of seconds Shirin was in on him, forcefully contradicting him. Why? Because Mr Eppink had immediately made clear that he understood the German public's concerns and said that Greece should have dropped out of the euro. Another "on the other hand" was not long in coming. Intriguingly, though, Mr Eppink declares himself to be "pro-Euro". (That declaration, made later in the discussion, didn't stop him being interrupted again as soon as his Eurosceptic side re-emerged).
*
When Mr Mitchell returned and had the temerity to say that the Greeks should obviously only be bailed out if they are taking strong and credible measures (like Ireland) to get their own house in order, Shirin plunged in passionately to defend the Greek (Socialist) government's actions so far.
*
When Mr Moreira complained of "schadenfreude" on the part of Eurosceptics (following some wise words from the Belgian Conservative), Shirin did not keep quiet and allow him to make his point. No she intervened to sympathise with him, saying "Well, there's some of that around certainly."
*
The left-wing/Europhile bias on this programme is often choking in its intensity.
*
*
If you still doubt that (and why would you?), the programme's second subject area - EU legislation to protect passengers' rights against the wicked airline companies - was discussed with... can you guess?
*
A representative of the airlines? A British Conservative?
*
No, a spokesman (David McCullough) from the Brussels-based lobby group that represents all the European consumer rights' organisation across Europe, which supports the legislation, and a Labour MEP (Brian Simpson) who helped draw up the legislation. Shirin was with them all the way, saying that "we've heard all the right words from the European institutions, Brian Simpson, but what can you, as chair of the Transport Committee, and the European commission, with whom you're working closely on this, do about this?" Head nodding throughout, Shirin did not interrupt either Mr Simpson nor Mr McCullough, nor did she play devil's advocate for the airline companies in her questions to Mr Simpson and Mr McCullough. Far from it. All her questions came from the 'take tough action' angle. All of them.

Mr McCullough and Mr Simpson (4 questions, 3.12, IC of 0) could both be right of course. As they agreed with each other, however, isn't it the duty of a neutral presenter to challenge them?: *
*
*
A week on (9/5) and what was Shirin Wheeler's opening question? Not "Is Europe asking too much from the European tax-payer in its steps to rescue Greece? Should Greece be asked to leave the euro?" but "Is Europe asking too much of Greece? Is the price for rescue too high?" The BBC is relentless once it has a narrative in place.
*
Who were Shirin's guests to discuss the issue? Stravros Lambrinidis, a Greek Socialist, Ioannis Tsoukalas from the Greek Centre-Right, Daniel Gros from the pro-European Centre for European Policy Studies ("one of Brussels's leading think tanks", according to Shirin) and Ronald Janssen from the European Trade Union Confederation.
*
Shirin questions Mr Lambrinidis gently but Mr Tsoukalas more toughly, accusing his party (New Democracy) of "political game-playing" by not backing the socialist government over its austerity measures. (I think she's right, but should she have said it?) She also pressed the trade union rep over the same issue, saying that surely they too should be supporting the socialist government's austerity measures, before returning to the BBC narrative and agreeing with Mr Janssen's final point - and quoting Labour's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz to back it up!! Stiglitz says the measures will weaken the Greek economy. So, having offered the Greek Socialist government her support, Shirin then moved on to attacking the demands for austerity placed on the Greek economy, as imposed upon Greece by the IMF and the Eurozone.

She was then back on her hobby horse again, asking Mr Gros "And what of Europe's own role in this? As bad actually. You know, the foot-dragging, the lack of responsibility?" This is an opinion. (Why is she giving us her opinion?) Has Europe's "foot-dragging" been a bad thing? When Shirin talks of Europe's "lack of responsibility" (doubtless meaning the Germans and us!), shouldn't the answer have come "'Europe' isn't mainly responsible. The Greeks are." She kept banging away at it, asking later: "And this is the point. In the absence of the fiscal architecture, which I think is what people call it, there has been a lack of solidarity as well. Surely it's about time that is demonstrated." Mr Gros is closer to the Germans on this. Hence Shirin's closer questioning of him.


Available on BBC World, the BBC News Channel and BBC Parliament, and always available on the BBC website's Europe page, the programme may have a limited reach but that's surely not an excuse for it to be so shamelessly biased week in and week out.

DISPROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

*
The batteries are still re-charging but...
*
**
Interesting times these (hopefully not in the sense of the famous Chinese curse).

What do you make of the 55% bar set for MPs to vote for dissolution? The BBC (who I've returned to today, just for today) is clearly obsessing about the issue.
*
The BBC's Clare Spencer presents a sequence of 'expert' views: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2010/05/daily_view_parliament_dissolut.html
*
Strangely, the opponents featured in Clare's article come from the Right and the Left, while the supporters are solely drawn from the Centre and the Left. Where is the support from the Right? There is some, because I've read and heard it elsewhere.
*
This clearly reflects a fascinating sense of confusion reigning across the political spectrum.
*
This morning's Today also showed this in the contrasted and surprising responses of all its interviewees on the issue (Peter Hennessy, Robert Hazell, John Gummer - the main surprise being that Prof Hazell and Mr Gummer agreed, seemingly to the chagrin of Evan Davis).
*
This morning's Today also showed that there is at least one group of people in the country who aren't in the least confused on the issue - the BBC. They have simply come out in opposition to the idea.
*
Clare's sequence grossly favours one side of the argument - and it isn't the new government's side. Whichever side you are on here (if any), you will surely agree that her presentation is deeply biased. I could speculate as to why she (and her BBC colleagues) might want to show that 'expert' opinion largely believes that the Con-Lib coalition is in the wrong...but I won't!
*
The article's structure is a classic 'bias sandwich'- a sandwich with sceptics on top, supporters in the middle, and then - for the final word - another sceptic. (Actually, six are outright opponents. Only Douglas Hurd is really a sceptic).
*
Also, the sceptics outweigh the -philes by some margin. We get seven opponents of the government's position to just three supporters. Moreover, every single one of the first six views presented is that of opponent. Is that fair?
*
Simple colour co-ordination will make plain the extent of the imbalance (blue for sceptics, brown for supporters). Above and beyond my previous two points you'll see the contrast in word-count between the two sides is vast.
*
Moreover (and finally), just look who comes first!! A Labour MP!!!!
*

Daily View: Parliament dissolution rules change
Clare Spencer 11:02 UK time, Friday, 14 May 2010

Commentators discuss the coalition government's move to introduce a new mechanism for the dissolution of Parliament. The plans would require 55% of MPs to vote for dissolution, this is higher than the simple majority required for a vote of no confidence.

Labour MP Paul Flynn says the Liberal Democrats should be ashamed:

"Today a tiny sharp thought pierced the sensitive brains of conscientious LibDems. They have signed up to the illiberal power-hugging cheat of 55% majority for a confidence vote. There is no argument for this except party advantage to the Tories. It's a shameless, blatant denial of democracy.

"When they sober up, the LibDems morphing into Con'Dems will remember their past indignation at alleged Labour sins on democracy and freedoms during the past thirteen years. The Con-Dems have proved their mettle.

"They have slashed a basic tenet of democracy within thirteen hours."

In the Law blog Head of Legal Carl Gardner argues against the move:

"This proposed legislation, though, seems to aim at preventing an election even if 54% of MPs want one. That is wrong in principle, it's undemocratic, and it must be opposed.

"What it would mean is that if the coalition broke down, the Con-LibDem administration would end too. Of course. But there wouldn't and couldn't be an election. Instead, a minority Conservative government would be able to carry on - its 306 seats giving it a blocking minority of 47% - and as long as it kept discipline it could rule without the confidence of Parliament. Bear in mind that this could happen the moment this new legislation comes into force, which is presumably intended to be soon, so that government could go on, effectively behind Parliamentary barricades, for months or for several years. Even for this to be theoretically possible is, I'm afraid, outrageous and unconscionable. Whatever government we have, it must be accountable to Parliament."

Iain Martin says in the Wall Street Journal that he thinks the 55% rule is a "very dangerous constitutional innovation":

"It has slightly sinister sounding connotations, as though a ratchet effect might operate. If it is being suggested that 55% of votes is needed to express no confidence in a government this year (all in the interests of strong government, you understand) then why not 60% or higher at some point in the future?

"It is rather stretching things to try and present this piece of proposed gerrymandering as 'Political Reform.' It is actually designed to ensure that even a walk -out of the whole Lib Dem parliamentary group couldn't actually bring down this government. This would weaken Parliament and strengthen the hand of the executive considerably - when it is only weeks since both parties were talking of doing the opposite."

Lee Rotherham at Conservative Home says the change would betray "the most basic and fundamental principles of how a democracy works":

"A majority of MPs could vote down a government, and yet it could keep on trundling in power.

"I am not sure where this idea came from; it has rather a tinge from the days of the sacked European Commission.

"Having pondered the revolutionary change last night and pored over Erskine May this morning, the reality seems even more striking. I could find in its many pages no actual definition of what constitutes a majority in Parliament. The centuries-old presumption is that it is a majority of one. Ink is expended explaining Speaker Addington's decision of 1796, and three decisions by Speaker Denison between 1860 and 1870, where votes were tied and the Speaker's vote (and his deputy's) counted. But beyond that, the definition of a majority is so obvious it requires no comment or definition.

"That is the measure of the revolution at hand."

A senior lecturer in the school of law at Aberdeen University, Scott Styles is reported in the Times as pointing out a few problems with the plans:

"Firstly, Cameron is renouncing his right as PM to dissolve Parliament at a time of his choosing. Politically this seems unwise but legally it is unproblematic: in effect, the government is surrendering a right.

"The second and much more fundamental problem is the raising of the bar of a no-confidence vote in the government to 55% rather than simple majority of those MPs present and voting. This is a major and fundamental alteration in our constitution and what is being changed is not a right of the PM but a power of the Commons."

The constitutional and government expert from Queen Mary University Peter Hennessy says on the BBC Today Programme that the idea is "iffy":

"You can't actually create hurdles that make it easier for you to last in power. It just looks all wrong."
**************************************
Supporting the 55% rule, Alan Travis says in the Guardian that it shouldn't scare voters:

"But it is worth asking if the controversial 55% rule set out in the Lib-Con coalition agreement needed to force an early general election really is a conspiracy against the opposition parties or a legitimate stabiliser for an infant coalition taking its first steps.

"The first thing to clear up is that there does not appear to be any change in the rules surrounding a vote of no confidence. A government could still fall on a simple majority of MPs. The text of the coalition agreement appears clear. It only refers to providing a vote for the dissolution of parliament, that is, the calling of a general election."

Will Straw asks in Left Foot Forward whether 55% too low:

"All this begs the question of whether 55 per cent is too low a threshold for a dissolution resolution. If the point of a fixed term parliament is that the governing party cannot dissolve parliament to suit itself, perhaps the threshold should be two-thirds as in both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly."

Iain Roberts argues in Lib Dem Voice that the reality is different to the critics' description:

"So this proposal makes no difference to motions of no confidence and gives MPs power they've never had before to dissolve parliament, moving power from the Executive to the Legislature. Whilst the percentage might be a little low, the basic principle is both sound and democratic."
**************************************
Former foreign secretary Douglas Hurd discusses the proposal with presenter Andrew Neil on the BBC's Straight Talk:

Andrew Neil: You say you hope the coalition lasts for five years. How long do you think it will last?
Douglas Hurd: Well, I'm not 100% in favour of fixed Parliaments, because I think you can have circs, we may get into circs where the existing Parliament is just not working.
AN: You just need a change?
DH: Well, you need a change, and somebody has to produce that change. Now, there's a proposal now that it would be 55%, something of that kind, a substantial majority of the House of Commons has to vote for change. Well, maybe that's adequate, I'm not quite sure.
AN: But doesn't that leave you a little bit uneasy, this requirement that you can only bring a five-year Parliament to an end if you get a 55% majority in a vote of no confidence?
DH: Yes, it makes me slightly uneasy. I'm prepared to live with it because there is that 55% rule, I'm prepared to live with it, but, you know, I'm a Tory really, and Tories believe in a strong prime minister and a strong prime minister is somebody who can actually say at the end of an evening, of a bloody evening, 'well, that's the way you want it, right, I'm off to the Palace.'
AN: It continues, this changing of our constitution with not too much debate or forethought, Mr Blair did a lot of that - remember the argument over the Lord Chancellor? - and now we're saying, here was something that everybody understands, that when a government loses a motion of no confidence in the Commons, it is finished; either there's an election or it has to, the Queen invites someone else to form a government and here is something that both of us were brought up with, suddenly gets changed in a back-room deal.
DH: It suddenly gets changed, but of course it won't be a back-room deal; it will be thoroughly debated and mulled over, not least in the House to which I belong. The House of Lords has become a real expert in interpreting the constitution and many governments haven't liked that.
AN: And may not get through?
DH: May get changed. I mean, there will be a debate, there will be a discussion, there ought to be a discussion exactly as you say.

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...