*
The BBC News website is, as ever, stuffed with bias.
*
First, there is 'Tough times, tough choices' on school cash, says Balls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8602979.stm
*
This article by Sean Coughlan reports on what Ed Balls will say to the NASUWT union, and reviews what Michael Gove and David Laws did say to them. There is a contrast though in the amount of space each is given. The quotations from Ed Balls go on and on and on. The portions devoted to him are spread across 22 paragraphs, whereas Mr Gove gets 4 paragraphs and Mr Laws gets 2.
*
*
Secondly, there is Conservative cancer drug saving disputed by King's Fund http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8603240.stm
*
This makes the criticism the main story rather than the proposals (as did the Today programme of course). The views of the main critic, John Appleby of the King's Fund, are quoted first. Then more criticism, albeit of a less stringent kind, comes from Dr David Jenner. Finally comes Conservative spokesmen Andrew Lansley and George Osborne. All these guys (with the exception of Mr Osborne) were on this morning's Today programme, but only one - Mr Appleby, the most critical of the Conservatives - is granted the honour of having an audio clip from the programme in the article. No audio from Mr Lansley's encounter with John Humprhys appears.
*
*
There was trenchant criticism of the Lib Dems' pie-in-the-sky train proposals on this morning's Today from Prof John Whitelegg: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603203.stm.
The criticism surprised John Humphrys, by the sound of it. How does the BBC News website report this story? Does it, as with the Conservative proposals of cancer drug funding, present the criticism first and leave the Lib Dem spokesman to the end of the article?
**
The answer is 'no'. Almost all the article, entitled Lib Dems plan rail expansion by cutting road projects, is devoted to faithfully reporting the Lib Dem policy, and at considerable length. Their spokesman Norman Baker is quoted first, and he gets a video clip and a blockquote box on the right hand side too. Lucky him! The criticism is confined to just four paragraphs, three at the very end. The criticism is gently sceptical rather than harsh, and comes from Prof Stephen Glaister of the RAC. Of Prof Whitelegg's demolition job (complete with numbers) on Today there is not a word.
*
*
The story that leads the homepage of the BBC News website is Chancellor - Nat Insurance rise 'will not cost jobs' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8602988.stm
*
The article (which from its overuse of the word 'Tories' suggests the hand of Norman Smith has lain upon it) features in full Alistair Darling's Today interview and, for good measure, an audio clip of Gordon Brown's podcast. George Osborne and Nick Clegg are limited to just blockquotes. The only outside 'expert' quoted is a Prof Richard Portes from the London Business school, who "is one of four economists who have backed government plans in a letter to the Times newspaper." (I predicted that would happen some time, but that Labour have only been able to get four economists to back them says something about their NI proposals! I also predicted that the BBC would report it.)
*
*
Just one day, just a selection of articles, but bags of Beeb bias.
*
*
UPDATE: I note that Martin on the Biased BBC website spotted these headlines too. That is only to be expected. http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/target-tories.html
Monday, 5 April 2010
TORIES, TORIES, TORIES
*
Norman Smith, the BBC's Anti-Tory Correspondent, discussed Brown and Mandelson's latest attacks on the Tories with John Humphrys at 6.35 this morning. As I've mentioned before, this man hardly ever uses the words 'Conservative' or 'Conservatives'. It's, almost without exception, 'Tory' or 'Tories' with him. Just in this one short spell today, Smith's tally of 'Tory/Tories' was 8, with 'Conservative/Conservatives' on 0. Not even Michael Crick racks up such totals. Only John Prescott and Peter Hain can match Norman Smith in this regard. Tories, Tories, Tories, Tories, Tories...
Norman Smith, the BBC's Anti-Tory Correspondent, discussed Brown and Mandelson's latest attacks on the Tories with John Humphrys at 6.35 this morning. As I've mentioned before, this man hardly ever uses the words 'Conservative' or 'Conservatives'. It's, almost without exception, 'Tory' or 'Tories' with him. Just in this one short spell today, Smith's tally of 'Tory/Tories' was 8, with 'Conservative/Conservatives' on 0. Not even Michael Crick racks up such totals. Only John Prescott and Peter Hain can match Norman Smith in this regard. Tories, Tories, Tories, Tories, Tories...
BUT HE'S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LEHMAN BROTHERS!
*
The BBC are really keen on recalling the 1992 election, when the incumbent government won the election against expectation. After Carolyn Quinn last night came James Naughtie this morning, revisiting that election with Lord Heseltine. You would think that the BBC are praying that history will repeat itself!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603220.stm
*
Naughtie himself said "a lot of people, I think, on the Labour side would like to think that this is an election like 1992. There was John Major, you know, unpopular, Tories been in for 13 years, people said 'Oh that Kinnock's a nice man' and so on and Labour thought they were going to win and John Major came back and he pulled it off, and they say the same thing could happen to Gordon Brown. Why not?"
*
The reason, said Lord Heseltine, is Gordon Brown.
*
Naughtie responded, "You think it's what people think of him, not his toughness or his capacity, it's what they think of him?"
*
His "toughness"? His "capacity"? 'People' doubt he really has much of either. Naughtie misread Lord Heseltine's answer. His answer already embraced much more than mere matters of personality.
*
Lord Heseltine also amusingly saw off Naughtie's attempts to dredge up the row over David Cameron's decision to withdraw the Tories from the EPP grouping in the European parliament.
*
Incidentally, Naughtie's "people said, 'Oh, that Kinnock's a nice man'" provoked laughter in my household. I can't say I remember many people saying that myself. Nor for that matter was John Major personally "unpopular". Still, Jim's a Labour man and his memories and perceptions are coloured by that fact.
*
Lord Heseltine's brilliant analysis of Gordon Brown's record provoked this comment from Naughtie: "But he's not responsible for Lehman Brothers!" Yes, lest we forget: It All Started In America!
*
The BBC are really keen on recalling the 1992 election, when the incumbent government won the election against expectation. After Carolyn Quinn last night came James Naughtie this morning, revisiting that election with Lord Heseltine. You would think that the BBC are praying that history will repeat itself!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603220.stm
*
Naughtie himself said "a lot of people, I think, on the Labour side would like to think that this is an election like 1992. There was John Major, you know, unpopular, Tories been in for 13 years, people said 'Oh that Kinnock's a nice man' and so on and Labour thought they were going to win and John Major came back and he pulled it off, and they say the same thing could happen to Gordon Brown. Why not?"
*
The reason, said Lord Heseltine, is Gordon Brown.
*
Naughtie responded, "You think it's what people think of him, not his toughness or his capacity, it's what they think of him?"
*
His "toughness"? His "capacity"? 'People' doubt he really has much of either. Naughtie misread Lord Heseltine's answer. His answer already embraced much more than mere matters of personality.
*
Lord Heseltine also amusingly saw off Naughtie's attempts to dredge up the row over David Cameron's decision to withdraw the Tories from the EPP grouping in the European parliament.
*
Incidentally, Naughtie's "people said, 'Oh, that Kinnock's a nice man'" provoked laughter in my household. I can't say I remember many people saying that myself. Nor for that matter was John Major personally "unpopular". Still, Jim's a Labour man and his memories and perceptions are coloured by that fact.
*
Lord Heseltine's brilliant analysis of Gordon Brown's record provoked this comment from Naughtie: "But he's not responsible for Lehman Brothers!" Yes, lest we forget: It All Started In America!
*
JUDGE AND JURY
*
If you remember the excuse made by Today editor Ceri Thomas on Feedback for why Gordon Brown's admission of a 'mistake' over defence spending statistics was not covered by his programme, it ran something like this: It was a 'one-fact story' that broke the previous day and was widely covered by Radio 4 throughout that day, so there was no need for Today to cover it too. "Once he had said "I'd made a mistake" there wasn't a great deal more for us to explore...", he said. http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/cerimandering.html
*
It seems that the Chris Grayling story doesn't fall into this category, for despite being widely covered across Radio 4 yesterday and despite no new facts emerging, Today returned to the story this morning, inviting for interview one of the two gay men (Michael Black) refused a room by the Berkshire B&B in the story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603188.stm *
*
Also invited on was Mike Judge from the "traditionalist" Christian Institute, who supports Mr Grayling's line. James Naughtie gave him a hard time. As evidence of this Mr Judge felt the need to say, "Now you may not like their view..." at which Naughtie protested "No, no, I'm not taking a view on it one way or the other, I'm just asking you...I want to pull the argument out". Yeah right!
*
If you remember the excuse made by Today editor Ceri Thomas on Feedback for why Gordon Brown's admission of a 'mistake' over defence spending statistics was not covered by his programme, it ran something like this: It was a 'one-fact story' that broke the previous day and was widely covered by Radio 4 throughout that day, so there was no need for Today to cover it too. "Once he had said "I'd made a mistake" there wasn't a great deal more for us to explore...", he said. http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/cerimandering.html
*
It seems that the Chris Grayling story doesn't fall into this category, for despite being widely covered across Radio 4 yesterday and despite no new facts emerging, Today returned to the story this morning, inviting for interview one of the two gay men (Michael Black) refused a room by the Berkshire B&B in the story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603188.stm *
*
Also invited on was Mike Judge from the "traditionalist" Christian Institute, who supports Mr Grayling's line. James Naughtie gave him a hard time. As evidence of this Mr Judge felt the need to say, "Now you may not like their view..." at which Naughtie protested "No, no, I'm not taking a view on it one way or the other, I'm just asking you...I want to pull the argument out". Yeah right!
*
NAUGHTIE STEPS IN...BUT THE HORSE HAS ALREADY BOLTED
*
While Andrew Lansley got slapped down for just once mentioning the Labour Party, Alistair Darling was allowed to get away with attack after attack on the Tories by James Naughtie - until, after over-six-minutes-worth of such attacks, Naughtie finally decided he ought to say that they'd ask the Tories themselves about Tory policy so let's stick to Labour policy.
*
One of the cliches most used by the political class is "That's a bit like closing the stable door when the horse has bolted." Well, the horse had bolted six minutes earlier and had been merrily running around the field rogering the Tory fillies ever since.
*
The I.C. here was 1.1 - substantially smaller than that for Mr Lansley.
*
Anyhow, we know where Today's interests lie. Their headline for this section reads "Cameron 'manifestly wrong' on cuts". Ah, that's just the message the rampant Alistair Darling was trying to make all along!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603165.stm
While Andrew Lansley got slapped down for just once mentioning the Labour Party, Alistair Darling was allowed to get away with attack after attack on the Tories by James Naughtie - until, after over-six-minutes-worth of such attacks, Naughtie finally decided he ought to say that they'd ask the Tories themselves about Tory policy so let's stick to Labour policy.
*
One of the cliches most used by the political class is "That's a bit like closing the stable door when the horse has bolted." Well, the horse had bolted six minutes earlier and had been merrily running around the field rogering the Tory fillies ever since.
*
The I.C. here was 1.1 - substantially smaller than that for Mr Lansley.
*
Anyhow, we know where Today's interests lie. Their headline for this section reads "Cameron 'manifestly wrong' on cuts". Ah, that's just the message the rampant Alistair Darling was trying to make all along!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603165.stm
TODAY
*
Ah, Bank Holiday Monday! The rain pouring outside, as tradition dictates, but still...no work today. I think I'll put on Today and listen to the 7 0'clock news.
*
What's the lead story? A professor from a think tank attacks Tory plans. Oh dear. That's bad news for the Tories. In response to the independent professor from the independent think tank's criticisms, the Tories "insist" their plans hold up, says the BBC. Those Tories sound very defensive about it, don't they?
*
What's next? Ah, Gordon Brown saying something or other. Here's Norman Smith to report just what Gordon Brown is saying. Yes, Brown's saying that Labour is great and the Tories are rubbish. Oh Norman, while you're there, has Peter Mandelson said something nasty about David Cameron? He has! Then you better tell us about that too. Clearly nothing bad has been said about Labour, or you would have reported that as well, wouldn't you?
*
What's next? The Lib Dems, the party of the all-seeing Mr Cable. The Lib Dems are promising untold delights for rail travellers. Here's Joe Lynam to tell us about it and faithfully report that it all adds up. The magic beans have been carefully costed and the beanstalks will carry us all as quick as we can say 'abracadabra' to anywhere we want to go in Fairyland. How wonderful!
*
I shall now get out of the wrong side of the bed and make breakfast. Then I'll sit down and listen to James Naughtie. That will improve my mood no end. Andrew Lansley is on at 8.10. Naughtie or Humphrys? I'm sure whichever one of them gets to interview the Tory spokesman will give him a fair hearing. Now where are my tablets?
*
8
UPDATE 8.12am It's John Humphrys and he has already egged the pudding by calling the think tank that is criticising the Tories "highly respected". They're always "highly respected" when they are criticising the Tories.
*
8.16am The interruptions are really flying at Andrew Lansley and John Humprhys has repeated that the critical think tank is "highly respected". Mr Lansley must be feeling like one of those people in Scotland caught up in that freak hailstorm last week.
*
8.18am Humphrys is really hammering away at Mr Lansley, slapping him down like a naughty schoolboy for daring (for the first time) to mention Labour. This is a very aggressive interview.
*
8.21am Well, it's over. After not saying 'good morning' to Andrew Lansley at the beginning (until Mr Lansley said 'good morning' to him, and then doing so with a laugh) to saying 'thank you' at the end in as unfriendly a way as possible, John Humphrys hardly paused for breath there. It's a wonder he didn't rupture a blood vessel.
*
That interview lasted 7 minutes 11 seconds, and contained 19 interruptions, resulting in a massive interruption coefficient of 2.7.
*
FURTHER UPDATE The Today website headlines this story 'Sleight of hand' over Tory cancer drugs pledge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603174.stm
Ah, Bank Holiday Monday! The rain pouring outside, as tradition dictates, but still...no work today. I think I'll put on Today and listen to the 7 0'clock news.
*
What's the lead story? A professor from a think tank attacks Tory plans. Oh dear. That's bad news for the Tories. In response to the independent professor from the independent think tank's criticisms, the Tories "insist" their plans hold up, says the BBC. Those Tories sound very defensive about it, don't they?
*
What's next? Ah, Gordon Brown saying something or other. Here's Norman Smith to report just what Gordon Brown is saying. Yes, Brown's saying that Labour is great and the Tories are rubbish. Oh Norman, while you're there, has Peter Mandelson said something nasty about David Cameron? He has! Then you better tell us about that too. Clearly nothing bad has been said about Labour, or you would have reported that as well, wouldn't you?
*
What's next? The Lib Dems, the party of the all-seeing Mr Cable. The Lib Dems are promising untold delights for rail travellers. Here's Joe Lynam to tell us about it and faithfully report that it all adds up. The magic beans have been carefully costed and the beanstalks will carry us all as quick as we can say 'abracadabra' to anywhere we want to go in Fairyland. How wonderful!
*
I shall now get out of the wrong side of the bed and make breakfast. Then I'll sit down and listen to James Naughtie. That will improve my mood no end. Andrew Lansley is on at 8.10. Naughtie or Humphrys? I'm sure whichever one of them gets to interview the Tory spokesman will give him a fair hearing. Now where are my tablets?
*
8
UPDATE 8.12am It's John Humphrys and he has already egged the pudding by calling the think tank that is criticising the Tories "highly respected". They're always "highly respected" when they are criticising the Tories.
*
8.16am The interruptions are really flying at Andrew Lansley and John Humprhys has repeated that the critical think tank is "highly respected". Mr Lansley must be feeling like one of those people in Scotland caught up in that freak hailstorm last week.
*
8.18am Humphrys is really hammering away at Mr Lansley, slapping him down like a naughty schoolboy for daring (for the first time) to mention Labour. This is a very aggressive interview.
*
8.21am Well, it's over. After not saying 'good morning' to Andrew Lansley at the beginning (until Mr Lansley said 'good morning' to him, and then doing so with a laugh) to saying 'thank you' at the end in as unfriendly a way as possible, John Humphrys hardly paused for breath there. It's a wonder he didn't rupture a blood vessel.
*
That interview lasted 7 minutes 11 seconds, and contained 19 interruptions, resulting in a massive interruption coefficient of 2.7.
*
FURTHER UPDATE The Today website headlines this story 'Sleight of hand' over Tory cancer drugs pledge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603174.stm
Sunday, 4 April 2010
AND DID YOU FORGET SOMETHING CAROLYN?
*
And before I forget, for about three months now Carolyn Quinn has brought up the latest opinion polls - or to be more exact, the latest opinion polls that show the gap between Labour and the Tories narrowing - with tedious regularity. No other programme on Radio 4 has been more fixated on them, at least since the start of the year when things began turning against the Conservatives (a bit). This week, when the gap has significantly widened again, nothing, absolutely nothing. What a surprise!
*
And before I forget, for about three months now Carolyn Quinn has brought up the latest opinion polls - or to be more exact, the latest opinion polls that show the gap between Labour and the Tories narrowing - with tedious regularity. No other programme on Radio 4 has been more fixated on them, at least since the start of the year when things began turning against the Conservatives (a bit). This week, when the gap has significantly widened again, nothing, absolutely nothing. What a surprise!
*
CAROLYN QUINN GETS HER MAN
*
Carolyn Quinn is beyond a joke.
Tonight's Westminster Hour saw the final politicians' panel before the general election, with Janet Anderson for Labour, Charles Walker for the Conservatives and Elfyn Llwyd for Plaid Cymru. It provided a last chance for Carolyn to stage a Tory ambush.
*
With so much to discuss, she spent a surprising amount of time early on discussing the 1992 election when the party that was expected to win the election failed to win the election. (I wonder what the point of that was!) It was all very jokey in tone.
*
This is Westminster Hour, however, so Tory-baiting just had to come and the topic that took up most time was Chris Grayling remarks about gays, faith and B&Bs; indeed it took up over 5 minutes (far longer than the time spent on the economy).
*
Carolyn began by outlining the story then asked Elfyn Llwyd "What do you think of that?" As you might guess, he didn't think much of that and said so at some length. An odd decision that, not to go to Mr Walker first, don't you think? Typical of Carolyn Quinn though.
*
What had been a lighthearted discussion had turned serious. In a sorrowful tone, Carolyn then said "Charles?" Mr Walker tried to defend Chris Grayling but no defence was going to stop Carolyn's next question, which could have been anticipated even before the programme even began: "But you know that people within the Labour Party, within the Liberal Democrat Party have been saying, and Elfyn Llwyd as well, you just heard him say, it shows that the Conservatives haven't really changed, that they say one thing when the cameras are on and then they say something else when they don't think anybody's watching."
*
Carolyn then brought Janet Anderson in to join Mr Llwyd in the anti-Tory attack. After she had made her point, Carolyn said "Charles?", again in a sorrowful voice, rather like a headmistress talking to a schoolboy whose friends have behaved very, very badly.
*
Mr Walker's next defence was followed by another attack from Mr Llwyd.
*
What happened next? Carolyn Quinn said this: "And the last couple of seconds to you Janet." Janet used those last couple of seconds (actually somewhat longer than that) to stick the boot into the Tories one last time. With a sigh (doubtless at the wickedness of the Conservatives), the presenter then recited the names of her guests and thanked them all very, very much.
*
So, no final right to reply for the defendant in this mini-show trial!
*
This was one of Carolyn Quinn's finest Tory ambushes, staged perfectly.
*
The woman is beyond a joke.
*
Carolyn Quinn is beyond a joke.
Tonight's Westminster Hour saw the final politicians' panel before the general election, with Janet Anderson for Labour, Charles Walker for the Conservatives and Elfyn Llwyd for Plaid Cymru. It provided a last chance for Carolyn to stage a Tory ambush.
*
With so much to discuss, she spent a surprising amount of time early on discussing the 1992 election when the party that was expected to win the election failed to win the election. (I wonder what the point of that was!) It was all very jokey in tone.
*
This is Westminster Hour, however, so Tory-baiting just had to come and the topic that took up most time was Chris Grayling remarks about gays, faith and B&Bs; indeed it took up over 5 minutes (far longer than the time spent on the economy).
*
Carolyn began by outlining the story then asked Elfyn Llwyd "What do you think of that?" As you might guess, he didn't think much of that and said so at some length. An odd decision that, not to go to Mr Walker first, don't you think? Typical of Carolyn Quinn though.
*
What had been a lighthearted discussion had turned serious. In a sorrowful tone, Carolyn then said "Charles?" Mr Walker tried to defend Chris Grayling but no defence was going to stop Carolyn's next question, which could have been anticipated even before the programme even began: "But you know that people within the Labour Party, within the Liberal Democrat Party have been saying, and Elfyn Llwyd as well, you just heard him say, it shows that the Conservatives haven't really changed, that they say one thing when the cameras are on and then they say something else when they don't think anybody's watching."
*
Carolyn then brought Janet Anderson in to join Mr Llwyd in the anti-Tory attack. After she had made her point, Carolyn said "Charles?", again in a sorrowful voice, rather like a headmistress talking to a schoolboy whose friends have behaved very, very badly.
*
Mr Walker's next defence was followed by another attack from Mr Llwyd.
*
What happened next? Carolyn Quinn said this: "And the last couple of seconds to you Janet." Janet used those last couple of seconds (actually somewhat longer than that) to stick the boot into the Tories one last time. With a sigh (doubtless at the wickedness of the Conservatives), the presenter then recited the names of her guests and thanked them all very, very much.
*
So, no final right to reply for the defendant in this mini-show trial!
*
This was one of Carolyn Quinn's finest Tory ambushes, staged perfectly.
*
The woman is beyond a joke.
*
THE MINDSET OF THE 'TODAY' PROGRAMME LAID BARE
*
Over on the Biased BBC blogsite DB and John Anderson point bias watchers towards an important article in today's Telegraph.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/stomach-turning.html#comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7549570/BBC-plunged-into-BNP-election-row.html
*
*
DB's comment is spot on:
No Alka Seltzer needed for the leaders of the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, just the BNP and UKIP. So even the party that came second in the European elections is beyond the pale as far as sophisticated metropolitan BBC journalists are concerned. Too stupid to know that UKIP's leader is Lord Pearson, not Nigel Farage, though.
*
Yes, I noticed this BBC guy casting UKIP beyond the pale together with the Nazi BNP. Shows just what a far-left agitprop mindset exists in BBC newsrooms when a legitimate party like UKIP is gratuitously insulted in this way.
*
And this from Phil:
Some of these BBC types simply don't get it do they? They choose to work for a state funded broadcaster which is charged with the responsibility of producing balanced, fair news and then they moan that doing exactly that turns peoples stomachs.
Well, if doing the job you chose to do and which you are paid to do turns your stomach then tough! Either get on with it or quit. These BBC staff seem amazed that they can't just pick and choose the parts of their jobs which they find amenable. How arrogant can you get?
*
My sentiments precisely!
*
***
All of which reminds me of something from last September and deepens the strong suspicions I had then that Sarah Montague was sniggering at Nigel Farage throughout the interview that followed his announcement that he was stepping down as UKIP leader:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/09/sniggering-at-nigel-farage.html
Over on the Biased BBC blogsite DB and John Anderson point bias watchers towards an important article in today's Telegraph.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/stomach-turning.html#comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7549570/BBC-plunged-into-BNP-election-row.html
*
That is infuriating, isn't it?A new directive issued by corporation executives forces the editors of flagship news programmes to give airtime to minority parties, including the BNP, immediately after the live debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
Insiders have revealed they are deeply unhappy and believe that the edict – overseen by the BBC's deputy director general and head of journalism Mark Byford – could wreck proper reporting of the debates.
The editors and presenters on Radio 4's Today programme have been told they must interview representatives of the BNP, Ukip, the Green party, SNP and Plaid Cymru on the same show, the morning after the debates.
Sources said this will leave almost no room for serious discussion of how the mainstream leaders performed.
One source said:
"We're all spitting feathers here. This is further proof that the BBC's obsession with 'compliance' is destroying its news coverage and journalism.
"The only result of this directive from Mark Byford and the rest of the overpaid detached senior management is that listeners will simply switch off in droves.
"The idea of having to interview the Ukip leader Nigel Farage – let alone Nick Griffin – is turning people's stomachs."
Another senior source added: "People are very angry indeed. The Today programme has an audience of 6.5 million people and everybody knows it is easily the most important of the BBC's morning news programmes.
"And yet it is being treated like the man at the Lord Mayor's Show who has to walk behind the main parade sweeping up the muck with a bucket and a shovel.
"The Today programme is being used to assuage the minority parties rather than doing what it is meant to which is analysing the performance of the three main party leaders."
*
DB's comment is spot on:
No Alka Seltzer needed for the leaders of the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, just the BNP and UKIP. So even the party that came second in the European elections is beyond the pale as far as sophisticated metropolitan BBC journalists are concerned. Too stupid to know that UKIP's leader is Lord Pearson, not Nigel Farage, though.
As is this comment by Hippiepooter:
*
Yes, I noticed this BBC guy casting UKIP beyond the pale together with the Nazi BNP. Shows just what a far-left agitprop mindset exists in BBC newsrooms when a legitimate party like UKIP is gratuitously insulted in this way.
*
And this from Phil:
Some of these BBC types simply don't get it do they? They choose to work for a state funded broadcaster which is charged with the responsibility of producing balanced, fair news and then they moan that doing exactly that turns peoples stomachs.
Well, if doing the job you chose to do and which you are paid to do turns your stomach then tough! Either get on with it or quit. These BBC staff seem amazed that they can't just pick and choose the parts of their jobs which they find amenable. How arrogant can you get?
*
My sentiments precisely!
*
***
All of which reminds me of something from last September and deepens the strong suspicions I had then that Sarah Montague was sniggering at Nigel Farage throughout the interview that followed his announcement that he was stepping down as UKIP leader:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/09/sniggering-at-nigel-farage.html
DOG WHISTLES
*
Two of the paper reviewers on this morning's Broadcasting House had a good go at Chris Grayling over his 'gays and B&B' remarks. They were Marina Hyde of The Guardian and Omid Djalili, the omnipresent Iranian-born comedian. Fresh from laughing at Eugene Terreblanche and hoping he died slowly (yet I bet neither supports the return of the death penalty), they quickly broadened their attack on Mr Grayling to have a good go at the Conservatives in general. Presenter Kevin Connolly backed them up, asking "Are they in a pickle, or is it just possible that this is a subliminal message to a certain type of voter... ("Exactly!" interjected Omid) ...that certain traditional values in the Conservative Party haven't been completely abandoned or completely re-fashioned?" The third guest Sir Martin Evans then joined in.
*
When the election is called, will paper review panels be politically balanced - or not?
*
Two of the paper reviewers on this morning's Broadcasting House had a good go at Chris Grayling over his 'gays and B&B' remarks. They were Marina Hyde of The Guardian and Omid Djalili, the omnipresent Iranian-born comedian. Fresh from laughing at Eugene Terreblanche and hoping he died slowly (yet I bet neither supports the return of the death penalty), they quickly broadened their attack on Mr Grayling to have a good go at the Conservatives in general. Presenter Kevin Connolly backed them up, asking "Are they in a pickle, or is it just possible that this is a subliminal message to a certain type of voter... ("Exactly!" interjected Omid) ...that certain traditional values in the Conservative Party haven't been completely abandoned or completely re-fashioned?" The third guest Sir Martin Evans then joined in.
*
When the election is called, will paper review panels be politically balanced - or not?
*
MACAVITY JNR RETURNS
*
It was only yesterday that I wrote this:
Well, it seems I was being too charitable.
*
The third most important story in the world, according to the home page of the BBC News website, is Gay B&B remark sparks row. When you click into the article, guess who's back?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8602371.stm
*
Yes, Norman Smith:
*
That's a lesson for me: Never give the BBC the benefit of the doubt!
*
It was only yesterday that I wrote this:
Even BBC political correspondents need a holiday, so let's be charitable and assume that's the reason why Norman Smith, the BBC's anti-Tory Correspondent, has been missing from the Today programme's airwaves throughout the National Insurance debate of the last few days.
Well, it seems I was being too charitable.
*
The third most important story in the world, according to the home page of the BBC News website, is Gay B&B remark sparks row. When you click into the article, guess who's back?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8602371.stm
*
Yes, Norman Smith:
The BBC's political correspondent Norman Smith said Mr Grayling's stance "put him at odds with the law".So he wasn't on holiday after all, just lying low (like Michael Crick) to avoid having to report bad news for Labour (as here over NI).
The BBC's Norman Smith said it was "awkward and embarrassing" for the shadow home secretary, who would have to enforce equality legislation should the Conservatives win the election.
*
That's a lesson for me: Never give the BBC the benefit of the doubt!
*
LEFTLINE LONDON
*
How has Gavin Esler's Dateline London been getting on these days?
*
Though it faces the world, it also faces election-ready Britain. This week it again discussed the Conservative Party and, as so often, the British voice on the panel was a voice from the Left - Jahann Hari of The Independent. Also on were another left-winger Marc Roche, the Tory-baiting French journalist from Le Monde, and one of the programme's many liberal Americans Michael Goldfarb. Finally, there was the CBC reporter Laura Lynch. Except for Laura, who, though unquestionably liberal, mostly spoke like a careful reporter thoughout, it was just another hot-house left-liberal gathering.
*
First up for discussion though was the Catholic Church with Hari letting rip at "Ratzinger" (aka The Pope) and Goldbarb complaining that "every time there's some burst of progress in human emancipation...the political part of the Catholic Church acts as a drag on that. It pulls people back. It's a deeply conservative force in the most malign sense of what 'conservative' means". Then Roche let rip at this "very conservative" pope. Even Gavin Esler felt a twinge of conscience (or heard alarm bells ringing) here that this was all a bit too much, feeling obliged to say (after another of Hari's outbursts - he wants the pope arrested for crimes against humanity. Yes seriously!) "I'm conscious that people watching this who are believing Catholics will say 'Here are four secular journalists talking about this...". Hari leaped in and ranted again against "Ratzinger" and Esler did not complete his thought or return to it.
*
Then attention turned from one malign conservative force to another - the Conservative Party. Esler's first question on the subject, concerning their tax 'goodie' on national insurance (as he put it), went to arch Tory-basher Jahann Hari. Laura Lynch then got loud approving laughter for saying that she doubts the British public "is in love with the idea of taking their advice from business leaders." What a comment! Why the hell not take advice from business leaders? Give or take some bankers (a very, very small proportion of businessmen), they have done nothing wrong. They do much that is right. I'd prefer to listen to them than to this crowd of reality-averse lefties.
*
At least the cosy consensus ruptured for a while over Ireland as Hari (who wanted to believe that Ireland is not coming out of recovery and that its strong economic medicine is not working) and Roche (who says it is and it is, and that you Brits don't want to accept it because they're Irish) clashed. Business as usual swiftly returned. Hari babbled that the business leaders backed the Tories this week because they will be financially better off personally as a result. They are "very rich and very selfish". Roche bashed the "Anglo-Saxon model" again, as he always does, and then bashed the "nasty Tory anti-Europeans who sit with the horrible people in the European parliament, the extreme right. They are the toxic party." Cue delight from Hari and the rest.
*
The last topic was Obama and Afghanistan. By then I'd lost the will to live and switched off.
*
Since I began recording the programme's guest-list here are the Brits from British newspapers chosen to appear have been (with appropriate colour-coding). Things used to be bad, which is why I started listing the guests, they then improved perhaps coincidentally when I used to text them every week to complain (before I started blogging), then they have got worse again:
*
20/6 Polly Toynbee
27/6 Yasmin Alibhai Brown
4/7 Janet Daley
11/7 Isabel Hilton
18/7 Ned Temko
25/7 Steve Richards
1/8 Adam Raphael
8/8 Ann Leslie
15/8 Yasmin Alibhai Brown
22/8 Janet Daley
29/8 Bruce Anderson
5/9 Ned Temko
12/9 Michael White
19/9 Michael Gove
26/9 Polly Toynbee
3/10 (no programme)
10/1o Jahann Hari
17/10 Steve Richards
24/10 Ann Leslie
31/10 (Dubai edition)
7/11 Janet Daley
14/11 Adam Raphael
21/11 Yasmin Alibhai Brown
28/11 Isabel Hilton
5/12 (Washington edition)
12/12 Janet Daley
19/12 David Aaronovitch
26/12 Polly Toynbee
2/1 Peter Oborne
9/1 Michael White
16/1 Isabel Hilton
23/1 Yasmin Alibhai Brown
30/1 David Aaronovitch
6/2 Polly Toynbee
13/2 Janet Daley
20/2 Ann Leslie
27/2 Ned Temko
6/3 (Dubai edition)
13/3 Yasmin Alibhai Brown
20/3 Adam Raphael
27/3 Isabel Hilton
3/4 Jahann Hari
*
And that's just the Brits (or anglicized North Americans, like Janet and Ned)! There is always a large left-wing majority on any panel. So far this year no panel has featured more than one centre-right guest at a time (usually set against three left-wingers and Gavin Esler), and the majority have had no right-of-centre guest at all.
*
Dateline London is a rare glimpse for many of us living in the UK into the output of BBC World. It doesn't bode well at all.
How has Gavin Esler's Dateline London been getting on these days?
*
Though it faces the world, it also faces election-ready Britain. This week it again discussed the Conservative Party and, as so often, the British voice on the panel was a voice from the Left - Jahann Hari of The Independent. Also on were another left-winger Marc Roche, the Tory-baiting French journalist from Le Monde, and one of the programme's many liberal Americans Michael Goldfarb. Finally, there was the CBC reporter Laura Lynch. Except for Laura, who, though unquestionably liberal, mostly spoke like a careful reporter thoughout, it was just another hot-house left-liberal gathering.
*
First up for discussion though was the Catholic Church with Hari letting rip at "Ratzinger" (aka The Pope) and Goldbarb complaining that "every time there's some burst of progress in human emancipation...the political part of the Catholic Church acts as a drag on that. It pulls people back. It's a deeply conservative force in the most malign sense of what 'conservative' means". Then Roche let rip at this "very conservative" pope. Even Gavin Esler felt a twinge of conscience (or heard alarm bells ringing) here that this was all a bit too much, feeling obliged to say (after another of Hari's outbursts - he wants the pope arrested for crimes against humanity. Yes seriously!) "I'm conscious that people watching this who are believing Catholics will say 'Here are four secular journalists talking about this...". Hari leaped in and ranted again against "Ratzinger" and Esler did not complete his thought or return to it.
*
Then attention turned from one malign conservative force to another - the Conservative Party. Esler's first question on the subject, concerning their tax 'goodie' on national insurance (as he put it), went to arch Tory-basher Jahann Hari. Laura Lynch then got loud approving laughter for saying that she doubts the British public "is in love with the idea of taking their advice from business leaders." What a comment! Why the hell not take advice from business leaders? Give or take some bankers (a very, very small proportion of businessmen), they have done nothing wrong. They do much that is right. I'd prefer to listen to them than to this crowd of reality-averse lefties.
*
At least the cosy consensus ruptured for a while over Ireland as Hari (who wanted to believe that Ireland is not coming out of recovery and that its strong economic medicine is not working) and Roche (who says it is and it is, and that you Brits don't want to accept it because they're Irish) clashed. Business as usual swiftly returned. Hari babbled that the business leaders backed the Tories this week because they will be financially better off personally as a result. They are "very rich and very selfish". Roche bashed the "Anglo-Saxon model" again, as he always does, and then bashed the "nasty Tory anti-Europeans who sit with the horrible people in the European parliament, the extreme right. They are the toxic party." Cue delight from Hari and the rest.
*
The last topic was Obama and Afghanistan. By then I'd lost the will to live and switched off.
*
Since I began recording the programme's guest-list here are the Brits from British newspapers chosen to appear have been (with appropriate colour-coding). Things used to be bad, which is why I started listing the guests, they then improved perhaps coincidentally when I used to text them every week to complain (before I started blogging), then they have got worse again:
*
20/6 Polly Toynbee
27/6 Yasmin Alibhai Brown
4/7 Janet Daley
11/7 Isabel Hilton
18/7 Ned Temko
25/7 Steve Richards
1/8 Adam Raphael
8/8 Ann Leslie
15/8 Yasmin Alibhai Brown
22/8 Janet Daley
29/8 Bruce Anderson
5/9 Ned Temko
12/9 Michael White
19/9 Michael Gove
26/9 Polly Toynbee
3/10 (no programme)
10/1o Jahann Hari
17/10 Steve Richards
24/10 Ann Leslie
31/10 (Dubai edition)
7/11 Janet Daley
14/11 Adam Raphael
21/11 Yasmin Alibhai Brown
28/11 Isabel Hilton
5/12 (Washington edition)
12/12 Janet Daley
19/12 David Aaronovitch
26/12 Polly Toynbee
2/1 Peter Oborne
9/1 Michael White
16/1 Isabel Hilton
23/1 Yasmin Alibhai Brown
30/1 David Aaronovitch
6/2 Polly Toynbee
13/2 Janet Daley
20/2 Ann Leslie
27/2 Ned Temko
6/3 (Dubai edition)
13/3 Yasmin Alibhai Brown
20/3 Adam Raphael
27/3 Isabel Hilton
3/4 Jahann Hari
*
And that's just the Brits (or anglicized North Americans, like Janet and Ned)! There is always a large left-wing majority on any panel. So far this year no panel has featured more than one centre-right guest at a time (usually set against three left-wingers and Gavin Esler), and the majority have had no right-of-centre guest at all.
*
Dateline London is a rare glimpse for many of us living in the UK into the output of BBC World. It doesn't bode well at all.
Saturday, 3 April 2010
HOW THINGS STAND
*
Well, I'd had quite a number of replies to my e-mails from senior (and not so senior) Conservatives in recent days (trust me not to have gone into my e-mail for about four days!). Some fall into the 'thank you, that's very interesting, regards' category but others suggest that the Conservatives are at last really 'getting it' and, more than that, doing something about it. (The recent behaviour of Kirsty Wark is one of the issues that is rightly exercising their attention at the moment.) The angrier they get about BBC bias the better, and I think I'm helping to raise their blood pressure a little over the issue. (Then again just switching on the radio or the TV should make that happen already on a daily basis). The Biased BBC blogsite's new weekly digests (e-mailed far and wide) will help spread the message and, hopefully, spur more direct action from the Conservatives..
*
And talking of complaints, I've at last had a reply from the BBC about one of my lesser complaints. I'd half forgotten about this one. (I haven't heard about my big complaint for a while now.) This was prompted by one of James Naughtie 's rude interviews with George Osborne - the one where Naughtie lied about what he'd said earlier in the interview when GO challenged him over it (15th Feb).
*
This was my complaint:
*
I wish to complain about James Naughtie's behaviour towards George Osborne during this morning's edition of 'Today'.
After badgering Mr Osborne over the Conservatives' Co-operative scheme, Mr Naughtie moved onto the issue of the deficit.
The Labour Party has been bandying about the phrase 'swingeing cuts' in connection with the Conservatives and James Naughtie began this section of the interview by bandying it about too.
He is what he said:
"Just let me turn to what happens to public spending after the election. We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down. There won't be swingeing cuts, it was said, but there will be very strong efforts to control public spending."
He later pursued the point, saying, "I don't doubt that anyone reading it (the letter from the economists) can doubt that it's an interesting and important letter but surely what it means is that there needs to be, in the view of those economists, 'swingeing cuts', which is precisely what David Cameron, presumably to avoid scaring people, said there wouldn't be. Who's right, the economists or your leader?"
Mr Osborne begin his answer but within 4 seconds (!) Jim Naughtie barged in again with "they want 'swingeing cuts!'
This, understandably, was too much for Mr Osborne.
This is how the exchange went on from that point:
Osborne: "You keep using this word 'swingeing', which you first attributed to David Cameron and he never used, now attribute it to the economists, and I've got the letter in front on me and..."
Naughtie (interrupting:) "I'm sorry, if I'm wrong about that I apologize, but I thought he said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'?
Osborne: "Exactly. He said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts', he...
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "So he did say used the word 'swingeing'. Sorry, let's be clear about this. You said I said he used the word 'swingeing' and he didn't. He did!"
Osborne: "Jim, er, this is a semantic point but earlier you were saying David Cameron had said there would be 'swingeing cuts', then you said that the economists were saying there will be 'swingeing cuts', let's get to the key..."
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "No. Let's be clear about this. David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts' and I was suggesting to you that the economists' letter and you own approach suggested that there would be such cuts, because they were necessary and because Ken Clarke had said we would have to have a deeper attack on public spending than under Margaret Thatcher, that's the argument..."
Osborne: "Let's move on from the semantic point and concentrate on the central point here..."
As you can very clearly see, every single word of what George Osborne said here was 100% correct:
- Mr Naughtie had kept using the word 'swingeing'
- Mr Naughtie had "first attributed" the word to David Cameron ("We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down.")
- Mr Naughtie had, therefore, not just used it earlier in the interview (as he claimed) in connection with Cameron's 'after' policy (i.e. when "David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'") but with his 'before' policy too.
George Osborne had caught James Naughtie out. Mr Naughtie lied and blustered in response. This is absolutely shameful behaviour. I hope he has the guts to apologize to Mr Osborne.
The interview lasted 7 minutes, and contained 11 interruptions.
Later in the same hour came an interview with Mr Osborne's opposite number, Alistair Darling. It was a strikingly less aggressive affair. Though this interview lasted 2 minutes more than the interview with Mr Osborne it contained 5 fewer interruptions.
This pattern is far from unusual with this interviewer (for which I can supply plenty of evidence should you need it).
It's clear that Mr Naughtie is not fit to conduct political interviews during a general election campaign. He is simply too partisan. As soon as the election is called he should (a) be removed from the 'Today' programme for the duration or (b) not allowed to conduct any political interviews, sticking (say) to arts or science stories. For an organisation that is constitutionally pledged to impartiality to allow Naughtie free range to bully Conservative and UKIP spokesmen during the general election would be bonkers.
*
*
It's a typical BBC reply, but there's a tiny, tiny concession contained in it:
Dear Mr...
Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Today' broadcast on 15 February.
Please accept our apologies for the long delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we're sorry you've had to wait on this occasion.
I understand you objected to what you viewed as James Naughtie's inappropriate behaviour towards George Osborne.
We forwarded your complaint to Dominic Groves, one of the output editors for the 'Today' programme who explained in response that:
"Broadly speaking the point Jim Naughtie was trying to raise was that the Conservatives had appeared to backtrack on their original commitment to sharp cuts in public spending but that sharp (or swingeing) cuts was exactly what the economists in the Sunday Times letter were calling for. I think Jim could have phrased the question more exactly but the general
point was clearly understood and was an important one on which to press George Osborne. As to the general tone of the interview it was tough but fair - nothing a politician of Mr Osborne's rank would not have expected and in keeping with many other interviews we've done with politicians of all parties."
In addition to the programme having seen and acknowledged your concerns, I'd like to take this opportunity to assure you that I've recorded your comments onto our audience log. This is an internal daily report of audience feedback which is circulated to many BBC staff including senior management, producers and channel controllers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for contacting us with your thoughts.
Regards
Ciaran
BBC Complaints
Well, conceding that Naughtie 'could have phrased the question more exactly' doesn't answer my point that he lied, was caught out lying and blustered about it in response. And as regards the toughness of the interview, and Dominic's comment that it was "in keeping with many other interviews we've done with politicians of all parties" skirts the issue of the significantly drop in toughness that occurred during James Naughtie's other interview - the one with Alistair Darling. I should have forwarded my list of figures on Naughtie to scupper that one, but I'd already used them in my big complaint (the one that uses the interruption coefficients) and didn't want to overegg the pudding!
*
I've drawn a few conclusions from my experiences, which you may have drawn too if you've ever complained to the Beeb about bias.
*
Complaints to the BBC rarely get the likes of me anywhere, but - if only for sheer nuisance value - they are always worth making. All complaints should be copy and pasted onto e-mails and forwarded on to interested parties (eg. the Conservatives or UKIP). You could just save time and send all your complaints straight to the interested parties and encourage them to complain. They have direct means of access to the BBC. We don't. The BBC will also be more worried, of course, if it comes from people who might have the power to do 'bad things' to them.
Well, I'd had quite a number of replies to my e-mails from senior (and not so senior) Conservatives in recent days (trust me not to have gone into my e-mail for about four days!). Some fall into the 'thank you, that's very interesting, regards' category but others suggest that the Conservatives are at last really 'getting it' and, more than that, doing something about it. (The recent behaviour of Kirsty Wark is one of the issues that is rightly exercising their attention at the moment.) The angrier they get about BBC bias the better, and I think I'm helping to raise their blood pressure a little over the issue. (Then again just switching on the radio or the TV should make that happen already on a daily basis). The Biased BBC blogsite's new weekly digests (e-mailed far and wide) will help spread the message and, hopefully, spur more direct action from the Conservatives..
*
And talking of complaints, I've at last had a reply from the BBC about one of my lesser complaints. I'd half forgotten about this one. (I haven't heard about my big complaint for a while now.) This was prompted by one of James Naughtie 's rude interviews with George Osborne - the one where Naughtie lied about what he'd said earlier in the interview when GO challenged him over it (15th Feb).
*
This was my complaint:
*
I wish to complain about James Naughtie's behaviour towards George Osborne during this morning's edition of 'Today'.
After badgering Mr Osborne over the Conservatives' Co-operative scheme, Mr Naughtie moved onto the issue of the deficit.
The Labour Party has been bandying about the phrase 'swingeing cuts' in connection with the Conservatives and James Naughtie began this section of the interview by bandying it about too.
He is what he said:
"Just let me turn to what happens to public spending after the election. We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down. There won't be swingeing cuts, it was said, but there will be very strong efforts to control public spending."
He later pursued the point, saying, "I don't doubt that anyone reading it (the letter from the economists) can doubt that it's an interesting and important letter but surely what it means is that there needs to be, in the view of those economists, 'swingeing cuts', which is precisely what David Cameron, presumably to avoid scaring people, said there wouldn't be. Who's right, the economists or your leader?"
Mr Osborne begin his answer but within 4 seconds (!) Jim Naughtie barged in again with "they want 'swingeing cuts!'
This, understandably, was too much for Mr Osborne.
This is how the exchange went on from that point:
Osborne: "You keep using this word 'swingeing', which you first attributed to David Cameron and he never used, now attribute it to the economists, and I've got the letter in front on me and..."
Naughtie (interrupting:) "I'm sorry, if I'm wrong about that I apologize, but I thought he said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'?
Osborne: "Exactly. He said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts', he...
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "So he did say used the word 'swingeing'. Sorry, let's be clear about this. You said I said he used the word 'swingeing' and he didn't. He did!"
Osborne: "Jim, er, this is a semantic point but earlier you were saying David Cameron had said there would be 'swingeing cuts', then you said that the economists were saying there will be 'swingeing cuts', let's get to the key..."
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "No. Let's be clear about this. David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts' and I was suggesting to you that the economists' letter and you own approach suggested that there would be such cuts, because they were necessary and because Ken Clarke had said we would have to have a deeper attack on public spending than under Margaret Thatcher, that's the argument..."
Osborne: "Let's move on from the semantic point and concentrate on the central point here..."
As you can very clearly see, every single word of what George Osborne said here was 100% correct:
- Mr Naughtie had kept using the word 'swingeing'
- Mr Naughtie had "first attributed" the word to David Cameron ("We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down.")
- Mr Naughtie had, therefore, not just used it earlier in the interview (as he claimed) in connection with Cameron's 'after' policy (i.e. when "David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'") but with his 'before' policy too.
George Osborne had caught James Naughtie out. Mr Naughtie lied and blustered in response. This is absolutely shameful behaviour. I hope he has the guts to apologize to Mr Osborne.
The interview lasted 7 minutes, and contained 11 interruptions.
Later in the same hour came an interview with Mr Osborne's opposite number, Alistair Darling. It was a strikingly less aggressive affair. Though this interview lasted 2 minutes more than the interview with Mr Osborne it contained 5 fewer interruptions.
This pattern is far from unusual with this interviewer (for which I can supply plenty of evidence should you need it).
It's clear that Mr Naughtie is not fit to conduct political interviews during a general election campaign. He is simply too partisan. As soon as the election is called he should (a) be removed from the 'Today' programme for the duration or (b) not allowed to conduct any political interviews, sticking (say) to arts or science stories. For an organisation that is constitutionally pledged to impartiality to allow Naughtie free range to bully Conservative and UKIP spokesmen during the general election would be bonkers.
*
*
It's a typical BBC reply, but there's a tiny, tiny concession contained in it:
Dear Mr...
Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Today' broadcast on 15 February.
Please accept our apologies for the long delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we're sorry you've had to wait on this occasion.
I understand you objected to what you viewed as James Naughtie's inappropriate behaviour towards George Osborne.
We forwarded your complaint to Dominic Groves, one of the output editors for the 'Today' programme who explained in response that:
"Broadly speaking the point Jim Naughtie was trying to raise was that the Conservatives had appeared to backtrack on their original commitment to sharp cuts in public spending but that sharp (or swingeing) cuts was exactly what the economists in the Sunday Times letter were calling for. I think Jim could have phrased the question more exactly but the general
point was clearly understood and was an important one on which to press George Osborne. As to the general tone of the interview it was tough but fair - nothing a politician of Mr Osborne's rank would not have expected and in keeping with many other interviews we've done with politicians of all parties."
In addition to the programme having seen and acknowledged your concerns, I'd like to take this opportunity to assure you that I've recorded your comments onto our audience log. This is an internal daily report of audience feedback which is circulated to many BBC staff including senior management, producers and channel controllers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for contacting us with your thoughts.
Regards
Ciaran
BBC Complaints
Well, conceding that Naughtie 'could have phrased the question more exactly' doesn't answer my point that he lied, was caught out lying and blustered about it in response. And as regards the toughness of the interview, and Dominic's comment that it was "in keeping with many other interviews we've done with politicians of all parties" skirts the issue of the significantly drop in toughness that occurred during James Naughtie's other interview - the one with Alistair Darling. I should have forwarded my list of figures on Naughtie to scupper that one, but I'd already used them in my big complaint (the one that uses the interruption coefficients) and didn't want to overegg the pudding!
*
I've drawn a few conclusions from my experiences, which you may have drawn too if you've ever complained to the Beeb about bias.
*
Complaints to the BBC rarely get the likes of me anywhere, but - if only for sheer nuisance value - they are always worth making. All complaints should be copy and pasted onto e-mails and forwarded on to interested parties (eg. the Conservatives or UKIP). You could just save time and send all your complaints straight to the interested parties and encourage them to complain. They have direct means of access to the BBC. We don't. The BBC will also be more worried, of course, if it comes from people who might have the power to do 'bad things' to them.
TODAY - YESTERDAY AND TODAY
*
Even BBC political correspondents need a holiday, so let's be charitable and assume that's the reason why Norman Smith, the BBC's Anti-Tory Correspondent, has been missing from the Today programme's airwaves throughout the National Insurance debate of the last few days. Yesterday it was left to young Ross Hawkins to discuss the matter (briefly) with James Naughtie (who got his facts wrong over the number of businessmen who had added their names to the campaign).
*
The odd thing about this is that, besides this discussion at 6.35am and some references to the story during the paper reviews, that was pretty much it for this major story as concerned yesterday's Today programme. You would have expected at least one segment after 7.00am to touch on the matter, but no...Editor Ceri Thomas doubtless felt again that it was unnecessary to dwell on a story that had been discussed across the BBC the previous day (his earlier excuse for ignoring an embarrassing story for Labour).
*
Still, looking at this morning's run-down (as some of you who listen live with already have heard), I see that Today are returning to the subject now - but it looks as if they are only doing so through Labour's eyes again. I can only see Geoffrey Robinson's name on the itinerary.
*
UPDATE And talking of seeing the story through Labour's eyes, today's programme began with the BBC's Tim Reid reporting to Naughtie about Lord Mandelson's latest doings - an attack on the boss of Barclays and on David Cameron. The BBC often acts like Mandy's lapdog.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8601000/8601424.stm
Even BBC political correspondents need a holiday, so let's be charitable and assume that's the reason why Norman Smith, the BBC's Anti-Tory Correspondent, has been missing from the Today programme's airwaves throughout the National Insurance debate of the last few days. Yesterday it was left to young Ross Hawkins to discuss the matter (briefly) with James Naughtie (who got his facts wrong over the number of businessmen who had added their names to the campaign).
*
The odd thing about this is that, besides this discussion at 6.35am and some references to the story during the paper reviews, that was pretty much it for this major story as concerned yesterday's Today programme. You would have expected at least one segment after 7.00am to touch on the matter, but no...Editor Ceri Thomas doubtless felt again that it was unnecessary to dwell on a story that had been discussed across the BBC the previous day (his earlier excuse for ignoring an embarrassing story for Labour).
*
Still, looking at this morning's run-down (as some of you who listen live with already have heard), I see that Today are returning to the subject now - but it looks as if they are only doing so through Labour's eyes again. I can only see Geoffrey Robinson's name on the itinerary.
*
UPDATE And talking of seeing the story through Labour's eyes, today's programme began with the BBC's Tim Reid reporting to Naughtie about Lord Mandelson's latest doings - an attack on the boss of Barclays and on David Cameron. The BBC often acts like Mandy's lapdog.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8601000/8601424.stm
BECKY CHANGES THE SUBJECT
*
Becky Milligan discussed the disputed selection of BBC historian Tristram Hunt as Labour's candidate in Stoke with Shaun Ley on yesterday's The World at One.
*
Or, more accurately put, she tried not to discuss the matter with Shaun Ley, quickly trying to generalise it beyond Labour ("And it's not just a Labour problem..." was just one such comment) and then, for some reason, moving swiftly on to the Conservatives and their recent "little local difficulty" in Surrey East, about which she talked at greater length and went into considerably greater detail.
*
So, asked for her view of events in Stoke, she spent 40 seconds discussing that, then 17 seconds discussing pure generalities then 48 seconds discussing Surrey East.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rlff9#synopsis
Becky Milligan discussed the disputed selection of BBC historian Tristram Hunt as Labour's candidate in Stoke with Shaun Ley on yesterday's The World at One.
*
Or, more accurately put, she tried not to discuss the matter with Shaun Ley, quickly trying to generalise it beyond Labour ("And it's not just a Labour problem..." was just one such comment) and then, for some reason, moving swiftly on to the Conservatives and their recent "little local difficulty" in Surrey East, about which she talked at greater length and went into considerably greater detail.
*
So, asked for her view of events in Stoke, she spent 40 seconds discussing that, then 17 seconds discussing pure generalities then 48 seconds discussing Surrey East.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rlff9#synopsis
NAUGHTIE'S SPEECH ON GAZA
*
David Preiser on the B-BBC blogsite draws our attention to more bias from James Naughtie - this time over Israel. Naughtie's opinions are rarely far from the surface so his explicitness here is just one step further. He should keep his opinions to himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8600000/8600503.stm
(If you scroll down you'll also see David's fine dissection of Matt Frei's latest bit of propaganda and Hippiepooter's reply. Typical Frei, typical (unlabelled) use of a liberal talking head).
David Preiser on the B-BBC blogsite draws our attention to more bias from James Naughtie - this time over Israel. Naughtie's opinions are rarely far from the surface so his explicitness here is just one step further. He should keep his opinions to himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8600000/8600503.stm
There's a real problem here for people looking in on it. Leave to one side for a moment the plight of people living in Gaza, which is a very disturbing one to people in the outside world because they're being kept there effectively in prison for a very long time, but it is said in some quarters...that of course there are different groups operating in Gaza, as you say planning attacks against Israeli citizens, not all connected directly with Hamas, and some people say there is evidence that Hamas, which runs Gaza of course, is trying to get control of some of these groups and these people, and the argument goes that retaliation on this scale might actually make that more difficult. In other words the outcome may well be that Israeli citizens are put n more danger not in less.David's comment is worth quoting in full:
James Naughtie spells out the BBC Narrative on Israel very clearly. Gazans are "kept there, effectively in prison, for a very long time", and Israel should not retaliate on the scale that they do. In fact, Naughtie suggests, many of these missiles and terror attacks on Israel aren't done by Hamas, and retaliation just makes peace more difficult.http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-thread.html
Any chance Naughtie sees to discredit Israel, he takes. Gaza is a prison, Hamas is
trying to control these other factions so that they don't interfere with the peace process (I can't stop laughing at that one), and Israel is just making it worse by saying that they'll retaliate if soldiers are killed. In other words, Hamas is really trying to work for peace and Israelis need to roll over and die in greater numbers before they should retaliate.
Now that George Bush is out of office, no other government in the world is challenged so aggressively by the BBC.
*
(If you scroll down you'll also see David's fine dissection of Matt Frei's latest bit of propaganda and Hippiepooter's reply. Typical Frei, typical (unlabelled) use of a liberal talking head).
Friday, 2 April 2010
DIMBLEDATA FOR APRIL FOOL'S DAY
*
This week's edition of Question Time was much more enjoyable than last week's programme, with Ken Clarke on fine form and the much-abused Richard Littlejohn shining too. The lovely Victoria Coren (whose quiz Only Connect is one of the few BBC programmes I watch for fun) was amajor disappointment, revealing herself to be a typical BBC left-winger and talking a lot of absolute drivel about pretty much everything. Alan Johnson was a grumpier version of his usual self and wouldn't have won many votes on the strength of that performance (and to think he was being strongly touted as Labour's saviour a couple of years ago). Lib Dem Sarah Teather spent a lot of her time and energy doing what the Lib Dems usually do these days - strongly attacking the Tories and saying the odd nice thing about Labour. (The Lib-Lab pact has been up and running for months now.
*
After that long preamble, here's this week's Dimbledata:
*
*
Who got most time to speak?
*
1. Ken Clarke (Con) - 13 minutes 35 seconds
2. Alan Johnson (Lab) - 12 minutes 52 seconds
3. Richard Littlejohn - 7 minutes 31 seconds
4. Victoria Coren - 6 minutes 12 seconds
5. Sarah Teather (LD) - 4 minutes 55 seconds (I know! That surprised me too - given how often she interrupted, but she was interrupted in turn.)
*
*
Who received the most interruptions from David Dimbleby?
*
1. Ken Clarke - 16
2. Alan Johnson - 8
3. Richard Littlejohn - 6
4. Sarah Teather - 5
5. Victoria Coren - 1
*
*
Who scored the highest interruption coefficient?
*
1. Ken Clarke - 1.2
2. Sarah Teather - 1.1
3. Richard Littlejohn - 0.8
4. Alan Johnson - 0.6
5. Victoria Coren - 0.2
*
*
Who was asked the most supplementary questions by David Dimbleby?
*
1. Ken Clarke - 17
2. Alan Johnson - 9
3. Richard Littlejohn - 7
4. Sarah Teather - 5
5. Victoria Coren - 1
*
*
The general trend for the Labour politician to receive an easier ride than the Conservative on Question Time continues. After a somewhat rough start for Mr Johnson, things eased off considerably for him after the first question - which was when David Dimbleby's usual Tory-hunting began in earnest and continued, on and off, throughout.
*
This week's edition of Question Time was much more enjoyable than last week's programme, with Ken Clarke on fine form and the much-abused Richard Littlejohn shining too. The lovely Victoria Coren (whose quiz Only Connect is one of the few BBC programmes I watch for fun) was amajor disappointment, revealing herself to be a typical BBC left-winger and talking a lot of absolute drivel about pretty much everything. Alan Johnson was a grumpier version of his usual self and wouldn't have won many votes on the strength of that performance (and to think he was being strongly touted as Labour's saviour a couple of years ago). Lib Dem Sarah Teather spent a lot of her time and energy doing what the Lib Dems usually do these days - strongly attacking the Tories and saying the odd nice thing about Labour. (The Lib-Lab pact has been up and running for months now.
*
After that long preamble, here's this week's Dimbledata:
*
*
Who got most time to speak?
*
1. Ken Clarke (Con) - 13 minutes 35 seconds
2. Alan Johnson (Lab) - 12 minutes 52 seconds
3. Richard Littlejohn - 7 minutes 31 seconds
4. Victoria Coren - 6 minutes 12 seconds
5. Sarah Teather (LD) - 4 minutes 55 seconds (I know! That surprised me too - given how often she interrupted, but she was interrupted in turn.)
*
*
Who received the most interruptions from David Dimbleby?
*
1. Ken Clarke - 16
2. Alan Johnson - 8
3. Richard Littlejohn - 6
4. Sarah Teather - 5
5. Victoria Coren - 1
*
*
Who scored the highest interruption coefficient?
*
1. Ken Clarke - 1.2
2. Sarah Teather - 1.1
3. Richard Littlejohn - 0.8
4. Alan Johnson - 0.6
5. Victoria Coren - 0.2
*
*
Who was asked the most supplementary questions by David Dimbleby?
*
1. Ken Clarke - 17
2. Alan Johnson - 9
3. Richard Littlejohn - 7
4. Sarah Teather - 5
5. Victoria Coren - 1
*
*
The general trend for the Labour politician to receive an easier ride than the Conservative on Question Time continues. After a somewhat rough start for Mr Johnson, things eased off considerably for him after the first question - which was when David Dimbleby's usual Tory-hunting began in earnest and continued, on and off, throughout.
*
STEPH DOESN'T RIDE TO THE RESCUE!
*
In contrast to Messers Peston and Easton, the lovely Stephanie Flanders has posted an article on her blog (which you will all know is called Stephanomics) that plays fair:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/04/april_fools.html
*
In it she dismantles Labour's latest dodgy dossier on the Conservatives 'Credibility Deficit'.
*
The comments beneath are full of surprise:
*
8. At 2:15pm on 01 Apr 2010, Rose Norman wrote:
Jolly good, Stephanie, you are starting to look at matters from a slightly less partial viewpoint.
*
11. At 2:34pm on 01 Apr 2010, NBeale wrote:
Well done. People were beginning to wonder about the objectivity of the BBC.
*
18. At 2:54pm on 01 Apr 2010, BugHunter wrote:
At last - a BBC report which does not just regurgitate the Labour line. Impressive, ma'am! You will be sent to Coventry in the BBC canteen; mark my words!
*
28. At 3:33pm on 01 Apr 2010, Mike wrote:
Steph, you ain't gonna last long at the BBC with this kind of impartial reporting
Well done in the meantime
*
38. At 4:08pm on 01 Apr 2010, Jom Forest wrote:
At last a non biased non partisan view from the BBC
Furher more for the first time ever I actually understood what was being said.
More Laura less Nick
*
104. At 00:49am on 02 Apr 2010, Cynosarges wrote:
It is nice to see one BBC reporter who shows a semblance of neutrality in reporting on the election. Congratulations, Stephanie.
All the BBC needs to do now is to persuade the Labour supporters who make up the other 99% of the BBC's reporting force to meet the BBC's duty of neutrality, and the BBC will no longer resemble a Labour party political broadcast.
*
One swallow doesn't make a summer, of course. Still it's a relief to see any swallows on the BBC's blogs!
*
*
Not a sheep also pays tribute here:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/04/stephanie-flanders-bbcs-economics.html
In contrast to Messers Peston and Easton, the lovely Stephanie Flanders has posted an article on her blog (which you will all know is called Stephanomics) that plays fair:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/04/april_fools.html
*
In it she dismantles Labour's latest dodgy dossier on the Conservatives 'Credibility Deficit'.
*
The comments beneath are full of surprise:
*
8. At 2:15pm on 01 Apr 2010, Rose Norman wrote:
Jolly good, Stephanie, you are starting to look at matters from a slightly less partial viewpoint.
*
11. At 2:34pm on 01 Apr 2010, NBeale wrote:
Well done. People were beginning to wonder about the objectivity of the BBC.
*
18. At 2:54pm on 01 Apr 2010, BugHunter wrote:
At last - a BBC report which does not just regurgitate the Labour line. Impressive, ma'am! You will be sent to Coventry in the BBC canteen; mark my words!
*
28. At 3:33pm on 01 Apr 2010, Mike wrote:
Steph, you ain't gonna last long at the BBC with this kind of impartial reporting
Well done in the meantime
*
38. At 4:08pm on 01 Apr 2010, Jom Forest wrote:
At last a non biased non partisan view from the BBC
Furher more for the first time ever I actually understood what was being said.
More Laura less Nick
*
104. At 00:49am on 02 Apr 2010, Cynosarges wrote:
It is nice to see one BBC reporter who shows a semblance of neutrality in reporting on the election. Congratulations, Stephanie.
All the BBC needs to do now is to persuade the Labour supporters who make up the other 99% of the BBC's reporting force to meet the BBC's duty of neutrality, and the BBC will no longer resemble a Labour party political broadcast.
*
One swallow doesn't make a summer, of course. Still it's a relief to see any swallows on the BBC's blogs!
*
*
Not a sheep also pays tribute here:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/04/stephanie-flanders-bbcs-economics.html
Thursday, 1 April 2010
PROFESSORS OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
*
Are all professors of industrial relations far-left in their politics, or is it just the ones the BBC invites onto its airwaves? Whether it's John Kelly, professor of industrial relations at Birkbeck College and member of the Socialist History Society, or that old BBC stand-by Roger Seifert, professor of industrial relations at Wolverhampton Business School, they keep popping up across the BBC. Today's PM had another - Gregor Gall, professor of industrial relations at the University of Hertfordshire. Prof Gall's Wikipedia profile came as no surprise to me when I looked him up after listening to the militancy of his contribution to PM. A regular columnist for The Guardian and the Morning Star, he's also a member of the Scottish Socialist Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Gall
*
What about professors of employment relations invited to appear on the BBC? Well, when there's one of them it's usually Professor Ralph Darlington of Salford University. He's appearing on tonight's The World Tonight, also to discuss the current strikes. The university's website informs us that he's about to edit an issue of the journal Socialist History.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_History_Society
*
Are all professors of industrial relations far-left in their politics, or is it just the ones the BBC invites onto its airwaves? Whether it's John Kelly, professor of industrial relations at Birkbeck College and member of the Socialist History Society, or that old BBC stand-by Roger Seifert, professor of industrial relations at Wolverhampton Business School, they keep popping up across the BBC. Today's PM had another - Gregor Gall, professor of industrial relations at the University of Hertfordshire. Prof Gall's Wikipedia profile came as no surprise to me when I looked him up after listening to the militancy of his contribution to PM. A regular columnist for The Guardian and the Morning Star, he's also a member of the Scottish Socialist Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Gall
*
What about professors of employment relations invited to appear on the BBC? Well, when there's one of them it's usually Professor Ralph Darlington of Salford University. He's appearing on tonight's The World Tonight, also to discuss the current strikes. The university's website informs us that he's about to edit an issue of the journal Socialist History.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_History_Society
*
TIM WATERSTONE, TWICE
*
Though Today had both David Cameron, who was given the fully Monty treatment of relentless interruptions (at least in the later stages of the interview, I.C. of 1.3), and Liam Byrne to discuss the letter to the Telegraph supporting the Conservatives on NI, The World at One had only Lord Digby Jones, who served as a GOAT in Brown's government, and Liam Byrne again. Why was there no Conservative? That said, at least Lord Digby did say some critical things about Peter Mandelson.
*
Similarly PM had Labour supporter (and party member) Tim Waterstone, who described the letter as 'strange' and Lord Mandelson's remarks as 'dead right' as regards his attacks on Mr Cameron. None of the businessmen who backed the Conservatives agreed to appear on the programme, but still 'Why no Conservatives?'
*
Nor did any of those 23 signatories agree to appear on Newsnight, which meant that all we got was Tim Waterstone again - for no Conservatives were invited to appear on this programme either. Surely they didn't refuse too?
*
This meant that from noon onwards Labour and its supporters pretty much had the run of the BBC airwaves on this story.
*
Let's see what happens tomorrow, as not all of this was the BBC's fault (or, to put it another way, they had a ready excuse for indulging just one side of the story).
*
The story should continue to be covered tomorrow as more top businessmen have added their support tonight to the Conservatives' NI proposal, as the Daily Telegraph is to make clear overnight. Hopefully some of them will consent to a grilling by the biased BBC. Labour will doubtless be cobbling together a few names (as is their way) to write an opposing letter. How the BBC covers all of this will be well worth studying.
*
Though Today had both David Cameron, who was given the fully Monty treatment of relentless interruptions (at least in the later stages of the interview, I.C. of 1.3), and Liam Byrne to discuss the letter to the Telegraph supporting the Conservatives on NI, The World at One had only Lord Digby Jones, who served as a GOAT in Brown's government, and Liam Byrne again. Why was there no Conservative? That said, at least Lord Digby did say some critical things about Peter Mandelson.
*
Similarly PM had Labour supporter (and party member) Tim Waterstone, who described the letter as 'strange' and Lord Mandelson's remarks as 'dead right' as regards his attacks on Mr Cameron. None of the businessmen who backed the Conservatives agreed to appear on the programme, but still 'Why no Conservatives?'
*
Nor did any of those 23 signatories agree to appear on Newsnight, which meant that all we got was Tim Waterstone again - for no Conservatives were invited to appear on this programme either. Surely they didn't refuse too?
*
This meant that from noon onwards Labour and its supporters pretty much had the run of the BBC airwaves on this story.
*
Let's see what happens tomorrow, as not all of this was the BBC's fault (or, to put it another way, they had a ready excuse for indulging just one side of the story).
*
The story should continue to be covered tomorrow as more top businessmen have added their support tonight to the Conservatives' NI proposal, as the Daily Telegraph is to make clear overnight. Hopefully some of them will consent to a grilling by the biased BBC. Labour will doubtless be cobbling together a few names (as is their way) to write an opposing letter. How the BBC covers all of this will be well worth studying.
*
ROBERT PESTON TO THE RESCUE!
*
Oh, and now there's another one at it.
*
Robert Peston's latest post on Peston's Picks tries to downplay the significance of the story of the 23 top businessmen who are backing the Conservatives over national insurance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/04
*
His point is that the names of those businessmen don't surprise him. Some of them are Tories, some could be Tories, some think the Tories might be the next government and might profit from sucking up to them...nudge, nudge, wink, wink...
Spin, pure pro-Labour spin, complete with insinuations and sophistry. It's a classic BBC 'Nothing to see here, move along now' piece.
Oh, and now there's another one at it.
*
Robert Peston's latest post on Peston's Picks tries to downplay the significance of the story of the 23 top businessmen who are backing the Conservatives over national insurance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/04
*
His point is that the names of those businessmen don't surprise him. Some of them are Tories, some could be Tories, some think the Tories might be the next government and might profit from sucking up to them...nudge, nudge, wink, wink...
So how to assess today's letter from 23 business leaders backing the Tories' proposal to partly reverse the government's plan to increase National Insurance?
But I should also point out that there wasn't a single signatory who made me think "wow, didn't expect him to be on a list of proponents of a Tory policy".
That doesn't mean that they are all card-carrying members of the Tory party or donors to the Conservatives (some are). (Who? How many exactly? Two? Eight? Sixteen? Twenty-two?)
It's just that I've observed for some months the likes of Sir Stuart Rose of M&S and Justin King of Sainsbury becoming quite chummy with what you might call New Conservatives', or the leadership clique around David Cameron. (Some might say the same of Robert Peston and New Labour).
And in the business circles in which I mix, there's been lots of chatter in recent months that one or both could find themselves on the Tory benches of the Lords or doing a job for a Tory administration. (Ah, so they're saying it for purely selfish reasons, you mean Robert? That would make their statements worthless, wouldn't it?)
Also, there was a chunk of the letter that gave me a powerful sense of deja vu (or
deja entendu, to be more precise).
It's this bit:
"The state must look to enable our public servants to make savings. This can be done by removing the blizzard of irrelevant objectives, restrictive working practices,
arcane procurement rules and Whitehall interference."
Now I have heard something very similar from the lips of New Conservatives' favourite businessman, Simon Wolfson, chief executive of Next - who happens to be one of the signatories, and is very close to the Cameron/Osborne gang. (If he's one of the signatories, the fact that you'll have heard him say something similar to what he and his co-signatories say here is hardly a startling coincidence then, is it Robert?)
None of which is to say this letter of endorsement of an important Tory policy from some business heavyweights is trivial (well, it certainly seems to me that that's precisely what Peston is implying!) - just that it isn't terribly surprising.
Spin, pure pro-Labour spin, complete with insinuations and sophistry. It's a classic BBC 'Nothing to see here, move along now' piece.
MARK EASTON TO THE RESCUE!
*
Not a sheep notes the latest twist in the BBC's reporting of Gordon Brown's fiddling of statistics - or should that be their 'downplaying' of the story?
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/prime-minister-misleads-public-again.html
*
In my post on the early stages of this story (on Saturday) I sneaked in a sly dig at the BBC's home affairs editor Mark Easton, who always seems happier attacking the Tories over their use of statistics than he does Labour http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/brown-fiddles-figures-bbc-fiddles-story.html.
*
Well, he's actually blogged about the rap over the knuckles for Brown (over his use of migration statistics) by the wonderfully-named Sir Michael Scholar of the UK Statistics Authority. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/03/the_war_of_numbers_revisited.html *
His post though is little more than a damage limitation exercise on behalf of the Labour Party.
*
By as early as his second paragraph Easton has sneaked in a sly dig at Chris Grayling
*
What has Easton to say of Brown's 'mistake'? After saying that the other stats Brown used in his podcast are 'fine', he calls it 'problematic'. Well, that's a kind way of putting it!
*
Brown's restatement of the figures yesterday is described as 'proper' before Easton adds "It might be convoluted, even a bit dull. But it is statistically sound and Sir Michael give the PM credit in his letter".
*
He then moves on to say that Brown was right all along anyhow:
So there, Chris Grayling and Sir Andrew Green!
*
Not a sheep notes the latest twist in the BBC's reporting of Gordon Brown's fiddling of statistics - or should that be their 'downplaying' of the story?
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/prime-minister-misleads-public-again.html
*
In my post on the early stages of this story (on Saturday) I sneaked in a sly dig at the BBC's home affairs editor Mark Easton, who always seems happier attacking the Tories over their use of statistics than he does Labour http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/brown-fiddles-figures-bbc-fiddles-story.html.
*
Well, he's actually blogged about the rap over the knuckles for Brown (over his use of migration statistics) by the wonderfully-named Sir Michael Scholar of the UK Statistics Authority. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/03/the_war_of_numbers_revisited.html *
His post though is little more than a damage limitation exercise on behalf of the Labour Party.
*
By as early as his second paragraph Easton has sneaked in a sly dig at Chris Grayling
Two days ago, Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary and the man Sir Michael ticked off earlier this month for his use of crime stats..This, of course, 'reminds' his readers that the Tories are at least as dodgy as Labour with their use of statistics, ignoring Labour's serial abuse of statistics - on knife crime (on which Easton himself reported) and defence spending being only the most famous recent examples.
*
What has Easton to say of Brown's 'mistake'? After saying that the other stats Brown used in his podcast are 'fine', he calls it 'problematic'. Well, that's a kind way of putting it!
*
Brown's restatement of the figures yesterday is described as 'proper' before Easton adds "It might be convoluted, even a bit dull. But it is statistically sound and Sir Michael give the PM credit in his letter".
*
He then moves on to say that Brown was right all along anyhow:
I suspect Gordon Brown didn't mind spelling out the statistics in all their complexity. It was a sly dig at those who chose to alert the UKSA to his original slip by producing data that make a similar point.
So there, Chris Grayling and Sir Andrew Green!
*
MARCH'S I.C.s - THE PARTY AVERAGES
*
My favourite measure of bias across the Beeb is the super-average interruption coefficient - which is calculated very simply by adding up all the individual I.C.s for each party & then dividing them by the number of interviewed granted to each party that month. As with all statistics, the larger the sample, the better the result - and the more significant any differences (hence the increase of the I.C. to 2 decimal places).
Here is how things worked out in March (as ever the number of interviews on which the averages are based appear in brackets):
UKIP (6) - 1.52
Conservatives (94) - 1.00
Labour (124) - 0.72
BNP (1) - 0.70
Lib Dems (72) - 0.64
SNP (10) - 0.53
PUP (1) - 0.40
Plaid Cymru (1) - 0.40
Independents (2) - 0.40
UUP (2) - 0.35
Green (2) - 0
DUP (1) - 0
TUV (1) - 0
*
Another month and yet more evidence that the Conservatives are significantly more likely to be interrupted by BBC interviewers than their Labour equivalents.
*
And another month and yet more evidence that UKIP fares worse than any other party, including the Conservatives, at the hands of the biased BBC.
*
My favourite measure of bias across the Beeb is the super-average interruption coefficient - which is calculated very simply by adding up all the individual I.C.s for each party & then dividing them by the number of interviewed granted to each party that month. As with all statistics, the larger the sample, the better the result - and the more significant any differences (hence the increase of the I.C. to 2 decimal places).
Here is how things worked out in March (as ever the number of interviews on which the averages are based appear in brackets):
UKIP (6) - 1.52
Conservatives (94) - 1.00
Labour (124) - 0.72
BNP (1) - 0.70
Lib Dems (72) - 0.64
SNP (10) - 0.53
PUP (1) - 0.40
Plaid Cymru (1) - 0.40
Independents (2) - 0.40
UUP (2) - 0.35
Green (2) - 0
DUP (1) - 0
TUV (1) - 0
*
Another month and yet more evidence that the Conservatives are significantly more likely to be interrupted by BBC interviewers than their Labour equivalents.
*
And another month and yet more evidence that UKIP fares worse than any other party, including the Conservatives, at the hands of the biased BBC.
*
MARCH'S INTERRUPTION COEFFICIENTS - THE FULL LIST
*
A new month means another list of interruption coefficients.
*
317 interviews with UK politicians have occured throughout March. This covers every edition of:
*
Today
The Daily Politics
The World At One
PM
The World Tonight
Newsnight
The Andrew Marr Show
Broadcasting House
The Politics Show
The World This Weekend
The Politics Show: Scotland
Dragon's Eye
The Record: Europe
Westminster Hour
*
Just as a reminder - Interruption Coefficients (I.C.s) are calculated by dividing the number of interruptions by the length of the interview. The higher the I.C. the tougher the interview (as a rule). I.C.s of 0 have contained no interruptions! Interruptions are only classed as interruptions if they stop or significantly alter the speaker's flow. Muttered 'wells' and the like are classed as 'abortive interruptions' and are not counted. Those that share an I.C., say of 0.8, are sub-ranked according to a hidden (inferior) measure called the Questions Coefficient, which is calculated by dividing the number of questions by the length of the interview. The more questions there are, the likelier the interviewer is holding the reins in an interview. That means that everything is ranked just where it should be!
*
As usual I will begin with the full list.
*
You will notice something remarkable at the top of this month's list. The Lib Dem-who-loves-to -interrupt found himself last night to be on the receiving end for once. Thus he is March's surprise winner of the coveted Month's Most Interrupted award. *
Every else is pretty much as you expect.
*
*
Date, Interviewer, Interviewee, Party, IC
*
31/03 Jeremy Paxman Chris Huhne Lib Dem 3.2
*
18/03 Kirsty Wark Tim Loughton Conservative 3
*
31/03 Jeremy Paxman David Campbell-Bannerman UKIP 2.8
*
17/03 Jo Coburn Theresa May Conservative 2.7
*
17/03 Jeremy Paxman Theresa May Conservative 2.6
25/03 Kirsty Wark Chris Grayling Conservative 2.6
31/03 Jeremy Paxman Damian Green Conservative 2.6
*
09/03 Justin Webb Owen Paterson Conservative 2.5
16/03 Andrew Neil Stephen Timms Labour 2.5
*
15/03 Andrew Neil Philip Hammond Conservative 2.4
*
25/03 Andrew Neil Philip Hammond Conservative 2.3
*
10/03 Jeremy Paxman Michael Gove Conservative 2.2
12/03 Gavin Esler Charles Tannock Conservative 2.2
21/03 Shirin Wheeler John Bufton UKIP 2.2
8
11/03 Kirsty Wark Theresa Villiers Conservative 2.1
15/03 Andrew Neil Emily Thornberry Labour 2.1
10/03 Jeremy Paxman Ed Balls Labour 2.1
*
03/03 Robin Lustig William Hague Conservative 2
23/03 Jeremy Paxman Dominic Grieve Conservative 2
16/03 Andrew Neil Danny Alexander Lib Dem 2
25/03 Andrew Neil Lord Oakeshott Lib Dem 2
03/03 Martha Kearney Nick Herbert Conservative 2
*
24/03 Jeremy Paxman Liam Byrne Labour 1.9
25/03 Andrew Neil Stephen Timms Labour 1.9
10/03 Andrew Neil Norman Lamb Lib Dem 1.9
29/03 Jeremy Paxman Philip Hammond Conservative 1.9
17/03 Andrew Neil Theresa May Conservative 1.9
25/03 Kirsty Wark Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.9
*
22/03 Jo Coburn Ben Bradshaw Labour 1.8
03/03 Jo Coburn Michael Gove Conservative 1.8
01/03 Andrew Neil John Denham Labour 1.8
10/03 Jeremy Paxman David Laws Lib Dem 1.8
17/03 Andrew Neil Jim Knight Labour 1.8
15/03 Jeremy Paxman Richard Caborn Labour 1.8
*
15/03 James Naughtie Andrew Dismore Labour 1.7
02/03 Andrew Neil John McFall Labour 1.7
31/03 Martha Kearney Phil Woolas Labour 1.7
30/03 John Humphrys Andy Burnham Labour 1.7
*
31/03 Jeremy Paxman Phil Woolas Labour 1.6
02/03 Jo Coburn Nigel Farage UKIP 1.6
22/03 Jo Coburn Jeremy Hunt Conservative 1.6
08/03 Andrew Neil Tony McNulty Labour 1.6
16/03 Andrew Neil Ken Clarke Conservative 1.6
30/03 Gavin Esler Eric Pickles Conservative 1.6
11/03 Carolyn Quinn Ken Clarke Conservative 1.6
22/03 Jeremy Paxman Ken Clarke Conservative 1.6
25/03 Martha Kearney Norman Lamb Lib Dem 1.6
26/03 Shaun Ley Andrew Adonis Labour 1.6
28/03 Andrew Marr Ed Balls Labour 1.6
23/03 John Humphrys Jack Straw Labour 1.6
*
24/03 Jeremy Paxman Philip Hammond Conservative 1.5
22/03 Jeremy Paxman John Thurso Lib Dem 1.5
10/03 Andrew Neil Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.5
18/03 Kirsty Wark Baroness Morgan Labour 1.5
03/03 Andrew Neil Michael Gove Conservative 1.5
04/03 Andrew Neil Ken Clarke Conservative 1.5
27/03 Evan Davis Douglas Alexander Labour 1.5
03/03 Andrew Neil Tessa Jowell Labour 1.5
06/03 Ritula Shah Lord Soley Labour 1.5
*
29/03 Jo Coburn Jules Pipe Labour 1.4
23/03 Jo Coburn Ming Campbell Lib Dem 1.4
07/03 Andrew Marr Harriet Harman Labour 1.4
17/03 Andrew Neil Jim Knight Labour 1.4
10/03 Andrew Neil Jacqui Smith Labour 1.4
09/03 Martha Kearney Mark Pritchard Conservative 1.4
16/03 James Naughtie Ken Clarke Conservative 1.4
10/03 Martha Kearney Ed Davey Lib Dem 1.4
29/03 Carolyn Quinn Ed Vaizey Conservative 1.4
23/03 Justin Webb Sir Stuart Bell Labour 1.4
15/03 Jeremy Paxman Greg Hands Conservative 1.4
*
23/03 Justin Webb Chris Grayling Conservative 1.3
18/03 Shelagh Fogarty John Horam Conservative 1.3
24/03 Eddie Mair Philip Hammond Conservative 1.3
11/03 Kirsty Wark Andrew Adonis Labour 1.3
18/03 Kirsty Wark Baroness Walmsley Lib Dem 1.3
22/03 Justin Webb Sir George Young Conservative 1.3
29/03 Jo Coburn Philip Hammond Conservative 1.3
30/03 John Humphrys Andrew Lansley Conservative 1.3
29/03 Jeremy Paxman Jeremy Brown Lib Dem 1.3
30/03 Andrew Neil David Davis Conservative 1.3
04/03 Felicity Evans Peter Hain Labour 1.3
*
23/03 Jeremy Paxman Tony Lloyd Labour 1.2
16/03 Eddie Mair Nick Herbert Conservative 1.2
11/03 Andrew Neil Liam Byrne Labour 1.2
16/03 Martha Kearney Nick Clegg Lib Dem 1.2
22/03 John Humphrys Kevin Brennan Labour 1.2
29/03 Jeremy Paxman Ed Miliband Labour 1.2
16/03 James Naughtie Liam Byrne Labour 1.2
10/03 Martha Kearney Theresa May Conservative 1.2
09/03 Martha Kearney Nadhim Zahawi Conservative 1.2
21/03 Shirin Wheeler Ian Hudghton SNP 1.2
12/03 Gavin Esler Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.2
*
22/03 Andrew Neil Sir George Young Conservative 1.1
29/03 Martha Kearney Philip Hammond Conservative 1.1
29/03 Eddie Mair Ken Clarke Conservative 1.1
14/03 Shaun Ley Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.1
*
17/03 Jeremy Paxman Jim Knight Labour 1
07/03 Glenn Campbell Nick Clegg Lib Dem 1
19/03 Evan Davis Lord Pearson UKIP 1
22/03 Jeremy Paxman Peter Mandelson Labour 1
25/03 Kirsty Wark David Hanson Labour 1
04/03 Martha Kearney John Mann Labour 1
15/03 Jeremy Paxman Margaret Hodge Labour 1
07/03 Andrew Marr Liam Fox Conservative 1
08/03 Martha Kearney Eleanor Lang Conservative 1
*
03/03 Robin Lustig Ed Davey Lib Dem 0.9
31/03 Martha Kearney Sir Patrick Cormack Conservative 0.9
07/03 Shirin Wheeler Mary Honeyball Labour 0.9
08/03 Jeremy Paxman Bill Rammell Labour 0.9
10/03 Andrew Neil Richard Kemp Lib Dem 0.9
11/03 Kirsty Wark Norman Baker Lib Dem 0.9
24/03 Eddie Mair Liam Byrne Labour 0.9
29/03 Giles Dilnot Lord Layard Labour 0.9
02/03 Andrew Neil Frank Field Labour 0.9
23/03 Justin Webb David Hanson Labour 0.9
07/03 Glenn Campbell David Mundell Conservative 0.9
23/03 Jeremy Paxman David Heath Lib Dem 0.9
10/03 Jo Coburn David Mellor Conservative 0.9
18/03 Martha Kearney Barry Legg Conservative 0.9
24/03 Eddie Mair Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.9
07/03 Jon Sopel Alistair Darling Labour 0.9
08/03 John Humphrys Jack Straw Labour 0.9
23/03 Justin Webb Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.9
11/03 Carolyn Quinn Kevin Barron Labour 0.9
09/03 Justin Webb Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.9
16/03 Martha Kearney Lord Pearson UKIP 0.9
*
12/03 Carolyn Quinn Anna Arrowsmith Lib Dem 0.8
05/03 Emily Maitlis Lord Falconer Labour 0.8
29/03 Jo Coburn Sally Pidgeon Lib Dem 0.8
07/03 Andrew Marr Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.8
17/03 Shaun Ley Lord Adonis Labour 0.8
27/03 Ritula Shah Ed Miliband Labour 0.8
03/03 Andrew Neil David Laws Lib Dem 0.8
03/03 Martha Kearney David Owen Cross bench 0.8
07/03 Shirin Wheeler Charles Tannock Conservative 0.8
23/03 Martha Kearney David Mencer Labour 0.8
10/03 Andrew Neil Iain Duncan Smith Conservative 0.8
18/03 Evan Davis William Hague Conservative 0.8
28/03 Andrew Marr Michael Gove Conservative 0.8
20/03 John Humphrys David Miliband Labour 0.8
05/03 Shaun Ley Geoffrey Robinson Labour 0.8
31/03 Martha Kearney Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.8
30/03 Gavin Esler Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.8
29/03 Carolyn Quinn Tom Harris Labour 0.8
*
13/03 Sarah Montague Nick Griffin BNP 0.7
03/03 Jo Coburn Tessa Jowell Labour 0.7
18/03 Andrew Neil Chris Patten Conservative 0.7
11/03 Martha Kearney Andrew Adonis Labour 0.7
23/03 Andrew Neil Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0.7
05/03 Shaun Ley Liam Fox Conservative 0.7
13/03 Sarah Montague Angus Robertson SNP 0.7
21/03 Andrew Marr Margot James Conservative 0.7
07/03 Shirin Wheeler Marina Yannakoudakis Conservative 0.7
*
03/03 Robin Lustig William Hague Conservative 0.6
02/03 Carolyn Quinn John Whittingdale Conservative 0.6
21/03 Andrew Marr Philip Hammond Conservative 0.6
24/03 Jeremy Paxman Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.6
08/03 Martha Kearney Bob Ainsworth Labour 0.6
21/03 Glenn Campbell George Osborne Conservative 0.6
21/03 Carolyn Quinn Stewart Hosie SNP 0.6
30/03 Gavin Esler John Prescott Labour 0.6
13/03 Ritula Shah Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.6
25/03 Evan Davis George Osborne Conservative 0.6
30/03 Andrew Neil Charles Kennedy Lib Dem 0.6
14/03 Andrew Marr Andrew Adonis Labour 0.6
15/03 James Naughtie George Osborne Conservative 0.6
21/03 Andrew Marr Alex Salmond SNP 0.6
30/03 Andrew Neil Caroline Flint Labour 0.6
21/03 Carolyn Quinn Mark Field Conservative 0.6
31/03 Martha Kearney Nigel Farage UKIP 0.6
01/03 Martha Kearney Michael Gove Conservative 0.6
26/03 James Naughtie Geoff Hoon Labour 0.6
*
05/03 Sarah Montague Gary Hopkins Lib Dem 0.5
01/03 Jo Coburn John McFall Labour 0.5
28/03 Glenn Campbell Gordon Brown Labour 0.5
28/03 Glenn Campbell Mike Russell SNP 0.5
07/03 Glenn Campbell Stewart Hosie SNP 0.5
01/03 Martha Kearney Gordon Prentice Labour 0.5
01/03 Andrew Neil Norman Baker Lib Dem 0.5
10/03 Jo Coburn Nadhim Zahawi Conservative 0.5
31/03 Evan Davis Alex Salmond SNP 0.5
21/03 Glenn Campbell Alex Salmond SNP 0.5
13/03 James Naughtie Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0.5
21/03 Andrew Marr Alistair Darling Labour 0.5
14/03 Andrew Marr Ken Clarke Conservative 0.5
29/03 Eddie Mair Keith Vaz Labour 0.5
*
15/03 Martha Kearney Jim Sheridan Labour 0.4
10/03 Jo Coburn Iain Duncan Smith Conservative 0.4
07/03 Carolyn Quinn Tom Harris Labour 0.4
15/03 Martha Kearney Geoffrey Robinson Labour 0.4
21/03 Glenn Campbell Danny Alexander Lib Dem 0.4
09/03 Martha Kearney Basil McCrea UUP 0.4
10/03 Andrew Neil David Mellor Conservative 0.4
09/03 John Humphrys Lord Sainsbury Labour 0.4
09/03 Carolyn Quinn Dawn Purvis PUP 0.4
12/03 Martha Kearney Paul Holmes Lib Dem 0.4
15/03 Martha Kearney Vera Baird Labour 0.4
30/03 Martha Kearney Dominic Grieve Conservative 0.4
25/03 Evan Davis Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.4
07/03 Glenn Campbell David Cairns Labour 0.4
18/03 Felicity Evans Carwyn Jones Labour 0.4
28/03 Shirin Wheeler Chris Davies Lib Dem 0.4
03/03 Martha Kearney Hilary Benn Labour 0.4
10/03 Justin Webb David Blunkett Labour 0.4
22/03 Justin Webb Kevin Brennan Labour 0.4
18/03 Shelagh Fogarty Richard Caborn Labour 0.4
18/03 Shelagh Fogarty David Lammy Labour 0.4
25/03 Felicity Evans Helen Mary Jones Plaid 0.4
08/03 Evan Davis Phil Hope Labour 0.4
07/03 Andrew Marr Charles Kennedy Lib Dem 0.4
07/03 Carolyn Quinn Mark Field Conservative 0.4
19/03 Shaun Ley Tim Loughton Conservative 0.4
16/03 Martha Kearney Sir Patrick Cormack Conservative 0.4
*
02/03 Ritula Shah Tessa Jowell Labour 0.3
03/03 John Humphrys Colin Stears Lib Dem 0.3
17/03 Shaun Ley Peter Mandelson Labour 0.3
04/03 Carolyn Quinn Elizabeth Peacock Conservative 0.3
14/03 Carolyn Quinn Emily Thornberry Labour 0.3
03/03 James Naughtie Helena Kennedy Labour 0.3
02/03 Martha Kearney Ed Miliband Labour 0.3
03/03 Robin Lustig David Miliband Labour 0.3
31/03 Sarah Montague Phil Woolas Labour 0.3
09/03 John Humphrys Lord Waldegrave Conservative 0.3
12/03 James Naughtie Kevin Barron Labour 0.3
14/03 Carolyn Quinn Sandra Gidley Lib Dem 0.3
17/03 Justin Webb Ed Miliband Labour 0.3
29/03 Carolyn Quinn Lord Oakeshott Lib Dem 0.3
24/03 James Naughtie Phil Woolas Labour 0.3
28/03 Glenn Campbell Tavish Scott Lib Dem 0.3
29/03 John Humphrys Evan Harris Lib Dem 0.3
29/03 Jo Coburn Lord Layard Labour 0.3
05/03 Emily Maitlis Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0.3
09/03 John Humphrys Lord McGinnis UUP 0.3
*
23/03 Eddie Mair David Miliband Labour 0.2
14/03 Carolyn Quinn Charles Walker Conservative 0.2
04/03 Adrian Masters Boris Johnson Conservative 0.2
14/03 Carolyn Quinn Lord Lipsey Labour 0.2
23/03 Jo Coburn Tony Lloyd Labour 0.2
20/03 Evan Davis Nicola Sturgeon SNP 0.2
21/03 Carolyn Quinn James Purnell Labour 0.2
14/03 Shirin Wheeler Baroness Ashton Labour 0.2
19/03 John Humphrys Michael Mates Conservative 0.2
09/03 Carolyn Quinn Jeffrey Donaldson DUP 0.2
*
23/03 Robin Lustig Mike Gapes Labour 0
11/03 James Naughtie Norman Baker Lib Dem 0
04/03 Martha Kearney Lord Kalms Conservative 0
17/03 Jeremy Paxman Jeremy Brown Lib Dem 0
30/03 Martha Kearney Lord Lipsey Labour 0
14/03 Shirin Wheeler Diana Wallis Lib Dem 0
26/03 James Naughtie Robert Anderson Labour 0
01/03 Martha Kearney Lord Paul Labour 0
10/03 Martha Kearney Stephen Timms Labour 0
22/03 Martha Kearney Tony Wright Labour 0
29/03 Jo Coburn Merrick Cockell Conservative 0
30/03 Martha Kearney Peter Kilfoyle Labour 0
30/03 Martha Kearney Paul Clark Labour 0
02/03 Martha Kearney Tom Watson Labour 0
23/03 Martha Kearney John Knight Labour 0
26/03 Paddy O'Connell Diane Abbott Labour 0
28/03 Glenn Campbell Annabel Goldie Conservative 0
30/03 Martha Kearney Lord Lester Lib Dem 0
11/03 James Naughtie Tony Wright Labour 0
18/03 Martha Kearney Alan Beith Lib Dem 0
23/03 Jeremy Paxman Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0
25/03 James Naughtie Lord Dubs Labour 0
14/03 Paddy O'Connell Lord Steel Lib Dem 0
18/03 Martha Kearney Ian Liddell Grainger Conservative 0
21/03 Glenn Campbell Kevan Jones Labour 0
11/03 Roger Hearing Rob Marris Labour 0
17/03 James Naughtie Lord Vallance Lib Dem 0
22/03 Justin Webb Tim Yeo Conservative 0
25/03 Adrian Masters Nick Ramsey Conservative 0
10/03 Jo Coburn Jacqui Smith Labour 0
11/03 Martha Kearney Adrian Ramsey Green 0
22/03 Martha Kearney Norman Baker Lib Dem 0
27/03 Evan Davis Ed Davey Lib Dem 0
30/03 Jo Coburn David Davis Conservative 0
01/03 Martha Kearney Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0
04/03 James Naughtie Lord Carlile Lib Dem 0
17/03 James Naughtie Chris Grayling Conservative 0
30/03 Jo Coburn Charles Kennedy Lib Dem 0
30/03 Ritula Shah Jim Allister TUV 0
31/03 Martha Kearney Damian Green Conservative 0
03/03 James Naughtie Baroness Ashton Labour 0
05/03 Shaun Ley Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0
15/03 James Naughtie Lord Oakeshott Lib Dem 0
18/03 Evan Davis Lord Lipsey Labour 0
19/03 John Humphrys Khalid Mahmoud Labour 0
23/03 Robin Lustig Martin Salter Labour 0
26/03 Paddy O'Connell Darren Johnson Green 0
31/03 Martha Kearney Frank Field Labour 0
10/03 Robin Lustig Baroness Ashton Labour 0
23/03 Martha Kearney Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0
24/03 James Naughtie Lord Lawson Conservative 0
31/03 Evan Davis Phil Willis Lib Dem 0
03/03 Carolyn Quinn Neil Kinnock Labour 0
16/03 Eddie Mair Michael Mates Conservative 0
03/03 Martha Kearney Tony Benn Labour 0
03/03 Martha Kearney Jo Swinson Lib Dem 0
07/03 Carolyn Quinn Shirley Williams Lib Dem 0
07/03 Carolyn Quinn David Willetts Conservative 0
14/03 Shaun Ley Baroness Ashton Labour 0
21/03 Glenn Campbell Stewart Hosie SNP 0
23/03 Eddie Mair Dr Richard Taylor Independent 0
05/03 Carolyn Quinn Denis MacShane Labour 0
17/03 Shaun Ley Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0
18/03 Justin Webb David Willetts Conservative 0
21/03 Glenn Campbell Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0
25/03 Martha Kearney Lord Lawson Conservative 0
30/03 James Naughtie Norman Lamb Lib Dem 0
18/03 Adrian Masters Lord Carlile Lib Dem 0
30/03 Jo Coburn Caroline Flint Labour 0
31/03 Sarah Montague Lord Lawson Conservative 0
15/03 James Naughtie David Lammy Labour 0
17/03 Shaun Ley Eric Pickles Conservative 0
06/03 Ritula Shah Iain Duncan Smith Conservative 0
16/03 Jeremy Paxman Lord Steel Lib Dem 0
A new month means another list of interruption coefficients.
*
317 interviews with UK politicians have occured throughout March. This covers every edition of:
*
Today
The Daily Politics
The World At One
PM
The World Tonight
Newsnight
The Andrew Marr Show
Broadcasting House
The Politics Show
The World This Weekend
The Politics Show: Scotland
Dragon's Eye
The Record: Europe
Westminster Hour
*
Just as a reminder - Interruption Coefficients (I.C.s) are calculated by dividing the number of interruptions by the length of the interview. The higher the I.C. the tougher the interview (as a rule). I.C.s of 0 have contained no interruptions! Interruptions are only classed as interruptions if they stop or significantly alter the speaker's flow. Muttered 'wells' and the like are classed as 'abortive interruptions' and are not counted. Those that share an I.C., say of 0.8, are sub-ranked according to a hidden (inferior) measure called the Questions Coefficient, which is calculated by dividing the number of questions by the length of the interview. The more questions there are, the likelier the interviewer is holding the reins in an interview. That means that everything is ranked just where it should be!
*
As usual I will begin with the full list.
*
You will notice something remarkable at the top of this month's list. The Lib Dem-who-loves-to -interrupt found himself last night to be on the receiving end for once. Thus he is March's surprise winner of the coveted Month's Most Interrupted award. *
Every else is pretty much as you expect.
*
*
Date, Interviewer, Interviewee, Party, IC
*
31/03 Jeremy Paxman Chris Huhne Lib Dem 3.2
*
18/03 Kirsty Wark Tim Loughton Conservative 3
*
31/03 Jeremy Paxman David Campbell-Bannerman UKIP 2.8
*
17/03 Jo Coburn Theresa May Conservative 2.7
*
17/03 Jeremy Paxman Theresa May Conservative 2.6
25/03 Kirsty Wark Chris Grayling Conservative 2.6
31/03 Jeremy Paxman Damian Green Conservative 2.6
*
09/03 Justin Webb Owen Paterson Conservative 2.5
16/03 Andrew Neil Stephen Timms Labour 2.5
*
15/03 Andrew Neil Philip Hammond Conservative 2.4
*
25/03 Andrew Neil Philip Hammond Conservative 2.3
*
10/03 Jeremy Paxman Michael Gove Conservative 2.2
12/03 Gavin Esler Charles Tannock Conservative 2.2
21/03 Shirin Wheeler John Bufton UKIP 2.2
8
11/03 Kirsty Wark Theresa Villiers Conservative 2.1
15/03 Andrew Neil Emily Thornberry Labour 2.1
10/03 Jeremy Paxman Ed Balls Labour 2.1
*
03/03 Robin Lustig William Hague Conservative 2
23/03 Jeremy Paxman Dominic Grieve Conservative 2
16/03 Andrew Neil Danny Alexander Lib Dem 2
25/03 Andrew Neil Lord Oakeshott Lib Dem 2
03/03 Martha Kearney Nick Herbert Conservative 2
*
24/03 Jeremy Paxman Liam Byrne Labour 1.9
25/03 Andrew Neil Stephen Timms Labour 1.9
10/03 Andrew Neil Norman Lamb Lib Dem 1.9
29/03 Jeremy Paxman Philip Hammond Conservative 1.9
17/03 Andrew Neil Theresa May Conservative 1.9
25/03 Kirsty Wark Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.9
*
22/03 Jo Coburn Ben Bradshaw Labour 1.8
03/03 Jo Coburn Michael Gove Conservative 1.8
01/03 Andrew Neil John Denham Labour 1.8
10/03 Jeremy Paxman David Laws Lib Dem 1.8
17/03 Andrew Neil Jim Knight Labour 1.8
15/03 Jeremy Paxman Richard Caborn Labour 1.8
*
15/03 James Naughtie Andrew Dismore Labour 1.7
02/03 Andrew Neil John McFall Labour 1.7
31/03 Martha Kearney Phil Woolas Labour 1.7
30/03 John Humphrys Andy Burnham Labour 1.7
*
31/03 Jeremy Paxman Phil Woolas Labour 1.6
02/03 Jo Coburn Nigel Farage UKIP 1.6
22/03 Jo Coburn Jeremy Hunt Conservative 1.6
08/03 Andrew Neil Tony McNulty Labour 1.6
16/03 Andrew Neil Ken Clarke Conservative 1.6
30/03 Gavin Esler Eric Pickles Conservative 1.6
11/03 Carolyn Quinn Ken Clarke Conservative 1.6
22/03 Jeremy Paxman Ken Clarke Conservative 1.6
25/03 Martha Kearney Norman Lamb Lib Dem 1.6
26/03 Shaun Ley Andrew Adonis Labour 1.6
28/03 Andrew Marr Ed Balls Labour 1.6
23/03 John Humphrys Jack Straw Labour 1.6
*
24/03 Jeremy Paxman Philip Hammond Conservative 1.5
22/03 Jeremy Paxman John Thurso Lib Dem 1.5
10/03 Andrew Neil Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.5
18/03 Kirsty Wark Baroness Morgan Labour 1.5
03/03 Andrew Neil Michael Gove Conservative 1.5
04/03 Andrew Neil Ken Clarke Conservative 1.5
27/03 Evan Davis Douglas Alexander Labour 1.5
03/03 Andrew Neil Tessa Jowell Labour 1.5
06/03 Ritula Shah Lord Soley Labour 1.5
*
29/03 Jo Coburn Jules Pipe Labour 1.4
23/03 Jo Coburn Ming Campbell Lib Dem 1.4
07/03 Andrew Marr Harriet Harman Labour 1.4
17/03 Andrew Neil Jim Knight Labour 1.4
10/03 Andrew Neil Jacqui Smith Labour 1.4
09/03 Martha Kearney Mark Pritchard Conservative 1.4
16/03 James Naughtie Ken Clarke Conservative 1.4
10/03 Martha Kearney Ed Davey Lib Dem 1.4
29/03 Carolyn Quinn Ed Vaizey Conservative 1.4
23/03 Justin Webb Sir Stuart Bell Labour 1.4
15/03 Jeremy Paxman Greg Hands Conservative 1.4
*
23/03 Justin Webb Chris Grayling Conservative 1.3
18/03 Shelagh Fogarty John Horam Conservative 1.3
24/03 Eddie Mair Philip Hammond Conservative 1.3
11/03 Kirsty Wark Andrew Adonis Labour 1.3
18/03 Kirsty Wark Baroness Walmsley Lib Dem 1.3
22/03 Justin Webb Sir George Young Conservative 1.3
29/03 Jo Coburn Philip Hammond Conservative 1.3
30/03 John Humphrys Andrew Lansley Conservative 1.3
29/03 Jeremy Paxman Jeremy Brown Lib Dem 1.3
30/03 Andrew Neil David Davis Conservative 1.3
04/03 Felicity Evans Peter Hain Labour 1.3
*
23/03 Jeremy Paxman Tony Lloyd Labour 1.2
16/03 Eddie Mair Nick Herbert Conservative 1.2
11/03 Andrew Neil Liam Byrne Labour 1.2
16/03 Martha Kearney Nick Clegg Lib Dem 1.2
22/03 John Humphrys Kevin Brennan Labour 1.2
29/03 Jeremy Paxman Ed Miliband Labour 1.2
16/03 James Naughtie Liam Byrne Labour 1.2
10/03 Martha Kearney Theresa May Conservative 1.2
09/03 Martha Kearney Nadhim Zahawi Conservative 1.2
21/03 Shirin Wheeler Ian Hudghton SNP 1.2
12/03 Gavin Esler Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.2
*
22/03 Andrew Neil Sir George Young Conservative 1.1
29/03 Martha Kearney Philip Hammond Conservative 1.1
29/03 Eddie Mair Ken Clarke Conservative 1.1
14/03 Shaun Ley Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.1
*
17/03 Jeremy Paxman Jim Knight Labour 1
07/03 Glenn Campbell Nick Clegg Lib Dem 1
19/03 Evan Davis Lord Pearson UKIP 1
22/03 Jeremy Paxman Peter Mandelson Labour 1
25/03 Kirsty Wark David Hanson Labour 1
04/03 Martha Kearney John Mann Labour 1
15/03 Jeremy Paxman Margaret Hodge Labour 1
07/03 Andrew Marr Liam Fox Conservative 1
08/03 Martha Kearney Eleanor Lang Conservative 1
*
03/03 Robin Lustig Ed Davey Lib Dem 0.9
31/03 Martha Kearney Sir Patrick Cormack Conservative 0.9
07/03 Shirin Wheeler Mary Honeyball Labour 0.9
08/03 Jeremy Paxman Bill Rammell Labour 0.9
10/03 Andrew Neil Richard Kemp Lib Dem 0.9
11/03 Kirsty Wark Norman Baker Lib Dem 0.9
24/03 Eddie Mair Liam Byrne Labour 0.9
29/03 Giles Dilnot Lord Layard Labour 0.9
02/03 Andrew Neil Frank Field Labour 0.9
23/03 Justin Webb David Hanson Labour 0.9
07/03 Glenn Campbell David Mundell Conservative 0.9
23/03 Jeremy Paxman David Heath Lib Dem 0.9
10/03 Jo Coburn David Mellor Conservative 0.9
18/03 Martha Kearney Barry Legg Conservative 0.9
24/03 Eddie Mair Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.9
07/03 Jon Sopel Alistair Darling Labour 0.9
08/03 John Humphrys Jack Straw Labour 0.9
23/03 Justin Webb Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.9
11/03 Carolyn Quinn Kevin Barron Labour 0.9
09/03 Justin Webb Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.9
16/03 Martha Kearney Lord Pearson UKIP 0.9
*
12/03 Carolyn Quinn Anna Arrowsmith Lib Dem 0.8
05/03 Emily Maitlis Lord Falconer Labour 0.8
29/03 Jo Coburn Sally Pidgeon Lib Dem 0.8
07/03 Andrew Marr Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.8
17/03 Shaun Ley Lord Adonis Labour 0.8
27/03 Ritula Shah Ed Miliband Labour 0.8
03/03 Andrew Neil David Laws Lib Dem 0.8
03/03 Martha Kearney David Owen Cross bench 0.8
07/03 Shirin Wheeler Charles Tannock Conservative 0.8
23/03 Martha Kearney David Mencer Labour 0.8
10/03 Andrew Neil Iain Duncan Smith Conservative 0.8
18/03 Evan Davis William Hague Conservative 0.8
28/03 Andrew Marr Michael Gove Conservative 0.8
20/03 John Humphrys David Miliband Labour 0.8
05/03 Shaun Ley Geoffrey Robinson Labour 0.8
31/03 Martha Kearney Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.8
30/03 Gavin Esler Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.8
29/03 Carolyn Quinn Tom Harris Labour 0.8
*
13/03 Sarah Montague Nick Griffin BNP 0.7
03/03 Jo Coburn Tessa Jowell Labour 0.7
18/03 Andrew Neil Chris Patten Conservative 0.7
11/03 Martha Kearney Andrew Adonis Labour 0.7
23/03 Andrew Neil Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0.7
05/03 Shaun Ley Liam Fox Conservative 0.7
13/03 Sarah Montague Angus Robertson SNP 0.7
21/03 Andrew Marr Margot James Conservative 0.7
07/03 Shirin Wheeler Marina Yannakoudakis Conservative 0.7
*
03/03 Robin Lustig William Hague Conservative 0.6
02/03 Carolyn Quinn John Whittingdale Conservative 0.6
21/03 Andrew Marr Philip Hammond Conservative 0.6
24/03 Jeremy Paxman Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.6
08/03 Martha Kearney Bob Ainsworth Labour 0.6
21/03 Glenn Campbell George Osborne Conservative 0.6
21/03 Carolyn Quinn Stewart Hosie SNP 0.6
30/03 Gavin Esler John Prescott Labour 0.6
13/03 Ritula Shah Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.6
25/03 Evan Davis George Osborne Conservative 0.6
30/03 Andrew Neil Charles Kennedy Lib Dem 0.6
14/03 Andrew Marr Andrew Adonis Labour 0.6
15/03 James Naughtie George Osborne Conservative 0.6
21/03 Andrew Marr Alex Salmond SNP 0.6
30/03 Andrew Neil Caroline Flint Labour 0.6
21/03 Carolyn Quinn Mark Field Conservative 0.6
31/03 Martha Kearney Nigel Farage UKIP 0.6
01/03 Martha Kearney Michael Gove Conservative 0.6
26/03 James Naughtie Geoff Hoon Labour 0.6
*
05/03 Sarah Montague Gary Hopkins Lib Dem 0.5
01/03 Jo Coburn John McFall Labour 0.5
28/03 Glenn Campbell Gordon Brown Labour 0.5
28/03 Glenn Campbell Mike Russell SNP 0.5
07/03 Glenn Campbell Stewart Hosie SNP 0.5
01/03 Martha Kearney Gordon Prentice Labour 0.5
01/03 Andrew Neil Norman Baker Lib Dem 0.5
10/03 Jo Coburn Nadhim Zahawi Conservative 0.5
31/03 Evan Davis Alex Salmond SNP 0.5
21/03 Glenn Campbell Alex Salmond SNP 0.5
13/03 James Naughtie Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0.5
21/03 Andrew Marr Alistair Darling Labour 0.5
14/03 Andrew Marr Ken Clarke Conservative 0.5
29/03 Eddie Mair Keith Vaz Labour 0.5
*
15/03 Martha Kearney Jim Sheridan Labour 0.4
10/03 Jo Coburn Iain Duncan Smith Conservative 0.4
07/03 Carolyn Quinn Tom Harris Labour 0.4
15/03 Martha Kearney Geoffrey Robinson Labour 0.4
21/03 Glenn Campbell Danny Alexander Lib Dem 0.4
09/03 Martha Kearney Basil McCrea UUP 0.4
10/03 Andrew Neil David Mellor Conservative 0.4
09/03 John Humphrys Lord Sainsbury Labour 0.4
09/03 Carolyn Quinn Dawn Purvis PUP 0.4
12/03 Martha Kearney Paul Holmes Lib Dem 0.4
15/03 Martha Kearney Vera Baird Labour 0.4
30/03 Martha Kearney Dominic Grieve Conservative 0.4
25/03 Evan Davis Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.4
07/03 Glenn Campbell David Cairns Labour 0.4
18/03 Felicity Evans Carwyn Jones Labour 0.4
28/03 Shirin Wheeler Chris Davies Lib Dem 0.4
03/03 Martha Kearney Hilary Benn Labour 0.4
10/03 Justin Webb David Blunkett Labour 0.4
22/03 Justin Webb Kevin Brennan Labour 0.4
18/03 Shelagh Fogarty Richard Caborn Labour 0.4
18/03 Shelagh Fogarty David Lammy Labour 0.4
25/03 Felicity Evans Helen Mary Jones Plaid 0.4
08/03 Evan Davis Phil Hope Labour 0.4
07/03 Andrew Marr Charles Kennedy Lib Dem 0.4
07/03 Carolyn Quinn Mark Field Conservative 0.4
19/03 Shaun Ley Tim Loughton Conservative 0.4
16/03 Martha Kearney Sir Patrick Cormack Conservative 0.4
*
02/03 Ritula Shah Tessa Jowell Labour 0.3
03/03 John Humphrys Colin Stears Lib Dem 0.3
17/03 Shaun Ley Peter Mandelson Labour 0.3
04/03 Carolyn Quinn Elizabeth Peacock Conservative 0.3
14/03 Carolyn Quinn Emily Thornberry Labour 0.3
03/03 James Naughtie Helena Kennedy Labour 0.3
02/03 Martha Kearney Ed Miliband Labour 0.3
03/03 Robin Lustig David Miliband Labour 0.3
31/03 Sarah Montague Phil Woolas Labour 0.3
09/03 John Humphrys Lord Waldegrave Conservative 0.3
12/03 James Naughtie Kevin Barron Labour 0.3
14/03 Carolyn Quinn Sandra Gidley Lib Dem 0.3
17/03 Justin Webb Ed Miliband Labour 0.3
29/03 Carolyn Quinn Lord Oakeshott Lib Dem 0.3
24/03 James Naughtie Phil Woolas Labour 0.3
28/03 Glenn Campbell Tavish Scott Lib Dem 0.3
29/03 John Humphrys Evan Harris Lib Dem 0.3
29/03 Jo Coburn Lord Layard Labour 0.3
05/03 Emily Maitlis Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0.3
09/03 John Humphrys Lord McGinnis UUP 0.3
*
23/03 Eddie Mair David Miliband Labour 0.2
14/03 Carolyn Quinn Charles Walker Conservative 0.2
04/03 Adrian Masters Boris Johnson Conservative 0.2
14/03 Carolyn Quinn Lord Lipsey Labour 0.2
23/03 Jo Coburn Tony Lloyd Labour 0.2
20/03 Evan Davis Nicola Sturgeon SNP 0.2
21/03 Carolyn Quinn James Purnell Labour 0.2
14/03 Shirin Wheeler Baroness Ashton Labour 0.2
19/03 John Humphrys Michael Mates Conservative 0.2
09/03 Carolyn Quinn Jeffrey Donaldson DUP 0.2
*
23/03 Robin Lustig Mike Gapes Labour 0
11/03 James Naughtie Norman Baker Lib Dem 0
04/03 Martha Kearney Lord Kalms Conservative 0
17/03 Jeremy Paxman Jeremy Brown Lib Dem 0
30/03 Martha Kearney Lord Lipsey Labour 0
14/03 Shirin Wheeler Diana Wallis Lib Dem 0
26/03 James Naughtie Robert Anderson Labour 0
01/03 Martha Kearney Lord Paul Labour 0
10/03 Martha Kearney Stephen Timms Labour 0
22/03 Martha Kearney Tony Wright Labour 0
29/03 Jo Coburn Merrick Cockell Conservative 0
30/03 Martha Kearney Peter Kilfoyle Labour 0
30/03 Martha Kearney Paul Clark Labour 0
02/03 Martha Kearney Tom Watson Labour 0
23/03 Martha Kearney John Knight Labour 0
26/03 Paddy O'Connell Diane Abbott Labour 0
28/03 Glenn Campbell Annabel Goldie Conservative 0
30/03 Martha Kearney Lord Lester Lib Dem 0
11/03 James Naughtie Tony Wright Labour 0
18/03 Martha Kearney Alan Beith Lib Dem 0
23/03 Jeremy Paxman Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0
25/03 James Naughtie Lord Dubs Labour 0
14/03 Paddy O'Connell Lord Steel Lib Dem 0
18/03 Martha Kearney Ian Liddell Grainger Conservative 0
21/03 Glenn Campbell Kevan Jones Labour 0
11/03 Roger Hearing Rob Marris Labour 0
17/03 James Naughtie Lord Vallance Lib Dem 0
22/03 Justin Webb Tim Yeo Conservative 0
25/03 Adrian Masters Nick Ramsey Conservative 0
10/03 Jo Coburn Jacqui Smith Labour 0
11/03 Martha Kearney Adrian Ramsey Green 0
22/03 Martha Kearney Norman Baker Lib Dem 0
27/03 Evan Davis Ed Davey Lib Dem 0
30/03 Jo Coburn David Davis Conservative 0
01/03 Martha Kearney Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0
04/03 James Naughtie Lord Carlile Lib Dem 0
17/03 James Naughtie Chris Grayling Conservative 0
30/03 Jo Coburn Charles Kennedy Lib Dem 0
30/03 Ritula Shah Jim Allister TUV 0
31/03 Martha Kearney Damian Green Conservative 0
03/03 James Naughtie Baroness Ashton Labour 0
05/03 Shaun Ley Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0
15/03 James Naughtie Lord Oakeshott Lib Dem 0
18/03 Evan Davis Lord Lipsey Labour 0
19/03 John Humphrys Khalid Mahmoud Labour 0
23/03 Robin Lustig Martin Salter Labour 0
26/03 Paddy O'Connell Darren Johnson Green 0
31/03 Martha Kearney Frank Field Labour 0
10/03 Robin Lustig Baroness Ashton Labour 0
23/03 Martha Kearney Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0
24/03 James Naughtie Lord Lawson Conservative 0
31/03 Evan Davis Phil Willis Lib Dem 0
03/03 Carolyn Quinn Neil Kinnock Labour 0
16/03 Eddie Mair Michael Mates Conservative 0
03/03 Martha Kearney Tony Benn Labour 0
03/03 Martha Kearney Jo Swinson Lib Dem 0
07/03 Carolyn Quinn Shirley Williams Lib Dem 0
07/03 Carolyn Quinn David Willetts Conservative 0
14/03 Shaun Ley Baroness Ashton Labour 0
21/03 Glenn Campbell Stewart Hosie SNP 0
23/03 Eddie Mair Dr Richard Taylor Independent 0
05/03 Carolyn Quinn Denis MacShane Labour 0
17/03 Shaun Ley Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0
18/03 Justin Webb David Willetts Conservative 0
21/03 Glenn Campbell Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0
25/03 Martha Kearney Lord Lawson Conservative 0
30/03 James Naughtie Norman Lamb Lib Dem 0
18/03 Adrian Masters Lord Carlile Lib Dem 0
30/03 Jo Coburn Caroline Flint Labour 0
31/03 Sarah Montague Lord Lawson Conservative 0
15/03 James Naughtie David Lammy Labour 0
17/03 Shaun Ley Eric Pickles Conservative 0
06/03 Ritula Shah Iain Duncan Smith Conservative 0
16/03 Jeremy Paxman Lord Steel Lib Dem 0
WELL I NEVER!
*Last night's Newsnight 'tomorrow's front pages' did not mention The Guardian!!
*
This solved my insomnia last night, as I fainted away in shock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
