...AND ON AND ON

*
Even the debate on social care for last night's Newsnight special ended early to allow space for David Grossman to talk to Kirsty Wark about Lord Ashcroft. This was in the 'other news' section at the end of the programme - a section that glided with unseemly haste over the BA strike and cuts to university funding. The first item on the 'newspaper front pages' section was, inevitably, the Guardian's story about Lord Ashcroft.
*
At least The World Tonight dwelt on another BBC obsession: Israel and the Palestinians!
*
The BBC News website, however, is not prepared to move on. They show themselves to be truly tenacious propagandists for Labour.
*
The site has got a trumped-up story about two of the stars of Dragon's Den, and its home page links to it as the story on its Business section (ignoring 'BA strike talks to resume later'): 'Dragon's Den star breathes fire over non-doms' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8575626.stm.
*
The fire-breathing 'dragon' is Duncan Bannatyne. One of the other 'dragons', James Caan, is a non-dom, and Mr Bannatyne uses him an an 'case study'. Of course, the 'case study' is then applied to the specific circumstances of a certain Conservative donor:

"Mr Bannatyne, a Labour party donor who has publicly backed Gordon Brown, also waded into the row over Lord Ashcroft, but denied he was doing it for political ends.

"In my opinion no one should be allowed to be an MP sitting in the House Of Commons, sitting in the Houses of Parliament, sitting in the House of Lords, unless they are fully dominated [sic] in Great Britain and pay British taxes," he said."

ON AND ON AND ON

*
So it's been another Lord Ashcroft day at the BBC. The non-story that just won't die was back again, zombie-like, to stalk the studios of the BBC.
8
I clicked onto the Today website a couple of hours ago and listened to this morning's programme. It featured one of the most pointless and frankly tedious interviews I've ever had the misfortune to sit through - Evan Davis asking arcane question after arcane question on the issue to an infinitely patient William Hague. This nonsense went on for nearly thirteen minutes and was both preceded by and followed by some anti-Tory insinuations from Nick Robinson. (Where did it all go wrong for Nick Robinson?). http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8574000/8574008.stm
*
It came about because a Cabinet Office document about Lord Ashcroft was leaked to the Today programme this morning. With Labour in the mire over Gordon Brown's forced retraction of (some of) his lies over defence spending and the party's umbilical ties to the Unite union coming in for telling criticism, what could have been more convenient for Labour than a leak that puts Lord Ashcroft and the Tories at the top of the news cycle at the BBC? And what better programme to leak it to than the Today programme? The Today programme, as the leaker(s) would have surely have known, leaped on the story like a pack of starving hyenas.
* The
For a commentary on how Today handled this please click on the comments on the Biased BBC website: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/open-thread_17.html. Starting at the beginning with It's all too much and Cassie King, you will read some angry and insightful reactions to it all as it unfolded.
*
I note in passing that the BBC's Anti-Tory Correspondent Norman Smith reported for duty in the programme's first hour. (Try keeping him away!) He blaahed on and on, adding "inevitably it will fuel Labour and Lib Dem demands for more answers as to when he (Mr Hague) knew what." Labour and Lib Dem demands indeed! What about BBC demands? They are at least as keen as Labour and the Lib Dems! Nowhere in this discussion between Norm and Justin Webb did either speculate as to who had leaked this official document or as to why it had been leaked today? A revealing omission. The leaker(s) may have been banking on Norman Smith. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006qj9z/console .
*
Not a sheep compares the BBC News website's enthusiasm for the Ashcroft story with its reluctance to dwell on the Brown/Chilcot story:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/whats-news.html
*
The World at One followed, leading with Lord Ashcroft. (Of the BA strike and Brown's lies, however, no time for discussion was found). Martha Kearney began "Just to remind you of the details of all this" before doing just that, boringly. Norman Smith was back, of course, playing us a clip from today's select committee meeting where a Labour baroness who was present when the 'deal' was done in 2000 was questioned by the committee's Labour chairman. (The Conservatives boycotted the meeting, regarding it understandably as nothing more than a political stunt.) Another attendee, the civil servant who brokered the deal, Sir Hayden Phillips "conceded", said Norm, that he "was - to put it mildly- very far from being a tax expert" (Norm is never sparing with superlatives) unlike the more "tax savvy" Lord Ashcroft and his Tory representative James Arbuthnot. The insinuation here, of course, is that the wicked Tories pulled the wool over Sir Hayden's eyes. "Now there was also criticism of the role of William Hague with Labour MPs (yes Labour MPs!) questioning how Mr Hague could not have have known about Lord Ashcroft's tax status since cabinet office documents released today ('released today'?! 'Leaked today' surely?) show that he'd been kept informed about the final deal reached by Mr Arbuthnot."
*
When the story was at its most feverish a week or two ago, I noted that the BBC seemed to be ringing around the Conservative Party to find any Tories who were willing to criticise Lord Ashcroft, finally alighting on Barry Legg and Elizabeth Peacock - both of whom lost their seats in the 1997 general election. Guess who followed Norman ('Don't mention the leak') Smith? Yes, Barry Legg again. Mr Legg did indeed criticise Lord Ashcroft, calling for him to be sacked, and - remarkably - defended the various Labour and Lib Dem non-doms against any defence of equivalence. At least he did also defend William Hague (so that's only two out of three for The World at One!).
*
In fairness space was also given to Ian Liddell Grainger, one of the Conservative MPs who boycotted the committee. He gave a very robust performance, and challenged the BBC to say when it received the leaked document, as if it received it "before 12.00 yesterday" then it proves that the government leaked it. The BBC, he said, could clear the matter up by providing just that bit of information.
*
The story has also led PM. Peter Hunt replaced Norman Smith. but said much the same sort of thing (just without the superlatives). Still at least this programme didn't fixate on the story, and Eddie Mair's discussion with Andrew Hoskins of ComRes about the public's reaction to all these sort of stories (Labour and Unite as much as the Conservatives and Lord Ashcroft) was an interesting one.

The leaker must be delighted at the BBC's obliging behaviour.
*

JUST IN TIME

*
The Advertising Standards Agency has given young Ed Miliband a red face by ruling that two government adverts using nursery rhymes exaggerated the threat posed to Britain by 'global warming'. This newsworthy story was reported in the Sunday papers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7440664/Government-rebuked-over-global-warming-nursery-rhyme-adverts.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7061162.ece
*
The BBC held off on the story for a few days before launching a series of defensive manoeuvres.
*
Catch while you can Justin Webb's Today discussion with Torin Douglas (6.43am)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006qj9z/console
*
Justin here spins the story to put Labour in the least embarrassing light possible: "So just in a few words Torin, this is sort of a score draw, isn't it, between the government and those who complained? Some of the adverts passed and a couple, on almost a technicality, not." Torin replied, "I think you're right on that. Yep."
*
Justin returned to the subject later, first closely questioning Guy Parker of the ASA then very gently interviewing Ed Miliband himself. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8571000/8571728.stm
*
Give Justin a Tory to interview and the interruptions will fly, but present him with a Labour Climate Change secretary and you'll hear very few interruptions (just one today). There were few questions and they were all bowled underarm.
*
That belated BBC News website article on the story has already been relegated to the margins of the Science and Environment page. Look for 'Monkeys learn more from females' (actually much more my sort of story!) and go down two items: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm. It is also clinging precariously to the margins of the Politics Page after a short stay there too http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm).
*
The links to other newspapers in the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8571353.stm)
do not include either The Times or The Telegraph, which were running the story four days ago - doubtless for that very reason i.e. that they'd already covered it four days ago!! Fellow laggards like The Independent, however, do receive links. Mr Miliband's defence is quoted at length and his interview with Justin Webb is also linked too - though not the preceding interview with Mr Parker of the ASA for some (guessable) reason. One of the 'cleared' government ads is featured in full, so you can enjoy this public 'information' film at your own leisure!
*
The BBC has grudgingly done its bit by covering the story (days late) and playing down its embarrassing aspects for Labour. Now it can move on and never mention it again.

COIFFURED LITTLE HEAD

*
This morning's Today was back on the topic of the Conservative Party's 'far-right' European associates, with yet another reporter being dispatched to do Denis MacShane's dirty work for him:

Every year on March 16th World War II veterans place flowers on a monument to commemorate their friends and comrades who died defending Latvia against Stalin's Soviet invaders.

But these veterans fought while serving in Hitler's army, wearing the uniforms of the Waffen SS.

Many of those who take part in the event are members of nationalist groups, such as the far-right Fatherland and Freedom party, the party that sits with the Conservatives in the European Conservatives and Reformists group in the European Parliament.

Correspondent Damien McGuinness went to this years commemoration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8571000/8571843.stm
*
The report's 'independent expert' is one Chris Hales, introduced by Damien merely as a 'historian'. Have a good read of Mr Hales's blog and you'll see that he's a very partisan leftie, regularly denouncing the British Conservatives (with particular bitterness towards 'bloated Etonian' David Cameron (with his 'coiffured little head') and 'the egregious Thatcher') and all other such 'reactionaries'. Even German Liberals are far too right-wing for him! http://christopherhale09.blogspot.com.
*
In Mr Hales's Trotskyite 'past' (nostalgically recalled in his blog), I bet he was the sort who shouted 'fascist!' at anyone to the right of Tony Benn! (Those were the days!) He doesn't seem to entirely grown out of that silly habit.
*
Note how the BBC, without qualification, calls Fatherland and Freedom a far-right party (as Mr Hales does in his blog). This terminology is strongly disputed by the Conservative Party.
*
(Incidentally, talking of Damien McGuinness, Happy St Patrick's Day to you all!)

MARCHING IN STEPH WITH LABOUR

*
As UKIP leader Lord Pearson, receiving a rare invite onto the airwaves of Radio 4, said on today's The World at One (he got under 2 1/2 minutes and yet was interrupted twice by Martha Kearney), it's more than a bit rich for the European Commission, with its dismal track record over its own finances, to be lecturing any British government over its deficit.
*
Still the Great Bureaucracy has spoken and Labour has not enjoyed hearing what it has had to say. What can the BBC do to help Labour in its hour of need? How about getting Stephanie Flanders to spin the story so that it's really a bad news story for the Conservative party!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/03/the_incredible_shrinking_gap.html
*
The whole piece needs quoting to give you the full biased effect:
*
It's no surprise that the European Commission would like Britain to bring its deficit down faster than the government plans. (Nothing to see here then!) Potshots from Brussels have been a regular feature of HM Treasury life since the "excessive deficit procedure" began - and this time, the UK is far from alone. Nearly every EU country now has a deficit over 3% of GDP. I'm told that the UK will not be the only government this week that the commission tells to try harder. (So that's all right then. No reason not to vote Labour).

What's interesting about this story is the light it has shone on the two largest parties' plans for the deficit. Once again, we find that the chasm between Labour and the Conservatives on this central electoral issue is more of a ditch. And a fairly shallow one at that.

This will not come as a surprise to readers of Stephanomics (yeech!) But the commission report has helped underscore the point. (Now here it comes!:) It has also highlighted the lack of clarity in the Conservatives' position.

We keep hearing that the government wants to halve the overall deficit by 2015. We will hear it again next week in the Budget.

Now, another way to describe the government's plans would be to say it plans to cut the structural deficit - the borrowing that won't go away with the recovery - from 9% of GDP in 2009-10 to 3.1% of GDP in 2014-15. In other words, they would reduce the structural deficit by two-thirds over the period.

On the Today programme this morning, Ken Clarke initially suggested the Conservatives would eliminate the structural deficit by 2014-15. (Did he? That's what Liam Byrne interpreted Ken Clarke as having said during their joint interview with James Naughtie, but when Ken Clarke said it was 'necessary to get rid of the structural deficit' he didn't say (and it doesn't sound to me either that he meant) 'by 2014-15'. See if you think that's what he said, or meant. The crucial passage begins at 5.20 here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8569000/8569657.stm) But he later stepped back from this, to return to the usual Conservative script, which is that they would get rid of the "bulk" of the structural deficit. When Mr Clarke interrupted Liam Byrne to protest about the interpretation the Labour minister was putting on his perhaps loosely-chosen words, saying "No I'm not, I'm saying the bulk of the structural deficit", I believe him completely - and hearing the clip in context, I suspect you will too. Steph, however, is wholly with Liam Byrne - and, boy, how she milks it!

A few observations about this.

One is that on the big macro question of this election - cutting the deficit - the Conservatives have actually given us yet less detail than Labour. Yes, they have offered some micro tasters: a few benefit cuts here, a public sector wage freeze there. On that front, you could say they've offered a bit more than Labour.

But on the basic question of how much they hope to cut the deficit over five years, Labour has a clear answer. The Conservatives do not. If Ken Clarke, probably the most experienced - and certainly one of the most economically literate - members of the shadow cabinet (suggesting, of course, less economic literacy from others in the shadow Treasury team. Who could she mean?) , cannot stick to a single answer in the course of a 10-minute interview we can be fairly sure there is no precise answer to the question that the Conservatives are willing to offer.

But what if Ken Clarke did stick to a single answer in the course of his 10-minute interview - as I think it's clear that he did!!!???

Anyhow, on she goes:

So, what is the difference between the parties? Well, that gets us back to the parlour game of what counts as "the bulk" of the structural deficit. We are told that the Conservatives are hoping to echo the language of the governor of the Bank of England on this point. He talked about getting rid of a "large part" of the structural deficit over that same time frame.

Is two-thirds a large part? As I've said before, if you took half of my dinner I would consider that a large part. If you took away two-thirds I'd feel seriously hard done by. I might well say the bulk of my dinner had been nicked.

Reading between the lines, the IFS have previously concluded that the Conservatives would like to eliminate the current structural deficit - the part of the structural hole that is not due to public investment - by 2014-15. On current Treasury forecasts for the economy, it thinks that meeting this target would involve "extra" cuts in borrowing of just over 1% of national income, or £15bn in today's money - on top of the 4% of national income cumulative cuts in borrowing by then that Labour has set out.

But note that this is simply the IFS interpretation of Conservative policy, based on what George Osborne has said. It is not official policy, and behind the scenes, officials will neither confirm nor deny that this is what they have in mind. This is their right. But you might think it a bit strange, when they have made cutting the deficit such a central part of their campaign.

Yes, the government has not said much about how its overall spending plans would be reached. And yes, it's true that the numbers are subject to huge revision. What we thought was a £37bn structural hole 18 months ago, was revised up to £90bn a year ago, and then revised down to £73bn in the November PBR. If the Tories tied themselves down to a fixed target, they could find the spending and tax implications vary hugely from year to year. But if this is their thinking, perhaps the Conservatives should explain that, rather than simply claiming - in effect - that whatever Labour plans to do on the deficit, they would do more.

Another key point, which the IFS's director, Robert Chote alerted me to, is that, on this interpretation, the Conservatives wouldn't be tough enough for the European commission either.

Brussels always looks at the "treaty deficit" - the deficit as measured under the Maastricht Treaty, which excludes public sector corporations, and is therefore a bit bigger. In the leaked report, the commission says it wants the UK to bring its "treaty deficit" down to 3% of GDP in 2014-15, instead of the 4.6% forecast in the PBR. Other things equal, that implies an addition 1.6% in fiscal tightening by that year, versus an extra 1.1% under the Conservatives. So the Conservatives might not measure up either.

Now, the Conservatives may say this misreads their position. (They certainly should if it does!) But to do that, they would surely need to say what their position is. Until they do that, we can only conclude, once again, that the difference between the parties is less than they would have us believe - not just on the short-term approach to cutting the borrowing but well into the future.
*
You could almost guarantee that Stephanie Flanders would take this sort of stance on a story that everyone else outside the Labour Party sees as being worse news for Labour than for the Conservatives, whatever the vaguenesses of the Conservative position (or the credibility of the European Commission).
*
The piece features prominently on the home page of the BBC News website.

P.S. Sorry for the strange changes in text size here!*

CRAIG GOES GOAT-STEALING

*
Things are a little hectic at the moment, so my blogging is running at a snail's pace (or slower).
*
In lieu of any of my own work, here's some more fine bias-spotting from Not a sheep (pictured). I shall lift three of his latest posts in full and say a big thank you to him for this act of grand larceny. Much more can be found at http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/.

1.
I thought they were probably Labour MPs

The BBC article about MPs (and former MPs) having to repay expenses is missing a few details. The first two MPs named are described as "Tory Liam Fox... and Labour's Shahid Malik". But after that the MPs named seem to be missing their political party affiliations; my suspicions were aroused so I had to do some fact-checking:

"Other MPs who had appeals rejected were Roger Casale, Chris Pond and Betty Williams.

Six MPs had their appeals upheld in full and a further four - John Lyons, Denis MacShane, Alan Simpson and Derek Wyatt - had their sums requested reduced by sums ranging from £121 to £7,866. "

Let's see that's MPs whose appeals were rejected in full or part:

Roger Casale - former Labour MP
Chris Pond - former Labour MP
Betty Williams - current Labour MP
John Lyons - former Labour MP
Denis MacShane - current Labour Minister
Alan Simpson - current Labour MP
Derek Wyatt - current Labour MP

No I can't see why the BBC would drop the listing of party affiliations, can you?

2.
Why is the petrol price going up?

The BBC manage to report that
"Petrol prices could hit a record high of £1.20 a litre in the next few weeks, according to the AA."
without mentioning how much of the price of a gallon of petrol at the pump is taken in duty and tax. I was going to refer to ABD's useful table but that only goes up as far as £1.099 a litre, being a year or so old. So I used the ABD Fuel Tax Calculator and that shows that with a pump price of £1.20 per litre, VAT accounts for £0.1787 per litre, fuel tax for £0.5619 per litre; so tax and duty makes up 61.72% of the price paid at the pump or put another way - the tax and duty rate on petrol is 161.22%. Now why would the BBC not be interested in revealing that sort of information?
3.
A difference in reporting

Moody's Investors Services released a report on the financial position of major AAA rated governments and I was interested to read two rather different accounts of what it said. The financial specialists at Bloomberg reported the headline news as
"The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially” closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

The governments of the two economies must balance bringing down their debt burdens without damaging growth by removing fiscal stimulus too quickly, Pierre Cailleteau, managing director of sovereign risk at Moody’s in London, said in a telephone interview.

Under the ratings company’s so-called baseline scenario, the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013, Moody’s said today in a report.

“We expect the situation to further deteriorate in terms of the key ratings metrics before they start stabilizing,” Cailleteau said. “This story is not going to stop at the end of the year. There is inertia in the deterioration of credit metrics.” "


However the BBC reported the news thus:
"The credit ratings of major AAA governments, including the US and the UK, are well positioned, says Moody's Investors Services.

Moody's released a report on the financial position of major AAA rated governments.

This includes the four largest - Germany, France, the UK and the US - as well as smaller ones, including Spain.

The report will reassure the bond markets about the ability of the US and the UK to make future debt payments.

A key finding is that the AAA ratings of the UK and the US are secure because of the capability of their respective governments to reverse recent deficits. "

Both accounts cannot be correct and I think I would rather believe the account of the unbiased Bloomberg than the pro-Labour spin of the BBC in the run-up to a general election.

SHAUN LEYS OFF LADY ASHTON BUT BRAWLS WITH CHRIS HUHNE

*
Shaun Ley's political interviews on today's The World This Weekend showed two sides to him.
*
First came a scrap with the ubiquitous Chris Huhne of the Lib Dems (even Vince Cable barely gets a look in these days!). This was a scrap provoked by Mr Huhne, whose strategy in recent interviews has been clear - talk and talk and talk. After holding back from interrupting for an age, Shaun finally forced his way in and pressed his point. Huhne (a man even Gordon Brown would think twice about grabbing by the lapels) then got shirty about Shaun's assertion that the Lib Dems couldn't win a majority themselves in the election and then fumed about the fact that only the Lib Dems get asked about what they would do in the event of a hung parliament. He argued that the obsession with such questions prevents Lib Dem spokesmen from having their policies discussed (about which he is quite right). Both men locked horns and fought fiercely. The resultant I.C. was 1.1.
*
Then came the softest of interviews with BBC pin-up girl Baroness Ashton. The nearest Shaun Ley got to asking a tough question here was this: "Have you been taken aback by the degree of hostility on display?" There were no interruptions whatsoever, so that's an I.C. of 0.
*

MOOD INDIGO

*
Talking of Ken Clarke...
*
His office tells me that he himself enjoyed his evening out at the mosque a week ago on Any Questions. While we were all getting red in the face at hearing that braying mob of an audience, the stacked panel and a biased host, Ken was enjoying himself. He found the braying mob 'friendly'.
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-you-thought-question-time-was-bad.html
*
It must be all that jazz he listens too.
*
I don't think it would worth e-mailing him again about BBC bias. I don't think it bothers him one bit.
*

MARR'S DAY

*
Andrew Marr was as gentle as a lamb this morning. He seemed to really enjoy his interviews with Kumi Naidoo, the new head of Greenpeace, and author Ian McEwan. Both focused on 'climate change' and politics. His interview with Lord Adonis, who looked pretty happy himself after the glowing introduction Marr gave him, was a trouble-free zone for both parties. Even Ken Clarke went unmolested today.
*

FRIENDS OF BARONESS ASHTON

*
Only on The Record Europe!
*
Shirin Wheeler reviewed Baroness Ashton's performance at the European parliament last week before conducting a gentle interview with the lady herself.
*
That's OK.
*
Not so good, however, was the studio discussion that followed between a Polish MEP Jacek Saryusz-Wolski from the EPP-aligned Civic Platform and German Liberal Alexander Graf Lambsdorff. BOTH are members of a new group called 'Friends of the External Action Service', which aims to support Baroness Ashton and her new office. They want more help for her, for instance (4-6 deputy EU foreign ministers - doubtless on full pay!).
*
Who could have thought it sensible - or fair - to discuss such a controversial position with only its keenest supporters? Why no sceptic (Paul Nuttall, for example)? Why not even a cautious supporter?
*

LADIES' NIGHT WITH DAVID DIMBLEBY

*
Late on parade, here comes this week's Dimbledata:
*
*
Who got most time to speak?
*
1. Caroline Flint (Lab) - 13 minutes 49 seconds
2. Kelvin MacKenzie (journalist) - 8 minutes 39 seconds
3. Jo Swinson (LD) - 6 minutes 46 seconds
4. Justine Greening (Con) - 5 minutes 51 seconds
5. Monty Don (gardener) - 4 minutes 32 seconds (yes I know, it felt like longer!!)
*
*
Who received the most interruptions from David Dimbleby?
*
1. Caroline Flint (Lab) - 10
2. Kelvin MacKenzie (journalist) - 6
3. Jo Swinson (LD) - 6
4. Monty Don (gardener) - 4
5. Justine Greening (Con) - 1 (who would have thought it!!!)
*
**
Who scored the highest interruption coefficient?
*
1. Monty Don (gardener) - 0.9
2. Jo Swinson (LD) - 0.9
3. Caroline Flint (Lab) - 0.7
4. Kelvin Mackenzie - 0.7
5. Justine Greening (Con) - 0.2
*
*
Who was asked the most supplementary questions by David Dimbleby?
*
1. Caroline Flint (Lab) - 11
2. Kelvin MacKenzie - 8
3. Jo Swinson (LD) - 5
4. Monty Don - 3
5. Justine Greening (Con) - 1
*
*
This was an untypical programme in many ways. It had an all-women audience and, more importantly, a wider range of opinion in the audience - quite a bit of it sensible! - and few obvious Labour plants. You don't expect any of that from the usual run of Question Time audiences!
*
After taking against Kelvin MacKenzie over the Venables story, Dimbleby redeemed himself by taking against Caroline Flint over defence. She can't have enjoyed the experience. In contrast Justine Greening came off unscathed. I wasn't expecting that at all!! Justine's only grounds for complaint were that Caroline Flint got well over double the amount of time that she got. Indeed, it was The Caroline Flint Show at times!

TURNING OFF AT THE THIRD LEFT

*

I gave up on watching Dateline London with Gavin Esler yesterday within about 5 minutes. It was becoming far too annoying.

*

The three topics up for discussion were going to be:

*

- Why is it going wrong for the Conservatives?

- Israel and the Palestinians

- What would a Conservative government mean for the EU?

*

That's a lot about the Conservatives, isn't it? So, you might have expected a Conservative-supporting British journalist to have been one of the programme's guests. Well, it didn't quite turn out that way.

*

The guests were stacked towards the Left (as ever), with only the wise German journalist Thomas Kielinger representing right-of-centre opinion. The others were:

*

Michael Goldfarb, one of the programme's seemingly endless supply of liberal Americans

Mina al Oraibi, a left-wing Middle Eastern journalist

Yasmin Alibhai Brown, that excitable left-winger from The Independent

*

Oh yes, the barely coherent rantings of Yasmin Alibhai Brown were to the fore, flinging denunciations at the Tories!

*

I sat through Mr Goldfarb's attacks on George Osborne with complete equanimity, but when the lovely Mina (pictured) began denouncing the Conservatives for being about 'spin' and then said that Labour were far less involved with 'spin' I reached for the off switch!!

A (LEFT-WING) POINT OF VIEW

*
On the Biased BBC website DB points out the pro-Labour bias contained in the first contribution of Prof Simon Schama to Radio 4's A Point of View: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/simon-says-what-he-was-signed-up-to-say.html.
*
Prof Schama, who writes well about art and Dutch history, follows on from Lisa Jardine, another left-wing, Labour-supporting academic. She followed on from Clive James, who is also a self-professed man of the Left (though a very funny one, with decidedly independent-minded views on 'climate change' which he was allowed to share).
*
Any chance of Dr David Starkey next? I'd lay money on that not happening.
*

ALL PREM AND PROPER

*
Prem Sikka, professor of accounting at the University of Essex, was on this morning's Today programme, talking to James Naughtie about Lehman Brothers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8565000/8565669.stm
*
Prem and Jim got on like a house on fire.
*
Prof Sikka was also recently on The World Tonight (1/3/10), causing mischief for the Tories over the issue of non-doms and tax. You may not be surprised to learn that Prem Sikka also blogs for The Guardian and holds left-wing views - for a full flavour of which please click here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/premsikka.

DON'T DO IT NICK! PLEASE DON'T BACK THE TORIES!

*
Just listen to the easy ride James Naughtie gave Nick Clegg on this morning's Today programme: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8565000/8565697.stm
*
Mr Clegg's first answer, in which (at Naughtie's invitation) he listed his party's four main priorities, lasted 1 minute 15 seconds. It wasn't interrupted. Can you imagine James Naughtie allowing David Cameron such a soft start? Not in a million years! The whole interview lasted over 8 minutes, contained 4 interruptions and resulted in a low I.C. of 0.5.
*
Naughtie is known for being a very biased interviewer and banged away at one point in particular: Why won't the Liberal Democrats rule out supporting a minority government after the election if the other party is committed to implementing 'masochistic' cuts this year? He meant, of course, the Conservative Party. Though the interview was generally friendly, a little warmth could be heard in Labour Jim's voice as he demanded to know the answer to this. It was blindingly obvious what answer he wanted to hear! He even returned to the same question after apparently having moved on to something else and even his last question was just another way of putting the same thing!
*
I did have to laugh though at his hasty withdrawal from an attempted interruption (03.25 into the clip) at the very second when he realised that Nick Clegg was being mean about the Tories and clearly decided to let him go with the attack!
*

THE GBC (GUARDIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) AGAIN

*
Time for that traditional Saturday feature, the listings for the Newsnight front pages' review for last week - in order of mention. Neither Tuesday nor Wednesday's programmes had time at the end for the papers, so there are only three day's worth of details this week:

Mon 8/3 Jeremy Paxman
1. The Times
2. The Guardian
3. The Sun
4. The Financial Times

Thu 11/3 Kirsty Wark
1. The Guardian
2. The Times
3. The Telegraph
4. The Independent
5. The Financial Times
6. The Daily Mail

Fri 12/3 Gavin Esler
1. The Guardian
2. The Telegraph
3. The Daily Mail

As you can see the Guardian continues to be the BBC's house mag (as Not a sheep calls it). It's the only newspaper to be mentioned in every one of the reviews (no other newspaper comes even close) since I began my review five weeks ago (21/21)).
*
Besides the sheer number of mentions, it's revealing to note just how often the Guardian is also the first newspaper to be mentioned. The results from the last five weeks are stark:
*
1. The Guardian - 10 first mentions
2. The Independent - 4 first mentions
3. The Telegraph -3 first mentions
4. The Times & the Financial Times - 2 first mentions each
*
Like many others, I always had a feeling that I was hearing more about The Guardian on the BBC than about any other newspaper. By the simple act of listing and counting, I now know that it why I had that feeling!!
*
Some of their rivals might be interested in knowing this, which gives me an idea...
*

LIZ MCKEAN'S VERY BIASED REPORT & GAVIN ESLER TOO

*
Last night's Newsnight presented one of the most biased reports I've seen in a while.
*
Liz McKean fronted a report that focused on tensions between Nicholas Sarkozy and David Cameron. A clip of Sarko praising the Great Gordo was played before Liz turned her fire where her fire was intended.
*
She talked of Sarko's fury at Cameron's decision to withdraw the Conservative Party from the federalist EPP group in Europe. "To hear how furious I came to Notting Hill, home of the Cameroons. Working at the UK embassy in France, Nick Allan witnessed the very first meeting between the new leader of the opposition and the soon-to-be-leader of France." Nick Allan, labelled as "Former press secretary, British embassy, Paris", spilled the beans. An interesting fact about Mr Allan that Liz didn't let her viewers know is that he is about to become the new head of communications at Guardian News and Media. That suggests, does it not, that he's not quite the disinterested diplomat viewers were led to believe?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/feb/22/nick-allan-gmg
*
A joke by George Osborne about standing on a Sarkozy box did not go down well with the pint-sized French president (I can say that, being pint-sized myself. I need to stand on a chest of drawers even to shake hands with people.) Liz said "the French didn't share his little joke" - and the way she said the words 'little joke' (with a tone of utter disdain) suggest that she didn't share it either. "A serving diplomatic source" 'exclusively' told Newsnight that the French have raised the matter with the British government about the joke, though she added (more quietly) that it wasn't a formal complaint. They were also "very unhappy about a newspaper interview with David Cameron last year in which he appeared to refer to the French president... (dramatic pause from Liz) ... as a dwarf ". (And what a serious look she wore as she said it!). A "scathing" (personal) attack on George Osborne from Le monde was then quoted.
*
Guess who turned up next? Yes, it was Gavin Esler's left-wing pal from Dateline London (and one of the BBC's two preferred expert on all things francais - the other was to come later!), husky-voiced French lovely Agnes Poirier. I have never yet heard her say anything nice about the Conservatives on any of her many appearances on Dateline. She's complimented Gordon Brown though on more than one occasion.
*
Worse was to come.
*
Liz went on to report the latest meeting between M Sarkozy and Mr Cameron, which sounded more cordial - though there remains a bone of contention. Sarko is pressing for Britain to be at the heart of a common European defence policy. Which 'expert' did Liz call on here? Alexandra Pardal of the Labour-aligned Foreign Policy Centre. This think tank was set up by Tony Blair and Robin Cook and its current director is Stephen Twigg MP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Centre. Alexandra herself belongs to the Party of the European Socialists http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/blog/2007/11/june-2009-european-elections-will-be.html. Of course, nothing about the political alignment of either Miss Pardal or the FPC was mentioned by Liz McKean. Every unsuspecting viewer would have been led inevitably just to think that she's another disinterested party and that the FPC is a non-partisan research institute. That's a very strong sign of bias on the part of a reporter.
*
The other French expert beloved by the BBC and friend of Gavin Esler on Dateline , Marc Roche of Le monde, was one of the guests in the following studio discussion with Esler and Conservative MEP Charles Tannock. M Roche was the man who wrote that personal attack on George Osborne. Like Agnes, he always attacks the Tories on Dateline and is openly for Labour. Mr Tannock said that M Roche "would say that" and that Le monde is "the Guardian-equivalent in France" (which it indeed is).
*
Esler did exactly what I expected him to do. He joined Marc Roche in attacking Mr Tannock, interrupting him five times. Mr Tannock only got 2 1/2 minutes to speak (hardly any time to reasonably rebut all the anti-Tory nonsense that had gone before - especially when he was under bombardment for most of the time). The interruption coefficient here was a very high 2.2.
*
So a soon-to-be-top-Guardianista (not labelled as such), a left-wing French journalist (not labelled as such), a socialist from a Labour-aligned think tank (not labelled as such) and, finally, another left-wing French journalist (not labelled as such, until Charles Tannock outed him as such) were all lined up by Newsnight to make mischief for the Conservatives. Moreover, Charles Tannock was not allowed to respond at an appropriate length and, on top of all that, faced bloody Gavin Esler barging in, again and again, and asking questions like this: "But George Osborne's joke about Sarkozy's box and all this kind of niggling stuff, that's just not serious politics is it? I mean, this is somebody who could be running the British economy and he makes silly jokes about the height of the French president". (And what a 'drama queen' performance he made of asking it too!). Mr Tannock replied by saying "Well we all have a sense of humour and..." but got no further before Elser, adopting gestures of incredulity and disapproval, butted in again and asked 'So you think that's a funny joke?!"
*
This programme was a joke, and certainly not a funny one.
*
Before it we had Michael Crick and what the ubiquitous Chris Huhne rightly called a "non story" about the Lib Dems. After it we had some fluff, with Esler talking about Samantha Cameron with Matthew D'Ancona of the Sunday Telegraph and Rachel (sister of Boris) Johnson, editor of The Lady. At the beginning of the programme, Esler had played a clip from her interview with Sir Trevor McDonald and sarcastically described her comments as "profundities".

KIRSTY GOES A-ROVING

*
Time to begin catching up.
*
Thursday's Newsnight began on the theme of high-speed rail. The transport spokesmen - and spokeslady - from the three biggest parties were gathered for interview by Kirsty Wark. Here's how the statistics break down for the encounter - and they're hardly surprising ones, given the interviewer:
*
Theresa Villiers (Con) - 5 interruptions, I.C. of 2.1
Lord Adonis (Lab) - 3 interruptions, I.C. of 1.3
Norman Baker (LD) - 2 interruptions, I.C. of 0.9
*
Then Peter Marshall, ignoring the present (including all those embarrassing scandals for the Democrats), turned back to the Bush era for an unflattering portrait of Karl Rove. There were three talking heads:
*
- Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute
- Wayne Slater, author Bush's Brain
- Paul Glastris, President Clinton's speechwriter, 1998-2001
*
Mr Ornstein's one-and-only contribution consisted of little more than some uncontroversial general comments about how Mr Rove helped George Bush. Mr Ornstein, according to Wikipedia is "generally considered to be a liberal", even though he is with a conservative-leaning think tank. (Also see http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/norman-ornstein)
*
Mr Slater of The Dallas Morning News is an out-and-out opponent and, if a Google-trawl is anything to go by, not popular with American conservatives. (The follow-up to Bush's Brain bears the title Rove Exposed: How Bush's Brain Fooled America). Here he attacked the 'viciousness' of Rove's campaign tactics. He got two bites of the cherry.
*
That Mr Glastris, having being Bill's speechwriter and also being editor in chief of the left-leaning Washington Monthly, might also be a critic is hardly surprising.
*
I've not reviewed too many of Peter Marshall's reports on this blog, having usually fast-forwarded through them (through lack of time), but those I have watched have tended very strongly towards the Left in their choice of 'talking heads': http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search?q=Peter+Marshall
*
Kirsty then interviewed Mr Rove & concentrated her questions on (a) WMD, (b) water-boarding and (c) 'turd-blossom'.
*

OUT OF OFFICE MESSAGE

*
Apologies in advance for there being no posts today. Things have cropped up that need attending to(he says, cryptically).
*
Normal business will resume with a vengeance tomorrow.

*

CAROLYN AND CAROLINE COMBINE TO SPIN

*
Spot a detail that's missing from Carolyn Quinn's introduction to the story of the three Labour MPs and one Conservative peer who faced their day in court today, facing fraud charges:

"They left the court to jeers from a few members of the public - three MPs, one Conservative peer making a notorious mark on history as the first to face court action over their expenses claims. Jane Peel was watching as Lord Hanningfield, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine appeared before City of Westminster Magistrates court."

Jane Peel also studiously avoided mentioning the word 'Labour'.
*
CeannP & David H on the Biased BBC blogsite also spotted this. Hopefully large numbers of other PM listeners noticed it too.
*
This was not the only problem with this edition of the programme. The Unite union, who fund Labour on a very large scale, are agitating for another BA cabin crew strike. Carolyn interviewed Labour MP Kevin Barron and Conservative MP Ken Clarke. She behaved odiously towards Mr Clarke, interrupting him with determination and questioning him far more than she questioned the Unite-backed Mr Barron (7 questions to Ken, 3 to Kev). The resultant I.C. for Ken Clarke was 1.6. Her treatment of Mr Barron was less strenuous (I.C. of 0.9), and included an 'indeed' for one of the points he was making against Ken Clarke - which is rather naughty for a supposedly impartial interviewer.
*
Next came a 'four-minute hate' against the new 'world's richest man' (according to Forbes), Mexican media mogul Carlos Slim. This self-made man, a son of Lebanese immigrants, must be a remarkable figure. Not that Caroline Hawley's hate piece paid him any tributes. Far from it. She didn't even grant him the courtesy of a balanced report. I would have liked to have heard something of his story. What a waste!
*
As well as Steve Forbes, whose magazine compiles the rankings, we heard only from people who clearly hate Mr Slim. Then, waxing righteous herself, Caroline opined "Well a gap of 500 million (between Mr Slim's fortune and that of Bill Gates) certainly isn't very narrow to you or me, or to the vast majority of Mexicans and in a country where millions of people live in poverty Carlos Slim is obscenely rich." (Her emphasis).
*
The whole programme can be heard here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r407k