A POST THAT STARTS WITH ANDREW NEIL BUT THEN GOES BACK TO JAMES NAUGHTIE

*
Bouncing back in time again, Andrew Neil on yesterday's The Daily Politics did exactly what James Naughtie studiously avoided doing this morning. He grilled John Denham over Labour's non-doms, correcting his factual errors, noting his sly change of tack (mid-argument) and pointing out the richness of the Labour Party crying foul over large donations from non-doms. Andrew Neil is the exception that proves the rule at the BBC. He's right-wing (which is exceptional enough), but (unlike Naughtie) he takes no prisoners from any political party. Tories have much to fear from an encounter with Andrew Neil, as do Labour and even the Lib Dems.
*
I forgot to mention in my last post that Naughtie, in complete contrast, tried to bamboozle his listeners this morning by stating that Labour got a significant proportion of its money from the trade unions, ignoring the fact that (though it's certainly true that Labour does get sack loads of money from the unions, in exchange for...something) Labour also gets masses of money from rich donors, several of them non-doms - indeed markedly more than the Tories got from Lord Ashcroft in recent years. Naughtie surely knew that, so why 'forget' to mention it?
*

THE JO DELUSION

*
An enjoyable Daily Politics today, with Andrew on top form, Norman Tebbit talking good sense (on almost everything) and an interesting discussion with Richard Dawkins.
*
Only lovely Jo Coburn let the side down with her presentation on the parties' proposals on marriage, outlining Labour's laughable proposals without even the merest whiff of criticism or cynicism but outlining the Conservative position with this caveat: "The Conservatives want to reward marriage in the tax system, but detailed proposals about how they would afford it have not been decided." Has Labour's leaflet to all expecting dads advising them on how to be dads been costed Jo?
*
And on top of that there was with her abuse of David Cameron's admirable admission that he wasn't quite with it one morning, having a lot on his mind (we all know that feeling!): "Just to go back to the issue of families, because David Cameron had made it a central plank, even though he in his own words 'messed up' in terms of exactly what the Tory Party could promise."
*
Thank God (sorry Richard) for Andrew Neil to provide some balance to all this! Andrew Neil is bracingly right-wing, but he attacks Tories and Labour and UKIP and Lib Dems with equal relish (indeed he's generally harder on his own side!). He is an example to the rest of the BBC, including our leftist lovely Jo Coburn, on how not to be a biased interviewer.
*

THE WEEKLY DAILY POLITICS

*
The Daily Politics is, as pointed out previously, the fairest of the BBC's leading current affairs programmes by some way, but it is not totally beyond reproach. Here's a short overview of the week.
*
Monday featured Lord (Tim) Bell (Conservative) as its main guest (I.C. of 0.7 for Andrew Neil and Boris Johnson was given time to plead for more money for London (I.C. of 0.6 for Andrew Neil). Alex Salmond was interviewed (without interruption) for over 5 minutes by Anita Anand (I.C. of 0). Lib Dem tax policy was discussed with Lib Dem spokesman Jeremy Browne (I.C. of 1.3 for Andrew Neil) and Alex Henderson of Price Waters Henderson (who was critical).
*
The main guest on Tuesday's programme was Sir Menzies Campbell. As ever, and even Andrew Neil is not immune from this, this partisan Liberal Democrat politician was treated with a degree of respect that is rare on the BBC, treated as if he is an 'independent' foreign affairs expert. His I.C.s were 0.2 for Andrew Neil (very low for this interviewer!) and 0 for the fair Anita, who said "We are very lucky to have Sir Ming Campbell with us in the studio." Would she say that about William Hague? Sir Ming was treated with respect not just during discussion of the war in Afghanistan but also during the interview with the newly-elected UKIP leader, Lord Pearson. Lord Pearson was not accorded the same respect, earning Andrew Neil an I.C. of 1.6. Andrew queried his 12,000-acre estate and his tax allowances and said "We haven't got much time" after far too short a time. (Well, create time then!) Andrew Neil may be a lovable rogue but he can be really chippy about 'privilege' sometimes. Lord Pearson remained cheerful throughout. Sir Ming was also accorded the maximum respect while mischief-making over David Cameron's plan for a Sovereignty Act during an interview with Conservative Mark Francois (I.C. of 0.8 for Andrew Neil). The last topic, on which Sir Ming talked unusual good sense, was what Anita Anand calls (putting on a funny voice) "elf and safety", and here Quentin Letts of The Daily Mail was the other guest (and as good value as ever). A Brownie-point there!
*
Wednesday was Prime Minister's Questions day & this very often seems the worst day for any centre-right viewer to watch on the programme (perhaps because the producers load it that way, it being the most watched edition of the week). Still, even here both John Hutton (one of the most likable of the Labour crowd) and Andrew Lansley were interrupted at the same rate by both Andrew and Anita. However, the soon-to-be-installed first minister of Wales Carwyn Jones was accorded a free ride and there was a remarkable film from leftie actor Brian Cox, a man who was not keen on old Etonians or Tories ("There's a risk, a very serious risk, that we might have a Tory government next year, a government that comprises a bunch of old public school boys.") Coxie himself declared "I'm a Labour supporter" - and it showed! He'd also, in the past, produced a party political broadcast for the Labour Party. This was another!! Cox, chippy Andrew Neil, Anita and an amused John Hutton then ganged up on public-school educated Tory Andrew Lansley. What fun!
*
Left-wing (but beautiful) Jo Coburn joined Andrew on Thursday to give Lib Dem economic spokesman Lord Oakeshott a free ride on bankers' pay, annoying Orla Guerin came on to talk about Pakistan and a chap she called "Obama bin Laden" (Ha ha ha!), and the main guest was interesting former chief government advisor Sir David King (interesting but left-wing, as he banged on about "rampant consumerism and greed" and "how important it is we examine Al-Queda's popularity among Islamic people in the region") Andrew Neil disapproves of the Afghan War, and takes no pains to hide the fact. This was made very clear again during his interview with anti-war Labour MP Kim Howells. This love-in scored an I.C. of 0, and Andrew ended it by saying "I have a feeling we're going to see you again quite soon." So do I!! Professor King then went head-to-head with 'sceptical environmentalist' Bjorn Lomberg on climate change.
*
Yesterday, when Anita was home alone, entertaining ex-Conservative minister Gyles Brandreth (very funny on Mandelson and Brown) was on with joint-main-guest Bonnie Greer, a lady of the Left but an interesting one. Anita alone usually means bias and, though she wasn't particularly aggressive today, it is notable that her only significant interruption during the discussion on Labour's class-war tactics between sleazy Labour practitioner Steve McCabe and cute Conservative Justine Greening was against Justine, resulting in an I.C of 0.4 against McCabe and an I.C. of 0.8 against Justine. When the topic turned to drugs, specifically 'legal highs', the guests were Steve Rolles, Guardian-friendly head of drugs think-tank Transform and Lib Dem Chris Huhne. Mr Rolles was in favour, broadly-speaking, of the legalisation of all drugs (an idea that needs thinking about in my view) whereas I've still no idea where Mr Huhne stands (that's Lib Dems for you!). Bonnie was 'liberal' on the subject, and so (interestingly) was Gyles. So that was four people taking a 'liberal' stand on drugs. Hardly balanced is it? (And I say that while being 'liberal' myself on the subject). At least Anita (to her credit) essayed a little devil's advocacy in some of her questions. Naughty though was Beeboid Giles Dilnot' s sneer at "Lord Pearson of I-Own-Half-Of-Scotland". The BBC's disrespect for UKIP continues.
*

THE DAILY POLITICS

*
The Daily Politics is undoubtedly the most unpredictable of the Beeb's current affairs programmes, with a decent balance of presenters between the right-of-centre Andrew Neil and the left-of-centre Anita Anand and Jo Coburn - though, as their respective interruption coefficients clearly demonstrate, Andrew Neil is by some way the most likely of the three to interrupt his 'own side' - and, therefore, the least biased. (Please click on their respective labels for the proofs of this).

That said, the programme is not completely free of the corporation's strong bias towards the Left, as a look at the last three days reveals.
*
Monday's was the most balanced of the three shows, in several respects. The main guest was John Cassidy, a liberal English journalist on The New Yorker. The Chilcott Inquiry, on the other hand, was discussed with Michael Howard and the fearless Andrew Gilligan. Then came a remarkable debate on climate change with a warmist, Professor Bob Watson, and a sceptic, Professor Fred Singer. That's the sort of debate the Beeb should stage much more often.
*
Yesterday's programme was far less balanced in its choice of guests. To discuss parliamentary reform, the producers invited on the Conservative Sir George Young. The main guest, however, was the sort of businessman the BBC likes - a liberal one, an ardent green, keen on keeping the ban on fox-hunting and pro-pacifism. This was Mark Constantine of the 'natural cosmetics' store Lush. He also got to present his own film. Then to discuss the row between the Local Government Association and OFSTED there was a Labour MP, Barry Sheerman (interviewed by Anita Anand, I.C. of 0). Then, to cap it all, came a discussion on hung parliaments. between yet more voices from the Left, the 'Independent Labour' MP Clare Short and snooty Michael White of The Guardian.
*
Today's PMQs-centre edition was much more wide-ranging, with Ken Clarke and Jacqui Smith as main guests. Matthew Oakeshott of the Lib Dems was on hand to discuss the government's secret loans to RBS and Lloyds (and got a roasting from Andrew Neil in the process, I.C. of 1.9). The Calman Commission on Scottish devolution was then discussed with Mike Russell of the SNP. I suppose you could say that that's three for the Left, and one for the Right - but at least it's fair across the parties (except UKIP). The tilt to the Left was clearest though with the choice of Bianca Jagger, a true left-winger's left winger, as the programme's final guest. She also got to present her own film (another bit of green propaganda).
*
So, although The Daily Politics is the best the BBC can do, it's not perfect by any means.

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - ANDREW NEIL

*
Andrew Neil (in his Daily Politics incarnation), widely considered to be the only right-winger among the Beeb's band of interviewers, headed the BBC's party conference coverage, so there are a lot of interviews to list for October, when the end of the Labour conference and the whole of the Conservative conference took place:
*
28/10 Chris Grayling Conservative 3.3
06/10 Philip Hammond Conservative 3.1
06/10 Andrew Lansley Conservative 2.9
27/10 Jeremy Hunt Conservative 2.8
13/10 Evan Harris Lib Dem 2.4
05/10 Boris Johnson Conservative 2.2
12/10 Stuart Bell Labour 2.2
19/10 Hilary Benn Labour 2.1
07/10 Philip Hammond Conservative 2
05/10 Dan Hannan Conservative 1.6
12/10 Lord Oakeshott Lib Dem 1.6
15/10 Mark Simmonds Conservative 1.5
29/10 Nick Gibb Conservative 1.4
08/10 William Hague Conservative 1.4
21/10 Nick Herbert Conservative 1.4
07/10 Michael Gove Conservative 1.3
08/10 Theresa May Conservative 1.3
12/10 Philip Hammond Conservative 1
01/10 Bill Rammell Labour 1
22/10 John Hutton Labour 1
15/10 Tony McNulty Labour 1
28/10 Peter Hain Labour 0.9
01/10 Phil Woolas Labour 0.8
19/10 John Mann Labour 0.7
29/10 Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.7
08/10 George Osborne Conservative 0.7
13/10 Norman Baker Lib Dem 0.6
21/10 Caroline Flint Labour 0.6
05/10 David Cameron Conservative 0.5
14/10 John Hutton Labour 0.4
26/10 Austin Mitchell Labour 0.4
14/10 Theresa May Conservative 0.2
05/10 Ian Taylor Conservative 0
01/10 Tony McNulty Labour 0
05/10 Nigel Farage UKIP 0
*
The resultant averages for October are intriguing:
*
Conservatives - 1.6
Lib Dems - 1.33
Labour - 0.93
UKIP - 0
*
This result is not untypical. Here are the super-averages over all 77 of his interviews since I began my study:
*
Conservatives (24) - 1.82
SNP (3) - 1.23
Lib Dems (16) - 1.19
Labour (33) - 1.04
UKIP (1) - 0
*
Surprised? Well, at least no lefties can accuse Andrew of pro-Tory bias!!!
*

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - ANDREW NEIL

*
Being back onto for the party conferences Andrew Neil has only had the chance to interview Lib Dems and Labourites so far, with the Tories to come. How did the great man do?

Ed Davey Lib Dem 2.4
Jim Murphy Labour 2.1
Evan Harris Lib Dem 2
Jacqui Smith Labour 2
Alistair Darling Labour 1.7
Danny Alexander Lib Dem 1.7
Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.6
Andrew Adonis Labour 1.3
Nick Clegg Lib Dem 1.3
Liam Byrne Labour 1.3
Ken Livingstone Labour 0.7
Peter Mandelson Labour 0.6
Barry Sheerman Labour 0.4
Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0.3
Paddy Ashdown Lib Dem 0.3

Average number of interruptions per political party:
Lib Dems - 1.4
Labour - 1.3

How will the Conservatives fare at his hands?

CABLE T.V. THAT'S WELL WORTH WATCHING

Hat tip to Guido Fawkes for this one:
http://order-order.com/2009/09/19/brillo-v-cable-like-boiling-a-frog/
http://order-order.com/2009/09/18/cable-admits-he-got-crisis-wrong/

The BBC's high regard for Vince Cable, as shown in interview after interview, has led the great man to be thought of by all-and-sundry as a very wise man. He is, as Tim Wilcox of News 24 told us, Britain's most trusted politician. He predicted the credit crunch, you know.

Well, if no-one challenges the idea that Dr Cable predicted the credit crunch, it's no wonder we all believe he did. Did he really?

If you are very rarely challenged - but your opponents (in the Labour and Conservative parties) are regularly challenged - then you might well gain the reputation for being a sage, consulted for his insights. Indeed, on too many occasions BBC interviewers have treated Vince more like an independent economist than a party politician. If, whenever you appear on the BBC, you are asked for your thoughts on the economy in general, or about Conservative or Labour policy, and only very occasionally about your actual responsibility - Liberal Democrat economic policy! - then you will seem like an independent expert. His virtues have been praised by several interviewers in their introductions. Who, therefore, can blame us, the politician-distrusting general public, for trusting such a well-respected man more than a mere politician?

Well, has the rug been pulled out from under the pirouetting Lib Dem by the Beeb itself, in the person of Andrew Neil, whose Straight Talk was a masterclass in reputation shredding? I, for one, will never see the sainted Vince in the same light again. Here is the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mzzwj

The interview starts with one of those very general questions that Dr Cable is so used to being asked and so comfortable at answering, but within a couple of minutes Andrew Neil starts asking the tough questions.

He nails Vince's u-turn on Quantitative Easing (Q.E.) for starters. Initially against (calling it 'the Robert Mugabe school'), he's now for, and admits he may have given us the wrong impression.

Then the big question: Did Vince Cable predict the financial crisis? "You have built a reputation for having predicted the financial crisis and giving wise commentary through it", said Andrew. Economists agree (he continues) that it was largely caused by the collapse of the US sub-prime market but he can't find any evidence on the record of Dr Vince actually making any reference to it prior to the implosion. Had he? Vince agreed he hadn't. Then, under further pressure, he conceded that he hadn't predicted the "totality" of the crisis, only a "corner" of it. Andrew Neil was not about to take even that at face value - and on and on went his questions for another twenty minutes, the usual Buddha-like serenity of Dr Cable growing ever more strained as the interview went on.

For all his alleged concerns about easy credit, Vince had dismissed early warnings from the IMF in 2003 about UK borrowing and asset prices being too high. Neil pressed him on that before moving onto 'contradictory things' Vince appeared to have said about fiscal stimulus. The exchange showed he had indeed made such statements. Andrew Neil had chapter and verse to quote, and Vince squirmed, variously claiming that he couldn't remember having said that or that the context for the quote must have been 'totally different'.

"When you look at his record, perhaps rather than being a far-sighted guru that people see, that you've flip-flopped on a number of the big issues", said Neil. Vince said 'not really' and 'read my book'. Neil went on and demonstrated another such 'flip-flop' over the Lloyds-HBOS merger. As Cable had to say, "I think it's fair to say I did change my position on that issue, I did change that. ..Yes, you're right I did take a different view." Another flip-flop over the independence of the Bank of England and interest rate cuts was nailed. Within a month Vince had gone from saying it was wrong for the government to demand that the Bank slash interest rates to demanding it himself! Oh, dear.

The conversation then moved on to public spending and cuts. After a general question on the timing of cuts (the sort of question the Beeb is always asking Vince), Andrew Neil (unlike most of his BBC colleagues) moved on and focused on Liberal Democrat plans, specifically his plans. Question after question probed the tensions within the party over policies and potential cuts, highlighted the differences between Dr Cable and Nick Clegg, and spotted more flip-flops, particularly over whether the savings from £6.7 billion's worth of cuts would still be spent on childcare and education, or not. Vince squirmed again.

Tax rises, particularly in VAT, were discussed next and some weaseling over whether he'd support such moves was challenged.

Andrew Neil went where few of his BBC colleagues have gone. He treated Vince Cable as a politician who has to be held to account for his many changes of position. He did not treat him as a far-seeing sage (which, in transpires, he wasn't after all). If Vince was treated more like this by BBC interviewers as a whole - which is, after all, the way Osborne and, to some extent, Darling are regularly treated - a fairer, more accurate perspective on the whole political scene might emerge. That's not too much to ask, is it?

JULY'S I.C.s - ANDREW NEIL

Andrew 'Brillo' Neil (pictured in time-honoured fashion) is often regarded as the only right-of-centre regular among the Beeb's cast of interviewers, and yet his July interruption coefficients (for 'The Daily Politics' only) are heavilly skewed against the Right. Is this a case of Stockholm syndrome?

Neil conducted 19 interviews this month.

Here are his interruption coefficients:

Philip Hammond, Conservative (6/7) - 5.7

Mark Hoban, Conservative (8/7) - 2.5

Bill Rammell, Labour (13/7) - 2.4

Michael Metheson, SNP (1/7) - 2.1

Roger Evans, Conservative (2/7) - 1.5

David Davis, Conservative (15/7) - 1.5

John Hutton, Labour (15/7) - 1.4

Mike Russell, SNP (1/7) - 1.4

Pauline McNeill, Labour (1/7) - 1.3

Tessa Jowell, Labour (8/7) - 0.8

Ming Campbell, Lib Dem (15/7) - 0.5

Simon Hughes, Lib Dem (14/7) - 0.4

Brian Paddick, Lib Dem (14/7) - 0.4

Frank Field, Labour (7/7) - 0.4

Lord Falconer, Labour (7/7) - 0.4

John McFall, Labour (2/7) - 0.3

Alex Salmond, SNP (8/7) - 0.2

Jack McConnell, Labour (1/7) - 0

Charles Clarke, Labour (9/7 )- 0

Indeed, Brillo's 5.7 (for Phillip Hammond) was - by some way - the highest I.C. of July.

Average Number of interruptions per each political party

Conservatives - 2.8

SNP - 1.2

Labour - 0.8

Lib Dems -0.4

Now, last month Andrew Neil's top score was achieved against Jo Swinson of the Liberal Democrats (a 2.9), followed by Jeremy Hunt of the Conservatives (2.5). This suggests a more maverick approach, and the averages are closer: 1.9 for the Conservatives, 1.5 for the Lib Dems and 1.2 for Labour. The case against Andrew Neil is not yet proven.