DISPROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHOBIAS

*
A Tory candidate (Philip Lardner) has been suspended from his party today for making a 'homophobic' remark on a website. Yesterday a Labour candidate (John Cowan) was suspended from his party for making an 'Islamophobic' remark on a website.
*
Someone who didn't report the John Cowan story yesterday was our old friend Michael Crick. He made no mention of it on Newsnight. He did blog about it though. However, I note that he only posted about Mr Cowan at 16.08 today &, of course, he coupled the old news about Mr Cowan with the breaking news about Mr Lardner. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/04/latest_candidate_suspensions.html *
*
So, Michael Crick didn't think Labour's Mr Cowan worth mentioning yesterday, or this morning, or early this afternoon. Yet within minutes (possibly seconds) of news breaking of a Tory candidate being suspended he rushes panting to his laptop, doubtless sending cats and kids flying in all directions, and his fingers become a blur of activity. Suddenly, he remembers Mr Cowan. Well, he could hardly not mention him if he were about to mention the errant Tory Mr Lardner!
*
Another prediction: Michael Crick might mention the 'racist' John Cowan on tonight's Newsnight (a day late), but only because he will almost certainly feel the overwhelming urge to mention - and doubtless dwell on - the 'homophobic' Philip Lardner.
**
*
UPDATE The BBC website covers both stories:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8647206.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8644018.stm
*
Note how the Labour one features only the comments of people from the Labour Party, and highlights a Labour Party spokesman's 'anger'. The Conservative one, however, features the violently hostile views of a political opponent, Labour's Chris Bryant, and chooses to highlight them too!
*
This pattern has been observed before.
*
The BBC article on Mr Lardner begins: Tory election candidate Philip Lardner has been suspended for describing gay people on his website as "not normal", the party has confirmed.
*
The article goes on to quote the 'offending' words (which don't describe gay people as "not normal", as the BBC alleges, only their behaviour. Can they not see the difference?)
*
"As your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage.

"I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it.

"Toleration and understanding is one thing, but the state promotion of homosexuality is quite another."

CLAPTRAP

*
The lead election story on the BBC News website tonight is 'Election: Parties battle over family and crime plans'. This has three sub-headings:
*
*****************Cuts questions
*****************'Toddler tax'
*****************'Claptrap'
*
The latter pair are direct quotes from Labour attacks on the Conservatives. 'Claptrap' immediately preceeds excerpts from a speech by David Cameron on the 'broken society'. It is a quote from Alan Johnson featured four paragraphs later, after the Cameron extracts (thus book-ending them)!
*
Labour and Lib Dem spokesman "attack", "tell", "argue" and "say". Only the Conservatives have to "defend" themselves:
*
In south London, Mr Cameron defended his depiction of British society as "broken".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8645508.stm

*

A typical BBC article.

FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS

*
Aha! The BBC are rattled & have had to rush out a new article to cover-up the outrageous bias of an earlier one. You may recall the piece that so outraged Jonathan Isaby of ConservativeHome, which found that all of the six people BBC reporter Sarah Bell spoke to in Richmond were intending to vote (enthusiastically) for the Liberal Democrats in the wake of Nick Clegg's performance on the TV.
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/vote-for-susan-kramer-says-bbc.html
*
Well, the BBC must have had some complaints they obviously couldn't ignore about this. So another BBC reporter Brian Wheeler was rushed back to Richmond to do a proper job and file a bullet-proof report.
*
He refers to Sarah's astonishingly biased article & tries to pretend that, though she was right a couple of days ago, things have changed dramatically since then & now people there have a variety of voting intentions (Pull the other one Brian):

A few days ago my colleague Sarah Bell travelled to the Lib Dem marginal seat of Richmond in South London, where she found widespread enthusiasm for the party, in the wake of the televised debate.

I returned there on Sunday to find out if the mood had changed in this crucial swing seat, which the Conservatives must take if they are going to form the next government, now that people have had a chance to reflect on the debate and read in greater detail about the party's policies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8628650.stm
*
He adds:
*
As always, it is worth pointing out that this was a highly unscientific exercise.
*
Well, Sarah didn't point that out in her propaganda piece, which is why Mr Wheeler had to re-do her work! She should stick to her day job - writing up what Gordon Brown says about Conservative cuts and what David Cameron says about ties for the BBC's live election blog.

VOTE FOR SUSAN KRAMER, SAYS BBC

*
Jonathan Isaby of ConservativeHome posts:
*
An outrageous breach of BBC guidelines on political reporting
*
I rarely get into the realms of attacking the BBC for its political coverage.

But there is a story running on its website today which beggars belief.

Bear in mind the BBC's editorial guidelines are especially strict during election time and state:

"News judgements at election time are made within a framework of democratic debate which ensures that due weight is given to hearing the views and examining and challenging the policies of all parties."

And then read this story on the BBC News website written by Sarah Bell, who conducts a straw poll of six voters in one constituency - all of whom are voting Lib Dem.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8626338.stm

Outrageous.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/04/an-outrageous-breach-of-bbc-guidelines-on-political-reporting.html
*
He's right. It is truly outrageous.
*
Part of the outrage (which Mr Isaby doesn't mention) is its gunning for the Conservative candidate Zak Goldsmith. It's not gunning for him because of his rampant environmentalism of course (perish the thought!):
*
But it seems issues other than his leader's performance are playing on the minds of the electorate, with the words "non-dom" on the lips of many voters during the afternoon.

In November, Mr Goldsmith admitted inheriting non-domicile tax status from his father James, but denied he had dodged paying huge amounts of tax.

"The whole non dom thing has been disastrous for Zac Goldsmith," says teacher Paul Daniel, 44. "Especially somewhere like this, where people work very hard and pay large amounts of tax".

Mr Daniel, who supports Labour but plans to vote tactically for the Lib Dems, agreed Mr Clegg had come out on top during the debate."
*
I have to add though that Jonathan Isaby's opening sentence - "I rarely get into the realms of attacking the BBC for its political coverage" - is deeply worrying. It's symptomatic of Conservative thinking for years. (It might explain, incidentally, why he didn't respond to my e-mail!!) I was hoping that this ostrich-like behaviour is changing (maybe his post is a swallow for such a spring), but this really suggests that the Conservatives are still not taking the subject anywhere near seriously enough. It's well past the time that they did. Mr Isaby should be getting into those 'realms' on a daily basis.
*
*
UPDATE: I just clicked on the BBC's website The Full Election Story page & it lists the three people who are running the BBC's live election blog (who I had thought were anonymous). They are Jon Kelly, Andy McFarlane and, yes, the lady of the moment, the perpetrator of the outrage herself Sarah Bell.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8626744.stm
*
That explains a few things!

A TALE OF TWO PROPOSALS - PART 2

*
The BBC News website has substantial articles on the two proposals.
*
The first is 'Cadbury's law' to be in Labour election manifesto
*
The article reports Labour's plans in detail and outlines their reasoning, describes Kraft's takeover of Cadbury as "controversial" and reports that the Lib Dems back the proposal. There are no critical voices whatsoever and the article ends like this:
*
The campaign for the so-called Cadbury's law has been led by the Unite union, but has gained popularity among those unhappy at the way in which the confectioner was bought out by Kraft.
Some observers felt Kraft should have paid more for Cadbury, and that short-term investors pushed through the deal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8612745.stm
*
A Labour press release could not have been less probing!
*
What a difference though for the Conservative proposal!!
*
This article, Tories to offer tax breaks for married couples, gives us a summary of their plan to give four million married couples and civil partners an annual £150 tax break but by as early as its third paragraph mentions that "Labour said other families would lose out" before moving on to mention Lib Dem criticism:
*
The Lib Dems, who called the plan "patronising", have launched their own policies for families. Their pledges include greater flexibility for working parents, more affordable childcare and cheap grants or loans to renovate empty housing.
*
Of these Lib Dem proposals, there's no probing whatsoever!
*
Five paragraphs follow where George Osborne outlines the Conservative case. Criticism from Vince Cable, Kate Bell of national single parents' charity Gingerbread, Nick Clegg, someone at the IFS and unspecified 'critics' then piles in.
*
It's the add-ons to the article where the bias really lies. A 'blockquote' criticism from the IFS is one prominent feature, another are two video clips criticising the Tories from...Nick Clegg and Ed Balls!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8612610.stm
*
A free ride for Labour, an onslaught against the Conservatives.
*
*
EXTRA: The Lib Dems' own proposals on the family get an article of their own:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8613087.stm
There is not a whiff of criticism in it. Nick Clegg is quoted and the policies outlined in detail.
*
A free ride for the Lib Dems too.

CRASH GORDON - MAN OF STEEL!

*
In the wake of John Humphrys's magnificent interview with Gordon Brown, how does the BBC News website choose to headline its main story, based on that very interview?:

Tory plans built on myth - Brown

No quotation marks you'll have noticed!
*
The blurb beneath does use quotation marks, but also spins us a dynamic Brown, who "tells" the BBC that Conservative economic policies are built on a 'myth' - "tells" not "claims"! - and "hits back at criticism of his tax plans" - "hits back" not "defends"!!

Conservative economic policies are built on a "myth", Gordon Brown tells the BBC as he hits back at criticism of his tax plans.

This would be more a more accurate way of describing what actually happened:

Conservative economic policies are build on a "myth", Gordon Brown claims in a BBC interview as he is forced to defend his tax plans.

The BBC News website is a law unto itself.

HERE WE GO!

*
The BBC News website is providing a running commentary on the general election:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent
*
If you want to know where the party leaders are and what leading politicians are saying, as it happens, this is the place for you. It's also the place to hear from BBC reporters. So far they've said nothing out of the ordinary, with one exception. The BBC's technology correspondent has posted this:

1220 The BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones says: Several people on the micro-blogging service Twitter have noted that David Cameron left out the words "gay or straight" from his election speech. The embargoed copy released before his speech said: "We're fighting this election for the Great Ignored. Young, old, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight." But when he gave the speech, the words "gay, straight" were omitted. A Conservative Party spokesman said the reference to the great ignored including the gay and straight phrase will be used throughout the day, and that no-one should read anything into this.

The BBC are off!!!

PERSONA NON GRATA

*
Many Beeb bias watchers have noticed that the corporation is trying its very hardest to ignore the case of Johnson Beharry:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/04/johnson-beharry-is-now-non-person-on.html
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/selective-feedback.html
*
Mr Beharry, a war hero awarded a Victoria Cross, snubbed Gordon Brown over his disrespect for the armed forces. His story is widely covered, including:
*
The Times: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/selective-feedback.html
The Telegraph: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/selective-feedback.html
The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9018199
Sky News: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Johnson-Beharry-Victoria-Cross-Winner-Admits-He-Snubbed-Prime-Minister-Gordon-Brown/Article/201004115594408?lid=ARTICLE_15594408_JohnsonBeharry,VictoriaCrossWinner,AdmitsHeSnubbedPrimeMinisterGordonBrown&lpos=searchresults Channel 4 News: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/vc+winner+beharry+snubbed+brown/3601767
*
I see that The Independent and The Daily Mirror, however, are also ignoring his story.
*
As Not a sheep says

When Johnson Beharry was awarded his Victoria Cross, the highest military decoration which is awarded for valour "in the face of the enemy" to members of the armed forces, his name and details were all over the BBC website. Oddly now that he refused to shake Gordon Brown's hand at a ceremony has not made it to the BBC website.

BALLS

*
I see that Sean Couglan's article on the party education spokesmen's speeches to the NASUWT has been 'revised', reducing the extraordinary amount of direct quotation from Ed Balls. The result is an improvement. It now reads far less like a Labour press release now. Not completely though, as the headline on the homepage of the BBC News website reads Balls lays down funding challenge while the headline of the article itself reads Ed Balls throws down challenge on school budgets and the standing ovation the odious Balls received is highlighted by a sub-heading.
*
The main story on the BBC News website remains NI increase 'will not cost jobs'. Leave it there long enough and people might start believing it, or so the BBC are probably hoping.

AND THERE'S MORE....

*
Continue down the BBC News website's Politics page and next up comes Burnham unveils £30m for children's palliative care.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8603488.stm
*
This is a puff-piece for the government. Most space is given to Labour's health secretary Andy Burnham and to Ms Barbara Gelb of Children's Hospices UK who says that Mr Burnham's announcement is a 'tremendous boost' and 'great news'.
*
Ah Labour, the Cheeryble Brothers of our time!

BANK HOLIDAY BIAS

*
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

BURKAS IN BELGIUM AND BERKS AT THE BBC

*
In a move hailed by UKIP, a Belgian parliamentary committee has called for the banning of the burka in public places.
*
The BBC's take on this provides an insight into their thinking on this sort of subject and another example of bias by labelling: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8597142.stm
*
Here's the passage that particularly caught my eye:

Denis Ducarme, from the Belgian centre-right Reformist
Movement that proposed the bill, said he was "proud that Belgium would be the
first country in Europe which dares to legislate on this sensitive matter".

What puzzles me is that by calling the Reformist Movement "centre-right" readers might take it to be the Belgian equivalent of either UKIP or the Conservative Party. It's no such thing. It's a liberal party and sits with Chris Huhne's party in the European parliament, being - like the Lib Dems - a member of Liberal International.
*
So this policy was proposed by the Belgian (Walloon) equivalent of the Liberal Democrats yet the BBC seems reluctant to mention that. Why?
*
Indeed all five parties in the current coalition government back the move. They are:
*
- The Flemish Christian Democrats (CD & V)
- The Walloon Christian Democrats (CdH)
- The Flemish Liberals (VLD)
- The Walloon Liberals (MR)
- The Walloon Socialists (PS)
*
And who are the Walloon Socialists allied to in the European parliament? Denis MacShane and the Labour Party of course.
*
Why did the BBC article not make it plain that this proposed measure has widespread support across the Belgian political spectrum? Why only mention the 'centre-right' proponents of the ban?
*

UPDATE Looking through the online newspapers is intriguing here (in a nerdy sort of way).
*
Here's the Telegraph, not downplaying the cross-party nature of the support and correctly identifying the 'liberal' identity of the Reformist Movement:

The unanimous decision by senior home affairs legislators, with the support of Belgium's main political parties, has paved the way for a full Belgian parliament vote on a ban to be held in three weeks.
Denis Ducarme, a Belgian MP for the liberal Reformist Movement party that
drafted the ban, predicted that legislation would receive full parliamentary
backing on April 22.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/7541430/Belgium-could-be-first-country-to-ban-the-burka.html

The Times also reports that "Belgium's main parties are united behind the move and the influential home affairs committee voted for it unanimously today," though it joins the BBC in labeling the Reformist movement as 'centre-right'. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7083103.ece
*
Curiously though The Daily Mail places Mr Ducarme correctly as a 'liberal' but positions him somewhere quite different on the political spectrum:

"Left-wing MP Denis Ducarme left no doubt the rules were targeting-Muslim extremists. The French- speaking liberals who have proposed the law argue that an inability to identify people presents a security risk and that the veil is a ‘walking prison’ for women." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1262545/Belgium-set-European-country-ban-burka.html#ixzz0jmqY78ZN

Wikipedia suggests that the party of Mr Ducarme has been drifting leftwards in recent years, under the influence of social liberal Dirk Verhofstadt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformist_Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Verhofstadt
*

...AND BACK AGAIN

*
That revised article about the Chancellors debate has certain features you would expect from the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8593509.stm
*
There are videos for all three politicians. How long does each last?
*
Alistair Darling - 2 minutes 13 seeconds
Vince Cable - 2 minutes 9 seconds
George Osborne - 1 minute 40 seconds
*
Also, only one politician is granted the honour of a 'blockquote' in a box on the right hand side of the page - Alistair Darling, attacking George Osborne.
*
The only other 'blockquote' belongs to Stephanie Flanders, the BBC's biased economics editor and links to her blog, Stephanomics. Go there and you find...not a review of the debate as such but just another of her many articles questioning Conservative economic policy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/03/osbornes_tricky_balance.html
*

OSBORNE ATTACKS DARLING'S PLANS...OR TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY...

*
The 'Chancellors Debate' on Channel 4 is over. The spinning from all sides begins.
*
The BBC News website home page leads with the story. What is its angle?
*
Well, its headline is Darling launches Tory tax attack
*
And the summary beneath reads Chancellor Alistair Darling labels Tory economic policy "irresponsible" in a TV debate with rivals George Osborne and Vince Cable.
*
Fancy that, the BBC presenting the story from Labour's perspective!
*
8
UPDATE 21.55 pm Guess what? The BBC News website has 'revised' its home page.
*
Getting rid of the biased headline quoted above, it has replaced it with the far better Chancellors square up in debate.
*
The summary beneath now reads Alistair Darling clashes with his Tory and Lib Dem counterparts over tax rises and spending cuts in a live TV debate.
*
That is what it should have said in the first place.
*
Who complained to make this happen, I wonder?

MORE TAXIS...CONTINUED

*
Sometime between 10-11 am, the story of the next pair of Labour ex-ministers caught offering themselves as cabbies finally appeared on the BBC News website (last on parade): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8591485.stm
*
It is now the third-placed story on the Politics page. I will keep checking as the afternoon goes on and see how soon it slips down the running order and when it vanishes.
*
It bears the standard wording of a BBC website headline whenever Labour MPs gets accused of scandalous behaviour:
8*
******Ex-ministers deny wrongdoing over lobbying claims
*
Why not 'More Labour ex-ministers accused of wrongdoing over lobbying'?
*
History is repeating itself. Once again the BBC begins by ignoring the story, if it's a story that's unhelpful to Labour. (The always-worth-reading Beeboidal on the Biased BBC website did find a mention of it buried away near the bottom of the website's review of the Sunday papers). Then it moves on to stage two. Having to report the story, it does so later than anyone else and presents it as a story of Labour (though they usually avoid that word in any headline) denying wrongdoing. The denial is placed front stage, not the accusations. There are two block quotes placed to the right of the article, each from one of the two Labour 'wrongdoers' - again, their denials are quoted and placed front stage.
*
If the story continues to grow, it will doubtless be time for the BBC to get Mark Easton to pull a rabbit out of the hat again, as he did last Monday. Has he a spare rabbit to hand?
*
Spin, spin, and yet more spin from the biased BBC.
*
*
UPDATE Mon 29/3 7.15am Well, the story is still on the Politics page, hanging on by its fingertips (the next to last on the right hand column). A couple more nudges and it will fall into oblivion (doubtless some time this morning), never to be heard of again.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

*
On Thursday, when the BBC went mad about Lord Ashcroft again, The World at One relagated news about the BA strike to second place in its news bulletin in favour of the Lord Ashcroft story. In third place came the latest government borrowing figures, which reached a new record high. Nothing was going to get in the way of the BBC's mission that day and the programme then spent many minutes discussing Lord Ashcroft.
*
Today, when Labour are in the mire, the news bulletin of its sister programme The World This Weekend's news bulletin was led by the BA strike - though only some remarks of Tony Woodley of Unite. Next on today's bulletin came Alistair Darling's comments about VAT, followed by a former senior army commander's important call for changes to the Ministry of Defence. In fourth place came the Labour's 'cash for influence' story. The programme thereafter ignored the Labour scandal, prefering to report from 'Derry' on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, spending a good ten minutes on it.

UPDATE. David Preiser, on the Biased BBC blogsite, has spotted this article by BBC political correspondent Brian Wheeler (who's a new one on me) on the BBC News website. It's as clear an example of the BBC playing down a story as you could ever hope to get, and it manages to get in some digs at the Conservatives for good measure:

Politicians on all sides have been falling over each other to say how "shocked" and "appalled" they are about claims former Labour ministers have been offering to influence government policy for cash.

Stephen Byers said he had overplayed his influence to an undercover reporter
With an election weeks away, they know just how bad this sort of stuff looks to voters already reeling from last year's expenses scandal.

And although it might be Labour MPs in the spotlight today, they also know that stories about alleged "sleaze" tarnish the entire political class. The Conservatives, when they were in power, also had their share of lobbying scandals.
*******************************************
And the clamour by lobbyists to sign up former politicians and advisers with links to the Conservative Party, in anticipation of Tory victory in the general election, suggests it is not about to go away any time soon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8578788.stm

UPDATE ON THE SAME STORY

The article has just been 'revised'.

The new headline reads Darling anger over 'MPs for Hire'. The quote on the right-hand side has also changed to 'Chancellor Alistair Darling' saying "It's just ridiculous". Darling's views and those of 'a Labour spokesman' - the case for the defence - are then quoted at length. Still no mention of the Conservatives' refusal to accept the fake deal.

LABOUR RIDES TO THE RESCUE...SAYS THE BBC

*
So Channel 4's Dispatches (the sort of programme the BBC's Panorama should be) and The Sunday Times have caught a number of former Labour cabinets ministers in a sting over cash for influence. Big news. Even Andrew Marr discussed it in his paper review.
*
The Sunday Times headline reads Revealed: Labour’s cash for influence scandal http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7068820.ece

The Daily Mail has 'Pay £5,000 a day and you can meet Tony': Four top Labour MPs trapped in TV sting by fake lobby firm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259485/Top-Labour-MPs-trapped-TV-sting.html

The Observer/Guardian drops the word 'Labour' but knows where the heart of the story lies: MPs targeted in undercover sting over cash for influence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/21/mps-targeted-undercover-sting

But what of the BBC News website? How does it splash the story on its home page?

*********Labour pledges lobbying crackdown

I nearly missed the story, even though it's the second item on the home page, because of this remarkably mundane headline. Only because I immediately recognised the face of Stephen Byers (which puts me in a tiny minority of the population!) did it click with me that this was the very story I was after. It's not a headline that's going to grab many browsers of the BBC site by the lapels and say 'Read me!', is it? Which, I suspect, is the point. They may not want it to be too widely read. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8578597.stm

*
This pro-Labour gloss is pretty standard stuff. It was almost inevitable than the BBC News website would produce a headline like this.
*
Click into the article itself and you'll see that it pursues the same gloss from the very start: Labour has promised to introduce stricter rules for lobbyists following claims three former cabinet ministers had offered their services for money.

They then move straight on to the BBC's standard practice whenever Labour MPs get caught out over anything, to frame it as them 'denying' any wrongdoing. (The same slant is not so often applied to Conservatives, who are usually 'accused' of wrongdoing with the denials coming much later in the story). Here we get: "Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon have denied any wrongdoing after they were secretly recorded for a Channel 4 documentary."

It came out during Andrew Marr's paper review that the Conservatives who were approached by the 'stingers' turned them down. That casts the Conservatives in a better light than Labour. The BBC News website ignores this aspect of the story.

To complete this spin-job, the only 'blockquote' put in a box at the side of the article is from a 'Labour spokesman', blandly reading What this case shows is that we need moretransparency in the entire lobbying system.

...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."