A TALE OF TWO CONSTITUENCIES

*
Jo Coburn, making her debut as presenter of The World This Weekend, went to two constituencies to assess the mood of voters over MPs expenses, one Labour-held, one Conservative-held. Sounds fair, doesn't it?
*
First up was Stevenage, home to Barbara Follett. Here Jo talked to a sprinkling of voters of varying views, and to Labour-supporting pollster Peter Kellner (of Baroness Ashton 'fame'), but she didn't speak to any of Labour's political opponents here. She tried to talk to Babs (who is stepping down) and to her would-be Labour successor Sharon Taylor, but without success.
*
Then she moved on to St. Albans, home to Anne Main. Here she met more voters of varying views, and managed to grab a brief word with a reluctant Mrs Main. Here - unlike in Stevenage - she also talked to one of Mrs Main's opponents, Sandy Walkington, the Lib Dem candidate, who had nothing good to say about her.

The segment ended with a short interview with Labour MP John Mann, who defended Labour from claims that it could be worst hit in the coming election by the public's residual rage.
*
As I listened I thought that the bit on the dodgy Conservative was going on for longer than the bit on the dodgy Labour MP. Checking back confirmed this, with the section on Mrs Follett lasting 2 minutes 33 seconds, while the bit on Mrs Main lasted 4 minutes 13 seconds.
*
On top of this, Jo Coburn went into some detail about Anne Main's expenses claims but not about Barbara Follett's.
*
What may initially have seem balanced turned out not to be that balanced after all.
*

SAY IT AIN'T SO, JO

*

I have to say that, as a centre-right-minded guy, I was personally disappointed by all the Tories caught out by the Expenses Scandal, as I expected better from them than, say, their Labour counterparts, just as some of the dodges committed by (now-ex-)UKIP MEPs personally disappointed me too, as I expected far better from them from I did from, say, their Labour colleagues. Given the standards, and the ideology, and the background of both Conservative and UKIP politicians, who wouldn't expect them to have behaved more honorably with taxpayers' money than their counterparts in the reckless, sleazy Labour Party?

*

All this is merely a preamble to a quote from Jo Coburn on yesterday's The Daily Politics. This is a question she put to Nick Watt of The Guardian: "Which party is going to suffer the most? I mean one might say, just because they've got the most MPs, it would be Labour and also is there also a case that Labour grassroots will feel, actually, we expect more of our MPs perhaps, because of the standards, and the ideology and the background of the Labour Party?"

*

Would it ever have occured to left-wing Jo that she could have substituted (as I did) the words Conservative Party for the Labour Party, and their respective grassroots, and put the same question to Fraser Nelson of The Spectator? I very much doubt it.

*

This BBC-wide assumption that Labour just must be morally superior to the Tories is one I don't share at all. Far from 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.
*

WHO'S DAMAGING UKIP?

*
UKIP MEP Nikki Sinclaire's conflict with Nigel Farage led to an invitation to appear on today's The Daily Politics. The interview with Jo Coburn, resulting in a very high I.C. of 2.7, was notable for a couple of things. First was Jo's question "I mean, does it sound like the party's falling apart here?" She put that not to Nikki herself but to Seumas Milne of The Guardian of all people, who replied (as might have been expected) "Well I hope so." Secondly, there's the question Jo did put to Nikki Sinclaire: "How much damage do you think this is doing to the party, which has already had a dreadful year?" What did she mean by that? Did she mean since the beginning of 2010? If she did, which is highly unlikely, what other dreadful things have happened to UKIP since January 1st? She obviously meant, of course, 'over the last year'. What was so dreadful about that? Well, perhaps she meant the Electoral Commission's deeply questionable attack over donations that is seriously threatening UKIP's financial health. She would have a point there. But what about UKIP's remarkable triumph in the European elections, beating Labour into third place and winning over 16% of the vote? There was nothing dreadful for UKIP (or the UK) about that. I think it would be better to say that UKIP has had 'a year of mixed fortunes'. The BBC is unlikely to be fair to UKIP though, so such a balanced assessment is perhaps not to be expected.
*

JO'S NOT FOR 'SWAMPING'

*
George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, made some remarks about immigration this week (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8442662.stm). They were discussed on today's The Daily Politics by presenter Jo Coburn, Fraser Nelson of The Spectator and Kevin Maguire of The Daily Mirror. Fraser Nelson thought Carey's remarks were brilliant, while Kevin Maguire was much less keen. Least keen of all was Jo Coburn, and she couldn't hide her disapproval.
*
"I suppose one of the other points was this idea Lord Carey said, immigrants should have an understanding of the country's Christian heritage", she began. I'm sure many viewers thought "And quite right too!" - indeed, surely everyone who lives in the United Kingdom should know about its history (regardless of their own religious beliefs, or lack of them), just as anyone who emigrates to Morocco or Pakistan should have an understanding of their Muslim heritage. An uncontroversial idea then? Well, not according to Jo Coburn: "I mean that was quite a controversial thing to say" - and the way she said 'quite' suggests she really thought it was a 'very' controversial thing to say, and not in a good way.
*
When Fraser said that, in order to beat back the BNP, "we need more people to be saying that in mainstream politics", Jo (whose expression strongly suggested disagreement) interrupted, and asked Kevin Maguire "Is it? I mean, is it helpful to say something like that?".
*
Maguire brought up all the politicians - from Mrs Thatcher to David Blunkett - who'd used the BBC's bogey-word 'swamped'. Fraser Nelson seized on this to further his argument: "That's the only reason the BNP have got almost a million votes in this country, because people won't say words like 'swamped' now in the way that Thatcher did in the 1970s" (when she successfully beat back the National Front.) Jo Coburn did not look pleased at all, swinging the conversation back to Maguire with "But that is inflammatory language, isn't it? It's not the sort of thing you expect to hear from politicians, and should it be?" Maguire agreed.
*

JO COBURN DOES A NAUGHTIE

*
Jim Naughtie's crimes against impartiality are nothing new really. The BBC political correspondent Jo Coburn is, of course, also a co-presenter on The Daily Politics & she's been proving again that, when the cat's away (i.e. Andrew Neil) and she's in charge, she likes to play at pouncing on Conservatives. Her crimes against impartiality (as an interviewer) are becoming ever clearer as she becomes more prominent on the show.
*
Yesterday saw Stephen Timm for Labour, Grant Shapps for the Conservatives and Danny Alexander for the Lib Dems gathering to discuss the election campaign. Here are the interruption coefficients scored for each by Jo Coburn:
*
Stephen Timms - 0.9
Grant Shapps - 2.5
Danny Alexander - 1.5
*
This is not new as far as Jo is concerned. There was this classic instance from October:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/justine-faces-two-pronged-attack.html
There the Conservative Justine Greening scored 2.8 against 0.9 for Labour's Geoffrey Robinson.
*
Back to yesterday & a comparison between Jo's interruptions against Mr Timms and Mr Shapps (ignoring the Lib Dem!):
*
Here's how long it took for the interruptions to come during each answer given:
*
The interruptions against Timms:
I1: after 7 seconds
I2: after 23 seconds
I3: after 5 seconds
*
The interruptions against Shapps:
I1: after 2 seconds
I2: after 17 seconds
I3: after 3 seconds
I4: after 8 seconds
I5: after 2 seconds
I6: after 8 seconds
*
Jo's manner was noticably more assertive (with a particularly mocking grin at one stage) against Grant Shapps and she was far more excitable when interviewing him. (It's probably left-wing blood lust). She also asked Mr Shapps a higher proportion of specific questions (about Tory plans to cut the deficit) as opposed to general questions, of which Mr Timms got three (two of them about how a long election campaign could tire the public). We could be seeing much more of this now that Anita Anand has gone on maternity leave.
*
*
*

CODA

*
For trivia collectors, the same edition of the programme saw BBC political correspondent Ben 'Son of Tony' Wright discussing the election campaign and using the word 'Tories' three times and the word 'Conservatives' not even once.
*
Also there was a report on the 'leader debates' by young Adam Fleming, which featured as its only talking heads Ric Bailey, chief political advisor of the BBC (and executive editor of Question Time, so should that really be Ric Bailey - for fans of my colour-coordination?), and David (formerly Dave) Hill, former Labour spin doctor (who reminds me a little of the uptight spin doctor Steve Fleming (played wonderfully by David Haig) in The Thick Of It.) Again, no non-Labour politicos were featured in this report.
*

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 - JO COBURN

*
On 9th October tasty Jo Coburn (Andrew Neil’s usual Thursday sidekick on The Daily Politics) conducted one of the month’s most flagrantly biased interviews when she discussed cuts, inheritance tax and jobs with Conservative Justine Greening and Labour’s Geoffrey Robinson. For all the gory details, please click this link:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/justine-faces-two-pronged-attack.html

Here are Jo’s interruption coefficients for the month as a whole:

09/10 Justine Greening Conservative 2.8
09/10 Geoffrey Robinson Labour 0.9
23/10 James Gray Conservative 0.8
23/10 Phil Woolas Labour 0.8
15/10 Gerry Keating Lib Dem 0.5
29/10 Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.3
15/10 Katy Clark Labour 0


Her averages for each political party for October work out as follows:

Conservative - 1.8
Labour - 0.6
Lib Dem - 0.4

Throughout the five month period I’ve been covering Jo has conducted very few other interviews. Add those in and these (for a total of 10 interviews) are her overall averages for the whole period:

Conservative (4) - 1.13
Labour (4) - 0.48
Lib Dem (2) -0.4

Jo Coburn has, until this month, tended to sit next to Andrew Neil throughout the programme, listening and laughing at his jokes, while wandering down from time to time to present a piece in front of some of the programme’s silly graphics. Given that, the sample is not yet really large enough to form a sufficiently powerful case against her, despite a very strong suggest of anti-Tory bias. If she goes on achieving these sort of sharply contrasting scores though I will be pronouncing a ‘guilty’ verdict on her before very long.

A CLEAR CASE OF BIAS

Today's edition of The Daily Politics was clearly and demonstrably biased.

*

Discussing the economy, presenter Jo Coburn scored a huge I.C. of 2.8 against Conservative Justine Greening (pictured above) as opposed to 0.9 against Labour's Geoffrey Robinson.

*

Jo interrupted Justine 7 times in under 3 minutes, whereas Robinson was only interrupted 3 times in over 3 and a half minutes.

*

Jo also called Robinson 'Geoffrey', but wasn't on similar first-name terms with Justine.

*

Robinson was smiling away as Jo Coburn interrupted Justine Greening with hostile question after hostile question, or laughing when she butted in with "For whom?" after Justine had said "We think it's a responsible thing to do...", or saying 'yes' after she interrupted yet again. This single question will give you a flavour of the interview: "So why are you hitting public sector workers? What gives you the right to hit public sector workers with a pay freeze?" The questions directed at Robinson, by comparison, were vague and tame.

*

*

********************

*

So far so biased. But it gets worse, much worse...

*

The programme had conducted some polling into public attitudes to the economy and how to deal with the deficit. This polling showed Conservatives leads in most areas.

*

One question concerned the Conservative policy of Inheritance Tax: "Inheritance Tax should only apply to properties worth over £1 million. Agree or disagree?" Alarmingly for Labour, 71% agreed and only 26% disagreed. Geoffrey Robinson misunderstood the result and thought is showed most people were against the Tory plan. Not so. Did Jo Coburn correct him? No.

*

The worst is yet to come though.

*

Here are two of the other results:

*

On which party people trust more to be fair about taxes, it was:

Conservatives 36%

Labour 30%

*

On which party people trust more to protect jobs, it was:

Labour 36%

Conservatives 31%

*

When Justine Greening brought up the Conservative lead (6%) on fairness and taxation, Jo Coburn interrupted her with the words "only by a very small margin though" (to which Geoffrey Robinson said "yes!"). A 6% Conservative lead, according to the Beeb's Jo Coburn is "a very small margin"!

*

When Justine Greening started to talk about protecting jobs, Jo Coburn interrupted her with the words "people trust Labour much much more when it comes to protecting jobs". How much was the Labour lead that is "much much more" than the Tories's score? 5% - smaller than the very small margin she talked about earlier!!!

*

That's either sloppiness, stupidity or naked bias. Take your pick.

*

*

A very poor performance from Jo Coburn.

JULY'S I.C.s - JO COBURN

*
Jo is a Thursday regular on 'The Daily Politics' (giving Andrew Neil a day-off from Anita Anand). She tends either to stand in front of the programme's 'hilarious' graphics or gaze adoringly at Brillo rather than conducting political interviews herself, but she has had her time in the spotlight. She conducted 3 such interviews, though only one was a substantial one. Can you guess which? (A clue: it involved Conservative education policy.)

Here are Jo Coburn's interruption coefficients for July:

Michael Gove, Conservative (9/7) - 0.9
Kitty Ussher, Labour (2/7) - 0.2
John Whittingdale, Conservative (9/7) - 0