NOT LEFT IN THE LURCH

*
Two academics were invited onto 'Today' this morning to discuss the present state of unemployment. One was Danny Dorling of Newcastle University, a Guardian writer and self-confessed Labour vote, who spent much of the time banging on about how badly the recession of the early 1980's was handled (when you-know-who was in power!). Against him was pitted Lord Layard, a Labour life-peer, based at the L.S.E.. Dorling and his Lordship pretty much agreed on everything, which was nice.

PLUS CA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST LA MEME CHOSE...

*
...and on this morning's Today, as well as an Ed Stourton interview with Liberal Democrat Lynne Featherstone, which scored an I.C. of 0, we heard three more politician-centred interviews by Jim Naughtie.

First we had Labour MP Andrew Dismore, who scored an I.C. of 0, and finally came an interview with Labour minister Ivan Lewis, which also scored an I.C. of 0.

In between, Naughtie interviewed the Conservative shadow chancellor George Osborne. What was the I.C. this time? Was it also o? Of course not. It was 1.2. Lasting 8 minutes, the Osborne interview contained 10 interruptions, and (though not counting towards the overall I.C. - as they never do) there were no less than 9 abortive interruptions (those attempts to interrupt that either stop almost before they start or just fail to stop/divert the interviewee). It was a hostile interview.

PLUS CA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST LA MEME CHOSE...

*
Sometimes the BBC can be very predictable. (Only sometimes?)

This morning on Today we heard Edward Stourton chatting to Labour's Tony Wright about whistle-blowing, scoring an I.C. of 0. Then came a 6-minute interview with Labour's Hilary Benn about the 'food revolution', during which Ed interrupted only once, scoring an I.C. of 0.2. James Naughtie then popped up to interview a third Labour spokesman, Kim Howell (about the torture story). This lasted 4 minutes and also scored an I.C. of 0. Finally, we get a non-Labour Party interviewee, Conservative Steve O'Brien, talking about access to medical records. He got 3 minutes of Ed Stourton's precious time & was interrupted twice, achieving an I.C. of 0.6. As I.C.s go, that's not high, but it's still noticably higher than the others. This, of course, suggests bias.

Sometimes the BBC can be very predictable. (Only sometimes?)

HAS ANYONE SEEN THESE PEOPLE?

*
Has anyone seen or heard anything more about UKIP, the party that came second in this year's European elections?
*
It is fast approaching a month since I last heard a UKIP-er on the BBC (and then only for a few seconds, being harried by a Beeboid!). I know they still exist because their website is regularly updated!
*
Maybe the BBC could call in Vince or John (their two favourite interviewees) a few less times and perhaps invite, say, Marta or Nigel in for a chat instead. That only sounds fair, doesn't it?

CLEARING IT ALL OVER

The ever-insightful Guido Fawkes provides an update on a story related to one about which I blogged about on Friday 17th July ('SMEARING IT ALL OVER'):

http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/07/bbc-is-presently-engaged-in-smear.html

Guido's piece, 'Kaminski cleared', is well worth reading:

http://order-order.com/2009/08/07/kaminski-cleared

Of course Guido's point is aimed particularly at Labour's Denis MacShane (as have been a fair few of my posts , but it could be directed more generally to the BBC's treatment of the same and related stories.

Retraction of ill-founded allegations is painful but good for the soul. Come on Denis, come on Beeboids! Remember Mr Kaminski is a human being too.

KEEPING IT ALL IN THE FAMILY

At last! On Friday's Newsnight Michael Crick turned his eyes (and his wry wit) away from the opposition Conservative Party and back towards the governing Labour Party. You see, he's not biased after all! Except...

...unlike all those recent reports on the Tories, which have been far from friendly - and potentially damaging to the Conservative cause - (please click on the label 'Crick' for details), this Labour-centred report was far from unfriendly in tone - except for a brief dig at Lord Mandelson's holiday arrangements!

*

As well as Crick acting out a metaphor (in true Newsnight fashion) on a roundabout (at a funfair "across the Thames from Westminster, on the south bank side developed after the war by Peter Mandelson's granddad Herbert Morrison"), it featured various talking heads, all from the Left: Steve Richards of the 'Independent' (saying nice things about David Miliband), Richard Reeves of 'Demos' (speaking favourably of Harriet Harman) and Anne Perkins of the 'Guardian' (speaking well of both Ms Harman and Peter Mandelson). Only the maverick Rod Liddle of the 'Spectator' introduced a critical note.

Entirely personality-based, the piece's gentle humour (with that single exception) lacked all the barbs you might have expected in a Crick report - or, at least, a Crick report about the Tories! The man even managed to make that one-off dig at Mandelson simultaneously a dig at George Osborne, who had absolutely nothing to do with this (Labour leadership) story: "Earlier this week (Mandelson's) spokesman said he was in Corfu without Russians, yachts - or George Osborne. Well, I suppose two out of three's not bad!" Crick strikes again!

*

So it turns out that Michael Crick is biased towards the Labour Party after all!! Well, blow me down with a feather!!!

*

***

Gavin Esler then discussed the would-be Labour leaders with yet more family members: Labour MP Gisella Stuart and Neal Pearson, leader of the left-wing Compass group. Tellingly, Esler's insider mindset led him to slip into calling Harriet Harman 'Harriet' in a question to Mr Pearson: "Harriet is not defeatist in your point...(of view)?"

Not a good night for fairness at Newsnight.

HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE THE BNP?

*
'The World Tonight' featured a report on how some folk singers are furious that their songs are being used by the British National Party. Understandably so.

Ritula Shah's introduction to the report told us that the BNP had adopted the songs in support of 'its right-wing cause'. Paul Moss's report (which, thankfully, stuck to the label 'far-right' rather than just 'right-wing') featured anti-BNP comments from three singers from the newly-formed Folk Against Fascism, as well as a spokesman for the anti-Fascist organisation Searchlight. In the interests of balance though, it featured a very short interview with a BNP spokesman, John Walker, but the party's right-to-reply lasted all of 24 seconds in a segment that lasted 6 minutes 12 seconds - and was well-challenged by Mr Moss himself. The report's whole tone was strongly biased against the BNP.

Shouldn't it be?

*

The now democratically-elected BNP poses serious ethical and practical problems for all democrats and for all supporters of free-speech - and, of course, for the BBC. How should it treat such a party?

Should it completely ignore them and, so, starve them of the oxygen of publicity? This would surely be a dangerous call in a democracy, especially against a democratically-elected political party. To do so might succeed in starving the BNP or it could, instead, only serve to increase the party's sense of 'martyrdom' (which it seems to get a kick out of) and also give it a mystique that might make it seem even more like the anti-establishment party for the floating protest-voter.

The BBC could instead deny them air-time but discuss them at length. This appears to have been the BBC's general policy in the run-up to June's elections. By not allowing viewers to hear directly from the BNP but still talking about them (negatively) on programme after programme (in interview after interview with spokesmen for the then scandal-hit major political parties) , playing-up the danger they posed and hyping the share-of-the-vote they could get in a worst-case scenario, a strong case can be made (I think) that the BBC helped boost the BNP's share of the vote in those elections (which, otherwise, might have been even smaller than it turned out to be).

So should the BBC treat the BNP as a 'normal' political party, so that voters can see exactly how weird these blood-obsessed people really are? The Big Questions (with 'Nicky' Campbell) featured a discussion on this very subject which, by giving them air-time - if only to discuss whether they should be given air-time at all! -, allowed viewers to hear what these people actually believe. It was revelatory. Someone on the panel who started out saying that the BNP should never be given a platform ended up agreeing that by allowing them such a platform voters were now able to hear just what strange, seriously disturbing people they are - with views to match. This gave the license-fee paying public a very rare and very valuable glimpse behind the respectable image the BNP seeks to present. If people hear it straight from the horse's mouth, they are likely to 'see it' more than when they are forced just to take it on trust.

Similarly gorgeous Shirin Wheeler's interview with Nick Griffin (for the Record: Europe) allowed viewers to hear the BNP leader say that he wants boats carrying African illegal immigrants sunk and a raft chucked in for them to paddle their way back to Libya. (What a shit!) Surely this proves that it's better for voters to see and hear directly what Griffin and Co. say, so that they can damn themselves out of their own mouths.

The BBC should, I think, take the Voltaire line on free-speech, except when it goes beyond the law (and we should be ultra-cautious about restrictive laws in this area). Offensiveness should not be censored, except when physically-dangerous consequences are likely flow from it. Let's hear from all the neo-Nazis, the Islamic extremists, the anarchists and the spokemen for every other kind of unpopular 'righteous' cause. Let's hear them and let's judge them for ourselves.

*

This balance is always a tricky one, of course. I envy no-one who has to work it out!

JANUS NAUGHTIE

James Naughtie was in Janus-like mood on 'Today', looking kindly on Labour's Quentin Davies but looking unkindly on the Conservative's Grant Shapps.

Compare these figures:

Davies
Length of interview - 6 mins 35 secs
I.C. - 0
Length of answers:
A1: 19 secs
A2: 2 mins 4 secs
A3: 1 min 10 secs
A4: 1 min 33 secs

Shapps
Length of interview - 2 mins 53 secs
I.C. - 1.2
Length of answers:
A1: 24 secs
A2: 28 secs
A3: 56 secs (with interruptions)
A4: 15 secs

The Davies interview was, as you can see, a long one yet it only contained 4 questions. Naughtie always let Mr Davies finish his point, even when some of the answers went on and on and on... .
In contrast the much shorter Shapps interview contained 3 interruptions.

As regards tone the contrast was no less sharp. Unlike the respectful tone and hands-off technique of the Davies interview, Naughtie talked to Mr Shapps rather like an Edwardian schoolmaster bullying an unpopular-but-bright pupil. (I draw on my long-late-but-deeply-loved gran's anecdotes about her schooldays for this image!) He enunciated emphatically, not a little contemptuously and v e r y s l o w l y "Can't..have.. it..both ways!" at the end of one of his long-winded questions. He then butted in, within ten seconds, to Shapp's reply and butted in again three seconds later with a dismissive "Pah!" noise: "Exactly! So don't... you can't complain about a postcode lottery."

What Jim was going to say (obviously) was, "Pah, exactly! So don't complain about a postcode lottery!" but stopped himself just in time. If he hadn't even a typically submissive Tory might just have bridled at his interviewer's aggressive and patronising manner.

The I.C.s are beginning to nail James Naughtie's left-wing bias. I feel an official complaint drawing ever nearer.

SLURSTY WARK AND THE LOCKERBIE BOMBER

Newsnight featured a discussion about the fate of convicted Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi. It was staged between the SNP's Christine Graham, who believes him to be innocent and wants him returned to Libya, and Frank Duggan, spokesman for the Lockerbie Victims, who emphatically does not.

Doing the interviewing was Kirsty Wark. She began by asking the MSP a series of questions, the first of which was wide-open and the second and third of which were essentially requests for factual information. So not a hard time.

Q1 (to Christine Graham): "You visited Al Megrahi regularly and most recently within the last two months. What makes you so sure he should be going home now?"

Q2 (to Christine Graham): "So ish his health deteriorated (sic) substantially since the last time you saw him?"

Q3 (to Christine Graham): "So just to be quite clear about this. He would bepared" (she meant 'be prepared') "to give up the appeal so therefore die a guilty man?"

When the time came to question Mr Duggan, however, the character of the interviewing changed. Both questions were closed ones, and the first was a heavilly-loaded one.

Q4 (to Frank Duggan): "So Frank Duggan, do you have any compassion for this convicted killer who is dying of cancer?"

Q5 (to Frank Duggan): "So tell me then, the fact that the UN observer at the time at the trial Hans Kochler believes that he should be allowed to go home, that has no sway with you?"

When Kirsty Wark turned back to Christine Graham she called her 'Christine' - a telling lapse into first-name terms from a presenter far too close to political power in Scotland.

Only her final question gave Mr Duggan the luxury of an open question...

Q6 (to Frank Duggan): "If Al Magrahi goes home what do you think will be the impact on the families?"

...but as "we're running out of time here", he was forcefully stopped in his tracks from giving an open answer! (So why ask the damn question in the first place then Kirsty?)

Kirsteen Ann Wark is a rubbish interviewer and I think I can guess where her sympathies lie on this issue - and I doubt I'm the only one.

KIM'S NO RONGER SO RONERY

The visit of Bill Clinton to the hellhole-that-is-North-Korea has been widely reported across the BBC today. It secured the release of two female American journalists sentenced to 12 years hard labour for 'illegal filming' (as I say, a hellhole). For that we can all be thankful. Except that it's not that simple...

*

On 'PM' today Eddie Mair went so far as to editorialise, calling the trip a "diplomatic success". (Is that for him to say?)

*

What does this 'diplomatic success' amount to? Kim Jong-Il kidnaps a couple of female American journalists to use as a bargaining chip with the US. The Obama administration finds out what Kim wants in return for their release. Kim demands a very high-profile visit from a famous American. The administration decides to give him just what he wants. Clinton visits Kim. Kim gets his photo-op. The journalists are freed. Kim's starving, imprisoned people remain not one jot less tyrannised. His neighbours remain not one joy less threatened. Is this what passes for a "diplomatic success" at the BBC these days?

*

What has been so conspicuous about today's coverage is the absence (so far) of any voices critical of the Clinton trip. Not one second of precious BBC air-time has been granted to a sceptical voice. The BBC website has been similarly free of dissent. Why?

*

Whether or not the Clinton trip is, on balance, a good thing or a bad thing, a success or a failure, it is not for the BBC to say. Moreover, those very questions should be the meat and drink of the BBC's coverage, with supporters and critics clashing across the airwaves.

*

On 'Today' we had supporters only: John Everard, Labour's former ambassador to Pyonyang, and sociologist and Korean expert Aidan Foster-Carter of Leeds University (who writes for the 'Guardian'/'Observer') and on 'PM' there was another supporter, Miguel Marquez of ABC, former aide to Democratic senator Bill Richardson (who went to North Korea when Clinton was president).

*

Foster-Carter said "I know that already the predictable people are opposing all this and so on". He may know this, but Radio 4 listeners were not so fortunate. They ought to have been able to hear from the 'predictable people' too. F-C also said "Everyone should welcome the contact. The contact does no harm, although some would say that it's a concession and so on", but again no listener was able to hear a word from those 'some' who 'would say that it's a concession', and so on...

*

...and so on...

*

As well as praising Bill Clinton as that "sharp-eyed man", Jim Naughtie posed this leading question to his colleague: "This morning I spoke to our correspondent in Washington, Jonathan Beale, and asked him whether the Obama administration would view the visit as a success." Beale replied, " It's got the desired result. It's got the release of these two journalists."

&

And, thus, we end up back where we started.

*

NEWSNIGHT SAVES THE DAY, DESPITE KIRSTY

*

Finally Newsnight broke the silence & saved the BBC from total shame over this story!

*

Gordon Carrera's report gently raised some of the reservations expressed above and, at last, a 'predictable' voice was allowed to debate - and powerfully so. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and former Clinton advisor Jack Caravelli discussed the day's events with slurry Kirsty Wark. Mr Gaffney outlined the critics' case with considerable force and Mr Caravelli was a thoughtful and intelligent counterweight. The discussion was only marred by Kirsty Wark and her half-baked, Boosh-bashing questions.

'SUPER STATISTICS' - THE KEY TO PROVING THAT THE BBC IS BIASED?

*
It just dawned on me today that I could add up all the interruption coefficients accrued by each political party and work out an average I.C. - a 'super-average' - for that party across the BBC's output throughout July.

Now, a strong health warning is necessary here:

With all statistics, the larger the sample the better the result. If you ask one person in the street his opinion on something & then generalise from that you are, obviously, making a biiiiiiggg mistake (as Robert Peston might say). Similarly, if the average is based on just one interview (as in the BNP and Plaid Cymru examples featured below) or two (as in the case of UKIP) or even four (as with the Greens) or six (as with the SNP), the result is not to be taken toooo seriously - though with each increase the result becomes stronger. With a large sample (as for the Liberal Democrats), a larger sample (as for the Conservatives) or with a very large sample (as for the Labour Party), the results become much more convincing and revealing. I believe that the figures below are already of some importance in demonstrating the BBC's bias towards the Labour Party and (even more so) the Liberal Democrats and against the Conservative Party.

So, with those riders firmly borne in mind, here are the 'super-average' I.C.s for the BBC as a whole for July 2009:

Plaid Cymru - 2.3
UKIP - 1.7
BNP - 1.1
SNP - 1.0
Conservatives - 0.9
Labour - 0.5
Liberal Democrats - 0.3
Greens - 0.1

With each passing month these 'super-statistics' will become ever more telling. If such a trend is confirmed the BBC will be proved to be biased. Conversely, of course, if they are not it won't. Watch and see!

POINTS OF CONTENTION

The government's plan to expand the Australian-style points system to encompass qualification for British citizenship was discussed on this morning's 'Today' programme.

It's funny how the BBC fixes on certain aspects of a story and hammers away at them at the expense of everything else. A Home Office source, quoted in the 'News of the World', says that an example of point-losing 'bad behaviour' (in Alan Johnson's phrase) would be the behaviour of those Islamic bigots who hurled abuse at soldiers during their homecoming parades.

Quite why did Sarah Montague think the 'free speech' of such people was worth four questions out of a total of nine to immigration minister Phil Woolas? Woolas himself was forced to say, "Let's not get hung up on one issue".

Sarah's Guardianesque mindset (or should that, these days, be simply Beeboid mindset) made her final question almost inevitable: "Isn't there a danger that...you would end up only allowing white, Christian possibly, middle-class, professional people into the country, and anyone who falls outside that..." (adopting a silly voice) "...oooh, you're not quite...". Mr Woolas interrupted this drivel, and rightly so.

&

Earlier Norman Smith (BBC correspondent) discussed the issue with Ms. Montague and was as delicate as Sarah herself about the identity of these "anti-war protesters", calling the potential 'free speech' victims "those who took part in anti-war protest or that sort of thing". Do you mean Muslim extremists by any chance Norman?

*

The BBC has a habit of avoiding the 'M' word whenever negative images of the 'M' community or potential members of that community are involved in a story.

LEYNE AND MORE TORY AYATOLLAHS

What's the connection between these three revolutionary tyrants?

They're all conservatives.

Now here'a fun game for all the family. See how many times Jon Leyne, the BBC's expelled Tehran correspondent, uses the word 'conservative' in a single appearance. This morning, on 'Today', he only used it 3 times. 6 is the record, from what I've heard. Others, like Ali Ansari on the same programme, call the 'badies' in Iran 'hardliners'. Leyne nearly always calls them 'conservatives'. I would call them 'radicals'!
I call that another case of 'bias by labeling'!

Of course, I know what he means - and so do you. Still...words have connotations...

BTW, the conservatives in Iran are now more split than they've been since the row over the Maastricht Treaty, when Grand Ayatollah Major faced a challenge from the MP for the Holy City of Qom, Hojatoleslam Cash.

EVAN IS STINGY WITH THE LABELS

*
Evan Davis gave us a nice little example of Bias by Labeling this morning.

This is where a politically identifying label is given to a group of which the interviewer/reporter is not sympathetic in contrast to no politically identifying label being attached to a group of which he is sympathetic - thus giving the former a partisan (negative) tag, while the latter has an independent/politically neutral (positive) tag attached to it.

Here's what Evan said: "Let's discuss what Harriet Harman said yesterday with Yvonne Roberts, who's a senior associate at the Young Foundation, which is a social innovation think tank, and Jill Kirby, who's the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, which is a right-of-centre think tank."

Evan should surely have said "...at the Young Foundation, which is a left-of-centre think tank..." (The Young Foundation, indeed, is just that, & is headed by a former Blair director of policy and Brown chief policy advisor, Geoff Mulgan.)

By his 'bias by labeling' Evan Davis could be misleading his listeners into thinking that the CPS is close to the Conservative Party while the YF is independent of party politics.

CAROLYN TO THE RESCUE!

'Tory cuts v. Labour investment' has been the deeply dishonest Brownite slogan of recent months (despite opposition to its crassness even within the ranks of the Labour government). The attack has been coming off the rails ever since it was launched.

Labour diehard's can always rely on the BBC's Carolyn Quinn though. She launched a last-ditch cavalry charge against David Cameron on last night's 'Westminster Hour'.

Though the 15 minute interview scored a modest I.C. of 0.8 (with just 12 interruptions, including a blatant heckle: 'Tinkering!'), there were 22 questions asked and of these 19 were about 'Tory cuts' (even the last one, which began by mentioning the coming holidays then twisted back onto the same theme).

Shouldn't Carolyn Quinn have taken the opportunity to tackle Cameron on a wide range of topical issues? After all, he's the leader of the opposition and a potential prime minister. A whole world of foreign and domestic issues could have been discussed. What would he do about Afghanistan and Iraq? How radical are his plans to reform the banking sector and safeguard us against another economic crash? What is his position on assisted suicide or the Gary MacKinnon case? Can he spell out what his party's policies are on education, health, crime, immigration, transport, the environment, etc? Why is he so shy about policy? What is actually 'conservative' about his Conservative Party? But, no...it was "Are you going to cut this? Are you going to cut that?" for almost the whole length of the interview. Bad, biased interviewing.

Hopefully, Carolyn Quinn will be talking to Gordon Brown in the next few weeks. Will she spend over 80% of the interview tackling him on 'Labour cuts'? Will she be just as fixated on one issue (any issue) as she was here? If not, she will be confirmed as one of the BBC's most biased interviewers.

*

Oh, and after the pre-recorded interview ended she had a little dig at Cameron (safe from comeback): "The whole thing was conducted without swear words from him and from me." I'm tempted, but I'll restrain myself from the obvious response to this!

I am watching.

****

***APPENDIX***

*

As a sign that I.C.s are far from infallible, in the following panel discussion Labour's Janet Anderson scored, like Cameron, a 0.8 for Carolyn Quinn, despite the good humoured nature of the challenges. Should I not reject such interruptions as being not challenging enough to count? I don't think I can, because then I would have opened the can of worms labelled "Subjectivity" & the whole project would be compromised. I'll just have to be stoical about this flaw in the system.

MS. HATE-MEN

After praising aspects of Stephanie Flander's interview with St. Vincent Cable, I must report that the babe's ( I would) interview with Harriet Harman (I so wouldn't) was not in the same league.

This was a chat between two voices from the left, disagreeing amicably over the 'human rights' of UFO hacker Gary MacKinnon, assisted suicide (both for - as, BTW, am I) and the equality commission (which I would immediately scrap, in these tough economic times!).

Away from BBC bias though, I want to quote Harriet Harman: "I don't accept (for) one moment all those people who say, you know, starting with the Tories, who I think are insufferably arrogant about this, say 'Oh, Labour's already lost the next election. We've already won it. We already have the keys of Downing Street'. I think that's arrogant. I think it's taking the voters for granted."

Good synthetic anger there Harriet! Except that 'the Tories' have said no such thing, indeed have gone out of their way not to say any such thing. Labour are such liars, such smearers. Harriet Harman should be ashamed of herself. She won't be though.

Steph did not point this out though. Still she is hot.

STEPH AND THE SAGE

This morning's 'Andrew Marr Show' featured posh single-mum Stephanie Flanders - the Beeb's economics editor - as guest host. This was at least an aesthetic improvement on Marr!

Dr Vince Cable, a man you might be forgiven for thinking also works at the BBC as their economics correspondent (given the frequency of his appearances on the Beeb and the easy ride he tends to be given) was one of Steph's guests.

She introduced him thus: "Well, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, has earned himself a reputation for being something of a sage in this economic crisis."

*

This use of the word 'earned' tells us that Steph thinks the reputation (held by unspecified people) is deserved. She is not alone at the BBC, where Dr Cable's reputation has always been especially high.

That said, Ned's lovely daughter went on to give Confucius a tougher time than is usual at the BBC, at least according to the interruption coefficients. She interrupted the great sage 7 times in a 7-minutes-20-seconds-long interview (I.C. of 1.0).

*

Her questions (in tone and content) weren't that tough though, but they hit a few targets missed by most of her colleagues and her final question was spot-on: "There was a press release I got from your office last week actually that said we need to have an honest debate about how we can cut the budget deficit without squeezing key public services, but a lot of people" (including Beeb Bias Craig) "would say that was a dishonest statement in itself, that you can't cut the deficit, that you can't balance the books, without cutting key public services. Do you think, maybe, that youv'e had a bit of an easy ride on this, that you haven't had to be honest about this?"

*

Lovely Stephanie's colleagues at the BBC are among the ones who've given Dr Cable 'an easy ride'. Respect to the lady for acknowledging the fact!!!

JULY'S I.C.s - AIRTIME PERCENTAGES

*
The dominance of the BBC's airwaves by the Labour Party, which this blog highlighted in June, continued in July (and even slightly increased).

While accepting that the governing party is likely to be questioned more than opposition parties - and rightly so! - the sheer scale of Labour's dominance is unhealthy for democracy.

Also unhealthy is the relagation of UKIP, the second party in the European elections (16.5%), to 7th place on this list - behind the Greens, the SNP and even the BNP. Only Plaid Cymru came off worse. This is an outrage!!

Here then are the damning percentages:

Labour - 60.92%
Conservatives - 24.08%
Lib Dems - 10.82%
SNP - 2.08%
Greens - 0.82%
BNP - 0.76%
UKIP - 0.32%
Plaid Cymru - 0.22%

JULY'S I.C.s - NUMBER OF PARTY APPEARANCES

&
Of the 254 interviews covered, here's the breakdown of each political party's number of July appearances:
*
BNP - 1
Plaid Cymru - 1
UKIP - 2
Greens - 4
SNP - 6
Lib Dems - 36
Conservatives - 64
Labour - 140

JULY I.C.s - SUMMARY OF EACH INTERVIEWER'S HIGHEST SCORE

If you list all the highest interruption coefficients achieved by every interviewer who has interviewed representatives of more than one political party a very interesting pattern emerges:

Gavin Esler - Grant Shapps, Conservative
Carolyn Quinn - Bill Rammell, Labour & John Fitter, Conservative (joint)
Evan Davis - David Davis, Conservative & Ian Duncan Smith, Conservative (joint)
Sarah Montague - Liam Fox, Conservative
Eddie Mair - Lord Mandelson, Labour
Martha Kearney - Nick Gibb, Conservative
Jim Naughtie - Alan Duncan, Conservative
Edward Stourton - Denis MacShane, Labour
Shaun Ley - Teresa May, Conservative
John Humphrys - David Cameron, Conservative
Jeremy Paxman - Bill Rammell, Labour
Glenn Campbell - Angus Robertson, SNP
Emily Maitlis - Angela Eagle, Labour
Nick Robinson - Mike O'Brien, Labour
Robin Lustig - Liam Fox, Conservative & Philip Hunt, Labour (joint)
Jo Coburn - Michael Gove, Conservative
Andrew Marr - George Osborne, Conservative
Mark D'Arcy - Ed Vaizey, Conservative
Andrew Neil - Philip Hammond, Conservative
Adrian Masters - Andrew R.T. Davies, Conservative
Anita Anand, Glenn Tingle, UKIP

So, that's:
Conservatives - 15
Labour - 7
UKIP - 1
SNP - 1

Now, who's the government and who's the opposition?

JULY'S I.C.s - GAVIN ESLER

My fingers shall rest shortly, as here is my last subject for investigation - Gavin Esler.

*

That this genial left-winger is not a biased interviewer has rarely struck my mind.

His behaviour on 'Dateline: London' would convince even the most sceptical person of his undisguised ultra-liberal sentiments.

*

Let the interruption coefficients speak:

*

Grant Shapps, Conservative (24/7) - 2.4

Malcolm Rifkind, Conservative (16/7) - 1.6

Keith Vaz, Labour (23/7) - 0.8

Brian Paddick, Lib Dem (9/7) - 0.8

Jim Knight, Labour (15/7) -0.8

Tony Wright, Labour (23/7) - 0.7

John Prescott, Labour (9/7) - 0.4

Ben Bradshaw, Labour (24/7) - 0

Charles Clarke, Labour (24/7) - 0

*

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Conservatives - 2.0

Lib Dems - 0.8

Labour 0.5

*

In June, though, his averages for both Labour and the Conservatives were 1.7, though that figure is based on a grand total of 3 interviews!

*

This just goes to show that the I.C.s are only a part of the story. Content and tone are just as important. They, however, are very hard to quantify.

JULY'S I.C.s - CAROLYN QUINN

Busy Carolyn Quinn visits an ardent Radio 4 listener's ears with considerable regularity. As a result, this listener feels he knows her and knows her to be biased. Do the I.C.s confirm this feeling or is this listener going to have to eat his hat?

*

Here are the July interruption coefficients for Carolyn Quinn:

*

Bill Rammell, Labour (7/7) - 1.6

John Fitter, Conservative (10/7) - 1.6

Nick Clegg, Lib Dem (19/7) - 1.1

Maria Eagle, Labour (6/7) -1.0

Mark Field, Conservative (5/7) - 1.0

George Osborne, Conservative (8/7) - 0.9

John McDonnell, Labour (20/7) - 0.9

Mark Field, Conservative (19/7) - 0.8

Caroline Lucas, Green (5/7) -0.5

Liam Fox, Conservative (7/7) - 0.4

Damien Green, Conservative (31/7) - 0.4

Tom Harris, Labour (5/7) - 0.3

Douglas Alexander, Labour (6/7) - 0.3

Keith Simpson, Conservative (26/7) - 0.3

Lord Bach, Labour (28/7) - 0.2

Bob Ainsworth, Labour (10/7) - 0.2

Louise Ellman, Labour (2/7) - 0

Joanne McCartney, Labour (9/7) - 0

Tom Watson, Labour (5/7) - 0

Charles Kennedy, Lib Dem (25/7) - 0

Andrew Mitchell, Conservative (6/7) - 0

Andrew McKinley, Labour (31/7) - 0

Lord Phillips, Lib Dem (18/7) - 0

Tom Harris, Labour (19/7) - 0

Denis MacShane, Labour (26/7) - 0

*

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Conservatives - 0.7

Labour - 0.4

Lib Dems - 0.4

*

I have to confess that I though it would be more, but my hat isn't yet going to be eaten, as there is still statistically significant evidence of bias here, or at least a suggestion of it.

*

That said my hat's survival is not helped by Carolyn's June averages - 0.9 for the Conservatives,

0.8 for Labour and 0.6 for the Lib Dems.

*

My hat awaits the coming months with confidence.

JULY'S I.C.s - EVAN DAVIS

That chap who repeats everything Peter Jones and Theo Paphitis say on 'Dragon's Den' has become a regular on the 'Today' programme. Chirpy, sing-songy Evan Davis has a lot of charm, but is he biased?

Evan's interruption coefficients for July as as follows:

David Davis, Conservative (1/7) - 0.6

Ian Duncan Smith, Conservative (13/7) - 0.6

Vince Cable, Lib Dem (8/7) - 0.4

Stephen Timms, Labour (31/7) - 0.2

Ian Duncan Smith, Conservative (30/7) - 0.2

Jenny Jones, Green (6/7) - 0

Norman Baker, Lib Dem (1/7) - 0

John McFall, Labour (31/7) - 0

Ed Miliband, Labour (9/7) - 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Conservatives - 0.5

Lib Dems - 0.2

Labour - 0.1

Green - 0

Though he conducted a number of interviews in June, Evan Davis only interviewed Labour and Lib Dem people, achieving I.C.s of 0.6 for Labour and 0 for the Lib Dems (old Vince of course).

Evan Davis needs watching to see where his trends are leading (though I don't think the Lib Dems need to be worried!)

JULY'S I.C.s - SARAH MONTAGUE

Today's Sarah Montague has always struck me as being hostile to the political right. Her July interruption coefficients offer some support for that feeling:

*

Liam Fox, Conservative (17/7) - 1.3

Lord Jopling, Conservative (22/7) - 1.2

Bob Ainsworth, Labour (30/7) - 1.1

Chris Bryant, Labour (2/7) - 0.7

Dawn Primarola, Labour (28/7) - 0.7

Ming Campbell, Lib Dem (30/7) - 0.5

Shaun Bailey, Conservative (21/7) - 0.4

Alan Milburn, Labour (21/7) - 0.4

Baroness Prosser, Labour (29/7) - 0.3

Paddy Ashdown, Lib Dem (27/7) - 0.3

Nick Clegg, Lib Dem (9/7) - 0.3

Charles Clarke, Labour (9/7) - 0.2

Donald Anderson, Labour (30/7) - 0

Douglas Alexander, Labour (27/7) - 0

*

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Conservatives - 1.0

Labour - 0.4

Lib Dems - 0.3

*

In June Sarah's average for the Conservatives was also 1.0, but so was her average for the Labour Party and her average was the Lib Dems was 0.8. This provides complicating counter-evidence. However, tilting the bias back against the right was her UKIP score - 1.6.

JULY'S I.C.s - EDDIE MAIR

The laird of Radio 4's 'PM', Eddie Mair strikes some listeners as smug, though I confess to liking the man. What do his I.C.s tell us?

*

The July interruption coefficients for Eddie Mair are:

*

Lord Mandelson, Labour (1/7) - 1.7 (hurrah!!)

Nick Clegg, Lib Dem (22/7) - 1.4 (hurrah!!)

Andy Burnham, Labour (28/7) - 1.2

John Healey, Labour (16/7) - 0.9

Stewart Hosie, SNP (21/7) -0.8

Grant Shapps, Conservative (16/7) - 0.8

Ken Clarke, Conservative (1/7) - 0.8

Edward Montgomery-Scott, Conservative (15/7) - 0.6

Bill Rammell, Labour (27/7) - 0.3

Colin Challen, Labour (1/7) - 0

Patrick Mercer, Conservative (14/7) - 0

Lord Falconer, Labour (30/7) - 0

Ann Widdecombe, Conservative (28/7) - 0

*

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Lib Dem - 1.4 (!!!!!)

SNP - 0.8

Labour - 0.7

Conservatives - 0.4

*

In June, Eddie averages were 2.3 for Labour and 1.4 for the Tories.

*

Eddie Mair is a one-off at the BBC.

JULY'S I.C.s - MARTHA KEARNEY

Martha Kearney has worked like a Trojan on the BBC during July. She conducted 30 interviews.

*

Here are her interruption coefficients:

*

Nick Gibb, Conservative (1/7) - 1.5

Sarah Teather, Lib Dem (1/7) - 1.4

Theresa Villiers, Conservative (1/7) - 1.3

Jim Knight, Labour (1/7) - 0.9

Bill Rammell, Labour (13/7) - 0.7

George Osborne, Conservative (20/7)- 0.7

Lord Adonis, Labour (1/7) - 0.7

Lord Myners, Labour (16/7) - 0.6

Lord Adonis, Labour (23/7) - 0.5

Jack Straw, Labour (2/7) - 0.2

Lord Myners, Labour (8/7) - 0.2

Kevan Jones, Labour (28/7) - 0.2

David Miliband, Labour (27/7) - 0.2

Chris Huhne, Lib Dem (21/7) - 0.2

Clive Betts, Labour (23/7) - 0

Ann Widdecombe, Conservative (2/7) - 0

Andrew Mitchell, Conservative (8/7) - 0

John McFall, Labour (13/7) - 0

Lynne Featherstone, Lib Dem (8/7) - 0

Richard Benyon, Conservative (15/7) - 0

Ed Davey, Lib Dem (15/7) - 0

David Hamilton, Labour (22/7) - 0

Simon Hughes, Lib Dem (9/7) - 0

Peter Mandelson, Labour (27/7) - 0

James Arbuthnot, Conservative (16/7) - 0

Vince Cable, Lib Dem (28/7) - 0

Douglas Alexander, Labour (15/7) - 0

Lord Adonis, Labour (8/7) - 0

Martin Salter, Labour (9/7) - 0

John Whittingdale, Conservative (9/7) - 0

*

Though you should note carefully Martha's top three,.....

*

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Conservatives - 0.4

Lib Dems - 0.3

Labour - 0.3

*

The greater the number of interviews, the more significant even the smallest difference in average I.C.

*

In June Martha Kearney's averages were 0.6 for the Conservatives, 0.5 for the SNP and 0.4 for Labour.

*

Her bias toward the left is not overwhelming, but it certainly seems to exist nonetheless.

JULY'S I.C.s - JAMES NAUGHTIE

Long-winded, Labour-supporting Jim Naughtie is a plodding fixture on the 'Today' programme. Only Edward Stourton makes the listener's heart beat slower.

Here are Jim's interruption coefficients for July:

Alan Duncan, Conservative (4/7) - 1.9
Angela Eagle, Labour (4/7) - 1.2
Andrew Dismore, Labour (28/7) - 0.9
Mark Simmons, Conservative (24/7) - 0.9
Eric Joyce, Labour (28/7) - 0.7
Tom Watson, Labour (28/7) - 0.4
Lord Goodhart, Lib Dem (31/7) - 0
Phil Willis, Lib Dem (23/7) - 0
Kevin Barron, Labour (3/7) - 0
Douglas Alexander, Labour (10/7) - 0
John McFall, Labour (27/7) - 0
Alan Beith, Lib Dems (23/7) - 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Conservatives - 1.4

Labour - 0.5

Lib Dems - 0

No surprise there, I'd say. In June Naughtie's averages were 1.0 for the Conservatives and 0 for Labour! Naughtie is biased.

JULY'S I.C.s - EDWARD STOURTON

Ed Stourton, the quiet man of the 'Today' programme, was quite busy in July, though (with the exception of his remarkable interview with the Israeli ambassador to London) you might be forgiven for not realising that!

Here are Ed's interruption coefficients for July:

Denis MacShane, Labour (18/7) - 1.5
Tony Lloyd, Labour (25/7) - 0.7
Chris Grayling, Conservative (15/7) - 0.6
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Conservative (18/7) - 0.5
Lewis Moonie, Labour (10/7) - 0.5
Joe Ashton, Labour (17/7) - 0.4
Ed Miliband, Labour (15/7) - 0.4
Peter Mandelson, Labour (20/7) - 0.3
Louise Ellman, Labour (24/7) - 0.3
Mike O'Brien, Labour (21/7) - 0.2
John Whittingdale, Conservative (21/7) - 0
Lord Lester, Lib Dems (20/7) - 0
Vince Cable, Lib Dems (20/7) - 0
Barry Sheerman, Labour (25/7) - 0
Malcolm Eady, Lib Dems (13/7) - 0
Steve Webb, Lib Dems (13/7) - 0
David Blunkett, Labour (16/7) - 0
*

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Labour - 0.4

Conservatives - 0.4

Lib Dems - 0

Ed was not so busy in June, with a 1.1 interview with Conservative Boris Johnson and a 0.2 for old Vince Cable of the Lib Dems.

So, Mr Stourton is not showing too many signs of I.C.-related bias - except in favour of the Lib Dems (a widespread BBC bias, as this survey is showing).

JULY'S I.C.s - SHAUN LEY

I've chronicled (at some length) the biased doings of Shaun Ley on 'The World At One', so what do his I.C.s tell us?

Ley has presided over 15 interviews with UK politicians.

Here are his interruption coefficients for July:

Theresa May, Conservative (24/7) - 1.2
Timothy Kirkhope, Conservative (17/7) - 1.2
Sadiq Khan, Labour (31/7) - 1.0
Shaun Bailey, Conservative (26/7) - 0.9
Ed Balls, Labour (3/7) - 0.8
Harriet Harman, Labour (24/7) - 0.6
Nigel Farage, UKIP (12/7) - 0.5
Julia Drown, Labour (26/7) - 0.5
Lord Goldsmith, Labour (5/7) - 0.2
Peter Mandelson, Labour (17/7) - 0.2
Lord Gilbert, Labour (17/7) - 0
Claire Kober, Labour (3/7) - 0
Michael Mates, Conservative (30/7) - 0
Graham Watson, Lib Dem (12/7) - 0
Richard Caborn, Labour (19/7) - 0

Average number of interruptions for each political party:

Conservatives - 0.8

UKIP - 0.5

Labour - 0.4

Lib Dems - 0

His June averages tell a similar story, with the Conservatives at 0.7, Labour at 0.4 and the Lib Dems at 0.

Shaun Ley is one biased BBC interviewer!

JULY'S I.C.s - JOHN HUMPHRYS

The other legendary interruptor (and quiz show prima-dona) is John Humphrys, who has (once again) been a quiet BBC interviewer this month. Still Humph has been in action and, of the 10 domestic interviews conducted in July, there will be no prizes for guessing who came out on top!

Here are July's interruption coefficients for John Humphrys:

David Cameron, Conservative (6/7) - 1.7
David Miliband, Labour (11/7) - 1.4
Andrew Lansley, Conservative (14/7) - 1.3
John Healey, Labour (7/7) - 1.2
Bob Ainsworth, Labour (8/7) - 0.9
Frank Field, Labour (7/7) - 0.9
David Davis, Conservative (8/7) - 0.6
Andy Burnham, Labour (14/7) - 0.4
John McFall, Labour (16/7) - 0.3
Tam Dalyell, Labour (3/7) - 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Conservatives - 1.2

Labour - 0.7

The comparison with June is revealing. Instead of David Cameron, then it was George Osborne who came out worst (with 2.8). Here though Humph's averages were 1.4 for the Tories and 1.2 for Labour.

John Humphrys enjoys attacking 'Tory toffs', that's for sure! Other than that, I would say that the I.C.s are showing a small statistical trend of bias against the Conservatives on the grump's part.

JULY'S I.C.s - JEREMY PAXMAN

Another one keeping a low profile on Newsnight in July, Jeremy Paxman can lay claim to just four interviews this month.

Here are Paxo's interruption...oh, come on!...coefficients for July:

Bill Rammell, Labour (13/7) - 2.9
Lord Myners, Labour (1/7) - 1.4
Adam Holloway, Conservative (13/7) - 0.6
Vince Cable, Lib Dem (1/7) - 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Labour - 2.2

Conservative - 0.6

Lib Dems - 0

"Are you seriously expecting us to believe that?"

How do these stats compare to June's? There his averages were 2.7 for the Conservatives (over 3 interviews) as compared to 2.0 for Labour (over 4 interviews).

So, no pattern of bias for Jeremy Paxman has yet emerged.

JULY'S I.C.s - GLENN CAMPBELL

Not to be confused with someone else, Glenn Campbell is the 'Jon Sopel' of BBC Scotland's 'Politics Show' (broadcast across the UK on the BBC Parliament channel, Sundays at 3.00pm). There was only one edition of the programme this month, so there's not much to go on. Still the 4 interviews are not untypical, being dominated by the left and seeming to be biased towards Labour and against the SNP!

*

Here are July's mcinterruption coefficients for Glenn Campbell:

*

Angus Robertson, SNP (12/7) -1.6

Alistair Darling, Labour (12/7) - 1

Douglas Alexander, Labour (12/7) - 0.2

Adam Ingram, Labour (12/7) - 0

*

Average number of interruptions per political party

SNP - 1.6

Labour - 0.4

*

Glenn's performance in June was what I expect from him too, with all three top places going to Conservatives (average IC, based on 3 interviews, of 2.1), and a 0.8 score against three leading Scots Nats. The Labour figure for June (with 4 interviews) was only 0.4.

*

Charming man though Glenn Campbell is, none 0f this surprises me. I think he's a particularly biased interviewer, and especially against the Tories. (UKIP never gets a look in). When the show returns, we shall find out more.

JULY'S I.C.s - EMILY MAITLIS

*
Emily 'Legs' Maitlis has hardly been more active (on Newsnight at least) than many of the programme's other star presenters, and has talked to no-one from the political right all month.

*

Here are her interruption coefficients for July:

&

Angela Eagle, Labour (8/7) - 1.3

Alistair Darling, Labour (8/7) - 0.8

Keith Vaz, Labour - 0.7

Jenny Jones, Green - 0

Brian Paddick, Lib Dem - 0

*

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Labour - 0.9

Greens - 0

Lib Dems - 0

*

How does this compare to June? Again, Emily was not overly used on Newsnight. There she scored highest against Nigel Farage of UKIP (1.5), with Labour on 1.2, the Lib Dems on 1.1 and the Conservatives on 0.8. No trends in bias yet then - except maybe against UKIP!!

JULY'S I.C.s - KIRSTY WARK

Labour luvvie Kirsty Wark has been another of the Beeb's lazy-bones this month, turning up to put the politicians through the hoops on only one occasion (on a 'PLP edition' of Newsnight!)

*

Here are slurry Kirsty's interruption coefficients for July:

**

James Purnell, Labour (20/7) - 1.4

Roy Hattersley, Labour (20/7) - 0

*

My calculator can be lazy too!:

*

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Labour - 0.7

*

She wasn't much more active in June, where she did only 3 interviews and scored 0.5 against Labour and 0 against the Conservative's Jeremy Hunt.

*

Come on Kirsty, get some work done!!

JULY'S I.C.s - JON SOPEL

Jon Sopel (pictured above with friend) has been resting for most of July. He has carried out only 2 interviews (with Labour, naturally).

Nonetheless, here are his interruption coefficients:

Andrew Dismore, Labour (31/7) - 0.9
Lord Drayton, Labour (12/7) - 0.5

I don't even need a calculator for this one!!:

Average number of interruptions per political party

Labour - 0.7

How does this compare to June? There he scored highly against the Conservative's Theresa May 2.3) & his averages were 1.4 for the Tories, 0.9 for Labour and 0.4 for the Lib Dems (from interviews with Clegg, Cable and Campbell). That is the trend I expect from Sopel. When the summer hols at the BBC (and at Westminster) are over, I expect to see this trend confirmed. But that's to pre-judge the matter!!!

JULY'S I.C.s - NICK ROBINSON

*
A three-day spell at presenting 'Newsnight' gave 'Toenails' Nick his place in this survey. I have written warmly about one of his interviews (please click on the label for Nick Robinson for more).

From his 6 interviews with politicians, here are Nick Robinson's interruption coefficients for July:
*
Mike O'Brien, Labour (27/7) - 1.7
Peter Mandelson, Labour (28/7) - 1.2
Steve O'Brien, Conservatives (27/7) - 0.8
Kevan Jones, Labour (28/7) - 0.7
Lord Darzi, Labour-supporting 'Goat' (27/7) - 0.2
Ed Miliband, Labour (28/7) - 0.2
*

Average number of interruptions per political party

Labour - 0.8

Conservatives - 0.8

*

That's the way things should be!

JULY'S I.C.s - ROBIN LUSTIG

*
Robin Lustig, long-time liberal-minded presenter of the 'World Tonight', has (like Ritula Shah) not conducted a great number of domestic interviews throughout July (it's, perhaps, the nature of the programme).

Of the 5 he has presented, here are the interruption coefficients:

Liam Fox, Conservative (10/7) - 0.4
Lord Philip Hunt, Labour (15/7) - 0.4
Malcolm Rifkind, Conservative (16/7) - 0
Brian Paddick, Lib Dem (9/7) - 0
Peter Kilfoyle, Labour (17/7) - 0

Average number of interruptions per political party

Labour - 0.2

Conservatives - 0.2

Lib Dems - 0

Mr Lustig is not one of nature's egotists!
*
How does this compare to June? Well, Robin then scored 0.9 against Labour (one interview, with Harriet Harman), 0.2 for the Conservatives and 0 for the Lib Dems.
*
Again, nothing to see here!

JULY'S I.C.s - RITULA SHAH

Though a regular presenter of 'The World Tonight' Ritsy has had a quiet month, at least as regards carrying out interviews with UK politicians. Only 2 interviews then, both (naturally) with Labourites.

Here are the interruption coefficients for Ritula Shah:

*

Harriet Harman, Labour (4/7) - 0.7

Sally Keeble, Labour (7/7) - 0

*

How does this compare with June's figures, when Ritsy was busier? Then her averages were o.4 for the Tories, o.4 for the Lib Dems & 0.3 for Labour.

Most of the interviews, though, were again with Labour politicians. In June & July, she has conducted 10 interviews with Labour, 3 with the Conservatives and one with the Lib Dems.

That said, the the I.C.s provide no proofs of bias for Ritula Shah. She is free to leave without a stain on her character.

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

JULY'S I.C.s continued - DAVID EADES

Who?

David Eades is an infrequent regular on 'The World Tonight' & conducted 4 relevant interviews in July, all with Labour politicians (three of them in a single programme!)

Here are Mr Eades's I.C.s:

Andrew Dismore, Labour (1/7) - 1.2

Ken Livingstone, Labour (1/7) - 1.2

John McFall, Labour (1/7) - 0.7

Douglas Alexander, Labour (30/7) - 0

Average number of interruptions per political party

Labour - 0.8

Maybe next month Mr Eades could try interviewing someone from a party other than Labour!