SEPTEMBER'S I.C. SPREADSHEET - IN FULL

^
Here is September's Interruption Coefficients spreadsheet, brought to this blog by the miracle of copy-and-paste, though without punctuation or (much) colour!

The higher the I.C. the tougher the interview.

All those that share an I.C. are then ranked according to a side-measure called the Questions Coefficient, so the rankings are right all the way through. (See label at the bottom for more on all this statistical stuff.)


DATE, INTERVIEWER, INTERVIEWEE, PARTY, LENGTH OF INTERVIEW, I.C., TOPICS COVERED
*
3.4
22.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Phil Woolas Labour 2.38 3.4 baroness scotland

2.8
3.9.08 Jeremy Paxman Lord West Goat 2.51 2.8 afghanistan

2.6
1.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Alex Salmond SNP 3.52 2.6 megrahi

2.4
21.9.09 Andrew Neil Ed Davey Lib Dem 4.12 2.4 tax

2.3
8.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Liam Byrne Labour 4.34 2.3 spending cuts
8.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Philip Hammond Conservative 3.05 2.3 spending cuts

2.1
28.9.09 Andrew Neil Jim Murphy Labour 4.27 2.1 labour strategy
23.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Mike Gapes Labour 3.26 2.1 nuclear weapons

2
22.9.09 Andrew Neil Evan Harris Lib Dem 1.47 2 lib dem leadership
27.9.09 Jon Sopel Vernon Coaker Labour 8.16 2 waste in education spending
29.9.09 Andrew Neil Jacqui Smith Labour 8.02 2 law & order

1.9
21.9.09 Shirin Wheeler Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.54 1.9 re-election of barossa

1.8
21.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Vince Cable Lib Dem 5.14 1.8 tax/cuts

1.7
9.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Ed Miliband Labour 4.02 1.7 agw/copenhagen
28.9.09 Andrew Neil Alistair Darling Labour 11.34 1.7 bankers/low pay/debt reduction/child protection
21.9.09 Martha Kearney Simon Hughes Lib Dem 1.21 1.7 tuition fees
27.9.09 Shaun Ley Ed Balls Labour 9.05 1.7 cuts/truth/brown
23.9.09 Andrew Neil Danny Alexander Lib Dem 5.35 1.7 cuts/tax/tuition fees
27.9.09 Jon Sopel Dan Hannan Conservative 2.37 1.7 europe
3.9.08 Martha Kearney Andrew Lansley Conservative 3.43 1.7 nhs spending

1.6
2.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Chuka Ummuna Labour 2.51 1.6 eu & hedge funds
22.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Nick Clegg Lib Dem 4.34 1.6 lib dems/trident
11.9.09 Ed Stourton Ieuan Wyn Jones Plaid Cymru 2.45 1.6 plaid cymru
22.9.09 Andrew Neil Chris Huhne Lib Dem 7.03 1.6 tax/tories/baroness scotland/lib dems/immigration

1.5
27.9.09 Jon Sopel Philip Hammond Conservative 4.01 1.5 waste in education spending
10.9.09 Martha Kearney Bernard Jenkin Conservative 3.29 1.5 afghanistan
11.9.09 John Humphrys Delyth Morgan Labour 6.05 1.5 isa - quango for kids' safety

1.4
14.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Norman Lamont Conservative 1.42 1.4 spending cuts
29.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Ed Miliband Labour 9.03 1.4 labour's future/young parents/schools spending/voting reform/social care/24-hour drinking/ids
4.9.09 Kirsty Wark Alistair Darling Labour 5.09 1.4 banker's bonuses
15.9.09 Martha Kearney Alistair Darling Labour 10.31 1.4 economy

1.3
30.9.09 Andrew Neil Andrew Adonis Labour 5.53 1.3 The Sun/transport/education
21.9.09 David Henderson Linda Fabiani SNP 2.28 1.3 independence referendum
21.9.09 Andrew Neil Nick Clegg Lib Dem 8.58 1.3 lib dems
23.9.09 Anita Anand Susan Kramer Lib Dem 3.03 1.3 trident/assisted suicide/tax/lib dems
22.9.09 Martha Kearney Nick Clegg Lib Dem 11.53 1.3 baroness scotland/afghanistan/cuts/tuition fees/tax/tories
21.9.09 Martha Kearney Matthew Oakeshott Lib Dem 3.01 1.3 tax
20.9.09 Andrew Marr Nick Clegg Lib Dem 14.19 1.3 tories/cut MPs/tuition fees)/tax (rich pay more? redistribution?)/education cuts?/labour?
29.9.09 Andrew Neil Liam Byrne Labour 8.34 1.3 cuts
14.9.09 Jim Naughtie Peter Mandelson Labour 10.23 1.3 spending cuts
14.9.09 Justin Webb Ken Clarke Conservative 4.54 1.3 spending cuts

1.2
2.9.09 Martha Kearney Richard Baker Labour 2.46 1.2 megrahi
14.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Ben Bradshaw Labour 4.23 1.2 spending cuts
16.9.09 Shaun Ley Yvette Cooper Labour 5.11 1.2 unemployment/welfare
7.9.09 John Humphrys William Hague Conservative 2.53 1.2 libya

1.1
4.9.09 Sarah Montague Tony McNulty Labour 6.41 1.1 afghanistan
22.9.09 Anita Anand Lord Razzall Lib Dem 5.59 1.1 baroness scotland/lib dems
28.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Alistair Darling Labour 9.15 1.1 labour's future/economy
13.9.09 Andrew Marr Ed Miliband Labour 10.41 1.1 energy/copenhagen/brown/labour's values/recovery?
2.9.09 Evan Davis David Miliband Labour 7.44 1.1 megrahi

1
16.9.09 Jim Naughtie Lord Drayson Labour 2.01 1 science journalism
25.9.09 Anita Anand Sadiq Khan Labour 5.01 1 labour's challenge
1.9.09 Evan Davis Lord Baker Conservative 3.08 1 technical schools
21.9.09 David Henderson Pauline McNeill Labour 3.07 1 independence referendum
27.9.09 Andrew Marr Gordon Brown Labour 32.09 1 cuts/debt/megrahi/eyesight/baroness scotland/tv debates/cut mps?
28.9.09 Jim Naughtie Peter Mandelson Labour 9.02 1 economy
3.9.08 Jeremy Paxman Paul Flynn Labour 3.15 1 afghanistan
3.9.09 Ritula Shah Gerald Howarth Conservative 3.14 1 afghanistan
6.9.09 Paddy O'Connell Roger Helmer Conservative 3.01 1 nhs
29.9.09 Martha Kearney Jack Straw Labour 6.24 1 Fiona Pilkington/asbos/crime/tax credits/
7.9.09 John Humphrys Ed Balls Labour 10.22 1 libya/academies
14.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Frank Dobson Labour 3.11 1 spending cuts
28.9.09 Martha Kearney John Cruddas Labour 3.13 1 labour's future

0.9
8.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Vince Cable Lib Dem 2.29 0.9 spending cuts
10.9.09 Jeremy Paxman David Miliband Labour 5.37 0.9 afghanistan
2.9.09 Eddie Mair Kevan Jones Labour 2.28 0.9 spending on soldier's pay
23.9.09 Martha Kearney Vince Cable Lib Dem 3.29 0.9 tax/tories/
27.9.09 Glenn Campbell Jim Murphy Labour 7.55 0.9 labour's prospects/drinks laws/megrahi/polls
28.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Margaret Beckett Labour 5.58 0.9 labour's future
4.9.09 John Humphrys Andrew McKinley Labour 3.21 0.9 afghanistan
19.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Danny Alexander Lib Dem 3.23 0.9 cuts & policies, inc. tuition fees
14.9.09 Justin Webb Lord Layard Labour 2.19 0.9 what is progress?
16.9.09 Shaun Ley Theresa May Conservative 3.32 0.9 unemployment/welfare
25.9.09 Emily Maitlis David Miliband Labour 3.36 0.9 iran
2.9.09 Eddie Mair Nick Clegg Lib Dem 3.51 0.9 spending on soldier's pay
30.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Peter Mandelson Labour 11.55 0.9 parking charges/trust/deficit/cuts/defece cuts/change/brown/The Sun
21.9.09 Sarah Montague Nick Clegg Lib Dem 10.04 0.9 tax/tuition fees/right or left?
14.9.09 Jim Naughtie Daniel Kawczynski Conservative 4.34 0.9 pc yvonne fletcher's murder
12.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Kate Hoey Labour 2.28 0.9 zimbabwe
25.9.09 Emily Maitlis Dan Hannan Conservative 2.29 0.9 G20
3.9.08 Martha Kearney Mike O'Brien Labour 3.33 0.9 nhs spending
17.9.09 Gavin Esler Keith Vaz Labour 3.52 0.9 baroness scotland's lapse
7.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Dominic Grieve Conservative 2.34 0.9 laws on protecting beliefs

0.8
28.9.09 Robin Lustig Linda Gilroy Labour 1.25 0.8 labour's future
25.9.09 Anita Anand Robin Tilbrook Eng Dem 2.47 0.8 english democrats
21.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Vince Cable Lib Dem 5.03 0.8 tax
29.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Douglas Alexander Labour 4 0.8 labour's future/child care/
21.9.09 Jon Sopel Ed Balls Labour 10.49 0.8 spending cuts
2.9.09 Jim Naughtie David Cameron Conservative 6.14 0.8 megrahi
6.9.09 Andrew Marr George Osborne Conservative 13.01 0.8 fiscal stimulus/bonuses/spending/megrahi
16.9.09 Gavin Esler Jim Knight Labour 4 0.8 unemployment
30.9.09 Jim Naughtie Gordon Brown Labour 18.27 0.8 social care/single mums/bankers/sun/labour's future/TV debates

0.7
27.9.09 Shaun Ley Barry Sheerman Labour 1.46 0.7 labour's future
28.9.09 Andrew Neil Ken Livingstone Labour 4.26 0.7 labour's future
4.9.09 Kirsty Wark Nigel Farage UKIP 1.34 0.7 nigel v. john bercow
22.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Tony Blair Labour 4.09 0.7 climate change
30.9.09 Martha Kearney Neil Kinnock Labour 1.36 0.7 The Sun wot 'ates Brown
22.9.09 Sarah Montague Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.51 0.7 lib dems v tories
4.9.09 Sarah Montague Nigel Farage UKIP 5.29 0.7 ukip
6.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Elfyn Llwyd Plaid 4.49 0.7 libya/spending/devolution/afghanistan/bercow v. farage
11.9.09 Brian Hanrahan Peter Mandelson Labour 4.52 0.7 collapse of mg rover/pheonix 4
26.9.09 John Humphrys David Miliband Labour 6.13 0.7 iran
28.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Ed Miliband Labour 4.41 0.7 windfall tax/car scrappage/heathrow/dead man talking
16.9.09 Jim Naughtie George Osborne Conservative 6.03 0.7 spending cuts
17.6.09 Martha Kearney Keith Vaz Labour 3 0.7 baroness scotland's lapse
16.9.09 John Humphrys Iain Duncan Smith Conservative 7.33 0.7 welfare

0.6
22.9.09 Martha Kearney Phil Woolas Labour 3.58 0.6 baroness scotland/immigration
11.9.09 Gavin Esler Jeremy Hunt Conservative 3.15 0.6 bbc
11.9.09 Ed Stourton David Miliband Labour 5.44 0.6 afghanistan
3.9.08 Jeremy Paxman Nick Clegg Lib Dem 3.09 0.6 afghanistan
8.9.09 Ritula Shah Barry Sheerman Labour 3.32 0.6 labour party strategy
1.9.09 Jim Naughtie Daniel Kawczynski Conservative 3.15 0.6 megrahi/libya
21.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Mark Field Conservative 6.23 0.6 eu/lib dems/spending cuts
29.9.09 Andrew Neil Peter Mandelson Labour 8.29 0.6 trust/cuts
4.9.09 Shaun Ley John Spellar Labour 3.31 0.6 afghanistan
6.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Alistair Darling Labour 10.14 0.6 economy/spending
28.9.09 Martha Kearney Andy Burnham Labour 3.21 0.6 labour's future
23.9.09 Martha Kearney Paddy Ashdown Lib Dem 5.32 0.6 nuclear weapons/tax/
7.9.09 Gavin Esler Tony McNulty Labour 3.21 0.6 terrorism
27.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Dan Hannan Conservative 5.34 0.6 politics panel

0.5
23.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Charles Clarke Labour 4.29 0.5 brown
28.9.09 Martha Kearney Alistair Darling Labour 8.05 0.5 leadership/labour's future/bankers/cuts
15.9.09 Ritula Shah Philip Hammond Conservative 4.04 0.5 spending cuts
7.9.09 Gavin Esler Patrick Mercer Conservative 2.17 0.5 terrorism
7.9.09 Martha Kearney Nigel Dodds DUP 2.15 0.5
23.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Lord Gilbert Labour 2.15 0.5 nuclear weapons
4.9.09 John Humphrys Alistair Darling Labour 11.51 0.5 bankers' bonuses
27.9.09 Jon Sopel Edward McMillan-Scott Independent 2.11 0.5 europe
18.9.09 Felicity Evans Sir Malcolm Rifkind Conservative 2.06 0.5 relations with russia

0.4
10.9.09 Robin Lustig Peter Mandelson Labour 2.55 0.4 gm/magna
30.9.09 Andrew Neil Barry Sheerman Labour 2.46 0.4 education cuts
7.9.09 Jim Naughtie Lord Carlisle Lib Dem 2.27 0.4 control orders & terrorism
11.9.09 Brian Hanrahan Andrew Miller Labour 2.31 0.4 apology to alan turing
13.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Emily Thornberry Labour 5.22 0.4 politics panel
30.9.09 Anita Anand David Blunkett Labour 10.12 0.4 The Sun/education/health/brown
6.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Mark Field Conservative 4.55 0.4 libya/spending/devolution/afghanistan/bercow v. farage
10.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Philip Hammond Conservative 4.47 0.4 spending cuts
25.9.09 Jim Naughtie Mike Russell SNP 2.32 0.4 SNP wants money from BBC licence fee
3.9.09 Ritula Shah Lord West Goat 2.38 0.4 afghanistan
21.9.09 Martha Kearney Danny Alexander Lib Dem 2.36 0.4 tuition fees

0.3
16.9.09 John Humphrys Edward McMillan-Scott Independent 3.06 0.3 MEP expelled by Conservatives
22.9.09 Andrew Neil Ming Campbell Lib Dem 7.21 0.3 baroness scotland/lib dems/afghanistan
15.9.09 Martha Kearney Boris Johnson Conservative 3.01 0.3 economy
28.9.09 Anita Anand Roy Hattersley Labour 7.21 0.3 labour strategy/bankers
21.9.09 Anita Anand Charles Kennedy Lib Dem 9.51 0.3 lib dems
11.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Ken Clarke Conservative 6.13 0.3 collapse of mg rover/pheonix 4
12.9.09 Justin Webb John Denham Labour 4 0.3 anti-muslim demos
20.9.09 Paddy O'Connell Chris Huhne Lib Dem 3.16 0.3 illegal immigration
2.9.09 Jim Naughtie Ed Miliband Labour 3.44 0.3 climate change
21.9.09 Robin Lustig Mark Littlewood Lib Dem 3.28 0.3 lib dems
23.9.09 Andrew Neil Paddy Ashdown Lib Dem 10.08 0.3 trident/lib dems
29.9.09 Jim Naughtie Alan Johnson Labour 9.42 0.3 Fiona Pilkington & anti-social behaviour
30.9.09 Jim Naughtie David Blunkett Labour 4 0.3 debt/trident/the sun
20.9.09 Andrew Marr Charles Kennedy Lib Dem 6.01 0.3 paper review

0.2
30.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Ed Balls Labour 4.39 0.2 teenage single mums & workhouses/bnp
21.9.09 Shaun Ley Vince Cable Lib Dem 6.57 0.2 lib dem issues
29.9.09 Anita Anand John Denham Labour 8.28 0.2 law & order
21.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Janet Anderson Labour 4.11 0.2 lib dems/tax&cuts/
21.9.09 Martha Kearney John Prescott Labour 5.39 0.2 copenhagen/lib dems/brown
7.9.09 Martha Kearney Jacqui Smith Labour 4.32 0.2 control orders & terrorism
23.9.09 Sarah Montague Ming Campbell Lib Dem 5.21 0.2 nuclear disarmament/lib dems
29.9.09 Robin Lustig David Miliband Labour 4.49 0.2 costings/tax/afghanistan/
9.9.09 Martha Kearney Peter Mandelson Labour 5.02 0.2 economic 'recovery'
13.9.09 Jon Sopel Alan Johnson Labour 9.43 0.2 cuts/economy/brown/anti-islam demos/bnp
18.9.09 Sarah Montague Vince Cable Lib Dem 5.06 0.2 spending cuts
26.9.09 Norman Smith Peter Hain Labour 4.25 0.2 labour strategy
21.9.09 David Henderson Tavish Scott Lib Dem 6.52 0.2 scottish budget/cuts/independence referendum
13.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Ed Vaizey Conservative 4.51 0.2 politics panel
21.9.09 Jon Sopel Des Browne Labour 4.38 0.2 nuclear weapons
29.9.09 Jim Naughtie Neil Kinnock Labour 6.01 0.2 brown & labour
27.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Evan Harris Lib Dem 4.57 0.2 politics panel

0.1
21.9.09 David Henderson Alex Salmond SNP 10.43 0.1 scottish budget/independence referendum

0
23.9.09 Martha Kearney Malcolm Bruce Lib Dem 0.51 0 lib dems & labour
30.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Roger Berry Labour 0.51 0 teenage single mums & workhouses
29.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Alan Johnson Labour 0.46 0 crim
27.9.09 Shaun Ley Des Turner Labour 0.47 0 labour's future
29.9.09 Carolyn Quinn John Denham Labour 0.29 0 drinks policy
24.9.09 Eddie Mair Mary Creagh Labour 1.39 0 sexual toys
29.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Jack Straw Labour 0.34 0 electorial reform
23.9.09 Martha Kearney Steve Webb Lib Dem 1.16 0 cuts
21.9.09 Martha Kearney Ed Fordham Lib Dem 0.41 0 tuition fees
10.9.09 Martha Kearney Kelvin Hopkins Labour 1.32 0 gm/vauxhaull
6.9.09 Paddy O'Connell Frank Dobson Labour 2.28 0 nhs
1.9.09 Carole Walker Bill Rammell Labour 2.04 0 megrahi
17.6.09 John Humphrys John Whittingdale Conservative 2.02 0 bbc
23.9.09 Martha Kearney Nigel Griffiths Labour 1 0 nuclear weapons
12.9.09 Justin Webb Frank Feeley SDLP 1.56 0 real ira
21.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Paul Holmes Lib Dem 1.06 0 tuition fees
21.9.09 Martha Kearney Lord McNally Lib Dem 0.52 0 lib dems
28.9.09 Ritula Shah David Tredinnick Conservative 2.14 0 anti-social behaviour
29.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Andy Burnham Labour 1.03 0 social care
30.9.09 Robin Lustig Vernon Coaker Labour 2.15 0 schools
18.9.09 Shaun Ley Basil McCrea UUP 2.27 0 uk police training libya
21.9.09 Carolyn Quinn David Laws Lib Dem 2.19 0 cuts & policies
21.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Lord McNally Lib Dem 1.13 0 lib dem policies
6.9.09 Andrew Marr Nigel Farage UKIP 3.49 0 ukip's future/bercow
21.9.09 Shaun Ley Matthew Taylor Lib Dem 2.29 0 lib dem issues
25.9.09 Jim Naughtie Chris Grayling Conservative 2.31 0 DNA records
23.9.09 Martha Kearney Stephen Hesford Labour 2.32 0 baroness scotland
2.9.09 Jim Naughtie Kevan Jones Labour 2.46 0 mod & air accidents
18.9.09 Shaun Ley Paddy Ashdown Lib Dem 2.48 0 afghanistan
18.9.09 Eddie Mair Peter Luff Conservative 2.44 0 gas prices
1.9.09 Martha Kearney John McFall Labour 2.03 0 economy
20.9.09 Andrew Marr Shirley Williams Lib Dem 9.26 0 career/lib dems
22.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Paul Holmes Lib Dem 2.06 0 tax
22.9.09 Becky Milligan Eric Joyce Labour 6.05 0 resignation/afghanistan
28.9.09 Carolyn Quinn Mike Gapes Labour 1.31 0 labour
22.9.09 Anita Anand Chris Grayling Conservative 2.19 0 baroness scotland
30.9.09 Martha Kearney Barry Shearman Labour 2.09 0 teenage single mums & workhouses
14.9.09 Ritula Shah Barry Sheerman Labour 1.49 0 isa/children's safety
22.9.09 Sarah Montague Eric Pickles Conservative 3.18 0 lib dems v tories
23.9.09 Anita Anand Bernard Jenkin Conservative 2.28 0 trident
28.9.09 Martha Kearney Alan Simpson Labour 3.19 0 labour's future
28.9.09 Robin Lustig Hilary Benn Labour 3.04 0 labour's future
1.9.09 Eddie Mair Sir Ming Campbell Lib Dem 4.16 0 megrahi
2.9.09 Eddie Mair Annabel Goldie Conservative 2.47 0 megrahi
4.9.09 Sarah Montague Caroline Lucas Green 2.51 0 green party
5.9.09 John Humphrys Paddy Ashdown Lib Dem 2.43 0 afghanistan
6.9.09 Shaun Ley John Redwood Conservative 3.38 0 spending cuts
8.9.09 Sarah Montague Sir Malcolm Rifkind Conservative 3.28 0 arms sales
12.9.09 Justin Webb Vince Cable Lib Dem 2.55 0 economy
23.9.09 Martha Kearney John Denham Labour 3.41 0 nuclear weapons
30.9.09 Emily Maitlis Norman Lamb Lib Dem 3.44 0 BAE bribery allegations
4.9.09 Jane Hill Sir Malcolm Rifkind Conservative 3.13 0 afghanistan
10.9.09 Sarah Montague Denis MacShane Labour 2.01 0 spending cuts
18.9.09 Shaun Ley Brian Wilson Labour 3.15 0 gas prices
24.9.09 Jim Naughtie Shaun Woodward Labour 5.01 0 'bloody sunday' report/obama-brown rift?
21.9.09 Robin Lustig Ed Miliband Labour 4.04 0 copenhagen
22.9.09 Sarah Montague Paddy Ashdown Lib Dem 4.09 0 lib dems
22.9.09 Jeremy Paxman Damian Green Conservative 2.04 0 baroness scotland
4.9.09 Shaun Ley George Osborne Conservative 4.38 0 fiscal stimulus
4.9.09 John Humphrys Graham Allen Labour 2.19 0 child killers
6.9.09 Shaun Ley Shirley Williams Lib Dem 2.22 0 spending cuts
9.9.09 Sarah Montague Brian Wilson Labour 3.34 0 aviation & carbon emissions
30.9.09 Martha Kearney Martin Linton Labour 3.23 0 The Sun wot 'ates Brown
3.9.09 Ritula Shah Sir Ming Campbell Lib Dem 2.44 0 afghanistan
6.9.09 Shaun Ley Geoffrey Robinson Labour 2.37 0 spending cuts
25.9.09 Jim Naughtie Rosemary McKenna Labour 1.18 0 SNP wants money from BBC licence fee
21.9.09 Sarah Montague Shirley Williams Lib Dem 4.13 0 lib-lab links/economy
14.9.09 Eddie Mair Vince Cable Lib Dem 2.46 0 lehman bros. collapse
18.9.09 Shaun Ley John McFall Labour 2.06 0 lehman bros. collapse

LEYING OFF SHAUN

I must say a big 'well done!' to Shaun Ley. He featured heavilly in the early days of this blog but has been missing this month. Why? Because he has proved himself capable of some fine interviewing, and the evidence for bias on his part (initially so strong) has disappeared. (Long may that continue!) His interview with Ed Balls on today's The World This Weekend was a particularly fine example, as Shaun stood up to the bully and won. Again, well done and keep it up!

THE AGE OF STUPID

Today's Politics Show began by tackling the topic of the Himalayan amounts of money being wasted in education spending, as highlighted by a government-backed report from the aptly-named Richard Handover.

The report by Gillian Hargreaves discussed several of the criticisms contained in the study, some of which are aimed at the government itself, and even Ed Balls (with his many initiatives). So a balanced report, not betraying any pro-Left sympathies? Well, we can perhaps forgive Gillian for beginning the piece with a paean to Labour's 'largesse' and the 'good times', with spending having 'almost doubled under this government' and her saying that schools had 'never had it so good'. And for presenting a school and a headteacher who were grateful for this 'generosity'. Less easy to condone is the use of a single 'talking head' - and that talking head being Christine Blower of the N.U.T. (She had several bites of the cherry). Why, when the BBC presents these sort of education reports, are comments largely directed from the Left?

Jon Sopel then interviewed the Labour education minister Vernon Coaker for over 8 minutes (I.C. of 2) and the Conservative treasury spokesman Philip Hammond for 4 minutes (I.C. of 1.5) - both on this subject. Both were tough interviews, the one with Coaker being slightly tougher - though he did get more than twice as long to speak than Mr Hammond, which shifted the balance back towards him.

The next segment discussed the Conservatives and the Lisbon Treaty, in light of next week's second Irish referendum. It took the form of a short debate between my favourite Conservative MEP, Dan Hannan, and the BBC's favourite ex-Conservative MEP, Edward McMillan Scott. E.M.S. is becoming a bit of a regular on the Beeb at the moment - leading up to and following his expulsion from the Conservative Party after his slurs against Michel Kaminski and other European allies of the party (see throughout this blog!). The BBC remains over-keen on this story, and has done plenty of slurring itself. It also loves to paint the Tories as split on Europe. So the ensuing ding-dong gave them just what they wanted, in spades. Note though how Dan Hannan was interrupted four times by Jon Sopel, but E.M.S. only once. The BBC's agenda was plain for all to see, and confirmed by Sopel's question: "Just how damaging is it for the Conservative Party to have this rearing its head just as you go to your party conference a few months ahead of a general election?"

David Thompson's latest piece from the Stourbridge constituency featured the incumbent Labour MP, the very unimpressive-seeming Lynda Waltho, talking mostly to former Labour supporters in a men's barber's shop. It ended on a positive note for her, with one such voter saying if she held more such meetings, he'd vote for her again. An easily pleased man, that one! We'll see if next week, when it should be the Tory candidate's turn, he gets to talk to former Tory voters.

Max Cotton's closing piece featured John Prescott, special representative for the Council of Europe on Climate Change (what!!??!!). This showed Two Jags propagandising for his views on the subject (and showing Franny Armstrong's The Age of Stupid) in schools and enjoying himself on this 'genuine crusade' of his (as Cotton put it. Is the word 'crusade' allowed at the BBC?). All Cotton's questions to the man he calls 'John' came from an environmentalist's stance. "Are you fighting the good fight? Does that feel good?" was his first question, before Cotton questioned Heathrow expansion, and then asked three questions calling for the 'stick' of further legislation. It was a good-natured, friendly piece, featuring no other voices than his and Prescott's.

All in another Sunday's biased work at the Politics Show.

ANY PAINKILLERS NEEDED FOR THIS INTERVIEW?

Andrew Marr's 32-minute interview with Gordon Brown dominated today's edition of the programme. It was less tough than last week's interview with Nick Clegg, scoring a round Interruption Coefficient of 1.0 (one for every minute of the interview), compared to 1.3 for the Clegg interview.

Marr did not shy away for asking some difficult questions, though he hardly banged away at them in the way we have often seen him do with David Cameron in the past - and, indeed, with Cleggy last week over his party's position on education spending.

David Cameron is coming up next week. How will he fare?
*
*
For more on this story please click on these links:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/09/rewriting-history-bbc-style-gordon.html

http://order-order.com/2009/09/27/marr-asks-are-you-taking-pills/

MORE BALLS FROM JON SOPEL

*
The main interview on today's The Politics Show was a far-from-tough interview with Labour's Ed Balls. Conducted by a more-hands-off-than-usual Jon Sopel, the interview allowed Brown's most black-hearted henchman bags of opportunities to attack the Tories - something Balls is always keen to do (so keen it often makes him seem more like an over-excited 9 year old boy than a grown-up politician).
*
Sopel's other interviewee, receiving an even gentler stroking from his interviewer, was another Labour Party politician, former Defence secretary Des Browne. He was on to talk about nuclear disarmament (in the wake of more rhetoric from the heaven-sent Barack Obama).
*
The Politics Show shows other BBC current affairs programmes just how to do it, when it comes to being biased. Do it loud and do it proud!

LAST OF THE SUMMER WINE

The Andrew Marr Show came from the Liberal Democrat conference today, and - as you would expect - was dominated by Lib Dems.
*
Charles Kennedy was on the paper review (with Amanda Platell), Baroness Shirley Williams was interviewed at length about her life and the state of politics now, and the big interview was with Nick Clegg. Together, they got a few seconds under 30 minutes of interview time on the show.
*
Fair enough, of course. I only mention all this as a marker, because next week it will the Labour and Gordon Brown then, in a fortnight's time, the Conservatives and David Cameron. We will see if Labour and the Conservatives get about 30 minutes too, if and if they also get three guests.

****
The interview with Nick Clegg scored a fairly high I.C. of 1.3, with 18 interruptions (many of them a repeated question about whether the education budget would be cut by the Lib Dems, which Clegg was not willing to answer). Again, we'll see if a similar score is achieved when Mr Marr interviews Brown and Cameron.


What intrigued me about the Marr/Clegg interview was the ideological stance from which the questions came, which would be a left-of-centre one. We had questions about how close the Lib Dems are to the Tories (bad thing), whether tuition fees will be maintained after all (bad thing), whether the rich pay should pay more tax (good thing), whether there will be a redistributive element to taxation (good thing) and whether education budgets be spared the axe (good thing). Marr even lapsed into a little Labour-love with his comment that Ed Balls was being "clear and candid". Ed Balls is, surely, never clear and candid - especially both at the same time! Still, at least he challenged Nick Clegg, which is something.

CABLE T.V. THAT'S WELL WORTH WATCHING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GRUMPY OLD MEN

Thanks to Llew I now realise I can watch the regional versions of the Politics Show via the BBC i-Player. (Oh, the joy!)

The South Yorkshire and Lincolnshire edition presented a short report discussing the Greens and UKIP.

It gave 'talking head' status to 1 Green candidate (Shan Oakes) and 2 UKIP candidates (Jane Collins & Jonathan Arnott) and said that UKIP now starts from a platform of electoral success whereas the Greens disappointed themselves at the Euro elections.

This apparent anti-Green/pro-UKIP bias was countered a little by the reporter saying of UKIP, "This tiny conference in Southport showed just how small the party is". (How big was it compared to the Greens though? How tiny is 'tiny'?) Yet it was the video clip's "Play this again?" option that showed where the BBC's heart really lies, containing what almost amounted to a health-warning: "UKIP: Controversial claims that man is not the cause of global warming".

A clip was played of MEP Godfrey Bloom dismissing AGW as nonsense. This was followed by the reporter saying, "He's even co-authored a pamphlet on the subject". That word 'even' suggests that this (for some reason) is an odd thing to have done.

Checking out the website, its political editor Len Tingle's language revealed a similar bias:

'At their conference in Hove the Greens were passionate in their support of the battle against global warming.

On the same day in Southport, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire MEP Godfrey Bloom delighted his party by explaining how global warning was a "myth" - and the scientific truth was being suppressed by the media.'

Imagine how this could be re-written by some-one with a different bias and you'll see what I mean. A tiny change in punctuation makes all the difference:

'At their conference in Hove the Greens were passionate in their support of the "battle" against "global warming".

'On the same day in Southport, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire MEP Godfrey Bloom delighted his party by explaining how global warning was a myth - and the scientific truth was being suppressed by the media.'

Len's piece was not wholly unkind to UKIP, but he does say of Jonathan Arnott, "At just 27 he is one of a new breed of senior officials of a party desperate to throw off an image as a bunch of right wing grumpy old men from the shire counties."

Is UKIP really "desperate" to throw of its "image as a bunch of right wing grumpy old men from the shire counties"? Was that it's image? And what wrong with being "right wing" or "grumpy" or "old" or "men" or "from the shire counties" anyway?

There were, of course, no comparable references to the Greens as having an image "as a bunch of well-off-but-badly-dressed, asparagus-nibbling, sour-faced, left wing forty-somethings from the Brighton area" (or some such nonsense!)!!

THE 'TODAY' PAPER REVIEW INDEX - HOW IT WORKS AND A TEST CASE

*
Steel yourselves please, it's time for some more statistics!!! Yes, they are not perfect - but if combined I think their imperfections should cancel each other out.
*
PLEASE SEE MY LAST POST FOR THE REASONS BEHIND ALL THIS TOMFOOLERY!!!

*
Here are the measures that go into each Today programme newspaper review index.

Each newspaper scores:

1 point for every mention in a paper review

3 bonus points for being the first newspaper mentioned in each paper review
2 bonus points for being the second newspaper mentioned in each paper review
1 bonus point for being the third newspaper mentioned in each paper review

1 Bonus point for being the first-discussed source for each story subsequent to the main one (usually marked by a change of presenter)

1 bonus point for any review of a paper's story that lasts longer than 30 seconds

-1 point every time the story is a frivolous one ( i.e. humorous or non-political)
*
*
The daily index is simply the total of each newspaper scores at the end of each programme (which has 3 paper reviews on weekdays & 2 on Saturday).
Obviously the higher the overall score the more attention the paper has been given by the Today programme.*If particular newspapers receive high scores on a regular basis a pattern of bias in favour of those newspapers will have been strongly suggested, maybe even proven.
*
This will show if any particular newspaper(s) receive preferential treatment - or not!




Here's the first case and an example (in full) of how it works:

Friday 18th September
*
6.12am review
1. JUSTIN WEBB - Story: Barack Obama's scrapping of 'Star Wars' (significant story)
Times (13.17-13.45) Scores 1 point for mention, 3 bonus points for leading the review
Guardian (13.46-13.58) Scores 1 point for mention, 2 bonus points for being mentioned second
2. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: Baroness Scotland's illegal immigrant home-help (significant story)
Daily Mail (14.10-14.43) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for being mentioned third, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, 1 bonus point for its mention lasting longer than 30 seconds
(Telegraph mentioned in passing) Scores 1 point for mention
JUSTIN WEBB - Story: How you can tell if someone is telling you the truth by their handwriting (fluff)
Daily Mail (14.44-14.59) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous

Sub-total:

Times - 4 points
Guardian - 3 points
Daily Mail - 5 points
Telegraph - 1 point

6.37am review
1. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: Baroness Scotland's illegal immigrant home-help (significant story)
Daily Mail (43.08-43.16) Scores 1 point for mention, 3 bonus points for leading the review
Telegraph (43.17-43.22) Scores 1 point for mention, 2 bonus points for being mentioned second
The Sun (43.23-43.27) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for being mentioned third
JUSTIN WEBB - Story: Baroness Scotland's illegal immigrant home-help, continued
Mail (43.22-43.36) Scores 1 point for mention
The Sun (43.37-43.48) Scores 1 point for mention
2. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: Barack Obama's scrapping of 'Star Wars' (significant story)
Guardian (43.57-44.05) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story
Financial Times (44.05-44.13 Scores 1 point for mention
The Times (44.13-44.17) Scores 1 point for mention
3. JUSTIN WEBB - Story: Kenyan drought (significant story)
Guardian (44.17-44.34) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story
4. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: A boy who's having a sex change (fluff)
The Sun (44.34-44.07 Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, 1 point for its mention lasting longer than 30 seconds, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous
5. JUSTIN WEBB - Story: A road where learner-drivers like to learn to drive (fluff)
Daily Express (45.14-45.31) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous
The Sun (45.33-45.37) Scores 1 point for mention, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous

Sub-total

Daily Mail - 5
Telegraph - 3
The Sun - 5
Guardian - 4
Financial Times - 1
The Times -1
Daily Express - 1


7.37am review
1. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: Barack Obama's scrapping of 'Star Wars' (significant story)
Independent (1.42.50-1.42.53) Scores 1 point for mention, 3 bonus points for leading review
Daily Mirror (1.42.53-1.42.57) Scores 1 point for mention, 2 bonus points for being mentioned second
Guardian (1.42.57-1.43.03) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for being mentioned third
Telegraph (1.43.03-1.43.07) Scores 1 point for mention
2. JUSTIN WEBB - Story: Nick Clegg's statement that the Lib Dems will replace Labour (significant story)
Telegraph (1.43.07-1.43.29) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story
3. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: Interview with the Iraqi who threw a shoe at Bush (significant story)
Guardian (1.43.29-1.43.55) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story
4. JUSTIN WEBB - Story: River Thames back on Tube map (fluff)
Independent (1.43.55-1.44.15) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous
5. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: winding up a clock v. health & safety (fluff)
Telegraph (1.44.21-1.44.29)Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous
Daily Mail (1.44.30-1.44.38) Scores 1 point for mention, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous
The Sun (1.44.38-1.44.45) Scores 1 point for mention, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous

Sub-Total

Independent - 5
Daily Mirror - 3
Guardian - 4
Telegraph - 4
Daily Mail - 0
The Sun - 0


Daily Index Totals -

Telegraph - 8
Guardian - 11
Independent - 5
The Times - 5
The Financial Times - 1
Daily Mail - 10
Daily Express - 1
The Sun - 5
Daily Mirror - 3

So there you go! A narrow victory over the Daily Mail for the Guardian. I duly crown the Guardian as the first winner of the Today Newspaper Review Index.

THE 'TODAY' PROGRAMME PAPER-REVIEW REVIEW

*
I am trying to work out a way to measure the bias (if there is any) in the Today programme's newspaper reviews. Do the left-leaning newspapers, especially the Guardian and the Independent, tend to be mentioned first? Or more often? Are serious stories in the right-leaning papers neglected in favour of fluffier ones?
*
Anecdotally presented, the 17th September edition of the programme, hosted by John Humphrys and Sarah Montague contained the following.
*
The 6.12am paper review, leading off with the Guardian and following with the Independent (both on the Trafigura story), and only then moving on to the Telegraph (for Andy Burnham's announcement about patients choosing GPs and a story about the Queen Mum!)
*
At 6.39am came the second paper review, again led by serious stories from the Guardian (a story about China and carbon emissions) and the Independent (a story about a sugar tax in the U.S.). Third again came the Telegraph, but this time it was only the Queen Mum story!
*
At least the paper review at 7.38am was not led by the Guardian but by the Telegraph (talking about the Obama race row), though the Independent again came second (with the same story).
*
Of the other papers mentioned, the Times was quoted for a story about Nick Clegg wanting the Lib Dems to replace Labour (yeah, like that‘s gonna happen), the Mail about Mrs Thatcher being unnamed on a list of women's achievements (a story shared with the 'Independent') & whether 'Royal' might be prefixed to Wootton Bassett, and the Express for a story about the world's tallest man.
*
Is this typical? Only time and a bit of measurement will tell.
*
*
By coincidence (?), I notice that Newnight's closing paper review (with Gavin Esler) also led off with as story from the Guardian.

BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU GO FOR LUNCH!

*
And on it goes (as predicted yesterday)...
*
The Today programme website has this blurb: "US President Barack Obama does not believe current criticism of his policies is based on the colour of his skin, the White House has said. North America editor Mark Mardell visits South Carolina to gauge reaction to the outburst in Congress against Mr Obama that led to the rebuke of Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson."
*
Mardell's report can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8260000/8260229.stm

What a surprise that Mardell rushed down to South Carolina! What a shame Obama pulled the rug out from under him! Still, as Mardell had taken all that trouble to get down there, why not run with the story anyhow?!

Even handed? Well, he gave both sides a voice - two black supporters of Obama, two white opponents of Obama (though the former got longer to speak) - but see how he undermines one of the 'conservatives':
*
"There's no doubt some conservatives feel personally affronted. This man, eating his lunch in a diner surrounded by Confederate memorabia, says no past president knows what's in his heart."
*
How convenient that this man was eating in a diner surrounded by Confederate memorabia. A 'good old boy', I think Mardell wants us to safely assume.
*
Expect much, much, much more of this from Mark Mardell and co.

OVER TO THE GOAT...

*
Instead of one of my usual long-winded posts (I love long-winded posts!), here's a link that you must click on:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-humphrys-seems-to-think-that-we.html

Not a Sheep nails John Humphrys over his odd line of questioning to George Osborne.

Not a Sheep's other posts on this story are a must-read.

VAZ AND VINCE 24/7

*
I don't watch BBC News 24 often these days, but I thought I'd see what it was like between 12.00 and 1.00 today.

As well as the boss of the Health Protection Agency (talking about the e-coli story) and a leader of the GMB union (slagging off 'chameleon' Cameron), we had interviews with Corinne Ferguson of 'Liberty' (where was Shami?), Vince Cable, Ed Miliband, and Keith Vaz.

Whenever I used to watch BBC News 24 I would be forever seeing Cable, Vaz and someone from 'Liberty'. (Where was John McFall? If he'd have been there it would have been a full house.)
*
Nice to see nothing changes.

UNIVERSAL VINCE

*
Vince Cable was on News 24 again today.

Ben Brown introduced him with the words "voted, according to an opinion poll I see in the newspapers, voted Britain's most trusted politician".

As Brown then asked him no difficult questions and nothing about Liberal Democrat policy (only about the government and the Tories), which is par for the course at the BBC, I can well see why Cable's so trusted. George Osborne and Alistair Darling would be trusted much more than they are if no-one ever asked them tricky questions!

Vince was again agreeing with the Labour government and attacking the Tories. This happens so often now that I'm becoming convinced that the twinkle-toed Lib Dem is hoping to dance himself into the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer should there be a hung parliament and a resultant Lib-Lab coalition. Am I right, Michael Crick?

PLAYING THE RACE CARD?

**
Here's a report that you'll find 00.47.27 into the full 3-hour version of Today on the BBC i-Player (Wednesday 16 September).
**
Ex-US President Jimmy Carter has accused some of Barack Obama’s opponents on healthcare reform of running a “dastardly” racist campaign against him. His specific target was South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson, who yelled ‘You lie!’ at the president during his address to both houses of Congress.
**
Jim Naughtie discussed the significance of Carter’s intervention with the Beeb’s new North America editor, Mark Mardell. Now Mardell's reporting is not without merit (and he's a likable chap) and he does make concessions to balance but still I have reservations. (Surprise, surprise!!)
**
I'll transcribe the bulk of what he said (marking out the bits I think suggest bias) & comment along the way.
**
“What he said is that he thinks an overwhelming proportion of what he calls ‘the intensely demonstrated animosity’ towards President Obama is based on the fact he’s a black man. Obviously President Carter comes from the South. He’s seen this. He’s seen it bubbling up for a long while. And there’s a belief among many white people, he says, not just in the South, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this country, America, and he calls it ‘abominable’."
**
Has Mardell "seen it" too? For himself? Did Mardell not think to ask whether Carter really has "seen it"? Does "it" really exist? If the intense racism of the past has been 'bubbling up' again in the South recently, Mardell should investigate. It would be an interesting story. Until then he should reserve judgement.
**
Moreover, how widespread is this this "belief among many white people...that African-Americans are not qualified to lead...America"? Shocking, if true - but how true is it? How many is "many"?
**
"Now, what’s been happening over the summer, and even more recently in Washington at a big demonstration, is people attacking President Obama with a level of vitriol that I think people have been thrashing around trying to discover what’s behind it."
**
Who are these 'people' who 'have been thrashing around trying to discover what’s behind it'? Does he mean liberals? Or Democrats? Or BBC journalists? A sign of bias if not to label those of whose opinions you approve whilst labeling those of whose opinions you don't approve (as Mark does later when he talks of 'conservatives'.)
**
On a separate point, plenty of 'vitriol' was aimed at George W. Bush without racism being the cause.
**
Mardell's phrase 'thrashing about' is a good one, however, to describe the predicament many of the Left must feel about Obama's fall in popularity. How tempting for them to put it down to racism!
**
"It’s nominally about tax and about health care - and it may for many people but exactly and only about those issues - but, listening to the demonstration at the weekend, people were talking about fighting his tyranny, taking back America from this un-American president. Now it’s perfectly possible there are other reasons about the nature of the debate about the role of the state and governance in America that are behind this level of anger but some people are saying it is plainly about race. Some people think it’s illegitimate for a black person to be a president.”
**
Again, who are these "some people"?
**
Jim Naughtie then asked Mardell about the censuring of Joe Wilson.
**
“This is one of places of the debate where this has bubbled up. Over the weekend we saw people pointing out that he was once a rather junior aide to a segregationist politician and that he was one of the few politicians to vote for the confederate flag to fly over the state congress in his own state. And then one commentator said that what he meant was not “You lie!” but “You lie boy!” and that really brought everything to a head."
**
Which 'commentator' said that? Shouldn't we have been told? If we knew who it was we could judge for ourselves whether the source of this comment - which smacks of 'mind-reading', not to mention 'mud-slinging'! - is one of whom we, the listeners, can either trust or approve of.
**
"Now Mr Wilson hasn’t made any comments about his motivation, beyond saying that he thought the president was telling an untruth and that’s all there was behind it. He hasn’t answered these allegations."
**
I don't know about you but that sounds like all the comment 'about his motivation' that Mr Wilson - if he isn't a racist - needs to make. Why does Mark Mardell assume that more is needed?
**
"But another Democratic member from Georgia, Henry Johnson, has said that if this was allowed to go unpunished then people would soon be riding through the streets in hoods and sheets. Now that shows the sort of level of debate that is going on, the level of fear and anger, and of course the conservatives on the other side are furious, that they regard their opponents of playing the race card. They say it’s a cheap shot and that because it’s the worst insult you can hurl at some one in America in some ways is that they’re a racist and they feel that President Obama’s friends are really just playing dirty tricks on them.”
**
Here Mardell partially redeems himself. Johnson's extreme remark is on a par with the extreme remarks made by some of Obama's opponents and he reports the opposing side's point of view succinctly.
**
Yet note the labeling of the president's healthcare opponents as 'conservatives'. Are they all 'conservatives' in the sense Americans mean when they use the word (and when reporters about America use the word)? Might not some be libertarians? Or centrists?
**
Carter's comments obviously needed reporting & Mark Mardell has certainly done his job in doing that. He has, however, treated them as pearls of wisdom rather than as assertions.
*
*
*
LATER IN THE DAY....
*
The race-card was played again on PM, where Kevin Connelly played a now-familiar clip and then said, "That was Representative Joe Wilson, white, Southern and Republican, shouting 'You lie!' to the president. To most Americans that is a shocking breach of protocol, like heckling the Queen's Speech."

"But to many Americans there was much more to Mr Wilson's two-word tour-de-force. African-Americans saw it as straightforwardly racist."

When I heard that I thought, how many is "many" and who are the "many"? And to the second point I thought, "What, all of them?"

Connolly went on, "Now the former president Jimmy Carter has raised the stakes in the whole debate, telling an interviewer from N.B.C. that most people who oppose Barack Obama do so just because he's black."
&

(Memo to Gordon Brown: Stress your Scottishness. Then get your spin-doctors to say that anyone who opposes you is a racist English supremacist.)

*
Have the Democrats started trying to shut down the debate and are their media friends following close on? If so, and if Connolly's closing words are anything to go by, the BBC will be joining them:
*
"Expect this angry, bubbling sub-current to rise closer to the surface as next year's mid-term elections loom ever closer."
*
In other words, if the Democrats do badly in 2010 it's the racists wot did it! If they do well of course, the healing hands of the sainted Obama will be seen still to have their magic touch. Either way, it's a win-win for Barack Obama.

**

The only talking head in Connolly's piece was Mark Kelly-Tyler, "a black minister from Philadelphia", whose mother told him how to deal with "racially-motivated criticism".

*

**

Gavin Esler on Newsnight was keeping the flag flying for this story: "Jimmy Carter said what many Americans has been thinking." Those "many Americans" again! His introductory piece re-played many of the phrases used by Mardell and Connolly.

**

Unfortunately for the Beeb, he then he interviewed some Americans and the story flew off the rails...!!!

**

Esler interviewed a former Clinton aide, Jennifer Palmiera, who criticised her fellow Democrats for this 'dangerous' playing of the race card and said that the White House didn't accept what Jimmy Carter had said, adding that he was out of touch ("a generational thing"). She said Hillary Clinton would have received similar hostile treatment. The other guest, Armstrong Williams, described by Esler - in a typical case of bias by labeling - as a "conservative broadcaster", didn't believe it either. He jokingly put Carter's comments down to senility. He's black, which shows that Connolly's bold statement that all African-Americans saw Wilson's comments as "straightforwardly racist" was not strictly true!

Jennifer Palmiera's comments were a welcome breath of reasonableness. Inadvertently, she dropped the BBC in it by telling Esler that his introduction had neglected to mention the White House's rejection of President Carter's slurs. It had indeed!

Ritula Shah on the World Tonight (which did mention the White House's rejection of the slurs) talked to only one side of the argument, Paul Waldman of the liberal American Prospect magazine, who (ignoring the point) kept the accusations coming.

In summary, the above-mentioned BBC reporters had, I feel, got overly excited about a story that they so wanted to believe and ran with it beyond reason. Call me a pessimist, but I suspect that the words of the guests on Newsnight will be ignored & the 'Obama's-opponents-are-racists' angle will continue to run and run at the biased BBC.

CUTTING THE CONSERVATIVES

*
Not a particularly balanced edition of Newsnight last night, though it opened promisingly. Peter Mandelson was heard slamming the Tories over spending cuts. Cue the snearing voice of Jeremy Paxman, saying "And there'd be no cuts under Labour? Come off it!", followed by the programme's opening credits.
*
This promise of a fair look at both Conservative and Labour was partly delivered in the opening report by David Grossman.
*
The promise was completely betrayed, however, by the studio discussion that followed between Jeremy and Newsnight's business editor Paul Mason, which concentrated almost exclusively on Tory spending/cutting plans - complete with graphs and all. Why?
*
What followed was even worse. An interview with ex-BBC Labour minister Ben Bradshaw, lasting 4 minutes 23 seconds, was quite soft - especially as it went on - for Jeremy Paxman (I.C. of 1.2). Bradshaw repeatedly attacked the Tories throughout.
*
To balance that a Conservative was needed, and provided in the shape of Norman Lamont. But, oddly, this sop to fairness was cancelled out by having Labour's Frank Dobson join him in the discussion. Dobson dominated proceedings (being a bit of a bully) - though Lord Lamont got the last laugh! (Watch and see!). The extent of that domination can be seen if we compare the timings for the double-interview:
*
Lamont - 1 minute 42 seconds
Dobson - 3 minutes 11 seconds
*
If we tot these figures up, that (obviously) means that Labour got 7 minutes 34 seconds of interview time to make its case, whereas the Conservatives only got 1 minute 42 seconds. Hardly fair, is it?

The Interruption Coefficients add insults to injury, as not only did Lamont get least time he was also interrupted most often:
**
Lamont - 1.4
Bradshaw - 1.2
Dobson - 1
*

THE MASTER BUILDER AND THE WILD DUCK

*
Norway holds its general election today.
*
The Financial Times covers the contest admirably:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/10a38ff8-a0c5-11de-b9ef-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
*
The Beeb's take is not a patch on the F.T.s:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8253849.stm

In the BBC's world Labour prime minister Jens Stoltenberg has been a successful steward of the nation's economy during the current crisis:
*
"Jens Stoltenberg, in power since 2005, has emphasised his success in guiding Norway through the economic crisis."
*
Note how the word 'success' is not in quotation marks.
*
This may very well be true, as Norway is clearly in far ruder economic health than its Nordic neighbours and Mr. Stoltenberg's actions can only have helped that happen. What the Beeb fails to make clear, however, is that Mr. Stoltenberg had an ace up his sleeve - an ace anyone else could have played. For the context we need to return to the Financial Times:
***
****"Mr Stoltenberg is hoping his government's response to the global downturn will help him become the first Norwegian prime minister to be re-elected in 16 years, as the country's oil wealth helps insulate the country from the sharp recessions suffered by its Nordic neighbours.
****"Rules limiting how much of the country's $400bn oil fund can be spent each year were temporarily cast aside to stimulate the economy, keeping unemployment at about 3 per cent, compared with nearly 8 per cent in Sweden and Finland.
****"Gross domestic product, excluding oil, returned to growth in the second quarter after a mild recession - the country's first in two decades."

The BBC mentions the oil but makes no connections between it and the Labour government's 'success'. Success? Or the good fortune of having a massive cushion of oil to rip open if needs be?
*
As for the main opposition Progress Party of Siv Jensen, a woman who (in the F.T.'s words) "casts herself as the Margaret Thatcher of Norwegian politics", this campaigns for lower taxes and more free enterprise and has (also in the F.T.'s words) "a tough stance on immigration" in "a traditionally homogeneous country where immigrants now make up more than 10 per cent of the population." Many details are given of her - and Mr Stoltenberg's - policies on a range of issues.

As you would perhaps expect, Siv Jensen and her party are not given so rounded a portrait by the BBC:

****"His main challenger is Siv Jensen, who leads the right-wing Progress Party.
****"She has campaigned on a platform of lower taxes and tightening immigration. She has stoked controversy by claiming Norway is being "Islamified".
****"Currently, more than 10% of Norway's population is of foreign origin with the largest groups of asylum seekers coming from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Eritrea".

Note the bogey-phrase 'right-wing' for starters but, above and well beyond that, you ought not to be surprised by now that the Beeb's focuses above all on Progress's views on immigration nor that its report uses a highly pejorative phrase when it asserts that "she has stoked controversy". ***
***
In other words, Siv Jensen is bad whereas Jens Stoltenberg is good. How easy it is to see everything through the BBC's Manichaean eyes!
*
*
*

UPDATES

*
Update 1: Mr Stoltenberg has it seems, with most votes counted, won a narrow victory in the Norwegian elections.
*
Update 2: The story on the BBC website has been amended, but not just to reflect the changing news. Bizarrely, now the election is over, the former emphasis on the immigration policies of Siv Jensen's Progress has been diluted by a picture of the lady and a new caption beneath it, reading "Siv Jensen's party wants to broaden privatisation in health and education". At the risk of sounding either paranoid or foolishly big-headed, has someone at the BBC been reading this site and taken on-board its criticism?! (Or, at the risk of sounding overly cynical, do the BBC want us to associate 'broadening privatisation in health and education' with losing elections?!!)
*
As the link provided above takes you to the latest version on the BBC website, here's a new link to the ever-helpful Revisionista site, which tracks how articles change over the days.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/251032/diff/2/3
This shows the addition of the words (but cannot show pictures).

HAVE I LEFT, LEFT, LEFT ANYONE OUT?

*
This morning's Today featured, among other things, interviews with two Conservatives. Daniel Kawczynski was given the forensic treatment by Jim Naughtie (I.C. of 0.9) over his criticisms of the government's recent handing of the issue of WPC Yvonne Fletcher (murdered by a Libyan in 1984), whereas a clearly amused Ken Clarke was badgered by Justin Webb (I.C. of 1.3) over Lord Mandelson's comments about the Conservatives "salivating at the prospect of cuts in spending". Lord Mandelson himself was given an equally strong grilling (I.C. of 1.3) by Jim Naughtie, in one of Naughtie's strongest performances (though a couple of Naughtie's interruptions concerned scrapping Trident, which seems to be close to his heart). Between them the Conservatives amassed 9 minutes 28 second's worth of interview time, to Mandy's 10 minutes 23 seconds), which is fair enough. Was this balance reflected in the programme as a whole?

Well, at 7.16 Declan Ganley's return to the fray in Ireland's 'NO' campaign for the latest referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was discussed by Deaglan de Breadun of the liberal-left Irish Times. The TUC general secretary Brendan Barber (attacking the Tories and opposing all public spending cuts) was back at 7.32. The issue of trade unions and the Labour Party was discussed (at 8.40) by the former Industrial Editor of the left-wing Daily Mirror Geoffrey Goodman (who now writes for the liberal-left Guardian) and the ubiquitous Chief Executive of the Work Foundation, Will Hutton - another left-winger. The programme ended with a discussion about 'What is progress?' by the liberal-Left's favourite living economist Joseph Stiglitz (who worked for Clinton and now works for Obama) and "economist Lord Layard, author of Happiness - Lessons from a New Science" - as the Today website describes him. The Today website forgets to mention that he's also a Labour peer. At least a Conservative was discussed (at 8.48), as Alan Clark was recalled by the editor of his diaries Ion Trewin (a publisher of no discernible political position, who has also edited the Hugo Young diaries) and that ubiquitous doyen of the liberal-left, Anthony Howard.

All in a morning's work at the biased Beeb.

MANDY LETS THE SIDE DOWN

*
Maybe Carolyn Quinn has read my paeans to Laura Kuennsberg's impartial presentation style during her absence from Westminster Hour, because she did a good job on the programme's 13 September edition. (Don't worry, I'm not daft enough to think she really has!) Besides the usual 'politics panel' segment, featuring Ed Vaizey (Conservative) and Emily Thornberry (Labour), there was an interview with a left-wing professor on Labour and the trades unions, which was balanced by a double-interview (of similar length) with two members of Conservative think-tanks.
*
The only package that raised a little concern over bias was the final report from Mandy Baker (pictured here with unfunny, late thirty-something snowboarder Marcus Brigstocke), which looked at the life experiences of prospective MPs at the next general election i.e. have they any beyond politics?
*
Here's a list of the talking heads. Can you spot an imbalance?
*
Ronnie Campbell, Labour MP
Lorely Burt, Lib Dem MP
Meg Munn, Labour MP
Professor Byron Criddle
George Eustace, prospective Conservative candidate
Emma Reynolds, prospective Labour candidate
*
(I'm sure Brigstocke would have approved!)

INTRODUCING 'HEARTS AND MINDS'

The Scots have The Politics Show: Scotland and the lucky Welsh have Dragon's Eye. The equivalent in Northern Ireland (shown on the BBC Parliament Channel on Sundays) is Hearts and Minds, hosted by Noel Thomson. I thought it might be interesting to see if any trends in bias emerge over the coming months in its coverage of the province's political scene - using those tried-and-tested interruption coefficients.
*
Because Northern Ireland's political parties are so different to those of the rest of the United Kingdom - and because I want to keep my Air-Time Percentages index free from such obscuring complications - I won't be including the programme in my monthly I.C. spreadsheets - but it can have a spreadsheet of its own instead.
*
For starters, here are the figures for the first programme of the new season:
*
Arlene Foster, DUP - 1.6 (with 7 interruptions)
David McNarry, UUP - 1.2 (with 3 interruptions)
Alex Attwood, SDLP - 0.6 (with 2 interruptions)
John O'Dowd, Sinn Fein - 0.3 (with 1 interruption)
Stephen Farry, Alliance - 0 (with 0 interruptions)
*

Only time will tell whether these starkly contrasting figures are statistically significant - or not.

SUNDAY TRADING RESUMES

*
The Politics Show was back today, with Jon Sopel as puppet-like as ever. It was like it had never been away!
*
It opened with two complementary interviews, one with David Frost of the British Chamber of Commerce (calling for public spending cuts) and the other with Brendan Barber of the T.U.C. (calling for increased taxes on high earners). Mr Frost got 3 minutes 36 seconds, whereas Mr Barber got 5 minutes 32 seconds. The socialist got two minutes more. That's BBC bias for you!
*
Then came a soft interview with Labour's Alan Johnson. The Home Secretary's interview lasted 9 minutes 43 seconds, and but only contained 2 interruptions. Johnson's long and repeated attacks on the Tories were allowed to flow on, undammed. The Interruption Coefficient was a tiny o.2.

Max Cotton's report on MPs' lack of a contract of employment somewhat redressed the pro-left tendency of the programme by using Labour's Margaret Moran (Luton South) as its example of bad behaviour - though it did not label her as a Labour MP (which was a little bit naughty) - and gave Esther Rantzen and the seat's prospective Conservative candidate, Nigel Huddleston, a soundbite each. This redressing of the balance was somewhat undermined though by having two Labour MPs commenting on what MPs should do next, with Max having a friendly chat with the ubiquitous Stephen Pound and getting an earnest soundbite from the almost-as-ubiquitous John Mann.

Biased business as usual at The Politics Show.
**
*
*
CODA: A SPOT OF TIFFIN WITH UKIP'S PAUL NUTTALL
**
I won't be including the local bit of The Politics Show in my ongoing study, but it is worth noting that the North West edition with the delectable Annabel Tiffin featured an interview with UKIP's Paul Nuttall which, in typical Beeb style, lasted less than three minutes but contained no less than 6 interruptions, giving it a whopping I.C. of 2.4. It concentrated on "a couple of resignations"!

SANTA FONDLES A GUN, AND STEPHEN EVANS FONDLES OBAMA

*
The BBC is at one with American liberals in trying to associate those opposing Barack Obama's health-care reforms with dangerous far-right nutters on the fringe - in other words implying guilt by association. Nancy Pelosi's 'Nazi' gibes were only the most high-profile example of this liberal Democrat strategy but Stephen Evans's report for From Our Own Correspondent (Saturday 12 September) was still singing from the same hymn-sheet: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8250803.stm

Evans meets Glen Parshall, a Santa Claus lookalike "with an armoury of hundreds of guns with which he is surrounded and which he fondles with gentle care." The gun-fondling Mr Parshall is a libertarian "out-rider" who is keen on Thomas Jefferson's "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" and who says of the Obama administration, "If they don't start conforming to our constitution, we may have to rise up in arms and take our country back," which Evans qualifies by adding "though he says that would be a last resort if elections did not do the job first."

Having presented this extreme figure Evans goes on, "Nobody argues that Mr Parshall represents great numbers of Americans, but that does not mean he is insignificant. Liberals say there is a dangerous atmosphere on the fringe. They point to the numbers of armed men who now turn up at healthcare meetings asserting their right to bear arms, sometimes wearing badges with the quote about "refreshing the Tree of Liberty" with blood." Liberals say this, and Stephen Evans says this - an uncanny co-incidence of interests!

An unfortunate illegal immigrant's plight is then described (to draw in sympathy for the Obama position) before Evan's coup-de-grace: "By the way, the sentence "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" may have been written first by one of the great founding fathers of American liberty, but it was made famous, too, by one Timothy McVeigh. He, you remember, murdered 168 people when he attacked what he saw as a tyrannical federal government in Oklahoma City in 1995. It was the slogan on his T-shirt." And that's how the report ends. More guilt by association!

All of this is worth reporting & doubtless true - and, as I've said before, on this issue I'm much closer in sympathy to Obama than to his opponents. Unbiased reporting, however, means that the reporter's personal feelings ought to be irrelevant. That is where Evans falls down. Whether he and his liberal friends are exaggerating the danger, it's hard to say from here in sunny Morecambe. It's clear though that such stories can do nothing but harm to President Obama's legions of opponents and nothing but good for President Obama's supporters. This is evidence of bias.

PAUL ADAMS'S SPEECH TO CONGRESS

*
Though still on holiday, I have heard a few of the reports carried by the Beeb on Obama's healthcare speech to both houses of Congress. When normal business resumes (in just over a week's time) I will pursue this sort of story (and many others) with gusto.

On Wednesday 9th September, I caught an interview with Michael Goldfarb of globalpost.com (a regular on Gavin Esler's Dateline: London) on Martha Kearney's The World At One. This Michael Goldfarb (not to be confused with others) was the topic's only voice on the programme, and he described the two-pronged opposition to Obama in interestingly different ways:

"It's contentious on the far-right". So that's all Obama's critics from the Republican/conservative side of America branded in one simple, provocative, inaccurate statement. How does he fare with his labeling of the Democrat/liberal opposition? Here, in contrast, he says "It's contentious to a degree on what passes for the Left in America" and goes on to describe such people as "perhaps representing the more social democratic spectrum of American political thought". In the spirit of his first statement, couldn't he have instead said, "It's contentious on the far-left"?
*
*
On PM that evening, Carolyn Quinn talked to the Beeb's North America correspondent Paul Adams, who put the case for healthcare reform better than Obama himself (unless you like the president's style of rhetoric). I say that, but he wasn't paraphrasing the president at all. He was merely 'stating the facts to put the story in context':
*
"America spends 2.5 trillion dollars a year and rising on healthcare."
"46 million Americans, by the most conservative estimate, have no health insurance cover at all and another 25 million are underinsured."
"A recent study found that the majority of all bankruptcies in 2007 were linked in one way or another to medical expenses."
*
As soon as I heard this last one my ears pricked up. This study, unascribed by Adams, turns out - after a little foray into the internet - to be one researched by leading advocates for radical health care reform!
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/07/30/the_medical_bankruptcy_myth_97335.html
*
*
A semblance of balance was achieved by Carolyn Quinn, who interviewed a Republican congressman, Paul Brown, and a Democrat senator, Lynn Woolsey. Both got similar times to speak. As they should! Still, Mr Brown was interrupted - unlike Ms Woolsey - and Carolyn's questions to the Republican was noticably less respectful that those to the Democrat.

"He told me why he calls the healthcare bill 'a stinking rotten fish'."
"You say that but over the past month we've seen the debate descend to pretty low levels, for example seeing posters of President Obama portrayed as Hitler and the accusations that Obama is a fascist. What did you think of those sort of campaigns? Did you condone them?"
*
This last question was especially rich given the BBC's own record with Bush-as-Hitler posters!!!
*
*
This mockery of one side of the two-sided debate continued on that night's The World Tonight, where Paul Adams returned to say, "The Americans have spent the summer in an angry, frankly often idiotic, debate", and - after saying that both sides got angry - played snippets of four angry, idiotic people, all from the anti-Obama side!! Adams went on to sing Obama's praises on the harp and with the psaltery: "High hopes and the loftiest of ambitions, Barack Obama taking office...promising to tackle the nation's ills. This president, already transformational in the eyes of many, offering the tantalising prospect of change across the board." His subsequent report, however, did balance the skeptical Professor Peter Morici of Maryland University with the wholly supportive Democrat congressman, Chris van Hollen - though it almost goes without saying that van Hollen got both the first and the last word!

Robin Lustig's own interviews with the liberal editor of The Nation magazine Katrina vanden Heuvel and David Kuhn of the conservative-leaning RealClearPolitics were, in contrast, wholly fair.

PAXO LIBERALIS

*
Even Jeremy Paxman eases off on the Liberal Democrats.

Tonight's Newsnight discussion about spending cuts was a gladatorial contest between Labour's Liam Byrne, the Conservative's Philip Hammond and Vince Cable of the Lib Dems.

Compare the Interruption Coefficients:
*
Byrne - 2.3
Hammond - 2.3
Cable - 0.9

Then again the Great Sage was at least answering Paxo's questions, whereas Philip Hammond answered only some of them and Liam Byrne answered none of them!!