A DATE BUT NO DEBATE

*
Gavin Esler's 'Dateline: London' was, even by its standards, heavilly lilted to the Left this week.

The panelists were:

*

*****Annalisa Piras, of the left-wing L'espresso magazine

*****Eunice Goes, a left-wing Portuguese writer

*****Johann Hari, a leading left-winger at The Independent****

*****Stryker McGuire, Newsweek

The first topic up for discussion was David Cameron and the Conservatives. The comments, not unsurprisingly, were overwhelming negative. Hari's attacks were sustained and expected, but he was far from alone. Eunice Goes attacked the Tories and accused them of (O sin of sins!) "going back to Thatcherite solutions". Annalisa Piras agreed, saying "That's Thatcherism. That's not new." She also called Cameron's speech "poor in substance" and his European policy "painfully superficial" and "weird". McGuire called the policy "very, very naive" and claimed (wrongly, because I saw the speech and heard Cameron talk about it, albeit briefly) that "climate change was not even mentioned" (a moment in the conference coverage when the cameras turned to someone I think was Zak Goldsmith). Such unanimity of disapproval should surely have been anticipated by the programme's producers & a balancing voice from the centre-right provided.

Disgraceful!

When the focus turned to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, Esler asked Annalisa "Do you think it's right?" She replied, "I actually do." (Well, there's a surprise!) Eunice agreed, adding "It's an extraordinary vision he's brought". Stryker McGuire expressed no personal opinion, but Johann Hari dared to disagree and described himself as "more sceptical". He expressed some surprise at having to disagree "for once" with the his fellow leftists. He wasn't the only one who was surprised! But he came back on board to re-launch an attack on Henry Kissinger (accusing him of "mass murder"). This had previously been launched by Eunice Goes.

*

Disgraceful!

*

Another target they could all agree to hate was saved to the end, as Annalisa Piras was invited to attack Silvio Berlusconi - and did. Esler had asked her, "Why is he still prime minister of your country?" It was, of course, a "big mistake" that he was still there. Esler had mocked Berlusconi earlier in the programme and promised her a chance to attack him later! Will we ever get a pro-Berlusconi guest on the programme? Don't be silly!

&

Disgraceful!

*

BLOOMIN' BIAS

*
The World Tonight broadcast a report from Jonty Bloom which told us about Britain's present 'historically low' overall burden of taxation and the inevitability of tax rises after the next election. Yes, you read that right. Britain's tax is at a 'historically low' level, according to Bloom's report.
*
The report featured three 'talking heads', two of whom were Carl Emmerson of the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies and Peter Fanning of the apolitical Chartered Institute of Taxation. The third, however, was Tony Dolphin, senior economist of the Labour-aligned, left-of-centre Institute for Public Policy Research. Now, in a classic instance of bias-by-labeling - or in this case bias-by-not-labeling! - Bloom did not introduce Mr Dolphin like that. He just presented him to the programme's listeners as "Tony Dolphin, senior economist at the Institute for Public Policy Reseach." If listeners were unaware of the Institute's very close links to the Labour Party (and most would be), they would understandably consider Mr Dolphin's words to be those of another independent/apolitical 'senior economist' rather than the words of someone from a Labour-aligned think-tank.
*
Tony Dolphin also thought our current tax levels were 'pretty normal', not high. When were they highest? Can you guess? Tax was "at its height in the early 1980s, when the then Conservative government was trying to reduce the deficit then and it did allow the tax take to go up", said Dolphin. Bloom then joined him in blaming the Tories for everything, here over the many rises in tax on people's expenditure: "Under Margaret Thatcher the V.A.T. rate doubled...". There was no mention whatsoever (from either Dolphin or Bloom) of any of the very many new taxes emanating from the Labour government over the last twelve years. No, only the Tories.
*
A Gordon Brown speech was then sampled, but only to mock the Conservatives. And a George Osborne speech was sampled to show that "even" he had "conceded" that the 50% tax band may have to stay for quite a while.
*
What's the main problem here? Well, on top of the fact that the pro-Labour IPPR was presented as if it was an apolitical organisation and that its spokesman was given two bites of the cherry (including the last one), where were the voices of the centre-right, of low-taxation, of opposition to the line Jonty Bloom was taking? Where were Reform or the Taxpayer's Alliance? Nowhere to be heard. Why?
*

GREG CLARK IS STRUCK BY TWO COLD FRONTS

*
3 hard questions were put to Ed Miliband on tonight's Newsnight by Kirsty Wark, with 3 interruptions, scoring her an I.C. of 1.0.
*
Then she turned to his Conservative shadow Greg Clark. From then on Ed Miliband had it easy, interrupting Mr Clark whenever he felt like it, having Kirsty Wark follow his agenda and take up his challenge to Greg Clark over wind turbines, and receiving no more hard questions.

Mr Clark, in contrast, got 7 hard questions and was interrupted 7 times by Kirsty Wark. Her I.C. here was a whopping 2.7.

Greg Clark must have felt under attack on two fronts.

A CLEAR CASE OF BIAS

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

The worst is yet to come though.

*

Here are two of the other results:

*

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

Conservatives 36%

Labour 30%

*

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

Labour 36%

Conservatives 31%

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

*

A very poor performance from Jo Coburn.

CRICK 4 - CRAIG 5

*
Crick is biased against the Conservatives. That's a given. But he's also an unperceptive commentator. Here's the latest instance.
*
Following David Cameron's big speech his report changed course to say "But some of his senior colleagues hardly seemed bowled over". This was a false analysis, designed to suggest a lack of enthusiasm for the speech (and hints of division) among top Tories. As William Hague had said on PM it was not meant to be a rabble-rousing speech. It was meant to be muted, as befits a conference that is trying not to be seen punching the air and shouting "Alllll right!!!!!!" at the prospect of winning an election.
*
Crick pounced on Eric Pickles describing the speech as "pretty good". That's just Eric Pickles's style, not that Newsnight's political editor seemed to realise that. Jeremy Hunt called it "workmanlike". I'm not a highly paid BBC political editor, but even I can pick up on the fact that senior colleagues of Cameron are deliberately striking a sober, understated note for the reason I gave above. Michael Crick is so blinded by anti-Tory bias as to be unable to offer valuable insights into their thinking. It also makes him miss the blindingly obvious. He wants to find stories of scandal and split in the Conservative Party, and seems not to be able to see beyond them.

CRICK 4 - CRAIG 4

*
Crick is obsessed with the Tories. He really does not like them. I've said this before (several times!), but the fact that there was yet another report from him on tonight's Newsnight demonstrates this even more clearly.
*
The facts are clear. Michael Crick offered only one report from the Labour Party conference. (It would have been two but for 'technical reasons' one wasn't broadcast.) Contrast that with this week's Tory conference. Four reports in four days!
*
He should be made to explain himself. Why does he have so much to say about the Conservatives and so little to say about Labour?

CRICK MARCHES TO LABOUR'S TUNE AND CHASES A TORY

*
General Dannett's new role with the Conservatives came under fire from Newsnight last night. "A blunder?" asked Paxman, before calling it a "wheeze".
*
Guess who reported on the story and led the charge against the Tories? Michael Crick, of course.

Allegations of smears against General Dannett by the Labour Party (allegations confirmed by Labour's own Eric Joyce) were completely ignored by Crick, naturally, as it wouldn't do to embarrass Labour. Embarrassing the Tories is all Crick cares about. Every concern Labour ministers held (and hold) was reported straight by Michael Crick. They couldn't have hoped for better coverage of their part in the story (as the poor, innocent, aggrieved victims in all this).

In another insufferably smug report, we were 'treated' to the spectacle of Crick gloating over Chris Grayling's 'another Labour gimmick' gaffe ("one of the most amusing gaffes in recent politics", he called it). Watch him chasing Grayling on the BBC i-Player and look at the self-satisfied smirk on his face as he turns to camera afterwards! The word 'gloating' is no exaggeration. What a twit!
*
He then questioned the calibre of Cameron's current team.

"Some Tories", he said, were questioning the wisdom of announcing the general's appointment today. And a couple of minutes later, he made exactly the same point again (using an unattributed Tory critic). More Tory splits!!

No wonder when the report ended we saw a very cheerful looking Phil Woolas!!

When Crick retires from the BBC, I bet he'll go straight into a job with the Labour Party!!!


The Crick Count
Conservative 2
Tories 6

INSIDE THE BUBBLE

*
Unsurprisingly, Michael Crick's short chat to Jeremy Paxman on Tuesday's Newsnight managed to find space to discuss the photo in tomorrow's Daily Mirror of David Cameron drinking a glass of champagne at a private party thrown by The Spectator.
*
(Incidentally, his silly sacred cow arrived in Manchester early. That should mean, if the Liberal Democrat and Labour Conference coverage on Newsnight is followed, there should be no more filmed reports from Michael Crick this week. If there are any more, it will be a good question to ask 'Why?'
*
I am watching.)

CRICK THE RIPPER STRIKES AGAIN

*
What a contrast! No report from Michael Crick at the start of the Labour conference ('for technical reasons'), only a short chat with Jeremy Paxman, but for the first day of the Tory conference there's a Crick report all right. To Cameron's 'dismay, no doubt', Europe's a big issue again, he said. We then had Michael Crick restlessly stalking Philip Hammond (and then George Osborne), with a big microphone in hand, speaking in a quavering, high-pitched voice, full of mock incredulity.
*
'Unity' was the key word (if we don't include the word 'Tory' of course!), if only to highlight 'splits'. Boris threatens 'unity' and his comments "won't have pleased" Ken Clarke, Crick said. More -philes and -phobes, of course.
*
Then there was the obligatory spectacle of Crick chasing Tory prospective parliamentary candidates around the conference centre!

The Crick report though ended on a nasty, bitter note: "Europe may trouble the party again tomorrow with a meeting with the leader of the new European caucus to which the Tories now belong, the Pole accused by David Miliband as having a neo-Nazi and anti-semitic past".

This outrageous smear has been discussed elsewhere on this blog. Trust bloody Crick to spread it again, and do so at the very end of his report. Was it then discussed, so that the slur shouldn't be left hanging in the air like a bad smell? Guess.
*
Will he bring up Michel Kaminski (a completely uncontroversial figure in Poland) in the next edition of Newsnight?
*
The next report from Crick should come at the end of the week, when he bring his silly cardboard cow into the Tory conference.

*
The Crick Count
Conservatives - 1
Tories - 4

EUROPE, EUROPE, EUROPE

*
The BBC have not just been busy hunting out all manner of -philes and -phobes in the Conservative Party, concerning the issue of a European referendum, they've also been busy phoning high-ups from Europe centre-right (federalist) grouping, the E.P.P.. After Eddie Mair (PM)was put through to the German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (who criticised Cameron's policy), Ritula Shah (The World Tonight) talked to Cecilia Malmstrom, Sweden EU affairs minister (who criticised Cameron's policy).
*
They are pulling out the stops over this one.

WAS THAT NIGEL FARAGE I SAW?

*
That same edition of The Daily Politics featured two party leaders - David Cameron and Nigel Farage. Having invited the UKIP leader onto the programme, wouldn't it have been courteous of the programme's producers to allow him more than the 1 minute 21 seconds he was given?

DOING THE TORY SPLITS

*
The Tory-splits-over-Europe angle has dominated much of the BBC's coverage of the first day of the Conservative conference with much of 'The Daily Politics' being devoted to the subject. In interviews with Boris Johnson and Norman Lamont the subject was the first subject to be broached and broached at some length and it was the raison-d'etre of the interviews with Dan Hannan and Ian Taylor. Andrew Neil's discussion with David Cameron however ranged more widely.
*
Similarly The World At One devoted the bulk of its coverage to the subject (over a quarter of an hour), with all of the interviews with Andrew Rosindell and Sir Malcolm Rifkind and all but one question of Martha Kearney's hugely entertaining interview with Boris Johnson fixing on it like an illegal wheel-clamp. Martha got very excited and kept on asserting that the 'toxic' element Cameron had, according to Boris, taken out of the European debate within the Conservative Party was back: "now it's back!..it's back now!..it's back now!...it's back!", she cried over and over again, like Violet Elizabeth Bott. "You're just trying to make it back!" countered Boris. (The interview's I.C. was 1.5). Even after the subject changed to welfare reform, Martha's interview with Theresa May turned back to Europe at the very end.
*
The programme also featured Ben ('Son of Tony') Wright who trotted off to a fringe meeting to hunt down Kenneth Clarke, in the hope of highlighting those 'Tory splits'. He got nowhere!

As another developing strand we had Evan Davis plugging away at the "retro" angle in his interview with Michael Gove on this morning's Today, plugging the Labour line that the Conservatives are going back to their 'bad old ways'. This line and the word "retro" was also used at the beginning of Martha Kearney's coverage. Beeboids clearly like to hunt in packs, as we saw so blatantly yesterday!

TALLY-HO!

*
So in the course of a very biased Sunday we had an attack on Oxford-educated, 'very, very rich' David Cameron from Andrew Marr, a piece about Old Etonians in the Conservative Party on 'Broadcasting House' and a tying-together of Tories, toffs and fox-hunting on 'The Politics Show'.
*
Did this sustained attempt to associate the Conservatives with 'privilege' (as left-wingers like to say) end there?
*
No. On 'Westminster Hour' Carolyn Quinn asked this question: "What about David Cameron the man? He has faced the charge that he doesn't understand real people, that he's a privileged toff. Do you think he's managed to shake that off?"

And, just in case you missed the point:

"And is it true that champagne has been banned again from public sessions?"

SHAUN GETS HIS COMEUPPANCE

*
The World This Weekend's Shaun Ley, who I foolishly said I would ley off, got into another tangle with William Hague. Every time this happens Ley comes out looking like a biased interviewer who cannot get his facts right. Mr Hague would score a bigger hit than me by blogging as Beeb Bias Bill, as he fisked Shaun with a vengeance.
*
Ley had presented a package on how the Tories couldn't win in the Northern Cities. As a North-Wester myself, the Tories' success in this region in the European elections has not gone unnoticed. That did not stop Shaun Ley. His report seemed fair. He may have interviewed a Thatcher-hating professor, but he also interviewed a Conservative chairman and a former MP. Both, however, criticised Cameron (the chairman calling him 'weak' and saying that many of his local party activists don't like Dave - contrary to much of the polling I've seen recently).
*
When Ley came to put this to Mr Hague, William rebutted all these criticisms with a forceful good humour than many of his colleagues could learn from.
*
The key moment came when Hague refuted the criticisms in Ley's report thus: "Go to Bury...and you will find Conservatives making great gains in recent years, including taking majority control in Bury."

How did Shaun answer this? By saying "I probably shouldn't get into an argument about Bury and Manchester cos I feel the people of Bury may feel a little different about that, but let's put that aside. Let's turn to the question of the Lisbon Treaty."

Well Shaun, let's not put this aside. What the hell are you talking about? What William Hague said was factually correct. You probably shouldn't get into an argument about it as a result. The people of Bury - despite how you 'feel' - can hardly 'feel a little different about that' because there is nothing to feel different about. The Conservatives have made great gains in recent years in Bury and have taken majority control in Bury. Why is Ley disputing this? Quite bizarre. The only reasonable explanation is that anti-Tory bias has descended like fog on his brain!
*

SHAUN STIRS IT FOR THE TORIES

*
Having been on a long, home-based holiday for nearly a month, I find myself in the position of having taken my eye off the ball somewhat. I praised Shaun Ley recently but, with eyes re-focused, find that his The World This Weekend was on fully biased form.
*
The programme began by fixing on the dilemma allegedly posed to the Conservative Party by the Irish 'Yes' vote in their second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. A brief snippet of Euro-sceptic Tory MP Richard Shepherd was drowned out by pro-European, anti-Cameron-line Conservatives, namely former MEP Margaret Daly and Lord Leon Brittan (who got a gentle hearing, being critical of Cameron's position). The cross-bencher Lord Kerr (and former ambassador to Brussels and Washington) was then wheeled in to add further criticism of David Cameron's Conservatives.ameron's Conservatives.
*
William Hague was interviewed later but Ley's interview gave him little time to counter this criticism, concentrating as it did on the Conservatives' alleged difficulties in the Northern Cities.

ANOTHER "VERY, VERY RICH TORY"?

&
*
Last week's Politics Show featured the Labour MP for Stourbridge, as part of its ongoing report on the constituency in the run-up to the general election. Presenter David Thompson gathered together a group of former Labour supporters to talk to her. My post at the time make this point: "We'll see if next week, when it should be the Tory candidate's turn, he gets to talk to former Tory voters."
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/09/age-of-stupid.html

Well, it turned out to be a 'she' rather than a 'he', but the answer was 'no'. Margot James was introduced to bikers from Stourbridge Motorcycle Club, some of whom (Thompson said) "work in the public sector". Well, it was interesting anyhow.

The naughty bit came in Thompson's scene-setting, where (following the trend of the day) he said that Margot lives "in one of the nice parts of Stourbridge" and went on to call her a "wealthy would-be Tory MP".
*
*
*
As for the rest of the Politics Show, there was one of those rare BBC interviews with Nigel Farage, in which he got in a good complaint about the Beeb's treatment of UKIP during the Norwich North by-election. It contained 5 interruptions (though curiously not when Jon Sopel asked him a vague question about what he made of the Conservatives' position on the Lisbon Treaty, giving him a chance to attack the common enemy!) and earned Sopel another high centre-right I.C. of 1.2.

Then there came a dual interview with Eric Pickles and David Miliband. This was evenly-balanced, if only because Mr Pickles took firm action against Sopel, shaming him into not interrupting any more. "I'm sorry, am I interrupting you again?", he said drily. Prior to this exasperated comment, Sopel had been interrupting him with a vengeance in that over-excited way of his (which reminds me of a puppet whose strings are being pulled by a drunk). Good on Eric Pickles!

THE PACK ARE HUNTING THE TORY FOX

*
Following on from Marr's "very, very rich man"/Bullingdon Club "toff" line against David Cameron this morning and Broadcasting House's piece on Old-Etonians-in-the-Tory-Party, we've now had The Politics Show bringing up the subject of Conservative attitudes to fox-hunting, with an obligatory mention of the "upper classes". The report came from the Old Berkshire Hunt, which by a staggering coincidence (not!) just happens to be run by a certain Viscount Astor. Who's he? Well the reporter Paola Buonadonna was keen to enlighten us. He just happens to be the stepfather of Samantha Cameron.
*
Three flagship programmes within four hours, all pursuing the same fox.

'BROADCASTING'-FOR-LABOUR 'HOUSE'

*
The BBC is on astonishingly biased form today.

At about the same time as Marr was making his onslaught against David Cameron, Radio 4's Broadcasting House was broadcasting a gentle interview with a Baroness Glenys Kinnock (scoring an meagre I.C. of 0.2 - and the one interruption wasn't much of an interruption). Presenter Paddy O'Connell praised her for "all (her) experience" and allowed her to make a silly, self-contradictory attack on David Cameron without comment and said "that's a fair question to ask" about another attack on William Hague.

This was followed by a piece on Old Etonians in the Tory Party. You could have guaranteed that someone at the Biased Beeb would have brought up the subject. Labour, most notoriously in the Crewe by-election, loves to bring up this issue. Marr having brought up the subject the Bullingdon Club and, thus covered the Oxford angle, it was therefore up to O'Connell to bring up Eton. He discussed it with Nick Cohen of the Observer (naturally) and the unaffiliated Professor Byron Criddle.

MARR SHOWS HIS TRUE COLOURS

*
Andrew Marr's third and final big interview with the three major party leaders was with David Cameron.
*
I said some complimentary things about Marr recently. I now take them all back. This was one of the most aggressive, not to say rude interviews I've witnessed. Marr's left-wing (pro-Labour bias) was naked and unashamed.

The simplest point to make is to compare the Interruption Coefficients for the interviews. For Nick Clegg it was 1.3 and for Gordon Brown it was 1.0. For David Cameron today it was a huge 2.1. These figures show that Marr interrupted Cameron more than twice as much as he interrupted Brown. This is not merely suggestive of bias, it is proof of bias.
*
Counting (as always) only those interruptions that stop the interviewee or alter the course of the interviewee's point, Marr interrupted Cameron a massive 59 times!
*
There were also a large number of what I call abortive interruptions too, where either Cameron fended off an attempted interruption, or where the flow was neither stopped nor changed because Cameron ignored the interruption. To which we can add a fair few heckles and many other mutterings.

The questions could have been written by Charlie Whelan or Alistair Campbell.
*
The first 17 focused (as expected) on the Conservatives' attitudes to Europe in the wake of the Irish 'Yes' vote on the Lisbon Treaty, with repeated questions suggesting evasiveness and (of course) one about Tory splits.
*
Then we had questions on welfare, followed by 17 questions on public spending cuts. Marr focused not on our nation's overwhelming levels of debt - Dave had to mention that, as Marr was clearly not going to! - but on how many jobs would be lost as a result of Tory cuts. Question after question came on that one specific point over a 9-minute stretch of the interview. Just on that point. As I say, Charlie and Alistair could not have asked for anything more.

Next came 7 questions on tax, led (inevitably) by 3 questions on inheritance tax (which Labour is very keen to focus on).
*
Then the interview got personal, & not in the gentle, pussyfooting way of last week's question about Brown's blindness and his alleged pill-taking but in a nasty, direct manner than left me feeling very hot under the collar. "A lot of people" say "you're a very, very rich man" and a "toff", said Marr. Yes, a lot of Labour-supporting people especially!
*
Up behind Marr came that embarrassing picture of Cameron at the Bullingdon Club and it stayed up throughout the rest of the interview.
*
Marr then questioned the 'personal wealth of you and your wife', asking if it was true that Cameron was worth £30 million. Cameron said that was rubbish.
*
A cynical Llew on the Biased BBC website wondered last week whether Marr asking Brown so gently about the pills was a cunning ploy to allow Marr (and the rest of the BBC) to open fire on Cameron's personal affairs. It looks as if Llew was right, and not cynical at all.
*
Cameron's 'bad call' on financial regulation was next up, before a brief question on TV debates between the party leaders.
*
What I haven't yet pointed out was the continual editorialising by Marr - editorialising befitting a former chief political correspondent for The Independent! When an interviewer gives a running commentary on his interviewee's answers, and if those comments are hostile, that's clear proof of bias. There are many examples to choose from, but I would pick the comment with which Marr close the section on Europe. Picking up Cameron's own words, Marr opined "With respect that's probably the problem. Let's move on to welfare..." (There was very little respect in this interview). This is not the first time Marr has disputed a point David Cameron has made & then moved on quickly to another subject without allowing him a come-back. It's what he does.
*
There's much more to say about this, but that's enough to give a strong flavour of the Marr-Cameron interview.
*
This was BBC bias at it's most blatant.
*

HUMPH'S BACK ON FORM

John Humphrys enjoyed himself on this morning's Today, scoring his highest Interruption Coefficient since 6th July (when he scored 1.7 against David Cameron) in an aggressive interview with Conservative health spokesman, Andrew Lansley. He achieved a high I.C. of 1.8, with 12 full-scale interruptions in an interview that lasted just under 7 minutes (adding several other unhelpful comments, 'wells' and jeers along the way). He described the Tories' new proposals on elderly care as "a bit unsavoury" and "unusual", and ferreted away with an enthusiasm I haven't heard from him for a long while. He's sounded a little out of sorts recently (since his return from holiday), so it some ways it was nice to hear the old Leftie brimming with good old-fashioned anti-Tory fervour again! (Though in other ways, it wasn't!)

*

SHINE ON MICHAEL CRICK

*
How's Michael Crick's blog being doing lately?

Well, it only kicked off again (22/9) with the start of the Lib Dem conference, on which he posted a couple of comments. The first discusses the problems the Lib Dems are having retaining women candidates for the next election. Crick calls one of the working groups set up to counter this trend 'the ludicrously named Candidates' Retention Working Party'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/09/are_lib_dems_fighting_a_losing.html
The second mocks Nick Clegg's talk of becoming prime minister.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/09/lib_dems_election_effort_will.html
"The Lib Dems pride themselves on being a party of honesty, and Nick Clegg's talk today suggesting he's planning to become PM next spring is utterly bogus."
"But one thing every Liberal Democrat in Bournemouth knew this week, somewhat to their dismay, is that, as David Steel once suggested, they aren't going back to their constituencies to prepare for government."
Quite true, of course.

As I noted in my previous reviews of Michael's blog, the Lib Dems don't often feature and a mere two posts on their highly eventful (not so say unfortunate) conference seems a little meagre. Moreover, as I also noted, the Lib Dems are not a party that Crick refuses to criticise. I recorded that the only non-Tory instance on his blog of a specific attack on dodgy party donations was directed at the Lib Dems (his blog, 22nd June; my blog 23rd August). The Labour Party remains untouched.

Seven further posts followed from the Labour conference. In previous posts I have demonstrated, beyond all argument, that Crick's posts about the Labour Party are dominated by trivia and anecdote and are far less critical/political that those aimed at the Tories. The first post here is another example of that - an anecdote about Peter Mandelson pretending to eat fish and chips:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/09/oh_mandy.html

Next came a post that undermines my point somewhat, as (for the first time in five months of blogging) Crick sniffs out a little Labour dodginess over donations!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/09/a_donor_for_dinner_at_the_conf.html
Crick bumped into dodgy donor David Abrahams and raises a pertinent question:
"At least seven times this evening I asked Mr Abrahams whether he was now giving money to the party again, and every time he refused to say. Which might suggest he IS giving money again, in which case his name should soon crop up among the Electoral Commission official figures on party donations.
"Unless he's giving money again through other people! Surely not."
Will he pursue this point over the coming months, or let the matter rest there? I think I can guess which way he'll go.

Brown's sop to the Lib Dems over electoral reform was another interesting one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/09/arent_all_election_promises_hy.html "Gordon Brown's pledge to hold a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) voting system - after the election, if Labour win - may partly be a bargaining chip in the event of a hung Parliament and the need to woo the Lib Dems, who have long wanted proportional representation (PR)."
A chance to question Labour's motives? No. Instead Crick uses it to mock the Lib Dems again:
"So I rang the Lib Dems twice last night to ask them what they thought of Gordon Brown's pledge.
"We have no comment," they told me, "about a hypothetical referendum in Labour's hypothetical fourth term."
"Hypothetical? Aren't all election promises hypothetical? Lib Dem promises more especially."
He then refers to an article in the Guardian. Crick's always been a keen Guardian-reader, unsurprisingly.

Next up came a post about U.S.-style pre-election debates between the party leaders: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/09/the_future_and_format_of_tv_de.html
Crick puts a highly charitable gloss on Brown's cowardly dithering on the subject:
"So what happened to Gordon Brown's agreement to TV debates, which we thought might feature in his speech yesterday?
"I understand he certainly has accepted the idea, and so such debates are now likely to happen. There was quite a last minute tussle amongst his advisers over whether the idea should be included in the speech. The view which prevailed was that such an announcement would dominate the coverage, and overshadow the other important things that he had to say, especially on policy."
So, not because he's 'frit' then? The rest of the post talked technicalities.

No mockery so far of Labour then, and when Crick's attention turns to the Sun's decision to ditch Labour his focus is fixed not on Labour but (characterisitically) on the Murdoch empire:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/09/have_the_murdochs_done_a_tacit.html
His conclusions hint at shady goings-on:
"Many Labour people here in Brighton believe the Murdochs have done a tacit deal with the Conservatives - to promote the business interests of Murdoch, and especially their broadcasting outlets, at the expense of the BBC.
"We simply don't know. But there may be another explanation for what's happened, which I don't think one can ignore. That the Murdoch family, like the schoolboy Rupert at the Melbourne racetrack, like picking winners."

And Murdoch remains the focus of Crick's following (anecdotal) post from the Labour conference:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/09/murdochs_hero.html

September's last post was called 'Lord Monkswell and the "hereditary principle"' and told us about Crick's 'old friend' Baron Monkswell, who 'is one of just 18 or so hereditary peers who support the Labour Party'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/09/lord_monkswell_and_the_heredit.html
He wants the 'heriditaries' removed.

So nothing much here to worry the Labour Party, as usual.

So far, you will have noticed, no Tory-bashing (though the first Murdoch story came close)!! Has Crick read CraigMorecambe's comment on his final August post, and decided after a string of stridently anti-Tory posts, that he better actually write about the Lib Dems and Labour when he goes to their conferences instead of the Tories?

But then again it's the Tory party conference next week, so watch this space...
*
Here are some things to look out for:
***Will there be a higher number of posts from Crick than from the Lib Dem and Labour conferences? (Given that I think he's obsessed with them I bet there will be!)
***How many of those posts will contain either sarcasm or mockery?
***How many will be critical of the Conservative Party? Will any be potentially damaging?
***Will any mention be made of Lord Ashcroft? Or other aspects of funding?
** Will the issue of expenses be brought up (it wasn't for either of the other two parties)?
***Will the Murdoch/Tory angle be pursued, and the Coulson/News of the World 'story' dredged up again?

SEPTEMBER'S KING OF BIAS IS...

*

What with the fox-shooting results of September's super-averages I forgot to crown a King of Bias for September!

*

There's really only one candidate. It just has to be.....

Jon Sopel.

*

In some ways he's earning this award on behalf of his programme, The Politics Show (which is about as biased as a Beeb programme gets), but his averages for September suggest that he is about twice as likely to interrupt a Conservative than he is a Labour politician (though admittedly that's based on a fairly small sample).

*

So well done Jon!

*

Keep on being nice to the likes of Alan Johnson and Des Browne and mean to the likes of Dan Hannan and Philip Hammond and you could make it a double at the end of October.

*

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - AIRTIME PERCENTAGES

*
Just as the figures for the total number of interviews granted to each political party in September have been heavilly tilted by the Lib Dem and Labour conferences, so my other main measure, the % of interview air-time allocated to each each political party, has been skewed too. As the Conservative conference is coming, October's totals should redress the balance a bit. If they don't, we will have found ongoing bias. Again, at the end of October a measure for both September and October will be given. That will be the one to look for.

Still, as work in progress, here are the September timings and totals:

Labour - 12 hours 25 minutes 26 seconds, 61.51%
Liberal Democrats - 4 hours 5 minutes 10 seconds, 19.98%
Conservatives - 2 hours 52 minutes 1 second, 14.03%
SNP - 19 minutes 35 seconds, 1.58%
UKIP - 10 minutes 52 seconds, 0.86%
Plaid Cymru - 7 minutes 34 seconds, 0.62%
Independent - 5 minutes 16 seconds, 0.43%
Greens - 2 minutes 51 seconds, 0.23%
English Democrats - 2 minutes 47 seconds, 0.23%
UUP - 2 minutes 27 seconds, 0.21%
DUP - 2 minutes 15 seconds, 0.19%
SDLP - 1 minute 56 seconds, 0.13%

Curiously, the Labour % is not greatly different to that of preceding months, showing just how much they usually dominate the Beeb's studios.

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - SUPER-AVERAGE I.C.s

*
Well, here are the big figures - the average for each party of all the results for last month. And what do they show?

Plaid Cymru - 1.2
SNP - 1.1
English Democrats - 0.8
Conservatives - 0.7
Labour - 0.7
Lib Dems - 0.6
UKIP - 0.5
DUP - 0.5
Independent - 0.4
Green - 0
UUP - 0
SDLP -0

And there you have it - a dead-heat between Labour and the Conservatives, with the Lib Dems close behind.

This month's figures, put bluntly, show no proof of overall bias whatsoever!!!!

As I heard this month's chain of interviews unfold I was hearing it for myself, so I knew these sort of figures were coming. So unlike June and July, where marked anti-Conservative bias was strongly suggested, and even August, where a much smaller anti-Conservative bias was suggested, September has proved a remarkable month indeed at the BBC. The Lib Dems, normally treated with kid gloves, were duffed up right, left and centre. The Conservatives received a greater number of easy rides than is usual from some of the unlikeliest interviewers and many Labour politicians were given tougher rides than usual, again from some of the unlikeliest interviewers - balancing out, all in all, to an identical overall I.C. between the two main parties.

This is, of course, how things should be.

Partly the result may be down to the fact that the Conservatives have been interviewed so little - which will change with their party conference. Then we will really see if the BBC is really changing its spots.

So will it continue? Is it a statistical freak, or the beginning of a significant trend? How will the Conservatives be treated next week?

There's only one way to find out.

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - THE NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS FOR EACH PARTY

*
Given that the close of September was dominated by the Liberal Democrat and Labour conferences, it is hardly surprising that they will seem to dominate the Conservatives in any count of interviews given by the BBC to each UK political party. This is a favoured measure of mine, but is obviously of no use this month because of this fact. Similarly, October will move onto the Conservative party conference and they will dominate the air-waves (presumably) for a week. These distortions will be easily remedied by combining September's with October's figures. The problem will vanish and bias will be revealed (should it exist).

For what it's worth though (and it does show quite a lot), here are the figures:

Labour - 125
Lib Dems - 55
Conservatives - 45
SNP - 4
UKIP - 3 (wow!)
Independent - 2
Plaid Cymru - 2
Greens - 1
English Democrats - 1
UUP - 1
DUP - 1
SDLP - 1

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - CAROLYN QUINN

Finally, that old workhorse Carolyn Quinn has put in another month's hard work, and this is what she was up to:

Danny Alexander Lib Dem 0.9
Kate Hoey Labour 0.9
Dominic Grieve Conservative 0.9
Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.8
Douglas Alexander Labour 0.8
Elfyn Llwyd Plaid 0.7
Ed Miliband Labour 0.7
Mark Field Conservative 0.6
Alistair Darling Labour 0.6
Dan Hannan Conservative 0.6
Emily Thornberry Labour 0.4
Mark Field Conservative 0.4
Philip Hammond Conservative 0.4
Ken Clarke Conservative 0.3
Ed Balls Labour 0.2
Janet Anderson Labour 0.2
Ed Vaizey Conservative 0.2
Evan Harris Lib Dem 0.2
Roger Berry Labour 0
Alan Johnson Labour 0
John Denham Labour 0
Jack Straw Labour 0
Paul Holmes Lib Dem 0
Andy Burnham Labour 0
David Laws Lib Dem 0
Lord McNally Lib Dem 0
Paul Holmes Lib Dem 0
Mike Gapes Labour 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
Plaid - 0.7
Conservatives - 0.5
Labour - 0.3
Lib Dems - 0.3

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - ANITA ANAND

*
Andrew's sidekick Anita Anand got a broader brief. Here are her figures:

Susan Kramer Lib Dem 1.3
Lord Razzall Lib Dem 1.1
Sadiq Khan Labour 1
Robin Tilbrook Eng Dem 0.8
David Blunkett Labour 0.4
Roy Hattersley Labour 0.3
Charles Kennedy Lib Dem 0.3
John Denham Labour 0.2
Chris Grayling Conservative 0
Bernard Jenkin Conservative 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
English Democrats - 0.8
Lib Dems - 0.7
Labour - 0.5
Conservatives - 0

The Eng Dem result was predictable, the Conservative one not.

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - ANDREW NEIL

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

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

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

How will the Conservatives fare at his hands?

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - ANDREW MARR

*
Andrew Marr has been full of surprises (what's gotten into him? Not prescription pills I hope!), as his results demonstrate:

Nick Clegg Lib Dem 1.3
Ed Miliband Labour 1.1
Gordon Brown Labour 1
George Osborne Conservative 0.8
Charles Kennedy Lib Dem 0.3
Nigel Farage UKIP 0
Shirley Williams Lib Dem 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
Labour - 1.1
Conservatives - 0.8
Lib Dems - 0.5
UKIP - 0

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - EDWARD STOURTON

*
Ed Stourton went back into his shell after an eventful August, scoring a quirky result:

Ieuan Wyn Jones Plaid Cymru 1.6
David Miliband Labour 0.6

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - EDDIE MAIR

*
Eddie Mair from P.M. continues to be his own man, as these results again show:

Kevan Jones Labour 0.9
Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0.9
Mary Creagh Labour 0
Peter Luff Conservative 0
Sir Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0
Annabel Goldie Conservative 0
Vince Cable Lib Dem 0

Average interruptions per political party:
Labour - 0.5
Lib Dems - 0.3
Conservatives - 0

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - BECKY MILLIGAN & CAROLE WALKER

*

To Becky Milligan, a mere reporter, went the honour of interviewing the Labour MP Eric Joyce, who resigned over his government's handling of the war in Afghanistan and our troops. An I.C. of 0 was scored.

Carole Walker got the lesser honour of talking to Bill Rammell (Labour) over al Megrahi's release but also scored o.

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - BRIAN HANRAHAN

*
Old Brian Hanrahan, who first joined the BBC at the time of the Schleswig Holstein affair, chatted to couple of Labour types only in September:

Peter Mandelson Labour 0.7
Andrew Miller Labour 0.4

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - EVAN DAVIS

Evan Davis no sooner arrives at Today than he falls quiet. Come on Evan, get some work done!

David Miliband Labour 1.1
Lord Baker Conservative 1

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - EMILY MAITLIS

*

Emily Maitlis has not been a hard-working girl in the past month, with only 3 interviews to her credit, whose averages I will let you work out.



David Miliband Labour 0.9
Dan Hannan Conservative 0.9
Norman Lamb Lib Dem 0

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - FELICITY EVANS

Making her usual fleeting appearance on The World Tonight, Felicity Evans scored a 0.5 with old Tory Sir Malcolm Rifkind. She deserves a picture for that!

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - GAVIN ESLER

**
Gavin Esler's September has been fairly quiet, but there are some results:

Keith Vaz Labour 0.9
Jim Knight Labour 0.8
Jeremy Hunt Conservative 0.6
Tony McNulty Labour 0.6
Patrick Mercer Conservative 0.5

Average number of interruptions per political party:
Labour - 0.8
Conservatives - 0.6

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - DAVID HENDERSON

*
During Glenn Campbell's absence from one edition of the Politics Show: Scotland there appeared someone called David to do the presenting. His full name did not appear anywhere but my researches have (with great effort) found it out to be one David Henderson.

Here are his figures:

Linda Fabiani SNP 1.3
Pauline McNeill Labour 1
Tavish Scott Lib Dem 0.2
Alex Salmond SNP 0.1

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - GLENN CAMPBELL

*
Just one interview too from The Politics Show: Scotland's Glenn Campbell (who was seen more widely on our screens when the Lockerbie bomber was released), a o.9-strength interview with Labour's Jim Murphy.

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - JANE HILL

*

8
Jane Hill made a few appearances on The World Tonight, but there's only a single interview to consider (which makes the size of her picture surprising?). She scored an I.C. of 0 against Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - JEREMY PAXMAN

*
Jeremy Paxman was on fine snarling form this past month, and showed himself to be an interrupter-for-all-seasons:

Phil Woolas Labour 3.4
Lord West Goat 2.8
Alex Salmond SNP 2.6
Liam Byrne Labour 2.3
Philip Hammond Conservative 2.3
Mike Gapes Labour 2.1
Vince Cable Lib Dem 1.8
Ed Miliband Labour 1.7
Chuka Ummuna Labour 1.6
Nick Clegg Lib Dem 1.6
Norman Lamont Conservative 1.4
Ed Miliband Labour 1.4
Ben Bradshaw Labour 1.2
Alistair Darling Labour 1.1
Paul Flynn Labour 1
Frank Dobson Labour 1
Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.9
David Miliband Labour 0.9
Margaret Beckett Labour 0.9
Peter Mandelson Labour 0.9
Tony Blair Labour 0.7
Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0.6
Charles Clarke Labour 0.5
Lord Gilbert Labour 0.5
Damian Green Conservative 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
SNP - 2.6
Labour - 1.3
Conservatives - 1.2
Lib Dems - 1.2

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - JIM NAUGHTIE

*
Now how did August's King of Bias do? Jim 'When we win the election' Naughtie's results are nowhere near as clear-cut this time round, as you can see:

Peter Mandelson Labour 1.3
Lord Drayson Labour 1
Peter Mandelson Labour 1
Daniel Kawczynski Conservative 0.9
David Cameron Conservative 0.8
Gordon Brown Labour 0.8
George Osborne Conservative 0.7
Daniel Kawczynski Conservative 0.6
Lord Carlisle Lib Dem 0.4
Mike Russell SNP 0.4
Ed Miliband Labour 0.3
Alan Johnson Labour 0.3
David Blunkett Labour 0.3
Neil Kinnock Labour 0.2
Chris Grayling Conservative 0
Kevan Jones Labour 0
Shaun Woodward Labour 0
Rosemary McKenna Labour 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
Conservative - 0.6
Labour - 0.5
Lib Dems - 0.4
SNP - 0.4

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - JOHN HUMPHRYS

*
That big beast of Today, John Humphrys, has put in another somewhat surprising performance this last month:

Delyth Morgan Labour 1.5
William Hague Conservative 1.2
Ed Balls Labour 1
Andrew McKinley Labour 0.9
David Miliband Labour 0.7
Iain Duncan Smith Conservative 0.7
Alistair Darling Labour 0.5
Edward McMillan-Scott Independent 0.3
John Whittingdale Conservative 0
Paddy Ashdown Lib Dem 0
Graham Allen Labour 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
Labour - 0.8
Conservative - 0.6
Independent - 0.3
Lib Dems - 0

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - JON SOPEL

*
Jon Sopel returned and scored these most unsurprising I.C.s:

Vernon Coaker Labour 2
Dan Hannan Conservative 1.7
Philip Hammond Conservative 1.5
Ed Balls Labour 0.8
Edward McMillan-Scott Independent 0.5
Alan Johnson Labour 0.2
Des Browne Labour 0.2

Average number of interruptions per political party:
Conservatives - 1.2
Labour - 0.7
Independent - 0.5

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - JUSTIN WEBB

*
Justin Webb's September was not too busy either. Here are his results:

Ken Clarke Conservative 1.3
Lord Layard Labour 0.9
John Denham Labour 0.3
Frank Feeley SDLP 0
Vince Cable Lib Dem 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
Conservatives - 1.3
Labour - 0.6
Lib Dems - 0
SDLP - 0

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - KIRSTY WARK

*
A very quiet month for Kirsty Wark, with only two relevant interviews:

Alistair Darling Labour 1.4
Nigel Farage UKIP 0.7

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - MARTHA KEARNEY

*
Martha has been at the party conferences. She's always one of the busiest of the Beeb's interviewers. Here are all her figures for September:

Simon Hughes Lib Dem 1.7
Andrew Lansley Conservative 1.7
Bernard Jenkin Conservative 1.5
Alistair Darling Labour 1.4
Nick Clegg Lib Dem 1.3
Matthew Oakeshott Lib Dem 1.3
Richard Baker Labour 1.2
Jack Straw Labour 1
John Cruddas Labour 1
Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.9
Mike O'Brien Labour 0.9
Neil Kinnock Labour 0.7
Keith Vaz Labour 0.7
Phil Woolas Labour 0.6
Andy Burnham Labour 0.6
Paddy Ashdown Lib Dem 0.6
Alistair Darling Labour 0.5
Nigel Dodds DUP 0.5
Danny Alexander Lib Dem 0.4
Boris Johnson Conservative 0.3
John Prescott Labour 0.2
Jacqui Smith Labour 0.2
Peter Mandelson Labour 0.2
Malcolm Bruce Lib Dem 0
Steve Webb Lib Dem 0
Ed Fordham Lib Dem 0
Kelvin Hopkins Labour 0
Nigel Griffiths Labour 0
Lord McNally Lib Dem 0
Stephen Hesford Labour 0
John McFall Labour 0
Barry Sheerman Labour 0
Alan Simpson Labour 0
John Denham Labour 0
Martin Linton Labour 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
Conservatives - 1.2
Lib Dems - 0.6
Democratic Unionists - 0.5
Labour - 0.4

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - NORMAN SMITH

*
Political correspondent Norman Smith got a go at doing a full interview with Labour's Peter Hain (26/9), and scored a gentle 0.2.

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - PADDY O'CONNELL

Broadcasting House only features occasional political interviews, so it's main presenter has only three I.C.s for consideration:

Roger Helmer Conservative 1
Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.3
Frank Dobson Labour 0

Let's hope these are not representative.

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - RITULA SHAH

Ritula Shah, the other presenter of The World Tonight, has scored in the following fashion in September:

Gerald Howarth Conservative 1
Barry Sheerman Labour 0.6
Philip Hammond Conservative 0.5
Lord West Goat 0.4
David Tredinnick Conservative 0
Barry Sheerman Labour 0
Sir Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
Conservative - 0.5
Labour - 0.3
Lib Dem - 0.1

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - ROBIN LUSTIG

Robin Lustig from The World Tonight has only interview Labour and Lib Dems this month, but as that's because he has been at their party conferences and the Conservatives are still to come, this is not surprising. Here are his figures:

Linda Gilroy Labour 0.8
Peter Mandelson Labour 0.4
Mark Littlewood Lib Dem 0.3
David Miliband Labour 0.2
Vernon Coaker Labour 0
Hilary Benn Labour 0
Ed Miliband Labour 0

Average number of interruptions per political party
Lib Dems - 0.3
Labour - 0.2

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - SARAH MONTAGUE

Today's Sarah Montague in has scored interestingly in September:

Tony McNulty Labour 1.1
Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0.9
Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.7
Nigel Farage UKIP 0.7
Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0.2
Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.2
Eric Pickles Conservative 3.18 0
Caroline Lucas Green 0
Sir Malcolm Rifkind Conservative 0
Denis MacShane Labour 0
Paddy Ashdown Lib Dem 0
Brian Wilson Labour 0
Shirley Williams Lib Dem 0

&&Average number of interruptions per political party
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&**UKIP - 0.7
************************Labour - 0.4
************************Lib Dems - 0.3
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&Greens - 0

************************Conservatives - 0

Hands up who saw that coming!

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - SHAUN LEY

**
Following my recent praise for a reformed Shaun Ley, how are his I.C.s looking for September.

Ed Balls Labour 1.7
Yvette Cooper Labour 1.2
Theresa May Conservative 0.9
Barry Sheerman Labour 0.7
John Spellar Labour 0.6
Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.2
Des Turner Labour 0
Basil McCrea UUP 0
Matthew Taylor Lib Dem 0
Paddy Ashdown Lib Dem 0
John Redwood Conservative 0
Brian Wilson Labour 0
George Osborne Conservative 0
Shirley Williams Lib Dem 0
Geoffrey Robinson Labour 0
John McFall Labour 2.06 0

Average number of interruptions per political party

Labour - 0.5

Conservatives - 0.3

Liberal Democrats 0.1

Ulster Unionists - 0

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - SHIRIN WHEELER

I have now began monitoring The Record Europe, presented by the lovely Shirin Wheeler. She has only conducting one interview with a U.K. politician so far, and that was with the leader of the Conservative MEPs, Timothy Kirkhope (21/9), where she scored a high 1.9.