FEBRUARY'S FULL I.C. LIST

*
A new month means another list of interruption coefficients.
*
256 interviews have occured throughout February, this covers every edition of:
*
Today
The Daily Politics
The World At One
PM
The World Tonight
Newsnight
The Andrew Marr Show
Broadcasting House
The Politics Show
The World This Weekend
The Politics Show: Scotland
Dragon's Eye
The Record: Europe
Westminster Hour
*
Just as a reminder - Interruption Coefficients (I.C.s) are calculated by dividing the number of interruptions by the length of the interview. The higher the I.C. the tougher the interview (as a rule). I.C.s of 0 have contained no interruptions! Interruptions are only classed as interruptions if they stop or significantly alter the speaker's flow. Muttered 'wells' and the like are classed as 'abortive interruptions' and are not counted. Those that share an I.C., say of 0.8, are sub-ranked according to a hidden (inferior) measure called the Questions Coefficient, which is calculated by dividing thee number of questions by the length of the interview. The more questions there are, the likelier the interviewer is holding the reins in an interview. That means that everything is ranked just where it should be!
*
As usual I will begin with the full list (with apologies as ever for the lack of punctuation!!) You will notice something unprecedented in my survey so far at the top. Never before has a Labour politician been the Month's Most Interrupted!:
*
*
24/02 Jo Coburn Sadiq Khan Labour 2.5
19/02 Jeremy Paxman Lord Adonis Labour 2.5

23/02 John Humphrys Ed Balls Labour 2.4
01/02 Andrew Neil Philip Hammond Conservative 2.4

03/02 Andrew Neil Jeremy Hunt Conservative 2.2

23/02 Jeremy Paxman Nick Harvey Lib Dem 2.1
14/02 Jon Sopel Andrew Lansley Conservative 2.1

02/02 Kirsty Wark Eric Pickles Conservative 2
25/02 Andrew Neil Phil Woolas Labour 2
26/02 Jo Coburn Nick Herbert Conservative 2
28/02 Andrew Marr George Osborne Conservative 2
12/02 Justin Webb Andrew Lansley Conservative 2

08/02 Andrew Neil Sir George Young Conservative 1.9
23/02 Andrew Neil John Redwood Conservative 1.9
09/02 Andrew Neil John Denham Labour 1.9
18/02 Gavin Esler Andrew Lansley Conservative 1.9

24/02 Andrew Neil Sadiq Khan Labour 1.8
24/02 Jo Coburn Caroline Spelman Conservative 1.8
26/02 Gavin Esler Ed Davey Lib Dem 1.8
26/02 Gavin Esler Michael Mates Conservative 1.8
23/02 Andrew Neil Geoffrey Robinson Labour 1.8
20/02 John Humphrys Douglas Alexander Labour 1.8

18/02 John Humphrys William Hague Conservative 1.7
15/02 James Naughtie George Osborne Conservative 1.7
24/02 Andrew Neil Caroline Spelman Conservative 1.7

10/02 Andrew Neil Shirley Williams Lib Dem 1.6
01/02 Jo Coburn Jim Knight Labour 1.6
19/02 James Naughtie Theresa Villiers Conservative 1.6
28/02 Shirin Wheeler Vicky Ford Conservative 1.6

10/02 Andrew Neil Ben Bradshaw Labour 1.5
02/02 Andrew Neil John Denham Labour 1.5
24/02 Kirsty Wark Phil Woolas Labour 1.5

10/02 Eddie Mair David Miliband Labour 1.4
01/02 Justin Webb Nick Clegg Lib Dem 1.4
03/02 Andrew Neil Liam Byrne Labour 1.4
03/02 Eddie Mair Bob Ainsworth Labour 1.4
08/02 Evan Davis Sir George Young Conservative 1.4
24/02 James Naughtie John Whittingdale Conservative 1.4
09/02 Andrew Neil Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.4
25/02 Andrew Neil Ann Widdecombe Conservative 1.4
09/02 Andrew Neil Dominic Grieve Conservative 1.4
01/02 Andrew Neil Denis MacShane Labour 1.4
01/02 John Humphrys Andy Burnham Labour 1.4
28/02 Shaun Ley Michael Gove Conservative 1.4
21/02 Andrew Marr Peter Mandelson Labour 1.4
14/02 Shirin Wheeler John Bufton UKIP 1.4

23/02 Martha Kearney John Denham Labour 1.3
03/02 Jo Coburn Liam Byrne Labour 1.3
02/02 Kirsty Wark Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.3
02/02 Martha Kearney Chris Huhne Lib Dem 1.3
07/02 Felicity Evans Ieuan Wyn Jones Plaid Cymru 1.3
03/02 Jo Coburn Jeremy Hunt Conservative 1.3
08/02 Emily Maitlis Michael Gove Conservative 1.3
03/02 John Humphrys Phil Hope Labour 1.3
01/02 Justin Webb Michael Gove Conservative 1.3
07/02 Andrew Marr Alan Johnson Labour 1.3
26/02 Gavin Esler Harriet Harman Labour 1.3

09/02 Eddie Mair Douglas Carswell Conservative 1.2
08/02 Emily Maitlis Ben Bradshaw Labour 1.2
08/02 Emily Maitlis Sir George Young Conservative 1.2
23/02 Andrew Neil John Prescott Labour 1.2
25/02 Felicity Evans Kirsty Williams Lib Dem 1.2
01/02 Eddie Mair Philip Hammond Conservative 1.2
28/02 Carolyn Quinn Ed Vaizey Conservative 1.2

21/02 Glenn Campbell Richard Lochhead SNP 1.1
21/02 Glenn Campbell Kenny MacAskill SNP 1.1
28/02 Andrew Marr Peter Hain Labour 1.1

10/02 Jo Coburn Ben Bradshaw Labour 1
21/02 Glenn Campbell Bill Aitken Conservative 1
23/02 John Humphrys Phil Woolas Labour 1
04/02 Eddie Mair Mike O'Brien Labour 1
23/02 Jeremy Paxman Bob Ainsworth Labour 1
03/02 Evan Davis Chris Grayling Conservative 1
15/02 Sarah Montague Louise Ellman Labour 1

21/02 Shirin Wheeler Edward McMillan Scott Independent Conservative 0.9
22/02 Martha Kearney Geoffrey Robinson Labour 0.9
19/02 Carolyn Quinn Lord Hunt Labour 0.9
02/02 Martha Kearney John Denham Labour 0.9
12/02 James Naughtie Catherine Bearder Lib Dem 0.9
08/02 Eddie Mair Ed Davey Lib Dem 0.9
22/02 Jeremy Paxman John Prescott Labour 0.9
24/02 Eddie Mair Andrew Lansley Conservative 0.9
12/02 Justin Webb Norman Lamb Lib Dem 0.9
23/02 Justin Webb David Laws Lib Dem 0.9
10/02 Martha Kearney Andy Burnham Labour 0.9
14/02 Shirin Wheeler Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 0.9
23/02 Martha Kearney Shaun Woodward Labour 0.9
21/02 Shirin Wheeler Roger Helmer Conservative 0.9
26/02 Sarah Montague Mark Field Conservative 0.9

02/02 Martha Kearney Jeremy Hunt Conservative 0.8
07/02 Jon Sopel Damian Green Conservative 0.8
09/02 James Naughtie Hilary Benn Labour 0.8
18/02 John Humphrys Caroline Lucas Green 0.8
28/02 Jon Sopel Ed Balls Labour 0.8
22/02 Jeremy Paxman Roy Hattersley Labour 0.8
22/02 Jeremy Paxman Lord Steel Lib Dem 0.8
28/02 Jon Sopel Michael Gove Conservative 0.8
14/02 Jon Sopel Norman Lamb Lib Dem 0.8
21/02 Jon Sopel Chris Grayling Conservative 0.8
23/02 John Humphrys Lord Soley Labour 0.8
02/02 John Humphrys Graham Watson Lib Dem 0.8
10/02 Andrew Neil David Willetts Conservative 0.8
09/02 James Naughtie Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.8
21/02 Jon Sopel Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.8

05/02 Eddie Mair Nigel Don SNP 0.7
07/02 Jo Coburn Chris Grayling Conservative 0.7
02/02 Kirsty Wark Peter Hain Labour 0.7
05/02 Eddie Mair Bill Aitken Conservative 0.7
15/02 Shaun Ley Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.7
25/02 James Naughtie George Osborne Conservative 0.7
24/02 Kirsty Wark Damian Green Conservative 0.7
11/02 Evan Davis David Davis Conservative 0.7
16/02 Kirsty Wark John Redwood Conservative 0.7
14/02 Carolyn Quinn Evan Harris Lib Dem 0.7
15/02 James Naughtie Alistair Darling Labour 0.7
14/02 Andrew Marr Michael Gove Conservative 0.7
14/02 Jon Sopel Andy Burnham Labour 0.7
07/02 Shirin Wheeler Nirj Diva Conservative 0.7

21/02 Glenn Campbell Douglas Alexander Labour 0.6
14/02 Glenn Campbell David Cameron Conservative 0.6
01/02 Eddie Mair Liam Byrne Labour 0.6
08/02 Jo Coburn Harriet Harman Labour 0.6
19/02 Evan Davis Ieuan Wyn Jones Plaid Cymru 0.6
23/02 Jeremy Paxman Liam Fox Conservative 0.6
14/02 Andrew Marr Carwyn Jones Labour 0.6
26/02 Ritula Shah Michael Mates Conservative 0.6
28/02 Glenn Campbell David McLetchie Conservative 0.6
17/02 Martha Kearney Yvette Cooper Labour 0.6
18/02 James Naughtie Hilary Benn Labour 0.6
24/02 Eddie Mair Andy Burnham Labour 0.6
27/02 Justin Webb David Davis Conservative 0.6
08/02 Sarah Montague Harriet Harman Labour 0.6
13/02 James Naughtie Chris Patten Conservative 0.6
21/02 Shaun Ley Harriet Harman Labour 0.6
08/02 Emily Maitlis Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.6

02/02 Jo Coburn Nadine Dorries Conservative 0.5
02/02 Jo Coburn Martin Salter Labour 0.5
04/02 Andrew Neil Norman Baker Lib Dem 0.5
10/02 James Naughtie Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.5
06/02 Evan Davis Lord Goldsmith Labour 0.5
04/02 Andrew Neil John Mann Labour 0.5
08/02 Martha Kearney Dominic Grieve Conservative 0.5
21/02 Jon Sopel Alan Johnson Labour 0.5
11/02 Martha Kearney Peter Mandelson Labour 0.5
12/02 Carolyn Quinn Karen Buck Labour 0.5
14/02 Carolyn Quinn Paul Flynn Labour 0.5
12/02 Ritula Shah David Willetts Conservative 0.5
24/02 Martha Kearney Yvette Cooper Labour 0.5
27/02 Evan Davis David Willetts Conservative 0.5
26/02 Shaun Ley Margaret Beckett Labour 0.5
07/02 Carolyn Quinn Mark Field Conservative 0.5
22/02 Martha Kearney Phil Willis Lib Dem 0.5
07/02 Jon Sopel Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.5

04/02 Andrew Neil Ann Widdecombe Conservative 0.4
25/02 Martha Kearney Khalid Mahmood Labour 0.4
21/02 Andrew Marr David Davis Conservative 0.4
28/02 Glenn Campbell Pat Watters Labour 0.4
03/02 Jeremy Paxman Michael Portillo Conservative 0.4
10/02 James Naughtie James Arbuthnot Conservative 0.4
21/02 Shaun Ley Graham Allen Labour 0.4
10/02 Gavin Esler David Miliband Labour 0.4
11/02 Andrew Neil Dan Hannan Conservative 0.4
28/02 Glenn Campbell Wendy Alexander Labour 0.4
02/02 Martha Kearney Peter Hain Labour 0.4
10/02 Jo Coburn Shirley Williams Lib Dem 0.4
10/02 Martha Kearney Damian Green Conservative 0.4
12/02 Ritula Shah Kitty Ussher Labour 0.4
16/02 Evan Davis Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.4
28/02 Shirin Wheeler Sarah Ludford Lib Dem 0.4
21/02 Carolyn Quinn Tom Harris Labour 0.4
07/02 Glenn Campbell Kenny Gibson SNP 0.4
24/02 Evan Davis Frank Field Labour 0.4
07/02 Jon Sopel Phil Woolas Labour 0.4

16/02 Kirsty Wark David Heath Lib Dem 0.3
13/02 James Naughtie Jeremy Beecham Labour 0.3
12/02 Shaun Ley Louise Ellman Labour 0.3
19/02 Eddie Mair Sir Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0.3
02/02 John Humphrys Martin Linton Labour 0.3
17/02 Robin Lustig David Liddington Conservative 0.3
11/02 Carolyn Quinn John Healey Labour 0.3
09/02 John Humphrys Brian Paddick Lib Dem 0.3
23/02 Martha Kearney Danny Kennedy UUP 0.3
25/02 James Naughtie Jeffrey Donaldson DUP 0.3
22/02 John Humphrys Evan Harris Lib Dem 0.3
07/02 Shirin Wheeler Michael Cashman Labour 0.3
10/02 Martha Kearney Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.3
05/02 Gavin Esler Norman Lamb Lib Dem 0.3

25/02 Martha Kearney Paul Myners Labour 0.2
14/02 Glenn Campbell Alistair Darling Labour 0.2
05/02 Sarah Montague Shaun Woodward Labour 0.2
11/02 Jo Coburn Keith Vaz Labour 0.2
05/02 Sarah Montague Jeffrey Donaldson DUP 0.2
28/02 Carolyn Quinn Paul Flynn Labour 0.2
12/02 Justin Webb Kim Howells Labour 0.2
21/02 Carolyn Quinn Douglas Carswell Conservative 0.2
23/02 Eddie Mair David Ford Alliance 0.2
26/02 Carolyn Quinn Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0.2
28/02 Carolyn Quinn Lynne Featherstone Lib Dem 0.2
07/02 Andrew Marr William Hague Conservative 0.2

04/02 Martha Kearney Ann Cryer Labour 0
23/02 Martha Kearney Eric Joyce Labour 0
02/02 Martha Kearney Tom Harris Labour 0
28/02 Shirin Wheeler Peter Skinner Labour 0
04/02 Martha Kearney Tony Wright Labour 0
05/02 Ed Stourton David Ford Alliance 0
24/02 Eddie Mair Brian Wilson Labour 0
02/02 Jo Coburn Tom Harris Labour 0
04/02 Evan Davis Norman Baker Lib Dem 0
23/02 John Humphrys John Puddifoot Conservative 0
07/02 Glenn Campbell Dave Berry SNP 0
14/02 Shaun Ley Lord Steel Lib Dem 0
19/02 Robin Lustig Charles Tannock Conservative 0
24/02 Robin Lustig Gareth Thomas Labour 0
08/02 Ritula Shah Ken Livingstone Labour 0
01/02 Ed Stourton Lord Carlisle Lib Dem 0
09/02 Martha Kearney David Blunkett Labour 0
17/02 Evan Davis Nick Herbert Conservative 0
23/02 Justin Webb Mehboob Khan Labour 0
02/02 Martha Kearney Stephen Hughes Labour 0
04/02 Eddie Mair Douglas Carswell Conservative 0
17/02 Gavin Esler Sir Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0
01/02 Ed Stourton David Lammy Labour 0
08/02 Evan Davis Tim Yeo Conservative 0
09/02 Martha Kearney Leon Brittan Conservative 0
11/02 Carolyn Quinn Grant Shapps Conservative 0
12/02 Shaun Ley Lord Carlile Lib Dem 0
12/02 Ritula Shah Stephen Williams Lib Dem 0
24/02 Martha Kearney Chris Grayling Conservative 0
27/02 Justin Webb Sandra Gidney Lib Dem 0
03/02 Jeremy Paxman Daniel Hannan Conservative 0
04/02 James Naughtie Sir Stuart Bell Labour 0
05/02 Ed Stourton Ian Paisley Jnr DUP 0
07/02 Glenn Campbell Jackie Baillie Labour 0
08/02 Martha Kearney Sir Patrick Cormack Conservative 0
25/02 James Naughtie Nigel Farage UKIP 0
07/02 Carolyn Quinn Chris Mullin Labour 0
01/02 Eddie Mair Vince Cable Lib Dem 0
07/02 Shirin Wheeler Richard Corbett Labour 0
07/02 Glenn Campbell Alex Neil SNP 0
11/02 Evan Davis Lord Lamont Conservative 0
08/02 Ritula Shah Sir Malcolm Rifkind Conservative 0
14/02 Shirin Wheeler Stephen Hughes Labour 0
14/02 Paddy O'Connell Bob Ainsworth Labour 0
19/02 Nils Blythe Peter Mandelson Labour 0
27/02 Evan Davis Alf Morris Labour 0
03/02 Andrew Neil Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0
21/02 Shirin Wheeler Chris Davies Lib Dem 0
21/02 Carolyn Quinn Matthew Oakeshott Lib Dem 0
24/02 Evan Davis David Hanson Labour 0
24/02 Evan Davis Julia Goldsworth Lib Dem 0
24/02 Martha Kearney Jeremy Browne Lib Dem 0
05/02 Robin Lustig John Alderdyce Alliance 0
27/02 Justin Webb Lord Carlile Lib Dem 0
28/02 Shirin Wheeler Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 0
02/02 Martha Kearney Sarah Teather Lib Dem 0
14/02 Shaun Ley Rhodri Morgan Labour 0

LORD ASHCROFT

*
Sorry for the dearth of posts today (normal business will resume tomorrow, when my monthly list will also appear), but for an overview on the BBC's coverage of the Lord Ashcroft story here's Not a sheep:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-this-bbc-wording-misleading.html
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/bbc-are-in-full-attack-mode.html
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/nick-robinson-tells-only-part-of-labour.html
*
Besides the BBC News website and Nick Robinson's blog (dealt with by Not a sheep), I've so far only had the chance to listen to The World at One. Its cast list for the Lord Ashcroft story consisted of:
*
- Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrats, 2 min 21 sec, no interruptions, I.C. of 0.
- Lord Paul, Labour non-dom donor, 3 min 44 sec, no interruptions, I.C. of 0.
- Gordon Prentice, Labour, 2 min, 1 interruption, I.C. of 0.5
- Michael Gove, Conservative, 2 mins 45 sec, 3 interruptions, I.C. of 1.2
*
Messers Huhne and Prentice laid ferociously into Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives, Huhne especially waxing righteous (and hypocritical). Lord Paul was given a very soft ride by Martha Kearney. Michael Gove's powerful defence of the Conservatives' position, in contrast, was splattered by a plethora of abortive interruptions from Martha, as well as the three full-bodied specimens mentioned above. She repeatedly tried to stop him from naming the equivalent Lib Dem and Labour non-doms - which, given that neither Mr Huhne nor Mr Prentice had been in any way impeded in their attacks on Lord Ashcroft and the Tories was, to say the very least, hardly fair.
*
*
In fairness to her, when Michael Gove returned for an interview about his schools policy, prefaced by an interview with the wonderful but critical Chris Woodhead, he was not interrupted This sank his overall I.C. down to 0.6. Sadly, this part of the interview lasted under 3 minutes, hardly time to do justice to the argument.
*
*
The programme closed with Mark Worthington's report from Ipswich, discussing council funding for the arts in the light of coming cuts. The spokesman for Suffolk County Council made his case for getting more for less, but Mark immediately commented that "these words offer little reassurance" for the theatre and museums of the borough. Suffolk County Council is Conservative-controlled.
*

SELECTING LABOUR

*
Education lawyer Anita Chopra was one of the guests on the closing education debate on this morning's Today. She's unaligned to any political party (according to my very thorough Google search) and sounded studiously neutral on matters of politics throughout.
*
The other guest was a very different kettle of fish - Fiona Millar, 'chair' of Comprehensive Future and 'significant other' of chief-killer-of-decency-in-politics Alastair Campbell. Justin Webb, in introducing her, said she "campaigns for education provision for all". (Why did he simply parrot this completely vacuous cliche? Who isn't in favour of education provision for all? Nobody!!!!!!)

Ms Millar made attacks on selection and faith schools - and, you won't be too surprised to hear, on the Conservatives. This attack on the Conservatives came as the result of a generous-invitation-to-attack-the-Tories-disguised-as-a-question from Justin Webb. He allowed the all-too-inevitable attack to flow unabated and unchallenged. Job done for Labour, job done for Justin!
*
Justin sounded sniffy about the idea of choice in his introductory remarks and his questioning of the lawyer (who represents parents who are unhappy with the school they are offered) was noticeably more brusque than his questioning of the choice-hating La Campbell. Indeed, for all his interruptions (not that there were many), Justin didn't ask a single challenging question of Fiona Millar. He did, however, ask Anita "Anita Copra, is that a potential issue here, people just look, glance, at admissions tables, at league tables for exams, and actually make decisions that aren't really necessarily the best for their children?". So, the only substantial question of the entire segment comes from the Left perspective that opposes one of the few New Labour principles I enthusiastically agree with - proper measurement of schools performance (the practice of course is something else!!).
*
Justin questions from a Left perspective here. The programme's choice of guests is tilted towards the Labour Party. That's the Today programme for you! That's the BBC for you!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8542000/8542374.stm

!"2

Today didn't just speak to Labour supporters, it also talked to an ex-Labour-supporting novelist who left the Labour Party because, through its support for Bush and the Iraq War, he no longer found it left-wing enough, Hanif Kureishi. He followed straight on from 'civil rights leader' Jesse Jackson, who Justin Webb valued for his "friendly but critical analysis" of Barack Obama. All Justin's questions came from a stance pretty much identical to Rev. Jackson's, criticising Obama only from the Left. This was not good interviewing by Justin Webb ("some people say that he's been too timid in fighting back against those interests", "It's a reasonable point, isn't it, that Americans do have a strange view of the government - they both are involved it and yet dislike it, and yet his critics say, especially his critics on the Left, that actually he cold have punctured all of that if he'd been willing to go to Congress with a plan of his own early on and say back me.")

*

*

The Conservatives were not excluded, however, as the Today website makes clear: "Why are UK voters so unsure about the Tory party? They had a 26-point poll lead 18 months ago, but according to a YouGov Sunday Times poll, that lead is down to just two points. David Cameron addressed the Tory Spring Conference yesterday and himself admitted that his party faced a "real fight". John Strafford who runs the Conservative Campaign for Democracy, and Editor of Spectator Fraser Nelson, discuss what Cameron and his party have done to deserve such a drastic fall in support in the crucial run-up to the general election." Justin and Nick Robinson discussed the difficulties facing the Conservatives before John and Fraser did battle. Justin Webb interrupted them both, especially Mr Stafford. Together the conflicted Conservatives got just over 3 1/2 minutes of BBC airtime.
*
*
Council spending cuts and 'severe austerity', in Evan Davis's words, were the main story of the day. BBC reporters from Yorkshire and the Midlands reported the disapproving view of the unions before L.S.E. professor, Guardian columnist and long-standing BBC favourite Tony Travers, described as a 'local government expert', presented his opinions. He didn't single out the government for criticism. Later left-wing BBC Home Affairs editor Mark Easton also quoted the unions ("a dark period of rationalisation and savings, cuts to jobs and services as the unions prefer to describe it") before characteristically putting Labour's point of view (without balancing it with criticism of the government from the Conservatives'): "Central government is keen to avoid blame for damaging local services and makes the point that local budgets are already agreed till 2011." This is the 'to be fair' principle, easily applied to your friends.
*
Then came the big political interview of the day with Labour's communities' secretary John Denham, who immediately began by saying that Mark Easton was right.
*
Now came the redeeming feature of this typically biased edition of the programme: Evan Davis got tough with John Denham, strongly resisting his immediate attempts to attack David Cameron and forcefully and repeatedly pressing the Labour minister to come clean over his party's spending plans, even pointing out at one stage that Labour ministers seem incapable of answering such questions.This is something neither Marr nor Naughtie (nor most other BBC interviewers for that matter) would have pursued with anywhere near as much vigour (if at all) and this rebounds to Evan's credit. The I.C. was a high 1.8. There's still hope for the lad (despite recent lapses)!
*

MISMANAGEMENT, WHAT MISMANAGEMENT?

&

I've noted before occasional World Tonight presenter Felicity Evans's tendency to intervene whenever Labour comes under attack. Felicity (pictured left) now sits alongside Adrian Masters as co-presenter of Wales's politics show Dragon's Eye and in her interview with Welsh Lib Dem leader Kirsty Williams (pictured right) she made her first interruption as soon as Kirsty criticised Labour's mishandling of the economy, asking "Why do you say 'mismanagement of the economy' though? Would the Liberal Democrats not have stepped in to save the banking system from collapse?" Yes Felicity, Labour have been great for Britain, haven't they?

WELL NEARLY

&
When the BBC bases a story on a report from a think tank it's (famously) usually the IPPR, and if it isn't the IPPR it's usually that other respected left-wing think tank Demos.
*
The second story on the BBC News website at the moment is titled 'Call to scrap school exclusions', with the summary 'Excluding badly behaved pupils from school should be abolished because it punishes vulnerable children, a think tank says.'
*
As soon as I saw that I thought 'IPPR?', but I was wrong: "Demos says current exclusion rules, which hand difficult pupils over to local authorities, affect children with special educational needs."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8541404.stm

A DOWN-ER FOR THE TORIES

*
The Politics Show's review of Conservative education policy (featuring Ed Balls) was followed by a report from North Down by David Thompson. There he found big trouble for the Conservatives. What a surprise? Hardly, he wouldn't have gone there otherwise.
*

THE EU'S TENTACLES SPREAD AGAIN

*
Back very briefly to this week's The Record Europe. The EU's latest intrusion into national policy concerns maternity and paternity pay, legislation long warned of by UKIP (see Derek's blog http://derekbennetteu-sceptic.blogspot.com/). The issue was briefly reported on by the programme, with just one 'talking head', Edita Estrela. She's a Portuguese socialist and she approves of the new legislation. The issue was mentioned only a few weeks ago, and there the only 'talking head' was a another socialist who supports the new legislation, Mary Honeyball of our own dear Labour Party.
*

BALLS!

*
"He didn't want to debate with Labour", said Jon Sopel of Michael Gove at the beginning of the main section of today's Politics Show. Both Sopel and Ed Balls made much of this, to Mr Gove's disadvantage. So Michael Gove and Ed 'Bully' Balls were interviewed separately. I strongly suspect that Mr Gove meant that he didn't want to debate with Balls specifically, as Balls always interrupts him relentlessly during such double-interviews (often questioning him in tandem with the BBC interviewer) whereas, being another of those nice Tories, Mr Gove is far too polite to respond in kind. (It didn't stop Balls from heckling though.)
*
As so often on the Politics Show Conservative policy came under close scrutiny whereas Labour policy was treated as secondary to personality issues. Also, as so often, the Labour attacks on the Tories were allowed to run on, but Tory attacks on Labour were stopped (here accompanied by a telling-off for Mr Gove). Balls for allowed to return after the close of the Gove interview for one last (uninterrupted) blast at the Conservatives.
*
As there was a delay on the link between Mr Gove and the studio many attempted interruptions by Jon Sopel went for nothing. Even so, he was still successfully interrupted more often that Ed Balls, who had by far the easier time of it in the studio (despite a momentary display of bravado from Sopel).
*
Although the polls suggest (and the popularity of Simon Cowell confirms) that lots of Brits clearly love a shit, I can't think that prolonged public exposure to Ed Balls could do Labour anything but harm, so Michael Gove really ought to be more masochistic and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous behaviour by engaging with him whenever possible. Yes, he won't be allowed to make any positive case because of Balls's deliberate tactic of sustained disruption, but he might (if he remains good-humoured) make a more favourable impression on the public - if that's all politics amounts to these days!!

WHEN MARR MET PETER HAIN

*
Before George Osborne's appearance Andrew Marr had interviewed Labour rogue Peter Hain. The tone of this interview could hardly have been more different.
*
There were jokes between the two of them, and Marr didn't immediately rip into Hain the way he did with George Osborne; indeed, his first question, asking about the narrowing of the opinion polls to just 2%, would hardly have been an unwelcome one, and gave Hain the chance to bash the Tories at length. The next volley of questions asked about when the election would be (as if Brown would tell him), again hardly damaging questions - unlike all the questions put to Mr Osborne. Then Marr asked about Hain's reaching out to the Lib Dems. Ouch!, I don't think. During the long answer to this Marr began an interruption with an apology for being about to interrupt, then when Hain said he wanted to finish his point, Marr meekly fell back and allowed this vile man to go on spewing his anti-Tory venom.
*
And that was it! No questions about the economy, none about a lack of clarity from Labour over spending cuts, nothing about questionable Labour donors, nothing about anything of substance whatsoever - just a load of easy, trivial questions and lots of space for the Labour minister to go on and on and on about the 'right-wing reactionary Tories'.

Earlier in the show Marr had said he'd be talking to Peter Hain about "unemployment, bankruptcies, huge debt levels, all of that." He talked to Peter Hain about none of that!

From all this you'd think Andrew Marr was a Labour supporter, wouldn't you!!

WHEN MARR MET GEORGE OSBORNE

*
An opinion poll for The Daily Politics (Friday's election) showed that a certain proportion of the public remains confused about Conservative economic policy. The BBC has been absolutely relentless in telling us that the Conservatives have been confused - and confusing - and lacking in clarity (etc) on the matter in programme after programme. Andrew Marr has always been one of the keenest advocates of this line of attack on the Tories - outside the government. Keen watchers of his programme (for whatever reason) will have heard him tell Tory spokesmen of very stripe, on countless editions of his show, that their policies on this issue or that issue are confused and not clear. Nothing that happens in the course of the interview (however clear the Tory spokesman may be) will make Marr change tack.
*
So it came as no surprise to me that this was the man's first question this morning to George Osborne: "One of your colleagues was quoted in 'The Times' yesterday as saying the problem is everyone knows there's going to have to be deep cuts but you can't scare the electorate and that's where the slight confusion in the Conservative message has come from." This line of questioning continued for many minutes (as it always does), with Marr at one stage telling Mr Osborne (using The Telegraph as cover), "you need to be crystal-clear and you're not being" and, shortly afterwards, "Just not sure exactly how big a choice it is, because you won't tell us."

When Mr Obsorne was very clear about cutting Corporation Tax, spelling out how it would be done, precisely where the savings would come from and exactly how much it would cost, Marr was not happy. His next question ploughed on, at a higher pitch, with the same old line about: "you won't tell us". I've seen all his interviews with Alistair Darling and he never gets anything like this sort of treatment. On and on it went, with Marr getting wilder and wilder in his body language, loudly interrupting and contradicting ("No we won't because you won't tell us!", "I'm not taking about the values, I'm talking about the numbers!). This whole line of attack took up nearly twelve minutes.
*
If you could have predicted all that, there's something else that was even more predictable: Marr asking yet again about Lord Ashcroft (though he bungled his initial attack here by naming Stuart Wheeler, the wonderful UKIP donor, instead of Lord Ashcroft!!). Marr asked if there was "any chance at all of you coming clean on Lord Ashcroft?" At last George Osborne 'grew a small pair' and said what I would have said as a new wave of interruptions was beginning to break over him: "I notice you never ask Labour politicians sitting here about the tax status of some of their very big donors." How true! Marr got very excited in response, his arms flying about like Mr Tickle, and immediately interrupted loudly, "I'll do you a deal now. If you'll tell me in clear terms about Lord Ashcroft's tax status, I promise the next Labour politician sitting there I will go after them on that. It's a fair offer!" George's 'pair' shrank again, as he failed to say exactly what needed saying here: "What's fair about that?!?! You've been asking us about this for months, but you've never asked any Labour politicians about Lord Paul. You explain that Andrew! Is it because you're a Labour supporter? Will you come clean about that!!"
*
Come on George Osborne, stop being so nice!!!
*
The resultant interruption coefficient was a high 2.0.

IT'S ALL GREEK TO HER

8
The main topic on this week's The Record Europe was the EU's response to the crisis in Greece. Presenter Shirin Wheeler's various biases were to the fore.
*
Her introductory report (which, in passing, dismissed Nigel Farage's star turn as a mere "sideshow") talked of the wave of strikes hitting Greece, complete with the obligatory images of police beating demonstrators (anarchists actually), saying "Cutting pensions, raising taxes and the retirement age, the plans aren't going down at all". This ignores the fact that opinion polls in Greece show strong public support - a significant majority - for austerity measures. Shirin is not alone at the BBC in slanting the story in this way. Is it because the Left instinctively thinks all strikes just must be good? Or maybe because the BBC is 'institutionally biased' against public spending cuts and cannot but share the sentiments of the Greek protesters? Or is it because strong 'austerity' measures (as in their coverage of Ireland) are associated in their mind with the British Conservatives?
*
She continued, "As well as this, Greece is being investigated over reports that at the time of the launch of the euro back in 1999 those in charge cooked the books to make the grade for membership. The Greek prime minister George Papandreou and his socialist ministers, who only won power in the autumn, are already feeling beleaguered and unsupported". Here's the second layer of bias. Shirin's sympathy for the new socialist government (and she stressed the word 'socialist') also showed up in her later questioning. The previous conservative government is getting all the blame at the BBC. But who exactly was "in charge" when Greece "cooked the books to make the grade for membership" in 1999? It was the Socialists (in power from 1993-2004)! Did she not know that (surely unthinkable in a 'widely respected' BBC reporter!)? Or does the careful phrasing of 'those in charge' reveal that she did know that but just wasn't letting her viewers in on the fact (in the interests of socialist solidarity maybe?)? This inconvenient detail is a truth few at the BBC seem interested in pointing out, so Shirin is not alone in this.

And, of course, it's now all the speculators' fault: "The real drama lies in how the EU might help to stop speculators gambling on the fortunes of Greece and the rest of the Eurozone. The jobs and livelihoods of millions could depend on this." That the EU, including the UK, should be helping Greece out in this regard was the motivating principle of all Shirin's questions throughout the following studio discussion.
*
That studio discussion involved four guests:
*
- Vicky Ford, British Conservative
- Peter Skinner, British Labour
- Stavros Lambrinidis, Greek Socialist
- Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, German Liberal
*
Can you guess which one was interrupted the most? The answer to this fiendishly difficult question will follow this fine picture of Toledo by the Greek:
*

8
Yes, it was Vicky Ford, the British Tory. She was interrupted four times, resulting in an I.C. of 1.6. The British Labour MP, Mr Skinner, was not interrupted once (I.C. of 0). Vicky's first answer was interrupted after 19 seconds, then again after 19 more seconds, then after 27 more seconds and finally after just 6 more seconds. Mr Skinner's first answer lasted 52 seconds, without interruption. As they say in Brussels, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
*
Shirin's final interruption of Vicky Ford was the most heartfelt: "But I mean you can't just stand...This is what the British politicians have been doing a little bit, which is sort-of standing on the sidelines saying 'it's nothing to do with me'". She also put that point about British politicians 'standing on the sidelines' to the Labour MEP and, for some reason, also to the German Liberal. Well Shirin, let the Greeks go to the IMF, was Vicky's answer (when she got a chance), which sounds like the right answer to me. Not to Shirin Wheeler though.

Now, in fairness to Shirin here was another discussion later in the show, out in the halls of the European parliament, with Timothy Kirkhope (Con) and Sarah Ludford (Lib Dem), where - in a turn up for the books - it was the Lib Dem who was interrupted rather than the Tory (I.C. of 0 for Mr Kirkhope, I.C. of 0.4 for Ms. Ludford).

THE TEA-BAG WHO CONQUERED EUROPE

*
In its deeply europhile desire to hear no evil and speak no evil of the European Commission the BBC is neglecting to report the never-ending 'mission creep' of that institution.
*
The Daily Telegraph reports that Herman Van Rompuy is, exactly as Nigel Farage was saying, making serious moves to increase his powers at the expense of national sovereignty:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7326640/War-in-the-EU-as-Herman-Van-Rompuy-makes-power-grab.html
*
The Telegraph report shows that this unelected man, who (in the spirit of Nigel!) has all the charisma of a used tea-bag, is (as the self-same Nigel says) a 'dangerous' man.
*
The negative coverage that the BBC has been giving Nigel Farage over his non-wishy-washy remarks about President Van Rampuy is a reflex action. The man is right but they don't want to hear it.

You will hear nothing of this on the BBC News website (from which the BBC could prune a few hard-line Europhiles for starters).

THIS IS NOT GOING TO SURPRISE YOU...

*
Here come a third week's worth of listings for the closing newspaper front pages section of Newsnight, again given in order of mention:
*
Mon 22/2 Jeremy Paxman
1. The Guardian
2. The Independent
3. Daily Telegraph
4. Financial Times
5. Daily Mail
*
Tue 23/2 No front pages
*
Wed 24/2 Kirsty Wark
1. The Independent
2. Daily Telegraph
3. Daily Mail
4. The Guardian
5. Financial Times
6. Daily Express
*
Thu 25/2 Emily Maitlis
1. The Times
2. The Guardian
3. Financial Times
4. The Independent
*
Fri 26/2 Gavin Esler
1. Daily Telegraph
2. The Guardian
*
*
So, after three weeks, how are things standing? Which is the most mentioned newspaper? (I'm sure you guessed this anyhow!!):
*
1. The Guardian - 13 mentions
2. The Independent - 11 mentions
3. Financial Times - 9 mentions
4. Daily Telegraph - 9 mentions
5. Daily Mail - 6 mentions
6. The Times - 2 mentions
7. Daily Express - 1 mention
8. The Sun - 1 mention
*
Indeed, alone among the British newspapers The Guardian is the only rag to be mentioned in all the Newsnight front page reviews of the last three weeks.

CHANCER NOT CHANCELLOR

*
The Conservatives' 'Death Tax' poster earned them a lot of criticism from the BBC (several examples of which are mentioned on this blog). The charge was of 'negative campaigning'. Conservatives were asked about it, again and again - and their opponents were invited to 'tut tut' over it. The question here is whether the BBC will question Labour Party people - and give their opponents a clear run at goal - whenever they bring out a 'negative' poster? We'll soon find out because Labour is just about to do so!

This weekend, the party is releasing more pre-election campaign material. An image of shadow chancellor George Osborne is accompanied by the slogan 'Chancer not Chancellor'". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8539619.stm

That's about as 'negative' as campaigning can get, isn't it?
*
The article quoted from contains no editorial asides suggesting that this new Labour poster might be considered 'negative'. Is this a sign that there's not going to be any such BBC brouhaha over this poster?

WHICH PARTY DID YOU SAY?

*
The BBC News website is so predictable (for us bias-watchers). Take U.S. politics. If there's a scandal that hits the Republican Party the article will 'remember' to mention the Republican Party. If there's a scandal that hits the Democratic Party, the article will 'forget' to mention the Democratic Party. Today features a classic case of the latter:

NY governor withdraws from race

New York Governor David Paterson has withdrawn from the race for state governor amid a scandal involving one of his aides.

He had announced his campaign formally only last weekend but had faced pressure to quit.

He said he had never abused his office, but was "being realistic about politics".

There had been criticism over how he handled allegations about an aide and domestic abuse.

Explaining his decision, Mr Paterson said: "It hasn't been the latest distraction.... It's been an accumulation of obstacles that have obfuscated me from bringing my message to the public."

Mr Paterson was seeking a full four-year term, having become governor in 2008 when former Gov Eliot Spitzer quit amid a prostitution scandal.

He was sworn in to serve the remainder of Mr Spitzer's term.

He said on Friday he would not quit his post, but continue "fighting for the state of New York".

When he was sworn in in March 2008, Mr Paterson made history as New York's first African-American governor and as the first legally blind person to hold such a post permanently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8540049.stm

What the article 'forgot' to mention is that both Mr Paterson and Mr Spitzer are Democrats. 'Democrat' is not a long word. I'm sure there was space for it.

DIMBLEDATA: THE 'GET NIGEL!!' EDITION

*
Here is this week's Dimbledata for Thursday's shockingly bad Question Time:

**
25th February 2010
*
*
Who got most time to speak?
*
1. Peter Hain (Lab) - 8 minutes 38 seconds
2. Liam Fox (Con) - 8 minutes 27 seconds
3. Janet Street Porter - 8 minutes 25 seconds
4. Nigel Farage (UKIP) - 7 minutes 1 second
5. Elfyn Llwyd (PC) - 6 minutes 19 seconds
*
*
Who received the most interruptions from David Dimbleby?
*
1. Nigel Farage (UKIP) - 6
2. Liam Fox (Con) - 5
3. Peter Hain (Lab) - 3
4. Janet Street Porter - 2
5. Elfyn Llwyd (PC) - 0
*
**
Who scored the highest interruption coefficient?
*
1. Nigel Farage (UKIP) - 0.9
2. Liam Fox (Con) - 0.6
3. Peter Hain (Lab) - 0.4
4. Janet Street Porter - 0.2
5. Elfyn Llwyd (PC) - 0
*
*
Who was asked the most supplementary questions by David Dimbleby?
*
1. Peter Hain (Lab) - 7
2. Nigel Farage (Con) - 6
3. Liam Fox (Con) - 6
4. Janet Street Porter - 3
5. Elfyn Llwyd (PC) - 1
*
*
The audience - and I think I'm being very fair here - were nothing more than a braying mob of imbeciles and/or Labour supporters. I'd love to know just who was in this audience. How many were Labour Party activists? (It really sounded like most of them!! And given the show's past record that's not completely beyond the realms of possibity!)
*
Mr Fox went unclapped until the final question. Tumbleweed blew around almost all his contributions, except for that moment when some madman in the audience screamed at him. That one decent clap (over some stupid question about John Terry and Wayne Bridge) was clearly not something Dimblebias was going to allow him to enjoy - even at this very late stage in the show -, as he asked him a supplementary question designed to prick his bubble.
*
Liam Fox, however, faced nothing like what faced Nigel Farage.
*
The mob were after his blood. They booed and jeered and shouted and groaned, and there were HUGE cheers for all his critics (except Liam Fox). Dimblebias allowed audience member after audience member to slag the man off, often abusively, repeatedly stopping him from responding and telling him to "take it on the chin". He did the same on several occasions when Mr Farage tried to respond to attacks from the panel.There were plenty of hostile questions from Dimblebias too, delivered with all his usual self-satisfied malice. The third question from the audience itself was "Are Nigel Farage's rude and attention-seeking remarks about the president of the European council not conclusive proof that UKIP and he have become nothing more than a boorish national embarrassment?" Nigel stood unshaken and unbowed throughout. What a man!
*
I couldn't bear to watch this programme live. I need a pause button and the Biased BBC blog commentary in the bottom right hand corner of my screen to make it even half bearable!
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/thrown-to-lions.html

DID YOU FORGET SOMETHING BEN?

*
On tonight's PM Ben Wright reported on immigration and the coming election. His piece on the BBC News website shadows it closely, but not exactly. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8537786.stm
*
There has been much criticism on the Biased BBC website of Evan Davis's BBC1 programme on immigration, with comments saying that it concentrated almost exclusively on Eastern European migration rather than the far trickier topic of non-EU immigration. Is this indeed the BBC's general strategy?
*
Well, here's an extract from the BBC website version of Ben's report:

Jo Twyman, from the polling organisation YouGov, said: "There are opportunities for minor parties such as the BNP and UKIP.

"It could be important in a marginal seat but it depends on the very specific make-up of that seat.

"If it's a seat that has suffered badly in the credit crunch then again that's something - that if it's linked in with immigration - that could be important."

Compare that to what Mr Twyman actually said on PM:

"There are opportunities for minor parties such as the BNP and UKIP.

"It could be important in a marginal seat but it depends on the very specific make-up of that seat.

"If there's a high ethnic minority population then that may be something to play on. Alternatively, if it's a seat that has suffered badly in the credit crunch then again that's something - that if it's linked in with immigration - that could be important."

Spot the difference!!

NAUGHTIE LANDS A CHEAP SHOT...AND GETS AWAY WITH IT

*
More outrageous cheek from James Naughtie on this morning's Today programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8536000/8536028.stm

Interviewing George Osborne again, Naughtie recalled their last encounter (where he was caught out by Mr Osborne and tried to bluster and lie his way out of trouble in response) but instead of apologising to Mr Osborne for this The-Beeb's-Most-Biased said: "Well let me ask you for a straight answer to this question. I put it to you the other day and, with all respect to you (yeah, right!!), you didn't give a terribly straight answer because you went wandering off, as people sometimes do."

"Because you went wandering off"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For what really happened, please click here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/02/george-stands-up-to-bully.html.

Last week, Mr Osborne busted Naughtie. Today, sadly, he reverted to type and took this gratuitous and dishonest insult on the chin without a murmur. He should not have done so. I can't begin to think why he did do so. I'm getting sick of complaining about this to the BBC and Mr Osborne's office. Come on George, please do something about it!!

CUBA NOT LIBRE

*
The ever-excellent DB on the Biased BBC website reports on a remarkable piece of pro-Cuban bias from the BBC News website over an unhappy piece of 'breaking news': http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/cuba.html and there's a fine bit of comparative analysis by Not a sheep, which demonstrates that even The Guardian is a far better source for such news than the biased BBC: http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/02/not-whole-story-on-bbc-re-death-of.html
8

EYE PEA PEA AAARGH!!

*
Continuing this sequence of uncharacteristically short posts, I forgot to note that yesterday's Today featured someone from a think tank. It's a running 'joke' on this blog that whenever this happens 'it's always the IPPR!' Well, it was the IPPR (Ed Cox from the IPPR North to be precise)! For those unfamiliar with it, the IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) is a left-of-centre think tank, close to the Labour Party, and it's the BBC's think tank of choice.
*
(P.S. The reason for the short posts isn't because of a new leaf being turned on my part but purely the result of having got my first laptop and being flummoxed by the absence of a mouse. As I like to colour-coordinate and put things in bold and italics, this is slowing me down to a snail's pace. And I keep deleting things by mistake and having to retype them! I will buy a mouse!!)
*

IT'S WINTER STILL FOR THE ENG DEMS

*
Did anyone hear anything about the English Democrats' spring conference on the BBC? Both Today and the BBC News website reported those of the Green Party and Plaid Cymru, and Today featured interviews with their respective party leaders. There's been nothing equivalent for the Eng Dems. This despite them winning a similar number of votes in last year's European elections as the SNP and more than twice the number of Plaid. As they are being comprehensively ignored by the BBC (as far as I'm aware) you could probably guess that they are a right-of-centre political party!

EUROCRATS BEWARE!

*
Here's a headline on the BBC News website:

Tirade against 'damp rag' EU president shocks MEPs

You might not be too surprised to learn that it relates to UKIP, specifically an intervention by the glorious Nigel Farage http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8535121.stm.

'Tirade' is an interesting choice of word, isn't it? The BBC writer hasn't put it in inverted commas. Is it a quote from an MEP? It doesn't seem to be. No, it looks as if the BBC writer has chosen the word himself. It's a word that could be considered technically correct in the context but, like 'harangue' and 'diatribe', has connotations of excessive bitterness/irrationality. (Or is that only because it usually comes in tandem with words like 'drunken' or 'wild'?)

The BBC website features a mere 45 seconds of Mr Farage's 'tirade'. Hopefully the full 7 minutes will pop up on YouTube soon!

WHERE'S CHARLIE?

*
Today was very coy about reporting the Alistair Darling story, with just one very short bit from Nick Robinson at 8.23 and a short chat between Evan Davis and Norman Smith at 6.35. Smith offered up Damien McBride's name for mention (as someone already sacrificed he was an easy name to drop) but somehow 'forgot' to mention the other Labour spin-master named in the story, Charlie Whelan of Unite . Whelan is still firmly ensconced in the Brown bunker.
*

CLEAN NAILS TODAY FROM NICK

*
Credit where credit is due, Nick Robinson was masterly on today's Daily Politics in his handling of Labour spiv Sadiq Khan. His steely grasp of language enabled him to completely pull the rug from under all of Mr Khan's clammy spin. Sir Gus O'Donnell's cautiously-worded admission to a Commons select committee that he had had a word with Brown after all about the prime minister's behaviour towards junior staff ('breaking news' as the programme was on air) was set out by Nick with great precision and all of Mr Khan's many attempts to rebut him and twist the facts were swatted aside with deadly politeness. Of course it helps having Andrew Neil on your side!

AN EVAN-HANDED PROGRAMME?

*
Evan Davis will be on BBC1 tonight with a programme about immigration. The programme was previewed on this morning's Today by the man himself, and two guests. One was free-thinking Labour MP Frank Field, the other was Labour-supporting economist and keen advocate of economic migration Philippe Legrain of the L.S.E. (of course).

As well as praising Labour's record on the issue during the last thirteen years (and having a dig at the Tories) - and bashing the bankers for good measure - Mr Legrain, author of Immigrants, Your Country Needs Them, praised Evan's documentary: "I thought the programme was excellent." He continued, "It was balanced", but in what he went on to say he seems to have been using the word 'balanced' to mean 'supportive of my position': "It presented material that contradicted many of the scare stories and prejudice about immigration and I thought your conclusion, which is that Britain wouldn't be able to cope easily without its foreign workers, was just right."

Mr Field immediately picked Evan up on his figures, saying that the presenter's statement that "hundreds of thousands of motivated foreign workers" had come to work in Britain was a severe underestimate: "I mean it's not, as you suggested, hundred of thousands, it's been millions coming in."

AN EYEBROW-BEATING FOR MR DARLING

8
Yesterday morning's chat between Norman Smith and John Humphrys saw Smithie moving the bullying story on. He said that politicians, journalists and the general public were keen to move on from this uncomfortable episode. The phrase move on came up again and again.

The BBC News website would clearly like to do as Norm wants us all to do but can't, thanks to Alistair Darling's eyebrow-raising revelations about how Brown's inner circle unleashed the forces of Hell against him, not to mention immigration minister Phil Woolas's jaw-droppingly unpleasant comment about Mrs Pratt and enemy-of-the-people Max Clifford's surprise decision to represent Mrs P's interests.

The Woolas story is, in classic BBC fashion, buried away in an unmarked grave. The article is headlined 'Brown 'very upset' by bullying claims, says Ed Balls'. You will need to scroll down to Paragraph 25 (after lots of warm words about Brown from Balls, Mrs Brown and His Lordship Sugar) for three short paragraphs on the story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8529809.stm

What's almost funny about the article on the Darling revelations is the way the BBC writer keeps bringing in the Tories. Mr Darling himself brought them in, but the Jeff Randall interview and the way it's been reported elsewhere (from The Telegraph to The Guardian) makes it clear that the chancellor's mentioning of the Conservatives was pretty much a side issue. The BBC writer, however, wants to make it share centre stage with the main revelations about McBride and Whelan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8533168.stm

These are the opening pair of paragraphs:

Chancellor Alistair Darling has said 10 Downing Street and the Tories unleashed "the forces of hell" after he forecast the worst recession for 60 years.

He said supporters of Gordon Brown and the Conservatives had briefed against him on "a weekend you could have done without" after his interview in 2008.

Give this guy McBride's old job in Downing Street!

FAR FUNNIER THAN BRIGSTOCKE!

*
Not a sheep features a very funny and very true piece of video satire on the subject of BBC bias:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-bbc-treat-conservative-party-policy.html
Please look at look!
*
If only David Cameron (and every other member of his party) would actually say that!!!

MR SMITH GOES TO DOWNING STREET

*
Going back in time (as I have a habit of doing) and re-visiting yesterday's Today finds John Humphrys chatting to Labour-leaning BBC political correspondent Norman Smith at 6.32 am. Smith was in full 'Protect the Emperor' mode, presenting Number Ten's case without criticism. He reported the allegations - which he insisted did not come from Number Ten itself - that Mrs Pratt is nothing more than a Tory Stooge, on the extremely dubious logic that her office is "next door to" a Conservative constituency office (!!!!), that Ann Widdecombe is (now was) a chief patron of her charity (thus ignoring Labour MP Anne Snelgrove's crucial early support) and that David Cameron had just e-mailed her his support, without qualifying them in any way. (On the first point I used to live opposite a brothel!) That this just might have been nothing more than a disgusting and risible smear wasn't even entertained at this point by either Norm or John.
*
The Tory stooge accusation, later repeated by Lord Mandelson and others, remains completely unproven. Smith also reported the Brownites' allegation that Mrs P. had a personal animus against Gordon Brown, which was of course another completely unsupported allegation (i.e. another smear). Messers Smith and Humphrys again didn't think it worth raising even the merest whiff of doubt about it.
*
Smith then reported Labour's second line of attack on the credibility of her charity/business and then the third, that Mrs P. had breached confidentiality. I have to say I think she did, and shouldn't have done - but, in her defence (a defence not put by Smith of course) she didn't name any names, leaving the broken confidences anonymous broken confidences! Smith piled on the agony here, saying "and I have to say that is a criticism not just made by friends of the prime minister but indeed by other bullying helplines," "at least one" of which criticised her on their website. ("At least one"? What does that mean? How many exactly? Was there really only one at the time? If so, that would make it yet another smear.)
*
In conclusion Smith presented both sides of the issue, though one gets a more positive (and longer) spin (guess which one!) than the other: "Some people will conclude that his explosions of anger, his alleged bullying, do raise fundamental questions about the appropriateness of him in Number Ten. Others will say 'look, it just demonstrates he is a determined and committed character, he may get angry but it shows he cares about what he does and they may well argue that Number Ten, highly pressurised job, but what an earth do you expect?'"
*
From the beginning this was little more than Labour propaganda, served neat.

RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!

8
BBC Europe editor Gavin Hewitt provides a neat example of bias by labeling in one of his recent blog articles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt. Though mostly quoting Charles Grant of the Beeb's favouite European think tank, the Centre for European Reform, Gavin ends by giving us a pearl of wisdom from a man he calls "the respected economist Paul Krugman". I wonder if this is part of the reason why Gavin uses the word 'respected' about Mr Krugman: "Krugman describes himself as liberal. He has explained that he views the term "liberal" in the American context to mean "more or less what social democratic means in Europe. Krugman has praised Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, asserting that he "defined the character of the worldwide [financial] rescue effort" and has since urged British voters not to support the opposition Conservative Party, arguing their Party Leader David Cameron "has had little to offer other than to raise the red flag of fiscal panic." (Wikipedia)

I'M NOT HAPPY!

John Humphrys, about whom I wrote a few complimentary things recently, blotted his copy-book this morning by treating Christine Pratt, the head of the anti-bullying helpline, to an inquisition of the Spanish variety while (despite plenty of interruptions) giving Anne Snelgrove, Labour MP and member of Brown's inner circle a far less rigorous going-over. That Ms Snelgrove had handed over e-mails critical of Mrs Pratt and her husband to the Today programme while refusing to commit herself to any of the allegations they contain, and then accused Mrs Pratt of making unsubstantiated allegations against Brown, all the time refusing (like a petulant child) to share the same interview with her, tells you all you need to know about Anne Snelgrove and the sort of company the prime minister keeps. John Humphrys was lamentably weak in pushing these points. Not so though in his handling of Mrs Pratt. The senior politician was treated much better than the far less powerful member of society in this interview - how apt given the allegations against Gordzilla! The I.C. for Anne Snelgrove was 1.6, that for Mrs Pratt 2.1. Shame on John Humphrys! Then there was Sarah Montague's crack to Nick Clegg about many of our best prime ministers being bullies. Shame on Sarah Montague! The political class are a disgrace, aren't they?
*
Sorry for waxing a bit hot there. I'm not in a jolly mood. There's something of the mafia mentality about this government, and some of their media supporters. Coming in from work and seeing that disgusting, smeary Prescott interview really got me going. You just know that the likes of Mandelson, Brown, McBride, Prescott, Draper, Watson, Maguire, Snelgrove, Balls et al would stop at very little to stay in power. The Conservatives lack that killer instinct, which is probably why they won't win power. Funny old world isn't it?

Sticking the knife in tonight (though the crime figures won't show it) is BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/02/bullying_helpline_under_scruti.html. Yes, there's no doubt about it, this lady is going to be destroyed.
Wo'
Worse may still be to come. Michael Crick must surely make an appearance on Newsnight. Surely somehow this will all be made to look very bad for David Cameron and the Tories. (UPDATE: I called that one wrong! Despite beginning his report with news of Tory support falling in the polls, he didn't attack over the story.)
*

YOU AIN'T HEARD NOTHING LIKE THE BIASED QUINN

*
Only Westminster Hour would choose to begin last night's programme with bad poll news for the Tories. On a day dominated by a deeply embarrassing story for Gordon Brown and the Labour Party, Carolyn Quinn kicked off the discussion between Mr Forsyth and Mr Smithson with news of the the shrinkage of the Conservative lead over Labour to just 6%.
8
This, however, was not the worst of it. Carolyn seemed deternimed to play down the bullying story at every turn. Her question to Mike Smithson, "Will they (the Labour Party) be helped or hindered by today's revelations?", was an odd one for starters. Then to James Forsyth came "James, there have been denials of course from Number 10 about the allegations. I've spoken to senior cabinet ministers who 'well my eye-witness account is not that he's violent, but then there are the charges that he's aggressive to more junior staff?" Then came "Mike, the prime minister's response, he's strong-willed, he's determined, isn't that a good response to this, that yes he gets angry, but he gets angry for a purpose, he gets angry with himself?" When the politics panel came (late) to the topic, there came this question to Conservative Douglas Carswell: "And if we're talking about anger, about anger management, I mean let's face it, there must be times when David Cameron and Nick Clegg have had a bit of a temper tantrum, haven't they Douglas? Have you ever seen David Cameron lose his temper?"
**
Last Monday I pointed out that, given that last week's panel featured only a Labour and Lib Dem spokesman, this week it would probably be just a Conservative and a representative from a smaller party. Well no. We got the Tory (Mr Carswell) but we also got Labour again (Tom Harris) and another Lib Dem (Matthew Oakeshott). I'm keeping count, and that means that the Tories are now behind and owed one. Lord Oakeshott had plenty of goes at George Osborne and David Cameron, and praised Gordon Brown. The Lib-Lab pact grows stronger by the week.
*
The sheer viciousness of the Labour Party, from the Smeargate Affair to the sickening bullying of the lady at the Anti-Bullying helpline today (I've just witnessed John Prescott getting particularly smeary about her on Sky), via all the myriad personal attacks on David Cameron over the last couple of years, might lead a BBC prcsenter to steer clear of pointing the finger at the Tories over the issue of negative campaigning. Of course not. William Hague's accusation that Brown is pushing the UK yet deeper into debt as a scorched earth policy to make life tough for an incoming Tory government lead Carolyn to ask "Douglas, are you happy with that tack?" and then interrupt him to ask "But do you like negative campaigning like that?" Carolyn Quinn has been engaged in negative campaigning against the Conservatives for years.
*

HALLELUJAH!!

*
The day has come at long last. I can now add a Conservative-supporting journalist from a Conservative-supporting magazine to my list of the all-seeing journalists on Radio 4's Westminster Hour!
*
Here's that list again, with its newest member.
*
21/2/10 James Forsyth of the Spectator
14/2/10 Jean Eaglesham of the Financial Times
7/2/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian

That said, it must be pointed out that, unlike every single one of the left-leaning journos on this list - with the sole exception of Kev Maguire on 24/1 - Mr Forsyth was not alone with Carolyn Quinn. He had the Lib Dem-supporting pollster Mike Smithson for company. One consequence of this was that James got much less time to speak that all those other left-wing journalists. How typical is that!!! You wait weeks for a Conservative-supporting all-seeing journalist to appear on the programme, then when he turns up he's chaperoned by a Lib Dem and, therefore, isn't even allowed to be all-seeing!!!
*

GENETIC BIAS

*

The Politics Show today featured a discussion about the D.N.A. database between Alan Johnson, Chris Grayling and Chris Huhne.

*

Now I'd have expected the BBC's left-liberal instincts (especially the latter) to come through and lead to wholesale questioning by Jon Sopel of the idea of keeping any innocent person's genetic information. Not a bit of it. None of his questions came from that angle. He interrupted Chris Grayling twice (I.C. of 0.8), which was expected, but he always interrupted Chris Huhne twice, and tried to interrupt him more times as well (also an I.C. of 0.8), which I wasn't expecting. Only Alan Johnson, returning from an earlier interview on 'Bully' Brown, emerged relatively unscathed (I.C. of 0.3 here).

*

This followed a short introductory package by Sopel in which he featured a chief constable, Chris Sims, who supported the government's position, as well as the mother of Sally Ann Bowman, who also supported the government's position - though she wanted it to go even further. Where was Liberty? They always ask Liberty usually!! Only supporters of the Labour government's position then, oddly. Just before the end of his introduction, Sopel said of the Scottish model (pictured) "This is the system the Conservatives would like to see in the rest of the country but there's a warning from the police", at which Mr Sims returned to give that warning. So not just only supporters of the Labour government's position, but a warning about adopting the Conservatives' favoured approach!

*

That must be why The Politics Show denied its Guardianesque instincts and embraced the government's illiberal position on the DNA database: There's an election due! Every other consideration must be set aside until after the election.

**

TRY A LITTLE BIAS

*
Time for me to mount one of my favourite hobby horses again, so brace yourselves!
*
Today's Politics Show Scotland confirmed (again) my oft-repeated observations about the biases of its Labour-friendly presenter Glenn Campbell. He interviewed 4 politicians - one from Labour, one from the Conservatives and two from the SNP. Here are the statistics:
*
Douglas Alexander (Labour) - 8 minute 3 second interview - 5 interruptions - I.C. of 0.6
Kenny MacAskill (SNP) - 6 minute 56 second interview - 7 interruptions - I.C. of 1.1
Richard Lochhead (SNP) - 5 minute 51 second interview - 6 interruptions - I.C. of 1.1
Bill Aitken (Conservative) - 2 minute 20 second interview - 2 interruptions - I.C. of 1.0
*
Since I began recording interruption coefficients back in June last year 69 of Glenn's interviews have come my way. What are his averages (as of today) for each of the political parties:
*
Conservatives (12 interviews) - 1.13
SNP (21 interviews) - 0.90
Labour (26 interviews) - 0.43
Lib Dems (6 interviews) - 0.32
Independent (1 interview) - 0
Greens (1 interview) - 0
*
The evidence is conclusive. Interviews for the SNP are twice as tough at those for Labour - which confirms objectively how it feels subjectively. The Conservatives, of course, fare even worse, nearing three times as tough.
*
Glenn's Top 10 looks like this:
*
1. 28/6/09 David Mundell (Conservative) - 2.9
2. 14/6/09 Bill Aitken (Conservative) - 2.0
3. 11/10/09 Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) - 1.8
4. 2/07/09 Angus Robertson (SNP) - 1.6
5. 21/06/09 Richard Cook (Conservative) - 1.5
6. 29/11/09 Annabel Goldie (Conservative) - 1.4
7. 11/10/09 Ruth Davidson (Conservative) - 1.4
8. 4/10/09 John Swinney (SNP) - 1.4
9. 4/10/09 David Mundell (Conservative) - 1.3
10. 11/10/09 Willie Bain (Labour) - 1.3

TINY KOX

*

Going back in time again to yesterday's PM saw Carolyn Quinn baby-sitting the programme in Steady Eddie's absence.

*

The programme reported the latest speech from Gordon 'Typists beware!' Brown. BBC political correspondent Iain Watson went to the Labour marginal of Nuneaton. His vox pops suggested that Labour would not only re-win the seat at the general election but increase their slim majority substantially. Why? Because of the three voters sampled, two were going to vote Labour and the other, a so-far-life-long Labour supporter was not going to vote for them this time. That's 66.666etc% for Labour. We'll see on election day!

*

The war in Afghanistan was also discussed. First we heard from a German anti-war demonstrator, who didn't want Western troops in Afghanistan - on the principle that war is stupid and people are stupid. Then Carolyn interviewed a Dutch politician on their coalition government's collapse over the issue of Dutch troops in Afghanistan. Who did the programme ring up? Tiny Kox (the 'Tiny' is, sadly, pronounced 'tinny'!!) of the far-left Socialist Party. (It was founded in 1971 as a Maoist party!). This is not the first time I've heard Tiny Kox on the BBC in recently months.

*

Then the programme reported from an Afghan restaurant in London, to guage British Afghan opinion of the Afghan War. Guess what? All the people BBC reporter Christie Tucker (pictured) talked to were critical of the war. Indeed 100% of British Afghans are critical of the war, if this report is to be believed.