A NONENTITY AND AN UNKNOWN

*
The 'election' of former-short-lived-Belgian-premier Herman van Rompuy as EU president and the never-elected-by-the-general-public-in-her-entire-life Baroness Kathy Ashton as EU foreign minister was the lead story on last night's Newsnight. The BBC was not shy of calling Mr Rompuy a 'nonentity', though it preferred the less pejorative term 'unknown' for the Labour placewoman. (They seem to have been very keen to have Blair, pushing this point at every opportunity) - as he would have been a charismatic projector of Europhile power). I have no great complaints about David Grossman's report, though I note that his only talking-head was a Europhile - Jacki Davis of the Brussels-based think-tank the European Policy Centre.
*
The report was followed by a discussed chairpersoned by Gavin Esler with Nigel Farage of UKIP and Baroness (Joyce) Quin of the Labour Party.
*
Esler put the first question about the noble baroness to the other noble baroness, and it was the question we're all asking (for example, see http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/11/democracy-eu-style-part-2.html) - though note that it was prefaced by praise for Kathy Ashton: "She's undoubtably a woman of qualities, but does it worry you that she's never been elected to any elected office, ever?" Joyce Quin's answer went uninterrupted.
*
"Nigel Farage, whatever you think of today's appointments, it does not look as if we're on the way to a European superstate, does it?", Esler then asked. Nigel trenchantly noted that both appointments were 'political pygmies' and informed us that, when Baroness Ashton's appointment was announced, Gordon Brown couldn't even pronounce her name properly! (Because of his bad eyesight, maybe?). Unlike with Labour's Joyce Quin, Nigel Farage was soon interrupted by Gavin Esler (who had his arms folded and that sardonic expression he often puts on when interviewing right-wingers): "You're sort of making my point for me, this would not be the way you'd go to create a great power, wouldn't it?"
*
The pattern was thus set. Baroness Quin's next two answers also went interrupted, and her final answer was only interrupted because time had run out - and even this was what I call an 'abortive interruption' because she got to finish both her sentence and her point. The ends of each of Nigel's remaining two answers, however, were both talked over by Gavin Esler!
&
Whether asking Joyce Quin if these appointments (unlike that of Blair's) mean the EU will have a "very small voice" on the world stage or asking Nigel Farage whether they show that "this remains a union of sovereign states", all Esler's questions came from a Europhile perspective (though not an uncritical one).
*

CARPETBAGGEING THE TORIES

*
Damn it! I was going to post a prediction yesterday morning, but didn't. I was going to predict that Michael Crick would definitely be in Norfolk for the Conservative association meeting to select/de-select Elizabeth Truss. Oh well. He was there, of course. Anything to embarrass the Tories.
*
Miss Truss won.
*
Crick prefaced his report with these words: "Well, David Cameron must be mightily relieved tonight, Jeremy, that this result didn't go the other way, because that would have been a severe setback to his attempts to transform the Conservative Party". And Michael Crick must have been mightily disappointed that it didn't go the other way, because that must have been a severe setback to his plans to damage the Conservative Party yesterday. Cameron's wish to have (pretty) young women with children as Conservative candidates forms part of his "attempts to drag the Conservative Party away from that crusty image of crusty colonels and squires and baronets." Oh yes Michael, that's exactly the image we all have of the Conservative Party - not!
*
Sir Jeremy Bagge of the local Conservative Association is a baronet, and lives in an "Elizabethan Hall". He's been Central Office's main critic during this 'crisis'. He told Crick that there might be a new party at the next election to fight against Liz Truss. That's the sort of thing Crick wanted to hear!
*
He was at the association meeting as people were going in, badgering Tories as usual. "Excuse me, what do you make of this motion tonight?" he asked one lady. Her reply was wonderful: "I'm wondering what I make of you, thrusting that at me" and walked off. Good for her! "Are you a member of the Turnip Taleban?" he asked another Tory. Another lady was asked "Who will you be voting for tonight?" and looked in amazement at Crick, said "Good gracious!", laughed and went in. Good gracious indeed!
*
"Liz Truss herself steadfastly said nothing" to Crick, even though he ran towards her like an idiot, thrust that at her and shouted questions.
*
Crick had a 'scoop- and - guess what! - it was an embarrassing one for David Cameron:
"What's more I've learned that Central Office did warn local Tory officials against picking another woman candidate because of embarrassing details in her past." 'Oh, what hypocrisy!' Crick obviously wants us to think. We needn't think that though, as we know nothing of the circumstances about that case, and I'm not taking anything Michael Crick says on trust.
*
After the result was announced, the disappointed Sir Jeremy Bagge was asked by an eager Crick "Why are you not proud to be a Conservative?".
*
*
*
This edition of the programme ended with a piece on soul/rap-singer Gil Scott-Heron - not done for any topical reasons, but because (or so we were told) the reporter Stephen Smith wanted to find out what happened to the singer who sang "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". That he was also a left-wing political activist surely help explains Smith's interest and his presence on Newsnight.

P.M. FOR THE P.M.

*
Though I approve (on the whole) of Eddie Mair, that does not mean that his show PM is not biased towards the Left - at least if today's edition is anything to go by. See if you agree. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qskw
**
Terry Stiasny' s report on the hostels for teenage mothers proposed by Gordon Brown in his speech at the Labour Party conference, taking shape in the form of foyers run by local housing associations, could have been scripted by a Labour spin doctor. She talked to a young mum who thought it was a great idea in that it made life a lot easier for her. The sociological jargon spouted by its director, who thought his foyer was a 'great example' for the prime minister, tells you something about the mindset behind such doubtless well-intentioned projects - as does the fact that rehearsals were going on for a play for Black History Week. (Of course, he wanted more funds from the taxpayer.)
*
A lively debate within a narrow ideological circle followed with a discussion on the importance of a treaty at the forthcoming Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, with enviromental campaigner Kim Carstensen of the WWWF Global Climate Initiative talking the matter over with Andrew Pendleton of one of the Beeb's favourite think-tanks, the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). Both supported strong action to 'save the world', they only disagreed about just when a binding treaty should be signed.
*
The privatised rail companies came under sustained attack from Nick Cosgrove in the Upshares Downshares business spot, with Ashwin Kumar of the pressure group Passenger Focus piling on the criticism.
*
Even Nils Blythe's report from Malawi on food security praised the government intervention policies of the government of that country, talking to "one of the beneficiaries of a Malawian government programme to provide heavily subsidized seeds and fertilizers to poor farmers". We heard twice that this had "made a huge difference" (as it may well have done). We also heard praise for our Labour government role in the 'Malawi Miracle', with Gwen Hines of the Department for International Development stressing the importance of 'financial engineering.' We also heard of campaigns against wicked artificial fertilizers, which were not (Blythe said) felt to be "sustainable in the long term."
*

BACKING LABOUR

*
Today's The World at One discussed the Danish environment minister's concession that a binding treaty is very unlikely to come out of the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change with ... John Prescott. The interview with Edward Stourton resulted in an I.C. of 0 (i.e. no interruptions).
*
Attention then turned to the financial matters and the issues of (a) the Tobin Tax, which seems likely to appear in Labour's Queen's speech, and (b) the new Financial Services Act that Labour is also about to announce, permitting the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to intervene in business contracts and tear them up if they feel that people are being rewarded for taking excessive risks. First to speak was Terry Smith of money brokers Tullett Prebon. He was in favour of both the Tobin Tax and Labour's financial services act. We then had Nick Clegg (I.C. of 0.3) whose process-based quibble with Labour's Financial Services Act was that it was unnecessary, as the FSA already had the powers to do what Brown proposes and should be doing it now. So that's two in favour of invasive government intervention in the nation's boardrooms. How about an opposing voice? No, not here. Instead we had Labour's Sally Keeble speaking out (like Mr Smith) in favour of both the Tobin Tax and the government's Financial Services Act (I.C of 0.6). What a range of opinion!! None of Mr Stourton's questions to Sally Keeble played the opposing devil's advocate to any of these issues. Any Labour Party official listening would surely have felt a glow of satisfaction at all this.
*

BUT SHIRIN'S AT THE HELM ACTUALLY

*
This week's The Record Europe saw the heat transfer from the Conservatives to UKIP, as Europhile presenter Shirin Wheeler hosted another of her infamous round table discussions. Indeed the Conservative guest, Vicky Ford, was - most unusually - not interrupted at all. Far less unusually, neither was the Labour guy, Derek Vaughan.
*
On the receiving end this time was that doughty campaigner against EU fraud Marta Andreasen (now, of course, a UKIP MEP). She was interrupted five times by Shirin, giving her an I.C. of 1.2. The whole interview began with a question to Marta asking her to agree that it was good news that for the second year running EU auditors had given a "clean opinion" of the EU's budget. Marta rejected the idea that it was a clean opinion, and persisted in doing so after Shirin had interrupted her to re-ask the question. Not getting the answer she wanted, Shirin then interrupted Marta for a second time, saying "Well...well, the court is saying it is a clean opinion" and passed the conversation on to Brian Gray, the current EU chief accountant.
*
Christofer Fjellner, a chap from the Swedish centre-right, also fell foul of left-wing Shirin when he made the mistake of saying something unhelpful to our Labour prime-minister. He said, "There's a lack of political leadership. To me this is not a Brussels problem. It's the member states who set the rules, spend the money and, therefore, I'd rather blame Brown than Barroso...". Shirin leapt in at this point, saying "Yeah, but Brown's not at the helm actually" and, in time-honoured-Shirin-Wheeler-fashion, passed the conversation on to someone else! (Even if Mr Fjellner was wrong, and I think he was, her contradiction was a complete non sequitur in terms of what he was actually arguing and was surely designed only to shut him up).
*
The final pair of interruptions were made against Marta Andreasen, just as she was (skilfully) facing down an onslaught from several of the other guests. Marta was complaining about the Commission's reluctance to stop payments to non-compliant countries when Shirin interrupted and contradicted her: "But they are doing that Marta, they are doing that!" and again shortly after: "But they did it last year, they did it with Britain."
*
Another week, and more bias at The Record Europe.

PLASTIC BAGS, NEANDERTHALS AND LANCASTER CANAL

*
Today's Politics Show doesn't call for much comment - though that won't stop me.
*
It began by covering the proposed high-speed rail line that should connect our major conurbations within the next few decades, centring on an interview with Lord Adonis (a man who really shouldn't be in the Labour Party), scoring Jon Sopel an I.C. of 1.1.
*
It ended with talk of plastic bags. Sopel discussed this with Beebette Gillian Hargreaves. The underlying assumption that plastic bags are a major problem that effects climate change - and that limiting their use will cut carbon emissions - was not challenged. The only talking head in the piece was, naturally, an environmentalist - Green MEP Jean Lambert, who (of course) wants a tax on plastic bags and lots and lots of left-wing compulsion.
*
Beeboid Andrew Sinclair was in S.W. Norfolk to discuss the spot of local bother for brainy beauty Elizabeth Truss and her stalled ambitions to be selected as the Conservative candidate there. Any story that damages the Tories, by showing splits and Neanderthal attitudes, is an absolute gift to the BBC - and Sinclair seemed very eager to open it. The word 'nasty' was batted about between him and Sopel at regular intervals. (The 'nasty party', you may recall, was what Labour used to call the Tories). Sopel called the story 'extraordinary' and said ominously "We'll be following it very closely." I bet they will!!*
*
Cocky Max Cotton's latest report was an interesting one on Treasury plans to sell off British Waterways's £500m property portfolio (so as to help cut the insanely high deficit this reckless government has built up - not that Max put it that way, of course). The case against such a move was made by many of the people who use our magical canal network. (As you might guess from the use of the word 'magical' I love our canals too. Lancaster Canal, here in NorthNorthwesterLand, is just pure magic - except when it passes through Lancaster!) Max played devil's advocate, as he should. (Well done!). The piece's only lapse into bias came as Max spun for Labour: "Many Labour MPs have a real problem with selling off British Waterways assets. They see canals as a Labour success story". Cue Alun Michael MP, claiming that "since 1997" Labour had turned the canals around, turning them from the terrible state they were in under the wicked Tories ("badly maintained") into a "national asset". Is there any truth in this? Max certainly didn't dispute the claim, or comment any further on it. My canal, however, has always been beautiful in my eyes - even, my Beeboid friends, during that fearful time when the land lay under the dreadful sway of the evil Mrs Thatcher. *

BROADCASTING GROUSE

*
This morning's Broadcasting House on Radio 4 (9.00am) began by discussing the forthcoming apologies from Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd for the Child Migrants' Programme that saw many UK children sent to Australia between 1930 and 1970, and which led to a lot of suffering. The issue was, as you'd expect with the BBC, discussed with the director of the campaign group responsible for bringing the matter to the notice of politicians, Margaret Humphries of the Child Migrants' Trust. Presenter Paddy O'Connell conducted an entirely sympathetic interview with her, and didn't just confine himself to asking questions. He also supported her position, as when he commented "This is the State lying".
*
Obama's dithering/prudent pondering over General McChrystal's request for more troops for Afghanistan was discussed, and placed in a historical context, with Sir Malcolm Rifkind and John Hutton, not uninterestingly. Intriguingly Mr Hutton was harder on Obama than Sir Malcolm. Paddy O'Connell's views on the matter were easy to guess. When Sir Malcolm said "I don't think he's dithering at all. Not only is it a crucially important decision...", Paddy interjected a "yeah" of agreement and the only interruption came when John Hutton gently criticized Obama for not fully explaining the delay. Paddy barged into his answer with this defence: "Well, we heard him earlier say he wants to get it right, it's money, it's lives, and it's about the safety of the U.S. at home." I think Paddy likes President Obama, and ain't too keen to hear criticism of him!
*
Talking of left-liberal Americans, a report from Kevin Connolly (a left-liberal Brit) looked at 'what makes us happy', considering the Grant Study, set up at Harvard in 1941 to follow a sample of people throughout their lives and find out the key to happiness. Which volunteer did Connolly talk too? Ben Bradley, "the Washington Post editor whose questions brought down the Nixon Administration over Watergate". The Study's director Professor George Valliant had a dig at Nixon too. Who's likely to be the happiest person, according to him? "Someone who has devoted themselves to other people." He says you'll feel better if you give some money to OXFAM. "Being rich doesn't make you happy," said Connolly. "Being nice does." So there you go.
*
When it came to the paper review, Paddy gave us a short run-down of the headlines, beginning with the left-of-centre Independent on Sunday, followed by the left-of-centre Observer, then the left-of-centre Sunday Mirror then, finally, the right-of-centre Mail on Sunday. And that was it!
*
His first guest on the paper review was British business reporter Richard Quest of CNN (who Wikipedia tells us worked with Paddy O'Connell on BBC News 24). Then there was Virginia Ironside of, inevitably, The Independent. Finally, there was Camilla Batmangheldjh of the charity Kids Company, who started the review with a childcare report from The Observer.
*
Paddy prodded Mr Quest to go after the bankers while discussing Equitable Life: "Richard, what I think you're getting at is, people who saved are being punished by not being compensated from the Equitable Life fiasco, whereas people who borrowed, and bankers who've misled. are effectively having the tab picked up" and went on to say "Do keep with your selections Richard. You've gone to the Sunday Telegraph on bankers as well."
*

SOPHIE SAVES THE WORLD

*

No Andrew Marr this week. It was Sophie Raworth instead (pictured right. Funny how I don't tend to feature pictures of Marr, isn't it?)

*

Besides interviewing Squeaker Bercow (and not asking him about his expenses), the fair Sophie's main political interview was with Ed Miliband. The interview (scoring an I.C. of 1) concentrated on climate change and in her introductory remarks Sophie mentioned the "poll yesterday" which "showed the public are sceptical about the threat of global warming" and that "less than half believe it's caused by human activity." It was good to have that mentioned and did the programme credit. That said, it was not mentioned again during the actual interview. Moreover, Sophie's own non-sceptical bias came out through each of the questions she put to Mr Miliband, which included - in all seriousness - an interruption to state that the 'deal at Copenhagen' "is about saving the world." When she pressed him about the 'deal', she phrased it as "a legally-binding one hopefully" and it didn't sound to me as if she was talking about Ed's hopes, rather about her own. Something similar happened when the question turned to Barack Obama's presence at Copenhagen. Sophie stated "because he needs to be there", before realising that this should be a question and re-phrasing it as such. She also asked (twice) about a report from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers which advocates even stronger measures to tackle this allegedly "really serious problem" - as we heard on Friday's PM, where Tim Fox of the I.M.E. said we need "a paradigm shift" in our attitudes to climate change and a "war-time mentality" to cope with the looming apocalypse. (What Eddie Mair, who conducted that interview, forgot to ask Mr Fox was whether the I.M.E. might not just have a slight vested interest in encouraging a huge number of new, expensive engineering projects over the next few decades, and may have that in mind at least as much as 'saving the world'!).

*

THE WORLD TONIGHT

*
The World Tonight is the thoughtful, foreign-affairs-dominated mainstay of Radio 4's current affairs coverage. It's a kind of idealised version of The Guardian and, like The Guardian, has a pronounced left-liberal bias. Or is that just how it seems? Though I've had a busy working week (with overtime!) & haven't had much time to blog (only to count interruptions), I've recorded the contents of all of the last eight editions of the programme to see just exactly what it covers and just who the programme invites to speak. This is what I found.
*
4/11 This edition began with Afghanistan and featured an interview by Robin Lustig with a sceptical Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats (I.C. of 0.3). The following discussion of MPs expenses & spouses featured one of the few MPs willing to whinge about it in public, Charles Walker of the Conservative Party. The interview was somewhat challenging (I.C. of 0.8). The issue was then discussed with Allegra Stratton of The Guardian. After a discussion of opposition protests in Iran with BBC regular, Professor Ali Ansari of St Andrews University (a frequent contributor to The Guardian, Independent and Observer), the focus turned to the Tories and their European policy. The matter was discussed with a highly critical Sylvie Goulard. Robin introduced her as a 'French MEP and president of the French European Movement'. Though we can infer that she's an ardent Europhile, Robin forgot to tell us which party she belongs to. It turns out that she's a Liberal (as regulars could have guessed already from my colour-coding of her name!). So, all in all, a strong left-liberal bias on this edition.
*
5/11 This edition was not so clear-cut. We had an interview with a female Afghan charity worker who wanted coalition troops to stay in her country and a report on the Fort Hood killings. Then the government's policy of Quantitative Easing (Q.E.) - i.e. printing money - was discussed with two people who were (with reservations) supportive of it (George Magnus and Jan Raldolph). Paul Moss then reported from Germany, where he chatted to former bosses of the communist GDR who are still proud and unrepentant about their dour old tyranny. The Trafigura story was then discussed with a lawyer called Martin Day and a Ivorian chap called Claude Gohourou, who claims to speak for the toxic poisoning victims. Finally came a hymn of praise to President Lula of Brazil, a centre-left president obviously, by the BBC's own centre-left economics correspondent Jonty Bloom. More hagiography than report, it would have brought a blush to Lula's bearded cheeks if he'd have heard it!
*
6/11 Afghanistan again led this edition and Robin Lustig discussed the matter with (a) someone who advised President Obama during his election campaign, Marvin Weinbaum, and then (b) Patricia DeGennaro, a professor at NYU who regularly blogs for the left-liberal Huffington Post. A spot of left-liberal bias there for sure. More on the Fort Hood killings and a report on whether TV helped bring down the Berlin Wall (and a piece on Santa School - yes, about training santas) led to a bit of AGW chat with the head of the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat, Yvo de Boer. An interesting report on the U.N.'s conference on migration in Athens by the Beeb's Malcolm Brabant quarantined a couple of sage voices from the Third World (protesters) who opposed migration on the grounds that it harmed their countries (depriving them of skilled people) between two advocates for migration, William L. Swing of the International Organisation for Migration and the U.N.'s Peter Sutherland, who got the last word (hymning the glories of migration). (Note that no-one from, say, Migration Watch got a look-in here).
*(Not
9/11 Ritula Shah took over for this edition and the opening discussion of nuclear power centred on interviews with Lib Dem leftie Simon Hughes, an opponent of nuclear power, and a newly-converted Stephen Tindale (former head of Greenpeace) - who supports it to 'save the planet'. A balanced argument on nuclear power certainly, but a debate between people on the Left nonetheless. The BBC's Roger Harribin then added this thoughts. Next up came a discussion on the fall of the Berlin Wall between the Economist's liberal-minded Edward Lucas (formerly of the BBC and The Independent) and left-wing Neal Ascherson of The Observer. This was followed by a report on the Tories and poverty by Jonty Bloom - an ill-informed piece in which Jonty referred to "the Tory party of Wilberforce and Gladstone" . Now, does anyone with an interest in British history spot what's wrong with that statement? (Clue: check Wikipedia's entry for the famous Liberal Party prime-minister W.E. Gladstone!). A discussion about Yemen with Ginny Hill of Chatham House and The Guardian (naturally) and an interesting piece on China and Africa rounded off the programme. Left-liberal bias here? Yes, in spades.
*
10/11 This was a remarkable edition of the programme. It opened by discussing Gordon Brown, a grieving mother and The Sun with Charlie Beckett of the L.S.E.'s journalism think-tank POLIS. Presenter David Eades might have been expecting a defence of Brown and an attack on The Sun from such a source. He didn't get either and the result was a satisfyingly testy encounter. A piece on those poor Palestinians followed from Bethany Bell (complete with obligatory side-sweeps at wicked Israel) and Mahmoud Abbas's declaration that he intends to cease being Palestinian president was discussed with one of his chums, Ziad Asali of the American Taskforce for Palestine. The bulk of the programme, however, was a debate at Chatham House, hosted by Robin Lustig, on the Copenhagen Climate Change conference. It was prefaced by a report from the BBC's enviromental(ist) correspondent Richard (Since Kyoto "the scientific case for man-made climate change has strengthened significantly") Black and featured the voices of various Green activists, as well as Joan Ruddick, Labour's climate change minister, a climate-scarer from Grenada and someone from the Union of Concerned Scientists. All four of Robin's guests fully bought into the AGW agenda too, and every single one of Robin Lustig's questions came from the same stance. The panel consisted of disgraced Labour ex-minister Elliot Morley (though his career-sinking expense claims were not brought up); Steve Rayner, professor of science and civilisation at Oxford University; Mike Hume, professor of climate change and founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia; and Cleo Paskal of the Energy, Environment & Development programme at Chatham House (and the liberal Toronto Star).
*
11/11 With Robin Lustig back in charge, this edition looked at the economy and interviewed John Philpott of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and John Cridland of the C.B.I., as well as featuring a report from Bishops Stortford by our old friend Jonty Bloom. Bishops Stortford has one of the lowest rates of unemployment, so that was obviously the place for the BBC to go on a day when the latest unemployment figures came out. Divided Cyprus, the Glasgow North East by-election (due the following day), and aliens and Christian theology were also discussed. Orla Guerin reported from Pakistan (a report that sounded exactly like every other report she's ever filed). Today's Afghanistan spot consisted of an interview with Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, yet another voice from the liberal wing of American politics.
*
12/11 At last, another centre-right voice (the first since Charles Walker)! Immigration was the hot topic and Robin Lustig conducted a joint interview between Labour's omnipresent Phil Woolas and Harriet Sergeant of the Centre for Policy Studies. Other pieces examined ivory trading in Zambia, Japan's relations with the U.S. and the thoughts of Russia's President Medvedev. Afghanistan today was discussed by (you guessed it!) two more voices from the left-liberal end of U.S. politics - former Clinton administration official Karl Inderfuth and long-term Bush-basher David Corn of liberal-progressive magazine Mother Jones. Any chance of hearing any American interviewee who isn't from that end of U.S. politics on The World Tonight some time soon?
*
13/11 The Obama administration's decision to try the 9/11 Guantanamo inmates in civilian courts in New York was first up for discussion. Doing the discussing with Robin Lustig were (a) a lawyer for the Guantanamo crowd, Tara Murray of Reprieve and (b) Tony Ortega of the very-liberal Village Voice (described by the very-liberal Robin Lustig as a "venerable New York newspaper", who praised the current administration and bashed Bush. More voices from just one side of U.S. politics. The undoubtedly venerable Douglas H. Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was the sage consulted over Asia-U.S. relations. I don't know what his politics are (though he wrote this, which is suggestive: "Obama decided early on that among the many messes he inherited from George W. Bush, China policy was not one of them.") Also discussed were time-zones, local elections in Kosovo, China and its carbon emissions, the Glasgow North East by-election result (discussed with Hamish McDonnell, formerly of The Scotsman) and the government-owned rail company, East Coast, which has taken over the running of the mainline on the East Coast from National Express.
*
I think all this conclusively proves that there really is a left-liberal bias at the BBCs The World Tonight.

A TRUE FRIEND OF LABOUR

*
Yesterday, according to Michael Crick on Newsnight, David Miliband's friends were letting the world know that he 'genuinely' doesn't want the new foreign minister's post in the post-Lisbon European empire. Crick, ever the friend of Labour, was at the same game, spreading the message that Miliband's much-doubted denials were 'true'.
*
In a report featuring only Labour's friends - i.e. Sir Stephen Wall, former Europe advisor to Tony Blair, and Paul Richards, former Labour strategist - Crick's tone throughout remained free from sarcasm or scepticism or accusation. He chased no-one and engaged in no mischief-making. How utterly different to all his reports on those despicable 'Tories'!
*

HAS ALAN LITTLE JUST SMEARED THE LATVIANS?

*
The Labour Party must have loved this morning's Today programme.
*
The BBC continues its endless crusade against the Conservative Party's new allies in Europe, whilst completely ignoring the revolting aspects of some of Labour's allies - 9/11 denial, anti-semitism, homophobia, corruption, terrorism, secret police activity, Communist pasts. (Please click on the label European allies for more on this.)
*
This morning's programme featured a long piece from Latvia by Alan Little, which had in its sights the country's For Fatherland and Freedom party, now allied to David Cameron's party in the European parliament. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8349000/8349786.stm.

It was an extraordinary piece of polemic that strayed well beyond mere reporting. If what Little implies is true, it is indeed appalling that the Conservative Party should be allied to such a party, and they should be shamed into breaking with them and also denounce them in no uncertain terms. If what he implies is not true, this will rank as one of the most disgraceful and biased reports ever to appear on the BBC.
**
The Today website records much of Justin Webb's introductory remarks, including yet another darkening of the name of Michal Kaminski: "The row over whether or not the Conservatives should be allied in the European Parliament with Michal Kaminski, a polish MEP with a far right background," (long ago, when he was a teenager) "has overshadowed some of the other members of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group to which British Tories now belong. Allan Little reports from Latvia on the activities and views of the For Fatherland and Freedom Party."
*
Little recalled Nazi crimes against Latvia's Jewish population, and noted that Latvians as well as Germans were responsible. On March 16th each year members of the Latvian Legion march through Riga. "These men marched alongside Hitler's Waffen SS." The main governing party at the height of Latvia's "ethnic triumphalism" (1998) was For Fatherland and Freedom. "They declared March 16th Latvian Legion Day and a public holiday". When the party's only MEP Roberts Zile claims that "there is no historical evidence that the Latvian legion fought alongside the Waffen SS" Little challenges him on the point. Zile points out that the US and UK governments of the time (Truman and Atlee) accepted the truth of this, and Little concedes the point and features a man whose family was murdered in the Holocaust but who believes that, as Little puts it, "the Latvian Legion parade, in itself, is inoffensive." So what exact point is Alan Little trying to make here? Is this not smoke-without-fire?
*
Dan Hannan has pointed out something that Little did not mention: "They don’t “celebrate Waffen SS veterans”. They attend an annual commemoration of all Latvia’s war victims, a commemoration attended by every party in Latvia except the Russian ones. Let me repeat that: attended by every party in Latvia, from the Christian Democrats to the Greens." Why did Little fail to mention this? We hear time and time again (not least from David Miliband and the BBC) that it's For Fatherland and Freedom that 'celebrates the Waffen SS', but we aren't told that 'every party in Latvia except the Russian ones' attends the 'celebration' too. Knowing that casts things in a very different light, doesn't it?
**
Little moved on the discuss the anti-Soviet sentiment that swept Latvia when Communism fell (though he didn't explain why there was such a strong anti-Soviet feeling): "For many Latvians the fall of the Soviet Union was a chance to take their country back from the Russians. This was the popular sentiment that For Fatherland and Freedom thrived on. Many turned on Latvia's Russian-speaking minority." A clip of an old Latvian soldier followed, egged on by Little, saying that all Russians should leave Latvia. Little said slowly and carefully: "Be clear about this. It is a call for mass deportations. There are nearly a million Russians living in Latvia, 40% of the population. In the 1990s For Fatherland and Freedom introduced a law that would deny citizenship to most of those Russians, leaving them stateless." (This is not the same thing as mass deportation). But, Mr Little, can we be clear about this too: Did (or does) For Fatherland and Freedom also call for the mass deportation of Russians? Was what this old soldier says what the party said (or says) too? Or not? That was not at all clear from your report. If they didn't say that then why forcefully imply that they did? That would be a lie and a smear. If you say they did say that, please provide some evidence to support it. (Little, incidentally, forgot to mention that the Russians mass-deported Latvians to Russia at the end of the war).
*
We then heard from Miroslav Mitrophanov. He is, according to Little, "a member of Latvia's parliament and an ethnic Russian" who "remembers the atmosphere of ethnic intolerance in the Fatherland and Freedom years of the late 1990s." What Little fails to mention is that his own party has a pretty dark past of its own, as For Human Rights in United Latvia is a left-wing party many of whose main leaders were members of the old Communist Party and that it's widely hated by ethnic Latvians for that very reason. (The party is allied to our very own Greens).
*
Little goes on, "The Latvian parliament is a noisy, chaotic, irreverent place. The main centre-right party is called New Era. It sits in the mainstream bloc in the European parliament." ('Mainstream', of course, as opposed to 'extreme' -we know who sits there!!) Little's characterisation of the party is sharply at variance with Wikipedia: "New Era has later been characterized as a social democratic party, but it does not call itself social democratic. Until 2007, New Era Party used to define itself as "right-of-centre" in its program, but it no longer does that now." Which is right - Alan Little or Wikipedia? Whoever's right, we heard from one of its spokemen in Little's report. Little asked him what he thought of For Fatherland and Freedom now. He slagged it off something rotten.
*
Having set up a lot of smoke but no fire whatsoever, Little moved to this remarkable statement: "For Fatherland and Freedom appeals rhetorically to much that is dark and dangerous in Latvian popular sentiment." Well, that's Alan Little's opinion. "It drags its World War Two baggage heavilly into the present day." Well, that's also Alan Little's opinion. These are both heavy charges which needed a lot more evidence than Little actually provided to justify.
*
Maris Riekstins, the socialist foreign minister of Latvia has complained about all this party-political mud-slinging at For Fatherland and Freedom and the other allies of the Conservative Party in Eastern Europe. The BBC will doubtless ignore him and continue to insinuate that David Cameron is in bed politically with a bunch of far-right extremists.

DISILLUSIONING STEFAN

*
Contradicting Stefan-at-the-BBC's naive belief that "all BBC interviewers are careful to abide by well-established interviewing guidelines that prescribe a scrupulously even-handed approach", Shirin Wheeler continues to treat her Conservative guests (usually poor Timothy Kirkhope) less kindly than she treats her other guests. Further to my earlier post (on 'Thatcherophobia'), the other studio discussion on The Record: Europe was yet another gang-up-on-the-Tory session, with Timothy Kirkhope being attacked by all three of the other guests - Graham Watson (Lib Dem), Derek Clarke (UKIP) and Glenis Willmott (Labour) - and, of course, Shirin Wheeler herself.
*
Unusually she did interrupt all of her other guests. This is the first time I've heard her interrupt a Labour or Lib Dem speaker. (Only UKIP and the Conservatives are usually interrupted.) But...she only interrupted the Labour and UKIP spokesman once, and Mr Watson of the Lib Dems twice - because he ignored her first interruption! In contrast, she interrupted Mr Kirkhope 4 times (I.C. of 1.3)!!
*
Timothy Kirkhope also received most questions, and all of the questions were specifically directed to Conservative strategy and challenging in nature. Only Mr Clarke for UKIP also received a question targeted at his own party, as both Mr Watson and Glenis Willmott (who looked uncannily like Lady Kinnock) were also asked about Conservative strategy but never about Labour or Lib Dem responsibilities.
*
And there's more...
*
I've pointed out before that Shirin has a habit of casting a contradictory or sarcastic comment at a (right-of-centre) guest then moving on to another (left-of-centre) guest without giving them a chance to reply. She did it again, first to Mr Kirkhope, saying drily "Well we heard a policy anyway at least. Graham Watson, do you agree, do you think..." (Yes, that really was the whole of her question to the Lib Dem! Challenging, eh???!!!). She later contadicted Mr Kirkhope when he attempted to rebutt an attack by the Labour spokeslady. Within 7 seconds of his beginning his answer she barged in, contradicted him and moved on to Graham Watson again ("She was talking about the new financial committee but let me just ask Graham this. Graham just let me ask you this point.") The only other guest she contradicted was Mr Clarke of UKIP ("Well, perhaps he does know what he's talking about" in response to Mr Clarke ending with "He doesn't know what he's talking about.")
*
Oh Stefan, sorry to shatter your happy illusions about BBC interviewers. Shirin was not abiding by the guidelines, nor being scrupulously even-handed today, nor last week, nor the week before...(etc).

THE BBC REPLIES...

*
Well, here's the reply to my complaint to the BBC:

Dear Sir

Thanks for your e-mail.

I was interested to read the findings of your survey. I understand that your calculations have found there to be a bias against Conservative MPs in our broadcasts.

Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our news and current affairs output and we ensure all our correspondents and production teams are aware of this to help us deliver fair and balanced coverage for all the stories we report. We seek neither to denigrate nor promote any particular view, rather we present the relevant facts and allow our audience to make up their own minds based on them.

All BBC interviewers are careful to abide by well-established interviewing guidelines that prescribe a scrupulously even-handed approach.

Many interviewees are very adept at evading questions and following their own agenda when replying. It's part of a professional interviewer's role to ensure that they're reminded, when appropriate, of the original question or pressed on points that are of particular interest.

This being said, it's always difficult to find a presenter who will appeal to all viewers/listeners and the attributes which appeal to some viewers/listeners may sometimes strike others as wholly inappropriate.

I realise you may continue to feel there's a culture of institutional bias within the BBC. Therefore, let me assure you I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

All feedback we receive, whether positive or negative, is always appreciated.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your views.

Regards

Stefan
BBC Complaints




Here's an open reply, while I think of my next steps:

Thanks for your reply Stefan. I'm glad you found my results interesting. You are correct in understanding that my calculations have found there to be a bias against Conservative MPs in our broadcasts. (Not just MPs mind you, and they also showed bias against UKIP.)

Your statement about impartiality is as it should be and welcome. When you say that "all BBC interviewers are careful to abide by well-established interviewing guidelines that prescribe a scrupulously even-handed approach", my findings demonstrate that this is sadly not true. Many of them (including Andrew Marr, Carolyn Quinn, James Naughtie, John Humphrys, Adrian Masters, Kirsty Wark, Anita Anand, Glenn Campbell, Shirin Wheeler, Gavin Esler and Jo Coburn) do not.

I know very well that many interviewees try to evade questions and push their own agenda, but that's no revelant here. Nor is the likability of particular interviewers of any relevance to the issue in hand.

When you say that you "realise I may continue to feel there's a culture of institutional bias within the BBC", you are not mistaken!

I'm glad my complaint will be put on the audience log (I think) and might be read more widely. I don't feel, however, that you have answered any of my concerns and will be taking the matter further.

Regards
Craig

UPDATE

*

For starters I have re-submitted my complaint with lots more supporting detail. Unfortunately, the BBC's e-mail response refuses to allow you to reply by e-mail, so you have to start all over again! Nor could I attach my full spreadsheet. Just another annoying thing about the biased BBC.

THATCHEROPHOBIA

*
This week's The Record: Europe featured a section recalling the wonderful events of 1989. Presenter Shirin Wheeler began the section with a 'canter through the events' of that year, from Hungary in May to Romania in December. Ah, I remember it well. Happy, hopeful days!
*
The report was going swimmingly when this happened: "But there was caution from some unexpected quarters about what was happening in the East and where it would lead, worry about the reunification of Germany and changes to the world order - not least from the British prime minister of the time, Margaret Thatcher." After a short, context-free clip the earlier mood of celebration resumed. Now I do remember Mrs Thatcher's caution over German reunification, though I certainly don't recall her being anything other than delighted at the events in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Baltic States. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006tt0f
*
Anyhow, I was going to let that pass. Then the studio discussion began.
*
Again all was going well, with a question each to the three guests (a German Liberal Alexandra Thein, the British Conservative Charles Tannock and the Polish centre-right MP (for Civil Platform) Jacek Saryucz-Wolski (yes, 2 centre-right guests to one liberal - and a pro-business German Liberal at that!!). Then came question 4, asked to the attactive Alexandra: "And we assume everyone was delighted at this prospect, and yet the reality was sometimes a little different. I mean we heard Margaret Thatcher there sounding a little cautious. But even in Germany there were West Germans who were worried about the whole idea of suddenly taking in all these new people." Back to Mrs Thatcher! Oh, the strange workings of the left-wing mind!!
*
You would have thought that would have been the last mention of the hated Mrs T. - but no, the next question, put to Mr Tannock, was this: "I mean Margaret Thatcher there, Charles Tannock, when you hear that sort of sentiment, how do you feel?" Mr Tannock responded well, and talked of Mrs Thatcher "being at the forefront of rejoicing" (which I remember she was!). For this misdeed he got himself well and truly interrupted by the lovely Shirin: "But the real worry was about a unified Germany and an overdominant Germany." Please watch the programme on the BBC i-player (as linked to above) and see the icy look of disapproval on Shirin's face as Mr Tannock finishes his defence of Mrs Thatcher. It's a sight well worth seeing.
*
So three questions in a row fixated on Mrs Thatcher. Surely when she asked her eighth question, to Mr Saryucz-Wolski, there couldn't be another? Think again: "I mean, Mr Saryucz-Wolski, it's true, isn't it, it wasn't just Margaret Thatcher who was worried about an overdominant Germany? I mean Mitterand as well. You know, Helmut Kohl has a big job getting that past them." Of a grand total of 9 questions, 4 were fixated on Mrs Thatcher - 3 mentioning her by name. Isn't that extraordinary? Well, not really. The undying hatred of some on the Left for the Iron Lady is just a fact of life. As I say, it's just the strange workings of the left-wing mind!!

SOME MINORS GO MISSING, BUT THE POLICE AREN'T NEEDED

*
A couple of weeks ago, the Politics Show: Scotland (hosted by Glenn Campbell) held a debate between the candidates for Scotland's four main political parties for the forthcoming Glasgow North East by-election (the one to replace arch-trougher Speaker Michael Martin, now scandalously ennobled by the Labour government as Baron Martin of Springburn) - SNP, Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
*
Today it featured three short video presentations by some of the minor parties. Which minor parties? Well, firstly the far-left Solidarity (Tommy Sheridan), then the far-left Greens and finally the far-left Scottish Socialist Party. I aha-ed at this, thinking 'That's left-wing bias, if ever I saw it.' At the end came a list of the other candidates who didn't get a spot on the programme, including the BNP, the Jury Team (that admirable brainchild of Sir Paul Judge), a blind chap called Mikey who appeared on Big Brother and a rag-bag of other mysterious names. Why weren't they selected? Were they not left-wing enough?
*
Well, looking at the programme's website , all the candidates are given a video spot there and those mysterious candidates all turn out to be yet more far-leftists. Frankly, I can't get too worked up about them not getting a spot on the main TV programme, nor the BNP for that matter. It would have been nice to hear from The Jury Team (and maybe even Mikey). Still, democracy is democracy and if three of the nonentities get a place on the TV, why not all of them?*

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL KNOW THAT, ESPECIALLY IF MARR DOESN'T ASK

*

This morning's Andrew Marr Show was less infuriating than usual. Naturally much of it was given over to the subject of the Afghan War & this gave it a somewhat different tone. I think it's safe to say that Marr is opposed to our involvement in the Afghan War, as his questions over many months have tended overwhelmingly to come from that particular stance - and today's interview with Sir Jock Stirrup was no exception. During the paper review, he was 'mmm'-ing and nodding his head at much of what Kate Hoey had to say on the need for opponents of the war to overcome their fear and speak out, and joined her in praising the Independent's 'yes, very' experienced anti-war correspondent Patrick Cockburn. There was much less 'mmm'ing when she went on to praise Christopher Booker of the Sunday Telegraph and his view that politicians need to be honest about the fact that we are in a European federal superstate. (Hurray for Kate Hoey!)

*

His big political interview was with William Hague, and this was far less aggressive than those with David Cameron or Liam Fox (to mention but two other recent Tory guests). The opening section dealt with Afghanistan (3 interruptions), then moved on to Europe (10 interruptions), followed by Sir Ian Kennedy and MPs' expenses (1 interruption) and finally - and for no reasons of topicality whatsoever, but only because it's a Labour/Guardian/BBC obsession - the tax affairs of Lord Ashcroft (which quickly garnered 5 more interruptions) . The resultant I.C. was 1.3.

*

I was all agog to hear what Sir Michael Caine had to say about the recently reported announcement that he was switching from Labour to the Conservatives at the next election: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6480576/Michael-Caine-switches-allegiance-to-Conservatives.html). In a strange turn of events, Andrew Marr did not ask him about that. I wonder why, as he's usually so willing to talk politics with his (left-wing) celebrity guests.

ESLER SITS WITH THE LEFT AGAIN

*
Today's Dateline: London panel was much more balanced than usual, with two right-of-centre voices (Janet Daley of the Sunday Telegraph and the ever-excellent Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt) being set against two left-of-centre voices (Stryker Maguire of Newsweek and the ever-appalling Abdul Bari Atwan of al Quds). The balance was, however, swung emphatically to the Left by the presenter, Gavin Esler. As the panel is normally strongly weighted towards the Left anyhow, Esler's bias is usually somewhat disguised. Not so here. He was a vigorously active participant on the Left's side of each argument. Even David Dimbleby would have had to gasp with admiration at the sheer brazenness of Esler's bias.
*
This need spelling out in some detail.
*
The first topic up for discussion was Afghanistan. Janet Daley spoke first, then Thomas Kielinger. Next up was Stryker Maguire and, as he spoke, Esler supportively echoed him (..."while saying we're committed to stay, which is a..."). When Janet responded, Maguire interrupted, telling her "It doesn't matter!" and Esler grinned and laughed with him. Atwan followed and, again, his views were echoed by Esler ("He's told Gordon Brown he's going to root out corruption", to which Atwan replied "Exactly.").
*
When Janet Daley could take no more of Atwan's extremist drivel there began a 50-second stretch that showed Esler's bias to its fullest extent. He interrupted her 5 times. The first four interruptions all flatly contradicted her. The fifth cut her off to ask Maguire a fresh question. At one stage during this short stretch, it was 3 against 1 - Atwan, Maguire and Esler ganging up against Janet Daley. Esler was sat so close to Maguire, that they looked a little like a double-act (which they sort-of were).
*
The story so far then is that Esler has been actively supporting the two left-wingers but repeatedly interrupting and contradicting one of the right-wingers.
*
His question to Maguire concerned the American president's slow response to General MyCrystal's request for more troops: "Let me..is Obama being very judicious and thinking about it, or is he dithering?" When Maguire poured scorn on suggestions of a parallel with the Cuban Missile Crisis, saying it's not like that at all, Esler chimed in again with a supportive comment ("It's not that. And it's winter as well, which is not the er.."). Like a loving, married couple they were completing each other's thoughts!
*
This was just the first 6 or so minutes of the show!!!
*
When Thomas Keilinger spoke next, he was in turn interrupted and opposed by Esler - and opposed from the stance of one of the other (left-wing) guests: "Indeed, but Bari's point...just to put it even more brutally...you know, Afghanistan, do we not suffer from this delusion that Afghanistan was ever a functioning country...". Janet sprang back in but Esler was soon interrupting her again, with first a heckle ("to a fully functioning country?") and then with another hostile interruption: "But why then get hung up on the democratic process, because it's a nonsense." He soon stopped her again and handed the debate back to Atwan, with a supportive question: "But then when there's cause in it Bari, I suppose you would argue we just look at Karzai and think why are we fighting for this chap?"
*
When Janet finishes her come-back to Bari Atwan, Esler lands an emphatic "But.." and speaks for Bari yet again: "But, you know, the First World War and the Second World War were existential threats to this country. The reason why Bari's quoting those opinion polls is a lot of people don't see it as an existential threat that's going to effect this country..." (Atwan vigorously nodded his head at this.)
*
*
When the topic turned to the resignation of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Esler first invited Atwan to comment, and let him do so - without interruption - at some length. When he had finished he turned to Stryker Maguire and, to more nods of agreement from Abdul Bari Atwan: "Stryker, we did this programme from the Gulf last week and they thought it was an absolute disaster for what we call the peace process. It's finished basically." (I saw that programme. It was stuffed with Israel-bashers.)
*
Later Gavin Esler's pro-Democrat bias (and long-standing Clinton-worship) surfaced as he put this point to Atwan: "Hillary, who's one of the brighest women around and also Senator Mitchell who knows a thing or two, have they fallen into this trap?" ('Hillary', indeed!). And there was more later, as he described Hillary's support team has having "no lack of talent".
*

*
Yet again Gavin Esler, ostensibly the discussion's neutral chairman, was a protagonist in the debate. The physical layout of the panel, with Atwan, McGuire and Esler on one side - the left-side! - and Janet Daley and Thomas Kielinger on the other could not have been more apt. As I keep on saying, let Esler resign and appear as a guest himself. Then he could spout left-wing opinions to his heart's desire. Let someone who values impartiality take over the chairmanship of 'Dateline London' instead.
*
Even on one of those rare occasions when the programme's panel balances Left and Right, it just cannot be fair to the Right.

CAMPBELL'S PHONE-A-FRIEND

*
The Daily Telegraph is reporting that "Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, the head of the independent watchdog charged with reforming MPs’ expenses and restoring public trust in Parliament, is a close friend of Alastair Campbell." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6516741/Sir-Ian-Kennedy-the-man-reforming-MPs-expenses-is-Alastair-Campbells-friend.html)

This is the man who, the paper says, "plans to rip up the proposed reforms to the discredited system of Commons allowances put forward earlier this week by Sir Christopher Kelly."

The Telegraph goes on, "So close is Sir Ian, the new head of the Independent Parliament Standards Authority (IPSA), to Mr Campbell that he helped advise him on his appearance before the Hutton Inquiry into the death of David Kelly, the government scientist. Mr Campbell still regularly advises Number 10 and is highly likely to be part of the central Labour strategy team aiming for a fourth general election victory."

Visiting the BBC website to see how it's reporting this potentially explosive story, I find that it reports aspects of the Telegraph's coverage - just not this part of the story (as of 9.54am Sat 7 Nov): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8347945.stm. Its focus is solely on the expenses issue: "Proposed reforms of MPs' expenses are in doubt after the head of the body charged with rewriting the rules said he might not implement them all. The Daily Telegraph said Prof Sir Ian Kennedy was unhappy with standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly's plans. Sir Ian was quoted as saying he had "no obligation" to accept everything that Sir Christopher suggested."

Surely the BBC isn't deliberately ignoring the one part of the story that might be deeply embarrassing for the Labour Party? Heaven forbid.
*
Odd though, isn't it?
*

WHERE DOES ANITA STAND?

*
The Daily Politics ran a short piece about Conservative Barnet council's new funding experiment - so called 'easy councils', where essential services will be paid for out of council tax but that a whole range of other services (also currently paid for through council tax) will be offered only if wanted and if people are willing for pay for them. The analogy, of course, is with the no-thrills airline Easy Jet.
*
This was followed by a studio discussion, hosted by Anita Anand. What was Anita's view? Were she unbiased we would, of course, never know, as she would simply ask devil's advocate questions from a stance of opposition to supporters of the scheme and ask devil's advocate questions from a supportive position to opponents of the scheme.
*
She certainly started by asking questions from a stance of opposition to a qualified supporter of the scheme - the ever-excellent Susie Squire of the Taxpayers' Alliance. First came "So, he said it was popular but is it right? Is it morally right? And is it what we really want in our society?". Next she asked, "So how do you then police against the example that was given...'I don't walk that street. I'm not paying anything for the cleaning of that street. That's up to them.'?"
*
Next she turned to Kate Green of the Child Poverty Action Group, an outright opponent of the scheme. Yes, Anita's first question was put from a stance of support, in true devil's advocate fashion: "Oh well Kate Green, you protect what's important and those things that are a matter of choice, a memorial bench, you could survive without that, you know, pay extra if that's what you want?" But then, with her second question, she gave up devil's advocacy and switched to asking a question (or making a statement) from a stance of opposition to an opponent of the scheme: "There are those who also fear the complexity of a system like this." Kate Green, unsurprisingly, shared this concern. (Who are "those" people, by the way?). Then she turned to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of The Independent (oh yes, her!) and asked this doyenne of the Left, "You know I started off asking Susie is this good for society. It sounded like a lofty question, but the thing is shouldn't we actually care about everyone who lives in our area? Shouldn't we think actually it's up to me to pay for that as well?". Yasmin, unsurprisingly, shared Anita's concern. She then asked Sarah Sands of The Evening Standard a general question about whether she welcomed the scheme, then turning back to Susie Squire opined that "altruism will be trumped by economy-saving measures."
*
So out of the first 7 questions, one was general, one was asked from a stance supportive of the scheme, and five were asked from a position opposed to the scheme. All the passion was in the latter. Can you guess, therefore, where Anita Anand stands on the issue?
*
Now the final question raised the total of 'supportive' questions to two, but it was loaded with praise for her very-left-wing guest: "Would you be more comfortable, Kate Green, if there were good people like yourself on this council of the wise, who would decide, look, this is indispensable, this is important but, you know, these are things you could pay for and here's a price list?"
*

DIMBLE BIAS 2

*
This week's Question Time gathered together Robert-Kilroy Silk, the Conservative Nick Herbert, PC ex-P.C. Sir Ian Blair, comedienne Natalie Haynes and Labour's Peter Hain.
*
The first question was on the Tories' climbdown over a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. In this section of the programme Nick Herbert was interrupted 6 times by David Dimbleby. If you watch the programme on the BBC i-player, you will see that his answer begins at 3.39. The first interruption follows at 4.05, the second at 4.11, the third at 4.15, the fourth at 4.50 and the fifth at 5.50. The answer to the one at 4.05 ("Might have been able?") was accompanied by a quizzical expression from Dimbleby, as if it was not a good answer. The interruption at 4.50 came as Mr Herbert began to attack Labour and the Lib Dems for reneging on their promises of a referendum ("But surely, wait a minute..yep, wait a moment Nick, wait a moment...Wait a moment Nick..") and a new question followed, accompanied by one of those smirks Dimbleby likes to wear when mugging a Tory. When Mr Herbert tried again later, Dimbleby pounced again (12.35): "All right, we're going round in a circle here. You said that at the beginning" and went to the audience.
*
Contrast this with Dimbleby's treatment of Peter Hain here. He got two bites of the cherry (a particularly juicy cherry for him), but was not interrupted once. You would have thought that a mischievous Dimbleby would have put the point about Labour reneging on a referendum to Peter Hain. Not a bit of it.
*
After most of the audience had clapped Sir Ian Blair's pro-EU guff to the skies (where do they get these audiences from?) Dimbleby went back to the audience with these words, "Let's go back to the question.The question was about the damage that might be done, or would be done, to the Conservative party by this. Let me just take a couple of points to that then we'll go on." When the first audience member fails to make the expected point, Dimbleby prompted him, "So do you think there'll be damage to the Tories because of what Cameron said?". "I think so", replied the lukewarm audience member to a murmur of "right!" from Dimbleby. (Job sort-of-done!). Amusingly, things got even worse for him. He picked another member of the audience out and, against all the odds, this one attacked Labour. When Hain replies, the audience member argued back. Dimbleby leaped in to stop the audience member: "All right, all right, let's not go back, all right, the women in pink there...". By incredible ill-luck Dimbleby had picked another member of the audience who was going to attack Labour! "OK I think we'll move on to another question", Dimblely said quickly.
*
The only other panelist interrupted during this question was, naturally, Robert Kilroy Silk (twice).
*
The next question was on Afghanistan. This time Nick Herbert was interrupted twice. Then , having taken 2 minutes to answer, Dimbleby went to the audience - but not before asking the panelists to make their answers briefer. We couldn't see Nick Herbert, but he must have bridled because Dimbleby quickly added: "That's not a rebuke to you. It's a general point." Well, that's as may be - but Peter Hain's answer (which came soon after) lasted a good deal longer than Nick Herbert's. Dimbleby did not repeat his request though.
*
Again, throughout this question Hain was not once interrupted by Dimbleby. Why?
8*
Mr Kilroy Silk said that the terrorists who committed terrorist attacks here were home-grown ("They come from Birmingham, Bradford, Glasgow. They're home-grown terrorists. Which one has come from Afghanistan?"), not from Afghanistan. When Peter Hain says that they were trained in Afghanistan, Mr Kilroy Silk says it was not Afghanistan, "Pakistan maybe but not Afghanistan", then repeats "Ah, Pakistan" and nods his head to signal that 'Pakistan's the right answer. Note, however, how Dimbleby misrepresents the dispute between the two tanned gentlemen: "Ian Blair. Robert Kilroy Silk and Peter Hain were arguing about where terrorists were trained. He says it's here in Bradford (pointing to RKS), he says it's in Pakistan (gesturing towards PH). You know about this...Where do you think the training is coming from, and is Afghanistan central to it?" No, that's not what Robert Kilroy Silk said at all. Quite the opposite in fact. Bias on Dimbleby's part, or just a lapse of concentration/understanding? Take your pick. Whatever it was, I wish Robert Kilroy Silk had picked him up on it & corrected him.
*
Things were more evenly balanced during the third question (on MPs pay). Here both Nick Herbert and Peter Hain were interrupted twice - though those against Nick Herbert were put sternly whereas those against Hain were put more gently.
*
The final question was on immigration. Here more windy idealism from Sir Ian Blair brought prolonged clapping from the audience (no really, where do they get them from?). At last a tiny semblance of balance was restored, as here it was Peter Hain who was interrupted 5 times by Dimbleby. (Hain got his revenge by persistently interrupting Nick Herbert later.) The last of these came as Dimbleby gloated over his appearance on the show, despite the threat of a boycott over Nick Griffin's invite.