Shah Hussain only stating what happened

There are a lot of abandoned essays on my computer. Bits and pieces that have become too convoluted, or have taken so long to write that by the time I’m satisfied that they’re reasonably lucid, they’re stale. 

Sometimes you can rescue the best bits for use at a later date, which, now I come to think of it, is is borderline hoarding.

I’ve decided to ditch the entire preamble to this next post and just put it out without any window dressing because I spent quite a while transcribing. Waste not want not. 

It is stale; only three whole days old, but seems like a lifetime.

The Burnley councillor, Shah Hussain is a typical example of the demographic that is is presently disgracing Corbyn’s Labour party.  

Can be comparable to what happened to European Jews

Muslim; inarticulate, sectarian, conditioned by deeply ingrained cultural and religious racism and incapable of reason. He chooses to believe all sorts of nonsense, and is used to getting away with it.

Watching him being interviewed by Jo Coburn on the Daily Politics was exasperating.  

Jo Coburn was repeatedly trying to trap Hussain into admitting he was a racist, which he was determined not to do. 

All that effort was wasted because her she was barking up the wrong tree. 

Starting from the premise that the Israeli government is intrinsically guilty of ‘wrongdoings’, Jo Coburn and far too many others believe that one of the foremost definitions of  ‘antisemitism’ is “holding all Jews accountable for ‘what Israel does’.”

In other words, she believes it would be fair and just if we all agree to exonerate ‘innocent’ non-Israeli Jews for Israel’s crimes. Magnanimously, British Jews, particularly Anti-Zionist Jews deserve to be treated as one of us. 

Jo Coburn wants to expose Shah Hussain as an antisemite because he refuses to separate bad Jews from good Jews, tarring them all with the same dirty old brush that Muslims are always complaining about.

The councillor couldn’t agree that Jews are not accountable for the actions of another country, and Jo Coburn’s ineffectual challenge on the weakness of his comparison between the Holocaust and ‘what is happening in Gaza” fell on stony ground.

Ironic, since the BBC is especially fond of comparing death tolls and using the uneven tally as proof that Israel is in the wrong.

How could anyone in their right mind compare the ‘Gaza death toll’ with that of the Holocaust, let alone produce the unequal death toll as evidence of Israel’s malevolence. Even if you’re totally mathematically illiterate, you shouldn’t be allowed to get away with cherry-picking your death tolls.  Has everyone abandoned reason?

The rules are that you mustn’t mention what led to the Gaza conflict. You can just say “I’m only stating the truth” as Ken Livingstone is fond of doing.

 

For Craig. Special request

At least she managed to tease out Hussain’s allegation that he was being victimised, ‘as a Muslim’, and his belief that it’s a witch-hunt, no doubt orchestrated by Jews. 

He did make one sensible suggestion. “We need a proper debate,” he said, and I quite agree. We do. 

With  preconditions: it has to include at least one level-headed Muslim who is capable of interacting without apoplexy or hysteria. Nigh on Impossible, then.

You can’t really tell, but I think the BBC has difficulty determining whether or not to accept Zionism in principle, and they aren’t quite sure if the actual principle of anti-Zionism is antisemitic. They probably figure that if the right to self-determination is deemed permissible for some, it would be hypocritical to deny it for the Jews. However, they do consider Zionism a bit iffy. They’re not quite sure if it’s racist.

Sadly, the BBC’s sweeping condemnation of the Israeli government and the cavalier manner in which they dismiss all Israel’s defensive or retaliatory actions as ‘wrongdoings’ is the problem.

Overlooking the aggressive activities of Israel’s enemies, as the BBC has been doing for years, is not only antisemitic, but, to use the councillor’s favourite phrase, it’s a prime example of taking things out of context.

The BBC does, literally, take things out of context by its counter-chronological style of reporting matters concerning Israel, sometimes actually omitting the ‘first’ from these ‘last first’ reports altogether.

Before I insert the transcript I want to give an honourable mention to Keith Vaz in a Leicester City scarf. 

football hooligan

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

What did you mean by your Tweet, that “you should see what the rest of the world thinks, and this was a Tweet that you sent to an Israeli footballer where you said ‘You are a complete and utter plonker you and your country doing the same thing that hitler did to ur race in ww2’ 

Right, well firstly I’m quite disappointed that the tweet has come out now, in 2016. It was written during 2014 during the Gaza crisis in response to another footballer making a comment about the killing of children in Gaza. It was written then, now it’s come out, I’m assuming it’s come out because of political reasons..

But do you still believe that sentiment about comparing Israel and what the Israeli government is doing, in your mind, to children in Gaza to what Hitler did when Hitler murdered six million Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and political opponents? 

Mmm. What I was merely stating is that what the State of Israel is doing within Gaza, um, can be made comparable to the European Jews 

Do you think it’s appropriate in your role as councillor to make that comparison? 

I was merely stating events that have actually happened. 

Right, so do you think it was appropriate to make those comments? 

Appropriate, yes, it was appropriate in 2014 when the conflict between Israeli and Palestinians were taking place and innocent children were losing their lives. Yes, at that time it was appropriate. 

You would deploy using Hitler and that historical comparison where six million Jews were murdered, to an Israeli..... 

Like I said, I was stating, at that time, what was happening within Gaza. 

What did you mean though, by your Tweet ‘you should see what the rest of the world thinks. What does the rest of world think? 

Well.....in terms of what?  In terms of what was happening in Gaza at that time? 

But what do you mean? 

Well, there was an outcry within the rest of the world, what was happening within Gaza. That’s what I meant. 

Right. What do you think about your suspension from the Labour Party? 

It’s unfortunate, but within the present climate, the witch-hunt  that is going on, that is - I thought it was expected that would happen. 

You did expect it was going to happen. Are you going to fight the expulsion? 

Obviously, I would be. I am. I would be. But it was a witch-hunt. 

In your mind, is it appropriate for any politician, when criticising regimes they dislike, so, for example, politicians who said, for example, they dislike Saudi, Pakistan or Egypt or Syria. is it also fair to say it’s the fault of the people who live in those countries? 

Like I said I was merely stating what was happening in 2014. It’s unfortunate that I happen to be a Muslim councillor, and therefore my comments have been taken out of context and as such have been censored. 

What context have they been taken out of? 

Well, why am I on this TV show today, trying to explain comments that were made in 20014? 

Right, are you saying that you don’t agree with the comments now? 

Are you saying if I wasn’t a Muslim councillor I still would be here? 

No. what I’m asking you is if you  inserted different words into some of the Tweets you sent, I mean if you, if you linked the actions of a Syrian or Egyptian government with the rights and lives of Arabs generally, would that be appropriate in 2014 or today? 

If those dictators were killing those people then yes. 

Right, then how are you going to fight your suspension from the Labour Party? 

I mean that’s for me to discuss with my colleagues and so on, but I mean I was merely here trying to state as to why that Tweet that was made in 2014 has become relevant in 2016. Is it because of a political agenda that is happening. Is it because I’m a Muslim councillor and as such those comments have been taken into that context. 

Right, so you believe you’re being unfairly targeted you don’t think there’s anything wrong with those comments because you told the press association that you would fight the suspension and added ‘if Jewish people find it offensive, what you said about comparing what Hitler did to the Jews with what was happening in Gaza, then they need to think about what the rest of the world thinks.

 

No. I didn’t say that. I said that what was happening in 2014 in Gaza, in Palestine, can be comparable to what happened to European Jews in WW2. 

(Keith Vaz wasn’t able to discuss the case because he’s a going to be a member of the review. He thinks Shami Chakrabarti is the right one to chair this because "you can’t tell her what to do". He said "those views are repugnant".

I was merely making a Tweet in response to a footballer about killing children. I was merely stating what was happening in Palestine. I did not make an antisemitic comment. i don’t.. I believe if we really wanted a debate about what was happening within Palestine you have to get over this issue because ... I think , because me being a Muslim, I feel that that Tweet has been taken out of context. 

Keith Vaz said Jeremy Corbyn is not the kind of man who would orchestrate a witch-hunt. 

I’m not an antisemite but I do see the issue of Palestine and Israel having a great effect on the Muslim community in Britain because when I go knocking on doors, constituents tell me that the way the media and the governments and so on throughout the world - they see a different attitude towards the conflict in the Middle East, snd conflict elsewhere...

And you think it’s fair to blame Jews in general. 

No No. You’re putting words into my mouth. I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is it should be seen - we should have a debate about what is happening and it should be without being called a ‘semite’ if you make a statement that may not happen to be supportive of Israel.

 As soon as Nigel Farage began getting into dangerous territory he was reprimanded by Jo

 

“Has the Labour Party not allied itself too closely in many Midlands and Northern cities with effectively sectarian politics....The Muslim vote now is vey very big in many of our inner cities and I suspect... 

Are you blaming the Muslim community or saying the Muslim community has a lot of antisemitic... 

Look. I saw George Galloway win that by-election in Bradford West on openly sectarian political lines.  

But it changed when obviously Labour won it back.

 interrupted Vaz.

Well, hang on, did it?

 said Nigel. 

Corbynmania

The whole Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon is very strange. 

From the way some people tell it, it's as if Beatlemania has been reborn in the cause of an elderly, bearded far-leftist. 

Of course, much of that mania may be down to the distorting efforts of left-dominated social media echo chambers like Twitter, whose views bear very little resemblance to what most people actually think, as well as a lot of media hype and a few probably dodgy opinion polls....

...but there's no denying (I think) that Mr Corbyn is doing himself proud at the moment. 

His quiet, earnest, straightforward manner seems to be 'authentic'. His temper when questioned too strongly (as on Channel 4 News) also seems 'authentic'. His lack of a sense of humour seems 'authentic' as well. 

And politicians being 'authentic' really does seem to matter, to varying degrees, to many people. Nigel Farage does it for some; Jeremy Corbyn does it for others. (Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, it seems, less so).

Jeremy Corbyn became an MP just about the time when I began to be interested in politics. He's been around a long time, and in all that time I've never thought of him as anything other than a very-far-left, Israel-loathing, Hamas-Hizbollah-friendly, pro-Sinn Fein Labour Party fringe player, part of the 'awkward squad', utterly contemptible and unimportant. 

And, yet, now here he is, apparently poised to win the leadership of the UK's main opposition party - which is truly extraordinary.

And, even more extraordinary to me, is the fact that - like Sue - I've found him oddly plausible and weirdly appealing. Given how little large parts of the public know or care about party politics, couldn't he be onto a potentially popular thing, if he keeps this up? Could those Tories4Corbyn be laughing on the other side of their faces in years to come? 

(My guess is 'no, they won't be', but what do I know? The Tories could self-destruct into civil war after the EU referendum. UKIP might fail to get it together despite the open goal given to them by both main parties. The Lib Dems might revive a bit. The SNP could fall back (if Jeremy C is Labour leader). Who knows what will happen in 2020?)

Anyhow, Mr Corbyn's interview with Andrew Marr today was very oddly plausible. He's absolutely mastered the knack (if knack it be) of sounding moderate and commonsensical when saying all manner of (when you step back a bit) extreme things. No wonder the sort of journalists who fling the term 'populist' at UKIP are now flinging it at Jeremy Corbyn too.

And that brings me (at last) to the question of BBC bias. 

That left-wing echo chamber on Twitter is going mad at the BBC for being anti-Corbyn. They are beginning to outnumber the cybernats in dominating the #bbcbias hashtag. 

Even Andy Marr got it in the neck today on Twitter (en masse) for being anti-Corbyn.

That said, I've also seen a comment at another place (one strongly tending to the Right) accusing Andrew Marr of giving Corbyn the Magnificent a "cuddly" interview, "a cosy fireside chat". 

"Complaints from both sides. BBC must be getting it about right, #BackingtheBBC", as Professor Brian Cox et al might say.

No, Professor Brian Cox, Not at all. It means absolutely no such thing. It might mean than Andrew Marr got it about right on this occasion, but it doesn't mean that the BBC as a whole is getting it right. There could be an anti-Corbyn bias at the BBC, or pro-Corbyn bias. The only way to find out is to listen and judge the matter as fairly as possible (given that the BBC won't be doing so, publicly at least).

I, frankly, haven't seen enough of it to judge. Given the tenor of, say, Gavin Esler's comments on Dateline London yesterday and Andrew Marr's questioning of Mr C. today, however, I can see why some pro-Corbyn viewers and listeners might have detected an anti-Corbyn tone. Gavin was a little bit sneery about him yesterday and Andrew Marr did try, rather gently but nonetheless persistently, to paint Jeremy Corbyn as a communist today (but isn't he?)

Yet both also seemed fascinated rather than out-and-out horrified by the Corbyn phenomenon, in a way that they never seemed about, say, the Nigel Farage phenomenon. And the same, from what I've seen and heard, with Newsnight and Broadcasting House and PM.  

So let's speculate: The BBC probably would, I think, have been far more comfortable with boring, snoring Yvette, or mascara-wearing NHS-loving Mids Staffs guy Andy, or Blairite Liz. Though many of them (the vast majority of them, by most accounts) swing left, Jeremy Corbyn is too left even for them, despite him having a certain lingering (radical chic) appeal (memories of their student days perhaps).

Am I onto something here? Or not? 

Is the BBC pro-Corbyn, anti-Corbyn, confused or just being impartial? 

Even David Vance at Biased BBC seems as uncertain and confused as I am about this. "So where does the BBC stand?", he asks.

A good question, David. Where does the BBC stand (if anywhere)?

Some of the news that's fit to print

Sticking with matters party political, it's always interesting to see which political stories the BBC chooses to report - and which it chooses not to report.

The lead story in this morning's Times was: 

Hedge fund millionaire is Labour’s covert donor

One of Labour’s biggest private donors is a wealthy hedge fund boss whose identity the party has repeatedly refused to reveal. Martin Taylor, who has held at least one private meeting with Ed Miliband, has been unmasked as the mystery benefactor who has given the party almost £600,000 in three years. The revelation will provoke accusations of hypocrisy against the Labour leader, who has attacked the Tories for being “the party of Mayfair hedge funds”. 

The story was swiftly taken up, around 12 hours ago, by the Herald ("Labour donor unveiled as millionaire hedge fund manager"), the Financial Times ("Labour's 'mystery donor' revealed as hedge fund manager)" and the Daily Telegraph ("Hedge fund manager revealed to be top Labour donor"). The Daily Mail joined in around 10 hours ago ("Hedge fund chief revealed as Red Ed's £600000 donor"). The Daily Express joined in 4 hours ago ("Revealed: Mystery £600000 Labour donor is hedge fund manager Martin Taylor"). The Huffington Post reported the story 3 hours ago ("Hedge Fund Manager Martin Taylor Gave £600000 To Labour"). The Sky News website published it over 2 hours ago ("Labour Received £600k From Hedge Fund Donor"). The Independent arrived within the past hour ("Labour 'open to the charge of hypocrisy' after failing to divulge hedge fund manager’s donation") - though, actually, they had another version of the story earlier in the day. 

You will, however, look in vain for the story on the home page of the BBC News website. Or on their Politics page (where yesterday's UKIP scandals remain a main story). The BBC have simply chosen not to make it a story, for whatever reason. 

Ah but, they have sort-of reported it somewhere (if you look carefully): in their daily paper review, where the Times and its lead story can't be avoided. So that's all right then.

[P.S. Today mentioned the story in one of its three paper reviews. And that was it.]

A Tale of Two Parties on 'Newsnight'

I suspect that supporters of the Labour Party would have been much happier watching last night's Newsnight than UKIP supporters.

A speech by Labour's Tristram Hunt was giving top billing, a report by Chris Cook and an interview by Evan Davis. 

Chris Cook's report gave Mr Hunt's ideas a respectful airing and Evan Davis then gave him an interruption-free interview - though Evan did preface their discussion with a comment about an (unnamed) education blogger having described Tristram's speech as "cliche-ridden".

Tristram's interview with Evan was certainly cliche-ridden. Given his past as a BBC documentary presenter, you'd have thought he might have made his ideas sound interesting (especially as they are interesting). But he didn't. It was professional politician's management-speak all the way. Chris Cook made a far better fist of it than him.

The ideas Tristram Hunt are proposing are those that Sarah Montague looked into for her fascinating Radio 4 series, My Teacher is an App - the idea that teaching remains stubbornly old-fashioned in its approach to new technology, that here's a huge wealth of innovative online learning programmes out there which schools are very nervous about introducing into their classrooms. It's still pretty much a teacher and a blackboard (or whiteboard).

After that came the bit on UKIP: Three new scandals for the party and Allegra Stratton popping down to Thurrock and ostentatiously pointing out that the UKIP candidate there was very willing to talk to Newsnight last time they were down, but this time doesn't want to talk to them. Then Evan Davis followed this up by saying that they'd inviting several top UKIP figures to appear but they had all declined Newsnight's invitation.

From a tweet by Douglas Carswell, I think it's possible to see why UKIP declined that invitation:

Newsnight asks if I'll appear on their show. Not after the way they behaved last time. Thanks v much
— Douglas Carswell (@DouglasCarswell) March 20, 2015

Labour: In-credibly at large?

Party Conference Watch 2013: The Labour Party

Brace yourselves for this one, the fourth in a continuing series...

The Today programme's coverage of the fourth of the party conferences, the Labour Party's, got underway on the first day of the conference, much as their Liberal Democrat conference coverage began, with the highlighting of a key policy announcement - Labour's decision to get rid of the spare room subsidy ('bedroom tax'). Sarah Montague and BBC political correspondent Ben Wright began (at 7.09 am) with a three-minute preview of that, plus some childcare proposals from Yvette Cooper.

A 7-minute interview with Hilary Benn, the shadow minister responsible for the spare room subsidy policy, followed at 7.34. Sarah Montague raised the perception that Labour favours spending on welfare (given that the polls are deeply sceptical about spending on welfare) and plugged away at that issue, as well as asking about whether people earning £60,000 are rich, and about the Damian McBride revelations about Labour infighting. John Humphrys then intervened to ask him about his dad's health and to ask him to convey their good wishes to him. I counted just three interruptions.

The coverage really got underway on Monday, with Justin Webb reporting from Brighton though the Islamist terrorist attack in Kenya naturally meant that Ed Balls lost the prestigious 8.10 interview spot. Still, there was plenty of Labour Party conference coverage.

Justin Webb and the BBC's Gary O'Donaghue previewed Ed Balls's conference speech at 6.36 (for about three minutes), discussing two Labour announcements - one saying they would like to involve the Office for Budget Responsibility in the drawing-up of the party's spending plans (before the election), other about extra childcare. GO'D said the OBR announcement was "an attempt to neutralise the usual Tory attack on 'You can't trust Labour with the money'". As far as the OBR's present remit stands, that "doesn't look as if it's possible. And Labour knows that, attempting to put the Tories in a particular position where they effectively refuse to allow an independent body to do this." After all, he said, there's already the Institute for Fiscal Studies, "a well-respected outfit out there who does these sort of things anyway, so you do wonder if this is a slightly manufactured row." This seems an example of a BBC reporter unspinning the spin, and not to Labour's advantage.

At 6.53, Justin gave his own (5-minute) report, talking to Graham Stringer MP, David Blunkett MP, Eddie Izzard, Stella Creasy MP, and then contrasted all their "happy talk in a hotel bar" with "ordinary people" on the pier - various vox pops. One didn't know who Ed Miliband is, another said he'd no personality and they're all the same, and a third said he isn't convinced by him, thinks he's a puppet and is "desperately disappointed by him." (Ouch!)

At 7.16 Justin talked to Paul Johnson of the afore-mentioned Institute for Fiscal Studies about Labour's spending plans (for around four minutes). Mr Johnson sounded sceptical, saying that Labour's OBR plan would only work (after a change in the law to alter the body's remit) if the opposition party in question gave them its manifesto many months before an election, not just "dumping" it on them a month before an election - given that most manifestos are pretty vague and the OBR would need to go to-and-fro between the parties seeking clarification. As for his own assessment of Labour's spending plans, Mr Johnson said that "as ever" there's nothing "terribly precise" about them, and that it's a "slightly odd" for Labour to be focusing on these "little changes" when the OBR say that, if they win in 2015, they will have to make another 10% public spending cuts from 2016-17. - "a really, really big change relative to the relatively small tax-and-spending plans that the Labour Party's talking about at the moment." [A bit of a thumbs-down for Labour there].

Ed Balls arrived for interview at 7.35. Justin asked him about Labour and socialism, and that OBR plan ["that's a stunt though, isn't it, because you know it's not going to happen?"]. Ed Balls did exactly what Gary O'Donaghue predicted he'd do, and launched a party political point against the Conservatives for playing party politics. Justin then asked him why all his announcements seem to be about either spending more or reversing present cuts, rather that being about the big spending cuts or tax rises that "will be necessary if the deficit is to be brought down". He then pressed him on the pace of Labour's deficit reduction. Damian McBride was the final topic. Ed Balls was shocked, shocked I tells ya, about what Damian McBride had done. There were 12 interruptions in a nine-and-a-half minute interview.

At 8.25 Today discussed  the play 'The Confessions of Gordon Brown' - a play being performed at the Labour Party conference, though which its creators say Labour banned from being advertised in the conference brochure. Justin Webb went to see it nonetheless. After a clip, he talked to its director Kevin Toolis and to Gordon Brown's pollster Deborah Mattinson. She found it "quite poignant", "accurate" and "very fair". Mr Toolis described Mr Brown as a "morally good man" but also as "our greatest failure as prime minister in two hundred years", saying that "in office he was an abysmal failure". Justin raised Damian McBride. Deborah agreed that something "nasty" was going on in politics at that time, said that Gordon Brown's role in that was unclear but that he certainly "turned a blind eye" to the "terrible things" that were going on. Kevin Toolis compared him to MacBeth, and said that he didn't just allow these things, he "directed them - him and his lieutenants". 

At 8.37 Nick Robinson chatted to Justin Webb about the "danger" of having policies too early, and about the OBR announcement and Damian McBride: "When you asked Ed Balls whether he knew about Mr McBride's excesses and he said he knew nothing about it at all until the worst came out, I could sense a collective eyebrow not so much twitching as hitting the ceiling around Brighton. There will be deep scepticism about that." [Ouch!]

Finally, at 8.55 came a chat with Steve Richards and the Independent and Rachel Sylvester of the Times. Justin introduced it by noting what he'd found when talking to people on Brighton Pier, namely "that they had no political views at all, no interest, no knowledge" and "if they did have a scintilla of a view, it was that Ed Miliband wasn't up to the job." Both guests backed Labour's OBR proposals. As for Ed Miliband "not being any good", they said the issue matters "hugely". Steve Richards says Ed is more experienced than any other recent election-winning opposition leader (namely, David Cameron and Tony Blair) having been a cabinet minister, and a Treasury adviser before that. 

Tuesday's edition saw another 4-minute discussion between Justin Webb and Gary O'Donaghue at 6.34, previewing Ed Miliband's conference speech. They talked about a Labour proposal about changing business rates for small businesses, and a commission on housing stock [headed by the former head of the BBC trust, Sir Michael Lyons]. Justin described the former as "small bore" but the latter as "a bigger deal". GO'D said, "The previous Labour government promised to build two million new houses over a ten-year period, and didn't really get started on that in a proper way." They also talked about Damian McBride and the roll of Ed Balls. Justin and GO'D said Ed Balls must be pretty confident to justify his 'I know nothing' position.

At 6.50, Justin talked about Labour's attitudes to nuclear weapons. Nick Brown, former chief whip, says Britain shouldn't renew Trident, so Justin interviewed the relevant shadow minister Kevan Jones about that. Mr Jones wants Trident renewed. Justin pressed him quite firmly (from an anti-Trident stance) [4 interruptions in three and a half minutes].

At 7.14 Labour's policy on HS2 come up for discussion, after Ed Balls sounded a sceptical note about it. Justin reported from a fringe conference, and heard first from two pro-HS2 delegates, before pressing Labour advisor Sir John Armitt (another supporter of HS2) of the Olympic Delivery Authority on whether Ed Balls is playing party politics with HS2. [No Labour opponents of HS2 were heard from here].

Harriet Harman was next up for a seven-and-a-half minute interview (at 7.50). Justin asked her about HS2, quoting Bob Crow's "sell-out" accusation to her, and tried to get to grips with her jelly-like wobbling over the issue. He then asked about Labour's "airy-fairy" housing announcement, including new towns and garden cities, and about Labour's position on house prices. (HH wobbled again over that). [9 interruptions].

Nick Robinson popped up at 8.19, talking HS2 and the upcoming Ed Miliband speech (for about 5 minutes). "Move along here, nothing to see, nothing has happened" was Nick's verdict on Harriet Harman's interview, before suggesting that Ed Balls was being populist and raising the concerns of business leaders that Mr Balls was creating the atmosphere for the doubts about HS2 to spread. On Ed Miliband's speech, Nick previewed the small business rate cut proposal and housing.

Finally, at 8.46, Justin talked to John Cridland of the CBI about Labour's small businesses proposal. Sir John, who described the proposed tax changes as "not particularly pro-business", was largely critical of the "divisive" measures. [Not a fan at all.]

The coverage on Wednesday's programme kicked off with another (three-minute) Justin Webb-Gary O'Donaghue chat, introduced by a clip from a senior executive at British Gas warning that Ed Miliband's pledge to freeze energy bills could lead to the lights going out in Britain. Then came a clip of Chuka Umunna describing that as "absurd" and attacking the energy companies. Gary said Labour want this fight, thinking it will "resonate out there". He then read from Ed Milibands's letter to the energy companies. On the wider picture, Justin said the papers didn't reckon much to Ed's speech, but that Labour's minders "are pretty pleased to be in the position they're in". GO'D described it as "a gamble", with echoes of the 1970s. [Sounds fair enough to me].

Justin Webb then reported from Crawley (at 7.33 - a five-and-a-half minute report), one of Labour's target seats. Justin began by describing the "style" and "substance" in Ed's speech, but would it convince people that he was a credible prime minister? The first vox pop said "I don't even know who he is". The next batch said they'd never voted and weren't interested in politics. Justin then went to a pub to watch the speech with five locals. Though they found a few things to like - the business tax proposal, his views on women, what he said about leadership, they didn't think there was any substance behind his speech, one calling it a "pantomime" performance, another "a tick-list speech". They didn't like his jokes either. As for his energy freeze proposal, one of  them called it "a rabbit out of the hat", another said it was "easy for him to say it". They were also "confused" about his position on fracking and the environment. One liked his housing proposal, one called it appalling. To Justin's closing question, "Does this speech in any of you make you more able to see him as a prime minister?" got a resounding and unanimous chorus of "no"s. [Ed must have been choking on his muesli at this point! - which calls for another 'Ouch!']

At 8.10 came the big interview between Justin Webb and Ed Miliband. Justin pressed him quite hard. It was much tougher that Evan Davis's interview with Nick Clegg, really grilling him over Labour's energy freeze policy and quite strongly over deficit reduction. The interview lasted exactly 15 minutes (to the second), and contained 26 interruptions. It dealt with just four issues, which I'll break down, along with the percentage of the interview spent on each topic:

1. Was Ed's speech a throw-back to the 1970s? (15.7%)
2. Labour's energy price freeze proposal (43.1%)
3. Deficit, debt reduction (17.6%)
4. Ed's poor poll figures and the fact that people don't think he's prime ministerial (23.6%)

This was much less belittling than the interview John Humphrys conducted with Nigel Farage, but it wasn't an easy interview for the Labour leader. Far from it.

Ed's interview no sooner ended than Nick Robinson popped up again to give his post-match analysis. I found Ed pretty boring. Nick found what he said "fascinating". Nick finds everything fascinating. [I bet he'd even find this post fascinating!]

Now, I found Ed Miliband's performance during this interview dire - and I'm not alone in thinking that.

This edition of the programme ended with a discussion between Justin, Simon Hoggart of the Observer, and Mary Ann Sieghart of the Independent. Mary Ann said Labour had gone back the 1970s, and described Ed's interview as "unconvincing". Simon said he was "terrible". Mary Ann thinks his energy freeze policy will fall apart and said that Ed couldn't even answer Justin's questions about it. Simon was more positive about the energy freeze policy, though not about Ed, saying he lives "in a bubble" of people obsessed with policy and finds it hard to reach out to ordinary people. [A final 'ouch!' is called for there.]

Thursday's programme could be said to have had a short coda on the Labour leader's conference speech. [Actually two, if you count Sarah Montague and Chris Mason's reporting of Lord Mandelson's criticisms of Ed Miliband's energy price freeze policy as a throw-back to Old Labour at 6.37]. Here's how the Today website describes it:

Ed Miliband, in his conference speech, used an yachting analogy - saying the recovery was not going to float everyone's boat, only those with yachts. Sir Robin Knox Johnston, one of Britain's most successful sailors and the first person to sail solo non-stop around the world, and Shirley Robertson, a Scottish sailor and double gold Olympic medallists, discuss whether the sport suffers at the hands of such depictions.

Both said it did. That said, Ed Miliband and his speech weren't really discussed here.


Conclusions

Today's coverage of the Labour conference was extensive. The last time I covered the party conference season in detail James Naughtie was reporting from the Labour conference, and I found him rather too cosy with the party. That certainly couldn't be said of Justin Webb this time. Today's coverage of the Labour Party conference in general was not biased towards Labour. I will admit that I would have expected it to have been biased towards Labour, going off past experience, but, no, it wasn't. Tough interviews and critical voices from beyond the party, plus the programme's own reports and commentaries, saw to that. [For anyone who's skipped to the conclusions, the evidence is outlined above in some detail!]

So there you go. The Conservatives are up next. Who will they get from the Today programme? How will they fair?

Riots

After the shocking explosion of rioting and lawlessness that shook several English cities in August 2011, Sunday commissioned three talks from prominent figures to reflect on the events that had just taken place. 

'Is the BBC biased?' is the name on the tin so, if Damian Thompson is correct that "Nowhere in the BBC's output is Left-liberal bias more thickly applied than on Radio 4's Sunday programme", then we should be able to see that reflected in the choice of figures, in how their contributions are framed and in what they actually say. Let's see then!

1. Choice of speakers

The three speakers were a Labour MP, a liberal rabbi and the leader of a Muslim organisation. A classic Left-liberal choice, at first glance. 

Rabbi Julia Neuberger is 'certainly Left-liberal' through and through. A familiar figure, at the time she sat on the Liberal Democrat benches in the House of Lords, though she resigned from the party later in the year. 

Fiyaz Mughal of Faith Matters, which Ed Stourton described as being "a Muslim group committed to reducing extremism and inter-faith tension", turned out to be 'Left-liberal' too. He was a former Deputy President of the Liberal Democrat Party. 

Interestingly - and complicating matters pleasingly! - the Labour MP was Frank Field. Being a Labour MP, he can obviously be described as being 'Left' (to an extent!) but 'Left-liberal' doesn't fit him, and he's always been popular with conservatives - and Conservatives. He is a leading Anglican too. 

An actual Conservative or, more generally, any right-wing speaker is noticeably missing from this short list - a revealing omission, don't you think? Why was that side of the debate missing?

2. What they said

What follows are my transcripts of the three talks. They are all of interest, and can now be preserved for posterity (thanks to this little blog!).

1. Frank Field:

"The country no longer sings from the same hymn-sheet. That is the lesson I draw from the recent rioting and looting. To give a sense that the whole country from onboard the same train journey, even if we were in different compartments, the Victorians put much effort into creating what we would now call 'a public ideology'. This was a period when Christianity had come under sustained attack. The governing elite reacted by seeing how it could maintain much of Christian morality without it being underpinned by Christian dogma. The question posed was 'Is it possible to retain allegiance to our moral code or social ground rules without that code being undergirded by faith?' For almost a century the Victorians achieved what many people now think impossible - they maintained, in effect, a secular morality. The country WAS blessed by one individual, the philosopher T.H. Green, took much of the honey from the Christian hive and placed it in more secular surroundings. English idealism, the product of Green's work, became a public ideology or hymn-sheet. The aim was to create a society where everyone could develop their best selves and one that realised that this could only be achieved if we has a strong sense of community. Although this was a period of falling church attendances, it was one in which English idealism held sway. But no more. Why? One reason stands out. We have lost the confidence to teach a set of beliefs about our society's objectives and the rules that need to be followed if these ends are to be achieved. No-one, sadly, is much interested in doing what T.H. Green did. So how might we go about trying to emulate this extraordinary Victorian achievement? In place of one faith we now have many, and those without faith. Yet I've found it impossible to interest anybody in the task of looking at what each of these faiths see as the goals of life. There has been a similar lack of interest in knowing what these faiths see as the ground rules if the good life is to be achieved. My guess is that we will find much agreement over both ends and means. If I'm right we could have the basis for an agreed morality, a social highway code which we could confidently teach. It would tell us what the country was trying to achieve, both in terms of each individual's worth and what we see as the right ends to which individuals should aim. Nobody should pretend this journey would be easy and there is an alternative. That alternative erupted onto British streets only weeks ago."

2. Rabbi Julia Neuberger:

"In my view the riots this summer were not a particular sign that our society is sick. Unlike the Prime Minister, I think it may well have been a one-off and not the start of something new. We've always has occasional rioting - Notting Hill, Broadwater Farm, Brixton and so on - but I DO think that there is a deep moral malaise in our society. It's just that those problems go deeper and our more widespread than the riots, however unpleasant, however frightening they were. First, we depersonalise our older people and talk about them as a demographic time-bomb. We've watched Southern Cross go bust and seen thousands of older people in care homes waiting anxiously to know their future, yet what are we doing to bring comfort, certainty and hope? Secondly, and similarly, we've allowed a huge number of our young to be in a position where they can't find work. However bubbly, energetic and full of hope they are when they start looking, the dejection and the depression is real as they are rejected time and again however hard they try. I think we should be creating jobs for young people and carving out exciting new volunteering opportunities for them as well. But that's expensive and would mean stopping cuts in those parts of our voluntary sector that could find things for them to do. So it's not really about riots, it's about our attitudes to the young and the old. And it's about our lack of energy and sense of urgency in doing anything about all this. When societies recognise they are in trouble they often heal themselves by a massive growth in what we might call 'civic institutions'. The Chief Rabbi makes this point. After the Industrial Revolution, with people living in fear of attack on the streets of our cities, friendly societies  mutuals, charitable foundations and housing associations, many of them religious, with loads of people volunteering, sprang up all over the country. People felt they had a responsibility to heal what was wrong with our society. And that's what's missing now. Sure, there are modern philanthropists doing their best (though we need far more) and there are small, independent start-up organisations trying to make the world a better place, but it's for ALL of us to make the world a better place, riots or no riots. At a time of real worry about our future, real tightening of belts, with an angry element in society that doesn't feel it has a share in it, that sense of needing to make the world, our country, our city, our neighbourhood a better place needs renewal. We saw local communities could out to clean up in the wake of the riots. If we could just harness that wonderful energy, we might just find a way through. But it's not just for them to do it. It's for all of us - of all faiths, ages, political views, wherever we live, nationwide."

3. Fiyaz Mughal:

"The prime minister suggests that our society is broken and sick and suggests that there is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society. This view, which is simplistic, does not reflect the huge activities in civil society - faith groups and groups who are based on social justice, who have acted for decades as a glue between communities in local areas in the UK. Such a statement by the Prime Minister simply disregards all of this energy and focus. Without such interfaith, cohesion and community development activities involving young people the intensity and the length of the riots would have been considerably worse. Our society is NOT broken. It's simply challenged from time to time when we stop listening or when we disregard those who are the voiceless or the unseen. Within an Islamic context, ensuring cohesive communities is fundamental to the well-being of a community, a region and a nation. Indeed, at the very roots of the inception of Islam debate, discussion and listening to one another were a fundamental part of the faith and its energy. Allied to that, within Islam there is a consistent message that while God can provide solutions and give hope we must also use our energies to create a sense of social justice and harmony. Islam repeatedly talks of the divine and the here-and-now within a strong envelope of social justice and social harmony. It always gives people a direct link to God whilst stating that the mercy of God is available for those people who make mistakes. With this in mind, the role of family, education, social action for good and hope are all part of the equation which Islam promotes and whilst there are areas of confluence with the statement of the Prime Minister about the need for proper ethics, morals and parenting, there is also a distinct set of differences. We cannot regard society as broken when there are so many energies and so many social forces that have successfully kept us together for decades - young and old, black and white, male and female. Islam asks people to look at the totality of social situations and guides people away from narrow definitions and this is why the actions of many of those who commit crimes in the name of Islam are so fundamentally wrong. This is also where it diverges from such a comment made by the Prime Minister. We must, therefore, step back and look at the reasons why the riots took place and come up with reasons that we can act upon without blaming our younger generations or our society or our communities. A handful of young people simply cannot dictate how we look at our younger generations in the future. That would be a disastrous legacy of the riots."

As this is a blog about bias, I will not dwell too long on my own reactions to these talks. Frank Field's contribution had me thinking for hours after I first heard it. He has a part-alluring, part-concerning big idea. It is most unlikely ever to be put into practice. (The ideas of T.H. Green, incidentally, seem to be quite popular with Labour Party thinkers. Roy Hattersley is another fan). Baroness Neuberger's feeling that the August riots were "a one-off" looks to have been a shrewd insight. Having had the all the uplift of the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic Games (an uplift most people in the UK seem to have shared), the August riots seem like an old nightmare. (They won't, of course, to their victims). Mr. Mughal's contribution might be said to make him a natural for Platitude Thought For The Day, and it was a bit too 'missionary' in nature for my tastes.  

Back to the bias. I don't think there's anything in what the three speakers chosen by Sunday actually said to bat away the claim that the programme fished only in the 'Left' or 'liberal' pool of public opinion for its perspectives on the riots - except that Mr. Field's contribution would surely appeal more to to conservatives (of Right or Left) rather more than to liberals. (Do you agree?)  

It is also worth pointing out that the Labour MP was the only speaker not to criticise and disagree with David Cameron! 

...which brings me to...

3. How the talks were framed

The debates were framed as responses to David Cameron's claims of a "broken" and "sick" society. This makes the absence of a Conservative voice all the more puzzling. 

Frank Field's contribution was was introduced by Edward Stourton in the following way:

'There are pockets of society that are not only broken but frankly sick.' That was the Prime Minister's response to the outbreak of looting and public disorder which erupted early last month. We've asked three prominent figures to reflect on what happened and the way that we collectively should respond. They're all people of faith and people who are actively involved in politics or community service. First up Frank Field, a member of the church of England General Synod and a veteran Labour MP.

 Julia Neuberger's talk was introduced by William Crawley like this:

On last week's 'Sunday' the MP Frank Field gave his analysis of the August riots. We had a lot of response to what he said. Here's just a taste of what you told us. Phil Edwards picked up on Frank Field's reference to the 19th Century philosopher T.H. Green. Phil writes, 'I don't think we can adapt the ideas of Victorian philosophy to the age we live in. My own personal belief on how to change people's attitudes is for our governments to lead by example, by behaving in a moral and honest way, but it is clear that there is no single explanation for the recent riots that enjoys universal support. Politicians, religious leaders, columnists, bloggers, academics and community activists will probably continue to debate the factors that became triggers for the riots for years to come.' Here's another voice in that debate, Rabbi Julia Neuberger.

Ed Stourton's introduction to Fiyaz Mughal ran as follows:

Over the past couple of weeks we've broadcast a series of essays prompted by the Prime Minister's response to the August riots. We've already heard from the Labour MP and General Synod member Frank Field and from Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a Liberal Democrat peer. This week the thoughts of Fiyaz Mughal, direct of Faith Matters, a Muslim group committed to reducing extremism and inter-faith tension.

Conclusions

The absence of a voice from the Right making a case that right-wing listeners would feel reflected their outlook of the August riots certainly suggests 'Left-liberal' bias on the programme's part. You may be perfectly comfortable with that (if you take a 'Left-liberal' line yourself, but please imagine the boot being on the other foot. Would you be happy if Sunday had asked three 'Right-conservatives' to give their views?