Party Conference Watch 2013: The Conservative Party

Many of you may have been eagerly awaiting my latest dispatch from the party conferences. As usual it's running late. 

This week it's the Tories. 

As with the Liberal Democrat and Labour conferences, the Saturday edition of the programme didn't feature a Today presenter at the Conservative conference and contented itself with discussing a single proposal  here a plan to give tax breaks to married couples. 

A short (three minute) discussion with the BBC's Ross Hawkins kicked off the programme and a discussion on the same subject occupied the 8.10 spot. That discussion was held between Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Samantha Callan from the Centre for Social Justice think tank. 

As with the Liberal Democrat and Labour conferences, the coverage didn't begin in earnest until Monday. 

Monday's coverage began (at 6.32) with the customary (two minute) chat with the BBC's chief political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue. Sarah Montague talked with him about a proposal to toughen up Welfare to Work by compelling the long-term unemployed to do community work, spend 10 hours a week at the Job Centre (etc) or face losing benefits. "They want to send out the message that this is a very real threat". GO'D says that polling suggests the measure will be popular in the country, though the danger for the government is that it will shine a light on the question as to why their existing work programme isn't working sufficiently well that you would need another work programme after it.

At 6.52 Sarah discussed Nigel Farage's suggestion that local UKIP parties could do a deal with individual Conservative MPs, if they wanted, with Tim Montgomery of ConservativeHome and Peter Bone MP. Mr Bone is keen on the idea, commenting "Tim said, 'Well, they [Nigel Farage and David Cameron] don't like each other', but Churchill and Stalin managed to work together, so I don't know why it should be so difficult for Nigel and David to work together."

At 7.09 it was back to the 'work for welfare' proposal, though the interview was with a non-Conservative critic, Jonathan Portes of the NIESR (over three minutes). He said such proposals cost a lot of money but don't bring about any great results.

Then at 7.13 Sarah talked to Lord Ashcroft about the question "Is there any way the Conservatives could win outright at the next general election?" (for over three minutes) Lord Ashcroft says the next election is Labour's to lose.

The big 8.10 interview was with George Osborne. It lasted just over 12 minutes (with 15 interruptions). The topics discussed (and the percentage of the interview spent on them) were:

The work programme. Is it not working? Isn't it harming those with real problems? (29%)

George Osborne & Iain Duncan Smith. Did he say IDS is "thick"? (8.1%)

The cost of living (9.4%)

Are the Conservative Party "a party for the rich"? (9.6%)

The minimum wage & the increase in personal allowance (7.3%)

Green policies, the IPCC and tax incentives for energy saving (20.1%)

Deals with UKIP? (16.5%)

Nick Robinson then did his usual post-match review, talking about UKIP, then about the economy. saying that none of the parties has said which taxes they'll raise or what they'll cut to make good their promises to cut the deficit by 2018.

Tuesday's coverage dispensed with Gary O'Donoghue, unusually. The first feature was at 6.47 and consisted of a debate between Conservative MP Claire Perry and Justine Roberts of Mumsnet on the Conservative Party's problems with women. Justine described the results of her Mumsnet poll, showing bad news for the Conservatives since 2010 and said this seems to be because (a) of the cuts hitting women hardest and (b) because women see David Cameron's government as an old boys's network. Claire Perry began by respond saying "you could pick apart the poll" and seemed to be about the pick out some positives for the Tories, but we never got to hear them because Sarah Montague interrupted (after just 6 seconds) to say "Let's get to the more interesting thing" and talked about bad behaviour in the House of Commons [which seems to me less interesting]. Justine then went back to the stats, and the "Eton toff boy stuff" (without being stopped from doing so). [Eight interruptions made against Claire Perry].

The next feature came at 7.33, where Sarah Montague reported from Bolton West, a constituency that Labour only just held onto in the last general election. She talked to Chris Green, the Conservative prospective candidate there. She then talked to various locals. One said she'd voted Lib Dem last time but would probably voted Labour next time. A second denounced the cuts, and will vote Labour. A third didn't vote last time, but said she'd vote for Ed Miliband next time, but then changed her mind, as did her friend who said she'd vote Conservative. [None of them really sounded as if they thought much about politics]. A man denounced immigration, and said he was tempted to vote UKIP (having been "a Labour lad all his life"] and said he knows lots of people who want to be on the dole all their life, and loves the idea of cracking down on them - something that might make him vote Conservative. "I was struck by how easy it was to change those people's minds," said Sarah. She was quite right. I did seem very easy indeed. [Just imagine the power a national broadcaster with an overwhelming share of the news market in the UK, such as the BBC, could have then!]

7.50 saw a short discussion with Nick Robinson about Boris Johnson and his ambitions.

At 8.10 it was the big interview with David Cameron, conducted by Sarah Montague. It was a fairly challenging interview, lasting seventeen and a half minutes (with 21 interruptions), though the PM managed to get all his points across. The topics raised by Sarah M ran as follows (with, as ever, the percentage of the interview devoted to each subject added in parentheses): 

The U.S. shutdown (5.5%)

The economy, austerity & the cuts (14.6%)

"Where's the money coming from" for all the proposals made? (7.1%)

Help to Buy (23%)

Cost of Living (7.4%)

Syria and DC's leadership - his failure to get his own party to support him (20.5%)

DC's relationship with his backbenchers & the coalition (7.8%)

Boris Johnson (5.4%)

The Daily Mail (8.7%)

The last five or so minutes of the programme ended with a discussion about whether the Conservatives messages were "resonating as much as Labour's cost of living themes". The discussion was between Matthew d'Ancona of the Sunday Telegraph and Isabel Oakeshott of the Sunday Times. They also talked about Boris, the coalition's difficulties, and the boundary review and what it means for the next election. Both think David Cameron is in a better position than last year. 

Justin Webb had spent three days covering the Labour conference. Sarah Montague, however, spent just two days at the Conservative conference and was back in the studio for the final day of the conference, even though David Cameron's final speech was still to come. 

So James Naughtie did the 6.36 discussion with Gary O'Donoghue [two minutes]. GO'D anticipated a staunch defence of the market economy in DC's speech, and an attempt to build "a British version of the American dream" and create "a more egalitarian view" of the Conservative Party. "The difficulty of course is that if you look at the cabinet today it doesn't look like a land of opportunity in terms of the recruitment for the top jobs in politics." 

There was very little coverage later. The segment at 8.22 was a general discussion about party conferences and "this year's crop of social gaffes and media mishaps" with Sandi Toksvig and Matthew Parris of the Times, so (with the Daily Mail coverage kicking off in earnest) only the closing six minutes were devoted to the Conservative conference itself, taking the form of a discussion between Isabel Hardman of the Spectator and Nick Wood, a former Conservative press officer. They discussed the Conservatives' difficulties in winning an election, UKIP, the coalition and "the Daily Mail episode" [raised by James Naughtie].

Conclusions

As with its Labour Party conference coverage, you couldn't reasonably say that the coverage of the Conservative Party conference was biased against the party. Neither party got particularly favourable coverage [unlike the Lib Dems]. There were tough interviews and critical voices from beyond the party, but both George Osborne and David Cameron got a fair hearing. [Only Nigel Farage has had an unfair hearing over the conference season as a whole.]

The striking difference between the programme's coverage of the Labour and Conservative conferences, however, was the sheer amount of Labour Party conference coverage.

Justin Webb reported from the Labour conference over three days, Sarah Montague from the Conservative conference for just two. Moreover, if you compare the number of distinct segments on each on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of both the Labour and Tory conferences, you find that there were 17 segments on the Labour Party conference compared to 12 segments for the Conservative Party conference. My tall of the total time devoted to each conference runs at 1hr 15m for the Conservative Party conference and 1hr 35m for the Labour Party - i.e. about twenty minutes more coverage [in total] for Labour.

Make of that what you will. [I, however, make of it that the programme had moved onto the furore over the Daily Mail by Wednesday.]

******

There is still Plaid Cymru and the SNP to go. I will try to catch those too. Whenever they happen.

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?

Party Conference Watch 2013: UKIP

So far Is the BBC biased?'s whirlwind tour of the Today programme's coverage of the 2013 party has covered the Greens, who received only about six minutes' worth of coverage on a single day but got a helpful interview with their party leader, free of interruptions and challenges. We've also covered the Liberal Democrats, who got two and bit day's worth of fairly extensive coverage, a good-natured interview with their party leader and generally positive coverage.

Next up came UKIP, whose coverage was held last weekend (as 'Bloomgate' broke). [Again, sorry for the delay!]

Friday's edition began (before 7 o'clock) with a 4-minute report by BBC political correspondent Robin Brant. We heard Robin asking Nigel Farage if he needed to step back so that the party wouldn't seem like such a one-man band, and from two 'talking heads' from Thurrock. The first, a lady in a video shop, said [on the subject of immigration], "If they want to come over here and work, yes, like if we went over to their country, we'd have to work and support ourselves". The second, a Muslim doctor, was stopped in the street by Robin and asked, "Is he brave or do you think actually Nigel can be a very divisive figure?" [something of a leading question that!], The doctor replied [again on the subject of immigration], "I think it's quite a nuanced argument though. I don't think it's a very black and white issue."

An 4-minute interview with UKIP MEP Roger Helmer came at around 8.45. John Humphrys interviewed him about the party's energy policy, particularly fracking. Mr Helmer advanced the case for fracking. John Humphrys posed questions from a standpoint sceptical of fracking. Fair enough.  

Saturday's edition gave over the prestigious 8.10 spot to a 9-minute interview with Nigel Farage. John Humphrys did the honours. 

If you recall the gentle interview with Natalie Bennett of the Greens, where she was allowed to make a positive case for the party, and the good-humoured, non-too-tough interview with Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems, then you will immediately spot the difference between those interviews and this one. Partly that can be explained by the presence of John Humphrys as an interviewer, but both Sarah Montague (who interview the Green leader) and Evan Davis (who interviewed the Lib Dem leader) can be tough interrogators when the mood takes them. 

The interview between John Humphrys and Nigel Farage was certainly was considerably tougher than either of the previous interviews with party leaders. [I counted 19 interruptions]. While Evan Davis kept saying that things were going well for Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem conference, John Humphrys prefaced this interview with the words, "It has not going well for UKIP - and that's a bit of an understatement!"

What stood out though was the nature of the questioning. Breaking it down, these were the topics John Humphrys chose to ask Nigel Farage about - and the percentage of the interview devoted to each issue: 

1. Godfrey Bloom's suspension (7.3%)

2. How UKIP are seen as "loonies" and "a bit of a weird old party" (16.7%)

3. How Nigel Farage 'doesn't want' to be prime minister (7.6%)

4. How Nigel Farage is seen as "a bit of a joke figure", "a bit of a comic figure in lots of ways" (27.1%)

5. How "a lot of people think you're a bit racist" (13%)

6. How UKIP are seen as "anti-feminist" (3.8%)

7. How UKIP will take votes from the Tories and allow in Labour and the Lib Dems (21.2%)

8. Whether UKIP would do a deal with the Tories (3.3%)

Isn't that an extraordinarily negative set of questions? 

Over 60% of the entire interview was given over to questions predicated on the assumption that UKIP is a weird party led by a joke figure, a party that a lot people think is racist and sexist. 

Now, I suspect the Greens will not be happy that they got a mere 6 minutes or so of coverage on Today while UKIP got some 18 minutes worth of coverage in total, but they can at least console themselves that Sarah Montague's line of questioning didn't attempt to systematically rubbish them!

Is this evidence of anti-UKIP bias on the part of the BBC? Well, I think so.

Reviews of the programme's coverage of the Labour conference (just finished) and the Conservative conference (still to come) will follow. How will those parties fare? How will their party leaders face? Will anyone face as belittling an interview as Nigel Farage?

Party Conference Watch 2013: The Greens

I used to closely monitor political interviews but I haven't done so for quite some time, nor felt any great inclination to do so either; but, as this is a blog (mainly) about BBC bias, a small-scale examination of how the BBC covers this year's UK party conferences might be of interest. 

I'm just sticking to Today's coverage, however. (That's manageable.)

Does any party get disproportionate treatment? Does any party get a rougher ride? What angles do the Today presenters take during their interviews with party leaders?

The conference season gets under way today with the Green Party. Their newish leader Natalie Bennett was interviewed at around 8.45 this morning, with Sarah Montague doing the interviewing. 

8.45 isn't, of course, the coveted 8.10 spot - when most listeners are assumed to be listening - but it's not the graveyard 7.10 spot either. A time of day apt for the leader of a party with one MP then? 

The interview lasted 2 minutes 40 seconds precisely (well, precisely enough. I could have used an atomic clock, but they're rather pricey at the moment). So, not a long interview, but probably appropriate for the leader of a party with one MP then.

As a test of the toughness of the interview, was Natalie Bennett interrupted by Sarah Montague? No, there were no interruptions. 

Were any of her answers challenged? No. Each question asked put a different question.

Were the questions hard ones? Well, here's where subjectivity comes in, so while I'm saying 'no' to that, you might have a different opinion. So the only way to let you decide is to quote all of Sarah Montague's introductory remarks and questions:

Well, the Green Party meets for their annual conference today, and their leader Natalie Bennett will be taking to the stage, and she joins us from Brighton now. Good morning.

And the main message seems to be from you that...I suppose it's back to the party's raison d'etre, that of climate change, climate change needs to be at the fore again?

And I suppose it's always a problem for the Green Party of how you identify yourself, how you are seen. It leads some to say that, actually, you should change your name. Are you sympathetic to that argument?

And do you think the argument over fracking, for which you're very much opposed...do you think you can still win that?

OK, and just a brief thought about UKIP because, of course, people aren't talking about the main parties, they seem to be talking about UKIP...it rather, sort of, eclipses you and any talk about the Greens?

Natalie Bennett may not have been given a great deal of time but she was allowed to make the points she wanted to make, succinctly outlining her party's main talking points. She used the platform she was given well. She even declined the offer, implicit in that final question, to diss UKIP, saying that both parties are benefiting from the public's disenchantment with the three main parties.

The only other discussion of the Green Party conference came around 6.13am, when Sarah talked to BBC political correspondent, Chris Mason, for a couple of minutes. 

Chris outlined what Natalie Bennett was going to say in her speech and then rehearsed the debate within the party about whether the Greens should stick to emphasising climate change or whether they should offer a much broader range of policies. He quoted their deputy leader wondering whether the party still wants to be seen as 'muesli knitters' and an unknown activist speculating about a possible name change [to the Muesli Knitters Party?].

As far as the UK-wide parties are concerned, the Lib Dems are up next, I believe, then UKIP, Labour and the Conservatives.


Update: Having just listened to The World at One's Green Party conference coverage I was tempted to expand my survey.

But, no, there must be no mission creep, lest I end up reviewing PM and the Daily Politics (etc), monitoring the entirety of the BBC News Channel, and invading Syria.