£3.78 billion buys us this

BBC political correspondent Susana Mendonça popped up on BBC Breakfast this morning shortly after 7 o'clock. She said:

We saw Frank Field resigning, citing antisemitism and also a culture of nastiness as he saw it in the Labour Party just last week, so there is a concern certainly from what John McDonnell is saying that there could be more splits. He talks about the SDLP, when a number of Labour MPs left the party in the 80s and how that led to the Labour Party losing votes in those constituencies, he doesn't want to see that happening. 

Hmm. The SDLP, eh, Susana? No one on the sofa picked her up on that.  

It got worse after 8 o'clock. Evidently, no one in the entire studio had picked her up on it either:

And John McDonnell there referring also to the SDLP, which was when back in the '80 we had four Labour MPs who left the party and formed the SDLP. 

As you all know (even though you're not BBC political correspondents):

 

Half an hour in the life of the BBC News Channel (continued)

Susana Mendonça

Continuing to focus on that 5.00-5.30 period on the BBC News Channel this afternoon (as part of my new, random-sampling mission)...

Susana Mendonça's report on the road-related bits of the upcoming Autumn Statement included the following, ramping up the negatives re the consequences of Brexit:

This focus on on roads isn't just about rebuilding infrastructure though. It's about boosting confidence ahead of the Brexit negotiations at a time when economic forecasts are pointing to slowing growth. The Chancellor has admitted there is greater uncertainty and he wants to calm nerves ahead of any economic storm that may lie ahead. 

With a bumpy road to Brexit ahead the government will be hoping its road plan makes it smoother.

****** 

Then we had Jenny Hill reporting on Mrs Merkel's plans to stand for a fourth term as German chancellor. 

Jenny gave Mrs Merkel a favourable review, quoting a poll showing that 55% of Germans support her and saying that her approval ratings are "still the envy of many world leaders", even though they've gone up and down because of her "refugee policy":

She will be going into battle though against the tide of populism that, of course, has swept Donald Trump to victory in the States and is washing across the whole of Europe too.

Ah yes, those "populists"! (like "populist, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim AfD".) And Jenny then gave into temptation (being her own tempter) and speculated: 

It's very tempting to wonder what it is that's make Mrs Merkel make up her mind. I suspect...She's a woman with a strong sense of duty. She wants to finish what she began with the refugee crisis, to try and shore up the causes of the problem. She's also a passionate supporter of the EU and she's very concerned about its future and its survival, particularly in the light of the Brexit decision. But I wonder too, it's very tempting to speculate whether Donald Trump's victory has ultimately pushed her into this decision. She's congratulated him but, remember, at the same time she reminded him of his duty to respect the shared values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Very uncertain times, not just for the continent but, of course, for the world too. 

Jenny Hill

The language there is striking, isn't it? She's positive about Mrs Merkel ("She's a woman with a strong sense of duty"). She insists on calling 'the migrant crisis' "the refugee crisis". She talks of "reminding" in connection with what Mrs Merkel said to Donald Trump). And she ends by being negative ("very uncertain times") about the state of the world, post-Brexit, post-Trump).

Jenny then went on to opine:

I think that he decision will be met with relief, generally-speaking, all round.

At which I will admit to thinking, "Yes, including at the BBC"...which, no sooner had I thought that, then Jenny inadvertently reinforced that impression by ending:  

In the words of one public broadcaster here this morning. "Angela Merkel the Indispensable". 

One public broadcaster here seems to be taking the same view at the moment. (See last week's Newsnight too).

******

Later came a section on the centre-right Republican Party's primary election to choose their presidential candidate. I had to smile at the captions accompanying the mini-profiles of the front-runners. 

Hugh Scofield

I'm guessing the BBC aren't too keen on M. Sarkozy because he's "moved to the right on immigration and security issues":

Nicholas Sarkozy, 61

Failed to be re-elected

Moved to the right

Alain Juppe, 71

Campaigned as moderate

Led polls for months

Francois Fillon, 62

Campaigned as a centrist

Wants deep economic reform

Hugh Schofield, in Paris, then reported on the vote. It's not looking good for Nicholas Sarkozy, due to the high turn-out, Hugh is saying. M. Fillon, "the dark horse", is "very much a man to be reckoned with". (The facts seem to be bearing that out tonight).

******

The BBC then reported a "reported" attack on a school in Assad-controlled West Aleppo by rebels, which counters persistent claims that the BBC rarely reports attacks on civilians by the rebels. The bulletin spent 9 seconds on that and then spent 15 seconds recounting earlier attacks by the government side on rebel-held Eastern Aleppo, which probably counter-counters that countering of those persistent claims, if you know what I mean.

******

And there was a preview (plug) of an undercover Panorama report, featuring secret filming, in a private nursing home in Cornwall. I read comments elsewhere earlier today wondering why it always seems to be the case that the BBC uses secret filming against private businesses but rarely against public sector institutions. Is that fair? (It does ring true).

******

Sarah Corker

And the half hour ended with a report on what will keep the lights on here in the UK and, guess what? It turned out to be wind farms.

There have been calls for the government to back wind power more and the BBC reporter, Sarah Corker, certainly enthused about the wonders of wind farms and their economic benefits here. Does your company need more clarity from the government? she asked. "These energy companies are brushing off any Brexit uncertainty", she gushed.

******

I think I've faithfully recounted what happened during this half hour of BBC News Channel broadcasting. Taken in tandem with the two previous posts about another item during this half hour, doesn't it show BBC bias in full flowering?

"the government probably trying to make out that..."

I was watching the BBC News Channel this morning and saw an interview between BBC Breakfast presenter Ben Thompson and BBC reporter Susana Mendonça about the steel industry in Britain.

Nothing struck me as untoward about it until I read a comment at Biased BBC shortly after, beginning:

AsISeeIt

April 3, 2016 at 8:36 am

“The Government is probably trying to make out that….”

I would welcome this form of robust sceptical and frankly challenging phraseology – if it were uniformly applied to all state initiatives, which it isn’t. Note the wording prefixed a beeboid on beeboid conversation – not an interview with a Government spokesperson.

Lanky sofa flunky Ben Thompson and his BBC masters obviously think they’ve got the Tories grabbed by the steel and tariffs – and they aren’t going to let go. If only that barmpot Corbyn would just shut up and lie low the BBC would happily do his opposition work for him.

Looking back on what was said on BBC Breakfast, that exchange began:

Let's talk to our political correspondent Susana Mendonça, who is in central London for us. Susana, the government probably trying to make out that this in their attempt to act to save some jobs in South Wales but many saying already it's too little too late?

Now, when you think about it, that is a highly loaded question, isn't it? It's the kind of question BBC interviewers often put to politicians and other partisan guests - and rightly so. 

Is it an appropriate question to ask though when it's a 'neutral' BBC interviewer interviewing a 'neutral' BBC reporter?

Couldn't Ben just have asked something along the lines of, "Susana, can you bring us up to date with what the government is saying and what the reaction's been so far?"

There's a huge amount of that kind of 'framing' going on during these kinds of BBC interview these days. The first hour of Today can be full of it at times. And - as this one initially did with me - such 'framings' can just fly by without causing so much as an eyelid to bat in the unsuspecting viewer.

If you were wondering, this was Susana Mendonça's reply in full. This also didn't start out well for the Conservative government, though it actually ended on a high note for them (with Susana, twice, asserting that the government's latest initiative will "inspire confidence"):

Hmm. Well, the government certainly has been on the back foot about the potential job losses in Port Talbot and it's been criticised for putting Chinese trade deals ahead of saving steel jobs here in the UK, and so you could see this certainly as an attempt to show it's doing something. 

It's actually not going to make much of a difference to those jobs in Port Talbot but what it will do is it will, I suppose, inspire confidence. 

The government says it's about levelling the playing field. So, as you say, local councils, NHS bodies and what have you, will have to look at giving contracts...well, look at whether UK companies are allowed to accept those contracts instead of just advertising them outside the UK and also looking at the impact on jobs in the UK when they're giving out those contracts. 

Now, this is not a new idea. It's something the government did last year with central government bodies. They have to look at awarding contracts to UK companies also. 

But what it does it inspires confidence 

Marrathon

Andrew Marr's show has had a bit of a facelift. 

As he put it himself, it's now "a bit brighter, a bit more spruced up". It's also a heck of a lot more orange (which could cause problems whenever Peter Hain is on the show), though Andrew later described it as "peach" - which means I might need to go to SpecSavers. 

There's even a new title sequence, closing with a cheeky smile from Andrew and a mysterious hand gesture (a disguised, anticipatory two-fingered salute to Robert Peston maybe?).

Other than that. it was the same old same old - politicians past and present, a couple of journalists, an actor and some music to close. (Will Robert Peston by interviewing Hollywood stars on his show? I do hope not. Hopefully, there'll be some proper old-fashioned Punch and Judy though).

First up was Ken Clarke - a choice that didn't go down well with everyone:

They began by recalling Geoffrey Howe, who Mr Clarke credited more than the Falklands and an unelectable left-wing Labour leadership for helping the Conservatives win in 1983 by turning around the economy. 

Then it was straight onto the government's cuts to tax credits and how they will hit hit ordinary hard-working people most of all. Some on the Right tend to forget just how 'dry' Ken Clarke is on economic matters. He gave a robust defence of George Osborne's changes - the best defence I've yet heard. 

Then Andrew asked him about David Cameron's "four key demands" to stay in the EU. I think it's safe to say that Andrew himself doesn't think very much of them!

If you look at them closely, they are pretty weak as water a lot of them. There's things we've had already and there's vague philosophical generalisations. There's nothing about the free movement of people and there's nothing about benefits for migrants working here from the rest of the EU. This is not going to be enough, is it?

I don't disagree (and Fraser Nelson said much the same later) though whether he (an impartial BBC presenter) was right to express such an damning take on a government initiative is another matter entirely.

Mr Clarke, however, thinks they're "sensible", "fine", "valuable" and "achievable" (which probably won't endear the PM's "key demands" to Conservative Eurospectics). He then launched into making the pro-EU case (and attacking Nigel Farage). 

Andrew Marr then asked him what he made of Theresa May's "rhetoric" over immigration. He replied that the tone of the speech was "all, all wrong". (Mr Marr attempted no devil's advocate defence of Mrs May or counter-argument in response).

Then they talked about the timing of the EU referendum. Mr Clarke went on the attack against Eurosceptics.

Then came the paper review. Fraser Nelson of the Spectator was to have been accompanied by Tina Brown, formerly of Vanity Fair and The Daily Beast but she got caught up in traffic, so BBC political correspondent Susana Mendonça took her place.

Susana, having leaped into the breach, did OK. She was a bit reserved to begin with (probably understandable nerves) and avoided saying anything controversial or giving an opinion. She did come out of her shell though when the subject of Nadiya came up:

Susana: Well, I watched Bake Off and it was just one of those key moments I think in TV history. We were all watching it. You know, it had millions of viewers and you had Nadiya creating that wedding cake with the sari theme around it, that Best of British, and... 

Andrew: And she's become a national heroine... 

Susana: She really has. So we've got here in the Sunday Telegraph, it talks about how she says she has to kick her husband out of the kitchen and, you know, she's somebody who's got young children, she's a mum, she's...Throughout the whole of the series she was somebody who, you know, came up with lots of witty lines. People really warmed to her. She's from a Bangladeshi background and all of that. She's very much about multicultural Britain. And certainly a lot of papers have been talking, you know, her as a British heroine now.

"One of those key moments I think in TV history"? If you say so, Susana.

Incidentally, one of her latest re-tweets ("Retweets are not endorsements") runs as follows:

Hmm.

Next up came Nicola Sturgeon, and for those monitoring how Andrew Marr introduces his guests, this is how he did it here:

Now, it's a year since the Scots rejected independence but the result of the referendum only seems to have to have strengthened the SNP, almost sweeping the board in Scotland during the general election and enjoying a huge surge in membership. But everything is not entirely rosy. Next year the party has to defend its record in the Scottish parliamentary elections and one of its new MPs has been caught up in allegations over property deals. I discussed all of that with the SNP leader and Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon while she was on a flying visit to London.

I thought that was pretty even-handed - as was the interview as a whole (though tougher than I expected).

He started though with the question of a second referendum. Then he asked her about the Scotland Bill, her George Osborne's separate austerity plans and Jeremy Corbyn. Things were proceeding pretty gently. Then came a toughening-up of Andrew Marr's questioning as he turned his attention to the SNP's record: 

You’ve talked a lot about your record as the SNP but there are more and more voices now saying it’s not such a great record. Why is it for instance that the number of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds in Scotland who go to university is half the number than in England?

He began interrupting and challenging, with more such questions, such as:

Numeracy and literacy rates in primary school, in primary four and primary seven, among poorer families are shocking and getting worse.  

or

We could range across lots of policies. Let’s just do one other one, which is the amalgamation of the eight police regions into the new Police Scotland, which has not given you the savings that you wanted and has produced some terrible stories about 999 response rates. And you’ve lost the guy in charge and so forth. That has not gone well. 

 or 

If Michelle Thomson had been a Labour MP or a Tory MP you’d be having a field day, if these allegations, if these allegations are proved to be true what should happen to her?

Here are some of the Twitter reactions to this interview: 

The other political bit returned to the issue of the EU referendum and featured an IN supporter (Richard Reed, Britain Stronger in Europe) and an OUT supporter (Richard Tice, Leave.EU).

Maybe a tally out to be kept in the run-up to the referendum as to the balance of guests. Today's tally would be 2 for us staying (Ken Clarke and Richard Reed) and 1 for us leaving (Richard Tice).

We'll have to wait and see if a pattern of bias emerges.

Both Richards enjoyed themselves, and the bits where they debated between themselves make me optimistic that the referendum debate could be a passionate but hate-free affair.