This is the sort of reverse racist tripe the BBC does so well with lots of class war thrown in for extra value. It was on during the prime time slot @ 8.21am and showed a star struck Davis talking to someone who was well balanced with a chip on both shoulders about “posh boys”,,,

Evan Davis meets British rapper Plan B ahead of the release of his hip hop film Ill Manners. The rapper, whose real name is Ben Drew, talks about class and social exclusion and his experiences working with young people in a London school.


We have heard a LOT from the BBC concerning the SWP and the alleged success of some of their campaign tactics in recent times. Biased BBC contributor Alan picks up on this raises a number of points;

“The Socialist Worker’s Party….a Marxist revolutionary group intent on destroying democracy. Let’s not beat around the bush…these people are fronting an ideology that is prepared to kill those who do not march to their tune. The romantic image of Marx so beloved of many in the corridors of the BBC is betrayed by his own writings…

‘The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. they openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution.’Communism called for the arming of every worker….and as put into practise in Russia these arms were put to good use….killing anyone who tried to improve their lot in life.

Given all that you might think it strange to hear a BBC senior economics reporter, Evan Davis, on the BBC’s flagship political news programme advocating the Unions join up with the SWP and adopt their tactics in battling capitalism.

Strange that a responsible senior BBC journalist should tie his flag to the mast of such a motley revolutionary crew and openly champion acts of public disorder, intimidation, blackmail and civil disobedience.

Strange that the BBC who apparently believe that democracy is a ‘sacred’ thing…or did when Nelson Mandela was fighting for it in South Africa….should now allow a senior journalist to suggest that rather than have a democratic engagement of the people we will allow those who are prepared to shout the loudest and use the most violence to decide government policy.

Of course that has long been the BBC policy when it comes to Muslims….giving them a platform to air their supposed grievances unchallenged by frightened BBC presenters who lack the knowledge, the will and the nerve to question any statement by these ‘community’ spokesmen.

All this is not new…though the BBC woiuld like you to think ‘Occupy’ and the SWP were the first people in the world to challenge Capitalism….see how sucha challenge turned out:


Evan Davis really gave Chuka Umunna a tough going-over on this morning’s Today programme, if by tough going-over one imagines being soothed with the soft gentle strokes of giant cotton wool balls for ten minutes. Davis’s line was basically, “You get on with it and I’ll chip in every now and again to concur with everything you’re saying and help clarify the message.” When they’d finished agreeing about executive pay, Davis then asked Umunna (adviser: Diane Coyle, vice chair BBC Trust, wife of BBC tech correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones) why poor Ed Miliband is getting such a tough time when it seems clear that he’s actually pretty awesome:

Just before we finish I do want to ask you about the leadership. It’s sort of been in the news this week, this feeling that it’s been a difficult week for Ed Miliband – he’s given an interview in The Guardian this morning. Why do you think it is, because he’s given a fairly clear analysis of the country very much along the lines of the one you’ve talked about – about irresponsible capitalism that needs dealing with – why do you think it is that question marks have been raised about him given the clarity of his message?

Amazing as it seems, poor Chuka somehow managed to survive that blistering line of attack.

Evan Davis Advocates For His Think Tank At Your Expense

I hope everyone enjoys this brief segment on Today with Evan Davis. He discusses the new report from the Social Market Foundation which is highly critical of the Department of Work and Pension’s Work Programme to get the long-term unemployed back to work.

Now, normally I’d say that any organization which has “Social” anything in its title is Left-leaning. I’d also generally say that any organization which states that they are not in favor of free markets but rather open markets under the guiding hand of government (a step away from fascist corporatism) is Left-leaning. But they have George Osborne and a couple of other non-Leftoids on their board and as associates, so they get away with the “independent” label and I can’t complain that Davis should have described the foundation as Left-leaning when he introduced its director.

(Yes, I know the clip I’ve linked starts just after Davis mentions the Foundation, but I’ve listened to the full programme and there was no qualifier of any kind.)


I can complain that there was something else missing from Davis’ introduction of the group, something that calls into question his very presence at the mic on this topic: Evan Davis is one of the board members of the Social Market Foundation.

Davis has even co-written a pamphlet for the organization about the pros and cons of gay marriage. Yet no mention at all that of any association with the group, never mind that he’s now on the board.

So the Social Market Foundation criticizes a scheme by the Conservative-Led Coalition, and one of their board members uses his position at the BBC not only to bring it up but to actually question the Government Minister in charge. The director of the SMF gets his say first, but then isn’t involved in any debate with Grayling. Only Davis challenges the Government, without mentioning his conflict of interest. And no challenge at all to the SMF director’s statement. His challenging questions to Grayling come off as advocacy for the SMF position.

At the very least, the Today producers should have made Davis recuse himself and had Justin Webb take the SMF’s side against the Government.

Your license fee hard at work.


Today‘s Evan Davis and BBC political correspondent Louise Stewart had a lot of fun at the expense of David Cameron and Nick Clegg this morning over their disagreement over internships. They returned to the subject later, after which Evan talked to Gus Baker. The Today website describes Gus as “a student and co-founder of pressure group Intern Aware.” Evan Davis described him in similar terms on the programme. Mr Baker criticized the prime minister.

His Twitter account tells us a bit more:

Gus Baker
@gusbbaker Bristol
President-elect of Uni Bristol Students Union. Proud and independent minded Labour Party activist and NPF member. Co-founder @internaware.

Is it unreasonable to think that Mr Baker’s Labour affiliations should have been mentioned?

The same question applies to BBC Online’s write-up of the same interview (Cameron and Clegg differ publicly on internship places) which merely describes him as “from the pressure group Intern Aware” (and generously links to his website).

The Today programme interviewed no-one other than Gus Baker on the subject.


Getting back into the swing of things, I thought I’d monitor the New Channel’s coverage of the AV referendum campaign on Tuesday. On that day at least (I can’t vouch for any of the others), it seemed scrupulously balanced – balanced number of guests, exactly the same length of interview (well three seconds difference!) for the pro- and anti- spokespersonages, appropriate questions to each side, same number of interruptions, and the BBC even kept quoting an opinion poll showing a significant ‘No’ lead. I wasn’t expecting any of that, but it shows the BBC can do it.

Unfortunately, they often fail to do it – as Evan Davis demonstrated this morning.

Here, staged before an audience at the South Bank Centre (who sounded even less representative than a Question Time audience), Evan hosted a debate between Jonathan Bartley of the Yes campaign and Stephen Parkinson of the No campaign. Evan did much more than host it though. He actively joined in the debate, almost entirely on the side of the Yes campaign. It was effectively two against one.

The interruptions flew at Mr Parkinson, often only seconds (one time just a second) after he had begun to speak. So did the questions. All but one of the questions asked/points made by Evan Davis came from a stance opposed to the No campaign. Transcribing Evan Davis’s words should make the extent of the bias clear:

Questions/comments put to Stephen Parkinson (No to AV):

1 Stephen, you’re against AV. Can we just talk about fairness because it seems keep saying the winner under AV loses which means, you know, the system’s unfair but if the winner loses it’s because the majority of voters don’t want that person to win, they want another candidate instead.

2 The crucial thing is whether you view it as an election where people have one vote and then a few people get another vote and another vote and another vote or whether you view it as a sequence of elections which very cleverly are concocted to be held on one ballot paper, isn’t it Stephen?

3 (interrupting) Well it IS a sequence of elections, it’s a sequence of counts and the person who puts their first preference and that’s not knocked out gets their first preference counted again.

4 (interrupting) And some get their first preference counted twice!

5 (interrupting) But it uses something similar. Most systems, even the American presidential election, uses something where you wangle the candidates down to a run-off between two effectively, or some sort of run-off, they do it on the X Factor, they do it on Big Brother, they do it in the American presidential election with the use of primaries, isn’t that what everybody does?

6 (interrupting) But I mean that’s just true. It’s not going to make a difference in most seats of the UK, is it? I mean that’s just telling you it doesn’t matter which way we go..

7 One issue that has come up is the issue of whether people understand AV. Can I just ask the audience here if you think you understand AV and what it entails? And how many say you don’t understand it, it’s too complicated? So again about 98% of people understand it. That has been a bit of your campaign hasn’t it Stephen, a little bit of scaring people with the complexity of it all?

Questions/points put to Jonathan Bartley (Yes to AV):

1 Jonathan?

2 Jonathan, let me put this to you. Does it not encourage the candidate who is the most banal and least offensive to always win and you end up with a government that is sort of the lowest common denominator?

Not very even-handed, is it?


One of the ways that BBC bias operates is that those who presenters do not like are bludgeoned virtually to death when they appear on programmes. UKIP ex-leader Nigel Farage is well able to look after himself, but this morning Evan Davis went flat out on Today to rubbish UKIP’s claims of being able to make £50 billion savings in public spending. On my count there were 16 interruptions in an exchange lasting no more than three minutes or so. Mr Farage ploughed on gamely, but the incredulity and scorn in Mr Davis’s voice was palpable; his main aim was to block Mr Farage from outlining his proposals in any detail. Of course, to Mr Davis and his cronies, the idea of not spending money on the EU and getting rid of qangos is almost a bigger crime than saying you don’t support gay rights.