This post is a reflection of the draft guidelines published yesterday by the BBC regarding their coverage of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections (I am standing in Sussex as an Independent Candidate). The reason for the post is to encourage you to read the guidelines for yourself and if you feel it is appropriate to try to respond with comments. However that may be easier said than done. On 27th July (the day I wrote this blog) I attempted to respond to the consultation via email at the address provided by the BBC pcc.consultation@bbc.co.uk . Within hours the email was returned as undelivered. I rang the complaints line 03700 103100 and the person I spoke to confirmed that it was not working (I spoke to two operators on different days who both confirmed this was the case). I then spoke to the BBC on the last day of the consultation with the email still not working. I am now finally updating this blog with the news that the BBC are on the case, have promised to update their web page and have extended the consultation period by a week! I was given the email address of trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk to send my response to so I suggest you do the same.

In terms of the consultation, I have read through the guidelines and would certainly welcome any comments from readers of this blog on either their own views of the guidelines or else to challenge my own responses.

The first thing that is clear is the reference in several places to the decision that ‘the BBC will not commission voting intention polls’ This is perhaps disappointing for those like me who would love to know the mood of the electors in my region, but it does make clear that the BBC will go into this election without any prejudice or view of a likely  outcome which is good news.

The next item of note is section 3.1 which is entitled Coverage of Candidates this is of particular interest to me as an Independent candidate, I have previously blogged on this issue here and here. The section includes the encouraging text:

‘These first PCC elections take place in a particular political context; that is, without there being any direct evidence of “past electoral support” for these particular elections which could be taken into account in making appropriate editorial judgements about the “due weight” accorded to different candidates. In each constituency, therefore, content producers should take a consistent approach to the level of coverage given to all the candidates.’

This seems clear enough, if the focus is on Sussex I will get as much airtime as that for either Katy Bourne, the Conservative candidate or Godfrey Daniel, the Labour candidate. However the paragraph continues:

‘In line with other elections, content producers may take account of robust and objective evidence of “current electoral support” and of any relevant political circumstances in making such judgements to attain due impartiality.’

This may simply be an allowance for the broadcasters to down play the impact of any candidates who are standing who have something of the monster raving loony party about them, but it could be a way of reverting to the dominant two-party situation that will probably exist at a national level. In my view it is vital that this sentence is explained still further if the broadcasters and viewers are able to understand what to expect. The final comments must not be allowed to undo the early promise of impartiality. If the BBC will not have their own polls, they should treat all candidates equally – will they?

At the top of page 6 the following text appears:

‘Content producers should be alert to other politicians who are not involved directly in the elections, including ministers and shadow ministers at Westminster, intervening in issues relevant to the elections and ensure that due impartiality is maintained. Some members of other elected bodies may also be candidates in the elections; care should be taken to ensure that unfair advantage is not derived from other such political roles.’

The areas to be mindful here are the involvement of the Home Secretary and Policing Minister (currently Theresa May and Nick Herbert) and the shadow ministers. This is particularly crucial as Independent candidates do not have an equivalent to speak up for them. 

At the top of page 7 we get the following:

‘Content producers may take account of robust and objective evidence of “current electoral support” and of relevant political circumstances in making judgements about relative levels of coverage for different candidates in the same election.’

Once again here we need to understand is the BBC intending to reduce the impact of a monster raving loony, or to only focus on the two main parties to the exclusion of a smattering of Lib Dem candidates and credible Independents?

There is another key section (4.2 on pages 7&8) which refers specifically to Independents:

‘Network programmes containing items covering the PCC elections in general, must take care to ensure that the inclusion of contributors from parties which are standing candidates in many or all the constituencies does not cause unfairness to other candidates (eg independents) standing individually in a constituency.’

There are other elements in section 4.2 to consider but this reference to Independents needs to both be welcomed and accepted (the parties are bound to challenge it) but also challenged as not being strong enough. These words do not demand equal space and time for Independents and this is really essential. If Sussex is being focused on I don’t want my contribution to be limited to a soundbite and a photo if Katy and Godfrey are being interviewed in the studio.

 My final comment relates to item 7 on page 11 under the heading of Party Leader Interviews:

‘With the exception of brief newsgathering interviews gathered on news value on the day, all bids for party leader interviews must be referred to the Chief Adviser Politics before parties are approached. Unsolicited offers should not be accepted without consultation with senior managers and a reference to the Chief Adviser Politics.’

Clearly interviewing any high-profile figures regarding the election will be helpful in raising the profile of this campaign and so should be welcomed. However the party candidates keep on claiming they will not be whipped or biased and they even plan to sign an impartiality clause (similar to Santa Claus as far as I can tell). Critically what this item does not do is explain the need to ensure that if Political Parties are able to put forward national figures, how the BBC will ensure that an Independent voice is also included in these interviews. This election must not bee seen by the public as a two Donkey Derby!

I hope that you will consider responding to this draft document, it seems to be weak in the places where it says good things, and open to bias in other areas. This is a great opportunity to ensure that my campaign, along with that of other Independents is given the best opportunity of being heard and seen.