Ö÷²¥´óÐã

How do you stop your phone ins from being hijacked by political activists?

Please publish here how you will achieve a balanced and representative audience of 200 5Live listeners for Victoria's programme.

Assuming these people will be able to clap, hollar or potentially ask questions of course you will be vetting them wont you?

Well to start with the furthest South Victoria is hosting a programme is Luton. Why aren't there any in the S./SW of England or E. Anglia ?

As far as I can make out, all those locations are guaranteed an audience of mostly Labour supporters.

Hardly fair or balanced is it ?

Also you should remind your presenters to be politically neutral and not portray their Labour sympathies as they sometimes do.

Remember Jane Garvey's comments about the Ö÷²¥´óÐã being full of empty champagne bottles after the Labour win in 97 ?

Further to Curmy's point ... interesting choice of electorates...

Trust in Politics on April 12th in Bromsgrove (Conservative held, 51% of vote, 10,000 maj, expenses scandal here so nice bash the Tories opportunity)

Immigration on April 21st in Luton (Labour held, 43% of vote, 5,300maj, worse expenses scandal here but instead we're talking immigration luckily)

Economy on April 26th in Middlesbrough (Labour held, 58% of vote, 12,000maj)

Crime on May 3rd in Leeds (Labour held, 60% of vote, 12,000maj)

This follows the Budget day coverage from Tynemouth where Labour held 48% of the vote in 2005 on a 5,300maj.

In addition to telling us how you're vetting the audience can you also tell us why you chose these electorates please?

Can I also request we end the hollering and whooping of the studio audiences.

The more that comments from third parties are included in programmes, the more listeners need reminding that there are sophisticated campaigns which employ social media to get the party lines across.

It would be really interesting for a station which relies so much on listener content to investigate and report on whether it is manipulated for political gain.

What fabulous posts here already. I hope Louise reads them and replies.

I don't know if this counts but Question Time was from Stevenage - a staunchly Labour town. You could put a red rosette on a brick and it would get voted in.

You from Stevenage Zel?

Don't even go there 5 Live (the voice of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã!)!

How on earth can you attempt to bring political balance when the Ö÷²¥´óÐã is wholly commited in the belief that political choice rests between the Tories, New Labour and (if your'e really hard up) the Lib Dem's!

There's nothing between them. They believe in the same economic and political system and only appear to differ on how they manage it's failure by playing on division, scapegoating, personality politics, race, crime and manipulating the fiscal and monetary system that plays one section of society against another.

How have you got the nerve to plan an outside broadcast interviewing selected members of the public on the issue of immigration! Immigration is not an issue on its own. It's a global phenomenon due to the geopolitical division of the world into arbitary states with their own governments that make out they can act and work independently! Pathetic career politicians seeking election may want to play on the issue because it makes them appear tough. Doesn't mean you lot have to and this planned broadcast will just play into the hands of racists and nationalists!

This morning, the phone in was about post natal depression, cue the usual sorts of comments. Yet on the news we hear that Ed Balls says under new ideas, that teachers are going to be able to use force in the classroom. Shouldn't the whole question of this policy be looked at today? Isn't it true that no class full of difficult children are going to sit meekly whilst one of their classmates has force used against him? What will the teacher do then?

Oh no, I forgot, this is a Labour policy and therefore you don't want any points of view from the rest of the political spectrum about a policy which is so wildly off the mark it is breathtaking.

... and again this morning there was no where to blog or comment on the phone in.

Yes nick for my sins I am from the afore mentioned town. Born and bred.

Did anybody hear the mutual love-in that was the interview (and I use the term in it's broadest sense) between Shelagh and Ed Balls this morning? My dear wife, who has no interest in politics, walked in half way through and after listening for 30 seconds suggested that the two of them "get a room". Very balanced.

Sadly I will not be able to attend the debates but would really love the chance to put my questions to the politicians.

I believe the Ö÷²¥´óÐã does "ensure all [political] parties are fairly represented" in its output, the Ö÷²¥´óÐã just fails to represent the views of its viewers and listeners.

"As the election draws closer we're getting lots of questions from you about how we balance our news programmes to ensure all parties are fairly represented."

Well, the general perception is that you don't and it seems entirely well-founded in broad terms, particularly in regard to R5L. And this perception is not just in regard to domestic politics, either...

Nice to see a Labour minister on 5Live this morning for a free kick of the Tories at 7.50am.

Oh, and at 7.15pm quotes from the three major parties, followed by the minor parties. Oops. Sorry. Singular not plural. 30 seconds of propaganda from only one minor party -- the Green's deputy leader. No mention of UKIP or the BNP.

What was that about "political balance"?

I should say for balance that Michael Gove for the Conservatives was on at 8.23am and the Lib Dems later. But it would have been far better if (a) they followed each other (b) we were told that we'd hear from someone for all the major parties (c) we didn't have the Labour party represented in prime time while after most of the listenership has gone to work the Tory and Lib Dems on.

...an audience of 200 5live listeners......?

Well that will make a change.Victoria the last time you held these General Election, debates 5 years ago, you came to Birmingham and in the audience, not so much asking a question but taking up time making a political statement for the tories was non other than Mike Whitby......the leader on Birmingham City Council.How the heck did he get in the audience ?

I think that Victoria's programme this morning showed the danger of having representatives from all parties appearing together. The danger being that if they all talk over one another, no-one will hear anything and listeners' and voters' patience will be lost. it isn't the number of people wanting to speak, it is the inability of Victoria to control a programme in this format.

Moving on to Colin Murray, appearing with Peter Allen, I have never heard such an amateur piece of work - he was laughing at something whilst trying to make a serious introduction, student radio as I have said before.

This is the main radio news channel, I cannot believe how poor the quality of your staffing is at the moment. No gravity, no background knowledge unless it is on the screen or in the earpiece,
no respect for the listeners, all together, pathetic.

I agree Carrie.I heard some of Victoria's programme today and I found it totally depressing.Still the same old political class squabbling amongst themselves with the actual voter feeling totally excluded.Nothing has changed.

Well I hope Radio 5 does better that Ö÷²¥´óÐã News today, it's mostly Brown and Clegg with Cameron hardly figuring !

I should imagine that the audiences for the debates will be selected in the same way was say the Question Time audiences are selected? Perhaps Louise will clarify? If that is the case it will be reasonably representative give or take.

Personally I think the Ö÷²¥´óÐã tends to keep a pretty even balance over all. You do tend to look for a bias against your own beliefs. As a true socialist far to the left of the labour party I never see any bias towards my own politics :-)

A few news organisations are now checking the facts which are presented to them in interviews and reporting back their accuracy. Perhaps this could be done by the Ö÷²¥´óÐã. This might make interviewees more aware of the need to get their facts straight in interviews.

After 24 hours of phone in frenzy over the election, one of the things that is most apparent is that once callers have made their point, they have no other things to say - they shout over the next caller, repeating the original point, and if asked for further insights, often cannot oblige.

The other thing that is already obvious, is that having been vetted fairly carefully so that the researcher knows exactly what is going to be said by the caller, it becomes obvious that the phone in is manipulated by the running order of calls. Example? This morning's phone in chooses to end with a 30 second soundbite of a man in Gloucestershire to underline the need for a non-posh anti-elitist to run the country, when it could have, and should have been a caller who was underlining the need to listen to everyone and form an opinion afterwards, not to prejudge anyone.

And if I hear one more person who states that he or she isn't going to vote for any Conservatives or Lib Dems because they are untested in government, I will scream. Hello............if you are not part of the government of course you are untested. In 1997 voters didn't say that about New Labour, did they? Then, after 18 years of Conservatism, it was time for a change even though there was a whole generation of inexperienced Labour politicians so I don't see what is different now about the Tories and Lib Dems.

" This morning's phone in chooses to end with a 30 second soundbite of a man in Gloucestershire to underline the need for a non-posh anti-elitist to run the country, when it could have, and should have been a caller who was underlining the need to listen to everyone and form an opinion afterwards, not to prejudge anyone. "

Exactly Carrie !