Do you know what period they took the content from exactly? I would be surprised if the Conservatives got more coverage between 1997-2005 when Blair was a media darling.

As for the business part, surely it depends on the content of the story doesn't it? I mean there are some subjects in business stories that union representatives wouldn't be able to contribute to.

As for the financial crisis, surely those in the city were best placed to know what was actually going on. I remember at that time it was extremely difficult to get your head around what was going on and why, so maybe this was why we saw more representatives from the city.

As for Isreal/Palestine, I don't want to open that can of worms.

Speaking as a conservative (note the small c), I think the BBC is fairly balanced, as it produces content I both agree with and disagree with.

But wouldn't it be sensible to infer that business figures would generally be talking about business topics? I mean you wouldn't ask the chairman of Waitrose to review Katie Price's latest book.

The study's too long to read but I see that they did the study in 2007 and 2012, so at a period when the Labour government was very much on the way down and being attacked by a young, up-and-coming Conservative leader and then again when they were out of government. Is that necessarily an indication of bias or could it be simply that Cameron was on the attack against a tired-looking and not particularly charismatic Gordon Brown. I would assert that if you did the same thing in 1996 and again in 2001 you could easily infer a Labour bias, with a young Blair savaging the apparently dull John Major.

Also, I jumped on the business thing as the study says "They studied the impartiality of BBC reporting across several areas, including the Israel-Palestine conflict, the EU, business and economics, and politics." I assumed from this that they were comparing the business leaders/union reps on business stories. Again, surely it depends on the nature of the story, as you would tend to ask business leaders to talk about profit warnings/company reports etc. and union reps to talk more about labor disputes.

And again, regarding the crisis, when the stories were about Bear Sterns going bust etc. you would expect them to interview those inside the companies under threat.

I'm not necessarily trying to poo-poo the study, but you must admit it's very easy in a study of the media to make it fit with a particular hypothesis. Equally, maybe it reflects the relative importance these groups are perceived to have, not necessarily by the BBC but by society as a whole.

Jeremy Corbyn has my full support to remain Labour leader as long as he lives.

Indeed, I'd wager that nothings been learned and the same people are in charge. Should have followed Icelands lead and jailed the feckers.

Can you do a welcome to Britain party for a family of 20 Syrians for me?