It's official: Panorama is the least funny program on iPlayer

Tell iPlayer your mood, and it can now tell you what to watch.

The BBC has mixed TV watching with data. Clearly, this is amazing.

iPlayer now includes a prototype of an experimental "mood chart":


The chart lets you choose what to watch by picking whether you want a slow-paced or fast-paced show, and whether you want something serious or funny. Shows are marked for both qualities on scales of 1-5 and 1-6, and then put on the above chart.

Data journalism! What can we learn from the chart? Sadly, we will have to do this through visual inspection rather than proper analysis, since the BBC haven't yet responded to requests for the data.

Nonetheless, we can see a strong positive correlation between "humour" and how fast paced something is. The fastest paced program – the Graham Norton Show – is also the third most humorous (which, well, casts doubt on the accuracy of their dataset), while the most serious – Panorama's How Safe is Your Hospital – is in the bottom twenty for pacing.

It's also interesting to see that the dataset as a whole errs on the side of slow pacing, and is substantially more serious than it is humorous. All but 36 of the shows in the dataset are less than the midpoint on the humour/serious spectrum.

And, while it's impossible to tell without the full dataset, the median programme seems to be Lilly the Magnificent – a German short film aired at 4am on BBC 2. Which is weird.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.