She’s a BBC TV daytime news24 channel presenter.

I have noticed often that she appears to be, comes across as being, a forceful personality. Her abruptness with (some of) her interviewees is characteristic of her approach to moderating debate.

Today December 7th 2020 I was brought up suddenly by observing her in interaction with Wes Streeting, who is a Labour Party MP, and the Shadow Education Minister.

The Shadow Minister had been critically commenting on the tardiness in performance by the Conservative government and about its ‘down to the wire’ strategy with the Brexit negotiations which are drawing to a close very soon.

The Shadow Minister claimed there had been plenty of time for a good deal to have been struck. He claimed that the (I assume Theresa May one) deal which was voted down last year was a reasonably good one. He brought up and spoke about our Prime Minister’s loud assertion during the latest National Election Campaign, one which was iterated often again by him after the Conservative victory; that he had a deal ‘oven ready’.

Jo Coburn pulled up Mr Streeting on his remark about an ‘oven ready’ deal, and she pointed out that the ‘oven ready’ deal spoken of by our Prime Minister during and after The Election period referred to another deal which had been sorted for months already with the European Union and the UK.

The Shadow Minister Mr Streeting then replied that this statement of Jo Coburn’s was correct, as it were, 'technically-speaking,’ but that by the average British person in the street such a distinction between EU agreements was not readily made. His drift was that, by the ordinary person, this present and looming-late, and possibly not to be had at all, EU agreement was generally considered to be that same agreement which during the Election campaign a year ago had been claimed to have been ‘oven ready’. I thought Mr Streeting had a reasonably fair point.

This then is the surrounding context of the concern I bring up next; which is the main concern I want to speak about.

In her precipitate manner Jo Coburn spoke back – I would say almost reflexively – saying that Mr Streeting (i.e. “you”) would accept any deal. The implication extended by Ms Coburn in her retorting this, as seen by the “eager pounce” she made in saying it, was to dismiss with some force Mr Streeting, and The Labour Party of whom he is a representative.

This her behaviour came close to being abusive. Her words were also, I would claim, said in the manner of a put-down – a brusque dismissal of Mr Streeting and of his Party. The manner of the words spoken; they were said quite immediately and with ‘attack’ and without any pause occurring in the flow of conversation, and they were said as if being censure from a superior station to an inferior one, they were said straight out, no bones, and assertively, vigorously, as if there was no question of their truth, common-knowledge; and they carried with them what looked like an attempt either to shame, or else to discredit, or to do both, to the standing, to the person, and to the argument, of The Labour Party man. The thrust of her saying the words, even were her aims revealed by her without that being her intention, were a push to rubbish and so to degrade Mr Streeting and his Party. Dare I say they revealed an attitude not compatible with a moderator who would strive to remain objective?

My analysis here I say clearly is not partial. This is how it was. The actual words spoken by the two persons in debate probably have not been written into this piece of writing verbatim by me; but the drifts and meanings and intentions of those words I do believe I have them pretty right.

Jo Coburn was rather less actively fierce with her other guests sat around with her and Mr Streeting.

I attempt to suggest that this was close to being an outburst by Ms Coburn, it was certainly a revelation; and it was off-limits. Perhaps it was what uglier words would call a ‘gut-reaction’. To my mind she made very clear that she is not a Labour Party supporter