The BBC is totally out of control. At 16.15, the BBC were reporting Labour net gains of 240 seats out of 3,032 declared. At 15.18 Sky were showing just 171 Labour gains out of a total of 6,137 seats declared.
The BBC are way behind in their totalizing, and cherry picking the Labour gains. The BBC have consistently been showing about 7% of all seats contested as Labour gains. Sky consistently shows under 3% of all seats contested as Labor gains.
This cannot be accidental – it has been a consistent pattern for the last sixteen hours of coverage. Of course it makes no difference to the ultimate result, but what it does is enable the BBC to slant the entire day’s news output to one of Labour success.
The BBC figure of over 7% of all seats contested as Labour gains is ludicrous. It is so far removed from reality, and they are so far behind Sky in adding up the total number of seats, that it is a statistical impossibility for this to have happened as an accident for the last sixteen hours – as impossible as your winning if you just sat in a casino for sixteen hours betting red on every single spin of the roulette wheel. This is deliberate and methodical spin by Purnell’s boys at the BBC.
Those 16.15 figures:
BBC
Lab 1461 (+240) Con 1072 (-178) Lib Dem 367 (-233) UKIP 142 (+140)
Sky
Lab 3036 (+171) Con 2200 (-167) Lib Dem 745 (-178) UKIP 156 (+140)
UPDATE
To spell it out further.
The BBC is showing New Labour as having a 14% increase in their number of seats. Sky is showing New Labour as having a 5% increase in their number of seats.
The BBC is showing the Tories as having a 14% decrease in their number of seats. Sky is showing the Tories as having a 6% decrease in their number of seats.
The BBC is showing the Lib Dems as having a 38% decrease in their number of seats. Sky is showing the Lib Dems as having a 20% decrease in their number of seats.
This effect can only be achieved consistently by a very careful non-random selection of which seats the BBC is feeding in to their totalizer. The final figures will prove how mendacious the BBC were – but by the time those are available the results will have slipped down the news agenda. It is about news management.
A. 35% apparently.
Max Benwell 24 May 2014
The local election results prove why everyone should be forced to vote online
How can we say we live in a democracy when 65 per cent of the electorate refuse to take part? Compulsory online voting would revolutionise the way our political system works
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-local-election-results-prove-why-everyone-should-be-forced-to-vote-online-9427739.html
Compulsory online voting would revolutionise the way our political system works
pretty tough for the 17% who are offline
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit2/internet-access—households-and-individuals/2013/stb-ia-2013.html
I can’t believe Craig watched the same BBC as me. Labour were talked down all the time, and UKIP talked up. Rotherham was mentioned as some morality tale of discontented Labour heartlands- all the time results were coming in from other heartlands where UKIP were doing very little. Complete narrative driven rubbish. No-one mentioned the very specific local issues in Rotherham at any point either, so that it’s importance for the general narrative couldn’t be challenged. That Labour was holding up far better to UKIP than the others was rarely pointed out. Wrong kind of narrative.
“This is deliberate and methodical spin by Purnell’s boys at the BBC.”
Purnell is “Director of Strategy and Digital”.
Have a look who actually runs the news, Craig.
Then listen to some of it for a while. Hear Labour spokesmen interrupted every 2 seconds. Hear IDS or Osborne or Cameron or Gove lie and never get picked up on it by appallingly briefed interviewers or clueless daytime News 24 autocue readers.
As a Labour leftist, I’d say there aren’t massive differences between the parties, and we’d probably agree about that. But the difference matters a lot to people high up in BBC News.
It’s hard to say for sure, but I found it intensified after the Syria vote v Miliband. Cameron’s utter humiliation was furiously spun.
They are after Clegg.
Lib Dem candidates call on Clegg to step down
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27561917
I’ve noticed distinct differences before with the speed of breaking news coverage between Sky and BBC. Sky are often first on the scene to news events and more reliable in their coverage. Considering the national infrastructure the BBC has at its’ disposal it is a somewhat unforgivable state of affairs. The BBC are such a well funded bureaucracy with multiple levels of management hierarchy, political correctness control and editorial decision making, it is surprising they can even get out a reliable and timely weather forecast.
Now we have the UK Local election results out of the way and of course they all made a song and dance about it on Friday, the best is yet to come but without all the pantomime as the UK Europe results are embargoed until this evening and will presumably be announced in one go. I suspect UKIP will triumph and the fate of Nick Clegg will be sealed once and for all and he will duly return to Europe on a well funded commissioners job like Kinnock and others before to join the ranks of the failed and corrupt.
“he will duly return to Europe on a well funded commissioners job like Kinnock and others before to join the ranks of the failed and corrupt.”
Neil Kinnock’s a failure? Or corrupt? Not borne out by his political or bureaucratic career.
Commissioners jobs are hard work, and Kinnock was around them a while and thought to have done them well. Got promoted too.
Clegg won’t get nominated to be a Commissioner. Will be off doing lectures about how he was a “liberal mugged by reality”.
Stop BBC Bias in Election Reporting
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/bias-in-election-reporting
Stop the BBC Blackout of the Green Party
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/bbc-news-stop-this-media-blackout-of-the-green-party