politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP has ceased to be a serious player and it’s time the BBC s

Second. Like van der Bellen in Austria.

Maybe they're looking at the national opinion polls Mike? The ones where the Lib Dems can't get out of single figures and UKIP is in the low-mid teens.

Is not the rough benchmark votes the previous GE, not byelections? Objectively UKIP has greater claim on coverage than the LibDems.

david_herdson said:

Brexit is the biggest issue of the day. UKIP has something to say about it. They're also still polling third across the country and have a track record in real elections, as recently as this May. They are a major party.

No they are a minor party as are the Lib Dems. There are only two major parties in England.

Austria: the Financial Times is asking "What would a far-right president mean for Austria?"

The BBC are stating he would be the "first far-right head of state in the EU" - a caption that seems to try to cater to opposing markets, because it won't take many such heads of state before the EU ceases to exist.

The Daily Mirror, meanwhile, state that Europe could get "its first far-right leader since the Second World War" - moronically forgetting about Franco and Salazar. Idiots. Even the supposedly "fact-checky" New York Times makes the same error.

But the whole presentation rests on "first". Cf. the propaganda for gay marriage. There will be a single source for this line.

The televised debate between van der Bellen and Hofer was dingdong. Hofer accused his opponent of having been a Stasi agent.

My feeling is that a Hofer win will have been pushed for by covert agencies not just in Russia, but also in the US and Britain. He's practically got this in the bag. He's at 1.45.

Italy: Grillo, who will also win - a vote for NO is a vote to bring down prime minister Renzi - is at 1.37.

The BBC shouldn't be deciding who is important or now. There is a formuls which - rightly - heavily weights the last general election. Both the LibDems and UKIP are minor parties and should be treated as such

There should have been a Lib Dem on Any Questions last night. There remains a substantial portion of the population that backs UKIP's backward-looking little Englander credo, so that voice should be heard regularly also.

fpt MarqueeMark - why do you think Labour will start to slide in Birmingham? The other three main parties all have a strong base here but generally speaking Labour has been getting more and more entrenched in Westminster elections, and they continue to have strong support and a strong machine.

Anyone who believes that the BBC has some kind of institutional right-wing bias really hasn't been paying attention.

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that everyone has forgotten about President Waldheim. Austria already has experience of having a pariah head of state.

You are quite right, but Waldheim didn't run for president on a far-right ticket.

Totally O/T but the Paddy Power Steward advert is just excellent.

For info: the first Austrian results showing a trend are expected at 16.00 Austrian time (i.e. 1500 here). A firmer prognosis including postal votes is expected between 1715 and 1730 Austrian time. Details in German:

http://tv.orf.at/highlights/programmschwerpunkt/bundespraesidenten_wahlsonntag100.html

Agree with OGH. Ignoring the LibDems when at least a good second in the by-election was foreseeable weeks ago, particularly when there was no official Tory nor UKIP candidate and Labour was always likely to do badly, is not acceptable.

And, yes, the moronic Peter Whittle is turning the programme into a shouting match.

FrancisUrquhart said:

The BBC could always stop putting z-list celebs, comedians, washed up musicians, etc on the QT panels....they add nothing to the program. That would free up a seat for Lib Dems, UKIP, etc.

They could use the extra spot to highlight local issues, like having someone from the Save Fabric campaign.

Black_Rook said:

Dromedary said:

Black_Rook said:

Anyone who believes that the BBC has some kind of institutional right-wing bias really hasn't been paying attention.

Replace "right" with "left" in that statement and it becomes true.

The BBC's news operation has an established history of cross-pollination with the Guardian, and it currently employs an ex-Labour cabinet minister as Director of Radio.

Is that seriously the basis for your conclusion?

Suck it up Mike.

Black_Rook said:

Dromedary said:

Black_Rook said:

Anyone who believes that the BBC has some kind of institutional right-wing bias really hasn't been paying attention.

Replace "right" with "left" in that statement and it becomes true.

The BBC's news operation has an established history of cross-pollination with the Guardian, and it currently employs an ex-Labour cabinet minister as Director of Radio.

Apart from that, nothing to see here.

Just the Guardian? Surely head of news James Harding is a former Times editor.

@faisalislam: Corbyn tells me Article 50 amendment: will be a statement of our wishes of the negotiating strategy on "market access & social protections"

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Corbyn tells me Article 50 amendment: will be a statement of our wishes of the negotiating strategy on "market access & social protections"

Perhaps May should invite Jezza to negotiate on our behalf? That would really throw the EU!

After the autumn statement somebody shared a screenshot of the BBC saying that growth this year has been revised 2.0% "down" to 2.1%

Does anyone have a link to that image? Can't find it via Google.

Dromedary said:

Black_Rook said:

Dromedary said:

Black_Rook said:

Anyone who believes that the BBC has some kind of institutional right-wing bias really hasn't been paying attention.

Replace "right" with "left" in that statement and it becomes true.

The BBC's news operation has an established history of cross-pollination with the Guardian, and it currently employs an ex-Labour cabinet minister as Director of Radio.

Is that seriously the basis for your conclusion?

Not solely. But it is true, isn't it?

Seriously, the Beeb does disproportionately attract people who come to the job already in possession of one particular world view, does it not? It's not brutally partisan, and by and large it seems to do its best to avoid biases. But nevertheless, if you wanted a balanced view of, say, the migrant crisis then you wouldn't rely solely for your conclusions upon the opinions of a focus group consisting of Mail and Telegraph leader writers, now would you?

Black_Rook said:

Dromedary said:

Black_Rook said:

Dromedary said:

Black_Rook said:

Anyone who believes that the BBC has some kind of institutional right-wing bias really hasn't been paying attention.

Replace "right" with "left" in that statement and it becomes true.

The BBC's news operation has an established history of cross-pollination with the Guardian, and it currently employs an ex-Labour cabinet minister as Director of Radio.

Is that seriously the basis for your conclusion?

Not solely. But it is true, isn't it?

Seriously, the Beeb does disproportionately attract people who come to the job already in possession of one particular world view, does it not? It's not brutally partisan, and by and large it seems to do its best to avoid biases. But nevertheless, if you wanted a balanced view of, say, the migrant crisis then you wouldn't rely solely for your conclusions upon the opinions of a focus group consisting of Mail and Telegraph leader writers, now would you?

Following the allegations of bias in the Beeb following the Gulf War, they did an in-house investigation (a fairly right-wing senior Beeb reporter friend of mine was involved). They found that their was a broad self-selected cultural bias that starts with applicants and survives throughout the life-cycle of employees, rather than conscious partisanship. The worst aspect of that is the journalists involved can and do convince themselves that they are not biased in any way, and resist any observation to the contrary.

I think this is particularly evident in the human-interest story reporting, rather than big picture policy pragmatism, that surrounds such issues as migrants or the NHS.

Black_Rook said:

Dromedary said:

Black_Rook said:

Anyone who believes that the BBC has some kind of institutional right-wing bias really hasn't been paying attention.

Replace "right" with "left" in that statement and it becomes true.

The BBC's news operation has an established history of cross-pollination with the Guardian, and it currently employs an ex-Labour cabinet minister as Director of Radio.

Apart from that, nothing to see here.

Not to mention the period where the BBC's economics editor had shagged both the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor. The reason I'm sceptical about claims that the BBC is 'biased to both sides' is because you can always find incidents where BBC reporters express left-wing bias, but struggle to identify any right-wing bias. Unless, of course, you count one of the Chuckle Brothers sharing Britain First material.

nunu said:

tlg86 said:

A few weeks ago, Question Time had four remainers ad one leaver.

Every single question time they will have two right wingers and three left wingers apart from once during the e.u ref. Why have a format with five pundits, it ensures bias.

'Panellists include Conservative leader in Scotland Ruth Davidson MSP, Labour's former home secretary Alan Johnson MP, Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley, New Statesman contributing editor Laurie Penny and co-founder of Leave.EU Richard Tice.'

Who was the third lefty this week?

Chelyabinsk said:

Black_Rook said:

Dromedary said:

Black_Rook said:

Anyone who believes that the BBC has some kind of institutional right-wing bias really hasn't been paying attention.

Replace "right" with "left" in that statement and it becomes true.

The BBC's news operation has an established history of cross-pollination with the Guardian, and it currently employs an ex-Labour cabinet minister as Director of Radio.

Apart from that, nothing to see here.

Not to mention the period where the BBC's economics editor had shagged both the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor. The reason I'm sceptical about claims that the BBC is 'biased to both sides' is because you can always find incidents where BBC reporters express left-wing bias, but struggle to identify any right-wing bias. Unless, of course, you count one of the Chuckle Brothers sharing Britain First material.

Out of interest, is your user name in honour of the meteor strike, or the Kyshtym disaster? I always think of the latter when I see that name.

Theuniondivvie said:

nunu said:

tlg86 said:

A few weeks ago, Question Time had four remainers ad one leaver.

Every single question time they will have two right wingers and three left wingers apart from once during the e.u ref. Why have a format with five pundits, it ensures bias.

'Panellists include Conservative leader in Scotland Ruth Davidson MSP, Labour's former home secretary Alan Johnson MP, Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley, New Statesman contributing editor Laurie Penny and co-founder of Leave.EU Richard Tice.'

Who was the third lefty this week?

Ruth Davidson

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/brexit/status/805059741634310145

The pro Brexit coalition won't hold long enough to deliver.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Theuniondivvie said:

nunu said:

tlg86 said:

A few weeks ago, Question Time had four remainers ad one leaver.

Every single question time they will have two right wingers and three left wingers apart from once during the e.u ref. Why have a format with five pundits, it ensures bias.

'Panellists include Conservative leader in Scotland Ruth Davidson MSP, Labour's former home secretary Alan Johnson MP, Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley, New Statesman contributing editor Laurie Penny and co-founder of Leave.EU Richard Tice.'

Who was the third lefty this week?

Ruth Davidson

'The full panel has not yet been announced, but host David Dimbleby revealed on last night's show that Farage will be joined by former Conservative MP Louise Mensch and novelist and journalist Will Self.'

I guess the Menschinator will be your 'not far enough to the right of Ghengis Khan' candidate next week.

Looks like another recipe for a car crash freak show that seems to be the QT preferred option nowadays.

"The chart above graphically illustrates how poorly UKIP has been doing in Westminster by elections this year. The BBC should take notice."

Why? All parties have ups and downs the Lib Dems know this more than anyone.

The chart from the 2015 General election is more relevant I would say. In this the share of the vote is

Lib Dems 2, 415, 141 or 7.9% of the vote share
UKIP. 3,888,876. or 12.7% of the vote share.
(In London this is pretty much reversed on vote share plus some)

https://data.london.gov.uk/blog/the-2015-election-the-numbers-behind-the-result/

Interesting that the Lib Dems wish to shut down publicity and political views of it a party that achieved a larger vote share than they did but significantly changed the political landscape in this country like no other has done for many years.

In saying that though the BBC work to their own agenda and given the importance and significance of the by Richmond election I agree there should have been a Lib Dem representative on that panel without hesitation. Why there was not is open to question. Lib Dems better ensure that is not Olney who during a radio interview yesterday got utterly shredded and drowned before being finally dragged off the radio by an aid. Can't do that on QT.

MTimT said:

Moses_ said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There should have been a Lib Dem on Any Questions last night. There remains a substantial portion of the population that backs UKIP's backward-looking little Englander credo, so that voice should be heard regularly also.

Wales ( little Welshlanders) also voted to leave and followed the UKIP line so your statement as per usual is vapid bilge.

Are you sure they shouldn't be referred to as 'little Welchers'?

Ha! Very good .....though depends on which side of the Brexit vote you are I suppose...

MTimT said:

Black_Rook said:

Dromedary said:

Black_Rook said:

Dromedary said:

Black_Rook said:

Anyone who believes that the BBC has some kind of institutional right-wing bias really hasn't been paying attention.

Replace "right" with "left" in that statement and it becomes true.

The BBC's news operation has an established history of cross-pollination with the Guardian, and it currently employs an ex-Labour cabinet minister as Director of Radio.

Is that seriously the basis for your conclusion?

Not solely. But it is true, isn't it?

Seriously, the Beeb does disproportionately attract people who come to the job already in possession of one particular world view, does it not? It's not brutally partisan, and by and large it seems to do its best to avoid biases. But nevertheless, if you wanted a balanced view of, say, the migrant crisis then you wouldn't rely solely for your conclusions upon the opinions of a focus group consisting of Mail and Telegraph leader writers, now would you?

Following the allegations of bias in the Beeb following the Gulf War, they did an in-house investigation (a fairly right-wing senior Beeb reporter friend of mine was involved). They found that their was a broad self-selected cultural bias that starts with applicants and survives throughout the life-cycle of employees, rather than conscious partisanship. The worst aspect of that is the journalists involved can and do convince themselves that they are not biased in any way, and resist any observation to the contrary.

I think this is particularly evident in the human-interest story reporting, rather than big picture policy pragmatism, that surrounds such issues as migrants or the NHS.

The clue is in the name, British Broadcasting Corporation. It's almost bound to have to have an institutional bias. Its political reporting is scrupulously balanced, often to the point of blandness. It is not always given due credit for that. But if you are a Scottish Nationalist, for example, or a social conservative, you are going to find it a very uncongenial institution.

TudorRose said:

I notice Mike has caught a linguistic tic from the BBC. The use of 'likely' instead of 'probably' or, in this case, 'would be likely to' has become a part of dumbed-down Yank-babble that characterises the media. The BBC gave up journalistic research years ago; today it's given up on the English language too.

I will now likely be banned from here!

This is part of the Great Linguistic Shortening that began with the invention of Twitter.

I suppose the Libs are a serious force.........

I say that as someone who often votes Lib Dem

Philip_Thompson said:

After the autumn statement somebody shared a screenshot of the BBC saying that growth this year has been revised 2.0% "down" to 2.1%

Does anyone have a link to that image? Can't find it via Google.

Was aware of it. Guido had it I think? Another real humdinger and how could we forget the lunatic Brown and his 0% growth which surpassed by far his previous " 0% increase in public spending".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gi7qqvRlY0

Black_Rook said:

nunu said:

tlg86 said:

A few weeks ago, Question Time had four remainers ad one leaver.

Every single question time they will have two right wingers and three left wingers apart from once during the e.u ref. Why have a format with five pundits, it ensures bias.

It doesn't help, though to be fair they seemed to be doing their best on QT this week. 3:2 in favour of the Right, but 3:2 in favour of Remain (courtesy of presence of Ruth Davidson.)

Oh damn I've stopped watching the last few weeks because I thought it would just be shouting between Leavers vs. Remainders. I'll start watching it again properly after article 50 is triggered. But they could have deeper answers with four instead of five and I suspect they will shift their bias now from right vs. Left to leave vs. Remain and not just on Question time.

edmundintokyo said:

TudorRose said:

I notice Mike has caught a linguistic tic from the BBC. The use of 'likely' instead of 'probably' or, in this case, 'would be likely to' has become a part of dumbed-down Yank-babble that characterises the media. The BBC gave up journalistic research years ago; today it's given up on the English language too.

I will now likely be banned from here!

This is part of the Great Linguistic Shortening that began with the invention of Twitter.

Quite...

"Many were furious by this and the presence, yet again by the BBC, of a Kipper "

Define "many"..... Country full? Stadium full? Coach full or the bulk standard uber taxi full?

Barnesian said:

Moses_ said:

"The chart above graphically illustrates how poorly UKIP has been doing in Westminster by elections this year. The BBC should take notice."

Why? All parties have ups and downs the Lib Dems know this more than anyone.

The chart from the 2015 General election is more relevant I would say. In this the share of the vote is

Lib Dems 2, 415, 141 or 7.9% of the vote share
UKIP. 3,888,876. or 12.7% of the vote share.
(In London this is pretty much reversed on vote share plus some)

https://data.london.gov.uk/blog/the-2015-election-the-numbers-behind-the-result/

Interesting that the Lib Dems wish to shut down publicity and political views of it a party that achieved a larger vote share than they did but significantly changed the political landscape in this country like no other has done for many years.

In saying that though the BBC work to their own agenda and given the importance and significance of the by Richmond election I agree there should have been a Lib Dem representative on that panel without hesitation. Why there was not is open to question. Lib Dems better ensure that is not Olney who during a radio interview yesterday got utterly shredded and drowned before being finally dragged off the radio by an aid. Can't do that on QT.

She has twice coped well opposite Andrew Neil. Yesterday she was silenced by an interviewer whose very aggressive questions didn't make any sense to her. Andrew Neil's questioning is forensic but they make sense. She was trying to handle Hartley-Brewer's questions on an unspun reasonable basis but that wasn't the game. She shouldn't have been put up for that interview. She'll be fine on QT.

LoL.

Fantastic stuff from England in the rugger....

Pulpstar said:

Lets see how they do in Sleaford, which should be target ~ 150 or so rather than Richmond, target 600 or Witney target 500ish.

And if the Tories win Sleaford will the Lib-Anti-Dems describe that as a clear vote for Brexit? I suspect not. They don't even seem to realise that, using their own 'logic', the anti-Brexit vote in Richmond has gone down from around 70% to about 53%.

UKIP won 12% in the local elections in May, and beat the Lib Dems in Wales, London, and the PCC elections, so there's no reason why they should not have similar coverage.

rcs1000 said:

Black_Rook said:

https://twitter.com/MarrShow/status/805053212504059904

Wot, no Farron? Oh dear...

The LibDems have found an inverse correlation between exposure for Farron and electoral performance.

It has since been announced that a Liberal Democrat will be appearing for interview on the Sunday Politics.

Nick Clegg.

Top quality captain pick by @TheScreamingEagles

'The BBC should take notice.'

UKIP and the Green party have an elected MP, that should be the only criteria to be on QT.

Carlos Danger is back on the streets of New York. Let us hope he can now control his revolting urges.

https://twitter.com/DailyMail/status/805020284684304384

Pro-EU/anti-Trump people outraged by IUPAC's decision to name heavy element 115 as "Moscovium".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium