We asked why the BBC totally ignored a caller to LBC who castigated Labour and Miliband for having failed to provide a good NHS service…..On Monday Nicky Campbell may have provided a reason as to why the BBC cannot bring itself to publicise such criticism of Miliband and Labour……Campbell told us that another member of the Public had given a Labour politician a severe ear bashing but he couldn’t tell us what that person had said because of course the BBC is politically neutral.….work that out if you can.
Later Victoria Derbyshire had a bit of ‘brain fade’ telling us that we had had a Conservative-Labour Coalition government for the last 5 years……or was it Conservative -West Ham? Will the BBC be ‘laughing’ endlessly at such a foolish mistake for days on end? Perhaps they could bring in a psychologist as they did to discuss Cameron’s little faux pas?
It did seem like the BBC was pushing Labour’s agenda on Monday…with quite a bit of SNP thrown into the mix…..the BBC frequently seems to assume we will have a Labour government and discusses an SNP pact with Labour as if that was the most likely scenario…and as so often we had a look at the ‘puzzle’ of productivity, or the lack of….a Labour theme now that employment is always going up and they need to find another angle to attack the Coalition somehow.
Then we had the aforementioned Campbell who was talking about housing….yet again a Labour theme. Then Victoria Derbyshire talking about mental health…again a subject Labour, and the LibDems (for some reason) thinks it has the Tories up against the ropes on.
Then we had the Evan Davis ‘Leaders’ Interview’, this time with Nicola Sturgeon. I was going to watch it but Craig at Is the BBC biased? has done sterling work and provided us with a run down of how it went…..not bad at all from Sturgeon’s point of view….all that was missing was a glass of wine and some candlelight….a completely different ‘tone’ to the aggressive and sanctimoniously disapproving lecture Nigel Farage received.
Have to say the BBC’s coverage of the SNP gets ever more like a glorification….Wednesday seemed to be a coronation of Sturgeon by the BBC with much trumpeting if her as a ‘breath of fresh air’ and a ‘straight talker’…..both of which are complete nonsense…she’s a politician the same as all the rest…..in private she says she thinks Miliband is unfit to be PM and she’d prefer a Tory government but says something different in public and no comment from the BBC about her repeated claim to really respect ‘democracy’…the woman who wants to keep having referendums until she gets the answer she wants on independence.
Then we have Cardiff University’s run down of news coverage of the election…apparently, again h/t Craig, the Tories are way out in front in receiving airtime from the various news broadcasters….though that doesn’t say whether it is positive or negative coverage…so hardly an informative study….here is how they went about that study…
The Cardiff University study examined bulletins on Channel 5 at 5pm, Channel 4 at 7pm and at 10pm on BBC, ITV and Sky News.
Not exactly comprehensive….but they have noticed that the BBC gives more time to Miliband…
The BBC was an outlier, giving more time to Miliband, who made up 24.3% of time leaders were speaking on screen, compared to 21.9% of time for Cameron.
Now anyone who has listened to the BBC radio output or read the website will know that Labour has the lion’s share of the headlines…hardly a day goes by when ‘Labour announces……’ doesn’t get top billing and as on Monday the latest Labour policy ‘discussed’ repeatedly on the BBC. The BBC takes the risk that the policy will get mauled but keeping Labour in the headlines and the Tories out seems to be the BBC modus operandi….unless it is unmistakeably bad news for Labour, such as callers on the NHS blasting Miliband, which is completely absent from the BBC, or bad news for Cameron such as the ridiculous story about ‘brain fade’ which will be discussed endlessly. If a Tory policy does make it to the headline it is not long before it is replaced with the Labour response rubbishing it.
It is as we have always suspected with these ‘studies’ that they are extremely limited in scope and only examine a very small part of any broadcaster’s output…far less than you and I can hear as we go though the day listening to various BBC programmes and getting a real feel for the output as whole over the day.
Today is also Labour Day:
Conservatives outnumbered two-to-one in audience for BBC Question Time debate – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11571975/Conservatives-outnumbered-two-to-one-in-audience-for-BBC-Question-Time-debate.html
Surprisingly that seems not to have hampered the PM, who has had by far the better of it.
“the BBC frequently seems to assume we will have a Labour government and discusses an SNP pact with Labour as if that was the most likely scenario”.
That’s probably because it’s almost a certainty given the polling figures!
Projected results:
Conservatives 286
Labour 262
SNP 55
Lib Dems 21
DUP 8
Plaid 4
SDLP 3
UKIP 2
Greens 1
Others 8
Even though the Tories have the largest number of seats, even with DUP, UKIP and Fib Dem support they cannot form a majority which is 326. These figures give 317 and that assumes that the Fib Dems would want another coalition with the Tories.
Labour on the other hand can easily reach the 326 figure just by an association with the SNP which is the most likely as even Sturgeon wouldn’t want to be responsible for wrecking a Labour administration and allowing the Tories in.
Even if the polls are wildly out, the outcome will be the same. The BBC on this occasion are right to regard the election as a foregone conclusion (barring some extraordinary event in the next few days). This is what the Tories are obviously doing as well with their warnings about the SNP in government.
HM the Queen must be calling in her advisers, as she will potentially have a difficult time in this.
If the Tories are the largest party I believe she has to invite them to see if they can form a government. Only upon them reporting back in the negative can Wallace minor be invited to see what he can do, at which stage the level of agreement he can reach with Wallace major or Jimmy Krankie (who will not be an M.P.?) such that he can effectively run the country will be extremely interesting to say the least.
This time tomorrow week the media will probably be in a frenzy of speculation, while the less savvy will probably be selling their stocks and shares and government bonds chasing the bandwagon they have missed of baling out! Uncertainty is very bad for economies.
Your maths is out, I think. Labour + SNP = 317. However I think it’s close enough that they could get on board Plaid, Greens and some of the others to form a reasonably stable administration, not necessarily in coalition. I’d agree that some sort of Labour/SNP stitch up is most likely, but whether it would survive long, I don’t know. Certainly the SNP wouldn’t bring it down, with memories of 1979.
What wouldn’t surprise me at all is a Lab/Con deal. You can pretty well guarantee the LibLabCons are meeting as we speak to discuss what to do about the SNP, or whether Scotland should simply be cut loose. That risks feeding into SNP “ruled by England” rhetoric, but if the SNP get less than 50% they could argue that actually the Government has majority support in Scotland! The other risk is in confirming that LibLabCon are one and the same. Nevertheless I’m surprised this possibility hasn’t, as far as I know, been raised by the BBC.
A Grand Lab/Con coalition is what I have been predicting for some time. In the event of UKIP and the Scottish National Socialists gaining significant numbers, it would make sense for both Lab and Tory to unite. Jobs for the boys and ladies all around. It would certainly last five years….after that the Caliphate.
A Con/Lab coalition would make the SNP Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, with Wallace Senior on salary as leader of the opposition and all those poor Scottish M.P.s saddled with roles as shadow minister for all sorts of English only matters!
Still time for Western Crusader and his friends to ride to the rescue, but after the polls close next Thursday it will be too late, the damage will be done!
Our fair land gets more bizarre by the day, and has become the laughing stock of the world.
The Land of Monty Python has become……….The Land of Monty Python.
This is very unlikely to be the ‘real’ Scott. He is probably more in favour of a “Rainbow” administration than any workers collective.
Definitely not Scott’s style.
With rainbow pedestrian crossings made compulsory, bringing confusion and even death to thousands of Alzheimer’s sufferers across the land.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3050776/Plans-rainbow-coloured-zebra-crossing-support-gay-rights-abandoned-fears-cause-hallucinations-dementia-sufferers.html
Note lack of Alzheimer’s implications from the BBC report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/31153957/devon-town-to-get-first-permanent-rainbow-zebra-crossing-in-uk
“For us it’s about raising awareness in a rural area of the country like Devon, but to also send out a message to not just Totnes but the world, that Totnes embraces and celebrates diversity.
“It also stands with LGBT people all around the world who are facing discrimination and injustice.”
Please, please beam me up Scotty (no, not you).
Although I doubt painting pedestrian crossings costs millions of pounds each year rainbow crossings will probably triple their initial and upkeep costs. Surely there are more worthy things to do with the money than paint lines on the road?
That would never happen with the Conservative & Labour , you have been reading too much fantasy fiction again . The finishing line for the Commons is a lot less than 326 ,anyhow , its around 320 -322 . The Sinn Fein/ IRA , have 2 or 3 & don`t turn up . The Speaker has 1 seat too,so,it could be Cam , DUP & Libs together ,or Milliped/SNP. We will see ,& if its the latter ,the BBC will be on a Champagne Supernova all night long.
The BBC are desperate to avoid the “GRAND COALITION” option at all costs for fear it will create a stampede to UKIP.
If there is a grand coalition after May 7th, UKIP will win a massive majority in 2020.
I could see them doubling their 2015 seat total ….. to two!
If all those new M.P.s are as bright as their councillors – God help us. Labour voting fodder here in Norfolk.
NFN
More ‘political neutrality’:
http://order-order.com/2015/04/30/balanced-bbc-forget-half-the-election-news-today/
Sillies; they’ll ‘forget’ their own heads next.
6.45 this morning. BBC, Radio 4, Today programme.
Only the BBC could discuss problems in Stafford NHS (1200 needless deaths under the last Labour government) and somehow turn it into an attack on Conservative NHS policy.
BBC reporter Hugh Pym started a story with sobbing woman talking about her awful recent treatment – no details, just tears. And then the accusation that her problems were all the fault of Conservatives.
No mention at all of labour’s role in 1200 deaths under their watch. Local Labour candidate allowed to speak at length with no interruptions and no challenges about labours record when in power.
Disgusting.
I listened to that and agree. Beyond belief.
What did go through my mind was that twice in the past few days, with senior Labour politicians being confronted about their NHS hypocrisy and their record in Stafford in particular, Labour / BBC activists urgently needed a knocking story to nullify those attacks.
This was it.
Later on in the bulletin, it was good to hear how well things were going in (Labour) Hull…what with all of those wind turbines. We had renewables providing a thousand jobs as well as a BBC Reporter asking about the impact of an EU withdrawal – implication; it will put those jobs and (Labour) Hull’s success at risk.
Every interview is always the same…straight from the BBC’s agenda
And the cost of each green job is…..?
I remember an article not long ago quoting £100k per job, but can’t find it.
In the meantime, this’ll do:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/11/doe-green-energy-loans-11-45-million-per-job-and-a-rounding-errors-worth-of-averted-carbon-emissions/
Yep, that’s DOE Green Energy Loans: $11.45 million per job and a rounding error’s worth of averted carbon emissions.
BBC forget half of the election news today – http://order-order.com/2015/04/30/balanced-bbc-forget-half-the-election-news-today/#_@/ZOH8hY0K8eNL9g
“Britain’s Labour Party Vows to Ban Islamophobia”
[Excerpt]:-
“With the ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour running neck and neck in the polls just days before voters cast their ballots, British Muslims — who voted overwhelmingly for Labour in the 2010 general election — could indeed determine who will be the next prime minister.”
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5665/uk-islamophobia-ban
Bang on message with the Hacked Off/Hope Not Hate agenda to outlaw any ‘negative’ coverage of Islam i.e. bringing it into line with BBC policy: ‘Islam is beyond criticism’.
Are Beeboids concerned about Miliband and ‘Thought Police’?-
“Dare to speak out and Ed will send in Thought Police,
warns LEO MCKINSTRY”
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/573060/Dare-speak-out-Ed-send-Thought-Police-Islamophobia-danger-to-Britain-warns-Leo-McKinstry
Part of the problem with the BBC is that they give equal air time (sometimes) to both sides of an argument irrespective of how absurd one side of the argument might be. Whilst this could be judged as impartial broadcasting, it doesn’t do justice to the facts of the matter.
If Person A argues that 2 + 2 = 4 and Person B counter-argues with the claim that 2 + 2 = 5, the ‘impartial’ BBC will treat both claims as valid for debate. However, if the BEEB becomes aware that Person A might actually be right and Person B utterly wrong, rather than allow the truth to come out naturally, the BBC – in it’s efforts to appear unbiased! – will push Person B’s argument above that of Person A in the misguided assumption that this will show more balance, therefore giving the appearance that the BBC is neutral.
But as we all know, it doesn’t!
“Part of the problem with the BBC is that they give equal air time (sometimes) to both sides of an argument irrespective of how absurd one side of the argument might be.”
Edward you’re commenting on a BBC I don’t recognize. The BBC has a position on what it sees as “right” or “wrong” and pushes hard on behalf of the “right” opinion. The classic example is Anthropogenic Global Warming. The BBC decided AGW was “true” and so no one who doubts the BBC’s “truth” gets a voice on any programme. The propaganda effort even extends to the comedy and drama departments.
No the BBc reports. The example of global warming is exactly the point. There is no scientific argument against it. If you think there is then show us the science.
When it comes to global warming, the BBC doesn’t report, it peddles (see Harrabin, Black etc).
You can only justify your argument if you can present credible evidence against AGM. I get that ,like many others, you don’t want to contemplate nasty things happening but your self denial isn’t shared by most responsible governments and their military assessments.
My argument is that that the BBC doesn’t report GW, it peddles it.
My main contribution to this site is by providing evidence that the AGW Theory is false by providing the formula for calibrating CO2 warming. I presume Manonclaphanomnibus has never read any of my postings, and lives in an ignorant world of left-wing censorship, reading the Guardian and watching the BBC. I know that the BBC has been provided the evidence by both Mensa members and presumably, Piers Corbyn, proving that the CO2 Theory and therefore the AGW Theory must be false. This is the crucial evidence from the Mensa article “BBC Censorship”
The temperature profile for any planetary atmosphere is relatively oblivious to how the atmosphere is heated as is shown by (Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Gerhard Gerlich, 2009). The paper (Unified Theory of Climate, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, 2011) shows that the average surface temperature divided by the grey body temperature gives you the magnitude of the Thermal inertia which resembles the response of the temperature/potential temperature ratio to the altitudinal changes of pressure described by the Poisson formula, with predictions matching evidence for Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan, Triton and the Moon, to prove that the physical nature of the so-called Greenhouse Effect is in fact a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement or Thermal Inertia which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition.
‘Part of the problem with the BBC is that they give equal air time (sometimes) to both sides of an argument…’
I think that ‘sometimes’ is pretty crucial here, particularly when it comes to global warming, immigration, Israel, the public sector, government borrowing,the NHS, capitalism, private education, the EU etc etc etc etc
Ok then substantiate your argument with evidence.Sadly as always the gutter press is pulling your strings.
It is a waste of time responding to you on this subject, I cannot see why anyone would bother.
With morons like Manonclaphanomnibus, I always try, but he may either forget the evidence, be unable to understand the evidence, or even confuse the meaning of the word evidence with assumption, due to wishful thinking.
In any case, we have a moron who is very confident about being correct, because he hasn’t seen the evidence on the BBC.
Sadly you are incapable of a response.thats the reason!
maybe you would like to explain the evidence in the theoretical text you sent me and indeed each page starting at the beginning. But as a keen gardener I shall be sure circulate the heat a bit more knowing my greenhouse it isn’t warming up because of the sun. If you want to maintain an air of scientific credibility may I suggest you refrain from associating gw with left wing.Its cheap,stupid and frankly irrelevant to the science and furthermore makes you sound like a twat.
I will look forward to your detail explanation in due course.
You know what I miss these days? Punctuation.
Seems there’s a shortage in some areas, so I have decided to donate some capitals, apostrophes and commas here:
ABDEFGHIJKLMOCO
………………
,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,
””””””
And some spaces:
PS: The Grimaldi family next door want their lawnmowered back.