WM POLL: TORY DEBATE VICTORY
– 40% say Amber Rudd won
– Corbyn second on 33%, Nuttall 22%
– 8,000 voted https://t.co/CiXVYNT82P— Westmonster (@WestmonsterUK) June 1, 2017
So who did win the debate, such as it was?
Kuenssberg told us that it should be chalked up to Corbyn….others disagree saying a poll immediately after the debate gave it to Rudd…which would be quite remarkable achievement for her in the face of a baying mob and 7 other opponents….
Westmonster Poll: Conservatives won debate
A Westmonster poll of almost 8,000 people immediately following last night’s BBC election debate has seen the Conservative Party’s Amber Rudd backed as the winner.
40% judged Rudd to have won, with Jeremy Corbyn in second place on 33%. Paul Nuttall was third on 22% and Tim Farron bringing up the rear on just 5%.
Though this poll is massively unscientific, the fact that 62% backed either Rudd of Nuttall, who were both derided by the live studio audience points to public reaction across the country to be much different to in the massively pro-Remain City of Cambridge.
Sad this wider range of opinion wasn’t reflected in the audience on the night.
Any sign of this on the BBC which normally is so quick to point out the slightest suggestion that a single job might be transferred to the EU?
Dutch bank ING moving jobs from Amsterdam to London. Still the powerhouse of Europe! ????????????????https://t.co/nnIXdGdlk3
— Westmonster (@WestmonsterUK) June 1, 2017
I didn’t watch the debate but I did see it being promoted by the BBC as a scientifically selected audience. I assumed therefore that the audience would be overwhelmingly biased to the Left, and that BBC journalists would chalk it up as victory for Jeremy Corbyn.
I notice today that the BBC is fending of criticism that the audience was Leftist mob, and that BBC journalists are promoting it as a victory for Jeremy Corbyn.
This is probably the most biased election reporting against the Conservatives I have ever seen on the BBC. You would think they are the broadcasting wing of the Left. It is as if they are signing the death warrant of the BBC. It surely cannot continue in its present form.
Like the EU it would be better if it was scrapped.
I suppose the audience was scientifically selected using the same criteria that Kim Jong-Un uses for his.
I read that ComRes apparently carefully selected the audience for the debate. Their website, if I have the correct ComRes is worth a look over – http://www.comresglobal.com/
To quote from their site:
“We bridge the worlds of research and communications. For more than a decade we have taken the latest developments in opinion research and tailored them to provide clients with evidence and insights, helping to inform strategies, change behaviour and define debates.”
Sound very much like common purpose/nudging unit to me.
I wonder if ComRes selected participants for BBC Seminars.
It would explain why a Seminar with the “best scientific experts” did not included any real experts such as causational climate scientists.
And it would also explain why a “scientifically selected audience” would “bridge the worlds of (scientific) research and (political) communications” to “change behaviour (towards an aggressive leftist mob type behaviour) and define debates (as over)”
What is really annoying is that the BBC never accepts criticism on any major subject. It seems to be unable to even contemplate that it is wrong sometimes as are all people and organisations.
So a lot of us just write it off as beyond any reform now. I am just fed up with it. It is like a bad smell and you just want it to go away somewhere else.
Time was I supported it as a fine thing . Now ? Just a waste of money and time.
What on earth are you going on about?
The BBC is the only media organisation in the country that gives over substantial amounts of broadcast time to discuss criticism of itself. You would never see any other news organisation running stories about criticism of themselves, they prefer just to pretend it isn’t happening.
In the wake of the Jimmy Saville scandal they even had entire investigative programs… investigating themselves.
Meanwhile, how much coverage of News of the World phone hacking scandal and the Leveson Inquiry did you see in the News of the World? None at all.
Must be on another planet
The BBC’s Savile Paedophile Cover-Up
Savile, another BBC darling with terrorist connections.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-ira-predator-boasted-1389710?service=responsiv
Are you joking ?
The News of the World closed itself down as a result of the phone hacking.Journalists went to tril and a couple to prison
If only the BBC would do that .So they investigate themselves.Big deal. Its tokenism . What do they do about their conclusions though ?Nothing. Shuffle a few highly paid managers about or give someone a lucrative golden goodbye.
Why cannot we have an independant enquiry about the workings of the BBC .Lets get to the bottom of how they really form their policies .and spend our money .
The News of The World was not extorting money out of me .I had a choice not to pay for it .Why should I be forced to pay a tax on fear of prison because I want to watch a TV..?
At the risk of flogging a dead horse, here goes.
No one forced anyone to buy a copy of the NOTW; the BBC is anything but elective.
The BBC has a public duty to inspect itself; the press has none as such.
Jonathanp
Which department in the al Beeb do you work for. ?there is a vast difference between albeeb doing half hour of The Media Show or that waste of air on the news channel – and actually someone from albeeb coming on and saying ” we were wrong” . If an albeeb manager is put on air they either deny the allegation or just go defensive. And it never changes. But the have cut J saville and DLT and Rolf out of their repeat show though….
Yes, yes I used to think it was God broadcasting. Then I got a shock and realised it was not God but a bunch of overpaid undereducated loonys feeding me garbage. They appear to be hastening their own demise but they regard themselves as superior from the rest of us and completely untouchable. Even the most powerful crumble eventually.
Labour have announced that every person in the UK will be given £1,000,000 if labour win the GE.
This will be paid for from the rise in corporation tax and the rise in income tax on those in the top 5% of tax payers.
Next year everyone will be given a free house paid for from the rise in corporation tax.
Also, to keep both sides of the nuclear deterrent, pro and against, happy, Corbyn will both scrap Trident and renew it at the same time.
Emmanuel ,
I wonder if you are being funny?
Labour will also plant a forest full of money trees to pay for all the promises. If Labour get enough seats to form a coalition we face another bloody election again in about 4 months when the whole thing falls apart.
I’m still banking on a workable conservative majority . There are a lot more older voters than under 30s and I think his anti Britain history won’t be totally airbrushed
Another from Westmonster, for ‘balance’…
http://www.westmonster.com/tim-farron-gets-nailed-by-andrew-neil-over-second-referendum-wish/
Maybe best to get Nick Clegg back on ‘reporting’ for Newsnight again.
It’s in his DNA.
“…others disagree saying a poll immediately after the debate gave it to Rudd…”
“Others” being one Arron Banks in a poll of ‘people who support Arron Banks’. Truly desperate stuff.
“Any sign of this on the BBC: ‘Dutch bank ING moving jobs from Amsterdam to London. Still the powerhouse of Europe!’”
How many jobs? For some reason neither Westmoner, or you (did you even bother to find out?) give a figure. Why is that?
Possibly because it amounts to a grand total of 43.
“Powerhouse of Europe!”
You’re a clown, Alan.
maxi, think you missed this:
“So who did win the debate, such as it was?
Kuenssberg told us that it should be chalked up to Corbyn…”
and, this
“which would be quite remarkable achievement for her in the face of a baying mob and 7 other opponents….”
and the qualification that Alan quotes fully
“Though this poll is massively unscientific, the fact that 62% backed either Rudd of Nuttall, who were both derided by the live studio audience points to public reaction across the country to be much different to in the massively pro-Remain City of Cambridge.”.
Then there is also this that you have appeared to miss, too, : “… BBC which normally is so quick to point out the slightest suggestion that a single job might be transferred to the EU?”
You did read the whole post, didn’t you?
Alan may have a part-time job as a childrens entertainer but us grown-ups know that he would have to do something to finance his enormous contribution to this web-site.
Amber Rudd won hands down, on the basis she kept her cool under attack from all sides. She tried to talk sense even if the audience didnt want to hear it.
Im no fan of hers but listening on radio they sounded like a bunch of crows arguing over a scrap of food.All noise no substance.
Paul Nuttal made the most sensible and non PC remarks about terrorism .Every one else was too scared to cal it what it is.
From the reports on the morning after and throughout Thursday, I found that that particular political debate on TV was a great advertisement and incentive for giving up the TV Licence and no longer watching television. I took great delight in thinking what a benefit being legally Licence-free has brought.
Comfy cushion on a garden seat, nice cuppa or glass of something, Party manifestos in print (abbreviated?) form, together with any leaflets delivered for local candidates, enjoy the bird song instead of overtalking debaters and a baying, biased audience while thinking through the issues. 🙂
Just like to second that. I really do avoid the BBC rather than get upset about it any more. Its clear to any intelligent person that the BBC does not represent the UK but a narrow faction of EU biased sympathizers and well seasoned anarchists of which they are certainly more proud off than the secret admiration of ‘Russia’. Now it’s anything anything ‘anti-British’ and ‘pro EU’ which equates to the same thing. I can certainly live without it but I read about the BBC all the time in the papers currently its sexual encounters of its BBC radio presenters to underage boys. The week before that, it was a vast pay rise for BBC ‘top’ management (already on £300,000+). But that pales into insignificance when you consider the millions pocked by another 18 (yes eighteen) private BBC Limited companies that are distanced from the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and therefore are ‘private’ cash cows for the BBC elite who naturally work for more than one private BBC company (all with direct links to the BBC). And then only this week I read that (at last) HMRC are tightening the grip on ‘private contract companies’ that are being used by BBC staff and ‘luvvies’ to offset any ’employment tax’ of which they are the sole proprietor and offsetting that against the BBC stipend they already ‘earn’, (where they do pay PAYE tax), that is when they are not employed on personal ‘contract’ basis.
So I know it all goes on, but thanks to the largely ‘free press’ everybody else get to know about it. One thing that does grate (and one that the BBC is entirely ‘culpable’ and guilty is that the BBC as a CORPORATION pays absolutely no corporation tax (at all). This has being going on for years and yet the BBC will point out the other ‘global companies’ like Apple, NetFlix, Amazon, pay little or no tax either. The point is , everybody else does and the BBC is not a private company and should pay corporate taxes if it wishes to remain ‘corporate’. The other option is a name change to the BBC as a ‘collective’ (like the Co-op) which it more represents in more ways than one.
So I despise the BBC. Loathe it in fact. Avoid it (BBC) in practice but it is impossible to ignore if you read the papers, there is an odd fascination with the depravity of the BBC and its ‘denial’ that it represents the BBC’ cultural values. But they do, that’s the problem, they do represent all that’s wrong with the Civil Service liberal values in which Marx and Trotsky are revered whilst Tax avoidance is damned (for everybody else) whilst it’s TOTALLY NORMAL at the BBC. (as is private heathcare (BUPA) and gold plated private and corporate pensions schemes. It will never make a profit if it sold cars.
Up2
And in the winter you can light a fire with all the letters from tv licensing gestapo telling you ” we have opened an investigation”. Brillo is the only journo on albeeb worth watching as he gives every one a hard but reasonable time and knows his facts and numbers…and not blustering like humphrys paxo or dimbley