April 18th, 2014

Grassroots Tories Back Farage Over Plain Packs Plan

As polling of Conservative Grassroots tells their party to ditch plain packaging for cigarettes and Farage is making this an issue to smoke out Tories for UKIP:

“We are now on the verge of a Conservative-led government going for plain packaging on cigarettes. I can scarcely believable how stupid these people are are. It’s been tried in Australia and it’s been manna from heaven for organised crime and for counterfeiters. It is a daft and stupid thing to do. Frankly, if you’re going to have plain packaging for cigarettes, why not on a bottle of Pernod, or a bottle of beer, or on a Krispy Kreme doughnut? Where does this end? I think the state is really far, far outreaching itself.”

Public health nanny Jane Ellison should ask herself how many votes she is sending UKIP’s way…


355 Comments

  1. 1
    JH398i49234-032 says:

    We may as well have plain packaging on all the major parties.

    Like

    • 6

      A proper pair, she and Dr Wollaston with her “outlaw £4.99″ crusade (when she’s not trying to imprison people for consensual sex).

      If these people are conservatives, I’m a banana.

      Like

      • 36
        canaan banana says:

        Me too.

        Like

        • 121
          broderick crawford says:

          CHOMP Chomo Mmmmm….I like banansa but hold up … I think this one s been infected with a political virus …. throw it in the bin afore it poisons you .

          Like

          • Lord Wellard of No Apologies says:

            Shilling for fags looks like Guido’s new agenda – first for the despicable Evans, now for the merchants of death exploiting the mostly young teens who’re suckered into smoking before they know better, harming their health and ending up mostly addicted for life and reeking foully wherever they go.

            Starting now, the minimum age for buying and smoking cigarettes ought to be increased by one year, every year, so that in time we can cut smoking down to the same small minority who abuse other substances.

            Like

          • waltc says:

            You’re wrong, Lord…Whatever. He’s shilling for consumers, ordinary folks who want to know what they’re buying. Imagine that you want to have a Rolls Royce engine but all cars look alike (all colored olive drab with pictures of dead bloody drivers on the doors) and you can’t know what you’ve bought till you get the thing delivered and discover it’s a cheap piece of off-brand tin with the power of two horses. Perhaps more aptly, imagine that all women were forced to wear burkas, the kind that cover their heads and their faces. even their eyes. It would surely make it difficult to know who you want to date, but do you think it would stop teenage boys from wanting sex?

            The Australian experiment with similar plain packaging has shown it has no effect on teen smoking. None. Not a bit. As common sense would say. And while cars and women may be chosen for their looks as well as their other attributes,. nobody ever in the history of the planet has ever started smoking because of a sexy pack.

            Like

          • No smoke without fire. says:

            Is it a straight or bendy banana?

            Like

      • 86
        jimboooo says:

        What’s the 4.99 thing? Honest question, never heard about it and couldn’t find it on google.

        Like

    • 72
      Jessicacacaca Reed, Guardian middle-class "liberal", pre-packaged dopey pc opinions on twitter says:

      Farage is just another white male. We need more diversity and quotas. ACT NOW

      The UN has officially declared Britain the most sexist country in the world. We need to work to stop this.

      Like

    • 79
      The BBC's man. That's Dave. says:

      Dave is the Government version of the BBC.

      Plain fags, married faggots and their Eu flag waver.

      Like

    • 123
      broderick crawford says:

      Yes…. as then they can use it to frame their policies . Judging by their depth and forethought the back of a plain fag packet will provide ample space .

      Like

    • 128
      wolf olins says:

      exactly. Undifferentiated.

      Like

    • 173
      Ruth Smeeth plc says:

      I want plain packaging on my other halfs secret political background.

      Like

    • 196
      Ex Smoker says:

      Good call sir, how long would it be before you could by a tin with a flip top with all the advertising as was of Ebay

      Like

    • 310
      Wendi's Karate Chop to the Gonads says:

      What did you expect and why on earth would you be supporting all the Camerony-Baloney nonsense if you understand that this is an important issue of personal freedom?

      Like

    • 355
      JIMMY says:

      IM VOTING UKIP IF FARAGE IS AGAINST WHITE PACKAGING. PERHAPS UKIP MIGHT REVERSE THIS NONSENSE OF SELLING FAGS AND BACCY BEHIND CUPBOARD DOORS IN OUR SHOPS.

      COME ON NIGEL THIS IS GIVING THE TORIES SOMETHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!!

      Like

  2. 2
    Podiceps says:

    Let’s have plain packaging and identical boxes, so that you don’t know whether you’re buying a packet of cigarettes or a bottle of Pernod or beer, or a Krispy Kreme doughnut. That’ll keep the bloody public in their place, eh?

    Like

    • 108
      Maximus says:

      Socialism applied to commodities.

      Like

    • 200
      Ex Smoker says:

      Reminds me of Arkwright when all the labels came of the tins in the stockroom, came in handy when sailing later in life marked all the tins with a big black pen

      Like

    • 338
      Norman Normal says:

      Better idea would be to make it compulsory for cigarette manufacturers to insert those joke exploders in 10% of their product.

      Like

  3. 3
    nell says:

    The tories need to leave the concept of the nannying state to labour. The rest of us believe we are able to make adult choices for ourselves without being dictated to by nonsensicle ‘do as I say not do as I do’MP’s. These people are utterly tiresome!!

    Like

    • 12
      Anonymous says:

      You’ll still be able to choose to smoke. Indeed, without the psychological effects of advertising and branding, you will be in even more control over your choices. So hurrah!

      Like

      • 17
        Anonymous says:

        You poor sod

        Like

      • 19
        nell says:

        No. Not hurrah! This has not worked in Australia and it will not work here. But more importantly , those who chose to smoke , and I in fact do not, have the right to know what brand they are buying . This proposal is a nonsense .

        Like

        • 145
          SIZE 14 CARBON FOOTPRINT says:

          Not worked in Australia ,in what bizarre way is it supposed to ‘work’ ?

          Like

          • Vlad the Loudhailer says:

            I would like to have each sheet of my toilet paper branded with a smiling picture of the leader of the Labour, Tory and Lib Dems. This would make wiping more enjoyable!

            Like

          • Ex Smoker says:

            They are so far up each others asses I don’t think they would have time

            Like

        • 332
          PDubya says:

          Could not agree more. Plain packaging along with the total smoking ban in public places has nothing to do with public health but socialist dogma in the form of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS writ large. If Cameron wants to alienate a lot of tories and I count myself as one then carry on with this pathetic campaign of individual rights removed because of the “we think we know better than you brigade”.

          Like

      • 39
        Dr. White says:

        You utter tampon.

        Like

        • 116
          B3 says:

          Maybe you should smoke nell. It might c al m y ou dow n.

          Like

          • Vlad the Inhaler says:

            Fuck off, Cameron. Stand down and go and learn fretwork or something equally fulfilling. It’s your family, too, that’s being fucked by the EU. We’re all being fucked by the EU. Let’s give David Davis a go. He’s not perfect, but then who is?

            Like

  4. 4
    Anonymous says:

    You should clarify that this is the name of a small sub-group, rather than (as it attempts to imply) the party membership as a whole.

    Like

  5. 5
    BC says:

    Farage is correct. These interfering and small minded bastards want to control every aspect of our lives.

    Like

    • 7
      Anonymous says:

      You can stil smoke. In fact, as they can no longer spend money on branding, you will probably be able to smoke for less money.

      Like

      • 22
        nell says:

        Government’s have more important things to address than the trivia of marketing and packaging.

        Like

        • 33
          Dave *careing look* says:

          We care. Topics like gay marriage and making all cigarette packets white are very important to the typical Tory voter.

          Like

        • 60
          UKIP or bust says:

          “Government’s have more important things to address”

          Not true, the important things are addressed in Brussels (with the consent of Dave, Goofy and Clogg et al) and then member ‘states’ (they are never refered to as countries) are told what to do.

          Like

          • broderick crawford says:

            All right have some plain black fag packets as well, but ma ke sure you supply a white marker pen with them .

            Like

          • J.M Barroso says:

            Yes it was going to be the parish council of UK, but Dave has suddenly got god so it’ll have to be the Church fundraising committee of UK.

            Like

          • Learning Disability says:

            @UKIP or Bust

            Greece is referred to as Greek when they’re talking about it’s debt. See how that works? Your a member state when you’re paying in, you’re a sovereign states when you want anything back.

            Like

      • 68
        jgm2 says:

        Since a packet of fags costs about 20p to manufacture and the other seven quid or more is tax I seriously doubt cigarettes would come down significantly in pr*ic*e.

        Like

        • 111
          Smokers stench says:

          Quite aa amount to spend to make sure that you stink obnoxiously.

          Like

          • harleyrider1778 says:

            This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

            http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

            Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

            By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

            Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

            What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

            “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

            Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

            The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

            Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

            146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

            A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

            Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

            Like

      • 296
        roobeedoo2 says:

        No Bellend. Circa 80% of the cost of smoking is tax. You know, that stuff that goes towards playing for schools and hospitals, for hardworking families, up and down the sodding country. One Nation, or a Big Society, unless you smoke. Then you’re made to step outside but pay for everybody else’s round before you go.

        I will only vote for a party that recognises the positive contribution smokers make.

        Isn’t it funny how everything went tits up in 2007 at roughly the same time. If I were a junky (for public money) like to ‘experts’ our junky government can’t do without, I would claim with 123% authority that the Smoking Ban caused the Financial Crash of 2007. But then I know correlation does not imply causation. However, the tobacco advertising ban did clear the field for the pharmaceutical companies to fund any research, and get it be published in esteemed journals or on global junkets. Sometimes correlation and causation are the same – drugs cause junkies.

        Like

      • 348
        No smoke without fire. says:

        Smoke for less money, wanna bet?

        Like

    • 58
      Anonymous says:

      :thumbsup: :smile: :razz:

      Like

  6. 8
    Corby says:

    I am a life long non-smoker but am with Farage all the way on this.

    Smoker may care about their brand – I do not – but smokers are surely entitled to know, at a glance, what they are buying.

    Everyone now knows the risks of smoking so, if people weigh up the pleasures vs the risks, and decide that the pleasures outweigh the risks that is their decision and we should respect it.

    Governments in general try to do too much, fretting about diet and life style. It is high time the people told them that it is none of their business. As the late, great, RR put it, “The most frightening words in the English language are. ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

    Like

    • 32
      Too Far says:

      MMM! You are spot on…It’s a pity the “PC” tossers don’t get it!
      UKIP are for most of the people, that have to earn a “crust of bread” need beer tokens after a hard working day…..and don’t rely on the state to tell them what to spend their hard earned cash on……Iv’e worked bloody hard all my working life, never claimed anything ..dole bennnyfittts, maybe a fool, but at least I can sleep at night, not being a ponce living of other hard earned “beer tokens!!)

      Like

    • 81
      Oik says:

      Roland Rat?

      Like

    • 97
      thostids says:

      The basic problem that we individuals have now, is that what we want like buying the actual brand of cigarette we like and want, or using one of these Vapers (or whatever it is called), it is that whoever is really running this Country has decided that we, as individuals, are going to be shown that we do not get what we want. The “Westminster Elite” or the bastards that have seized control of Parliament and have spent their time filling the Quangos and organs of State with their placemen ( non-sexual term) are merely “doing God’s purpose” as one of them recently volunteered. I heard the Establishment called lots of things but not “god”, yet.
      Well, news for them is that they can go on believing in the Psephologist’s black arts and the belief that no matter what they put their name to, and Cameronian Pride in The Cottagers’ Contract is really rubbing our nose in the stench of Westminster’s favourite vice, they will piss off quite enough to give them all such a kick in their collective crotch that their Electoral Advisers will be having to steal Collecting tins for a living.

      Like

  7. 9
    Very Much Decided says:

    And while we’re at it let’s have plain speaking from the Weasel Worded Woos of Westminster.

    The dissembling dipstick, furtive fucker and two-faced liar is little or no better than B£iar or Grouniad Brhoon or the fucking BBC.

    PERISH THE LOT OF THEM IN THEIR OWN FILTHY LIES AND CONNIVING

    A Politically Correct Pox on all of them!

    Vote Tory????? – never ever again!!

    Like

    • 28
      A daft blue-rinsed Tory canvasser says:

      We’ll put you down as a Maybe, then.

      Like

    • 228
      Like It says:

      You’ve provided my comment of the week:

      “Let’s have plain speaking from the Weasel Worded Woos of Westminster.”

      That ought to be a cross-party demand. But too few of us demand it strongly enough.

      Like

  8. 10
    Anonymous says:

    I fear for Farage if he can’t identify the differences between a cigarette and a doughnut……

    Like

  9. 11
    john in cheshire says:

    Common Purpose, lead beyond authority, sedition. That’s what I think we are seeing.

    Like

  10. 14
    Anonymong says:

    I see the BBC have quickly changed their headline about the Brighton Jihadi dupe who was recently sent to see his 72 goats in Syria.

    I guess they eventually figured that having the original headline “Father: ‘my son died in Syria for a just cause'” on their website front page might not be the most balanced view of the situation.

    I presume they were referring to the just cause of beheading anyone who disagrees with their blood-soaked fairy stories.

    It’s ‘died in battle’ now. Had to keep it sounding noble without drawing too many accusations of glorifying Jihad. Gotta love the BBC.

    Like

    • 21
      Helpful Advisor says:

      For those who have never tried to deflower a goat, there are a range of pamphlets and a/v aids available from

      The Musso Information Centre, c/o Red Ken at the Bacon of Izlum

      Like

    • 23
      Three more wøgs who should be strung up. says:

      Three teenagers from Brent have been charged with the gang r@pe of a 16-year-old girl in Harlesden.

      Qatar Osman Abdi, 18, of St Thomas’ Road, Harlesden, is due to appear at Hammersmith Youth Court today accused of two counts of r@pe against the girl.

      A 16 year-old boy, from Harlesden, who cannot be name for legal reasons, has been accused of four counts of r@pe against the same girl and a second boy, also 16, from Wembley, is charged with a single count of the same offence.

      Both boys will appear alongside Abdi.

      The trio are claimed to have carried out the sex attack on March 16

      Like

      • 31
        Bert says:

        Life imitating art:

        Like

      • 127
        broderick crawford says:

        yeah .. which brings me to my hobby horse .

        People accused and in the dock are USUALLY named EXCEPT ” .. those who cannot be named for legal reasons .. ..”

        WHY ? Are they being tried on another charge in a separate trial ?

        So what .. publish and be damned .

        Like

        • 152
          SIZE 14 CARBON FOOTPRINT says:

          This is the result of more ECHR nonsense which enables ‘juveniles ‘ ,to hide behind anonymity.
          If the Bulger case were to happen today we would scarcely be aware of it, if at all !

          Like

  11. 15
    ukip.i.am.not says:

    I thought Lynton Crosby had already decided that this was a bad idea.
    Is that why Dunce Dave has resurrected it?

    Like

    • 70
      jgm2 says:

      This will almost certainly be another EU initiative in the pipeline. Dave is just enacting it as if it was his big idea before it becomes obvious it’s a JFDI from Europe. Just like gay marriage. Just like ba*nn*ing smoking in public places.

      Like

  12. 16
    nell says:

    What we are seeing here is mp’s so totally arrogant in their belief that they are superior to the rest of us . So totally deluded as to believe that they have the right to dictate how the rest of us should behave.

    And these of course are the immoral, overweight, drunken mp’s who are unashamed to trough and defraud the public of money any which way they can.

    Like

  13. 18
    True story says:

    What first inspired me to smoke were the moody characters I saw in French art house movies.
    Those guys never seemed short of girls with big muffs willing to drop their knickers.
    I thought how can an ugly man with such a huge nose get so much pussy?
    My conclusion was it had to be the fags and the more rakish the angle they were smoked the better.
    By the time I worked out that in reality most Frenchman are just a bunch of wankers with no hope of a bunk up it was too late.
    I was hooked on cigs.
    Ban art house movies and save the next generation.

    Like

  14. 20
    Labour Loser says:

    We the Labour Losers came up with the daft & stupid idea. The government via the daft & stupid cow Maria felt compelled to enforce our daft & stupid ideas which does not address addiction.

    Ha ha!

    Like

  15. 24
    Thrifty ideas says:

    Plain Baccy Bags will be useful for putting your bits n pieces in. Excellent!

    Like

  16. 26
    @hatetories says:

    David Cameron:
    Big fat gammon faced godbothering spunkflute. How about turning some water into wine and do the loaves and fishes thing for those poor souls you and your attack dogs IBS & Laud Fraud have demonised and sent to the food banks? The hypocrisy of this nasty piece of work is unfathomable…

    Like

    • 40
      Too Far says:

      And you? worrid about your hard earned Benniiffiitts… FFS!

      Like

      • 45
        Too Far says:

        HO! there will be time when there will be FAGS available on food banks, or the odd plasma 50″ tv for the poor people, or maybe free sky TV!

        Like

        • 143
          Forget Heysel, Remember Hillsborough says:

          I go to food banks, me, like, cos me bennies only cover the drugs, bevvy and fags these days, like, so the food banks are a Godsend, like. And tellys coming soon? I’m made up, now, me.

          Like

        • 171
          Howzat1932 says:

          Whilst we are on food banks,if one is to provide a product or service free the call will soon exceed the ability to provide that’s when government subsidy begins.pulling up in range rovers for food parcels will begin and goods being sold cheap market stalls can only follow.There must be a person who is making a profit from this scam.

          Like

  17. 29
    The British media are cunts says:

    Isn’t it about time the Tories took a break from messing with fags?

    Like

  18. 34
    C O (Ξ7q1) says:

    Looking back over the BBC vs UK Public newspaper purchases, and possible impact on bias, the following are some rather surprising results.

    The raw data for daily purchases 2013:

    Paper | BBC / Day | BBC % / Day | Public / day | Public % / Day
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    FT    |     42275 |       7.51% |       234193 |          3.16%
    T     |     72638 |      12.91% |       384304 |          5.18%
    DT    |     71929 |      12.78% |       544546 |          7.35%
    I     |     59449 |      10.56% |        66576 |          0.90%
    G     |     75555 |      13.43% |       207958 |          2.81% 
    DMail |     68226 |      12.12% |      1780585 |         24.02%
    DE    |     40056 |       7.12% |       500473 |          6.75%
    S     |     60216 |      10.70% |      2213659 |         29.86%
    DS    |     17688 |       3.14% |       489067 |          6.60%
    DMirr |     54744 |       9.73% |       992256 |         13.38%
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total |    562776 |     100.00% |      7413617 |        100.00%
    

    Using detail from h**ps://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/uk-newspaper-guide.cfm, the political / publication formats of the newspapers are as follow:

    Paper |             Leaning |       Type
    ----------------------------------------
    FT    | Economic Liberalism | Broadsheet
    T     |        Center-Right | Broadsheet
    DT    |        Center-Right | Broadsheet
    I     |         Center-Left | Broadsheet
    G     |         Center-Left | Broadsheet
    DMail |               Right |  Midmarket
    DE    |               Right |  Midmarket
    S     |               Right |    Tabloid
    DS    |               Right |    Tabloid
    DMirr |                Left |    Tabloid
    

    First observation:

    Of the 10 papers considered:

    6 lean to the right.
    3 lean to the left.

    Second observation:

    50% of the publications considered are ‘Broadsheet’.

    Slicing the above daily purchasing data by political leaning, considering Center-Left / and Center-Right as simple Left / Right, and classifying the FT as ‘Centerist’ the following picture emerges of the differences between the daily purchasing of papers by the BBC vs. the public:

               Political Leaning
           |   L    |   C   |    R
    ---------------------------------
    BBC    | 33.72% | 7.51% |  58.77%
    Public | 17.09% | 3.16% |  79.75%
    ---------------------------------			
    Delta  | 16.63% | 4.35% | -20.98%
    

    The BBC purchases more left leaning publications and significantly less right leaning publications than the general public.

    This was demonstrated in an earlier post.

    However, despite the biases, well over half of the publications purchased on an average day by the BBC are right leaning, with only 1/3 of publications being left leaning.

    The notion that the BBC consumes more left leaning publications than right leaning is false, however, it is more left leaning compared with the general public and certainly discriminates against particularly publications as demonstrated earlier.

    One can conclude that if BBC broadcast output is left biased, then this is not reflected in its consumption of published UK newsprint media, unless of course they do not bother reading 58.77% of their daily purchase or are acting under direct editorial guidance.

    On the matter of type of publication:

                     Publication Type
           | Broadsheet | Midmarket | Tabloid
    -----------------------------------------	
    BBC    |     57.19% |    19.24% |  23.57%
    Public |     19.39% |    30.77% |  49.84%
    -----------------------------------------			
    Delta  |     37.80% |   -11.53% | -26.27%
    

    The BBC clearly do buy significantly more Broadsheet publications compared to the Public, and significantly less Tabloid and Midmarket compared to the UK Public.

    Like

    • 47
      Anonymong says:

      Sophistry.

      Like

      • 62
        C O (Ξ7q1) says:

        It is a continuation from an earlier blog item, and a deeper post which I put up here:

        http://tinyurl.com/lst4kaz

        I personally find the BBC a bit left wing, but have read numerous articles which argue that it isn’t. Whilst not agreeing with those, examining the BBC from the point of view of UK media that it purchases is a very valid angle which both Breitbart and G’uido have recently highlighted.

        As someone commented previously, looking more closely at what the BBC actually transmits, ie. %’age of quotes sourcing from publications vs. it and the UK Public’s relative consumption of those sources, would be much more relevant in proving if BBC output diverges from general consensus and opinion.

        It would be interesting to see, based on that, if such a bias exists viz the BBC’s own daily purchase of UK media then the suggestion that there is explicit editorial collusion (which breaks Charter) could be shown, or it may be the case that license fee payers money is being wasted on purchasing UK news media which is not subsequently used or sourced appropriately.

        Like

    • 99
      Ockham's Razor says:

      Excellent analysis!

      Another observation, if I may. No one who works for the BBC pays for their own paper. I do. You do. Most others here do, if they buy one at all. Yet we as licence-fee taxpayers (OK not me any more – but I did for 35 years) have to pay for our papers – whilst also paying for theirs.

      Why should that be?

      Like

      • 130
        C O (Ξ7q1) says:

        The same argument can be extended to schools, and other publicly funded institutions which provide purchased media for staff.

        The following FOI may be of interest to you – BBC Staffing Levels:

        http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20111450_number_of_bbc_employees.pdf

        This will be a bit apples + oranges:

        Assuming that the total staff BBC employed in 2013 is the same as in 2011, ie. 19995, the BBC were purchasing in total 562776 newspapers per day.

        That works out to 28 news papers for each member of staff.

        As only 10 different publications are considered, that means if for staff just over 2 of each publication are being purchased for each member of staff.

        If the BBC were purchasing one copy of each for all staff, what does it do with the remaining 362,826 per day which cannot be accounted for by staff use ?

        That is a lot of news paper, and perhaps a very relevant question.

        Like

        • 141
          Ockham's Razor says:

          The apples and oranges aspect is the least important here. No logical adjustment can explain that enormous disparity away.

          One possibility is that those who work in the “commercial” subsidiaries, not included in the linked FoI reply, are charging their papers up to the corporation. Even that would not close the gap enough though.

          What the hell is this, if not massive theft?

          Why is Plod not in there?

          Like

          • C O (Ξ7q1) says:

            Unless the BBC are giving away free papers to the general public, it doesn’t.

            Even the argument that they may put them out in waiting rooms / on news desks etc. likely would not explain where 360k news papers can go on a daily basis.

            Could be that this is a state supported way of subsidizing the UK newspaper industry a little, or it could be part of an ongoing massive fraud of sorts. It is definitely odd.

            NB: If the BBC do provide at least one newspaper per staff member, looking above, they have either shed 2000 staff into 2013 from 2011, or they do not supply all staff with a copy of the Daily Star.

            Hmm…. ;-)

            Like

          • Ockham's Razor says:

            I feel an exposé coming on.

            Mr Fawkes, this is surely a job for you!

            Like

          • Tom Catesby. says:

            If newspapers are supplied to all BBC staff, free. Is this not a taxable ‘good’, over and above any other of the opinions suggested. The whole thing looks like a matter for investigation anyway.

            Like

    • 129

      People tend to choose papers that reflect their prejudices.

      Like

      • 139
        C O (Ξ7q1) says:

        I fully agree with you on that point, for individuals.

        But is it also true for institutions ? Short answer: No – An apparent paradox for publicly funded institutions.

        For the institution, as someone else mentioned on previous thread, it is perhaps more instructive to look at the actual output and compare that against it’s purchasing habits to test the institutional point which certainly does apply to an individual.

        That could help make a case for testing the hypothesis formally that there is indeed editorial bias at the BBC which would be contrary to its Royal Charter.

        It is also interesting to look at how different a UK public institution such as the BBC differs from the UK public in its habits.

        Someone made an interesting observation about the Independent on previous thread. The blog piece here flagged out the Indy also (but that was a spurious result :-) ) – however – if the Indy is getting more coverage now on the BBC that is profoundly significant and certainly does warrant deeper investigation.

        Like

    • 241
      Realistic says:

      The amount of papers the BBC buys is ridiculous. However, one aspect overlooked in the stats is that the BBC buys approaching 40% of the Guardian’s total sales. This is far in excess of the equvalent %age for any other paper. It is therefore keeping the Guardian from insolvency. So, is this the real reason the BBC buys so many papers – to mask it’s crucial financial support for it’s favourite paper?

      Like

      • 250
        C O (Ξ7q1) says:

        According to the figures it is about 25% – see below ;-)

        The Indy is most dependent on the BBC, which seems to account for about 7% of the total UK newspaper purchases.

        Like

    • 264
      Owen's Elementary Maths teacher says:

      These figures are absurd.

      Surely they are numbers bought per year, not per day.

      Incredible that you can do so much analysis based on such a ridiculous premise — not merely a typo as you repeat that the figures are per day.

      Like

      • 276
        C O (Ξ7q1) says:

        Just re-checked the Breitbart report:

        h**p://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/16/BBC-Buys-More-Guardian-Than-Any-Other-Paper

        I think you are correct:

        ‘Over the past 12 months, the BBC bought 75,555 copies of the Guardian, against just 60,216 copies of Britain’s most popular paper, the Sun.’

        Adjusting the sheet shouldn’t take too long – will be interesting to see what changes.

        Like

    • 289
      FFS says:

      If you think the Times and Telegraph are right-wing, you really are deluded.

      Daily-Mail is pretty much centre-left… e.g.: they treat bumming as though it’s normal, and not a mental illness; and drone on about wacism, as much as any far-left trolling rag like the Gaydian or Bumdependant.

      Like

      • 299
        C O (Ξ7q1) says:

        I posted the source for that. It is not my opinion on the leanings.

        Am posting correction below (for the yearly vs. daily BBC purchase faux-pas – only changes the concern about daily paper purchases – nothing much else) – I shall redo that part of the analysis with your suggestions for political leaning n/p.

        Like

      • 305
        C O (Ξ7q1) says:

        @FFS: Ok – marking down the T’imes, DT, and Dmail as being left leaning yields the following:

                   Political Leaning
               |   L    |   C   |    R
        ---------------------------------
        BBC    | 72.47% | 6.84% |  20.69%
        Public | 53.63% | 3.16% |  43.21%
        ---------------------------------			
        Delta  | 18.84% | 3.68% | -22.52%
        

        The BBC purchases more left leaning publications and significantly less right leaning publications than the general public.

        Now, over 2/3 of the publications purchased on an average day by the BBC are left leaning, with just over 1/5 of publications being right leaning.

        The BBC still purchases significantly more left leaning publications and significantly less right leaning publications than the UK Public.

        Like

    • 341
      Wendi's Karate Chop to the Gonads says:

      I find these totals quite amazing. The BBC employs only about 20-23,000 people (so Google tells me). They can’t each have 2 copies or more of some of these papers! And anyway, a lot of them will be technicians and other staff who have no particular interest in perusing the broadsheets.

      Where the hell do all the papers go? I have an image of huge piles of them just going into recycling bins at the end of the day.

      A paper like the Independent must be completely “dependent” rather than independent – it must rely almost entirely on sales to the BBC, Sky, local radio stations and big firms in the city. The number of real punters must be close to zero!

      Like

    • 353
      John says:

      You can’t infer anything from the sales figures because for starters many people read the Daily Mail simply because they manage to picture either Kelly Brook or Myleene Klass in a bikini every day.

      Nobody reads the articles… if they did they would realise what a bunch of fruitcakes (Melanie Phillips, Liz Jones, Richard Littlejohn) write for it.

      Like

  19. 35
    Dr Evil says:

    Why does our moronic government kow tow to these public health extremists? These neoprohibitionists are zealots extraordinaire and should be slapped down, not encouraged.

    Like

    • 42
      C O (Ξ7q1) says:

      Perhaps they wish to encourage counterfeit cigarette production and lower benefits by encouraging benefits claimants who smoke onto cheaper brands.

      Like

    • 65
      Pubic Health Extremist says:

      ‘Why does our moronic government kow tow to these public health extremists?

      Because, you know, like, we swing, yeah, we got the pubic ear, we scare the common people shitless – just like that!!! –

      mind you, we got a long way to go and a lorra lorra werk to do before we got totul kontrol – then were gonna edyerkate yer til yer witless

      cool eh?

      n that

      like

      innit

      Harmful HaHaHaPerson says:

      I’m with them there – sounds good to me!

      Like

  20. 37
    Dennis Mc Shane says:

    “but we politicians are organised criminals”

    Like

  21. 38
    Thinking of the children says:

    Smokers should have to register on a national database for a card to allow them to make purchases.

    This database can be cross-referenced to the database of people who have opted-in for pr0n on their broadband

    This can be cross-referenced to the electoral register to find men who live alone.

    If you’re a single man who smokes and watches pr0n but done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to worry about.

    Like

    • 71
      Pookie snackumberger says:

      Most of what you say is already in place, how do you think those in power get away with so much? It’s because they know so much about you.

      Like

  22. 41
    Frankie says:

    What is it with Cameron and fags?

    Like

  23. 43
    @hatetories says:

    Why does Spectator editor Fraser Nelson think the Tories are on course to lose both Scottish referendum and general election?

    Like

    • 46
      EU Funded Pro-EU Troll says:
        _
       (_) 
      {___}
       | |_________
       | |`-._`-._(___________
       | |`-._`-._|   ;|    |(__________
       | |    `-._|   ;|    || _.-'_.-'|
       | | _ _ _ _|._ ;|    ||'_.-'_.-'|
       | |--------|._`;|    ||'_.-'    |
       | |        |----      |' _ _ _ _|
       | |________|          |---------|
       | |- - - - |____      |         |
       | |     _.-|.--;|    ||_________|
       | | _.-'_.-|.-';|    ||- - - - -|
       | |'_.-'_.-|   ;|    ||`-._     |
       | |~~~~~~~~|   ;|    ||`-._`-._ |
       | |        '~~~~~~~~~~|`-._`-._`|
       | |                   '~~~~~~~~~~ 
       | |     UUUUUUUU     UUUUUUUU
       | |     U::::::U     U::::::U
       | |     U::::::U     U::::::U 
       | |     UU:::::U     U:::::UU
       | |      U:::::U     U:::::U
       | |      U:::::D     D:::::U
       | |      U:::::D     D:::::U
       | |      U:::::D     D:::::U
       | |      U:::::D     D:::::U
       | |      U:::::D     D:::::U
       | |      U:::::D     D:::::U
       | |      U::::::U   U::::::U
       | |      U:::::::UUU:::::::U
       | |       UU:::::::::::::UU
       | |         UU:::::::::UU
       | |           UUUUUUUUU
       | |
       | |     KKKKKKKKK    KKKKKKK
       | |     K:::::::K    K:::::K
       | |     K:::::::K    K:::::K  
       | |     K:::::::K   K::::::K
       | |     KK::::::K  K:::::KKK
       | |       K:::::K K:::::K
       | |       K::::::K:::::K
       | |       K:::::::::::K  
       | |       K:::::::::::K
       | |       K::::::K:::::K
       | |       K:::::K K:::::K  
       | |     KK::::::K  K:::::KKK
       | |     K:::::::K   K::::::K
       | |     K:::::::K    K:::::K
       | |     K:::::::K    K:::::K
       | |     KKKKKKKKK    KKKKKKK
       | |
       | |         IIIIIIIIII        
       | |         I::::::::I        
       | |         I::::::::I
       | |         II::::::II
       | |           I::::I
       | |           I::::I
       | |           I::::I
       | |           I::::I
       | |           I::::I
       | |           I::::I
       | |           I::::I
       | |           I::::I
       | |         II::::::II
       | |         I::::::::I
       | |         I::::::::I
       | |         IIIIIIIIII
       | |
       | |     PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
       | |     P::::::::::::::::P    
       | |     P::::::PPPPPP:::::P   
       | |     PP:::::P     P:::::P  
       | |       P::::P     P:::::P  
       | |       P::::P     P:::::P  
       | |       P::::PPPPPP:::::P   
       | |       P:::::::::::::PP    
       | |       P::::PPPPPPPPP      
       | |       P::::P              
       | |       P::::P              
       | |       P::::P                
       | |     PP::::::PP            
       | |     P::::::::P            
       | |     P::::::::P            
       | |     PPPPPPPPPP            
      £££££££
      £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
      ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££					  
      

      Like

    • 48
      Fred blogs says:

      Miliband is a dead cert!
      Cameron’s Tories will be eaten from within by the eurosceptic cancer and the Lib Dems are now totally discredited and led by the Prince of Fools.

      Like

      • 66
        Common Purpose says:

        7% swing before a vote is cast plus extra* postal votes will ensure that.
        The electoral commision are stacked with the right people,the result has decided.

        Like

      • 135
        broderick crawford says:

        At present time and sadly , cannot help but agree .

        Labour are for want of a better word united while Right is split Tories vs Ukip . LibDems spoilers at best if not total wipeout.

        Recipe for Labour win and Armageddon .

        Only possible hope is that a year us a VERY long time in politics .

        Like

    • 73
      jgm2 says:

      It’s not possible to lose both.

      If the Tories ‘lose’ Fucking Scotland then they win.

      The only losers will be Fucking Scotland and Labour.

      Like

      • 102
        Plimy the Welder, arch nemesis of Blowing Whistles says:

        :) :) :) to jgm2!!

        Like

        • 106
          Blimy, it was meant to be:Pliny the Welder, arch nemesis of Blowing Whistles says:

          :(

          Like

        • 150
          Blowing Whistles says:

          To Pliny and his playmates – at the end of the day the British Public do not want the son of a dirty fucking duplicitous marxist to be the PM. End of.

          Like

          • Err says:

            Actually…

            This is real hard to absorb but try. Some of the public are even thicker than you.

            Like

          • Blowing Whistles says:

            To ‘Err’ – you are entitled to your opinion. Blair is still a fucking duplicitous lying bastard along with his stringpulling moneygrubbing friends of the zio world.

            Like

          • BBC says:

            Mr Miliband was an honourable man who loved Britain, and the Mail’s articles were an organised right-wing slur.

            Like

          • Blowing Whistles says:

            To my IMPOSTER! Peter Tatchel’s sphincter won’t give you any comfort in HELL!

            Like

  24. 44
    stinky clothes no more says:

    Labour didn’t achieve much in office but banning cigarettes from public places was a piece of nanny legislation that was fuggin brilliant.

    Like

    • 49
      the rev flowers says:

      I always pay my rent boys with money wrapped in a plain brown envelope. You never know where they’ve been do you?

      Like

    • 267
      Pub Goer says:

      Trouble is that half of those pubs are now closed and the rest are pretty empty.

      Like

  25. 50
    Jimmy says:

    Awww that poor jellyfish. I do hope it’s ok as there’s no antidote to Tory toxins until May 2015.

    Like

    • 52
      albacore says:

      Alas for poor Dave! what a fate
      To be hurt by an invertebrate!
      A mere brainless thing
      With an unpleasant sting –
      Perhaps it just wanted to mate?

      Like

    • 54
      podiceps says:

      Didn’t think a jellyfish sting could penetrate that thick skin of his. Mind, you not the first time he doesn’t heed a warning and becomes unstuck… Andy Coulson, Rebekah Brookes, Maria Miller….

      Like

    • 56
      Elsie in the Fox & Werrity says:

      A dangerous, wobbly, spineless creature. And a jellyfish.

      Like

    • 77
      jgm2 says:

      Sounds like you’re counting your chickens that the referendum in Fucking Scotland won’t set sail with 50 or so Labour MPs.

      Like

      • 80
        nell says:

        We can hope!

        Like

      • 312
        Alice says:

        Scots Independence vote in October 2014 but decision not implemented until March 2016 at the earliest, so Scots still voting in General Election in May 2015 one way or the other.
        What a fucking farce if Scots vote Yes to leave UK yet 59 MPs can still decide who governs UK for another 18 months at least! And assuming Labour win May 2015, in theory they could continue to govern even after March 2016 without a majority.
        What a fucking madhouse!

        Like

        • 351
          Jim says:

          Once the Vote is counted everything will change before March 2016 not the day after. The Penalties are too great if they go, England will need to Defend itself as it will be totally unbalanced and all of its Polices and Plans would be in ruins.

          Like

  26. 51
    tories are the nazi party says:

    nothing on here about this trougher then???? must be on holiday!!!!!!

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/18/treasury-minister-andrea-leadsom-tax-arrangements?commentpage=1

    Like

  27. 55
    Ban the bloody lot says:

    You will find those who are against fags and ‘Big tobacco’ are for the legalisation of cannabis.
    They are making life hard for smokers out of pure spite,simple as that.
    Stupid twunts think that by legalising weed it means the whole industry will be run by hippies and blacks.
    Nope it will be run by some ‘Big Cannabis’ corporation,taxed by government and any home growers or smugglers will be done for tax evasion.
    Rather like baccy is today in fact.

    Like

    • 82
      jgm2 says:

      I don’t understand why smokers don’t grow their own tobacco. My mum told me that her dad used to grow his own tobacco in Ir*el*a*nd. That would be in the 1930s.

      I suppose you might need a greenhouse but at eight quid a packet it wouldn’t be long paying for itself.

      Like

      • 148
        Podiceps says:

        My father grew his own tobacco during the war — he was a pipe smoker. He said it was absolutely disgusting, owing to the cool climate and not enough sun.

        Like

  28. 57
    Blowing Whistles says:

    So the banning fags packaging isn’t an EU diktat
    The gay marriage ban wasn’t an EU diktat
    The Climate change Act 2008 (Ed milliband on watch) wasn’t an EU diktat

    Now please remind i; what percentage of our laws have been dicktatted from the EU money monster?

    Like

    • 109
      Mars Attacks! says:

      Nurse!!

      He’s out of bed again!

      Like

      • 162
        (Confused) Nurse says:

        Hang on! I saw Gordo in the padded room just a few moments ago – what you on abart?

        Like

      • 201
        Blowing Whistles says:

        Mack (Are you part of the dirty brigade?) – you are not even funny. But please keep trying. In about a thousand years you might even be effective.

        Like

        • 223
          Blowing Whistles says:

          IMPOSTER!

          Like

          • Blowing Whistles says:

            To those who constantly troll i – i thank you for your saddness. Must be summit about what i have been stating here for some years that annoys the trolls so much. Please keep it up ‘cos the truth will out – ref a world wide moratorium which will be brought about on a certain subject matter and of how it has been despicably propagandised and turned into an industry of deception.

            Like

          • Blowing Whistles says:

            *burp*

            Like

          • Blowing Whistles says:

            I’m a sock whistle.

            Like

  29. 69
    Pontius Pilate says:

    I am in the mood to crucify a Labour MP.

    Happy Easter Sheila Gilmore!

    Like

  30. 76
    Big Mama Abbot says:

    Wasssssisssst’s

    They should be in plain bl@ck packges.

    Like

  31. 83
    nell says:

    I see the Oxford City Council local government officer asked to examine the application for the centuries old Easter Passion Play to take place on the city streets, turned it down because he/she thought it was all about sex.

    Does local government no longer employ people who have been properly educated?

    Like

    • 110
      Fatty Pickles says:

      No

      Like

    • 202
      My guess says:

      …..Government offices have been feminised,chavyised and the men neutralised!

      Like

      • 318
        Mable Thorpe says:

        Julian Alison? Is he a male or a female? Or maybe a bit of both – but either way a complete fukwit who does not understand the word ‘Passion’. I’d hate to be this tit’s line manager (having to bloody redo everything he touches).

        Like

    • 244
      Edmund Waller says:

      Nothing to do with sex ….. all about banning English tradition and culture.

      Like

    • 259
      Anonymous says:

      The council oik responsible for the ban was one, Julian Alison. He should be scourged forthwith.

      Like

  32. 84
    Maimed Cadger says:

    The guy has a point, Cigarette Smuggling is big business, of those who smoke, most know someone who knows someone who trades low cost fags… almost the whole of the hand rolling market along with Blow ( or what ever you call it ) and why go after e-cigarettes when much of the fluid has NO … NIL… nicotine content, just fruit flavouring..again, this is not a problem with our neighbours, so just something else to be Smuggled.

    Does any one seriously think for one moment, Plain Packaging will deter the Smugglers. Smugglers in the Public Perception, are not generally seen as Criminals.

    Like

  33. 87
    JohnMangan says:

    21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and also jellyfish, that toffs who cause pain might share the pain as Toff and jellyfish are all in this sea together….

    22 And God blessed the jellyfish, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, so that the arrogant and uncaring might hear the warnings of peasants and still frolic with the jellyfish as though being a Christian protects them from the consequences of their decisions…

    23 Let not Eric Pickles hear the word jelly or the entire sea will be sucked up as though by a whale siphoning krill….

    Like

    • 88
      118 118 says:

      I hear the Jellyfish is being tipped for the honours list.
      Loyal Order of the Jellyfish, if not a full knighthood. Probably the latter, since it has no backbone

      Like

      • 319
        Mable Thorpe says:

        Jelly fish bites Jelly baby. Pity it wasn’t a sting ray like the one that got Steve Irwin. No effinjustice in the natural world is there?

        Like

    • 161
      non taxable pikey says:

      23a Let not the dreaded Abbott get there first.

      Like

  34. 90
    Common Sense says:

    Plain packaging will lead to people unknowingly buying inferior or higher tar cigarettes from unscrupulous vendors. It will be impossible to trace the source of the cigarettes if they have dangerous additives. It will be impossible to trace stolen and smuggled cigarettes. Plain packaging will be a godsend to organised crime.

    Like

    • 151
      Criminal Mastermind - Drugs, Prostitution, People Smuggling etc etc says:

      I’d prefer full prohibition, but plain packaging is the next best thing.

      Like

    • 160
      thostids says:

      Knowing the Government’s ability to criminalise everybody, “lawful” cigarettes will be wrapped in Govt. Controlled paper and it will be an Offence to be in possession of tobacco in Un-marked paper. So now the Sus’ laws can be extended to check for illicit tobacco…..
      It isn’t impossible you know. The Boys in Blue already have to ignore murdered bodies lying around the street if someone phones in a “domestic”. Just add in that they have to search everyone for smuggled fags or rolling tobacco. “‘Scuse me, sir. I can smell tobacco on your breath……”
      Just vote UKIP and stick a finger in your MPs eye.

      Like

    • 190
      Winston Smith says:

      Fancy a mug of Victory Gin, comrade?

      Like

  35. 91
    David Cameron says:

    “Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!”

    Like

  36. 92
    Ken Lorp says:

    As someone who lives in Jane Ellison’s constituency, I can tell you that my vote is going to UKIP – well done Jane!

    Like

    • 320
      Mable Thorpe says:

      Plain packets will be plain Jane’s immortal legacy. She will be totally unemployable elsewhere once she loses her seat – especially by any employer who likes a quiet smoke with his dr**nkypoo.

      Like

  37. 93
    • 95
      Yadda says:

      Would Jesus Christ have voted Tory Mr Cameron ?

      Think not.

      Like

    • 96
      Heil Cameron says:

      Cameron is a complete hypocrite.

      Jesus did not say:

      “Step over the poor on the way to the opera”
      “Make the rich richer whilst making everyone else poorer”
      “Prosecute the poor and give the rich tax cuts”

      It is dire, immoral stuff as usual – the fact that he calls himself a Christian is utterly amoral in itself.

      Like

      • 98
        Heil Cameron says:

        And what about work for disabled people? DLA support being cut, Access to Work budget cut, Independent Living Fund cut, all of which help some disabled people work. also, of course, under the Tories all Remploy factories have closed, with next to none of their past employees finding alternative work. And no recent ESA claimant who was told they were ‘fit to work’ has found ongoing employment, that’s right not a single one.

        The little I know of Jesus makes me seriously doubt he’d have been impressed by Cameron’s policies

        Like

        • 282
          Spartacus says:

          Jesus you ‘seriously doubt he’d have been impressed by Cameron’s policies’

          See him down the pub every Wednesday do you? Keep taking the tablets.

          Like

    • 100
      Thought for today says:

      Wasn’t Jesus more into feeding people than starving them?

      Like

    • 114
      ukip.i.am.not says:

      If Cameron really believes what he says then why does he implement policies that do exactly the opposite of lifting people up and why does he continue to support Iain Duncan Smith who has repeatedly ensured that more and more people are living in penury and destitution whilst simultaneously wasting vast amounts of money that could be sued to improve peoples lives, not make them worse?

      Hubris and Hypocrisy, those are the things coming across stronger and stronger from Westminster and No.10

      Like

    • 119
      ukip.i.am.not says:

      He doesn’t believe what he says. The man has no morals of any sort, how else can you explain him using his dead child as a campaign tool and proof that he wouldn’t harm the NHS and then he immediately sets about breaking every single promise he made.

      This man has helped cause thousands of suicides thanks to the work-fare and bedroom tax.

      Is forcing abused spouses into staying with their violent partners by shutting down women’s refuges

      Has driven millions to desperation and starvation with his cruel benefit reforms and actually praises the rise in food banks

      David Cameron is a soulless, godless, parasite who only worships avarice, if there really is a god then he really shouldn’t be invoking his name like this as any just god would strike him down immediately

      Like

  38. 94
  39. 101
    catesby says:

    When in opposition Scameron said he may reverse some of the draconian anti fag legislation what he’s actually doing is taking the anti-cig agenda to further extremes.

    Like

    • 105
      Heil Cameron says:

      He lied:

      Lie 1: Three days before the election, David Cameron: “Any cabinet minister . who comes to me and says ‘Here are my plans’ and they involve front-line reductions, they’ll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again”.

      Lie 2: A month before the election, David Cameron: “Our plans involve cutting wasteful spending, Our plans don’t involve an increase in VAT.”

      Lie 3: The coalition agreement: “We will stop top-down reorganisation of the NHS.”

      Lie 4: The coalition agreement: We will guarantee that health spending increases in real terms.”

      Lie 5: Two months before the election, from David Cameron: “I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means test it. I don’t think that’s a good idea.”

      Lie 6: Michael Gove, just before the election: “Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.”

      Lie7: Liam Fox: “a bigger army for a safer Britain”, but it now loses 7,000 soldiers.

      Lie 8: In October 2009 George Osborne said: Retail banks should stop paying out significant cash bonuses. A year later, he opposed an updated EU Capital Requirement Directive intended to limit them.
      In 2013 he took a plane to Europe in bid to block a Europe-wide cap on bankers’ bonuses

      Lie 9: David Cameron: “Yes, we back Sure Start. It’s a disgrace that Gordon Brown has been trying to frighten people about this.” Yet the government’s Early Intervention Grant means a reduction of £1.4 billion in the amount given to early intervention programmes. As a result,More than 400 Sure Start children’s centres have closed during the first two years of coalition government.

      Lie 10 No cuts in tax credits for families with an income of less than £50,000;

      Lie 11 prison for anyone carrying a knife;

      Lie 12 no cuts to the navy;

      Lie 13 keeping the child trust fund for the poorest third of families;

      Lie 14 no hospital closures;

      Lie 15 3000 more midwives since 2010 they’ve created 1000. Lowering the shortage from 6,000 to 5,000.

      Like

      • 156
        nigels parachute says:

        Lie 16 – no plans to introduce gay marriage

        Like

      • 215
        Conrad says:

        Didn’t the tories pledge to raise the inheritance tax threshold ?

        Like

        • 254
          WTF? says:

          Yep. And as a result of the poll bounce that announcement generated Labour were obliged to effectively double the threshold by making allowances transferable between spouses.
          About the best thing Labour “achieved”, during their catastrophic time in the driving seat.
          Not that the Conservatives have achieved much of note since.

          Like

  40. 103
    Still, it could be worse says:

    next it’ll be women in plain packaging, oh wait.

    Like

    • 132
      Bumsex Dave says:

      What are women?

      Like

      • 153
        A Common (or Garden) Common Person says:

        From the angle you see them, the arse is probably not much different from what you’re used to – maybe wider hips but how would you know?

        Smooth skin in those parts too.

        Now ‘Dave’ – let’s get real. How long before your putrid policy advisors follow that hateful Hormoan woman and decree hetro sex ‘verbotty-n’ ?

        No point in asking you – you’re just the turd coming out the arse end of the Tory policy donkey.

        Like

  41. 106
    Bye Dave says:

    ‘Public health nanny Jane Ellison should ask herself how many votes she is sending UKIP’s way…’

    There can’t be many more to send as most of us are on our way anyhow.

    Like

  42. 126
    Bye bye crap Etonian Pies says:

    Sounds like Ms Ellison is in perfect toon with the Etonian Pies.

    Roll on 2015 when they can all be consigned to the great bin of history.

    Like

  43. 133
    Nigel says:

    We’ve decided to make pints bigger as a reward to all the hard drinking families in this country. You know which box to cross on the ballot.

    Like

  44. 138
    Flower Power says:

    I prefer my ketamine in plain vanilla emveloped

    Like

    • 147
      Blue Peter Goldfish says:

      It’s all at the Co-op now.

      Like

    • 154
      Braveheart says:

      Ganja is not displayed in grocery stores and is, as far as I am aware, not sold in branded packaging or advertised on television or roadside hoardings. Growers and dealers do not even bribe NHS doctors to prescribe the stuff.
      I therefore presume that nobody in the UK smokes ganja ever.

      Like

  45. 140
    Blue Peter Goldfish says:

    Can’t wait for a trip to the Supermarket when everything is put in plain packaging, Russian roulette, when you get home you will never know if you’ve just bought a pork chop or a bag of cat litter.

    Like

  46. 142
    Anonymous says:

    A British teenager killed in Syria “died in battle”, his father has said,
    18-year-old Abdullah Deghayes, from Brighton, had been killed “in recent weeks”.
    His father, said his son had gone to Syria to fight “against the dictator” and was not a terrorist.

    Another stinking muzzie bites the dust, what a waste of 72 virgins.

    Like

  47. 144
    Anonymous says:

    The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
    So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
    This is not news, you say.
    Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here’s how they explain it:
    Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
    In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
    The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
    “A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time,” they write, “while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time.”
    On the other hand:
    When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
    They conclude:
    Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
    Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn’t surprised by the survey’s results.
    “American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s “news” media),” he writes. “The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious ‘electoral’ ‘democratic’ countries. We weren’t formerly, but we clearly are now.”
    This is the “Duh Report”, says Death and Taxes magazine’s Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.
    “Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a classist society and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners,” she writes, “instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity here.”

    Same as the UK then.

    Like

  48. 146
    Ockham's Razor says:

    Fuck me! No wonder LabourList is failing.

    They all come here to post…

    Like

    • 157
      Blue Peter Goldfish says:

      Labourlisp (says Ed).

      Like

    • 164
      On-call Editor says:

      Shouldn’t that be LieBoreLithp ?

      Like

    • 206
      Cameron Is A CUNT says:

      don’t know why though – it is impossible to rationalise with a tory

      Like

      • 220
        Ockham's Razor says:

        May I politely suggest that you turn your discernment control up a few notches. You will not find many Tories here. Many ex-Tories, myself included. But the days of dogma are fast drawing to a close.

        You might think of it as a natural consequence of evolution.

        Like

  49. 155
    Grant Shapps says:

    Welcoming David Axelrod to the Labour Party: http://youtu.be/eNLG7xaYf64

    Like

    • 195
      Still, it could be worse says:

      Is it true that American immigration gave immigrants with unpronounceable names something easier to say.

      Like

  50. 165
    Now we know where the gold Gordon Brown sold ended up says:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-27076019

    Like

  51. 169
    Jack Dromey says:

    Boys boys boys
    I’m looking for a good time

    Like

  52. 172
    Socialist Workers Party says:

    Death to the west! Oh, wait, that includes us.

    Like

  53. 179
    P l e b says:

    Here’s a Christian idea Dave:
    Why not ask bankers, who are obscenely rich already, to work for nothing, like TA soldiers or charitable groups, to grow the economy as an act of Christian humility and as a testament to the Big Society?

    What’s that Dave? They provide 60% of your funding so they’ve done enough??
    Well, couldn’t they give some of the £750,000,000 they made in 24 hours the other day from the Royal Mail ‘sale’ to help people begging at food banks?
    NO?
    WELL! Doesn’t seem very Christian to me ………….. I’ll have to check with Mr Foodbank himself, Iain Duncan Smith the well known Catholic to find out which bit of the Bible covers your policies….

    But you’ll have to wait while I just vomit in the toilet

    Like

  54. 180
    Bosun Higgs says:

    Weaklings! Just stop smoking the damn things! It’s not like coming off skag or anything.

    Like

  55. 181
    'Born again' Dave says:

    Did anyone see the Archbishop lugging that huge wooden cross about? J esus H Ch rist what is all that about – just go to Wicked for your sawn timber already!

    Anyway don’t tell SamCam, but as a man of faith myself I’ve bought her an Easter Bunny camisole set to wear on Sunday. Grrrrrr! Hubba! Hubba!

    Like

  56. 183
    A lady in the Guardian says:

    Dear David

    The relationship between the City of London and your government is too close. You need to get closer to the ordinary citizen and not via the Jobcentre or the Workfare provider.

    If you listened you would hear examples of low pay and rising prices. Static wages in a climate of rising profits does not send the message that the workforce is a valued asset. People are being treated as commodities and your government’s actions support this approach. This is not a Christian message. Christianity celebrates the virtues of independence, something the low-wage culture undermines.

    In-work benefits support low pay, a form of corporate welfare that is unwelcome.

    Poverty should not be commonplace in the sixth wealthiest economy in the world. Under your government the wealthy have got very wealthy at the expense of hard working people. In a Christian country this would be frowned upon.

    I am unconvinced by your piety

    Yours sincerely
    Ann
    An Atheist

    Like

  57. 185
    A thought for Good Friday says:

    “And lo, Jesus did question whether Wonga’s 5,700% interest rates were fair…”

    Like

    • 192
      SIZE 14 CARBON FOOTPRINT says:

      And lo ! those who are not stupid laughed at the morons who took out the loans.

      Like

    • 301
      Jesus H Fucking Christ says:

      I have noted that Labour were in power when Wonga were set up and first flourished.

      I’d get my colleague Satan to stick a poker up Gordon’s aris’b but he’s already put one up himself

      Like

  58. 191
    Young Greedo says:

    Even when writing an article for The Church Times about the importance of his religion, Cameron has to include the Central Office Slogans about the success(?) of his ‘Long Term Economic Plan’ as though it was a Religious Tenet that came to him in a vision. One hopes that the Religious Leaders will point out that his belief that he is helping people by increasing their poverty is total humbug

    Like

  59. 193
    Anonymous says:

    #CostofLivingCrisis #FcukTheFoodbank #InYourFace #HungryMuch?

    Like

    • 262
      The Life of Riley says:

      11.05am is rather late in the day for an MP to be having breakfast. Didn’t she have any work to do?

      Like

      • 287
        Spartacus says:

        is this a google earth quiz thingy?

        no cars to give the number plates away + left right hand drive.
        spanish / italian style tiles on the roof
        chimneys i dont recognise
        apples on the table
        fake buxus tree
        looks foreign = abroad

        time to smear farage?

        Like

      • 293
        Spartåcus says:

        is ťhis å gőőglė ėårťh quiz ťhingy?
        nő cårs ťő givė ťhė numbėr plåťės åwåy + lėfť righť hånd drivė.
        spånish / iťåliån sťylė ťilės őn ťhė rőőf
        chimnėys i dőnť rėcőgnisė
        åpplės őn ťhė ťåblė
        fåkė buxus ťrėė
        lőőks főrėign = åbrőåd
        ťimė ťő smėår fårågė?

        Like

      • 316
        SIZE 14 CARBON FOOTPRINT says:

        It doesn’t look like much of a breakfast, no bacon ,sausages, eggs , toast ,mushrooms ,more like an anorexic’s breakfast .

        Like

        • 330
          Norma Stitz says:

          The fat cow probably slurped hers striaght out of the frying pan, then put ‘healthy’ stuff on the table for the photo. Typical politician.

          Like

  60. 197
    David Cameron says:

    Vote for The High Tax Party! If you want to punish achievement and penalise success then vote for me!! I promise to tax the middle classes as much as possible with bonkers marginal rates.

    Like

  61. 204
    Blowing Whistles says:

    Compare and contrast of Published into the public domain today.

    A) Page 29 of yes the Private Eye ref EY jelly (inso.lvency) Rb.s / GRG / EY

    Verses

    B) The tel.graph biz section B1 article Rb.s legal report refutes claims the bank deliberately hurt small firms. (It’s them Clifford … Chancers at it yet again).

    Like

    • 221
      Bew.ild.er.ed says:

      WTF are you talking about?

      Like

      • 252
        Blowing Whistles says:

        If you have to ask then you clearly ain’t got no intelligence. Do one. i may attempt to post the text of each article in the coming days; for those of intelligence – if the dom bots and the host don’t try to stop it.

        Like

        • 270
          Bew.ild.er.ed says:

          It is possible I don’t get close to that supreme intelligence you possess purely on account of the lack of heavy metal Fluoride around here.

          Instead of being unkind because of my obviously diminished status (which reflects badly upon you, even though you are such a figure of such superior discernment), you should seek to educate us lesser mortals with your colossal knowledge and cognitive abilities.

          Anyway, if you were that clever, you would know how to get past the m0db0t.

          So you are really just another spotty arsed c’unt, aintcha?

          Like

  62. 205
  63. 207
    Jezza hosting Have I Got News For You says:

    Clarkson hosting, starts in a minute.

    Like

  64. 208
    DeadEnders says:

    You have to feel sorry for Adam Woodyatt, playing the same shitty character for the last 29 years in a crappy soap.

    Like

  65. 209
    Tar Very Much says:

    20 Mystery Lights and 650 Portillo Moments, please.

    Like

  66. 210
    Phwooar! says:

    Sunday Times columnist Camilla Long on Have I Got News For You. What a goddess. She can do my column any time.

    Like

    • 227
      Sadly, it must be said says:

      She looks a lot better with her clothes on though.

      Like

      • 240
        Phwooar! says:

        Are you implying you’ve bedded her? Very doubtful. She has an impressively sized rack which would be splendiferous when unveiled.

        Like

        • 261
          Sadly, it must be said says:

          No I am not, neither was I attempting to imply that.

          But I have ahem ‘known’ another beauty mentioned earlier on. Everyone deserves some luck beyond what they deserve.

          Like

  67. 213
    Fabians are Evil says:

    I hate smoking and smokers and the stench they emit – but Farage is 100% right on this one

    Like

  68. 224
    albacore says:

    Plain packaging – what a wonderful idea!
    Applied to Parliament, it would soon be clear
    Labour and the Tories, you can’t tell them apart
    They both have to ask E U permission to fart

    Like

  69. 226
    Yankee gone home says:

    What does circumcised cock taste like Guido?

    Like

  70. 231
    Vicar of Duberly says:

    parp

    I have a picture of Gordon Brown in my pan

    Like

  71. 236
    On yer bike says:

    I once saw Norman Tebbit in Selfridges. True story.

    Like

  72. 238
    Curious says:

    Has the dozy tramp banned MPs smoking in the Commons Bars?

    Or do the cigarettes MPs smoke not cause cancer etc?

    Pray tell us Health Nazi; god forbid that you prove to another overpaid hypocritical waste of good space, frantically trying to garner a few votes from like-minded assholes.

    Like

  73. 248
    C O (Ξ7q1) says:

    Another aspect to look at in terms of the BBC vs UK Public average daily buying is to consider how their buying profiles compare.

    From the data table above, for the BBC and UK Public as separate purchasers, looking at how their choice of purchase varies between publications in terms of how many standard deviations from their respective shows how different they are.

    From the above tables, the mean and standard deviations of the actual average daily purchases, and their respective percentages are as follow:

                BBC        |     UK Public
    ------------------------------------------			
    Mean| 56277.6 : 10.00% | 741361.7 : 10.00%
    Sd  | 18267.5 :  3.25% | 714576.4 :  9.64%
    

    The following charts the average daily buying profile for each listing the number of respective standard deviations from the mean which each purchaser demonstrates in their choice for each publication.

    A reason for working in this measure is that it is comparable between what are really two different distributions.

    BBC Buying Profile           Public Buying Profile
     2.5 ┌                        2.5 ┌                    
     2.0 ├                        2.0 ├ █                  
     1.5 ├                        1.5 ├ █ ▄                
     1.0 ├ █ ▄ ▄                  1.0 ├ █ █                
     0.5 ├ █ █ █ █                0.5 ├ █ █ ▄              
     0.0 ┼─▀─▀─▀─▀─▀─▀─▄─▄─▄─▄    0.0 ┼─▀─▀─▀─▄─▄─▄─▄─▄─▄─▄
    -0.5 ├               █ █ █   -0.5 ├       ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ █ █ █
    -1.0 ├               ▀ ▀ █   -1.0 ├                   ▀
    -1.5 ├                   █   -1.5 ├                    
    -2.0 ├                   █   -2.0 ├                    
    -2.5 └                       -2.5 └                    
           a b c d e f g h i j          a b c d e f g h i j 
    Key:                         Key:
    a) G (1.06)                  a) S (2.06)
    b) T (0.90)                  b) DMail (1.45)
    c) DT (0.86)                 c) DMirr (0.35)
    d) DMail (0.65)              d) DT (-0.28)
    e) S (0.22)                  e) DE (-0.34)
    f) I (0.17)                  f) DS (-0.35)
    g) DMirr (-0.08)             g) T (-0.50)
    h) FT (-0.77)                h) FT (-0.71)
    i) DE (-0.89)                i) G (-0.75)
    j) DS (-2.11)                j) I (-0.94)
    

    These profiles show that as an institutional buyer of newsprint media, the BBC is a very different customer compared to the UK public.

    Looking at the difference between these sets of data, BBC – UK Public, reveals the following:

    Difference: BBC – UK Public
     2.5 ┌                    
     2.0 ├ ▄                  
     1.5 ├ █ ▄                
     1.0 ├ █ █ █ █            
     0.5 ├ █ █ █ █            
     0.0 ┼─▀─▀─▀─▀─▄─▄─▄─▄─▄─▄
    -0.5 ├           ▀ █ █ █ █
    -1.0 ├               ▀ █ █
    -1.5 ├                 █ █
    -2.0 ├                 ▀ ▀
    -2.5 └                    
           a b c d e f g h i j 
    Key:
    a) G (1.80)
    b) T (1.40)
    c) DT (1.13)
    d) I (1.12)
    e) FT (-0.06)
    f) DMirr (-0.44)
    g) DE (-0.55)
    h) DMail (-0.80)
    i) DS (-1.76)
    j) S (-1.84)
    

    This demonstrates again the large gap which exists between BBC purchasing of Broadsheets, in particular the G’uardian over the the UK Public on an average daily basis, and the UK Public’s preference for MidMarket and Tabloid media, in particular the Daily Star and Sun compared to the BBC.

    In these buying terms, the BBC and UK Public’s purchasing of the FT is roughly the same in terms of their own profiles, but as purchasers the UK Public have a slight preference.

    Since on an average daily basis the BBC accounted for 562,776 purchases compared to the UK Public’s 7,413,617, in 2013, that is 7% of the total average daily sales of UK newspapers that year. That is a significant part of the UK newspaper market.

    To this point, the following breaks down by publication the %’age of total average daily purchases of which the BBC accounts for as implied by the above data:

    Paper | % Total Sales BBC (Av. Per Day 2013)
    --------------------------------------------			
    I     |               47.17%
    G     |               26.65%
    T     |               15.90%
    FT    |               15.29%
    DT    |               11.67%
    DE    |                7.41%
    Dmirr |                5.23%
    Dmail |                3.69%
    DS    |                3.49%
    S     |                2.65%
    

    In 2013, BBC License Fee payers are buying accounting for nearly half the daily sales of the Independent, a quarter of the G’uardian’s, and nearly 16% each of both the The T’imes and the FT.

    However, the BBC does appear to discriminate against the Daily Star in this respect.

    Like

    • 260
      Ockham's Razor says:

      Very useful. It appears to support your earlier suggestion that the BBC, via our pockets, are subsidising some publications to the point that, without this support, they could no longer survive.

      Leaving aside the fraudulent activity discussed before, it is apparent that at least two publications, possibly more, are only viable because of an effective tax on the citizens of the UK. If they had the choice, it is by no means certain that they could survive at all. I suspect it is the case that the population would chose to keep their money in their pockets rather than prolong the unsustainable existence of these papers.

      How much more distorted than this can this abuse of public money become?

      Like

      • 269
        C O (Ξ7q1) says:

        The growth of the BBC in the UK newspaper market as a purchaser may be a function of declining newspaper purchases by the broader public.

        That would imply that the BBC do not adjust their purchasing in the same way: Historical data would be required to confirm.

        Fraud could exist if that is the case – an audit to confirm that the number of papers purchased actually make it to site would be interesting, if you get my drift,

        A subtle corollary of the strength of the BBC in the UK newspaper market is that it currently has a certain amount of clout.

        That brings into question a whole different issue: Seeing as the BBC accounts for large %’ages of UK newspaper sales, does this affect the editorial decisions of the UK press in reporting on issues relating to the BBC ?

        It is incredible to believe that it has no bearing whatsoever, irrespective of the regulated or free nature of the press itself.

        An irony is that your average license fee payer is perhaps paying twice for their newspaper, particularly if they buy the FT on a regular basis.

        Most likely, an average license fee payer is unknowingly buying a broadsheet through the BBC, whilst they themselves are buying either a tabloid or a midmarket day to day.

        Ponder the implications of that for a moment, to your point on abuse.

        Good – innit ;-)

        Like

        • 273
          Still, it could be worse says:

          1/2 million newspapers would be quite a volume but I can’t be arsed to work it out. It must be a lot of trees.

          Like

        • 275
          Ockham's Razor says:

          Your fourth and fifth paragraphs had already occurred to me after our previous exchanges.

          Frankly, the figures are so outlandish that I am surprised at myself for not having noticed the situation they suggest before.

          It would be interesting to know how this situation developed over the last few decades.

          The clear implication is that the government (I suspect of 1997 to 2010 – but who knows?) found this useful to sustain their continued existence knowing the effect it would have had on public opinion. In which case it is a national and international scandal of first magnitude.

          In the modern era, Putin could only dream about this.

          Like

          • C O (Ξ7q1) says:

            I think the total daily figures in the original report were for the year, not per day.

            Was at the back of my mind as well – time to redo the analysis.

            Like

          • Ockham's Razor says:

            That sounds more likely to me, I am afraid.

            Pity. I really thought you were onto an atomic bomb.

            Like

          • C O (Ξ7q1) says:

            The bomb was pointed at me.

            Total daily purchasing of newspapers by BBC in 2013 turns out to be 1682.

            That is 0.07% of the daily sales.

            Nearly redone the analysis now – pretty much all conclusions except for that one about wastage – are unchanged. Slight difference in the relative purchasing of the FT due to no Sunday circulation.

            Will be posting this up shortly, with corrections.

            The main reason nothing has changed much otherwise is because everything was based on a yearly profile which even when corrected with the Sunday noise and then rescaled to daily, still exhibits the properties of the main data.

            That in itself is quite interesting :-)

            Like

          • C O (Ξ7q1) says:

            Sorry – 0.02% of total daily sales.

            Like

  74. 268
    Anne says:

    Sorry, life is too short for me to trawl through all the other 260 comments. But well done, Nigel. Plain packaging is stupid. He gets my vote.

    Like

  75. 280
  76. 283
    Fabians are Evil says:

    This election is going to be very negative and dirty!

    “Axelrod quickly cultivated a reputation for his aggressive use of negative messaging to discredit his clients’ political rivals. A Chicago Magazine profile from December 1987 dubbed Axelrod a “Hatchet Man” who was ever-prepared to “blast the dickens” out of an opponent. Reflecting Axelrod’s constancy in this regard, a Tribune profile two decades later described him as a “ferocious” competitor who was unafraid to use “venom” to poison the campaigns of rivals, or “brass knuckles” to “bludgeon” his foes.”

    Like

    • 342
      Really Brassed off Joe Public awaiting real change instead of more of the same from the 3 Dinosaurs says:

      Will Axlerod con need get a work visa or will that not apply in his situation ??

      Like

  77. 286
    T.B£iar - the People's Messiah says:

    YYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEUUUUK !!

    Like

  78. 304
    C O (Ξ7q1) says:

    Following error with data for daily BBC purchases, the following has been redone with corrected figures. Not much has changed except that the BBC appears to buy on average 1682 papers per day, not ~500k.

    BBC Daily Purchasing data was calculated from this:

    Paper | BBC Daily / yr | BBC Sunday / yr | BBC Tot / yr | BBC Tot / day
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    G     |          75555 |            8092 |        83647 |           229
    T     |          72638 |            8730 |        81368 |           222
    DT    |          71929 |            7544 |        79473 |           217
    Dmail |          68226 |            7269 |        75495 |           206
    I     |          59449 |            6515 |        65964 |           180
    S     |          60216 |            3435 |        63651 |           174
    Dmirr |          54744 |            5831 |        60575 |           165
    DE    |          40056 |            4581 |        44637 |           122
    FT    |          42275 |               0 |        42275 |           115
    DS    |          17688 |            1417 |        19105 |            52
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total |         562776 |           53414 |       616190 |          1682
    

    For the BBC Bias Story from earlier, the following analysis is a little more rigorous.

    The original data provided average daily purchases by BBC and public during the year 2013.

    Starting with the two data sets, it is necessary to get the data to a common base. As with the article it makes sense to convert the average daily sales as percentages.

    Paper | BBC / Day | BBC % / Day | Public / day | Public % / Day
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    FT    |       115 |       6.84% |       234193 |          3.16%
    T     |       222 |      13.20% |       384304 |          5.18%
    DT    |       217 |      12.90% |       544546 |          7.35%
    I     |       180 |      10.70% |        66576 |          0.90%
    G     |       229 |      13.61% |       207958 |          2.81% 
    DMail |       206 |      12.25% |      1780585 |         24.02%
    DE    |       122 |       7.25% |       500473 |          6.75%
    S     |       174 |      10.34% |      2213659 |         29.86%
    DS    |        52 |       3.09% |       489067 |          6.60%
    DMirr |       165 |       9.81% |       992256 |         13.38%
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total |      1682 |     100.00% |      7413617 |        100.00%
    

    What is of interest are the differences in the percentages: These can be compared quite safely.

    Subtracting the Public % / day from the BBC % / Day will give the difference between BBC purchases vs. Public purchase.

    Doing this, and resorting in order of the size of difference gives the following, from which some statistics can be calculated.

    Paper | Diff: BBC – Public | Diff / SD
    --------------------------------------
    G     |             10.81% |      1.10
    I     |              9.80% |      1.00
    T     |              8.01% |      0.82
    DT    |              5.56% |      0.57
    FT    |              3.68% |      0.37
    DE    |              0.50% |      0.05
    DS    |             -3.51% |     -0.36
    DMirr |             -3.57% |     -0.36
    DMail |            -11.77% |     -1.20
    S     |            -19.51% |     -1.99
    
    Average: 0%
    StDev: 9.81%	
    

    Since the average is 0, +ve numbers are where the BBC is buying on average more than the people, negative where they are buying less.

    The larger the difference in terms of Standard Deviations, the larger the bias. The Diff / SD can be accurately thought of as a statistical measure of the difference between the BBC and the public.

    From this is it clear that the BBC is roughly in line with the People in its purchasing of the Financial Times, Daily Express, Daily Star and Daily Mirror: It is most closely in line with the Daily Express.

    The BBC is profoundly biased against purchasing the Daily Mail or the Sun – More so than it is biased in favor towards the Guardian and the Independent.

    It is instructive to compare this with G’uido’s method of dividing the percentages as presented earlier. That analysis is flawed because it destroys a chunk of important statistics and also allows itself to be erroneously biased by differences in the circulations.

    —-

    Looking back over the BBC vs UK Public newspaper purchases, and possible impact on bias, the following are some rather surprising results.

    Slicing the above daily purchasing data by political leaning, considering Center-Left / and Center-Right as simple Left / Right, and classifying the FT as ‘Centerist’ the following picture emerges of the differences between the daily purchasing of papers by the BBC vs. the public:

    Using detail from h**ps://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/uk-newspaper-guide.cfm, the political / publication formats of the newspapers are as follow:

    Paper |             Leaning |       Type
    ----------------------------------------
    FT    | Economic Liberalism | Broadsheet
    T     |        Center-Right | Broadsheet
    DT    |        Center-Right | Broadsheet
    I     |         Center-Left | Broadsheet
    G     |         Center-Left | Broadsheet
    DMail |               Right |  Midmarket
    DE    |               Right |  Midmarket
    S     |               Right |    Tabloid
    DS    |               Right |    Tabloid
    DMirr |                Left |    Tabloid
    
               Political Leaning
           |   L    |   C   |    R
    ---------------------------------
    BBC    | 34.13% | 6.84% |  59.04%
    Public | 17.09% | 3.16% |  79.75%
    ---------------------------------			
    Delta  | 17.04% | 3.68% | -20.72%
    

    The BBC purchases more left leaning publications and significantly less right leaning publications than the general public.

    Despite the biases, well over half of the publications purchased on an average day by the BBC are right leaning, with just over 1/3 of publications being left leaning.

    The notion that the BBC consumes more left leaning publications than right leaning is false, however, it is more left leaning compared with the general public and certainly discriminates against particularly publications as demonstrated earlier.

    One can conclude that if BBC broadcast output is left biased, then this is not reflected in its consumption of published UK newsprint media, unless of course they do not bother reading 59.04% of their daily purchase or are acting under direct editorial guidance.

    On the matter of type of publication:

                     Publication Type
           | Broadsheet | Midmarket | Tabloid
    -----------------------------------------	
    BBC    |     57.25% |    19.50% |  23.25%
    Public |     19.39% |    30.77% |  49.84%
    -----------------------------------------			
    Delta  |     37.86% |   -11.27% | -26.59%
    

    The BBC clearly do buy significantly more Broadsheet publications compared to the Public, and significantly less Tabloid and Midmarket compared to the UK Public.

    —-

    The same argument can be extended to schools, and other publicly funded institutions which provide purchased media for staff.

    The following FOI may be of interest to you – BBC Staffing Levels:

    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20111450_number_of_bbc_employees.pdf

    This will be a bit apples + oranges:

    Assuming that the total staff BBC employed in 2013 is the same as in 2011, ie. 19995, the BBC were purchasing on average 1682 newspapers per day.

    That works out to 0.08 news papers for each member of staff.

    The previous concerns about newspapers per staff and wastage were wholly erroneous based on a confusion of the yearly vs. daily purchasing of newspapers by the BBC.

    —–

    Another aspect to look at in terms of the BBC vs UK Public average daily buying is to consider how their buying profiles compare.

    From the data table above, for the BBC and UK Public as separate purchasers, looking at how their choice of purchase varies between publications in terms of how many standard deviations from their respective shows how different they are.

    From the above tables, the mean and standard deviations of the actual average daily purchases, and their respective percentages are as follow:

                BBC        |     UK Public
    ------------------------------------------			
    Mean|   168.2 : 10.00% | 741361.7 : 10.00%
    Sd  |    56.8 :  3.38% | 714576.4 :  9.64%
    

    The following charts the average daily buying profile for each listing the number of respective standard deviations from the mean which each purchaser demonstrates in their choice for each publication.

    A reason for working in this measure is that it is comparable between what are really two different distributions.

    BBC Buying Profile         Public Buying Profile
     3 ┌                        3 ┌                    
     2 ├                        2 ├ █                  
     2 ├                        2 ├ █ ▄                
     1 ├ █ ▄ ▄                  1 ├ █ █                
     1 ├ █ █ █ █                1 ├ █ █ ▄              
     0 ┼─▀─▀─▀─▀─▀─▀─▄─▄─▄─▄    0 ┼─▀─▀─▀─▄─▄─▄─▄─▄─▄─▄
    -1 ├               █ █ █   -1 ├       ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ █ █ █
    -1 ├               ▀ ▀ █   -1 ├                   ▀
    -2 ├                   █   -2 ├                    
    -2 ├                   █   -2 ├                    
    -3 └                       -3 └                    
         a b c d e f g h i j        a b c d e f g h i j 
    Key:                       Key:
    a) G (1.07)                a) S (2.06)
    b) T (0.95)                b) Dmail (1.45)
    c) DT (0.86)               c) Dmirr (0.35)
    d) Dmail (0.67)            d) DT (-0.28)
    e) I (0.21)                e) DE (-0.34)
    f) S (0.10)                f) DS (-0.35)
    g) Dmirr (-0.06)           g) T  (-0.50)
    h) DE (-0.81)              h) FT (-0.71)
    i) FT (-0.94)              i) G (-0.75)
    j) DS (-2.05)              j) I (-0.94)
    

    These profiles show that as an institutional buyer of newsprint media, the BBC is a very different customer compared to the UK public.

    Looking at the difference between these sets of data, BBC – UK Public, reveals the following:

    Difference: BBC – UK Public
     3 ┌                    
     2 ├ ▄                  
     2 ├ █ ▄                
     1 ├ █ █ █ █            
     1 ├ █ █ █ █            
     0 ┼─▀─▀─▀─▀─▄─▄─▄─▄─▄─▄
    -1 ├           ▀ ▀ █ █ █
    -1 ├               ▀ █ █
    -2 ├                 █ █
    -2 ├                   ▀
    -3 └                    
         a b c d e f g h i j 
    Key:
    a) G (1.82)
    b) T (1.45)
    c) I (1.15)
    d) DT (1.13)
    e) FT (-0.23)
    f) Dmirr (-0.41)
    g) DE (-0.48)
    h) Dmail (-0.79)
    i) DS (-1.69)
    j) S (-1.96)
    

    This demonstrates again the large gap which exists between BBC purchasing of Broadsheets, in particular the G’uardian over the the UK Public on an average daily basis, and the UK Public’s preference for MidMarket and Tabloid media, in particular the Daily Star and Sun compared to the BBC.

    In these buying terms, the BBC and UK Public’s purchasing of the FT is roughly the same in terms of their own profiles, but as purchasers the UK Public have a slight preference.

    Since on an average daily basis the BBC accounted for 1,682 purchases compared to the UK Public’s 7,413,617, in 2013, that is 0.07% of the total average daily sales of UK newspapers that year.

    To this point, the following breaks down by publication the %’age of total average daily purchases of which the BBC accounts for as implied by the above data:

    Paper | % Total Sales BBC (Av. Per Day 2013)
    --------------------------------------------			
    FT    |                0.17%
    T     |                0.11%
    I     |                0.08%
    DT    |                0.06%
    G     |                0.04%
    Dmail |                0.04%
    DE    |                0.01%
    DS    |                0.01%
    S     |                0.01%
    Dmirr |                0.01%
    

    In terms of average sales the BBC accounts for a very small part of the purchases of the 10 papers considered. The FT and T’imes benefits most.

    Like

    • 308
      How interesting says:

      Do they buy any porn?

      Like

    • 314
      Alice says:

      Congratulations on your extended effort, but I prefer your earlier analysis suggesting fraud by the BBC. Much more in keeping with everything else the bastards do!

      Like

      • 343
        A spokesperson for the Biased Broadcasting Company says:

        Its what we do !! & we have had decades to perfect our misrepresentive
        version as no one is allowed to challenge US !!! we are protected from
        any accountability because of the way we extort OUR money from the
        masses & its all legal otherwise a criminal record…..

        Like

  79. 313
    albacore says:

    How our MPs do love to hide some things away
    (Though not the real good stuff like being proudly gay)
    How do dangers to kids from cigarette packets
    Stack up against their own paedophilic rackets?
    But, putting aside such foibles and perversions
    Of all things their most forbidden of excursions
    Is into that long-hidden, dark territory –
    An E U referendum folks can plainly see

    Like

  80. 322
    foci says:

    Many people prefer writing the articles on their own for the website. However, it is not possible to achieve the targeted number of articles required for marketing. In addition, the quality of articles required for marketing purpose should be high. When one write articles in bulk, the quality starts deteriorating after a certain point. It is a wise decision to hire article writing services for the desired level of marketing. There are a number of service providers available in the market for writing article. However, one should choose a service only after considering certain factors. Some of them are premium articles facility, affordability, experience of the writers, versatility, etc.

    Like

  81. 325
    Anonymous says:

    “Where does this end? I think the state is really far, far outreaching itself.”
    It ends when we start asking, and answering, those questions that the system and its minions would rather pretend do not exist Nigel. For instance: Wouldn’t a real statesman pen a missive to le Marine? Inviting her to debate the issues, on which their ideologies diverge. Since if in possession of a cogent comprehension oneself, a demonstration of its inherent logical consistency might be enough to correct her confusion. Only a mentality not confident of its own understanding, would consider adequate a curt and Milliwatt/Camoron/god-like: I’m right-you’re wrong, dismissive response.

    Like

    • 327
      Long John Silver' s parrot says:

      Marine was her Dad’s second choice as Leader because the other daughter cleared off.

      It would be interesting to know how the Le Pen family have accumulated their money because the old man was born without a pot to piss in.

      Unfortunately French privacy laws mean we will never know and even if we try to find out the Courts will fine us.

      Like

      • 340
        Hugh Manatee says:

        No mystery – Jean-Marie was left a multi million legacy by a political follower, as well as a palatial mansion in St. Cloud. And good luck to the dear fellow, as his daughter is going to be the next president of France.

        Like

    • 328
      a green person who likes talking utter crap says:

      Have you ever tried to have a meaningful debate with a foghorn?

      Like

  82. 326
    Nigel Farage from UKIP says:

    So when they extend plain packaging to wine bottles it will be a real Fiddlers’ Charter: house plonk and quality will look exactly the same !

    The idiots in public life who thought this one up should be taken outside and horsewhipped.

    Like

    • 334
      Mr Tennyson from Toxteth on Sea says:

      .. and then strung up ok the nearest lamp post.

      Do these loony ideas spring from their own minds or is this the sort of thing we pay civil servants to spend all day dreaming up? No wonder we all thing the uncivil service could be cut by 50% and nobody would notice any difference.

      Like

  83. 344
    Post hoc says:

    Fagging delicious.

    Like

  84. 345
    No smoke without fire. says:

    Will we be able to buy them in a plain brown wrapper?

    Like


Seen Elsewhere

Short-Termism of CCHQ | ConHome
May Aide: CCHQ Are Being Misleading | Telegraph
Tories Planning For Second Election | Guardian
We Are Losing Cyber War | Fraser Nelson
Osborne Aide Lands Pay Rise | Mirror
The Sick Of It | Sun
UKIP MEP’s Welfare Hypocrisy | Channel 4
Rise of Angela Merkel | New Yorker
May SpAd Removed From Candidates List | ConHome
Clodagh’s Law | Press Gazette
Whitehall Bosses Ban Christmas | Sun


Find out more about PLMR AD-MS


The Economist asks Tony Blair about Wendi Deng:

“Mr Blair roundly denies any impropriety. Asked whether he was (at least) careless about his reputation, he says calmly that it is “not something I will ever talk about—I haven’t and I won’t”, and then bangs his coffee cup so loudly into its saucer that it spills and everyone in the room jumps. But did he find himself in a tangle over his friendship with Ms Deng? A large, dark pool of sweat has suddenly appeared under his armpit, spreading across an expensive blue shirt. Even Mr Blair’s close friends acknowledge that the saga damaged him—not least financially, since Mr Murdoch stopped contributing to Mr Blair’s faith foundation and cut him off from other friendly donors in America.”


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,641 other followers