160508sackkuenssbergpetition
The petition for the BBC to sack political editor Laura Kuenssberg has been taken down by its creator, who said it had been “hijacked” by “sexist trolls”.

Visitors to the 38 Degrees petition site will now see the following message:

“Joe who was running this campaign has decided to take down this petition. He said the following:

“’When I started my campaign I was trying to raise a serious issue about what I saw as a reporter not being balanced and fair in the way that the news was covered. My petition has since been hijacked by a group of people who absolutely do not share my views.

“‘I would like to reassure everyone that I am a passionate advocate for equality in all areas, not just gender equality. This petition has precisely zero to do with gender.

“‘As a result of the sexist trolls who have attempted to derail my petition, I have decided to take it down.’“

This Writer cannot help but feel suspicious about what has happened.

You see, if a petition is launched against a party political stooge of any colour – and I do think Laura K counts as one of these – all their supporters need to do is sign it and leave an offensive message.

Then the stooge’s supporters can come on and rant about it and, essentially, embarrass the creator into taking it down.

I’m not saying that was the intention here, but it may well be, from now on.

Meanwhile, evidence against Ms Kuenssberg continues to mount.

Remember in the run-up to the election, when the BBC’s political editor was determined that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour would lose dozens, if not hundreds, of council seats and that this would buck an established trend in which the incumbent government loses seats in any poll the year after a general election?

There is no such established trend, it seems.

A commenter on Vox Political tells us:

My nephew – who is an elections’ afficionado – has emailed me the following analysis:-

I have crunched some numbers perhaps you could spread them around; they make different reading to what the BBC is reading.

What annoys me is firstly they call these elections midterm when they are not and Laura whatsherface said Labour at this stage of the electoral cycle should be winning hundreds of seats.

Well the figures from previous local elections do not support that assertion.

The first local elections for incumbent governments are usually pretty good and the opposition makes no or little progress. Also the 2012 locals WERE midterm and so Labour did pretty well. Labour are bucking this trend but not the way the media is reporting it. See below.

1980 – after winning the 1979 election the Tories gained 40% of the vote only 2% behind Labour.
1984 – after winning the 1983 election the Tories won the local elections
1988 – after winning the 1987 election the Tories won the local elections.
1992 – after winning the GE the Tories won the local elections with 46% of the vote.
1998 – after winning the 1997 election Labour won the local elections.
2002 – After winning the 2001 GE Labour polled a mere 1% behind the Tories in share of national vote.
2006 – After winning the 2005 GE the government does indeed take a pasting which has been put down to the anger over the Iraq War.
2011 – After winning the largest share of the vote in the 2010 GE and set up the Tory led coalition support for the Tories drops only 1.1% from the GE.
2016 – After winning the 2015 GE the Tories votes drops 6.9% from GE support but this is not widely reported.

As you can see in this stage of the electoral cycle, the incumbent government has tended to do well in the following local elections and so the idea that the opposition should be making progress or grabbing hundreds of seats does not bear scrutiny and is completely wrong.

In fact this is the worse Tory performance in the local elections since 1996 when John Major only got 29% which was an improvement from 1995 when they only got 25% of the vote. But again this is not being reported.

So we are left with the worst possible world, in which campaigners against pro-Tory media bias have been silenced and the person responsible is being allowed to continue.

My contention is that, if you want to know why this happened, you only have to ask one simple question:

Who profits from this?

ADVERT




Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook