Share this post:
The BBC’s top story – at the time of writing – tells us that the “Home Office squandered billions on asylum hotels”. Is this a deliberate attempt to mislead casual readers?
It is a classic example of how “narrative sequencing” – the way the information in a story is arranged – can be manipulated to encourage a reader to draw the wrong conclusion.
Read the first few paragraphs:
The Home Office has “squandered” billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on asylum accommodation, according to a report by a committee of MPs.
The Home Affairs Committee said “flawed contracts” and “incompetent delivery” left the department unable to cope with a surge in demand and it relied on hotels as “go-to solutions” instead of temporary stop-gaps.
The MPs said expected costs had tripled to more than £15bn and not enough had been done to recoup excess profits.
Most readers will instinctively – and wrongly – associate the headline and those words with the current government — especially since the piece uses present-tense phrasing.
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving – in FIVE days!
I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.
From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.
Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com
Only much later do readers find out that:
-
The contracts were drawn up under the Conservatives in 2019,
-
They run until 2029, and
-
The current Labour administration is auditing those contracts and attempting to claw back excess profits.
In other words, the so-called “squandering” took place under Tory rule, but the BBC’s structure and word choice all but conceal that fact from a casual reader.
This is one of Auntie’s subtler methods of political bias: the BBC doesn’t have to lie, its reporters just bury the truth in paragraph nine.
And what about the terminology used in this piece?
The BBC repeats “illegal migrants” without qualification, which is both legally and morally misleading.
Many of these people are asylum seekers who would once have entered the UK through legitimate channels — but those routes were shut down by the Conservatives from 2010 onward.
The UK asylum system now effectively forces people to arrive by “irregular” means (small boats, lorries) and then apply for asylum once here.
That does not make their presence criminal under international law — specifically under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which protects people who enter a country irregularly to seek asylum.
So it is wrong to label everybody staying in an asylum hotel as an “illegal migrant”, as the BBC appears to do here.
So, to sum up the real picture that the BBC obscures:
-
The billions wasted were the result of Conservative contracts from 2019–2024.
-
The current Labour government is auditing and recovering misspent funds.
-
The use of the term “illegal migrants” misrepresents the legal and humanitarian status of those involved.
-
The BBC’s headline and structure quietly perpetuate the myth of Labour incompetence and immigrant blame, while letting Tory mismanagement recede into the background.
For clarity, paragraph nine of the story states:
The report said the contracts drawn up for accommodation providers under the Conservatives had been flawed and that “inadequate oversight” had meant failings went “unnoticed and unaddressed”.
It continues:
Choices made by the previous Conservative government, including to delay asylum decisions as it pursued the scheme to deport migrants to Rwanda, factored into this, MPs added.
Housing Secretary Steve Reed accused the previous government of “pouring taxpayers’ money down the drain”.
So the BBC can plead plausible deniability: it did provide the facts… eventually.
But how many readers bothered to wade down into the details far enough to find them?
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Narrative sequencing: how the BBC buried facts to make the government look bad
Share this post:
It is a classic example of how “narrative sequencing” – the way the information in a story is arranged – can be manipulated to encourage a reader to draw the wrong conclusion.
Read the first few paragraphs:
Most readers will instinctively – and wrongly – associate the headline and those words with the current government — especially since the piece uses present-tense phrasing.
Only much later do readers find out that:
The contracts were drawn up under the Conservatives in 2019,
They run until 2029, and
The current Labour administration is auditing those contracts and attempting to claw back excess profits.
In other words, the so-called “squandering” took place under Tory rule, but the BBC’s structure and word choice all but conceal that fact from a casual reader.
This is one of Auntie’s subtler methods of political bias: the BBC doesn’t have to lie, its reporters just bury the truth in paragraph nine.
And what about the terminology used in this piece?
The BBC repeats “illegal migrants” without qualification, which is both legally and morally misleading.
Many of these people are asylum seekers who would once have entered the UK through legitimate channels — but those routes were shut down by the Conservatives from 2010 onward.
The UK asylum system now effectively forces people to arrive by “irregular” means (small boats, lorries) and then apply for asylum once here.
That does not make their presence criminal under international law — specifically under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which protects people who enter a country irregularly to seek asylum.
So it is wrong to label everybody staying in an asylum hotel as an “illegal migrant”, as the BBC appears to do here.
So, to sum up the real picture that the BBC obscures:
The billions wasted were the result of Conservative contracts from 2019–2024.
The current Labour government is auditing and recovering misspent funds.
The use of the term “illegal migrants” misrepresents the legal and humanitarian status of those involved.
The BBC’s headline and structure quietly perpetuate the myth of Labour incompetence and immigrant blame, while letting Tory mismanagement recede into the background.
For clarity, paragraph nine of the story states:
It continues:
So the BBC can plead plausible deniability: it did provide the facts… eventually.
But how many readers bothered to wade down into the details far enough to find them?
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
More mistakes in the script? Correcting Cameron’s New Year speech
Like this:
Police State Britain: Tories would arrest you for looking at them in a funny way
Like this:
Plebgate v NHS lies – why is one the lead on the news when the other was buried?
Like this:
Like this: