Election night result rumours that turned out to be BS

[timrollpickering]

Feb 28, 2018 19:52:19 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I seem to remember a fair bit of rumour about the Conservatives gaining Dagenham & Rainham last June though don't recall if the BBC ever mentioned it.

Sky misreported it - it would appear they had trainee reporters at the count who got their info from a counting agent who was equally inexperienced and clueless, then prepared the option before the declaration. (I was the Conservative agent and only spoke to them briefly, nothing about the likely outcome.)

[timrollpickering]

Mar 1, 2018 4:00:26 GMT johnloony said:

IIRC, part of the problem was that the Returning Officer read out the names and numbers very quickly, without allowing any pauses for cheering etc, and without mentioning the names of the parties.

Since other aspects of the results process are now heavily legalised for the benefit of viewers elsewhere, can we make the failure to include party names incur a heavy fine?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Mar 1, 2018 4:09:19 GMT johnloony said:

One of the most amusing bits of election night coverage ever, was in 1992 when the Scottish BBC presenter was interviewing Malcolm Rifkind about the "bad" results for the Conservative Party in Scotland. He was talking as if the projected/predicted results from the exit poll were a fait-accompli, and he was ignoring the handful of Conservative holds and gains that had already taken place.

Underscored when a Conservative gain in Scotland flashed up during the interview, IIRC.

[Robert Waller]

I think there is a difference between incorrect result flashes (like 'LD gain Newark') and rumours from the count conveyed from party activists to people like Laura Kuenssberg in 2017.
Given the amount of information being processed on the night, occasional howlers like Tewkesbury are probably inevitable, and are usually immediately doubted by those people in the studio who 'know their a ... from their elbow'.
However in 2017 the trend to the Political Editor passing on duff information accelerated. I watched on Sky, having finally lost patience with the BBC after 2015. I really did not like this aspect of the 2017 BBC coverage when I watched back my recording later. These rumours were plausible but wrong.
Maybe it's because I am old-fashioned, but I really liked the old days when I don't think broadcasters (for example on byelection programmes) were allowed to reveal the result before the official declaration. I liked the excitement reaching a climax.
By the way, on Sky I was also irritated by Adam Boulton yelling 'that will be enough' during the reading of the figures, so you couldn't hear the next number - and I was delighted when on one occasion it very swiftly turned out that he was wrong.
It seems to me all about instant gratification. As well as the inaccuracy, I adhere to that old discipline of appreciating deferred pleasures.

[robbienicoll]

Scottish Parliament election 2016, the BBC correspondent in the Highlands reported that UKIP were hopeful of getting two seats on the list in the Highlands and Islands where David Coburn was standing - they ended up scoring 3% when 6% is required to get one. Unsure whether it was UKIP ramping or the correspondent who got it wrong.

[yellowperil]

Mar 1, 2018 11:12:29 GMT Robert Waller said:

I think there is a difference between incorrect result flashes (like 'LD gain Newark') and rumours from the count conveyed from party activists to people like Laura Kuenssberg in 2017.
Given the amount of information being processed on the night, occasional howlers like Tewkesbury are probably inevitable, and are usually immediately doubted by those people in the studio who 'know their a ... from their elbow'.
However in 2017 the trend to the Political Editor passing on duff information accelerated. I watched on Sky, having finally lost patience with the BBC after 2015. I really did not like this aspect of the 2017 BBC coverage when I watched back my recording later. These rumours were plausible but wrong.
Maybe it's because I am old-fashioned, but I really liked the old days when I don't think broadcasters (for example on byelection programmes) were allowed to reveal the result before the official declaration. I liked the excitement reaching a climax.
By the way, on Sky I was also irritated by Adam Boulton yelling 'that will be enough' during the reading of the figures, so you couldn't hear the next number - and I was delighted when one one occasion it very swiftly turned out that he was wrong.
It seems to me all about instant gratification. As well as the inaccuracy, I adhere to that old discipline of appreciating deferred pleasures.

Of course it's not always pleasures that were being deferred. You could always cling to the hope that that the inevitable disaster was not waiting just round the corner...

[The Bishop]

A classic example of this - referred to on here before - was in the early minutes just after polls closed in 1997; David Dimbleby remarked in a totally casual way that Mitcham & Morden (a Tory ultra-marginal) was looking like a "close call".

(NARRATOR'S VOICE: it wasn't)

[jamie]

There were a lot of Labour seats that were predicted at around midnight to be marginal holds/potential Lib Dem gains in 2017 which ended up having massive Labour majorities eg; Cambridge, Bermondsey etc. There seemed to be an assumption, shared before the night by this forum, that the Lib Dem vote would hold up in Labour-Lib Dem marginals, and the BBC held onto this until the results were actually announced.

[timmullen1]

In 2001 Sky News’ ticker said the Conservatives had gained Stoke South, which came as something as a surprise to me as Labour’s Agent as George Stevenson had just bought me a bottle of champagne as ill health meant I’d not been at the count, and Radio Stoke had carried his acceptance speech.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Mar 1, 2018 10:14:31 GMT @strinity said:

Laura Kuenssberg was reporting several from "sources" last year that turned out not to be true, though they were usually pretty tight in the end eg Northampton North and the Milton Keynes seats.

Of course, if we had progressive booth level reporting like most other civilised countries, we wouldn't need chinese whisper rumours to be filtered through ignorant hacks in the first place, we could just get the data from source and probably be more authoritative on here than they are on the TV news.

Yes, but if we did have box data then political reporters would seize on the first (and hence most likely to be unrepresentative) boxes, draw hugely overreaching conclusions from them and spread even more misinformation. They'd probably stop being so bad after a couple of elections, but it'd take a while.

[carlton43]

Mar 1, 2018 11:12:29 GMT Robert Waller said:

I think there is a difference between incorrect result flashes (like 'LD gain Newark') and rumours from the count conveyed from party activists to people like Laura Kuenssberg in 2017.
Given the amount of information being processed on the night, occasional howlers like Tewkesbury are probably inevitable, and are usually immediately doubted by those people in the studio who 'know their a ... from their elbow'.
However in 2017 the trend to the Political Editor passing on duff information accelerated. I watched on Sky, having finally lost patience with the BBC after 2015. I really did not like this aspect of the 2017 BBC coverage when I watched back my recording later. These rumours were plausible but wrong.
Maybe it's because I am old-fashioned, but I really liked the old days when I don't think broadcasters (for example on byelection programmes) were allowed to reveal the result before the official declaration. I liked the excitement reaching a climax.
By the way, on Sky I was also irritated by Adam Boulton yelling 'that will be enough' during the reading of the figures, so you couldn't hear the next number - and I was delighted when one one occasion it very swiftly turned out that he was wrong.
It seems to me all about instant gratification. As well as the inaccuracy, I adhere to that old discipline of appreciating deferred pleasures.

I do so agree all of that.  It is like the ullage we so often get now about 'In a leaked speech to be delivered tomorrow', or 'it is rumoured that in a poll to be published next Sunday'!  Why not wait until the speech is delivered and see what it says.....And wait for the poll publication and see what is revealed?  Why all this speculation on what might be?  Wait for the event to unfold, digest first impression, think,and only then report it and make comment.

[rivers10]

Mar 1, 2018 11:12:29 GMT Robert Waller said:

I think there is a difference between incorrect result flashes (like 'LD gain Newark') and rumours from the count conveyed from party activists to people like Laura Kuenssberg in 2017.
Given the amount of information being processed on the night, occasional howlers like Tewkesbury are probably inevitable, and are usually immediately doubted by those people in the studio who 'know their a ... from their elbow'.
However in 2017 the trend to the Political Editor passing on duff information accelerated. I watched on Sky, having finally lost patience with the BBC after 2015. I really did not like this aspect of the 2017 BBC coverage when I watched back my recording later. These rumours were plausible but wrong.
Maybe it's because I am old-fashioned, but I really liked the old days when I don't think broadcasters (for example on byelection programmes) were allowed to reveal the result before the official declaration. I liked the excitement reaching a climax.
By the way, on Sky I was also irritated by Adam Boulton yelling 'that will be enough' during the reading of the figures, so you couldn't hear the next number - and I was delighted when one one occasion it very swiftly turned out that he was wrong.
It seems to me all about instant gratification. As well as the inaccuracy, I adhere to that old discipline of appreciating deferred pleasures.

Yes that was Colne Valley I believe, the Tory vote of 27,903 was announced first and he pre-emptively started yelling "Tory Hold on an increased vote" only for it to be declared next that Labour got 28,818 at which point he sheepishly said "Er no I was wrong its a Labour gain..." that one gave me a good chuckle

[andrewp]

Mar 1, 2018 11:12:29 GMT Robert Waller said:

I think there is a difference between incorrect result flashes (like 'LD gain Newark') and rumours from the count conveyed from party activists to people like Laura Kuenssberg in 2017.
Given the amount of information being processed on the night, occasional howlers like Tewkesbury are probably inevitable, and are usually immediately doubted by those people in the studio who 'know their a ... from their elbow'.
However in 2017 the trend to the Political Editor passing on duff information accelerated. I watched on Sky, having finally lost patience with the BBC after 2015. I really did not like this aspect of the 2017 BBC coverage when I watched back my recording later. These rumours were plausible but wrong.
Maybe it's because I am old-fashioned, but I really liked the old days when I don't think broadcasters (for example on byelection programmes) were allowed to reveal the result before the official declaration. I liked the excitement reaching a climax.
By the way, on Sky I was also irritated by Adam Boulton yelling 'that will be enough' during the reading of the figures, so you couldn't hear the next number - and I was delighted when on one occasion it very swiftly turned out that he was wrong.
It seems to me all about instant gratification. As well as the inaccuracy, I adhere to that old discipline of appreciating deferred pleasures.

Between us on this forum, we could produce a far superior election night programme!

[Deleted]

Mar 1, 2018 13:45:49 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Mar 1, 2018 10:14:31 GMT @strinity said:

Laura Kuenssberg was reporting several from "sources" last year that turned out not to be true, though they were usually pretty tight in the end eg Northampton North and the Milton Keynes seats.

Of course, if we had progressive booth level reporting like most other civilised countries, we wouldn't need chinese whisper rumours to be filtered through ignorant hacks in the first place, we could just get the data from source and probably be more authoritative on here than they are on the TV news.

Yes, but if we did have box data then political reporters would seize on the first (and hence most likely to be unrepresentative) boxes, draw hugely overreaching conclusions from them and spread even more misinformation. They'd probably stop being so bad after a couple of elections, but it'd take a while.

This is true, but the democratisation of access would mean we could screen out the bullshit and ignore their claims more easily.

[Andrew_S]

Mar 1, 2018 11:37:37 GMT The Bishop said:

A classic example of this - referred to on here before - was in the early minutes just after polls closed in 1997; David Dimbleby remarked in a totally casual way that Mitcham & Morden (a Tory ultra-marginal) was looking like a "close call".

(NARRATOR'S VOICE: it wasn't)

The Tories in the seat were apparently saying they thought Angela Rumbold had increased her majority against the national trend. How they came to that conclusion is one of the biggest mysteries of any election campaign.

[gwynthegriff]

Mar 1, 2018 13:56:56 GMT carlton43 said:

Mar 1, 2018 11:12:29 GMT Robert Waller said:

I think there is a difference between incorrect result flashes (like 'LD gain Newark') and rumours from the count conveyed from party activists to people like Laura Kuenssberg in 2017.
Given the amount of information being processed on the night, occasional howlers like Tewkesbury are probably inevitable, and are usually immediately doubted by those people in the studio who 'know their a ... from their elbow'.
However in 2017 the trend to the Political Editor passing on duff information accelerated. I watched on Sky, having finally lost patience with the BBC after 2015. I really did not like this aspect of the 2017 BBC coverage when I watched back my recording later. These rumours were plausible but wrong.
Maybe it's because I am old-fashioned, but I really liked the old days when I don't think broadcasters (for example on byelection programmes) were allowed to reveal the result before the official declaration. I liked the excitement reaching a climax.
By the way, on Sky I was also irritated by Adam Boulton yelling 'that will be enough' during the reading of the figures, so you couldn't hear the next number - and I was delighted when one one occasion it very swiftly turned out that he was wrong.
It seems to me all about instant gratification. As well as the inaccuracy, I adhere to that old discipline of appreciating deferred pleasures.

I do so agree all of that.  It is like the ullage we so often get now about 'In a leaked speech to be delivered tomorrow', or 'it is rumoured that in a poll to be published next Sunday'!  Why not wait until the speech is delivered and see what it says.....And wait for the poll publication and see what is revealed?  Why all this speculation on what might be?  Wait for the event to unfold, digest first impression, think,and only then report it and make comment.

Quoted so I can like it again.

[rivers10]

Not quite a rumour as such but more a truly woeful bit of election night reporting but one of the things that really sticks with me from the nights results shows was a load of crap Andrew Marr said after the Kettering result early on in the night.

The result had came in, Tory hold (no surprise there) what was surprising was the 2.5% swing to Labour in the seat of which all the others commented upon at length. Andrew Marr then ways in with what was clearly a line prepared well in advance of the night talking about how Phillip Hollobone had arranged a pact with UKIP for them not to stand, how UKIP had endorsed him, how he was basically a UKIP MP etc etc and thus the UKIP vote has broken overwhelmingly to him and he's consequently had a great result...err no Andrew there was a swing TO Labour.

What that whole debacle tells me is either 1) Marr is an idiot (I don't think this is the case) or 2) Marr has such an ego and is so confident in his own evidently mediocre abilities that he wasn't paying the blindest bit of attention to the preceding ten minutes of discussion on the Kettering result and first chance he got wades in with his pre prepared line blissfully unaware at how irrelevant it ultimately is, a sad state of affairs demonstrating both how arrogant and how mediocre one of the Beebs most well paid and supposedly respected political journalists is.

[Andrew_S]

Not really an election night mistake, but when the Tories lost Cheltenham in 1992 a lot of people like Darcus Howe came on TV shows to say how the Tories had lost "one of their safest seats" because of racism. They hadn't bothered to look at the results over the years in the constituency to see that it had never been a safe seat for the Conservatives and the Liberals had been very strong there for a long time.

[timrollpickering]

Mar 1, 2018 14:20:56 GMT Andrew_S said:

Mar 1, 2018 11:37:37 GMT The Bishop said:

A classic example of this - referred to on here before - was in the early minutes just after polls closed in 1997; David Dimbleby remarked in a totally casual way that Mitcham & Morden (a Tory ultra-marginal) was looking like a "close call".

(NARRATOR'S VOICE: it wasn't)

The Tories in the seat were apparently saying they thought Angela Rumbold had increased her majority against the national trend. How they came to that conclusion is one of the biggest mysteries of any election campaign.

I suspect inexperienced tallying. Perhaps they got the boxes muddled up or maybe there was a new development (or even a polling district reorganisation) that meant there were some boxes where they actually had improved compared to the raw 1992 result.

Or this is a reflection of an uneven canvass that was disproportionately in the good areas so didn't spot the collapse. There was a lot of "this doesn't reflect what we're hearing on the ground" that year that overlooked the bits of the ground where they had no ears.

[timmullen1]

In defence of Laura Kuennesberg and others with “rumours” my seat only decisively fell to the Tories on the last ballot box to finish counting (our usually accurate Tellers had us 70-odd ahead until then) and on the flipside, for all the faults with the conduct of the election, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council very kindly for Paul Farrelly saved the polling station used by most Keele Uni students until last, thus probably pushing him into the lead. Thus it wouldn’t be unreasonable to report that Labour thought they might have held Stoke South, but think they’ve lost Newcastle.

One point about Vauxhall last year, that was a little more than an election night rumour, the local Lib Dem’s were claiming on the Wednesday evening that their canvass returns had then 2-4% ahead.