UKIP 'Statistic'

[Micilin]

The first ten minutes shows how some politicians misquote and misrepresent information. And also how they try to weasel out of it when challenged.

This programme debunks UKIP's claim that 75% of British law is made in Brussels.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b041yf8s

 

[pred]

Micillin, thank you very much for your informative post, unfortunately I have not the time to look at the link, could you please inform me of the actual figures, if not 75% then how many on a percentage base.

Thanks in advance..

 

[jockscott]

Ahh, it's a BBC program.... Wouldn't want them accused of bias now,, Would we?

 

[joe-90]

I watched Question Time the other day and Dimbleby would let UKIP ask how many supporters were in the audience. I wonder why that was?

 

[breadnbutter]

i noticed recently that UKIP, getting accused,and attacked often, maybe its
becuase there winning the argument.

 

[securespark]

Ah, Zut!

 

[securespark]

I watched Question Time the other day and Dimbleby would let UKIP ask how many supporters were in the audience. I wonder why that was?

Because he was fair and unbiased?

 

[Micilin]

Micillin, thank you very much for your informative post, unfortunately I have not the time to look at the link, could you please inform me of the actual figures, if not 75% then how many on a percentage base.

Thanks in advance..

Pred,

The point of the programme was to show how there wasn't any real measure of this, and that UKIP based their figure on an out of context quote from a speech on a different subject.

Clegg gives a figure of 7% - again, not an accurate figure as there isn't one. He is ( for the benefit of others who are cynical about the balance of the BBC ) derided for picking a low figure.

But the point is , there is no measure and it is more complex than UKIP , or others make out.

For example, a technical piece of legislation on the font size of ingredients might be a EU law that is incorporated by the UK, but is that really the kind of thing the headline is about?

You could argue that 0% of law should be made by the EU- a valid view. However, that should not be supported by false claims and 'out of context' quotes.

Hope that fills in a bit of detail, Pred.


The rest of the posts so far don't really have any direct relevance to the OP.

 

[JBR]

i noticed recently that UKIP, getting accused,and attacked often, maybe its
becuase there winning the argument.

Of course it is. That's the same reason that the press, the BBC and the other political parties are doing all they can to discredit UKIP.

Fortunately, it appears to be backfiring on them and UKIP's following is increasing.

 

[Whitespirit66]

i noticed recently that UKIP, getting accused,and attacked often, maybe its
becuase there winning the argument.

Of course it is. That's the same reason that the press, the BBC and the other political parties are doing all they can to discredit UKIP.

Fortunately, it appears to be backfiring on them and UKIP's following is increasing.

Yes. There's nothing the political classes, liberal intelligencia and media would like less than a political party that gives the punters what they want. The people who know what's best for us will try to stifle and discredit UKIP at every opportunity.

 

[EddieM]

I watched Question Time the other day and Dimbleby would let UKIP ask how many supporters were in the audience. I wonder why that was?

Because he was fair and unbiased?

I noticed as well SS

 

[joe-90]

What's unbiased in proving that the audience were chosen for their anti UKIP leaning compared to the rest of society? He was scared. Simple as that.

 

[RogueHanger]

What's unbiased in proving that the audience were chosen for their anti UKIP leaning compared to the rest of society? He was scared. Simple as that.

Are you suggesting that audiences, for the programme in question, are intentionally screened to secure a biased audience?

 

[Micilin]

Interesting that nobody has said the programme is wrong, just that it is biased. Which suggests that it is stating facts, without a balance of reporting.
So far, all must be agreed then that UKIP misrepresented a speech to give an incorrect figure, or unable to show otherwise.

Strange that without hearing the radio programme linked , some people assume it is biased - rather than address the content, they go off on the usual avoidance route.

How does anyone know that the programme makers are biased without being able to counter what the content is?

The programme in the past has done the same to other politicians, govt depts and others when they use numbers without understanding them or stats that are simply wrong. Eg I remember them some time ago asking ministers 'how many million in a billion' .

All parties are guilty of bending stats. Labour were infamous for re announcing investment programmes for example.
Isn't it more a demonstration of bias to deride an statement or argument without even listening to it or engaging with it? Ie A contradicts what B says. I believe in B therefore A must be biased/wrong, regardless of content.

Have UKIP made a false claim this case . Anyone care to give a simple Yes or no, with something to back it up?

 

[Trazor]

Are you suggesting that audiences, for the programme in question, are intentionally screened to secure a biased audience?

Yes, it's called positive discrimination.