BBC ‘explains’ why it’s not calling Tory quitters a ‘split’

Media coverage of the three Tory quitters today has been radically different from the way broadcasters treated the resignations of ‘Labour’ MPs this week to join the new Quitters’ group.

In particular, the use of the word ‘split‘ has been almost entirely absent in ‘MSM’ coverage and commentary – and entirely absent from the BBC News channel. In contrast, ‘Labour split’ and variants were used by the national broadcaster in almost every bulletin and voiceover.

The difference was glaring – even before the resignations had been announced:

The SKWAWKBOX asked the BBC why there was such a discrepancy in their respective coverage of the two. The BBC did not contest that it was doing so – and sent the following ‘explanation’ via a spokesperson:

The developments on Monday were widely described as a split due to the number of MPs leaving to form a new group, and the nature of their criticisms of the Labour party leadership. Today a smaller group of Conservative MPs have resigned indicating they will continue to support the government on some matters. The context has been made clear to viewers which parties have been affected by the various resignations.

SKWAWKBOX comment:

Riiiiight.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

13 responses to “BBC ‘explains’ why it’s not calling Tory quitters a ‘split’

  1. But the split is not about numbers it is about the views of the people who left and the views of those who sympathise with them who remain and may or may not leave. In both cases they are splits.

  2. This BBC response is a typically Orwellian lie. The Labour splinter group remain on the Opposition back benches. But the Tory split is far more significant in that they have left the Government side, crossed the floor and now sit with Opposition backbenchers.

    • Also way more significant because of the impact on the Parliamentary arithmetic. This is compromised by the suggestion that they may still support the Tories on some issues – but the problem with that is that it underlines that this is a group of disparate individuals, not a new party.

      • “this is a group of disparate individuals, not a new party.”

        Precisely. And their motivations are also disparate. There is no coherence. I actually do think that the Tories *are* less despicable than the Labour crew.

  3. “… and besides – it’s very bad form to speak ill of one’s dinner party guests, you common prole”

  4. Well now this appears to be a case of “Splitters”, “Quitters” and “BBC Bullshitters”

  5. ….and the ex Labour quitters will of course not be supporting the real Labour Party on ‘some issues’ such as social justice, benefit theft, defending the NHS etc etc????

  6. On the subject of language,can somebody explain to Barry Gardiner that seven of his colleagues were not “forced out”. Not that he probably cares having just got Derek Hatton suspended again for comments made in 2012. Wadsworth ,Hatton,WalkerGalloway,Abbott ,Williamson,Corbyn and so many others.how much longer do we have to be told our side of the party are the bullies.

    • I have no time for Derek Hatton & if he cared about the Labour Party, he would not rejoin; his name is toxic, however………I cannot find fault with the tweet that he made some 7 years ago, urging Jews to criticise Israel. This action says more about Barry Gardiner than Derek Hatton; it also says a lot about the power of the pro-Zionist lobby in the Labour Party. I would not want Derek Hatton back, but the timing of this episode could not be worse & that too says a lot about the Labour Party.

  7. Yes and the attacks on Jeremy by Right Wing Labour MPs for a year or so before a GE (probably cost us a majority?) some suggest were tantamount to verbal and mental domestic violence.
    They think we forget how they treated a good comrade.

Leave a Reply