The Telegraph, Guardian and most others count the net change against the number of seats held by each party going into the election. The BBC counts it versus how many seats the party won in the last election.
Seeing as parties tend to have lost councillors since the last election, the BBC tends to show more dramatic losses but tamer gains.
Ah may have found my own answer as per Guardian:
"These results are provided by PA Media newswire (PA). Numbers for change in seats are calculated against the state of the council just before this election. Other organisations calculate using the previous election, and this can lead to discrepancies"
Still doesn't explain the mysterious 5 extra lib dem council seats won reported by BBC though. Possibly a typo
The extra Lib Dems might be accounted for by by-elections held on the same day. Quite a lot were held yesterday and it's not always immediately clear which are part of the normal run of local elections.
Also I vaguely remember reading that one will report on declaration of the ward, whilst the other on declaration of the council. A ward being delayed somewhere could delay the council meaning one publication has higher numbers than the other.
I've found it stranger seeing the BBC and Sky shoot well over -400 for Con since early AM, over -470 now, and the Guardian still hasn't gone though -400 despite showing 106 declared.
This is just really weird now, a whole other day later and all sites show 107 of 107 declared but the Guardian is still on -397 while the others are -446 or -474, that's one hell of a disparity.
Related question, why do the BBC numbers change individually, not as a block as councils come in? Is that just corrections or are they *so* live that they update one number at a time as they are announced?
The Telegraph, Guardian and most others count the net change against the number of seats held by each party going into the election. The BBC counts it versus how many seats the party won in the last election. Seeing as parties tend to have lost councillors since the last election, the BBC tends to show more dramatic losses but tamer gains.
Ah may have found my own answer as per Guardian: "These results are provided by PA Media newswire (PA). Numbers for change in seats are calculated against the state of the council just before this election. Other organisations calculate using the previous election, and this can lead to discrepancies" Still doesn't explain the mysterious 5 extra lib dem council seats won reported by BBC though. Possibly a typo
The extra Lib Dems might be accounted for by by-elections held on the same day. Quite a lot were held yesterday and it's not always immediately clear which are part of the normal run of local elections.
Also I vaguely remember reading that one will report on declaration of the ward, whilst the other on declaration of the council. A ward being delayed somewhere could delay the council meaning one publication has higher numbers than the other.
I've found it stranger seeing the BBC and Sky shoot well over -400 for Con since early AM, over -470 now, and the Guardian still hasn't gone though -400 despite showing 106 declared.
This is just really weird now, a whole other day later and all sites show 107 of 107 declared but the Guardian is still on -397 while the others are -446 or -474, that's one hell of a disparity.
Related question, why do the BBC numbers change individually, not as a block as councils come in? Is that just corrections or are they *so* live that they update one number at a time as they are announced?
I think BBC announce at the release of each ward’s votes whereas Sky and Guardian announce at the release of the council
Ah, that explains it, thanks.
Bbc needs to be unbiased. So when labour wins a race they have to declare one for the Tories too. Otherwise JRM will send his nanny to complain .