—Why 34 Candidates Break the ‘Due Impartiality’ Model; solutions — see bottom

–Ofcom are not for the people, at all

Opinion By Mathew Carr, candidate (Woke Trump CarrZee) *

July 26, 2026 — British broadcasters are grappling with the massive Clacton by-election.

With a record 34 candidates on the ballot, reading through every name on air, for instance, would consume a significant chunk of a broadcast. What can regulator Ofcom do to ensure a fair competition between 33 little known folk and …

…incumbent Reform UK leader Nigel Farage …who is odds-on favourite to win…96% likely according to Polymarket…yet much maligned….and let’s say …he has interesting friends.***

Yet here, despite his unsuitability, he is a one-man show, despite the apparent competition.

Is it a Farage mirage of competition to be an MP?

First, some context

Ofcom’s due impartiality rules were designed for a world of a handful of serious contenders, not three dozen.

The rules require broadcasters to treat candidates with “due” — not “equal” — weight, judged against factors like past electoral support and evidence of current support.

Is news judgement allowed?

That is a little unclear.

The current system, like so many systems in society, seems to benefit the incumbent, Mr Farage, despite those interesting friends ***)

How can I, a debt-slaved country-boy, social-media-suppressed, billionaire critic in favor of social justice …get traction in a Tory and Reform space?

Also unclear.

Let’s try to stay positive.

That framework assumes broadcasters can sensibly rank candidates by significance.

With 34, most of them independents or minor parties with no or little electoral track record in the seat, the broadcasters have almost no objective baseline to work from.

Laurence Fox is an actor known for his right-wing thinking.

The result: an unusually large field turns a routine impartiality exercise into a genuinely difficult editorial judgment call, with more room than usual for post-election disputes about fairness.

…So this is what I tried.

Being one of the 34 and knowing it will be difficult, I still phoned radio station BBC Five Live and LBC** to speak on important issues that impact Clacton folk, including the plight of young people.

After I asked if I could be a caller on the BBC radio show, and I admitted up front btw I’m a Clacton candidate….the BBC phone answerer kind of scoffed then said he would call me back. I don’t think he did.

A couple of days later a bloke at LBC said I couldn’t talk, then he said I could. Then, a charming lady explained —I think —that it was pointless to call.

She did helpfully point out I can try phoning print media who don’t have to be impartial. Hehehe. Grrrr. Ive tried that too.

I challenged her, saying something like: isn’t LBC going to cover the by-election properly?

She hung up, or left me on hold. I repeatedly asked her … “are you there?” “Hi”? Silence.

Lovely.

Perhaps LBC is kind of abandoning Clacton’s poor people ….like five other political parties who are declining to stand a candidate?

Farage resigned a couple of weeks back, prompting the election, apparently to get the investigatory heat off himself ….but it has backfired.

While Ofcom’s current rules actually offer a bit more flexibility than requiring a full verbal readout every time of all 34 candidates, a record-breaking candidate list puts real strain on broadcast timing. I suggested they make concessions (see below) Ofcom basically said no it won’t tweak the rules. (more to come)

I contend the election is more and more deliberate farce

And while Farage is getting the lion’s share of coverage, it kind of benefits the 33 other candidates including me ….because it is mostly negative coverage.

Or does it?

The problem for me and the 32 others is that Farage is Clacton’s lovable beer-swilling rascal … and I’m an almost-no-name monster.

My superior integrity seems to mean nothing. I can swill beer however.

A CarrZee-Farage drinkathon? Some sort of televised hustings/rowdy pub conversation?

(more to come)

——

Notes

 

What Current Ofcom Rules Allow

Under Rule 6.10 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, constituency reports broadcast after nominations close must include a list of all candidates standing:

• On Television: The list can be provided “in vision”. TV news can simply display a full-screen or scrolling text graphic showing all 34 candidates while the news bulletin continues, without the presenter needing to read them out loud.
• On Radio: Broadcasters are required to read the full spoken list once per day. For any subsequent reports on the same day, radio presenters are permitted to direct listeners to an official website listing all candidates.
• Editorial “Due Weight”: Broadcasters are not required to give equal interview airtime to all 34 candidates. Under Rule 6.2, coverage is based on “due weight,” taking into account past electoral support and current political standing.

Potential Temporary Updates for Ofcom

When candidate numbers reach extreme levels (such as Clacton’s 34), Ofcom could issue temporary regulatory guidance or emergency modifications to ease the burden:

1. Extend the Online Directing Exemption to All Radio Bulletins Rather than requiring radio stations to read out the complete 34-name list even once a day, Ofcom could allow audio stations to fulfill Rule 6.10 by directing listeners to a dedicated webpage or digital platform for all bulletins, provided the link is clearly stated.
2. Allow Standardized Short-Form Audio Disclaimers For radio and TV news items under a brief threshold (e.g., under two minutes), Ofcom could permit a concise closing statement (e.g., “Nigel Farage and 33 other candidates are standing in Clacton; full candidate details are available on our website.”).
3. Group Listing for Single Parties In elections where a single party or movement fields multiple candidates (such as the Official Monster Raving Loony Party fielding three separate candidates in Clacton), Ofcom could allow grouped announcements (e.g., “3 candidates representing the Official Monster Raving Loony Party”), trimming unnecessary repetition.
4. Interactive QR & On-Screen Link Approvals for TV On television, Ofcom could explicitly confirm that displaying a prominent, persistent QR code or web URL on-screen throughout a constituency package meets candidate disclosure standards, avoiding full-screen graphic clutter that covers report visuals.

*With AI help, Gemini, Claude

More Notes

**

What is LBC stand for?

It actually does — both are right, depending on whether you’re asking a radio historian or a marketing executive.

London Broadcasting Company was the original legal name when the station launched in 1973 as a local London station.

However, when media owner Global expanded the station nationwide across the UK in 2014, they officially re-purposed the initials as a backronym meaning Leading Britain’s Conversation to better reflect its national reach (which evolved from an earlier 2007 London slogan, “London’s Biggest Conversation”).

So while its heritage name is London Broadcasting Company, its active official brand meaning today is indeed Leading Britain’s Conversation.

——

Claude

Why 34 Candidates Break the Due Impartiality Model

Ofcom’s due impartiality rules were designed for a world of a handful of serious contenders, not three dozen. The rules require broadcasters to treat candidates with “due” — not “equal” — weight, judged against factors like past electoral support and evidence of current support. That framework assumes broadcasters can sensibly rank candidates by significance. With 34 names on the ballot, most of them independents or minor parties with no electoral track record in the seat, the BBC has almost no objective baseline to work from.

This creates a genuine dilemma. Giving all 34 candidates equal airtime would make any serious debate or profile segment unwatchable and arguably uninformative — voters would learn nothing distinguishing a novelty candidate from a serious challenger. But selecting only the “major” contenders (say, Farage and Count Binface, as the media narrative has already framed it) risks the BBC pre-judging the outcome and shutting out candidates who might have legitimate local support, especially in a seat where the mainstream parties (Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green) have all chosen not to contest.

The BBC’s own editorial guidelines allow it to make judgment calls based on “evidence of past electoral support” — but by-elections with mass boycotts and novelty candidates don’t fit that evidence base cleanly. Any editorial decision about who gets studio time becomes a decision with electoral consequences, inviting complaints from excluded candidates that could escalate through the BBC’s internal process to Ofcom.

***