Reform spent £177,000 to help Nigel Farage defeat Count Binface

The Observer reports Nigel Farage's spending of more than £177,000 on the Clacton byelection he triggered, with attributed spending returns, the background of the undeclared £5m gift from Christopher Harborne, and Farage's denial of wrongdoing. Its one clear failure is the result line: the vote counts and percentages it gives for Farage and Count Binface do not match each other, so a reader cannot know the true margin.

1. Uses figures that mislead

   Serious

   “who took 26.9% of the vote (9,455), with Farage winning comfortably with 46.2% (22,239)”

   Why this matters

   The Observer gives two vote counts and two percentages that cannot all be right. If 22,239 votes is 46.2%, about 48,100 votes were cast, and 9,455 is about 19.6%, not 26.9%. If 9,455 is 26.9%, about 35,100 votes were cast, and 22,239 is about 63%, not 46.2%.

   The impression it gives

   A reader takes away a precise result: Binface on just over a quarter of the vote and Farage on under half, winning by roughly 19 points.

   The context

   The article's own numbers contradict each other, so either the shares or the counts are wrong. The margin is either about 27 points or about 36 points, and Binface's share is either about a fifth or over a quarter. The reader is given a result that does not add up and has no way to tell which figure is true.