Why was the BBC's election night coverage so poor?

I did not stay up very late last night, but even so it was clear that Obama had won by the time I went to bed.

At least I think it was. It was hard to tell because I was watching the BBC coverage.

Let me join the chorus of disapproval from Liberal Democrat Voice, Iain Dale and A Lanson Boy and say how poor it was.

Essentially David Dimbleby and his pals were sitting around waiting for the American networks to declare the various State results. But they gave us no steer on which States to look for and what particular results in them would mean. So the number of delegates in Obama's column went up and up, but it was impossible to be sure how significant this was.

Unlike Iain, I do not think Dimbleby has ever been a great broadcaster - of election night programmes or anything else. As I said a long time ago, his career owes a lot to his family connections (and, to be fair, his strong bladder). It is certainly time they found someone else to do this job, and Iain's suggestion of Andrew Neil would be several streets better.

It was no great surprise that, as the results came in, the alternative viewing on BBC2 was a programme featuring David Dimbleby's brother. And it could be worse: back in the 1980s the corporation insisted on casting his young son in their Arthur Ransome adaptations.

But a serious questions remains: why, with 175 staff sent to American and 50 executives paid more than the prime minister, was the BBC coverage so poor?