advertisement


The Premiership ofLiz Truss. Sept 2022-Oct 2022. New PM time!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Finnegan said:
If I were to be found lying on a Caribbean beach outside of any period of agreed annual leave, I would fully expect to be called to account by my employer. How come he will face no formal sanction?

If trade unions are legally prohibited from using online voting for strike ballots, how come it’s being used to elect the Tory leader?
Click to expand...

I suspect you know the answer to both of those questions.... because Tory.
 
Even Steve Baker not joining the lunatic fringe for Johnson. Though the likes of Mark Francois still might.

Will be very tight for Johnson. We probably won't know if he really has the 100 until they announce the results.

If he gets exactly 100 and then wins, it's curtains for the Tories.

 
Lord Mervin King on LK talking bollocks about the problem of ‘printing money’ and ‘putting debt onto our children and grandchildren’.

The fact that this nonsense goes unchallenged is what is really wrong with our economy.
 
molee said:
You seem to have set yourself up as Mr Right round here. Starting any sentence with 'Of course ' just marks you out as a bit of a pillock beyond the contestable nature of some of your comments. I would say it is more reminiscent of Trumpian tactics than not btw. Your second sentence also does not necessarily back up your first.
Click to expand...

I have opinions that I express in a forthright manner although the vast majority of my posts are good natured and lighthearted. Use of a clumsy rhetorical device is not going to get my posts deleted.
 
matthewr said:
I am using sophisticated here in the way regulators do. i.e. meaning the opposite of naive or inexperienced rather than to suggest the readers of the Guardian live blogs are sitting around eating foie gras while reading live tweets about the day's news. Like how under my annual FCA review I am considered a "sophisticated investor" by which they mean I understand how securities, derivatives, markets, etc. work not that I am battling with George Soros for control of the sterling interest rate future :)
Click to expand...
I consider myself a sophisticated user insomuch as as I see the Guardian being so heavily bias to the left, as the Telegraph is to the right, it's not really news. I just hadn't though that people that read either of those names would ever be seen as sophisticated, unless they read both in order to get some balanced reading!
 
Nic Robinson said:
I don't think I've expressed a preference!
Click to expand...

Sorry, my fatigue. I just want them out, Johnson would achieve that faster. He was hoping for a few more holidays while his nominated successor failed more slowly and he put more distance in people's memories of him. Seems to have blown up in his face.
 
Part of the problem is the use of the phrase 'sources close to ...'. Generally speaking, this can be taken to mean 'the person themselves', but it allows a degree of distancing and deniability. Maybe it'd be better if all sources were named, except in 'whistleblowing' situations, where the source might be endangered.

The latest example was that Penny Mordaunt was 'reported' to have offered to stand down from the leadership contest in Boris's favour, on condition she was given a major role in the Cabinet. She flatly denied that any such discussion had taken place.

So, name sources and, if they insist on anonymity, don't report what they say.
 
RZBsqJx.png


https://www.trueandfairparty.uk/
 
Joe Hutch said:
So do most pfmers, to be fair. (Not me, obvs, because I'm unsure about almost everything apart from 19th century politics).
Click to expand...
If you were to say most people here are Mr Opinionated then fair enough, to an extent. Matthew takes it to the next level in my humble.....
 
Joe Hutch said:
Part of the problem is the use of the phrase 'sources close to ...'. Generally speaking, this can be taken to mean 'the person themselves', but it allows a degree of distancing and deniability. Maybe it'd be better if all sources were named, except in 'whistleblowing' situations, where the source might be endangered.

The latest example was that Penny Mordaunt was 'reported' to have offered to stand down from the leadership contest in Boris's favour, on condition she was given a major role in the Cabinet. She flatly denied that any such discussion had taken place.

So, name sources and, if they insist on anonymity, don't report what they say.
Click to expand...
Do you not think many of these placed stories emanate from disgruntled ex-ministers like Dominic Raab or Michael Gove. phoning up journalists while putting on novelty voices?
 
richardg said:
I consider myself a sophisticated user insomuch as as I see the Guardian being so heavily bias to the left, as the Telegraph is to the right, it's not really news. I just hadn't though that people that read either of those names would ever be seen as sophisticated, unless they read both in order to get some balanced reading!
Click to expand...

I would suggest that the vast majority of people who follow political news with that level of engagement do indeed read news from a variety of sources.
 
matthewr said:
For sure. But I don't think that was happening here. The basic fact "supporters of Boris Johnson are claiming he has the required 100 vote threshold" even made it into tonight's C4 News report on the latest developments in the ongoing saga. It is, after all, hardly a particularly sensational claim and indeed appears to be essentially true -- Johnson supporters are claiming he has 100 MPs.
Click to expand...
It really does matter how it’s done: including claim (and counterclaim, presumably?) as part of a larger report is responsible journalism: live Tweeting context-free bullshit, then 20 minutes later Tweeting that it’s probably bullshit, is not responsible journalism. It’s not just the lie but the whole process that’s damaging. It’s flooding the zone with shit, to use the Bannon term: Johnson does it as a conscious strategy, journalists are well aware of this, and they go along with it anyway.

It seems like a relatively trivial example to worry about but I think the reason it’s getting such pushback is because it was central to the Conservatives’ 2019 campaign and it really exposed British political journalism as not fit for purpose. The few critically aware journalists in the field are rightly frustrated and embarrassed that their colleagues are just picking up where they left off, having learned nothing.
 
matthewr said:
I would suggest that the vast majority of people who follow political news with that level of engagement do indeed read news from a variety of sources.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest in many cases exactly the opposite is true - a lot of people who follow political news on Twitter seem to have it tuned so they're only every presented with a very particular (often insane) worldview.
 
TheDecameron said:
Do you not think many of these placed stories emanate from disgruntled ex-ministers like Dominic Raab or Michael Gove. phoning up journalists while putting on novelty voices?
Click to expand...

Not if they're supportive of Boris. In those cases, it's definitely Boris himself. Of course, Gove (not Raaaab, he's too thick) could pretend to be a 'source close to Boris' and make some outrageous/egregious claim: 'Boris will prove his suitability to be Prime Minister by walking on the water at 5pm today. None of the other candidates could so this.'
 
paulfromcamden said:
I'd suggest in many cases exactly the opposite is true - a lot of people who follow political news on Twitter seem to have it tuned so they're only every presented with a very particular (often insane) worldview.
Click to expand...
In my brief re-engagement with Twitter over the past couple of weeks, I fear this is the case. Any report will be predictably be replied to either by nodding dogs, agreeing with every word, or by complete denial. It's not a medium that lends itself to considered discussion, or levels of qualified agreement.
 
Seanm said:
It really does matter how it’s done: including claim (and counterclaim, presumably?) as part of a larger report is responsible journalism: live Tweeting context-free bullshit, then 20 minutes later Tweeting that it’s probably bullshit, is not responsible journalism. It’s not just the lie but the whole process that’s damaging.
Click to expand...

I would argue it's not really journalism per se as much as now journalism is done much more in public, so there is an element of seeing how the sausage is made that we didn't have in the past. And, like I said, the vast majority of people are simply not aware of news on this level and the people who are all, in my experience, come with a high level of scepticism and understand the nature of what they are reading.
 
Tony L said:
Brexit ultra-gammon Steve Baker, who is now baking Sunak, has just been on Sophie Ridge’s Sky show effectively saying there is no place for logic or compromise in the Northern Ireland Protocol and that if his hard-line extremism fails he and the other ERG gammons will bring the government down. Really quite threatening to Sunak and it highlighted just what a bunch of thugs are operating unelected at the heart of government. He recognised the Parliamentary Standards issue would bring Johnson down, hence his support for Sunak. I’m impressed/disappointed Sophie didn’t do a CGM.
Click to expand...
Only a week or two ago Brother Steve was offering the hand of fellowship to Brussels and Dublin, atoning for past offence caused ( such as by Boris, Frosty, Redwood). Now we learn all that unconditional positive regard was just simulation. Praise.
 
Here's Rees-Mogg being his usual slippery self (note the weasel-wording at the end):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63327087

Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg says former Prime Minister Boris Johnson will "clearly" stand to be the next Tory leader, saying there's a "great deal" of support for him.

Asked whether he truly had the necessary 100 Conservative MPs supporting him to get his name on the ballot, Rees-Mogg says "the people who are doing the numbers" for Johnson's campaign say he does.'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top