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

[Tony L]

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.

I’d argue things are exponentially better now in that there is an endless ability to cross-reference and obtain multiple sources. Back in the pre-internet dark ages most folk never got further than the obvious partisan propaganda of a daily newspaper or the carefully curated establishment narrative of TV news. There was nothing else unless you actually knew someone who was personally present at an event. All news was delivered heavily filtered long after the fact. Now we have a direct real-time unfiltered connection with the subject matter via Twitter, YouTube etc. It is a whole different world and no way in hell would I ever want to go back.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

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.....

I can’t agree. Matthew posts from a position of considerable knowledge, but if he expresses disagreement, he does so politely and in the spirit of debate. It’s much easier to argue with him than with many other posters, IME, because it doesn’t descend to the personal.

 

[matthewr]

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.

I would suggest that using Twitter as your primary news source is not so much unsophisticated as downright foolish.

 

[TheDecameron]

Mogg and Baker are a pair of sanctimonious religious hypocrites. Mogg will vote for Johnson because he’s a lying con artist and Baker can no longer seem to vote for him because he’s a lying con artist.

 

[mandryka]

It’s much easier to argue with him than with many other posters, IME, because it doesn’t descend to the personal.

Well speaking as an out and proud right handed rentier I’m not sure I agree.

 

[Nick_G]

Well I’ve not watched all of it, but I watched as far as the ‘his backers are claiming he has the required one hundred…’ bit. What was striking was that, immediately after reporting that claim, the piece cut to a section about Stoke on Trent. That’s a typical distraction tactic: make an unsupported claim, then move quickly on so the claim is left in the air.

Responsible reporting could have, should have, repeated the claim, but added a rider that the available evidence suggests he’s actually far short of that figure. But they didn’t, preferring to drop in the claim, then distract before the claim can be critically examined.
Dishonest, and I’m disappointed that Ch4 would do this, I’m more used to it from the BBC.

Not good, and a classic symptom of the CHAOS. Channel 4 should know better.

 

[Weekender]

Sunak is in.
Does that mean Boris has <100? (Sunak was rumoured not to be running if Boris had >100).

 

[Joe Hutch]

He is Just Plain Wrong about This Leaden Pall. Otherwise, matthewr is usually right.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

They’ll swing back a bit, but that is fine. I don’t want to see a vast Labour majority next election, that way nothing significant would happen. I’d far prefer to see a progressive coalition as it would be far more likely to implement real democratic reform and reverse Tory authoritarianism.

I think a Labour Gov would make some significant changes, albeit not as many as I'd want.

The obvious example is the combination of a State 'owned' British Energy co that woild get on with building wind farms and other non fossil sources that we'd benefit from in terms of 'state' income and lower cost, greener, energy from locat sources. The reality is the the UK is well placed to do well from this. Although I must admit I'd now tend to prefer Scotland to become independent and go further *and* then have the so much of the area available for wind/wave/tidal become a Scottish natural resource that - unlike fossil - isn't a consumable nor a cause of climate change.

And after the tory panto the LP might even end up deciding that PR would be better than subjecting us all to more of the ERG loonies under the guise of a 'tory' gov again in the future.

 

[Tony L]

Mogg and Baker are a pair of sanctimonious religious hypocrites. Mogg will vote for Johnson because he’s a lying con artist and Baker can no longer seem to vote for him because he’s a lying con artist.

Mogg is a total spiv IMHO. I’d not take his support as anything more than he thinks he stands a chance of getting inside a Johnson cabinet (which would help his financial business) and knows he has zero chance of anything in a Sunak or Mordant government. Everything he does seems founded on self-interest and financial gain. A total moral vacuum.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

It might have the side-effect of forcing Labour to stand for something! We all know Britain Trump is Britain Trump. What is Keir Starmer? He’ll maybe have to decide…

Actually, I found KS quite interesting on this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001d8bd

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Starmer seems about as effective as a sausage with a face drawn on it.

Churchill once said: "An empty taxi drove up to the Hoc and Atlee got out." The joke being his lack of charisma and presence. Yet Atlee and his Government did quite a lot in terms of helping the UK recover from WW2 and build its Welfare State.

So it is possible that Stare-more might be like that. With Rayner as the one that time round who will describe the Tories as "vermin".

 

[The Bish]

Mogg is a total spiv IMHO. I’d not take his support as anything more than he thinks he stands a chance of getting inside a Johnson cabinet (which would help his financial business) and knows he has zero chance of anything in a Sunak or Mordant government. Everything he does seems founded on self-interest and financial gain. A total moral vacuum.

sorry if this has been posted before…https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1583747902685356032/video/1

 

[ff1d1l]

 

[paulfromcamden]

Actually, I found KS quite interesting on this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001d8bd

I'm quite reassured by the fact that when the tabloids decided to get the dirt on Sir K a couple of years ago the best they could come up with was that he'd, er, bought a field for his disabled Mum so she could look after rescued donkeys.

I also note that he later told The Times that his experience of cajoling a load of elderly donkeys had turned out to be excellent preparation for becoming leader of the Labour Party.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Spending was not what the markets reacted to. It was spending to give money to the rich who ‘invested’ in foreign currencies and tax havens. The market reaction was the seizing of an opportunity rather than moral reaction against Trussonomics.

The problem for Labour is that they have promised more spending for investment where it is actually needed, which is a good thing, but they have also promised to pay down the debt, which will compromise their capacity for deficit spending.

Labour could borrow, but that would not fit in with their talk of sound money and fiscal responsibility will make that a difficult sell. They could raise taxation, but they will have to do a great deal more than they’ve outlined so far to fill the hole and meet their spending promises. They could introduce a surplus profits tax for example, but I don’t see Labour doing anything that radical

The key distinction that needs to be made is in terms of what 'borrowed' money gets used to pay for.

Simply using it to deal with a 'consumable/expendable' cost is a no-no.

However investing it in something that will make a satisfactory *economic* return is welcome. Those lending can then be confident that they'll get their money back, plus some form of 'interest' at a level that they find acceptable.

Thus doing things like having a 'deficit/borrowing' to build state owned wind farms that will provide a cash return *and* cheaper energy makes good economic sense all round.

Totally different to borrow just to hand money to your rich mates overseas.

 

[matthewr]

He is Just Plain Wrong about This Leaden Pall.

You just can't handle the truth.

Although I must admit in this case I have forgotten my controversial opinion.

 

[Seanm]

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.

It’s less that the workings are showing than that they’re being displayed in real time. Time isn’t an incidental factor in journalism, it’s a fundamental value, and timelines *does* have value: but when it’s not tempered by analysis, summation and so on then you just get sensationalism, which is what this is. One of the justifications for publicly funding journalism is that it *buys time* for journalists: they’re not obliged by by commercial imperatives to constantly chase scoops and can balance timeliness with the other virtues. They’re not doing this.

As for the the scepticism of the audience for this stuff, *no one* is as sophisticated a consumer of news as they think they are. But whether individuals believe the lie or not isn’t really the point: this kind of breathless relaying of horseshit creates an atmosphere of cynicism around the whole business of public discourse that serves the most cynical, and it also shapes the agenda of other news sources that aren’t typically consumed with a great deal of attention.

In this case the primary audience is also quite specific: it’s conservative MPs, and they were less interested in the “news” - which they *probably* understood to be bullshit - than the reaction to the news. This is another key function of leaks, bullshit statements and their uncritical reporting in real time: to test public opinion. It happened a lot during covid. It’s one of the ways that media creatures like Johnson build their own reality around themselves. It doesn’t work without compliant journalists.

 

[Woodface]

So ex chancellor who told BJ he had to go is now backing him as a unity candidate?

What a state of affairs

 

[SteveS1]

Churchill once said: "An empty taxi drove up to the Hoc and Atlee got out." The joke being his lack of charisma and presence. Yet Atlee and his Government did quite a lot in terms of helping the UK recover from WW2 and build its Welfare State.



So it is possible that Stare-more might be like that. With Rayner as the one that time round who will describe the Tories as "vermin".

Didn’t Churchill deny saying that? IIRC he turned on the suggestion, claiming that he would never have said that about Attlee whose support and contribution he had greatly valued. However it is a good line.