If You Could Introduce One Rule Into The Political System...

[Mikeandvan]

I usually find your posts thoughtful and worth engaging with but this has to be one of your least impressive efforts. The only revisionism here is the now established myth that "Brown tanked the UK economy". By any measure this is a gross simplification and the idea that the UK might have fared better under the Tories who consistently pushed for more deregulation is laughable. There's lots of analysis available if you're interested:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=gordon+brown

Sounds fair to me - Brown is not let completely off the hook but he's hardly guilty of the serious crimes against the UK economy of which he's so often accused.

I thought Brown saved the UK economy by choosing not to fully integrate with the EU and stick with UK sterling. I do blame New labour however for further deregulating the city, the tories of course would have done the same, but that doesn't let New Labour off the hook. The thing is whilst the city was deregulated - to an extent - it always had the backing of the state, which gave it a perverse incentive to do what the hell it liked.

 

[droodzilla]

I thought Brown saved the UK economy by choosing not to fully integrate with the EU and stick with UK sterling. I do blame New labour however for further deregulating the city, the tories of course would have done the same, but that doesn't let New Labour off the hook. The thing is whilst the city was deregulated - to an extent - it always had the backing of the state, which gave it a perverse incentive to do what the hell it liked.

I agree with this. The two fateful errors of New Labour were the Iraq War (obviously) and the failure to challenge the neoliberal economic fairy tail head-on. They also should have done more to rehabilitate the idea that tax is a good thing (it pays for the good public services we all need).

I don't think unilateral regulation of the finance and banking sector in the UK would have shielded us from the effects of a global meltdown but it would probably have helped to some extent.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

It'd be to hold the press accountable for political bias, and to ensure that they offer a truly impartial, independent view. For example, forcing them to publish amends into headlines (if the disputed piece was a headline) instead of hiding them in the bottom right of page 21, heavy fines for non-substantiated pieces against political parties etc.

Political momentum isn't won by politicians it's won by headlines, and this shouldn't be the case. We have one of the most biased medias, and least free, in existence, which is used to 'manufacture consent' as Chomsky would say.

I'd agree with this. I'd like to see editors personally liable for errors and misstatements when it can be shown that these were either deliberate, or reckless.

The problem is that it is indeed true that a free press is the first line of defence for democracy, so restricting its freedom is fraught with difficulty (not just the political one of not wanting to be the person the press lambasts as curtailing free speech, but also the risk of unintended consequences).

Leveson had some good ideas, which have repeatedly been kicked into the long grass by successive administrations. I wonder why?

 

[merlin]

Why not try to engage with reasonable argument

Because there doesn't appear to be one?

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

The problem is that it is indeed true that a free press is the first line of defence for democracy, so restricting its freedom is fraught with difficulty (not just the political one of not wanting to be the person the press lambasts as curtailing free speech, but also the risk of unintended consequences).

Leveson had some good ideas, which have repeatedly been kicked into the long grass by successive administrations. I wonder why?

A genuine free press is indeed, vital. The snag is that to a large extent the UK doesn't have one, except by using a very narrow definition of 'free'.

And if I noticed correctly, when the "May Team" announced their 'manifesto' they also said there won't be a "Leveson Two". i.e. they plan to bury the promised judicial exposure of what happened and what their nice mates who run the tabloids got up to. This is a shame as Leveson would have been able to say his full conclusions about the truth or reliability of the claims made by said chums and their pet lizards. But hardly a surprise that they're promising to bury it, in exchange for the support she's getting in the newspapers.

So much for 'free'...

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Oh I agree. The problem with press regulation is that you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater and curtailing work done by the good guys. At the moment, though, the bathwater is pretty foetid and does need changing urgently.

 

[TheDecameron]

Why not try to engage with reasonable argument instead of regurgitating right-wing cliches. Pathetic.

Well at least it's free of charge. The Daily Express charges 40p for it and it's not any better written.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Oh I agree. The problem with press regulation is that you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater and curtailing work done by the good guys. At the moment, though, the bathwater is pretty foetid and does need changing urgently.

That's why I think investigations like Leveson should run as a regular affair - complete with the judge being able to make "Leveson Two" type statements that expose the lies and bad behaviour.

It would also be nice if the BBC stood up and exposed what goes on and challenged the way newspaper owners exploit their positions. Private Eye does it routinely, but only a minority of people read that, sadly.

You can't have a reliably functioning democracy when, decade upon decade, the bulk of the press is so corrupt.