I have a lot of interest in it as an observer. I just don't like it nor want to take an active part in it as I think it is a cancer on our system of government.
But that doesn't stop me having a view as to who is suited to which party.
In this day and age, when people can apparently self-select from a ever-increasing array of genders and identities, pigeon-holing which political party someone is "suited to" seems oddly old-fashioned
Not really. She started as a Lib Dem and all her policies seem to be in line with theirs. Of course if we adopted my system it wouldn't matter as she could simply vote with her conscience for the good of her constituents but as it stands she does seem amazingly unsuited to the Tory party.
Always knew Faisal Islam was Scott P. This from Guido
Faisal tweets a huge amount about Brexit, far more than Peston or Robbo. The vast majority of his tweets are split between having either a negative sentiment or a neutral sentiment. Only 6% have a positive sentiment. He has sent a massive 683 negative tweets about Brexit since the referendum, which is unrivalled among his broadcast peers.
Guido’s statistical analysis
An obviously impartial source.
This kind of thing - from whichever side it comes - is chilling. Politicians should not be in the business of trying to silence or intimidate journalists.
Broadcast journalists have a duty to be impartial and this anaylsis shows bias for remain
They have a duty to be impartial in their broadcasts. Not in their personal opinions as expressed on Twitter.
Always knew Faisal Islam was Scott P. This from Guido
Faisal tweets a huge amount about Brexit, far more than Peston or Robbo. The vast majority of his tweets are split between having either a negative sentiment or a neutral sentiment. Only 6% have a positive sentiment. He has sent a massive 683 negative tweets about Brexit since the referendum, which is unrivalled among his broadcast peers.
Guido’s statistical analysis
An obviously impartial source.
This kind of thing - from whichever side it comes - is chilling. Politicians should not be in the business of trying to silence or intimidate journalists.
Broadcast journalists have a duty to be impartial and this anaylsis shows bias for remain
Most of Faisal Islam's Brexit tweets draw attention to difficulties in the Brexit process entirely scrupulously. Guido has apparently reached the point where any observation of practical problems that need to be solved is unpatriotic.
Given the choice between Guido Fawkes's journalistic methods and Faisal Islam's, I'll cheerfully stick with the latter.
Amazing how those who want to remain defend remain bias in broadcast journalists
This is not bias, this is intelligent questioning of the process that is being embarked upon. It is not biased to draw attention to the many problems that Brexit throws up.
Far more troubling are the journalists like Andrew Neil who see it as their job to tubthump for Brexit and seek to silence anyone raising important but awkward questions.
Not entirely meaningless, I think - there's quite a big difference between the two sets of figures. It would be interesting to see the results for £150, £100 and £50bn, to see if the % support dropped proportionally.
If I wanted to stand as an independent non-party candidate in my Ward here in Newham, I'd have to reach around 10,000 voters. Unless you can get help that's an impossible task but even if I got elected by some miracle, I would be the opposition to 59 Labour Councillors and would achieve the sum total of sod all.
So if you want to get something done or for pure personal self-aggrandisement, you have to join the Labour Party because they are the beginning and end of power here just as the Conservative Party is in Bromley for example.
This isn't some Athenian idyll - democracy requires slog, commitment, money and help. Taking some high-minded view and treating it with disdain is all very well and good but gets you precisely nowhere.
I agree party politics isn't without its flaws but short of personal dictatorship (and everyone thinks they would be the answer though to what is never explained), I don't see an alternative to the process as currently constituted.
That is why the whole system needs root and branch reform. Now when most people talk about that they mean moving to PR but that, in most cases, only increases the power of the parties. What we need is to massively reduce their influence. So we should stop the infiltration of party assignment into Parish and town councils - something that was very much frowned upon until a few decades ago. And at all higher levels we should ban the use of whipping and make all votes free votes. People can still support a party but the party should not be allowed to either bribe or threaten MPs or councillors.
I know this is my stuck record but I do feel it is worth repeating. Party politics is a corruption of our system of governance and whilst you will never be rid of it entirely it certainly needs to be beaten down severely.
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips exist for a reason. As long as they don't become over-mighty, the system works for parties, for MPs and for the public alike. Governments need to be able to be held to account, and that means that they need cohesion and a shared program - which then allows the public to judge what is promised beforehand (and which can reasonably be assumed to be likely to be delivered if the party wins), and assessed at the next election.
Without whips, you will get at least two major negatives: a large increase in pork-barrelling, as MPs seek alternative ways to appeal to the electorate and governments need to buy votes, and an increase in Trump-like personality politics, as the person becomes the message.
The Withdrawal Bill and the select committee voting where both by a Parliamentary vote that the Government won. Some people need to get over it - labour did not win the election
You'd be ok if Labour did the same then if they won?
If they won the vote in the HOC of course. It is called democracy
Ah cool. So you're ok with the increase in the pay cap and no increase in student fees, since they won that vote yesterday.
Always knew Faisal Islam was Scott P. This from Guido
Faisal tweets a huge amount about Brexit, far more than Peston or Robbo. The vast majority of his tweets are split between having either a negative sentiment or a neutral sentiment. Only 6% have a positive sentiment. He has sent a massive 683 negative tweets about Brexit since the referendum, which is unrivalled among his broadcast peers.
Guido’s statistical analysis
An obviously impartial source.
This kind of thing - from whichever side it comes - is chilling. Politicians should not be in the business of trying to silence or intimidate journalists.
Broadcast journalists have a duty to be impartial and this anaylsis shows bias for remain
Most of Faisal Islam's Brexit tweets draw attention to difficulties in the Brexit process entirely scrupulously. Guido has apparently reached the point where any observation of practical problems that need to be solved is unpatriotic.
Given the choice between Guido Fawkes's journalistic methods and Faisal Islam's, I'll cheerfully stick with the latter.
Amazing how those who want to remain defend remain bias in broadcast journalists
This is not bias, this is intelligent questioning of the process that is being embarked upon. It is not biased to draw attention to the many problems that Brexit throws up.
Far more troubling are the journalists like Andrew Neil who see it as their job to tubthump for Brexit and seek to silence anyone raising important but awkward questions.
So pro remain - good - pro leave - bad
You are being remarkably obtuse about this.
Asking intelligent questions about the all-consuming policy decision of the moment: good. Not asking intelligent questions about the all-consuming policy decision of the moment: bad.
Mr. Eagles, ah, good to see you retain your failure to understand classical history. For a moment I thought you'd been replaced by some sort of alternate-universe imposter, from some sort of crazy world where you were well-educated
F1 specials (Ladbrokes Exchange) worked nicely last time. Annoyingly, I didn't actually tip it (but did mention), but 11 for all Mercedes-powered cars to win came off for Monza. Unfortunately, nothing stands out this time. The specials seem to be up prior to the weekend kicking off, and maybe qualifying.
This is not bias, this is intelligent questioning of the process that is being embarked upon. It is not biased to draw attention to the many problems that Brexit throws up.
Far more troubling are the journalists like Andrew Neil who see it as their job to tubthump for Brexit and seek to silence anyone raising important but awkward questions.
So pro remain - good - pro leave - bad
The populist credo is to propose simple solutions to complex problems. Usually these simple solutions are unworkable, but over the next 18 months we will see something unique: a myriad of intractable problems with one obvious, simple, deliverable solution - to remain in the EU.
What are the odds that not one would-be leader will spot this structural feature of our politics and seek to exploit it to scramble over the political corpses left by Brexit?
The Withdrawal Bill and the select committee voting where both by a Parliamentary vote that the Government won. Some people need to get over it - labour did not win the election
You'd be ok if Labour did the same then if they won?
If they won the vote in the HOC of course. It is called democracy
Ah cool. So you're ok with the increase in the pay cap and no increase in student fees, since they won that vote yesterday.
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips exist for a reason. As long as they don't become over-mighty, the system works for parties, for MPs and for the public alike. Governments need to be able to be held to account, and that means that they need cohesion and a shared program - which then allows the public to judge what is promised beforehand (and which can reasonably be assumed to be likely to be delivered if the party wins), and assessed at the next election.
Without whips, you will get at least two major negatives: a large increase in pork-barrelling, as MPs seek alternative ways to appeal to the electorate and governments need to buy votes, and an increase in Trump-like personality politics, as the person becomes the message.
Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century, having been brought in first by the Irish Nationalists and then confirmed as paid positions within government and opposition.
And of course both parties and whips have become far overmighty. You can have whips or people to organise the business of the party without the bribes and threats that go with whipping. If I or my company were to bribe an MP to vote a particular way, or blackmail them for a similar end, then I would be breaking the law and end up in jail.
Indeed (and I did just have to look this up) if I were an employer and I sacked someone from my company because of how they voted I would be breaking the law and could be sued.
So how come it is okay for parties to bribe, threaten and blackmail their MPs?
Always knew Faisal Islam was Scott P. This from Guido
Faisal tweets a huge amount about Brexit, far more than Peston or Robbo. The vast majority of his tweets are split between having either a negative sentiment or a neutral sentiment. Only 6% have a positive sentiment. He has sent a massive 683 negative tweets about Brexit since the referendum, which is unrivalled among his broadcast peers.
Guido’s statistical analysis
An obviously impartial source.
This kind of thing - from whichever side it comes - is chilling. Politicians should not be in the business of trying to silence or intimidate journalists.
Broadcast journalists have a duty to be impartial and this anaylsis shows bias for remain
Most of Faisal Islam's Brexit tweets draw attention to difficulties in the Brexit process entirely scrupulously. Guido has apparently reached the point where any observation of practical problems that need to be solved is unpatriotic.
Given the choice between Guido Fawkes's journalistic methods and Faisal Islam's, I'll cheerfully stick with the latter.
Amazing how those who want to remain defend remain bias in broadcast journalists
This is not bias, this is intelligent questioning of the process that is being embarked upon. It is not biased to draw attention to the many problems that Brexit throws up.
Far more troubling are the journalists like Andrew Neil who see it as their job to tubthump for Brexit and seek to silence anyone raising important but awkward questions.
So pro remain - good - pro leave - bad
You are being remarkably obtuse about this.
Asking intelligent questions about the all-consuming policy decision of the moment: good. Not asking intelligent questions about the all-consuming policy decision of the moment: bad.
There are two sides to the argument - but the broadcast media are predominantly remain
Mr. Eagles, ah, good to see you retain your failure to understand classical history. For a moment I thought you'd been replaced by some sort of alternate-universe imposter, from some sort of crazy world where you were well-educated
F1 specials (Ladbrokes Exchange) worked nicely last time. Annoyingly, I didn't actually tip it (but did mention), but 11 for all Mercedes-powered cars to win came off for Monza. Unfortunately, nothing stands out this time. The specials seem to be up prior to the weekend kicking off, and maybe qualifying.
You're displaying all the wisdom and humility of Crassus at Carrhae.
Not as long as it remains a numbers game with people voting for party gain rather than for the good of the electorate.
In your ideal world of 650 independent MPs, would you try to ban any attempt to form alliances? Treat MPs forming, say, a whatsapp group as guilty of collusion and excluded from votes?
Nope. It is simply the system of threats and bribery that should be stopped. Every vote should be a free vote based on what the MP thinks is best for their constituents rather than what is best for the party or personal gain which seems to be the norm these days.
Not as long as it remains a numbers game with people voting for party gain rather than for the good of the electorate.
In your ideal world of 650 independent MPs, would you try to ban any attempt to form alliances? Treat MPs forming, say, a whatsapp group as guilty of collusion and excluded from votes?
Nope. It is simply the system of threats and bribery that should be stopped. Every vote should be a free vote based on what the MP thinks is best for their constituents rather than what is best for the party or personal gain which seems to be the norm these days.
That's all very well but how do you prevent it happening in practice? How do you decide who is Prime Minister?
The populist credo is to propose simple solutions to complex problems. Usually these simple solutions are unworkable, but over the next 18 months we will see something unique: a myriad of intractable problems with one obvious, simple, deliverable solution - to remain in the EU.
What are the odds that not one would-be leader will spot this structural feature of our politics and seek to exploit it to scramble over the political corpses left by Brexit?
There was an illuminating discussion on LBC last night between Dan Hannan and Ian Dunt.
Dan's a smart guy, but his answer to every complex problem caused by Brexit was "someone else will fix it"
It's reminiscent of the West Wing presidential debate, where the challenger to Bartlett has a "10 word answer" for every question.
Brexiteers have a 10 word answer to every problem they created.
That is why the whole system needs root and branch reform. Now when most people talk about that they mean moving to PR but that, in most cases, only increases the power of the parties. What we need is to massively reduce their influence. So we should stop the infiltration of party assignment into Parish and town councils - something that was very much frowned upon until a few decades ago. And at all higher levels we should ban the use of whipping and make all votes free votes. People can still support a party but the party should not be allowed to either bribe or threaten MPs or councillors.
I know this is my stuck record but I do feel it is worth repeating. Party politics is a corruption of our system of governance and whilst you will never be rid of it entirely it certainly needs to be beaten down severely.
Thank you for the cogent response.
I'm well aware PR has its limitations in terms of choice of candidates - I support it because it means not only that every vote should be counted but also that every vote counts.
That's another discussion.
On yours it's my experience dealing with County and District/Borough Councils that the larger "Party" groups are highly factionalised. The power lies in the selection or re-selection process whereby long-serving Councillors who fall foul of the ruling faction are dumped in favour of newer loyalists. In a sense the Independent councillor hasn't gone away - they have become factions within parties.
In PR systems, blocs of parties co-exist and majorities for legislation are created on a case-by-case basis so before a law is introduced in say the Folketing, the party or parties introducing it will talk with other parties to construct a majority before or as the legislation is introduced. The process may involve amending the legislation to gain that support.
In a whip-free environment, the same would happen. Legislation would be via cross-party concensus so the likes of Anna Soubry, Chuka Umunna and Tom Brake could get together and propose something and see if they can build a majority in the Commons. I suspect this happens more than is generally realised. There would also be no come-back if an MP voted against their party (though the selection process for future candidates might take serial rebellion into account).
Not as long as it remains a numbers game with people voting for party gain rather than for the good of the electorate.
In your ideal world of 650 independent MPs, would you try to ban any attempt to form alliances? Treat MPs forming, say, a whatsapp group as guilty of collusion and excluded from votes?
Nope. It is simply the system of threats and bribery that should be stopped. Every vote should be a free vote based on what the MP thinks is best for their constituents rather than what is best for the party or personal gain which seems to be the norm these days.
That's all very well but how do you prevent it happening in practice? How do you decide who is Prime Minister?
In the same way we stop members of the public bribing MPs - through careful policing by the Parliamentary authorities and by setting a few examples. No one has said there could not be party affiliation nor management. But any vote has to be a free vote with no whipping involved. Votes should be won through force of argument not bribes and threats.
MPs behave the way they do now because of the system. That is also why people have lost a lot of respect for them and no longer trust them to act in the best interests of the constituents and the country. The few who are most respected are those who have shown themselves to put principles and what they consider to be the best interests of their constituents ahead of party - indeed it was something Corbyn played upon when he was making his appeals to the Labour membership and the wider public.
Reduce the power of the parties and you will see a change in the way people view their MPs.
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips exist for a reason. As long as they don't become over-mighty, the system works for parties, for MPs and for the public alike. Governments need to be able to be held to account, and that means that they need cohesion and a shared program - which then allows the public to judge what is promised beforehand (and which can reasonably be assumed to be likely to be delivered if the party wins), and assessed at the next election.
Without whips, you will get at least two major negatives: a large increase in pork-barrelling, as MPs seek alternative ways to appeal to the electorate and governments need to buy votes, and an increase in Trump-like personality politics, as the person becomes the message.
Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century, having been brought in first by the Irish Nationalists and then confirmed as paid positions within government and opposition.
And of course both parties and whips have become far overmighty. You can have whips or people to organise the business of the party without the bribes and threats that go with whipping. If I or my company were to bribe an MP to vote a particular way, or blackmail them for a similar end, then I would be breaking the law and end up in jail.
Indeed (and I did just have to look this up) if I were an employer and I sacked someone from my company because of how they voted I would be breaking the law and could be sued.
So how come it is okay for parties to bribe, threaten and blackmail their MPs?
Whips might only have had official offices for 100 years or so (which is still hardly recent) but their roles go back far further. I remember snowflake5 trying to argue that the Tories had only existed since the 1880s as that's when the party first got a bank account or something, which apart from anything else missed the point about where the 'Tory' name came from.
I suspect that a lot of the public (including you) have an overly negative view of the whips' job. In fact, MPs' rebelliousness is far greater now than it was in the 1950s (to take one example), and speaking as the former chairman of a constituency party with a serial-rebel MP, I was never once contacted to 'have a word', never mind to take more serious action (not that i would have done, other than to pass a message on).
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century, having been brought in first by the Irish Nationalists and then confirmed as paid positions within government and opposition.
Except that it's 'the system of threats and bribery' you're bothered about, and that existed long before the practice of whipping was officially recognised.
according to the some [sic] historical records, the first use of the term ‘whipper-in’ in a Parliamentary sense occurred in 1772 - and I quote "he was first a whipper-in to the Premier". However one can find various references to Whips before then - Whips and Whipping goes back a long way! In the debate of 8th May 1769, Edmund Burke talked of calling his friends back and said he was “whipping them in, to which there could not be a better phrase." And if we go even further back to 18th November 1742, one of the Finch family (Earls of various places like Nottingham, Winchelsea and Aylesford) remarked in a letter to Lord Malton that "the Whigs for once in their lives have whipped in better than the Tories". So the term, the practise of getting people into Parliament for votes, and persuading them to vote in a certain way goes back many hundreds of years. It's not surprising. Anyone who is leading a cause - Parliamentary or otherwise - will always need to 'whip' their followers to be effective as a group.
No - it is a genuine complaint about broadcast impartiality
Sterling has declined since the vote.
If all 3 networks report that, how do they do it "positively for Brexit" and impartially?
Wrong - sterling was steadily declining for around 6 months before the vote. And if a currency is over-valued is a decision for the market. It has both up and downsides. For me it was a downer but sadly life isn't all about me. It's not even all about Brexit!
That is why the whole system needs root and branch reform. Now when most people talk about that they mean moving to PR but that, in most cases, only increases the power of the parties. What we need is to massively reduce their influence. So we should stop the infiltration of party assignment into Parish and town councils - something that was very much frowned upon until a few decades ago. And at all higher levels we should ban the use of whipping and make all votes free votes. People can still support a party but the party should not be allowed to either bribe or threaten MPs or councillors.
I know this is my stuck record but I do feel it is worth repeating. Party politics is a corruption of our system of governance and whilst you will never be rid of it entirely it certainly needs to be beaten down severely.
Thank you for the cogent response.
I'm well aware PR has its limitations in terms of choice of candidates - I support it because it means not only that every vote should be counted but also that every vote counts.
That's another discussion.
On yours it's my experience dealing with County and District/Borough Councils that the larger "Party" groups are highly factionalised. The power lies in the selection or re-selection process whereby long-serving Councillors who fall foul of the ruling faction are dumped in favour of newer loyalists. In a sense the Independent councillor hasn't gone away - they have become factions within parties.
In PR systems, blocs of parties co-exist and majorities for legislation are created on a case-by-case basis so before a law is introduced in say the Folketing, the party or parties introducing it will talk with other parties to construct a majority before or as the legislation is introduced. The process may involve amending the legislation to gain that support.
In a whip-free environment, the same would happen. Legislation would be via cross-party concensus so the likes of Anna Soubry, Chuka Umunna and Tom Brake could get together and propose something and see if they can build a majority in the Commons. I suspect this happens more than is generally realised. There would also be no come-back if an MP voted against their party (though the selection process for future candidates might take serial rebellion into account).
Your last paragraph very much describes what I would like to see. It seems to me that it would make for both better laws and far more trust by the public in Parliament and their MPs.
This is not bias, this is intelligent questioning of the process that is being embarked upon. It is not biased to draw attention to the many problems that Brexit throws up.
Far more troubling are the journalists like Andrew Neil who see it as their job to tubthump for Brexit and seek to silence anyone raising important but awkward questions.
So pro remain - good - pro leave - bad
The populist credo is to propose simple solutions to complex problems. Usually these simple solutions are unworkable, but over the next 18 months we will see something unique: a myriad of intractable problems with one obvious, simple, deliverable solution - to remain in the EU.
What are the odds that not one would-be leader will spot this structural feature of our politics and seek to exploit it to scramble over the political corpses left by Brexit?
The Brexit case asked the electorate to vote for a scenario that could not be delivered - in the immortal words of BoJo we could have our cake and eat it - put your cross in the leave box and lo!, 2 plus 2 will equal 5.
Many careers will be sacrificed to this folly, and politicians will be the least amongst them
Brexit will be fine because German car manufacturers will force Frau Merkel to give us a good deal?
No - I want him to be balanced
He is balanced, show me his tweets where's there's some factual inaccuracies ?
Not in my opinion which I am entltled to
You're entitled your opinion, but you're not entitled your own facts.
So show me evidence of his bias?
The anaylsis is on Guido but then he would not fit your narrative
So let's us look at the tweets cited, are they true or untrue?
1) The top six PL clubs all in remain areas, relegated teams from Leave areas - True
2) Quoting a speech by Macron - True
3 and 4) Quoting the front page and editorial of The Standard - True
5) Quoting a former cabinet minister - True
6) Commenting upon an Electoral Commission investigation - True
7) Quoting a German newspaper - True
8) He says Theresa May says something and the opposition laughed - True
So you and Guido are criticising him for reporting the political news, Heavens above who the hell does Faisal Islam think he is, a political journalist?
Also Guido on Parliament debate today: During the debate on abuse of MPs, Bob Stewart has told the Commons of a disturbing story involving a teacher and his young son: “During the last general election, a teacher tells the class of my 13 year-old boy that nobody should talk to him because he’s the son of a Conservative MP.” You’d think it unbelievable, but then teachers had primary school kids put hammer and sickle posters in the windows on election day, so it’s hardly beyond the realms of fantasy
That should be a disciplinary matter for the teacher concerned. I'd have raised it with the Head, Governors, local press and national press (in that order) until I got a result, taking legal advice all the way.
Raised in Parliament today - would be interesting to see Corbyn defend his followers
But if it was a prep school, the teacher was much more likely to be a UKIP supporter.... Perhaps they should turn to Mr Farage for his comments....
I find it hard to believe this was anything other than a labour supporter and why at 13 would it be a prep school
Wasn`t the MP in question a Tory MP and previously a fairly senior army officer. It is possible that the son might have gone to the local comp, but I would need your assurance that this was the case, before accepting that this was the case.
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century, having been brought in first by the Irish Nationalists and then confirmed as paid positions within government and opposition.
Except that it's 'the system of threats and bribery' you're bothered about, and that existed long before the practice of whipping was officially recognised.
according to the some [sic] historical records, the first use of the term ‘whipper-in’ in a Parliamentary sense occurred in 1772 - and I quote "he was first a whipper-in to the Premier". However one can find various references to Whips before then - Whips and Whipping goes back a long way! In the debate of 8th May 1769, Edmund Burke talked of calling his friends back and said he was “whipping them in, to which there could not be a better phrase." And if we go even further back to 18th November 1742, one of the Finch family (Earls of various places like Nottingham, Winchelsea and Aylesford) remarked in a letter to Lord Malton that "the Whigs for once in their lives have whipped in better than the Tories". So the term, the practise of getting people into Parliament for votes, and persuading them to vote in a certain way goes back many hundreds of years. It's not surprising. Anyone who is leading a cause - Parliamentary or otherwise - will always need to 'whip' their followers to be effective as a group.
Just because something existed for a long time does not mean it was right to then codify it and make it acceptable and legal. Rotten Boroughs exited for a very long time as well but we were right to get rid of them.
Always knew Faisal Islam was Scott P. This from Guido
Faisal tweets a huge amount about Brexit, far more than Peston or Robbo. The vast majority of his tweets are split between having either a negative sentiment or a neutral sentiment. Only 6% have a positive sentiment. He has sent a massive 683 negative tweets about Brexit since the referendum, which is unrivalled among his broadcast peers.
Guido’s statistical analysis
An obviously impartial source.
This kind of thing - from whichever side it comes - is chilling. Politicians should not be in the business of trying to silence or intimidate journalists.
Broadcast journalists have a duty to be impartial and this anaylsis shows bias for remain
They have a duty to be impartial in their broadcasts. Not in their personal opinions as expressed on Twitter.
Surely their contracts would require them also to be impartial in any public comments they make?.
I've just scrolled through @faisalislam's tweets for the last few days, and they all seem to be factual reporting.
But selective?
Yes of course - because there are loads of trade deals being signed and foreign direct investments being made that he could be reporting aren't there ....
Its very simple - when we were in the EU there was plenty of bad stuff to report about how messed up the EU was, once we are out, there will be plenty of bad stuff to report about how bad we are doing out of the EU.
Brexit will be fine because German car manufacturers will force Frau Merkel to give us a good deal?
No - I want him to be balanced
He is balanced, show me his tweets where's there's some factual inaccuracies ?
Not in my opinion which I am entltled to
You're entitled your opinion, but you're not entitled your own facts.
So show me evidence of his bias?
The anaylsis is on Guido but then he would not fit your narrative
So let's us look at the tweets cited, are they true or untrue?
1) The top six PL clubs all in remain areas, relegated teams from Leave areas - True
2) Commenting upon a speech by Macron - True
3 and 4) Commenting about the front page and editorial of The Standard - True
5) Quoting a former cabinet minister - True
6) Commenting upon an Electoral Commission investigation - True
7) Quoting a German newspaper - True
8) He says Theresa May says something and the opposition laughed - True
So you and Guido are criticising him for reporting the political news, Heavens above who the hell does Faisal Islam think he is, a political journalist?
Brexit is a delusion and truth hurts.
I think I will wander back into the wilderness for another few weeks. This place is like Belgium in WW1 where the entrenched armies waste time and resources lobbing bombs at each other.
I will leave you all with this .... which feels like real reporting. Hard to believe it is satire!
I've just scrolled through @faisalislam's tweets for the last few days, and they all seem to be factual reporting.
But selective?
Not that I could see. He seems to be reporting comments made by major players, informed commentators, politicians of all parties, EU politicians, and so on. It's true that many of those are sceptical or negative or support the EU27 negotiating position, but that's not his opinion, it's the opinion (or spin) of relevant parties.
To take one example, he tweeted an interesting sequence on the views of the German auto industry. What's he supposed to do, find a British boss of a company which makes vacuum cleaners abroad in order to provide 'balance'? That wouldn't provide balance - one is massively more important than the other.
Mr. Nabavi, aren't the majority of those players inherently pro-EU, though?
EU politicians, large business leaders (SMEs are far more split), political parties (excepting UKIP), and the broadcast media are all more pro-EU than against.
That's another split country issue. It's down the middle on the EU, reflected in the vote, but those with the loudest voices (or deepest Gina Miller-style pockets) are far more pro-EU than the electorate at large.
Mr. Nabavi, aren't the majority of those players inherently pro-EU, though?
Yes, but that's not his fault. If the overwhelming body of opinion in the EU27 is not particularly helpful to us, then it's not particularly helpful to us. The job of a political journalist is to report, as far as possible, the reality, not what we might want it to be.
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century, having been brought in first by the Irish Nationalists and then confirmed as paid positions within government and opposition.
Except that it's 'the system of threats and bribery' you're bothered about, and that existed long before the practice of whipping was officially recognised.
according to the some [sic] historical records, the first use of the term ‘whipper-in’ in a Parliamentary sense occurred in 1772 - and I quote "he was first a whipper-in to the Premier". However one can find various references to Whips before then - Whips and Whipping goes back a long way! In the debate of 8th May 1769, Edmund Burke talked of calling his friends back and said he was “whipping them in, to which there could not be a better phrase." And if we go even further back to 18th November 1742, one of the Finch family (Earls of various places like Nottingham, Winchelsea and Aylesford) remarked in a letter to Lord Malton that "the Whigs for once in their lives have whipped in better than the Tories". So the term, the practise of getting people into Parliament for votes, and persuading them to vote in a certain way goes back many hundreds of years. It's not surprising. Anyone who is leading a cause - Parliamentary or otherwise - will always need to 'whip' their followers to be effective as a group.
Just because something existed for a long time does not mean it was right to then codify it and make it acceptable and legal. Rotten Boroughs exited for a very long time as well but we were right to get rid of them.
The difference is that if whips didn't exist then they would be invented because they are a useful part of the process, both to governments and to MPs (and, as I said earlier, indirectly so to voters as well).
I expect that every parliament across the world has some kind of whipping system, whether formalised or not (and as an aside, it's better that it is formalised because it's then visible).
Brexit will be fine because German car manufacturers will force Frau Merkel to give us a good deal?
No - I want him to be balanced
He is balanced, show me his tweets where's there's some factual inaccuracies ?
Not in my opinion which I am entltled to
You're entitled your opinion, but you're not entitled your own facts.
So show me evidence of his bias?
Didn't fawkes do that.
Nope.
Yep.
See my post at 4:21.
Which of those facts do you deny?
Positive and negative of his post about brexit you should be looking at,he's like most of the tv media reporting though,british government bad - EU good.
Also Guido on Parliament debate today: During the debate on abuse of MPs, Bob Stewart has told the Commons of a disturbing story involving a teacher and his young son: “During the last general election, a teacher tells the class of my 13 year-old boy that nobody should talk to him because he’s the son of a Conservative MP.” You’d think it unbelievable, but then teachers had primary school kids put hammer and sickle posters in the windows on election day, so it’s hardly beyond the realms of fantasy
That should be a disciplinary matter for the teacher concerned. I'd have raised it with the Head, Governors, local press and national press (in that order) until I got a result, taking legal advice all the way.
Raised in Parliament today - would be interesting to see Corbyn defend his followers
But if it was a prep school, the teacher was much more likely to be a UKIP supporter.... Perhaps they should turn to Mr Farage for his comments....
I find it hard to believe this was anything other than a labour supporter and why at 13 would it be a prep school
Wasn`t the MP in question a Tory MP and previously a fairly senior army officer. It is possible that the son might have gone to the local comp, but I would need your assurance that this was the case, before accepting that this was the case.
I cannot give you assurance as I do not know but in the context that this was announced by the MP in Parliament in a debate I am sure more detail will emerge in the press
Not as long as it remains a numbers game with people voting for party gain rather than for the good of the electorate.
In your ideal world of 650 independent MPs, would you try to ban any attempt to form alliances? Treat MPs forming, say, a whatsapp group as guilty of collusion and excluded from votes?
Nope. It is simply the system of threats and bribery that should be stopped. Every vote should be a free vote based on what the MP thinks is best for their constituents rather than what is best for the party or personal gain which seems to be the norm these days.
That's all very well but how do you prevent it happening in practice? How do you decide who is Prime Minister?
In the same way we stop members of the public bribing MPs - through careful policing by the Parliamentary authorities and by setting a few examples. No one has said there could not be party affiliation nor management. But any vote has to be a free vote with no whipping involved. Votes should be won through force of argument not bribes and threats.
MPs behave the way they do now because of the system. That is also why people have lost a lot of respect for them and no longer trust them to act in the best interests of the constituents and the country. The few who are most respected are those who have shown themselves to put principles and what they consider to be the best interests of their constituents ahead of party - indeed it was something Corbyn played upon when he was making his appeals to the Labour membership and the wider public.
Reduce the power of the parties and you will see a change in the way people view their MPs.
Reduce the power of the parties and you increase the necessity for people to deliver the goodies for their constituencies, which creates more nefarious incentives. It was bad enough the DUP extracting what they did. Imagine that, every vote, for many MPs - and if the government needs to buy off those who are wavering, that itself increases the incentive to waver.
Mr. Johnno, I think that is a legitimate criticism of the media generally. Every British position has been taken as a malleable opinion, every EU position as a tablet carved by God and handed to Moses [I exaggerate for effect].
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century, having been brought in first by the Irish Nationalists and then confirmed as paid positions within government and opposition.
Except that it's 'the system of threats and bribery' you're bothered about, and that existed long before the practice of whipping was officially recognised.
Just because something existed for a long time does not mean it was right to then codify it and make it acceptable and legal.
You said that whipping was a recent invention; I corrected you. Whipping has existed before whips were paid to do it; it existed when MPs were not only unpaid, but were generally expected to foot the bill for the cost of their own election, and were answerable to constituencies so small and select that they were expected to pay a personal visit to each constituent to solicit their vote. The reason that whipping has existed for so long is the same reason that humans have had societies for so long: because an organisation which works together will almost always defeat a group of individuals doing their own thing. It's why Disraeli could get the Conservatives to pass a radical extension of the franchise, when Gladstone couldn't hold the Liberals together for long enough to pass a moderate one.
There are practical, realistic things we could be doing to increase the accountability of MPs to their electorates - encouraging open primaries and the right of recall, to name but two. Talking about the legal prohibition of something that MPs already ignore themselves when it counts wastes everybody's time.
Mr. Nabavi, aren't the majority of those players inherently pro-EU, though?
Yes, but that's not his fault. If the overwhelming body of opinion in the EU27 is not particularly helpful to us, then it's not particularly helpful to us. The job of a political journalist is to report, as far as possible, the reality, not what we might want it to be.
I am not on twitter so cannot really comment on Mr Islam. But surely the guide for TV and radio should be how they treat the opinions and news from each side.
One could imagine they would accurately report Pro-EU views and opinions and be able to claim they had done so in a balanced manner but without any real challenge. Did they at that time report any arguments against those views or have guests to put the other side of the argument? It is very common for example on C4 news to see a report on a Pro Brexit comment or development and then for the studio guest to be someone who opposes that view, brought in to deride it. Something that is encouraged by the presenter.
So looking at how anti-Brexit views are reported in isolation does not really help. It needs to be compared with how pro-Brexit news is reported as well.
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century, having been brought in first by the Irish Nationalists and then confirmed as paid positions within government and opposition.
Except that it's 'the system of threats and bribery' you're bothered about, and that existed long before the practice of whipping was officially recognised.
Just because something existed for a long time does not mean it was right to then codify it and make it acceptable and legal.
You said that whipping was a recent invention; I corrected you. Whipping has existed before whips were paid to do it; it existed when MPs were not only unpaid, but were generally expected to foot the bill for the cost of their own election, and were answerable to constituencies so small and select that they were expected to pay a personal visit to each constituent to solicit their vote. The reason that whipping has existed for so long is the same reason that humans have had societies for so long: because an organisation which works together will almost always defeat a group of individuals doing their own thing. It's why Disraeli could get the Conservatives to pass a radical extension of the franchise, when Gladstone couldn't hold the Liberals together for long enough to pass a moderate one.
There are practical, realistic things we could be doing to increase the accountability of MPs to their electorates - encouraging open primaries and the right of recall, to name but two. Talking about the legal prohibition of something that MPs already ignore themselves when it counts wastes everybody's time.
I said whipping as an official position was a recent invention and even gave the time at which it started and which party was responsible. Please try reading properly.
The clue is in the phrase "Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century"
The rest of your argument is pointless. I have not said we should ban parties, only that we should reduce their power. Anyone who cannot see the damage that overweening party power has done to our body politic is frankly blind.
Not as long as it remains a numbers game with people voting for party gain rather than for the good of the electorate.
In your ideal world of 650 independent MPs, would you try to ban any attempt to form alliances? Treat MPs forming, say, a whatsapp group as guilty of collusion and excluded from votes?
Nope. It is simply the system of threats and bribery that should be stopped. Every vote should be a free vote based on what the MP thinks is best for their constituents rather than what is best for the party or personal gain which seems to be the norm these days.
That's all very well but how do you prevent it happening in practice? How do you decide who is Prime Minister?
In the same way we stop members of the public bribing MPs - through careful policing by the Parliamentary authorities and by setting a few examples. No one has said there could not be party affiliation nor management. But any vote has to be a free vote with no whipping involved. Votes should be won through force of argument not bribes and threats.
MPs behave the way they do now because of the system. That is also why people have lost a lot of respect for them and no longer trust them to act in the best interests of the constituents and the country. The few who are most respected are those who have shown themselves to put principles and what they consider to be the best interests of their constituents ahead of party - indeed it was something Corbyn played upon when he was making his appeals to the Labour membership and the wider public.
Reduce the power of the parties and you will see a change in the way people view their MPs.
Reduce the power of the parties and you increase the necessity for people to deliver the goodies for their constituencies, which creates more nefarious incentives. It was bad enough the DUP extracting what they did. Imagine that, every vote, for many MPs - and if the government needs to buy off those who are wavering, that itself increases the incentive to waver.
Nope. It simply makes MPs more accountable to their constituents rather than to their parties. It is called democracy.
This is not bias, this is intelligent questioning of the process that is being embarked upon. It is not biased to draw attention to the many problems that Brexit throws up.
Far more troubling are the journalists like Andrew Neil who see it as their job to tubthump for Brexit and seek to silence anyone raising important but awkward questions.
So pro remain - good - pro leave - bad
The populist credo is to propose simple solutions to complex problems. Usually these simple solutions are unworkable, but over the next 18 months we will see something unique: a myriad of intractable problems with one obvious, simple, deliverable solution - to remain in the EU.
What are the odds that not one would-be leader will spot this structural feature of our politics and seek to exploit it to scramble over the political corpses left by Brexit?
This is not true, because the one overriding reason why people voted for Brexit, a reason that probably just about has majority support even among those who voted for Remain, is to put a stop to immigration. And remaining in the EU leaves the border open.
I think this might be one of the things that I am missing about the current state of the negotiations. The most important political objective for the government is to regain control of the border and cut immigration numbers. It's also one of the few things that Britain will get by default at the end of March 2019 even with no deal.
Either someone is trolling the media over that Florence speech, or someone is being very careless. How many plcs would be happy to let staff carry notes in full view of the press?
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century, having been brought in first by the Irish Nationalists and then confirmed as paid positions within government and opposition.
Except that it's 'the system of threats and bribery' you're bothered about, and that existed long before the practice of whipping was officially recognised.
according to the some [sic] historical records, the first use of the term ‘whipper-in’ in a Parliamentary sense occurred in 1772 - and I quote "he was first a whipper-in to the Premier". However one can find various references to Whips before then - Whips and Whipping goes back a long way! In the debate of 8th May 1769, Edmund Burke talked of calling his friends back and said he was “whipping them in, to which there could not be a better phrase." And if we go even further back to 18th November 1742, one of the Finch family (Earls of various places like Nottingham, Winchelsea and Aylesford) remarked in a letter to Lord Malton that "the Whigs for once in their lives have whipped in better than the Tories". So the term, the practise of getting people into Parliament for votes, and persuading them to vote in a certain way goes back many hundreds of years. It's not surprising. Anyone who is leading a cause - Parliamentary or otherwise - will always need to 'whip' their followers to be effective as a group.
Just because something existed for a long time does not mean it was right to then codify it and make it acceptable and legal. Rotten Boroughs exited for a very long time as well but we were right to get rid of them.
The difference is that if whips didn't exist then they would be invented because they are a useful part of the process, both to governments and to MPs (and, as I said earlier, indirectly so to voters as well).
I expect that every parliament across the world has some kind of whipping system, whether formalised or not (and as an aside, it's better that it is formalised because it's then visible).
No one has said they should not be able to manage the party. But they should not be able to do it through threats or bribes. If I did it I would be in jail. The same rule should apply to parties and the whips.
This is not true, because the one overriding reason why people voted for Brexit, a reason that probably just about has majority support even among those who voted for Remain, is to put a stop to immigration. And remaining in the EU leaves the border open.
On the other hand if we head into recession in the next 12 months that will also put a stop to immigration by default, so the salience of EU free movement will decline.
I just read the headline "Cologne fans bring West End to standstill" and was disappointed to discover that it was not a story about hordes of people queueing to buy perfume.
This is not true, because the one overriding reason why people voted for Brexit, a reason that probably just about has majority support even among those who voted for Remain, is to put a stop to immigration. And remaining in the EU leaves the border open.
On the other hand if we head into recession in the next 12 months that will also put a stop to immigration by default, so the salience of EU free movement will decline.
The widespread public anger over immigration has been building for decades. It's not going to evaporate like the morning mist, alas.
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century, having been brought in first by the Irish Nationalists and then confirmed as paid positions within government and opposition.
Except that it's 'the system of threats and bribery' you're bothered about, and that existed long before the practice of whipping was officially recognised.
Just because something existed for a long time does not mean it was right to then codify it and make it acceptable and legal.
You said that whipping was a recent invention; I corrected you.
I said whipping as an official position was a recent invention and even gave the time at which it started and which party was responsible. Please try reading properly. The clue is in the phrase "Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century"
No need to get huffy, I read what you said perfectly well- it's just wrong. Observe the following:
Mar. 15, 1856: Who is the most powerful member of the House of Commons? Lord Palmerston? No! Mr. Disraeli? By no means. The most powerful member of the House is unquestionably the Right Hon. William Goodenough Hayter, member for Wells, and "Whipper-in" for Government. Palmerston and Disraeli make long speeches. Mr. Hayter flourishes figuratively a long and formidable whip — and the whip is very much more effective than the most eloquent harangues... Ministerial measures are seldom carried by oratory, but by the zeal, foresight, and energy of the "Whip." (William White, The Inner Life of the House of Commons, vol.1 [1897])
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century, having been brought in first by the Irish Nationalists and then confirmed as paid positions within government and opposition.
Except that it's 'the system of threats and bribery' you're bothered about, and that existed long before the practice of whipping was officially recognised.
Just because something existed for a long time does not mean it was right to then codify it and make it acceptable and legal.
You said that whipping was a recent invention; I corrected you.
I said whipping as an official position was a recent invention and even gave the time at which it started and which party was responsible. Please try reading properly. The clue is in the phrase "Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century"
No need to get huffy, I read what you said perfectly well- it's just wrong. Observe the following:
Mar. 15, 1856: Who is the most powerful member of the House of Commons? Lord Palmerston? No! Mr. Disraeli? By no means. The most powerful member of the House is unquestionably the Right Hon. William Goodenough Hayter, member for Wells, and "Whipper-in" for Government. Palmerston and Disraeli make long speeches. Mr. Hayter flourishes figuratively a long and formidable whip — and the whip is very much more effective than the most eloquent harangues... Ministerial measures are seldom carried by oratory, but by the zeal, foresight, and energy of the "Whip." (William White, The Inner Life of the House of Commons, vol.1 [1897])
From the History of the Irish Parliamentary Party at Westminster
"Parnell’s new Irish Parliamentary Party emerged swiftly as a tightly disciplined, and on the whole, energetic body of parliamentarians with strict rules. The inauguration of the ‘party pledge’ in 1884 decisively reinforced that each member was required to sit, act and vote with the party, one of the first instances of a whip (Richard Power) in western politics."
I was out by 16 years but the basic point was correct.
Nor does it in any way change the fact that whipping is a corruption of democracy.
I don't think immigration would halt if the UK enters a depression. With EU citizens in the UK the unemployment rate is 20%. It is worse here for this group than in their own countries, but the benefits system is the draw.
To describe something that's been present in our politics (at least in organised form) for well over 300 years as 'a corruption of our system' is pushing it a bit.
Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century, having been brought in first by the Irish Nationalists and then confirmed as paid positions within government and opposition.
Except that it's 'the system of threats and bribery' you're bothered about, and that existed long before the practice of whipping was officially recognised.
Just because something existed for a long time does not mean it was right to then codify it and make it acceptable and legal.
You said that whipping was a recent invention; I corrected you.
I said whipping as an official position was a recent invention and even gave the time at which it started and which party was responsible. Please try reading properly. The clue is in the phrase "Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century"
No need to get huffy, I read what you said perfectly well- it's just wrong. Observe the following:
From the History of the Irish Parliamentary Party at Westminster...
I was out by 16 years but the basic point was correct.
No, it wasn't. Officially-designated whips were part of the British parliamentary system before the Irish Parliamentary Party even existed, as proved by a contemporary parliamentary sketch written by the doorman of the House of Commons. An uncredited quotation that turns out to be from Wikipedia, which doesn't actually provide a citation for the assertion you're making, does not override that.
I'm very disappointed that Theresa May is planning on making a hackneyed reference to the Renaissance as an opener to her speech. I was hoping for a reference to the Forbidden Forest.
This would not be a problem it we became an open economy with no tariffs. Just have to check for illegal arms, drugs etc like we have to now with EU and other imports.
This would not be a problem it we became an open economy with no tariffs. Just have to check for illegal arms, drugs etc like we have to now with EU and other imports.
Tariffs are not really the issue, and whatever crazy approach we tried unilaterally would not oblige Calais to reciprocate.
Re Bob Stewarts revelation about a teacher rounded on his 13 year old son during the election he also revealed all four of his children had been hastled since he was an MP
Also Cat Smith (labour) complained about Osborne comments about TM
Re Bob Stewarts revelation about a teacher rounded on his 13 year old son during the election he also revealed all four of his children had been hastled since he was an MP
Also Cat Smith (labour) complained about Osborne comments about TM
I don't think anyone can argue in favour of Osborne's stupid comments. I think he did not mean it [ the words , I mean ] but a great strategic genius should be able to use words carefully and still have the same effect.
The "dead woman walking" [ paraphrasing the movie title ] is just about passable.
This would not be a problem it we became an open economy with no tariffs. Just have to check for illegal arms, drugs etc like we have to now with EU and other imports.
Tariffs are not really the issue, and whatever crazy approach we tried unilaterally would not oblige Calais to reciprocate.
The Head of the Calais region was very complimentary to the Governments proposals
This would not be a problem it we became an open economy with no tariffs. Just have to check for illegal arms, drugs etc like we have to now with EU and other imports.
So the EU will put WTO tariff on our exports, but our imports will be tariff free. Great!
Perhaps there's a thought process behind this tweet. On balance, I'd probably rather not know.
In hindsight we should have seen this all coming with the mockney trend. A certain part of the metropolitan elite seems to be engaged in a chavier-than-thou contest of one-upmanship.
I don't think immigration would halt if the UK enters a depression. With EU citizens in the UK the unemployment rate is 20%. It is worse here for this group than in their own countries, but the benefits system is the draw.
I don't think immigration would halt if the UK enters a depression. With EU citizens in the UK the unemployment rate is 20%. It is worse here for this group than in their own countries, but the benefits system is the draw.
Bullshit!
Actually 14%, but still well above the UK-wide figure.
surbiton - the polish husband of a polish carer tells me - he could not to afford to raise a family in poland, no child allowance, no child tax credits, no housing support, no completely free NHS, no working tax credits, little unemployment benefit Explain why EU citizens come to this country when their group has 20% unemployment.
Re Bob Stewarts revelation about a teacher rounded on his 13 year old son during the election he also revealed all four of his children had been hastled since he was an MP
Also Cat Smith (labour) complained about Osborne comments about TM
I don't think anyone can argue in favour of Osborne's stupid comments. I think he did not mean it [ the words , I mean ] but a great strategic genius should be able to use words carefully and still have the same effect.
The "dead woman walking" [ paraphrasing the movie title ] is just about passable.
I thought Ozzy's comments about Theresa in the Freezer were great; it really lightened my day. (I suspect he was just doing in a bit of self-parody however - playing along with those who claim he's been consumed by murderous resentment.)
Perhaps there's a thought process behind this tweet. On balance, I'd probably rather not know.
Didn't Jon Snow himself admit they are out of touch in London?
Tim Montgomerie was quoting a tweet discussing the possibility of Channel 4 moving to Birmingham. But that apparently is insufficiently focussed on Brexit for what passes for the Leaver intelligentsia.
Perhaps there's a thought process behind this tweet. On balance, I'd probably rather not know.
Didn't Jon Snow himself admit they are out of touch in London?
Tim Montgomerie was quoting a tweet discussing the possibility of Channel 4 moving to Birmingham. But that apparently is insufficiently focussed on Brexit for what passes for the Leaver intelligentsia.
If they want to solve their out of touch problem it wouldn't be a bad idea!
Perhaps there's a thought process behind this tweet. On balance, I'd probably rather not know.
Didn't Jon Snow himself admit they are out of touch in London?
Tim Montgomerie was quoting a tweet discussing the possibility of Channel 4 moving to Birmingham. But that apparently is insufficiently focussed on Brexit for what passes for the Leaver intelligentsia.
If they want to solve their out of touch problem it wouldn't be a bad idea!
Moving Channel 4 to Birmingham isn't a bad idea.
Moving it to Clacton or Grimsby simply because they were Brexit strongholds would be crackers.
Comments
It would be interesting to see the results for £150, £100 and £50bn, to see if the % support dropped proportionally.
Whips exist for a reason. As long as they don't become over-mighty, the system works for parties, for MPs and for the public alike. Governments need to be able to be held to account, and that means that they need cohesion and a shared program - which then allows the public to judge what is promised beforehand (and which can reasonably be assumed to be likely to be delivered if the party wins), and assessed at the next election.
Without whips, you will get at least two major negatives: a large increase in pork-barrelling, as MPs seek alternative ways to appeal to the electorate and governments need to buy votes, and an increase in Trump-like personality politics, as the person becomes the message.
Asking intelligent questions about the all-consuming policy decision of the moment: good.
Not asking intelligent questions about the all-consuming policy decision of the moment: bad.
F1 specials (Ladbrokes Exchange) worked nicely last time. Annoyingly, I didn't actually tip it (but did mention), but 11 for all Mercedes-powered cars to win came off for Monza. Unfortunately, nothing stands out this time. The specials seem to be up prior to the weekend kicking off, and maybe qualifying.
What are the odds that not one would-be leader will spot this structural feature of our politics and seek to exploit it to scramble over the political corpses left by Brexit?
Brexit will be fine because German car manufacturers will force Frau Merkel to give us a good deal?
And of course both parties and whips have become far overmighty. You can have whips or people to organise the business of the party without the bribes and threats that go with whipping. If I or my company were to bribe an MP to vote a particular way, or blackmail them for a similar end, then I would be breaking the law and end up in jail.
Indeed (and I did just have to look this up) if I were an employer and I sacked someone from my company because of how they voted I would be breaking the law and could be sued.
So how come it is okay for parties to bribe, threaten and blackmail their MPs?
Dan's a smart guy, but his answer to every complex problem caused by Brexit was "someone else will fix it"
It's reminiscent of the West Wing presidential debate, where the challenger to Bartlett has a "10 word answer" for every question.
Brexiteers have a 10 word answer to every problem they created.
What are the next 10 words?
That said, at least Cameron managed not to have molten gold poured down his throat and embark upon an exciting new career as a drinking vessel.
I'm well aware PR has its limitations in terms of choice of candidates - I support it because it means not only that every vote should be counted but also that every vote counts.
That's another discussion.
On yours it's my experience dealing with County and District/Borough Councils that the larger "Party" groups are highly factionalised. The power lies in the selection or re-selection process whereby long-serving Councillors who fall foul of the ruling faction are dumped in favour of newer loyalists. In a sense the Independent councillor hasn't gone away - they have become factions within parties.
In PR systems, blocs of parties co-exist and majorities for legislation are created on a case-by-case basis so before a law is introduced in say the Folketing, the party or parties introducing it will talk with other parties to construct a majority before or as the legislation is introduced. The process may involve amending the legislation to gain that support.
In a whip-free environment, the same would happen. Legislation would be via cross-party concensus so the likes of Anna Soubry, Chuka Umunna and Tom Brake could get together and propose something and see if they can build a majority in the Commons. I suspect this happens more than is generally realised. There would also be no come-back if an MP voted against their party (though the selection process for future candidates might take serial rebellion into account).
What day/time is good for you, and I'll publish it then, so I can help explain the complexities of it, and fill in the gaps in your knowledge.
Currently re-reading Tacitus, incidentally. The lesson of which appears to be everybody who wields the dagger wears the crown
MPs behave the way they do now because of the system. That is also why people have lost a lot of respect for them and no longer trust them to act in the best interests of the constituents and the country. The few who are most respected are those who have shown themselves to put principles and what they consider to be the best interests of their constituents ahead of party - indeed it was something Corbyn played upon when he was making his appeals to the Labour membership and the wider public.
Reduce the power of the parties and you will see a change in the way people view their MPs.
I suspect that a lot of the public (including you) have an overly negative view of the whips' job. In fact, MPs' rebelliousness is far greater now than it was in the 1950s (to take one example), and speaking as the former chairman of a constituency party with a serial-rebel MP, I was never once contacted to 'have a word', never mind to take more serious action (not that i would have done, other than to pass a message on).
So show me evidence of his bias?
according to the some [sic] historical records, the first use of the term ‘whipper-in’ in a Parliamentary sense occurred in 1772 - and I quote "he was first a whipper-in to the Premier". However one can find various references to Whips before then - Whips and Whipping goes back a long way! In the debate of 8th May 1769, Edmund Burke talked of calling his friends back and said he was “whipping them in, to which there could not be a better phrase." And if we go even further back to 18th November 1742, one of the Finch family (Earls of various places like Nottingham, Winchelsea and Aylesford) remarked in a letter to Lord Malton that "the Whigs for once in their lives have whipped in better than the Tories". So the term, the practise of getting people into Parliament for votes, and persuading them to vote in a certain way goes back many hundreds of years. It's not surprising. Anyone who is leading a cause - Parliamentary or otherwise - will always need to 'whip' their followers to be effective as a group.
Your last paragraph very much describes what I would like to see. It seems to me that it would make for both better laws and far more trust by the public in Parliament and their MPs.
Many careers will be sacrificed to this folly, and politicians will be the least amongst them
1) The top six PL clubs all in remain areas, relegated teams from Leave areas - True
2) Quoting a speech by Macron - True
3 and 4) Quoting the front page and editorial of The Standard - True
5) Quoting a former cabinet minister - True
6) Commenting upon an Electoral Commission investigation - True
7) Quoting a German newspaper - True
8) He says Theresa May says something and the opposition laughed - True
So you and Guido are criticising him for reporting the political news, Heavens above who the hell does Faisal Islam think he is, a political journalist?
Surely their contracts would require them also to be impartial in any public comments they make?.
Its very simple - when we were in the EU there was plenty of bad stuff to report about how messed up the EU was, once we are out, there will be plenty of bad stuff to report about how bad we are doing out of the EU.
25 logical reasons to vote against same sex marriage.
http://25logicalreasonstovoteno.com/
I think I will wander back into the wilderness for another few weeks. This place is like Belgium in WW1 where the entrenched armies waste time and resources lobbing bombs at each other.
I will leave you all with this .... which feels like real reporting. Hard to believe it is satire!
http://newsthump.com/2017/09/04/uk-brexit-team-furious-as-eu-threatens-to-keep-british-people-dangerously-well-informed/
To take one example, he tweeted an interesting sequence on the views of the German auto industry. What's he supposed to do, find a British boss of a company which makes vacuum cleaners abroad in order to provide 'balance'? That wouldn't provide balance - one is massively more important than the other.
Which of those facts do you deny?
Next?
EU politicians, large business leaders (SMEs are far more split), political parties (excepting UKIP), and the broadcast media are all more pro-EU than against.
That's another split country issue. It's down the middle on the EU, reflected in the vote, but those with the loudest voices (or deepest Gina Miller-style pockets) are far more pro-EU than the electorate at large.
I expect that every parliament across the world has some kind of whipping system, whether formalised or not (and as an aside, it's better that it is formalised because it's then visible).
Mr. Johnno, I think that is a legitimate criticism of the media generally. Every British position has been taken as a malleable opinion, every EU position as a tablet carved by God and handed to Moses [I exaggerate for effect].
There are practical, realistic things we could be doing to increase the accountability of MPs to their electorates - encouraging open primaries and the right of recall, to name but two. Talking about the legal prohibition of something that MPs already ignore themselves when it counts wastes everybody's time.
One could imagine they would accurately report Pro-EU views and opinions and be able to claim they had done so in a balanced manner but without any real challenge. Did they at that time report any arguments against those views or have guests to put the other side of the argument? It is very common for example on C4 news to see a report on a Pro Brexit comment or development and then for the studio guest to be someone who opposes that view, brought in to deride it. Something that is encouraged by the presenter.
So looking at how anti-Brexit views are reported in isolation does not really help. It needs to be compared with how pro-Brexit news is reported as well.
Con: 42%
Lab: 42%
LD: 7%
UKIP: 4%
Green: 3%
The clue is in the phrase "Whips have only existed officially since the start of the 20th century"
The rest of your argument is pointless. I have not said we should ban parties, only that we should reduce their power. Anyone who cannot see the damage that overweening party power has done to our body politic is frankly blind.
Nope. It simply makes MPs more accountable to their constituents rather than to their parties. It is called democracy.
I think this might be one of the things that I am missing about the current state of the negotiations. The most important political objective for the government is to regain control of the border and cut immigration numbers. It's also one of the few things that Britain will get by default at the end of March 2019 even with no deal.
Mar. 15, 1856: Who is the most powerful member of the House of Commons? Lord Palmerston? No! Mr. Disraeli? By no means. The most powerful member of the House is unquestionably the Right Hon. William Goodenough Hayter, member for Wells, and "Whipper-in" for Government. Palmerston and Disraeli make long speeches. Mr. Hayter flourishes figuratively a long and formidable whip — and the whip is very much more effective than the most eloquent harangues... Ministerial measures are seldom carried by oratory, but by the zeal, foresight, and energy of the "Whip."
(William White, The Inner Life of the House of Commons, vol.1 [1897])
"Parnell’s new Irish Parliamentary Party emerged swiftly as a tightly disciplined, and on the whole, energetic body of parliamentarians with strict rules. The inauguration of the ‘party pledge’ in 1884 decisively reinforced that each member was required to sit, act and vote with the party, one of the first instances of a whip (Richard Power) in western politics."
I was out by 16 years but the basic point was correct.
Nor does it in any way change the fact that whipping is a corruption of democracy.
It's the kind of stupidity I'd expect from an Oxford gentleman (sic)
Also Cat Smith (labour) complained about Osborne comments about TM
The "dead woman walking" [ paraphrasing the movie title ] is just about passable.
https://twitter.com/montie/status/908366438221668352
Perhaps there's a thought process behind this tweet. On balance, I'd probably rather not know.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/12/eu-migrants-without-job-make-city-size-bristol/amp/
Moving it to Clacton or Grimsby simply because they were Brexit strongholds would be crackers.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/908373860940222464