Regarding outing political affiliations, as long as every broadcaster announces their previous party memberships ie specific current and ex Today programme presenters and BBC political editors Andrew Neil etc. And every fucking 'think tank' eg the IEA, IFS or adam smith institute etc etc are introduced as the annonymous musings of big donors and big business.
There cannot be any rational to broadcasting the past affiliations of a scientist when they are commentating on there own field unless everyone gets the same treatment even Sarah fucking Sands.
I would strongly advise against sharing that Labour report. It contains the unredacted details of dozens of victims of alleged racism and is in clear breach of data protection laws. Sharing it could expose this site to legal action.
Do you think that's why there isn't much on it online in proper journalism outlets? Or is it just that they need a little while to read through and verify?
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
“Chris Whity and Sir Patrick Valance, thank you for coming on the programme. Before we explore the government’s policy on CV19, it is important for transparency for our audience to know who you voted for in the December 2019 election.”
It does not achieve transparency, it simply forces any issue to be looked at through a partisan lens.
Utter madness.
You are exaggerating the point.
Of course you do not seek that from everyone but those known to have an agenda or are activivists it is a fair question
And by the way, it was Sky who thought it necessary, maybe you should complain to them
Just reading the introduction - I haven't got time for the whole thing - it appears as though the central argument is that the party's complaints system was dysfunctional largely due to factionalism in Labour HQ but once Jenny Formby took over in 2018 things improved.
I was hoping for the EHRC verdict. I did quite like this line.
'Dealing with this was complicated by the complacent assumption that to be in the Labour party was to be free of prejudice.'
As I and others have been saying for weeks, the government business rescue scheme simply doesn't work. 4,200 loans awarded out of 300,000 applied for...
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
If someone describes themself as an activist or has been acting with other activists at activist events that seems a reasonable bar. That demonstrates a level of commitment to a party beyond someone who publicly supportd a side.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
If you were a guest, how would you answer the question on your allegiance?
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Oh, come on. Almost all professionals (even journalists) are meant to be able to figure out where they have conflicts of interest. It's almost entirely common sense. Anyone who's going on a TV station that matters should be able to cope - and if not then the broadcaster should be able to help them.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Ever heard of the 'Register of Members' Interests'? It would be like that, but with political affiliations, both professional and personal.
It would be utterly _fascinating_
So to be clear you want to investigate everyone’s political history, create a register and use it to discredit experts with unhelpful opinions to the government.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
G, Tories use plants all the time and never gave a fig for allegiance or anything , what you are really saying is you want censorship based on whether someone supports your party or not in any way shape or form. What if the guy had voted Tory , labour , Lib Dem and Green over recent elections , how would a Tory choose to label him. Do we get league tables of how people voted over their life so that we can see if they are biased against the Tories. You should stop digging.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
On the 'political guests' debate: I think it depends, somewhat, on context.
I have memories of Douglas Murray constantly being introduced on Question Time as the nation's only neo-conservative. Likewise, Guido's spoken of as right wing. Yet Owen Jones threw a hissyfit on the rare (only?) occasion he was described as a Labour activity*.
As long as a consistent approach is taken, that's fine.
It can also depend on the subject. If you have two top notch scientists discussing the composition of a comet then it probably doesn't matter what their political slant is...
Edited extra bit: ahem, Labour activist*.
I’m inclined to put more trust on health matters in a professor in international public health than Toby Young, serial loud mouthed boor. Yet the Sun presented them both as experts. Is that the way that the partisan right want public debate to degenerate?
Thats really a tangential issue to this debate as well (noting I do not agree with bigG about general affiliation being declared). Its pretty common apparently to have guests representing two sides who may be of wildly different expertise. Wasnt that the case with Lawson on climate change? I seem to recall criticism of the BBC in, attempting balance, presenting an imbalanced view of the arguments in such a way
It’s not tangential at all. You have given another good example of false equivalence between real expertise in an area and a reactionary blowhard who doesn’t like what he is being told. At least Nigel Lawson achieved substantial things in a different field in his earlier career.
Yet the blue team want to be able to bellow their idiocies to the nation just because, well, just because they don’t like what those with some actual expertise are saying.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
“Chris Whity and Sir Patrick Valance, thank you for coming on the programme. Before we explore the government’s policy on CV19, it is important for transparency for our audience to know who you voted for in the December 2019 election.”
It does not achieve transparency, it simply forces any issue to be looked at through a partisan lens.
Utter madness.
You are exaggerating the point.
Of course you do not seek that from everyone but those known to have an agenda or are activivists it is a fair question
And by the way, it was Sky who thought it necessary, maybe you should complain to them
Nah, I am just disagreeing with you on the Internet on a grisly bank holiday Monday.
It’s a silly idea that leads us down the road of American media, which is a place that we must do everything to avoid. That total partisanship has broken America.
Something sinister in wanting people to be badged for their political opinion.
Not really as long as it consistent. Full disclosure is to be applauded when the alternative is pretty close to fraud.
This has long been a problem particularly at the BBC, where interviewees have been presented as being expert or impartial, and have later turned out to be left wing activists.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
Utter garbage, your politics would have no impact on your expert opinion on your speciality. Tories going down the Nazi route now and wanting everyone they don't like labelled or badged is not a good sight. What next correction camps to re-educate.
Demanding that the government be "completely honest" is not expressing an expert opinion.
That sounds exactly like your average "expert opinion " to me.
"We need more data" would be the neutral way of putting it.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
If you were a guest, how would you answer the question on your allegiance?
I am a liberal leaning conservative party member
G, I think like HYFUD you will have blue blood running in your veins and are a die hard Tory. They can do no wrong.
On the 'political guests' debate: I think it depends, somewhat, on context.
I have memories of Douglas Murray constantly being introduced on Question Time as the nation's only neo-conservative. Likewise, Guido's spoken of as right wing. Yet Owen Jones threw a hissyfit on the rare (only?) occasion he was described as a Labour activity*.
As long as a consistent approach is taken, that's fine.
It can also depend on the subject. If you have two top notch scientists discussing the composition of a comet then it probably doesn't matter what their political slant is...
Edited extra bit: ahem, Labour activist*.
I’m inclined to put more trust on health matters in a professor in international public health than Toby Young, serial loud mouthed boor. Yet the Sun presented them both as experts. Is that the way that the partisan right want public debate to degenerate?
Yes, we have no need of experts.
It also needs to be a debate between the well researched, balanced with an uninformed hack. Welcome to the modern media age...
Regarding outing political affiliations, as long as every broadcaster announces their previous party memberships ie specific current and ex Today programme presenters and BBC political editors Andrew Neil etc. And every fucking 'think tank' eg the IEA, IFS or adam smith institute etc etc are introduced as the annonymous musings of big donors and big business.
There cannot be any rational to broadcasting the past affiliations of a scientist when they are commentating on there own field unless everyone gets the same treatment even Sarah fucking Sands.
I would strongly advise against sharing that Labour report. It contains the unredacted details of dozens of victims of alleged racism and is in clear breach of data protection laws. Sharing it could expose this site to legal action.
Do you think that's why there isn't much on it online in proper journalism outlets? Or is it just that they need a little while to read through and verify?
The fact the details of victims were not redacted tells you all you need to know about the report, the motives behind it and those who put it together. The Labour party’s own lawyers advised against it being shared. I suspect similar advice would be given to anyone else who sought legal advice about it.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Ever heard of the 'Register of Members' Interests'? It would be like that, but with political affiliations, both professional and personal.
It would be utterly _fascinating_
Tories going all McCarthyite, when will the blacklisting and sackings start.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Wonderful - maybe we'll get fewer anti-Tory smears masquerading as expert commentary in the media!
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Ever heard of the 'Register of Members' Interests'? It would be like that, but with political affiliations, both professional and personal.
It would be utterly _fascinating_
So to be clear you want to investigate everyone’s political history, create a register and use it to discredit experts with unhelpful opinions to the government.
This escalated somewhat.
I want transparency. You know, that thing the lefts wanks on about day and night? Voices presented as authorities on the media have tremendous power to shape opinion - I think the audience deserves to know the personal and professional agenda of those doing the shaping.
Or were you all joking about that 'transparency' thing, and you only want it when it hurts the government?
So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Big G, your partisanship is becoming tiresome and dare I say it silly.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
With respect you do not need to read my post
And talking about 'silly' is a perfect example of the 'pot calling the kettle black'
Are there any comparable numbers for Obama 2012? I'm really not sure how to translate approval into election vote share, particularly in such a partisan environment.
Well, my rough guesstimate is that any positive approval will be a Trump hold, and anything worse than -7/-8 will be a Trump loss.
This means Trump is set to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, which brings the Democrats to 258 EVs...
The battleground states, then, are:
Ohio (0) Pennsylvania (-1) Virginia (-5) Minnesota (-5) Iowa (-5) Maine (-6)
What should worry the Dems is that - of those six states - half of them went Democrat in 2016.
So it really is all to play for in 2020.
I thought that Iowa was another example of a rural white State that was once competitive, but had now shifted quite firmly Red, but I think you've pointed out that it's been hard-hit economically.
Ohio should be quite solidly Red, now, I think. I'm surprised that Trump is doing so well, comparatively, in Virginia. If Ohio and Pennsylvania are holds, then losing Iowa would take the Democrats up to 264, very close but no cigar.
It’s not tangential at all. You have given another good example of false equivalence between real expertise in an area and a reactionary blowhard who doesn’t like what he is being told. At least Nigel Lawson achieved substantial things in a different field in his earlier career.
Yet the blue team want to be able to bellow their idiocies to the nation just because, well, just because they don’t like what those with some actual expertise are saying.
There's a reinforcing dynamic. If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party. Then you can dismiss them as biased.
Well underway in the US with climate change I'd imagine.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Ever heard of the 'Register of Members' Interests'? It would be like that, but with political affiliations, both professional and personal.
It would be utterly _fascinating_
Tories going all McCarthyite, when will the blacklisting and sackings start.
Rachel Reeves asked on R4 what Labour’s strategy for coming out of lockdown.....answer came there none......
TBF, what answer could she give? Any answer might be seen as putting pressure on the government, which might not be well received. And if it was the course of action adopted and turned out to be wrong, then Labour would be unable to criticise the government without having her answer fired straight back at them.
Much better to say that they will consider supporting or opposing specific proposals on their merits when they are made.
And of course, Labour have the luxury of it not being their decision so they will only have to respond to proposals rather than come up with their own.
Shouldn’t the Opposition be an alternative government in waiting? With no policy on the most important question facing the nation? SKS is the one repeatedly asking what the government’s lockdown exit strategy is - I don’t think it’s unfair to ask the same question of him. As the BBC interviewer pointed out, Labour are getting briefings from the same experts as the government.
The Government's lockdown exit strategy will be largely based on the advice of the CSO and CMO. Rachel Reeves is not getting that advice so cannot be expected to give a sensible answer.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Ever heard of the 'Register of Members' Interests'? It would be like that, but with political affiliations, both professional and personal.
It would be utterly _fascinating_
So to be clear you want to investigate everyone’s political history, create a register and use it to discredit experts with unhelpful opinions to the government.
This escalated somewhat.
As I said they will want them wearing badges of shame next.
Something sinister in wanting people to be badged for their political opinion.
Not really as long as it consistent. Full disclosure is to be applauded when the alternative is pretty close to fraud.
This has long been a problem particularly at the BBC, where interviewees have been presented as being expert or impartial, and have later turned out to be left wing activists.
Rachel Reeves asked on R4 what Labour’s strategy for coming out of lockdown.....answer came there none......
TBF, what answer could she give? Any answer might be seen as putting pressure on the government, which might not be well received. And if it was the course of action adopted and turned out to be wrong, then Labour would be unable to criticise the government without having her answer fired straight back at them.
Much better to say that they will consider supporting or opposing specific proposals on their merits when they are made.
And of course, Labour have the luxury of it not being their decision so they will only have to respond to proposals rather than come up with their own.
Shouldn’t the Opposition be an alternative government in waiting? With no policy on the most important question facing the nation? SKS is the one repeatedly asking what the government’s lockdown exit strategy is - I don’t think it’s unfair to ask the same question of him. As the BBC interviewer pointed out, Labour are getting briefings from the same experts as the government.
The Government's lockdown exit strategy will be largely based on the advice of the CSO and CMO. Rachel Reeves is not getting that advice so cannot be expected to give a sensible answer.
So why doesn't she just say exactly that? Ah, because that would reveal that the Government is simply following expert advice and would scuttle Labour's attack line.
Maybe she should discuss the advice given to the government with some of her colleagues at Imperial....
As a more general point I'm amazed by the number of medical people passing judgement on this pandemic*, when many of the same medical people admit it will likely go on until the end of next year. Also many of the judgements seem to be driven by hindsight.
At this rate medics will be vying with economists for crappy forecasting and being wise after the event.
* To be fair I have heard a couple saying "nobody knows" or "it's too early to tell".
On the 'political guests' debate: I think it depends, somewhat, on context.
I have memories of Douglas Murray constantly being introduced on Question Time as the nation's only neo-conservative. Likewise, Guido's spoken of as right wing. Yet Owen Jones threw a hissyfit on the rare (only?) occasion he was described as a Labour activity*.
As long as a consistent approach is taken, that's fine.
It can also depend on the subject. If you have two top notch scientists discussing the composition of a comet then it probably doesn't matter what their political slant is...
Edited extra bit: ahem, Labour activist*.
I’m inclined to put more trust on health matters in a professor in international public health than Toby Young, serial loud mouthed boor. Yet the Sun presented them both as experts. Is that the way that the partisan right want public debate to degenerate?
Thats really a tangential issue to this debate as well (noting I do not agree with bigG about general affiliation being declared). Its pretty common apparently to have guests representing two sides who may be of wildly different expertise. Wasnt that the case with Lawson on climate change? I seem to recall criticism of the BBC in, attempting balance, presenting an imbalanced view of the arguments in such a way
It’s not tangential at all. You have given another good example of false equivalence between real expertise in an area and a reactionary blowhard who doesn’t like what he is being told. At least Nigel Lawson achieved substantial things in a different field in his earlier career.
Yet the blue team want to be able to bellow their idiocies to the nation just because, well, just because they don’t like what those with some actual expertise are saying.
It was absolutely tangential - I was saying it was a good additional point to the previous point, which was about declaring political allegiance. That was 'relating to' the previous point while being on a different course, which is the definition of tangential.
It wasn't a criticism, but it was definitely expanding out the issue from merely about politics, but to more trust being given to actual experts than non experts. Such situations are often because of politics, but it was a wider point.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Big G, your partisanship is becoming tiresome and dare I say it silly.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
With respect you do not need to read my post
And talking about 'silly' is a perfect example of the 'pot calling the kettle black'
I always read your posts Big G. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. In my opinion you have turned the pro-Boris, pro- government rhetoric up to 11 in the last 24 hours.
Agree with comments in re Ashton. Cannot remember a time when Guido was NOT introduced as a “right wing blogger”
Surely there is a difference. Guido IS a right wing blogger. That is what he does.
Most people have political leanings of some sort, that doesn't mean it is an overriding factor in most peoples lives when being interviewed on something. There is relevance involved here. Sometimes it will be difficult to know where to draw the line in referencing it.
Something sinister in wanting people to be badged for their political opinion.
Not really as long as it consistent. Full disclosure is to be applauded when the alternative is pretty close to fraud.
This has long been a problem particularly at the BBC, where interviewees have been presented as being expert or impartial, and have later turned out to be left wing activists.
Something sinister in wanting people to be badged for their political opinion.
Not really as long as it consistent. Full disclosure is to be applauded when the alternative is pretty close to fraud.
This has long been a problem particularly at the BBC, where interviewees have been presented as being expert or impartial, and have later turned out to be left wing activists.
However , it is nobody's business how you vote. If you are an activist for or affiliated to a party then fine, otherwise it is just Big Brother and heading to Nazi's.
It did seem a strange choice of person to make a parody twitter account of!
(unless it is the parody account apologising, and the real Chris Lockwood, friend and former aide to David Cameron, didn't make the tweet saying Boris was putting it all on)
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Ever heard of the 'Register of Members' Interests'? It would be like that, but with political affiliations, both professional and personal.
It would be utterly _fascinating_
So to be clear you want to investigate everyone’s political history, create a register and use it to discredit experts with unhelpful opinions to the government.
This escalated somewhat.
I want transparency. You know, that thing the lefts wanks on about day and night? Voices presented as authorities on the media have tremendous power to shape opinion - I think the audience deserves to know the personal and professional agenda of those doing the shaping.
Or were you all joking about that 'transparency' thing, and you only want it when it hurts the government?
You don’t want transparency, you want to make the political debate exclusively partisan, because you think it will discredit some of the government’s critics.
If we go down that route we will end up in the mess America finds itself in today where there is no political debate, just people shouting at each other.
Good grief, if the odd lefty or righty expert pops up on the telly as a talking head think we can probably cope. We have for years. It doesn’t appear that to have done the Tories much harm electorally.
The pressure to end the lockdown early is clearly intensifying, led by Sunak, who has probably seen the numbers. Williamson is right there with him.
Then again, Sunak probably does not want to go down in history as the man who crashed the British economy more than any chancellor in history every could or would.
Indeed, if the government goes for a long lockdown, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if he resigned, or at least threatened to.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
“Chris Whity and Sir Patrick Valance, thank you for coming on the programme. Before we explore the government’s policy on CV19, it is important for transparency for our audience to know who you voted for in the December 2019 election.”
It does not achieve transparency, it simply forces any issue to be looked at through a partisan lens.
Utter madness.
You are exaggerating the point.
Of course you do not seek that from everyone but those known to have an agenda or are activivists it is a fair question
And by the way, it was Sky who thought it necessary, maybe you should complain to them
Nah, I am just disagreeing with you on the Internet on a grisly bank holiday Monday.
It’s a silly idea that leads us down the road of American media, which is a place that we must do everything to avoid. That total partisanship has broken America.
It's part of a pattern of polarisation...
We might agree that a die-hard, front-line activist who *happens* to have some knowledge in a particularly domain should have his politics called out (or more accurately, his activism) before an interview.
But a leading expert who's job it is to advise? Irrelevant.
When you force both to declare and lump them in the same category, you paint one with the faults of the other - and this can dismiss both (or worse, categorise them as swivel-eyed [insert who you hate here].
Sinister, to be resisted, straight out of the Fox News playbook...
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
If you were a guest, how would you answer the question on your allegiance?
I am a liberal leaning conservative party member
G, I think like HYFUD you will have blue blood running in your veins and are a die hard Tory. They can do no wrong.
Yes they can and I have been critical often.
And to be honest I do not want to fight over this
It is clear the ones making the biggest objections to transparency are those on the left
An interesting take by Robert. At a stretch and with a smidgen of "confirmation bias" it supports my view that Trump is heading for a shellacking in November.
I strongly believe there are a small but critical mass of Americans in the apolitical centre who either did not vote in 2016 or voted reluctantly for the Donald ("let's try him, you never know") who this time, since now they DO know - that they landed themselves with what is essentially a joke figure in the White House - will vote Dem. If so, given the rather freakish maths which delivered Trump's EC majority, the 2016 result will unwind and then some. He will lose almost every state except the ones he won comfortably last time.
My call is therefore a Dem landslide. I think Trump will struggle to exceed 200 in the EC.
Caveats are two. (1) That the Dems do not allow Joe Biden to run if he is medically incapable due to cognitive impairment. (2) That the Covid-19 crisis does not become so tragic and all consuming that even an individual as palpably unsuited to national political leadership as Donald Trump gets the benefit of "rally around the flag" and "not the time to change" sentiment.
An interesting take by Robert. At a stretch and with a smidgen of "confirmation bias" it supports my view that Trump is heading for a shellacking in November.
I strongly believe there are a small but critical mass of Americans in the apolitical centre who either did not vote in 2016 or voted reluctantly for the Donald ("let's try him, you never know") who this time, since now they DO know - that they landed themselves with what is essentially a joke figure in the White House - will vote Dem. If so, given the rather freakish maths which delivered Trump's EC majority, the 2016 result will unwind and then some. He will lose almost every state except the ones he won comfortably last time.
My call is therefore a Dem landslide. I think Trump will struggle to exceed 200 in the EC.
Caveats are two. (1) That the Dems do not allow Joe Biden to run if he is medically incapable due to cognitive impairment. (2) That the Covid-19 crisis does not become so tragic and all consuming that even an individual as palpably unsuited to national political leadership as Donald Trump gets the benefit of "rally around the flag" and "not the time to change" sentiment.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Ever heard of the 'Register of Members' Interests'? It would be like that, but with political affiliations, both professional and personal.
It would be utterly _fascinating_
Tories going all McCarthyite, when will the blacklisting and sackings start.
Would 4pm tomorrow be convenient?
Of course I am locked in the house as it is and would hope a Tory Gulag would be similar to a 5 star hotel. Hopefully cocktails are served before dinner.
So Dr Fauci will be going soon then, judging by Trump’s twitter activities.
NYT:
"Dr. Fauci has become a celebrated figure among much of the public, which trusts him far more than Mr. Trump, according to polls. A Quinnipiac University survey last week found that 78 percent of Americans approved of Dr. Fauci’s handling of the crisis compared with 46 percent who approved of the president’s response. That has prompted resentment among other government officials, some of whom have privately criticized Dr. Fauci for playing to the media and not always sending consistent messages."
Not surprised. They hate him because his message is against their political interests - which is to open up the economy again. Right now the economical turmoil being caused by the pandemic is undermining the message of economic success that Trump wanted to go into the 2020 election with. I won’t be surprised to see Trump end the lockdown against official advice and he won’t care how many people die as a result.
On topic, Trump will wheel out China in the run up to the election. Its fits neatly into his consistent narrative about bringing manufacturing back to the US from there.
The pressure to end the lockdown early is clearly intensifying, led by Sunak, who has probably seen the numbers. Williamson is right there with him.
Then again, Sunak probably does not want to go down in history as the man who crashed the British economy more than any chancellor in history every could or would.
Indeed, if the government goes for a long lockdown, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if he resigned, or at least threatened to.
I hope to goodness 'contrarian' isn't the moniker of a front bencher who has Boris' ear!
An interesting take by Robert. At a stretch and with a smidgen of "confirmation bias" it supports my view that Trump is heading for a shellacking in November.
I strongly believe there are a small but critical mass of Americans in the apolitical centre who either did not vote in 2016 or voted reluctantly for the Donald ("let's try him, you never know") who this time, since now they DO know - that they landed themselves with what is essentially a joke figure in the White House - will vote Dem. If so, given the rather freakish maths which delivered Trump's EC majority, the 2016 result will unwind and then some. He will lose almost every state except the ones he won comfortably last time.
My call is therefore a Dem landslide. I think Trump will struggle to exceed 200 in the EC.
Caveats are two. (1) That the Dems do not allow Joe Biden to run if he is medically incapable due to cognitive impairment. (2) That the Covid-19 crisis does not become so tragic and all consuming that even an individual as palpably unsuited to national political leadership as Donald Trump gets the benefit of "rally around the flag" and "not the time to change" sentiment.
If he loses, will he accept the result?
Of course not. I am hoping that plans are in place of how to deal with him during the two months before actual handover of power, in case he does lose.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
In most cases they are obvious. Paul Staines, Toby Young, Ash Sarkar, Aaron Bastani, Owen Jones etc etc et
Regarding outing political affiliations, as long as every broadcaster announces their previous party memberships ie specific current and ex Today programme presenters and BBC political editors Andrew Neil etc. And every fucking 'think tank' eg the IEA, IFS or adam smith institute etc etc are introduced as the annonymous musings of big donors and big business.
There cannot be any rational to broadcasting the past affiliations of a scientist when they are commentating on there own field unless everyone gets the same treatment even Sarah fucking Sands.
I would strongly advise against sharing that Labour report. It contains the unredacted details of dozens of victims of alleged racism and is in clear breach of data protection laws. Sharing it could expose this site to legal action.
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
An interesting take by Robert. At a stretch and with a smidgen of "confirmation bias" it supports my view that Trump is heading for a shellacking in November.
I strongly believe there are a small but critical mass of Americans in the apolitical centre who either did not vote in 2016 or voted reluctantly for the Donald ("let's try him, you never know") who this time, since now they DO know - that they landed themselves with what is essentially a joke figure in the White House - will vote Dem. If so, given the rather freakish maths which delivered Trump's EC majority, the 2016 result will unwind and then some. He will lose almost every state except the ones he won comfortably last time.
My call is therefore a Dem landslide. I think Trump will struggle to exceed 200 in the EC.
Caveats are two. (1) That the Dems do not allow Joe Biden to run if he is medically incapable due to cognitive impairment. (2) That the Covid-19 crisis does not become so tragic and all consuming that even an individual as palpably unsuited to national political leadership as Donald Trump gets the benefit of "rally around the flag" and "not the time to change" sentiment.
They should run a "don't change horses in midstream"-style ad campaign, a la 'Wag The Dog'...lol
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
If you were a guest, how would you answer the question on your allegiance?
I am a liberal leaning conservative party member
G, I think like HYFUD you will have blue blood running in your veins and are a die hard Tory. They can do no wrong.
Yes they can and I have been critical often.
And to be honest I do not want to fight over this
It is clear the ones making the biggest objections to transparency are those on the left
It’s the subjectivity and partial implementation of transparency to achieve a specific political aim (discredit criticism of the government) that is dodgy.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
G, Tories use plants all the time and never gave a fig for allegiance or anything , what you are really saying is you want censorship based on whether someone supports your party or not in any way shape or form. What if the guy had voted Tory , labour , Lib Dem and Green over recent elections , how would a Tory choose to label him. Do we get league tables of how people voted over their life so that we can see if they are biased against the Tories. You should stop digging.
The pressure to end the lockdown early is clearly intensifying, led by Sunak, who has probably seen the numbers. Williamson is right there with him.
Then again, Sunak probably does not want to go down in history as the man who crashed the British economy more than any chancellor in history every could or would.
Indeed, if the government goes for a long lockdown, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if he resigned, or at least threatened to.
I hope to goodness 'contrarian' isn't the moniker of a front bencher who has Boris' ear!
I just read what Sunak is saying. Warning of a 30% contraction in the UK economy. If that's not a man on a mission I don;t know what is.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
If you were a guest, how would you answer the question on your allegiance?
I am a liberal leaning conservative party member
G, I think like HYFUD you will have blue blood running in your veins and are a die hard Tory. They can do no wrong.
Yes they can and I have been critical often.
And to be honest I do not want to fight over this
It is clear the ones making the biggest objections to transparency are those on the left
Happy to leave it at that G,
I will leave it with this very apt saying, not for you but Tories in general.
CENSORSHIP: THE LAST REFUGE OF THE IGNORANT, THE COWARDLY AND THE WEAK Are you ignorant?
Are you a coward?
Are you a weakling?
When someone says, "Boo!" do you lose control of your bladder?
Has your lack of education left you woefully unprepared to engage in debate with those whose opinions differ from yours?
Are you tired of attempting to make an argument, only to have people much more intelligent than you prove to you that your premise is infantile, erroneous, stupid and nonsensical?
If so, then your only recourse is to censor those with whom you do not agree.
If you can't beat them, ban them.
If that is your philosophy, how does it feel to be a weak, ignorant coward?
Please inform those of us who are not weak, ignorant and cowardly how it feels to be you.
Entering 4th week of lockdown. 25-35% of the way there. And by there, meaning partial relaxation.
It's going to be a long long summer.
Really? I assumed Saturday afternoon was it. Didn't rain again until the evening. Wonderful.
In fairness it is due today to be about half as hot as it has been for the last week, thank goodness. Glorious subshine post 20 degrees all week, it's been dreadful.
As an aside, political outlooks can affect things that aren't immediately obvious.
During the Cold War, Western psychologists viewed the brain as compartmentalised, with specific sections performing specific functions. Soviet psychologists viewed the brain as uniform throughout.
The truth is that there are somewhat focused sections but also a massive degree of plasticity. And it's too complicated for us to properly understand yet.
But it's no surprise that Green (politically) enthusiasts happen to see the answer to the Great Doom of Warming as being the economic policies they've always advocated. And people more to the right prefer technological answers.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
In most cases they are obvious. Paul Staines, Toby Young, Ash Sarkar, Aaron Bastani, Owen Jones etc etc et
That’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about columnists and political journalists. We’re talking about outing the political affiliations of people sharing their professional expertise. Dangerous stuff.
It did seem a strange choice of person to make a parody twitter account of!
(unless it is the parody account apologising, and the real Chris Lockwood, friend and former aide to David Cameron, didn't make the tweet saying Boris was putting it all on)
The hatred of Boris with the Cameroonian Clique still burning bright?
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
I think we probably do and it is the same with their reporters. It is the problem of politicising news.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Ever heard of the 'Register of Members' Interests'? It would be like that, but with political affiliations, both professional and personal.
It would be utterly _fascinating_
So to be clear you want to investigate everyone’s political history, create a register and use it to discredit experts with unhelpful opinions to the government.
This escalated somewhat.
I want transparency. You know, that thing the lefts wanks on about day and night? Voices presented as authorities on the media have tremendous power to shape opinion - I think the audience deserves to know the personal and professional agenda of those doing the shaping.
Or were you all joking about that 'transparency' thing, and you only want it when it hurts the government?
You don’t want transparency, you want to make the political debate exclusively partisan, because you think it will discredit some of the government’s critics.
If we go down that route we will end up in the mess America finds itself in today where there is no political debate, just people shouting at each other.
Good grief, if the odd lefty or righty expert pops up on the telly as a talking head think we can probably cope. We have for years. It doesn’t appear that to have done the Tories much harm electorally.
The cost of outing affiliations is far greater.
No, it's clear that you don't want transparency, because you know it will level out the left's inbuilt advantage in the media. By all means, have all the right-wingers labelled just as clearly as the lefties - people will be shocked when they find out how clear the imbalance is.
If you hate expertise, then experts are going to find it pretty tricky to vote for your party. And before long they're all in another party.
It is interesting that you assume that everyone will have a party affiliation.
I probably should have said 'voting for another party'. In the US, some polls have found that just 6% of scientists identify as Republicans vs. 55% as Democrats.
I am not too surprised. The anti-science, creationist wing of the Republicans is anathema to nearly anyone with a brain.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Big G, your partisanship is becoming tiresome and dare I say it silly.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
With respect you do not need to read my post
And talking about 'silly' is a perfect example of the 'pot calling the kettle black'
I always read your posts Big G. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. In my opinion you have turned the pro-Boris, pro- government rhetoric up to 11 in the last 24 hours.
Right now Boris and HMG is key to this country's immediate future
Of course I will support him and of course opponents will object
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
In most cases they are obvious. Paul Staines, Toby Young, Ash Sarkar, Aaron Bastani, Owen Jones etc etc et
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Big G, your partisanship is becoming tiresome and dare I say it silly.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
With respect you do not need to read my post
And talking about 'silly' is a perfect example of the 'pot calling the kettle black'
I always read your posts Big G. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. In my opinion you have turned the pro-Boris, pro- government rhetoric up to 11 in the last 24 hours.
Right now Boris and HMG is key to this country's immediate future
Of course I will support him and of course opponents will object
It is called
Politics
Why do you support him “of course”?
Oh, given you didn’t care that the government’s lack of pandemic preparedness may have cost untold lives, why am I asking that question?
"In September 2014 Ashton took voluntary leave of absence following his use of "inappropriate and offensive language" on Twitter for which both Ashton and the FPH apologised." Wikipedia Profile.
Hmmm - clearly a completely neutral and non-political 'expert' whose views are irrelevant. Did someone say he lost his temper on Sky News....
If I've seen something interesting on the internet or I have a casual interest about something, and I am talking to a professional expert in the subject, I ask them questions about it. All have been delighted that one is showing an interest. Evidently you'd prefer the proles to shut up and not worry their heads about it.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
If you were a guest, how would you answer the question on your allegiance?
I am a liberal leaning conservative party member
G, I think like HYFUD you will have blue blood running in your veins and are a die hard Tory. They can do no wrong.
Yes they can and I have been critical often.
And to be honest I do not want to fight over this
It is clear the ones making the biggest objections to transparency are those on the left
Happy to leave it at that G,
I will leave it with this very apt saying, not for you but Tories in general.
CENSORSHIP: THE LAST REFUGE OF THE IGNORANT, THE COWARDLY AND THE WEAK Are you ignorant?
Are you a coward?
Are you a weakling?
When someone says, "Boo!" do you lose control of your bladder?
Has your lack of education left you woefully unprepared to engage in debate with those whose opinions differ from yours?
Are you tired of attempting to make an argument, only to have people much more intelligent than you prove to you that your premise is infantile, erroneous, stupid and nonsensical?
If so, then your only recourse is to censor those with whom you do not agree.
If you can't beat them, ban them.
If that is your philosophy, how does it feel to be a weak, ignorant coward?
Please inform those of us who are not weak, ignorant and cowardly how it feels to be you.
What's put you in such an unusually good mood Malc?
I think we're pretty much going to have to move to communism before a vaccine is developed. I was informed we couldn't *yet* shut the airports when I suggested it back in February here...
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
In most cases they are obvious. Paul Staines, Toby Young, Ash Sarkar, Aaron Bastani, Owen Jones etc etc et
That’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about columnists and political journalists. We’re talking about outing the political affiliations of people sharing their professional expertise. Dangerous stuff.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Ever heard of the 'Register of Members' Interests'? It would be like that, but with political affiliations, both professional and personal.
It would be utterly _fascinating_
So to be clear you want to investigate everyone’s political history, create a register and use it to discredit experts with unhelpful opinions to the government.
This escalated somewhat.
I want transparency. You know, that thing the lefts wanks on about day and night? Voices presented as authorities on the media have tremendous power to shape opinion - I think the audience deserves to know the personal and professional agenda of those doing the shaping.
Or were you all joking about that 'transparency' thing, and you only want it when it hurts the government?
You don’t want transparency, you want to make the political debate exclusively partisan, because you think it will discredit some of the government’s critics.
If we go down that route we will end up in the mess America finds itself in today where there is no political debate, just people shouting at each other.
Good grief, if the odd lefty or righty expert pops up on the telly as a talking head think we can probably cope. We have for years. It doesn’t appear that to have done the Tories much harm electorally.
The cost of outing affiliations is far greater.
No, it's clear that you don't want transparency, because you know it will level out the left's inbuilt advantage in the media. By all means, have all the right-wingers labelled just as clearly as the lefties - people will be shocked when they find out how clear the imbalance is.
You clearly feel aggrieved about political balance in the media. I assure you that you’re feelings are shared across the political spectrum. I think the Corbynites in particular share your views. They would argue that there were far too many businessmen and establishment types (with undisclosed affiliations and relationships) talking about the economy, rather than trades unions or people in the community for example.
It’s not tangential at all. You have given another good example of false equivalence between real expertise in an area and a reactionary blowhard who doesn’t like what he is being told. At least Nigel Lawson achieved substantial things in a different field in his earlier career.
Yet the blue team want to be able to bellow their idiocies to the nation just because, well, just because they don’t like what those with some actual expertise are saying.
It was absolutely tangential - I was saying it was a good additional point to the previous point, which was about declaring political allegiance. That was 'relating to' the previous point while being on a different course, which is the definition of tangential.
It wasn't a criticism, but it was definitely expanding out the issue from merely about politics, but to more trust being given to actual experts than non experts. Such situations are often because of politics, but it was a wider point.
What I find annoying is the number of "experts" from various lobby or pressure groups who are all too often publicly funded at least in part that the media in general, and the BBC in particular, introduce and treat as independent analysts giving an objective assessment. It should be made clear that they are there to present their agenda and they should be questioned accordingly. If their argument is strong enough, such as with global warming, that should not prove a problem to them.
I also don't agree that because someone is not an expert they are not entitled to express a view. They are but they deserve to be made to look foolish with questions about important technical details that they simply won't know. Again this should be made clear to the viewer/listener. The idea that Toby Young is an expert in just about anything is a bit of a stretch but he is still entitled to express an opinion.
Lawson is an example of another problem which is someone who is an expert using their skills in an area outwith their expertise. He is intelligent and numerate but he is not a scientist. As a result what he says should be weighed lightly when compared with someone who is. Too many people are doing this with epidemiology at the moment which is why we have had so many crap mathematical models.
As an aside, political outlooks can affect things that aren't immediately obvious.
During the Cold War, Western psychologists viewed the brain as compartmentalised, with specific sections performing specific functions. Soviet psychologists viewed the brain as uniform throughout.
The truth is that there are somewhat focused sections but also a massive degree of plasticity. And it's too complicated for us to properly understand yet.
But it's no surprise that Green (politically) enthusiasts happen to see the answer to the Great Doom of Warming as being the economic policies they've always advocated. And people more to the right prefer technological answers.
Political movements, indeed philosophies generally, tend to see history as a linear story, a narrative with a beginning, middle, and end. Evidence through the media (which of course has its own narratives anyway) is moulded to fit the relevant account of history, and anything that cannot be so moulded is dismissed as “false consciousness”, “fake news”, “propaganda”, “not in the real world” and the like. We are all guilty of it, to a greater or lesser extent perhaps, but I don’t know anyone who does not do this. Scientists try to avoid it but even they are not immune.
An interesting take by Robert. At a stretch and with a smidgen of "confirmation bias" it supports my view that Trump is heading for a shellacking in November.
I strongly believe there are a small but critical mass of Americans in the apolitical centre who either did not vote in 2016 or voted reluctantly for the Donald ("let's try him, you never know") who this time, since now they DO know - that they landed themselves with what is essentially a joke figure in the White House - will vote Dem. If so, given the rather freakish maths which delivered Trump's EC majority, the 2016 result will unwind and then some. He will lose almost every state except the ones he won comfortably last time.
My call is therefore a Dem landslide. I think Trump will struggle to exceed 200 in the EC.
Caveats are two. (1) That the Dems do not allow Joe Biden to run if he is medically incapable due to cognitive impairment. (2) That the Covid-19 crisis does not become so tragic and all consuming that even an individual as palpably unsuited to national political leadership as Donald Trump gets the benefit of "rally around the flag" and "not the time to change" sentiment.
"In September 2014 Ashton took voluntary leave of absence following his use of "inappropriate and offensive language" on Twitter for which both Ashton and the FPH apologised." Wikipedia Profile.
Hmmm - clearly a completely neutral and non-political 'expert' whose views are irrelevant. Did someone say he lost his temper on Sky News....
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
In most cases they are obvious. Paul Staines, Toby Young, Ash Sarkar, Aaron Bastani, Owen Jones etc etc et
That’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about columnists and political journalists. We’re talking about outing the political affiliations of people sharing their professional expertise. Dangerous stuff.
Not if they have an agenda beyond their expertise
Indeed. That's when it does become genuinely 'dangerous stuff'.
Guardian has an interesting article on the PPE discussion from the CEO of NHS Providers. The crucial para is, I think: NHS Providers does not represent GPs, care homes and hospices. But it’s clear that the shortages of PPE have been more extensive, serious and difficult to overcome in these places. That’s due, to a large extent, to the logistics of trying to deliver to more than 50,000 different providers, compared with the 217 trusts we represent, all of which have 24/7 central storage facilities. National leaders are working as hard and fast as they can to solve these problems but it’s taking time. Trusts are helping by sharing as much PPE stock as they can.
In my working life, long ago, now I used to supply a hospice with pharmaceuticals, as part of my hospital pharmacist duties. It was made clear to me that this wasn't; NHS, especially when the Finance dept of the responsible Trust rang me up and asked why I was being so 'generous'. I said that what they had was clinically essential...... we treated them as a ward, and were neither more or less 'generous' and after a bit of muttering, that was that.
If I've seen something interesting on the internet or I have a casual interest about something, and I am talking to a professional expert in the subject, I ask them questions about it. All have been delighted that one is showing an interest. Evidently you'd prefer the proles to shut up and not worry their heads about it.
There is a clear and, frankly, obvious difference between 'being asked questions' and 'being lectured'.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
In most cases they are obvious. Paul Staines, Toby Young, Ash Sarkar, Aaron Bastani, Owen Jones etc etc et
That’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about columnists and political journalists. We’re talking about outing the political affiliations of people sharing their professional expertise. Dangerous stuff.
Not if they have an agenda beyond their expertise
And who decides that? If Chris Whitty or Sir Patrick Valance had been a Labour member in the past or had voted Labour in 2019,2017 etc, do we have a right to know?
To play devils advocate.You might argue that their scientific advice has been leaning heavily towards government intervention. A right wing scientist or medic might advocate a more laissez-faire approach.
Of course we should not go down this path. Your thoughts lead to the polarised debate we see in America. Utter madness.
Entering 4th week of lockdown. 25-35% of the way there. And by there, meaning partial relaxation.
It's going to be a long long summer.
Really? I assumed Saturday afternoon was it. Didn't rain again until the evening. Wonderful.
Been wonderful all weekend in sunny Ayrshire. Sun shines on the righteous right enough.
Ha, I had a friend from Cumnock who moved to the east coast as a child. It took him several years to get his head around the idea that you might go to school without a coat just because it wasn't actually raining in the morning.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
If you were a guest, how would you answer the question on your allegiance?
I am a liberal leaning conservative party member
G, I think like HYFUD you will have blue blood running in your veins and are a die hard Tory. They can do no wrong.
Yes they can and I have been critical often.
And to be honest I do not want to fight over this
It is clear the ones making the biggest objections to transparency are those on the left
Happy to leave it at that G,
I will leave it with this very apt saying, not for you but Tories in general.
CENSORSHIP: THE LAST REFUGE OF THE IGNORANT, THE COWARDLY AND THE WEAK Are you ignorant?
Are you a coward?
Are you a weakling?
When someone says, "Boo!" do you lose control of your bladder?
Has your lack of education left you woefully unprepared to engage in debate with those whose opinions differ from yours?
Are you tired of attempting to make an argument, only to have people much more intelligent than you prove to you that your premise is infantile, erroneous, stupid and nonsensical?
If so, then your only recourse is to censor those with whom you do not agree.
If you can't beat them, ban them.
If that is your philosophy, how does it feel to be a weak, ignorant coward?
Please inform those of us who are not weak, ignorant and cowardly how it feels to be you.
What's put you in such an unusually good mood Malc?
Lucky, the sun is shining , I am on holiday and finally got some beer at weekend so cannot complain at all. Hence my gentle measured tones this morning.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Big G, your partisanship is becoming tiresome and dare I say it silly.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
With respect you do not need to read my post
And talking about 'silly' is a perfect example of the 'pot calling the kettle black'
I always read your posts Big G. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. In my opinion you have turned the pro-Boris, pro- government rhetoric up to 11 in the last 24 hours.
Right now Boris and HMG is key to this country's immediate future
Of course I will support him and of course opponents will object
It is called
Politics
Why do you support him “of course”?
Oh, given you didn’t care that the government’s lack of pandemic preparedness may have cost untold lives, why am I asking that question?
You throw away comments about respecting lives with utter disdain almost as an act of hate.
It is sad and belittles you
I care for every lost life and if you read my posts that is my constant theme together with compassion
An interesting take by Robert. At a stretch and with a smidgen of "confirmation bias" it supports my view that Trump is heading for a shellacking in November.
I strongly believe there are a small but critical mass of Americans in the apolitical centre who either did not vote in 2016 or voted reluctantly for the Donald ("let's try him, you never know") who this time, since now they DO know - that they landed themselves with what is essentially a joke figure in the White House - will vote Dem. If so, given the rather freakish maths which delivered Trump's EC majority, the 2016 result will unwind and then some. He will lose almost every state except the ones he won comfortably last time.
My call is therefore a Dem landslide. I think Trump will struggle to exceed 200 in the EC.
Caveats are two. (1) That the Dems do not allow Joe Biden to run if he is medically incapable due to cognitive impairment. (2) That the Covid-19 crisis does not become so tragic and all consuming that even an individual as palpably unsuited to national political leadership as Donald Trump gets the benefit of "rally around the flag" and "not the time to change" sentiment.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
If you were a guest, how would you answer the question on your allegiance?
I am a liberal leaning conservative party member
G, I think like HYFUD you will have blue blood running in your veins and are a die hard Tory. They can do no wrong.
Yes they can and I have been critical often.
And to be honest I do not want to fight over this
It is clear the ones making the biggest objections to transparency are those on the left
Happy to leave it at that G,
I will leave it with this very apt saying, not for you but Tories in general.
CENSORSHIP: THE LAST REFUGE OF THE IGNORANT, THE COWARDLY AND THE WEAK Are you ignorant?
Are you a coward?
Are you a weakling?
When someone says, "Boo!" do you lose control of your bladder?
Has your lack of education left you woefully unprepared to engage in debate with those whose opinions differ from yours?
Are you tired of attempting to make an argument, only to have people much more intelligent than you prove to you that your premise is infantile, erroneous, stupid and nonsensical?
If so, then your only recourse is to censor those with whom you do not agree.
If you can't beat them, ban them.
If that is your philosophy, how does it feel to be a weak, ignorant coward?
Please inform those of us who are not weak, ignorant and cowardly how it feels to be you.
What's put you in such an unusually good mood Malc?
Lucky, the sun is shining , I am on holiday and finally got some beer at weekend so cannot complain at all. Hence my gentle measured tones this morning.
I am glad - you deserve some good fortune. Long may it continue. Gloomy and grey here but it's been amazing over the weekend so cannot grumble.
An interesting take by Robert. At a stretch and with a smidgen of "confirmation bias" it supports my view that Trump is heading for a shellacking in November.
I strongly believe there are a small but critical mass of Americans in the apolitical centre who either did not vote in 2016 or voted reluctantly for the Donald ("let's try him, you never know") who this time, since now they DO know - that they landed themselves with what is essentially a joke figure in the White House - will vote Dem. If so, given the rather freakish maths which delivered Trump's EC majority, the 2016 result will unwind and then some. He will lose almost every state except the ones he won comfortably last time.
My call is therefore a Dem landslide. I think Trump will struggle to exceed 200 in the EC.
Caveats are two. (1) That the Dems do not allow Joe Biden to run if he is medically incapable due to cognitive impairment. (2) That the Covid-19 crisis does not become so tragic and all consuming that even an individual as palpably unsuited to national political leadership as Donald Trump gets the benefit of "rally around the flag" and "not the time to change" sentiment.
You ducked my question. Paul Staines has no interest in the truth, only in being a fully on-message flying monkey for this government and Leave. Inconvenient stories are ignored, non-stories are twisted into hate-clicks.
It’s noteworthy how lacking in useful achievements the far right commentariat is. If they want to be introduced for their specialist knowledge, they need to get some first. Till then, they’ll continue to be introduced as the cheerleaders for basement-dwelling incels and affluent reactionaries that they are.
This is the problem with attempting political balance on matters other than politics. There are few experts in any field of human endeavour who are also passionately right wing in their politics. Therefore if you disclose the politics of people taking part in high profile discussions of this nature it will give the impression that the Right are being unfairly excluded when the truth is that they are being necessarily excluded.
Comments
Of course you do not seek that from everyone but those known to have an agenda or are activivists it is a fair question
And by the way, it was Sky who thought it necessary, maybe you should complain to them
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1249627251127267328
This escalated somewhat.
Yet the blue team want to be able to bellow their idiocies to the nation just because, well, just because they don’t like what those with some actual expertise are saying.
It’s a silly idea that leads us down the road of American media, which is a place that we must do everything to avoid. That total partisanship has broken America.
This has long been a problem particularly at the BBC, where interviewees have been presented as being expert or impartial, and have later turned out to be left wing activists.
This was a famous case: https://order-order.com/2011/04/13/unisons-taxpayer-funded-lansley-smearer/
It also needs to be a debate between the well researched, balanced with an uninformed hack. Welcome to the modern media age...
Voices presented as authorities on the media have tremendous power to shape opinion - I think the audience deserves to know the personal and professional agenda of those doing the shaping.
Or were you all joking about that 'transparency' thing, and you only want it when it hurts the government?
And talking about 'silly' is a perfect example of the 'pot calling the kettle black'
Ohio should be quite solidly Red, now, I think. I'm surprised that Trump is doing so well, comparatively, in Virginia. If Ohio and Pennsylvania are holds, then losing Iowa would take the Democrats up to 264, very close but no cigar.
Well underway in the US with climate change I'd imagine.
https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1249303892405424130
https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/1249618579126919168?s=21
It is had to believe that just a month ago there were 6 UK deaths from Covid-19. Things are happening very fast, and a month seems like a lifetime.
The same day that article was written, the UK decided to abandon testing.
It wasn't a criticism, but it was definitely expanding out the issue from merely about politics, but to more trust being given to actual experts than non experts. Such situations are often because of politics, but it was a wider point.
Most people have political leanings of some sort, that doesn't mean it is an overriding factor in most peoples lives when being interviewed on something. There is relevance involved here. Sometimes it will be difficult to know where to draw the line in referencing it.
So it is him
It did seem a strange choice of person to make a parody twitter account of!
(unless it is the parody account apologising, and the real Chris Lockwood, friend and former aide to David Cameron, didn't make the tweet saying Boris was putting it all on)
If we go down that route we will end up in the mess America finds itself in today where there is no political debate, just people shouting at each other.
Good grief, if the odd lefty or righty expert pops up on the telly as a talking head think we can probably cope. We have for years. It doesn’t appear that to have done the Tories much harm electorally.
The cost of outing affiliations is far greater.
Then again, Sunak probably does not want to go down in history as the man who crashed the British economy more than any chancellor in history every could or would.
Indeed, if the government goes for a long lockdown, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if he resigned, or at least threatened to.
We might agree that a die-hard, front-line activist who *happens* to have some knowledge in a particularly domain should have his politics called out (or more accurately, his activism) before an interview.
But a leading expert who's job it is to advise? Irrelevant.
When you force both to declare and lump them in the same category, you paint one with the faults of the other - and this can dismiss both (or worse, categorise them as swivel-eyed [insert who you hate here].
Sinister, to be resisted, straight out of the Fox News playbook...
And to be honest I do not want to fight over this
It is clear the ones making the biggest objections to transparency are those on the left
I strongly believe there are a small but critical mass of Americans in the apolitical centre who either did not vote in 2016 or voted reluctantly for the Donald ("let's try him, you never know") who this time, since now they DO know - that they landed themselves with what is essentially a joke figure in the White House - will vote Dem. If so, given the rather freakish maths which delivered Trump's EC majority, the 2016 result will unwind and then some. He will lose almost every state except the ones he won comfortably last time.
My call is therefore a Dem landslide. I think Trump will struggle to exceed 200 in the EC.
Caveats are two. (1) That the Dems do not allow Joe Biden to run if he is medically incapable due to cognitive impairment. (2) That the Covid-19 crisis does not become so tragic and all consuming that even an individual as palpably unsuited to national political leadership as Donald Trump gets the benefit of "rally around the flag" and "not the time to change" sentiment.
I will leave it with this very apt saying, not for you but Tories in general.
CENSORSHIP: THE LAST REFUGE OF THE IGNORANT, THE COWARDLY AND THE WEAK
Are you ignorant?
Are you a coward?
Are you a weakling?
When someone says, "Boo!" do you lose control of your bladder?
Has your lack of education left you woefully unprepared to engage in debate with those whose opinions differ from yours?
Are you tired of attempting to make an argument, only to have people much more intelligent than you prove to you that your premise is infantile, erroneous, stupid and nonsensical?
If so, then your only recourse is to censor those with whom you do not agree.
If you can't beat them, ban them.
If that is your philosophy, how does it feel to be a weak, ignorant coward?
Please inform those of us who are not weak, ignorant and cowardly how it feels to be you.
During the Cold War, Western psychologists viewed the brain as compartmentalised, with specific sections performing specific functions. Soviet psychologists viewed the brain as uniform throughout.
The truth is that there are somewhat focused sections but also a massive degree of plasticity. And it's too complicated for us to properly understand yet.
But it's no surprise that Green (politically) enthusiasts happen to see the answer to the Great Doom of Warming as being the economic policies they've always advocated. And people more to the right prefer technological answers.
Of course I will support him and of course opponents will object
It is called
Politics
No really.
Honest.
Oh, given you didn’t care that the government’s lack of pandemic preparedness may have cost untold lives, why am I asking that question?
Hmmm - clearly a completely neutral and non-political 'expert' whose views are irrelevant. Did someone say he lost his temper on Sky News....
https://twitter.com/chrislockwd/status/1249590097252663297?s=21
This has nothing to do with transparency.
I also don't agree that because someone is not an expert they are not entitled to express a view. They are but they deserve to be made to look foolish with questions about important technical details that they simply won't know. Again this should be made clear to the viewer/listener. The idea that Toby Young is an expert in just about anything is a bit of a stretch but he is still entitled to express an opinion.
Lawson is an example of another problem which is someone who is an expert using their skills in an area outwith their expertise. He is intelligent and numerate but he is not a scientist. As a result what he says should be weighed lightly when compared with someone who is. Too many people are doing this with epidemiology at the moment which is why we have had so many crap mathematical models.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1249155074078773249?s=20
It will be close and likely Pennsylvania will be the key swing state, with Biden hoping his growing up there will give him the edge
NHS Providers does not represent GPs, care homes and hospices. But it’s clear that the shortages of PPE have been more extensive, serious and difficult to overcome in these places. That’s due, to a large extent, to the logistics of trying to deliver to more than 50,000 different providers, compared with the 217 trusts we represent, all of which have 24/7 central storage facilities. National leaders are working as hard and fast as they can to solve these problems but it’s taking time. Trusts are helping by sharing as much PPE stock as they can.
In my working life, long ago, now I used to supply a hospice with pharmaceuticals, as part of my hospital pharmacist duties. It was made clear to me that this wasn't; NHS, especially when the Finance dept of the responsible Trust rang me up and asked why I was being so 'generous'. I said that what they had was clinically essential...... we treated them as a ward, and were neither more or less 'generous' and after a bit of muttering, that was that.
To play devils advocate.You might argue that their scientific advice has been leaning heavily towards government intervention. A right wing scientist or medic might advocate a more laissez-faire approach.
Of course we should not go down this path. Your thoughts lead to the polarised debate we see in America. Utter madness.
It is sad and belittles you
I care for every lost life and if you read my posts that is my constant theme together with compassion
I can see a Trump landslide in those sorry circumstances.