It should be game over for Sunak, to be caught in such a big lie. But that's not how these things work and it's unpredictable how the public will react.
However, if it becomes the big story, then it is a big problem for Sunak.
On the economics thing I think they under-estimated the catastrophic effects that would have ensued had The Bank of England not intervened when it did.
I don't think this is the cause at all, at least not directly; because the assumption here is that the BBC has some kind of internal economics function that can provide feedback, except if that were the case what was to account for the seemingly permanent presence of people drawn from Tufton Street et al (IEA, ASI, TPA, CPS, etc.)
In fact it's far more likely that platforming those sources has led to a certain institutional capture on the part of the BBC programme directors, bluntly they were institutionally likely to favour arguments for Truss/Kwarteng's policies because they had been platforming apologia for similar approaches for years.
If you cast your mind back a few years, this is exactly what happened with their coverage of climate science (with again the 'second hand dealers in ideas' being at the core of it).
The 'balance' issue depends to a large extent on where we are standing. Russia doesn't think BBC coverage of the war in Ukraine is 'balanced' of course. The Israeli right doesn't appreciate its coverage of Gaza. Paxman fulminated about liberals and lefties at the BBC when he left 'Newsnight'.
No, again there's enough data to perform quantitative analysis on the BBC's output.
It should be game over for Sunak, to be caught in such a big lie. But that's not how these things work and it's unpredictable how the public will react.
However, if it becomes the big story, then it is a big problem for Sunak.
AFZ
Whatever happens in the meantime, it may mean that Sunak will be defenestrated immediately after the wipeout election.
I'm more convinced than ever that Sunak is determined to burn the ungrateful tory party down, along with the equally ungrateful country.
Apparently*, even the Daily Mail is stating that Sunak got it wrong in regard to £2000 extra tax.
It wouldn't be in small print at the bottom of page 17, would it? The headlines of all the right-wing press in the supermarket this morning were declaring that it had been a killer blow to Starmer.
If you want an analogy it's a bit like saying that the teachers in school 1 must be better than the teachers in school 2 because their exam results are better. Of course, the fact that school 2 has 40% of its pupils with English not being their first language and significant poverty whilst school 2 is in a leafy suburb has nothing to do with it...
And we can do a lot with this analogy, because "better" itself is not well-defined. It might mean that the teachers in school 2 are more skilled than the teachers in school 1, but unless you're running some kind of "who is Britain's best teacher" competition, that's not all that relevant. It might mean "suppose I have a choice of sending my own personal child to school 1 or school 2: where will they be best served?", and depending on your own personal child, the answer may well be that they will do better in the leafy suburb with "average" teachers than they would do in the school full of immigrants in poverty with the excellent teachers.
Apparently*, even the Daily Mail is stating that Sunak got it wrong in regard to £2000 extra tax.
It wouldn't be in small print at the bottom of page 17, would it? The headlines of all the right-wing press in the supermarket this morning were declaring that it had been a killer blow to Starmer.
So I took one for the team, and glanced at the layout of the print edition of this particular organ.
The Daily Mail's headline reads "Fiery Rishi comes out swinging and lands big blows", with a subheading about the 2,000 quid claim.
Inside the paper, there's a double page devoted to the claim that Labour will tax "everything", three pages devoted to Nigel Farage, and most of a page about Faiza Shaheen claiming that Labour is full of racists. I didn't see any critical analysis of the 2000 quid claim, but I wasn't proposing to actually read the thing in detail to check.
The number of column inches devoted to each talking point shows you exactly what message the Mail is trying to push.
Apparently*, even the Daily Mail is stating that Sunak got it wrong in regard to £2000 extra tax.
It wouldn't be in small print at the bottom of page 17, would it? The headlines of all the right-wing press in the supermarket this morning were declaring that it had been a killer blow to Starmer.
So I took one for the team, and glanced at the layout of the print edition of this particular organ.
We need the "not worthy" emoji.
You must still be washing your hands to get the muck off them after handling that vile comic.
Apparently*, even the Daily Mail is stating that Sunak got it wrong in regard to £2000 extra tax.
It wouldn't be in small print at the bottom of page 17, would it? The headlines of all the right-wing press in the supermarket this morning were declaring that it had been a killer blow to Starmer.
So I took one for the team, and glanced at the layout of the print edition of this particular organ.
We need the "not worthy" emoji.
You must still be washing your hands to get the muck off them after handling that vile comic.
Seconded.
I had to read a Mail story the other day... still on the daily brain bleach...
If Reform caused a Tory wipeout is there a chance the LibDems could become the official Opposition?
If Reform help to make the wipeout bigger than it was already going to be, then it is definitely possible for the Tories to finished 3rd.
Watch this space.
AFZ
I didn't see the clip but someone told me that Tim Farron was asked about a poll that showed the Lib Dems beating the Tories and coming second place to Labour.
He didn't believe it.
But then we've had Steele's 'Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government!' And Swinson's 'I'm going to be the next Prime Minister ...'
On the economics thing I think they under-estimated the catastrophic effects that would have ensued had The Bank of England not intervened when it did.
I don't think this is the cause at all, at least not directly; because the assumption here is that the BBC has some kind of internal economics function that can provide feedback, except if that were the case what was to account for the seemingly permanent presence of people drawn from Tufton Street et al (IEA, ASI, TPA, CPS, etc.)
In fact it's far more likely that platforming those sources has led to a certain institutional capture on the part of the BBC programme directors, bluntly they were institutionally likely to favour arguments for Truss/Kwarteng's policies because they had been platforming apologia for similar approaches for years.
If you cast your mind back a few years, this is exactly what happened with their coverage of climate science (with again the 'second hand dealers in ideas' being at the core of it).
The 'balance' issue depends to a large extent on where we are standing. Russia doesn't think BBC coverage of the war in Ukraine is 'balanced' of course. The Israeli right doesn't appreciate its coverage of Gaza. Paxman fulminated about liberals and lefties at the BBC when he left 'Newsnight'.
No, again there's enough data to perform quantitative analysis on the BBC's output.
Sure, but I think you are over-complicating things.
By the time my brother-in-law contacted them the BBC's tone was one of, 'Are they seriously proposing this? Isn't it a bit rash?'
Rather than, 'Take cover! Women and children first! Abandon Ship! Abandon ship!'
Which was the reality of the narrowly averted crash.
They weren't saying, 'Hey folks, look at this wonderful idea the PM and Chancellor are putting forward.'
They were saying, 'Hang on a minute. Are they serious?'
But not, 'Aaaarrrghhh! What the ...?!'
Ok. That's not a million miles from what you are saying but it's subtly different.
On the economics thing I think they under-estimated the catastrophic effects that would have ensued had The Bank of England not intervened when it did.
I don't think this is the cause at all, at least not directly; because the assumption here is that the BBC has some kind of internal economics function that can provide feedback, except if that were the case what was to account for the seemingly permanent presence of people drawn from Tufton Street et al (IEA, ASI, TPA, CPS, etc.)
In fact it's far more likely that platforming those sources has led to a certain institutional capture on the part of the BBC programme directors, bluntly they were institutionally likely to favour arguments for Truss/Kwarteng's policies because they had been platforming apologia for similar approaches for years.
If you cast your mind back a few years, this is exactly what happened with their coverage of climate science (with again the 'second hand dealers in ideas' being at the core of it).
The 'balance' issue depends to a large extent on where we are standing. Russia doesn't think BBC coverage of the war in Ukraine is 'balanced' of course. The Israeli right doesn't appreciate its coverage of Gaza. Paxman fulminated about liberals and lefties at the BBC when he left 'Newsnight'.
No, again there's enough data to perform quantitative analysis on the BBC's output.
Sure, but I think you are over-complicating things.
I'm saying they are influenced as to the reasonableness/accuracy/factualness of certain ideas by the people they regularly platform, that's not particularly complicated.
By the time my brother-in-law contacted them the BBC's tone was one of, 'Are they seriously proposing this? Isn't it a bit rash?'
Rather than, 'Take cover! Women and children first! Abandon Ship! Abandon ship!'
With all due respect to your b-i-l, minutes after the announcement a large number of prominent economists had already taken to social media to critique the idiocy of the policies, by the time he had called the average journo would have seen a good selection of this.
They didn't take the latter view because they'd spent years platforming very well spoken people from Tufton Street who assured them that it was a sensible set of policies - it's an interesting example of self radicalisation and not unlike the times they used to platform a prominent climate skeptic because he was a Tory Lord and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
So, if correct, the Liberal Democrats would be the Official Opposition.
AFZ
P.S. Yes, FPTP is ridiculous.
And you can certainly make the case that "Get The Tories Out" tactical voting in order to reduce the Tories to the status of a third party rather than His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition would be worthwhile.
I'm sorry to change tack, but I wonder if we might discuss Labour. It is concerning to me that Starmer seems to want to be more to the Right of Sunak on migration.
It feels like there is a big danger of a massive Labour majority followed by really severe austerity.
I'm sorry to change tack, but I wonder if we might discuss Labour. It is concerning to me that Starmer seems to want to be more to the Right of Sunak on migration.
It feels like there is a big danger of a massive Labour majority followed by really severe austerity.
Well because he doesn't seem to have any actual, you know, policies on migration. Only that he's going to be really, really hard on it. Much more than that weak Sunak.
Galloway is also a colourful character who offer juicy quotes, and unlike Farage has multiple times won a seat in parliament. He doesn't get anything like the airtime Farage does. Not that I particularly want him to - I think Farage should be treated like Galloway.
Well because he doesn't seem to have any actual, you know, policies on migration. Only that he's going to be really, really hard on it. Much more than that weak Sunak.
I know nothing but my suspicion is that Labour would attempt to get an agreement with the EU to return channel migrants. To be honest, I doubt that kind of agreement is even possible.
I know nothing but my suspicion is that Labour would attempt to get an agreement with the EU to return channel migrants. To be honest, I doubt that kind of agreement is even possible.
From Sky News:
Labour says it wants to spend money currently being spent on the Rwanda scheme on enforcement activity instead.
One of the first policies it announced during this election campaign was to establish a new Border Security Command to prosecute gangs operating small boat routes.
They would also increase security cooperation with the EU and give police more powers to search suspected people smugglers and monitor their financial accounts.
The party said it wants to negotiate a deal with the EU to return asylum seekers to EU countries.
The criminal gangs aren't going to bother about helping a handful of people get into the UK. Without the gangs seeing lots of € signs they'll stop supplying boats.
Johnson was a good campaigner and that's why he enjoyed the backing and support of so many Conservatives who had grave doubts about his abilities
He was a great campaigner based entirely on his personality, being “good old Boris”, but incapable of answering questions thinking on his feet. This was shown when he hid in fridge to avoid being interviewed when he saw a TV crew, and when he refused to take part in the live television debate with the other party leaders.
I think you have to reckon with the fact that most people don't pay much attention to politics, and unless the media makes a huge fuss about things like that (which they didn't at the time) they fail to cut through.
I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that the media used Johnson and studiously ignored or downplayed his faults because they (a) wanted Brexit and (b) loathed the idea of a Corbyn government.
Boris didn't get a free pass other than in the usual suspect media. The Mail. The Telegraph.
And the Express, Times, Sky, ITV and, despite what tories may think, the BBC.
@Arethosemyfeet, do you think those in charge of the BBC were pro-Brexit and were trying the influence the referendum result? I get the accusation of false balance and trying to air “both sides” over issues of fact, but grouping the BBC with the right-wing media in deliberate attempts to bring about Brexit seems surprising to me - but I’m an outsider.
I think the BBC was just courting controversy because.. I'm not sure why. I don't think they were particularly pro-Brexit any more than they are pro-Farage, they just collectively saw the "underdog" as an interesting story and hence magnified the impact of the bullshit. Objectivity and close examination of claims went out of the window and was replaced by pumped up rheroticians who sounded interesting.
Johnson was a good campaigner and that's why he enjoyed the backing and support of so many Conservatives who had grave doubts about his abilities
He was a great campaigner based entirely on his personality, being “good old Boris”, but incapable of answering questions thinking on his feet. This was shown when he hid in fridge to avoid being interviewed when he saw a TV crew, and when he refused to take part in the live television debate with the other party leaders.
I think you have to reckon with the fact that most people don't pay much attention to politics, and unless the media makes a huge fuss about things like that (which they didn't at the time) they fail to cut through.
I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that the media used Johnson and studiously ignored or downplayed his faults because they (a) wanted Brexit and (b) loathed the idea of a Corbyn government.
Boris didn't get a free pass other than in the usual suspect media. The Mail. The Telegraph.
And the Express, Times, Sky, ITV and, despite what tories may think, the BBC.
@Arethosemyfeet, do you think those in charge of the BBC were pro-Brexit and were trying the influence the referendum result? I get the accusation of false balance and trying to air “both sides” over issues of fact, but grouping the BBC with the right-wing media in deliberate attempts to bring about Brexit seems surprising to me - but I’m an outsider.
I think they gave Johnson a free pass. I think they were running scared of threats to the licence fee and associated claims of being anti-Brexit. There is also a sense that the British establishment, including the BBC, could countenance the likes of Johnson (the system can survive the merely venal and corrupt) but struggled to see a potential Corbyn government as legitimate. Plus the BBC frequently allows the press to set the agenda and accepts their premises in its reporting and analysis. Case in point, just now Today were talking to someone from Plaid Cymru, and raised a question about control of Crown Estate revenues as "you want to take money from the King?!" with full Daily Mail pearl-clutching tone.
I think the BBC was just courting controversy because.. I'm not sure why. I don't think they were particularly pro-Brexit any more than they are pro-Farage, they just collectively saw the "underdog" as an interesting story and hence magnified the impact of the bullshit. Objectivity and close examination of claims went out of the window and was replaced by pumped up rheroticians who sounded interesting.
The BBC chases ratings. The last few decades have been a time of competition in broadcast media, and the BBC has constantly had to fight for it's position as a state-funded independent broadcaster, for their very right to exist, and they've largely done that on the basis of providing a national service that's reflected in people tuning in to their programmes. BBC executives feel they can't spend time, especially prime time, on worthy and informative programmes that no one is watching. So, they need to make programmes large numbers of people find interesting, and in these days of reality TV that means courting controversy (at least, that's what many people seem to think), you don't get viewers from dogs saying "sausages" (social media has provided the outlet for such viral videos).
The elephant in the room with Corbyn of course was that he dithered on supporting the largely pro-Remain feeling within his own party.
I'm not knocking him for that. Even staunch Remainers had some issues over the way the EU does things.
There was a 'Lexit' element within the broad church of Brexit as well as all the xenophobic jingoism stirred up on the right.
Corbyn's equivocation didn't help the Remain cause, in my view, but ultimately I don't think it had any decisive bearing on the outcome.
But the question was about whether the BBC was out to influence the Referendum in a Brexit direction.
I don't think they were.
They seemed as taken aback as anyone else by the outcome.
But yes to all the points about ratings and fear of interference, licence fees and so on.
I'm not sure I'd see a question like, 'You're taking money from the King?!' as out of bounds, rather a way of spicing up and interview and provoking an interesting reaction, although I'd certainly agree that there would be better ways to pose a question about the issue.
And yes, I accept that the BBC can be cloyingly sentimental and sycophantic about Royalty.
Don't get me started on the current trend for people getting choked up or moved to tears in interviews. I'm not saying these aren't genuine reactions but - put crudely - they seem to be edited or included in such a way as to make them the climactic feature of the interview itself.
That's just one example of a broader and general trend in reportage that can lead to the kind of thing we are talking about here in terms of political coverage.
Coming back to Corbyn, I don't think anyone would argue he was given a fair press or hearing.
That doesn't mean he walked (or walks) on water of course.
The Crown is not the personal income for the King. Or at least it shouldn't be.
I think at least technically it’s the latter rather than the former.
Ok it’s a technicality, and because of how the Sovereign Grant came about undoing it would make the monarch personally liable for all the UK’s debts (and therefore bankrupt in pretty short order)- but IIRC it is indeed the monarch’s money, which the monarch graciously makes over to the state, in return for a grant of some of it back every year.
But the question was about whether the BBC was out to influence the Referendum in a Brexit direction.
I thought we were talking about the 2019 election and Boris Johnson as PM. Johnson may have been a major figure in the referendum campaign but the outcome didn't and shouldn't rest on his personal character in the way that a GE is (rightly) heavily dependent on perceptions of it.
There are a number of things worth mentioning in connection with the BBC and UK media more generally.
As Alan mentions above, the BBC has it's own reasons for chasing ratings, and especially in the aftermath of the Gilligan affair became wary of taking narratives that ran counter to those in the papers, especially the right wing press because they were most likely to go in hard at the BBC if it later proved that a story was correct.
The other dynamic is that the Today programme is the primary means that new stories enter the BBC News cycle, and that became dominated by a 'what the papers said' style approach - with the serious interview after 8am generally became a response to one of those stories.
Then there's the fact that the UK's media class is very small, drawn from a limited set of universities, and concentrated in a very small area of one city which also combines the centre of political, financial and cultural power, and so therefore all know each other. There's a fair amount of movement at the senior production level between the BBC, LBC, GBNews, TalkTV etc (and interestingly their colleagues greet these moves in laudatory terms that are otherwise separated from their general professed views of the right wing outlets). What this means is that the right wing press have enormous powers of patronage. Even if you are a leftie BBC journalist, for the sake of your own career you have to play nice with these people because you don't necessarily know where your next job might come from - you can't just move to one of the other large cities/opposite coast and work for another outlet with a similar political bent.
There are a number of things worth mentioning in connection with the BBC and UK media more generally.
As Alan mentions above, the BBC has it's own reasons for chasing ratings, and especially in the aftermath of the Gilligan affair became wary of taking narratives that ran counter to those in the papers, especially the right wing press because they were most likely to go in hard at the BBC if it later proved that a story was correct.
The other dynamic is that the Today programme is the primary means that new stories enter the BBC News cycle, and that became dominated by a 'what the papers said' style approach - with the serious interview after 8am generally became a response to one of those stories.
Then there's the fact that the UK's media class is very small, drawn from a limited set of universities, and concentrated in a very small area of one city which also combines the centre of political, financial and cultural power, and so therefore all know each other. There's a fair amount of movement at the senior production level between the BBC, LBC, GBNews, TalkTV etc (and interestingly their colleagues greet these moves in laudatory terms that are otherwise separated from their general professed views of the right wing outlets). What this means is that the right wing press have enormous powers of patronage. Even if you are a leftie BBC journalist, for the sake of your own career you have to play nice with these people because you don't necessarily know where your next job might come from - you can't just move to one of the other large cities/opposite coast and work for another outlet with a similar political bent.
And this mirrors a sense in the political class that this is all just a game, that political debates are a form of theatre, like jousting, no different from their Oxford Union days, where there is nothing of moral or ethical import that might prevent you going out for drinks and palling around with the other "team". Corbyn, meanwhile, was never part of this clubby group, for all that he treated everyone decently. For journalists and the political class actually believing what you say and it having an impact on what you do is something weird and alien, and I think that affected how Corbyn was treated by the media.
There are a number of things worth mentioning in connection with the BBC and UK media more generally.
As Alan mentions above, the BBC has it's own reasons for chasing ratings, and especially in the aftermath of the Gilligan affair became wary of taking narratives that ran counter to those in the papers, especially the right wing press because they were most likely to go in hard at the BBC if it later proved that a story was correct.
The other dynamic is that the Today programme is the primary means that new stories enter the BBC News cycle, and that became dominated by a 'what the papers said' style approach - with the serious interview after 8am generally became a response to one of those stories.
Then there's the fact that the UK's media class is very small, drawn from a limited set of universities, and concentrated in a very small area of one city which also combines the centre of political, financial and cultural power, and so therefore all know each other. There's a fair amount of movement at the senior production level between the BBC, LBC, GBNews, TalkTV etc (and interestingly their colleagues greet these moves in laudatory terms that are otherwise separated from their general professed views of the right wing outlets). What this means is that the right wing press have enormous powers of patronage. Even if you are a leftie BBC journalist, for the sake of your own career you have to play nice with these people because you don't necessarily know where your next job might come from - you can't just move to one of the other large cities/opposite coast and work for another outlet with a similar political bent.
And this mirrors a sense in the political class that this is all just a game, that political debates are a form of theatre, like jousting, no different from their Oxford Union days, where there is nothing of moral or ethical import that might prevent you going out for drinks and palling around with the other "team".
Like the time it turned out that Lebedev was in the habit of having very chummy post-election 'Vodka and Caviar' parties featuring politicians, journalists, commentators, etc. from both sides, and we only found out about it because Corbyn turned down the invite so Lebedev hired an impersonator.
This is a very interesting piece from Economist Simon Wren-Lewis
It concludes:
However where it is not clear whether Labour or the Liberal Democrats have the best chance of defeating the Conservatives, it also makes sense in this particular election and if the polls remain as they currently are to vote for the LibDems. This is not because the LibDems have better or worse policies than Labour, but because the real prize in this election would be to deprive the Conservatives of clearly being the main opposition party after 4th July.
I don't entirely agree with his reasoning about not voting against what we might call past performance. As I noted above, the genius of democracy is accountability and thus sometimes 'punishing' a governing party is really important. I am also more optimistic than he is about the post-election landscape and how effective a right-wing, disorganised opposition might be.
However, as I said, a very interesting piece and argument.
But the question was about whether the BBC was out to influence the Referendum in a Brexit direction.
I thought we were talking about the 2019 election and Boris Johnson as PM. Johnson may have been a major figure in the referendum campaign but the outcome didn't and shouldn't rest on his personal character in the way that a GE is (rightly) heavily dependent on perceptions of it.
In theory a GE isn't a presidential style election.
We get to vote for a mp to represent our local constituency.
Sunak and Starmer only have their names on the ballot papers in one constituency each.
But the question was about whether the BBC was out to influence the Referendum in a Brexit direction.
I thought we were talking about the 2019 election and Boris Johnson as PM. Johnson may have been a major figure in the referendum campaign but the outcome didn't and shouldn't rest on his personal character in the way that a GE is (rightly) heavily dependent on perceptions of it.
In theory a GE isn't a presidential style election.
We get to vote for a mp to represent our local constituency.
Sunak and Starmer only have their names on the ballot papers in one constituency each.
In practice this isn't how it works, and how the two main personalities come across and are covered has a large impact on the result.
Dotting back to political ads on social media - this morning I got one for Farage. This is dangerous - I could have damaged my iPad throwing it across the room.
Johnson was a good campaigner and that's why he enjoyed the backing and support of so many Conservatives who had grave doubts about his abilities
He was a great campaigner based entirely on his personality, being “good old Boris”, but incapable of answering questions thinking on his feet. This was shown when he hid in fridge to avoid being interviewed when he saw a TV crew, and when he refused to take part in the live television debate with the other party leaders.
I think you have to reckon with the fact that most people don't pay much attention to politics, and unless the media makes a huge fuss about things like that (which they didn't at the time) they fail to cut through.
I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that the media used Johnson and studiously ignored or downplayed his faults because they (a) wanted Brexit and (b) loathed the idea of a Corbyn government.
Boris didn't get a free pass other than in the usual suspect media. The Mail. The Telegraph.
And the Express, Times, Sky, ITV and, despite what tories may think, the BBC.
@Arethosemyfeet, do you think those in charge of the BBC were pro-Brexit and were trying the influence the referendum result? I get the accusation of false balance and trying to air “both sides” over issues of fact, but grouping the BBC with the right-wing media in deliberate attempts to bring about Brexit seems surprising to me - but I’m an outsider.
@Arethosemyfeet - here was @stonespring's question which was addressed to you and to which I was responding.
It was to do with Brexit and not the 2019 General Election, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn's ability never to equivocate (Brexit anyone?), only ever speak his mind, dictate Holy Writ, miraculously Feed The Five Thousand and jog along the surface of the canal on his way home.
This is a very interesting piece from Economist Simon Wren-Lewis
It concludes:
However where it is not clear whether Labour or the Liberal Democrats have the best chance of defeating the Conservatives, it also makes sense in this particular election and if the polls remain as they currently are to vote for the LibDems. This is not because the LibDems have better or worse policies than Labour, but because the real prize in this election would be to deprive the Conservatives of clearly being the main opposition party after 4th July.
I don't entirely agree with his reasoning about not voting against what we might call past performance. As I noted above, the genius of democracy is accountability and thus sometimes 'punishing' a governing party is really important. I am also more optimistic than he is about the post-election landscape and how effective a right-wing, disorganised opposition might be.
However, as I said, a very interesting piece and argument.
Platform is important. If the Lib Dems become His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, then it will be Ed Davey facing off against Keir Starmer at the dispatch box, and it should, in principle, be Liberal Democrats who are most often called on to give an opposing viewpoint to the government by TV news / politics programmes.
Technically, I am given to understand that recognizing a party as the official Opposition is within the gift of the Speaker, and I could imagine that in a situation where the Lib Dems and Conservatives had an almost identical number of seats, but the Cons had double the share of the national vote, that might give the Speaker an uncomfortable feeling.
But it shouldn't. This would be a consequence of the FPTP voting system. There are a number of ways of generating a more proportional outcome, many of which have sensible existence proofs that they work in practice.
Johnson was a good campaigner and that's why he enjoyed the backing and support of so many Conservatives who had grave doubts about his abilities
He was a great campaigner based entirely on his personality, being “good old Boris”, but incapable of answering questions thinking on his feet. This was shown when he hid in fridge to avoid being interviewed when he saw a TV crew, and when he refused to take part in the live television debate with the other party leaders.
I think you have to reckon with the fact that most people don't pay much attention to politics, and unless the media makes a huge fuss about things like that (which they didn't at the time) they fail to cut through.
I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that the media used Johnson and studiously ignored or downplayed his faults because they (a) wanted Brexit and (b) loathed the idea of a Corbyn government.
Boris didn't get a free pass other than in the usual suspect media. The Mail. The Telegraph.
And the Express, Times, Sky, ITV and, despite what tories may think, the BBC.
@Arethosemyfeet, do you think those in charge of the BBC were pro-Brexit and were trying the influence the referendum result? I get the accusation of false balance and trying to air “both sides” over issues of fact, but grouping the BBC with the right-wing media in deliberate attempts to bring about Brexit seems surprising to me - but I’m an outsider.
@Arethosemyfeet - here was @stonespring's question which was addressed to you and to which I was responding.
It was to do with Brexit and not the 2019 General Election, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn's ability never to equivocate (Brexit anyone?), only ever speak his mind, dictate Holy Writ, miraculously Feed The Five Thousand and jog along the surface of the canal on his way home.
I was explaining my previous comment which @stonespring quoted and seemed to think was about the referendum (it was not). For clarity I don't think the BBC intentionally enabled Brexit, though their practice of false balance during the referendum campaign was an important factor.
Comments
One might hope so.
As regards the LibDems, here's their new video - a personal note from Sir Ed Davey, providing something of a contrast to the other parties' offerings:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/05/liberal-democrats-election-broadcast-ed-davey-disabled-son
This might be big.
In all depends on how the narrative goes but here are the facts:
Treasury Civil Servants wrote to the Opposition and it's in black and white that the Government cannot claim these are independent, civil service figures.
https://x.com/hzeffman/status/1798252445321343456?t=fbrJXi1Uzy2SBbyMBzwtYw&s=19
It should be game over for Sunak, to be caught in such a big lie. But that's not how these things work and it's unpredictable how the public will react.
However, if it becomes the big story, then it is a big problem for Sunak.
AFZ
If Reform help to make the wipeout bigger than it was already going to be, then it is definitely possible for the Tories to finished 3rd.
Watch this space.
AFZ
I don't think this is the cause at all, at least not directly; because the assumption here is that the BBC has some kind of internal economics function that can provide feedback, except if that were the case what was to account for the seemingly permanent presence of people drawn from Tufton Street et al (IEA, ASI, TPA, CPS, etc.)
In fact it's far more likely that platforming those sources has led to a certain institutional capture on the part of the BBC programme directors, bluntly they were institutionally likely to favour arguments for Truss/Kwarteng's policies because they had been platforming apologia for similar approaches for years.
If you cast your mind back a few years, this is exactly what happened with their coverage of climate science (with again the 'second hand dealers in ideas' being at the core of it).
No, again there's enough data to perform quantitative analysis on the BBC's output.
Whatever happens in the meantime, it may mean that Sunak will be defenestrated immediately after the wipeout election.
I'm more convinced than ever that Sunak is determined to burn the ungrateful tory party down, along with the equally ungrateful country.
* because, it's what I've read about what the Mail reported ... I haven't sullied myself to read the Mail itself.
And we can do a lot with this analogy, because "better" itself is not well-defined. It might mean that the teachers in school 2 are more skilled than the teachers in school 1, but unless you're running some kind of "who is Britain's best teacher" competition, that's not all that relevant. It might mean "suppose I have a choice of sending my own personal child to school 1 or school 2: where will they be best served?", and depending on your own personal child, the answer may well be that they will do better in the leafy suburb with "average" teachers than they would do in the school full of immigrants in poverty with the excellent teachers.
So I took one for the team, and glanced at the layout of the print edition of this particular organ.
The Daily Mail's headline reads "Fiery Rishi comes out swinging and lands big blows", with a subheading about the 2,000 quid claim.
Inside the paper, there's a double page devoted to the claim that Labour will tax "everything", three pages devoted to Nigel Farage, and most of a page about Faiza Shaheen claiming that Labour is full of racists. I didn't see any critical analysis of the 2000 quid claim, but I wasn't proposing to actually read the thing in detail to check.
The number of column inches devoted to each talking point shows you exactly what message the Mail is trying to push.
You must still be washing your hands to get the muck off them after handling that vile comic.
Seconded.
I had to read a Mail story the other day... still on the daily brain bleach...
I didn't see the clip but someone told me that Tim Farron was asked about a poll that showed the Lib Dems beating the Tories and coming second place to Labour.
He didn't believe it.
But then we've had Steele's 'Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government!' And Swinson's 'I'm going to be the next Prime Minister ...'
So we've learned caution the hard way.
Sure, but I think you are over-complicating things.
By the time my brother-in-law contacted them the BBC's tone was one of, 'Are they seriously proposing this? Isn't it a bit rash?'
Rather than, 'Take cover! Women and children first! Abandon Ship! Abandon ship!'
Which was the reality of the narrowly averted crash.
They weren't saying, 'Hey folks, look at this wonderful idea the PM and Chancellor are putting forward.'
They were saying, 'Hang on a minute. Are they serious?'
But not, 'Aaaarrrghhh! What the ...?!'
Ok. That's not a million miles from what you are saying but it's subtly different.
I'm saying they are influenced as to the reasonableness/accuracy/factualness of certain ideas by the people they regularly platform, that's not particularly complicated.
With all due respect to your b-i-l, minutes after the announcement a large number of prominent economists had already taken to social media to critique the idiocy of the policies, by the time he had called the average journo would have seen a good selection of this.
They didn't take the latter view because they'd spent years platforming very well spoken people from Tufton Street who assured them that it was a sensible set of policies - it's an interesting example of self radicalisation and not unlike the times they used to platform a prominent climate skeptic because he was a Tory Lord and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Nor was I, merely that by the time they responded to him they'd already had a chance to partially re-think.
Apparently with a methodology change, so cannot be directly compared with previous (sigh).
However:
Lab 40
Con 19
Reform 17
LD 10
Green 7
SNP 3
What's most interesting about it is that (using Electoral Calculus) this is how it translates into seats:
Lab 490
LD 63
Con 56
Reform 3
SNP 14
Green 2
PC 4
Other 18
So, if correct, the Liberal Democrats would be the Official Opposition.
AFZ
P.S. Yes, FPTP is ridiculous.
And you can certainly make the case that "Get The Tories Out" tactical voting in order to reduce the Tories to the status of a third party rather than His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition would be worthwhile.
It feels like there is a big danger of a massive Labour majority followed by really severe austerity.
What makes you say *seems*?
Yes amen
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-immigration-and-border-policy-stop-small-boats/#:~:text=Labour's plan for immigration,works for workers and businesses.
Not perfect, I suppose, but nothing is in this Wicked World.
Funnily enough no politician seems to want to say that out loud.
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2023/03/07/green-party-response-to-small-boats-bill/
A voice crying in the wilderness, maybe...
From Sky News:
Labour says it wants to spend money currently being spent on the Rwanda scheme on enforcement activity instead.
One of the first policies it announced during this election campaign was to establish a new Border Security Command to prosecute gangs operating small boat routes.
They would also increase security cooperation with the EU and give police more powers to search suspected people smugglers and monitor their financial accounts.
The party said it wants to negotiate a deal with the EU to return asylum seekers to EU countries.
My italics.
@Arethosemyfeet, do you think those in charge of the BBC were pro-Brexit and were trying the influence the referendum result? I get the accusation of false balance and trying to air “both sides” over issues of fact, but grouping the BBC with the right-wing media in deliberate attempts to bring about Brexit seems surprising to me - but I’m an outsider.
I think they gave Johnson a free pass. I think they were running scared of threats to the licence fee and associated claims of being anti-Brexit. There is also a sense that the British establishment, including the BBC, could countenance the likes of Johnson (the system can survive the merely venal and corrupt) but struggled to see a potential Corbyn government as legitimate. Plus the BBC frequently allows the press to set the agenda and accepts their premises in its reporting and analysis. Case in point, just now Today were talking to someone from Plaid Cymru, and raised a question about control of Crown Estate revenues as "you want to take money from the King?!" with full Daily Mail pearl-clutching tone.
The danger here, of course, is that the effect is to magnify the rhetoric of the hard right.
I'm not knocking him for that. Even staunch Remainers had some issues over the way the EU does things.
There was a 'Lexit' element within the broad church of Brexit as well as all the xenophobic jingoism stirred up on the right.
Corbyn's equivocation didn't help the Remain cause, in my view, but ultimately I don't think it had any decisive bearing on the outcome.
But the question was about whether the BBC was out to influence the Referendum in a Brexit direction.
I don't think they were.
They seemed as taken aback as anyone else by the outcome.
But yes to all the points about ratings and fear of interference, licence fees and so on.
I'm not sure I'd see a question like, 'You're taking money from the King?!' as out of bounds, rather a way of spicing up and interview and provoking an interesting reaction, although I'd certainly agree that there would be better ways to pose a question about the issue.
And yes, I accept that the BBC can be cloyingly sentimental and sycophantic about Royalty.
Don't get me started on the current trend for people getting choked up or moved to tears in interviews. I'm not saying these aren't genuine reactions but - put crudely - they seem to be edited or included in such a way as to make them the climactic feature of the interview itself.
That's just one example of a broader and general trend in reportage that can lead to the kind of thing we are talking about here in terms of political coverage.
Coming back to Corbyn, I don't think anyone would argue he was given a fair press or hearing.
That doesn't mean he walked (or walks) on water of course.
Nor does it mean the BBC are squeaky clean.
I think at least technically it’s the latter rather than the former.
Ok it’s a technicality, and because of how the Sovereign Grant came about undoing it would make the monarch personally liable for all the UK’s debts (and therefore bankrupt in pretty short order)- but IIRC it is indeed the monarch’s money, which the monarch graciously makes over to the state, in return for a grant of some of it back every year.
I thought we were talking about the 2019 election and Boris Johnson as PM. Johnson may have been a major figure in the referendum campaign but the outcome didn't and shouldn't rest on his personal character in the way that a GE is (rightly) heavily dependent on perceptions of it.
As Alan mentions above, the BBC has it's own reasons for chasing ratings, and especially in the aftermath of the Gilligan affair became wary of taking narratives that ran counter to those in the papers, especially the right wing press because they were most likely to go in hard at the BBC if it later proved that a story was correct.
The other dynamic is that the Today programme is the primary means that new stories enter the BBC News cycle, and that became dominated by a 'what the papers said' style approach - with the serious interview after 8am generally became a response to one of those stories.
Then there's the fact that the UK's media class is very small, drawn from a limited set of universities, and concentrated in a very small area of one city which also combines the centre of political, financial and cultural power, and so therefore all know each other. There's a fair amount of movement at the senior production level between the BBC, LBC, GBNews, TalkTV etc (and interestingly their colleagues greet these moves in laudatory terms that are otherwise separated from their general professed views of the right wing outlets). What this means is that the right wing press have enormous powers of patronage. Even if you are a leftie BBC journalist, for the sake of your own career you have to play nice with these people because you don't necessarily know where your next job might come from - you can't just move to one of the other large cities/opposite coast and work for another outlet with a similar political bent.
And this mirrors a sense in the political class that this is all just a game, that political debates are a form of theatre, like jousting, no different from their Oxford Union days, where there is nothing of moral or ethical import that might prevent you going out for drinks and palling around with the other "team". Corbyn, meanwhile, was never part of this clubby group, for all that he treated everyone decently. For journalists and the political class actually believing what you say and it having an impact on what you do is something weird and alien, and I think that affected how Corbyn was treated by the media.
Like the time it turned out that Lebedev was in the habit of having very chummy post-election 'Vodka and Caviar' parties featuring politicians, journalists, commentators, etc. from both sides, and we only found out about it because Corbyn turned down the invite so Lebedev hired an impersonator.
It concludes:
I don't entirely agree with his reasoning about not voting against what we might call past performance. As I noted above, the genius of democracy is accountability and thus sometimes 'punishing' a governing party is really important. I am also more optimistic than he is about the post-election landscape and how effective a right-wing, disorganised opposition might be.
However, as I said, a very interesting piece and argument.
AFZ
In theory a GE isn't a presidential style election.
We get to vote for a mp to represent our local constituency.
Sunak and Starmer only have their names on the ballot papers in one constituency each.
In practice this isn't how it works, and how the two main personalities come across and are covered has a large impact on the result.
@Arethosemyfeet - here was @stonespring's question which was addressed to you and to which I was responding.
It was to do with Brexit and not the 2019 General Election, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn's ability never to equivocate (Brexit anyone?), only ever speak his mind, dictate Holy Writ, miraculously Feed The Five Thousand and jog along the surface of the canal on his way home.
Platform is important. If the Lib Dems become His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, then it will be Ed Davey facing off against Keir Starmer at the dispatch box, and it should, in principle, be Liberal Democrats who are most often called on to give an opposing viewpoint to the government by TV news / politics programmes.
Technically, I am given to understand that recognizing a party as the official Opposition is within the gift of the Speaker, and I could imagine that in a situation where the Lib Dems and Conservatives had an almost identical number of seats, but the Cons had double the share of the national vote, that might give the Speaker an uncomfortable feeling.
But it shouldn't. This would be a consequence of the FPTP voting system. There are a number of ways of generating a more proportional outcome, many of which have sensible existence proofs that they work in practice.
I was explaining my previous comment which @stonespring quoted and seemed to think was about the referendum (it was not). For clarity I don't think the BBC intentionally enabled Brexit, though their practice of false balance during the referendum campaign was an important factor.