It is not 'running your country down' to recognise its faults and issues that need to be improved. This purblind form of 'patriotism' is, in fact, distinctly unhelpful. It's a bit like solving your personal problems with another bottle of whisky, and forgetting that they exist. For a time. If we all 'ran our country down' a bit more, maybe some of the clowns in Westminster might start to do something about our criticisms.
Beautifully put. My country, right or wrong can be very dangerous if it is transferred to the government of the day.
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.
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.
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'll happily admit that I have often found Boris to be entertaining. I rather enjoyed his time hosting HIGNFY, for example. But there's a considerable difference between "this person is quite amusing to watch" and "this person would be a good choice to be PM".
Generally speaking, when I'm looking for someone to have a senior role in government, "being entertaining" is not high on my list of requirements.
So Farage. Is his intention to destroy the Conservatives so as to replace them?
I think his intention is to continue to consume news cycles.
Good point. His visage is all over the Noos, like a pernicious and very unpleasant rash, and will be for the next month or so. If there be gods, he'll crash and burn, and then retire into obscurity for a week or two...
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.
I came across Conservatives who were convinced the BBC didn't want Brexit and were out to queer Boris's pitch.
I'd agree that Corbyn didn't get a fair press but equally I think it's more complicated than that.
My daughter was exhilarated by the Corbyn rallies she attended in the northern city where she lives but within 5 or 6 weeks it had all worn off. I don't think we can blame the media for that.
So Farage. Is his intention to destroy the Conservatives so as to replace them?
I think his long-term post-Brexit aspiration is to keep chipping away at Conservative support until they reach the point where they have to merge with Reform in order to maintain political significance, dragging the Tories further to the right and gaining himself a place on the frontbenches of the Commons where he thinks he belongs.
Can I change the subject a bit? Some of us are trying to arrange a public hustings event. However one of the major candidates has told us that they won't be able to attend due to security issues following the murders of Jo Cox and David Amess (they don't mention Nigel Farage being milkshaked!)
Now clearly this is a real issue and the Electoral Commission say that those who arrange hustings "should give some thought to what you will do to ensure the safety and security of the representatives who attend your event, and control the event effectively" - although they don't say how. But we're sensing an excuse, even an unwillingness to meet with voters. We're trying to find out if this is Party or Police policy - has anyone here run into the same problem?
If this is happening nationwide then it's a blow both to democracy and to public (as opposed to media) scrutiny of candidates.
Boris didn't get a free pass other than in the usual suspect media. The Mail. The Telegraph.
I came across Conservatives who were convinced the BBC didn't want Brexit and were out to queer Boris's pitch.
Yes, Brexiteers loved to whine about the BBC but it was absolute Bollocks. They both-sided arguments between facts and lies and enabled Johnson constantly.
I've been to events recently where one of the politicians attended virtually. That would be an option, assuming a venue with decent broadband and a screen/webcam available (may not be an option for a church hall, but a school or library will probably be able to manage that). It's not unusual for hustings to have someone deputise for the candidate - that can simply reflect very busy diaries during elections.
Security and candidate safety is a big issue, and will be a real concern for some candidates. Our candidate last year in Rutherglen was subject to vile online comments, and some nasty comments at hustings from one of the other candidates.
I've been to events recently where one of the politicians attended virtually. That would be an option, assuming a venue with decent broadband and a screen/webcam available (may not be an option for a church hall, but a school or library will probably be able to manage that). It's not unusual for hustings to have someone deputise for the candidate - that can simply reflect very busy diaries during elections.
Security and candidate safety is a big issue, and will be a real concern for some candidates. Our candidate last year in Rutherglen was subject to vile online comments, and some nasty comments at hustings from one of the other candidates.
Question from the US - what kind of security do MPs have at public events? Members of Congress here don't get Secret Service protection or anything like that, but if one of them gives a speech it isn't unusual to see police there, either on duty or hired as security off duty. Not sure who pays for it.
I've been to events recently where one of the politicians attended virtually. That would be an option, assuming a venue with decent broadband and a screen/webcam available (may not be an option for a church hall, but a school or library will probably be able to manage that). It's not unusual for hustings to have someone deputise for the candidate - that can simply reflect very busy diaries during elections.
Security and candidate safety is a big issue, and will be a real concern for some candidates. Our candidate last year in Rutherglen was subject to vile online comments, and some nasty comments at hustings from one of the other candidates.
Question from the US - what kind of security do MPs have at public events? Members of Congress here don't get Secret Service protection or anything like that, but if one of them gives a speech it isn't unusual to see police there, either on duty or hired as security off duty. Not sure who pays for it.
Depends - those who have been Northern Ireland Secretary have quite good protection. Run of the mill MPs (knowing a couple personally), ‘none’ is the default.
During an election campaign there will be extra police attention given to protection of candidates. That would usually include a dedicated help line as well as 999 operators giving priority to calls from candidates who consider themselves threatened (eg: if they see someone acting suspiciously outside their home or office, they think they're being followed while out campaigning etc). Also more attention given to investigating threatening messages on social media. It would be very unusual for police protection to be evident, it would generally be considered intimidating for a police officer to be hanging around while canvassing or a copper at the door to a hustings event - though if there is a hustings event there may be police car parked up discretely round the corner out of sight if it's deemed necessary, where the police can respond rapidly if needed.
I'm not a politician but I'm afraid I wouldn't be attending hustings if I was a candidate standing the GE. The current times are pretty dangerous in my opinion.
Starmer never looked comfortable.
Sunak tetchy, rude and pathetic.
The format and the hosting even worse.
I suspect it will have zero effect on the election because most won't watch and/or care. Those that have watched will probably come away with something like this:
During an election campaign there will be extra police attention given to protection of candidates. That would usually include a dedicated help line as well as 999 operators giving priority to calls from candidates who consider themselves threatened (eg: if they see someone acting suspiciously outside their home or office, they think they're being followed while out campaigning etc). Also more attention given to investigating threatening messages on social media. It would be very unusual for police protection to be evident, it would generally be considered intimidating for a police officer to be hanging around while canvassing or a copper at the door to a hustings event - though if there is a hustings event there may be police car parked up discretely round the corner out of sight if it's deemed necessary, where the police can respond rapidly if needed.
Someone else from the US who is more politically active than I and attends events where candidates for Congress and state and local office are present could comment more on what security there is and how conspicuous it is.
In my lifetime it has become more and more normal to see police on duty in schools or off-duty hired as security at synagogues and sometimes at churches. In cities with high crime I have also seen police officers off duty working as security in supermarkets. When police are hired as security off duty they often wear vests or shirts (not their official uniform) that say "police." Not sure if this is legally required or if it's done to make people feel safer knowing that police are present.
Boris didn't get a free pass other than in the usual suspect media. The Mail. The Telegraph.
I came across Conservatives who were convinced the BBC didn't want Brexit and were out to queer Boris's pitch.
Yes, Brexiteers loved to whine about the BBC but it was absolute Bollocks. They both-sided arguments between facts and lies and enabled Johnson constantly.
AFZ
I'm not convinced they were as enabling as that but no, I'm not convinced by the Brexiter Bollocks that they were out to nobble him either.
That doesn't mean I go along with everything the BBC says or does.
Many Lib Dems will tell you that they don't get the BBC coverage they think they deserve. Conservatives will tell you the BBC is irredeemably lefty/liberal. Labourites will tell you they had it in for Corbyn.
Boris didn't get a free pass other than in the usual suspect media. The Mail. The Telegraph.
I came across Conservatives who were convinced the BBC didn't want Brexit and were out to queer Boris's pitch.
Yes, Brexiteers loved to whine about the BBC but it was absolute Bollocks. They both-sided arguments between facts and lies and enabled Johnson constantly.
AFZ
I'm not convinced they were as enabling as that but no, I'm not convinced by the Brexiter Bollocks that they were out to nobble him either.
That doesn't mean I go along with everything the BBC says or does.
Many Lib Dems will tell you that they don't get the BBC coverage they think they deserve. Conservatives will tell you the BBC is irredeemably lefty/liberal. Labourites will tell you they had it in for Corbyn.
Indeed. But facts don't stand in isolation. It's often about how they are interpreted or presented.
You and I would both agree that 2 + 2 = 4. Unless we were being tortured in some kind of '1984' style dystopia.
But we may will disagree on how to interpret particular facts and that will depend on all manner of factors such as perspective, ideological viewpoint, age, social background, life experience etc etc.
Security for candidates, public meetings etc. must be much more difficult in a culture where there is a right to carry arms and one has to assume that anyone might be carrying one.
Spot on. Where are the Aneurin Bevans of yesteryear?
(We’re on holiday abroad during the last two weeks prior to the Election, arriving back on 4 July. Booked in advance of the announcement. I’m basically relieved. I’ll be voting by post for the candidate who has the best chance of unseating the Tory MP. There’s a chance this time.)
Starmer never looked comfortable.
Sunak tetchy, rude and pathetic.
The format and the hosting even worse.
I suspect it will have zero effect on the election because most won't watch and/or care. Those that have watched will probably come away with something like this:
Starmer - Meh.
Sunak - Hell No!
YMMV - and I'm sure will.
AFZ
We did learn that if a member of Sir Keir's family really needed a urgent operation, he would not use his wealth to pay for it. They would have to remain on the NHS waiting list.
Boris didn't get a free pass other than in the usual suspect media. The Mail. The Telegraph.
I came across Conservatives who were convinced the BBC didn't want Brexit and were out to queer Boris's pitch.
Yes, Brexiteers loved to whine about the BBC but it was absolute Bollocks. They both-sided arguments between facts and lies and enabled Johnson constantly.
AFZ
I'm not convinced they were as enabling as that but no, I'm not convinced by the Brexiter Bollocks that they were out to nobble him either.
That doesn't mean I go along with everything the BBC says or does.
Many Lib Dems will tell you that they don't get the BBC coverage they think they deserve. Conservatives will tell you the BBC is irredeemably lefty/liberal. Labourites will tell you they had it in for Corbyn.
Can they all be right?
During the Iraq War, I saw one Canadian leftist deride the BBC's coverage of the war as "Fox News with a school tie". Pretty sure that wasn't the view of the beeb taken by the average Sun reader in the UK.
Indeed. But facts don't stand in isolation. It's often about how they are interpreted or presented.
You and I would both agree that 2 + 2 = 4. Unless we were being tortured in some kind of '1984' style dystopia.
But we may will disagree on how to interpret particular facts and that will depend on all manner of factors such as perspective, ideological viewpoint, age, social background, life experience etc etc.
But you know that ...
It's an undeniable fact that Farage has been feted by the BBC far more than us warranted by the seats his parties have won.
Spot on. Where are the Aneurin Bevans of yesteryear?
(We’re on holiday abroad during the last two weeks prior to the Election, arriving back on 4 July. Booked in advance of the announcement. I’m basically relieved. I’ll be voting by post for the candidate who has the best chance of unseating the Tory MP. There’s a chance this time.)
I was coincidentally also thinking about Nye Bevan recently. For me, whilst it is true that he was a soaring rhetorical figure and (as someone who essentially identifies as a socialist) a giant of the 20th century, I can't agree that we need someone from that rhetorical tradition.
Well, no, in fairness we have one - George Galloway.
If we had more people who stubbornly insisted on their own stump and called everyone else names and attempted to crush the opposition with rhetorical flourishes, the quality of political debate would get worse not better. Be careful what you wish for.
Ok. But there's no such thing as a lack of bias. Is 'false balance' in the eye of the beholder?
As former Senator Moynihan put it:
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts
It is this conflating facts with opinion that's so problematic. One academic refers to this as the Flat Earth theory: opinions difference as to the shape of the earth.
I'll give you a specific Brexit example. Emily Maitliss has decscribed the editorial room when they had an economist explaining the risks of Brexit, there was a lot of scrabbling around to find someone to offer an alternative position. Usually they booked Patrick Minford. Now, the fact is that around 95% of economists were predicting a big cost of Brexit and no economic benefit. So a truly balanced debate would have put Minford up on one side and 19 other economists on the other.
Economics is complicated. Most people do not understand it. When you have a ten minute back and forth between two experts, most people take away from it "oh, they don't know, it could be either..." That is simply not the case. The majority of the evidence showed big costs of Brexit. That's not to say that alternative views shouldn't be allowed. They really, really should. But in context. Any expert worth listening to will not just tell you what they think but will walk you through the data and show you why they have that view. The very best will also explain the uncertainties in the data and what they are confident of and what they don't know. An hour long special with multiple other experts and Minford could have been very informative. Moreover, the detail here is interesting and important. Minford's modelling assumed a complete collapse of some manufacturing industry. That's politically quite unpalatable, so not likely to happen and thus you lose the benefit. Plus most people would not want it, even if the headline figure is an economic gain. All of which was not seen is these 'debates' where they just put up two sides.
All the BBC gave us was 'economists differ' when in fact there was a very strong consensus and a few who disagreed.
Sure, and I think that's a good example AFZ. My brother-in-law is an economist and actually wrote to the Beeb's Economics & Business Editor during the Kwarteng/Truss debacle to point out that the situation was even worse than they were reporting.
If ever there was a near-miss, that was it.
And yes, the Beeb is bound to make faux-pa's in the interests of apparent 'balance' in a cack-handed way at times.
On its coverage of Farage. He's a colourful character and comes out with juicy quotes. So he's bound to carve out coverage for himself. The media like characters. Thats why Boris cultivated a persona.
It's also why Sir Ed totters about on Windermere (and in Windermere) on a waterboard or pulls blue bricks out of Jenga stacks. Nobody would take much notice otherwise.
'He's a nice guy. But his party is boring. Let's run a piece about a poodle on a unicycle in Milton Keynes.'
But generally speaking, I don't regard the BBC as 'Fox News in a school-tie' any more than I credit it with Boris's demise.
But it depends where we're coming from. If I were a Tory I'd think they were out to get me. If I was on the Labour left the same. Or if I were a particular type of Lib Dem I'd be suggesting there was an Establishment conspiracy to ignore us completely ...
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.
On its coverage of Farage. He's a colourful character and comes out with juicy quotes. So he's bound to carve out coverage for himself. The media like characters. That's why Boris cultivated a persona.
It's also why Sir Ed totters about on Windermere (and in Windermere) on a waterboard or pulls blue bricks out of Jenga stacks. Nobody would take much notice otherwise.
I certainly feel that Farage gets far too much airtime. Why on earth was he on last week's "Question Time"? I also feel that the LibDems tend to get sidelined, although there was a good and sensible interview with Davey on (I think) last Sunday evening's main ITV news bulletin, with particular focus on his disabled child. (I have to say that, while I rather deplore the LibDems stunts as making them look unserious, I applaud the gambit of sailing their boat along the Thames behind Sunak's interview!)
One other thing: here in Wales (as, I'm sure, in Scotland and NI) people are still confused by "Who runs what?" And both main parties take advantage of devolution, hence Labour will say, "Look at the shambles the Tories have made of the NHS in England, vote for us" and the Conservatives will say the exact opposite!
But generally speaking, I don't regard the BBC as 'Fox News in a school-tie' any more than I credit it with Boris's demise.
But it depends where we're coming from. If I were a Tory I'd think they were out to get me. If I was on the Labour left the same. Or if I were a particular type of Lib Dem I'd be suggesting there was an Establishment conspiracy to ignore us completely ...
And this is a variant on the argument that purports to support the claim that the BBC represents balance, and a more than a moments thought shows it to be without merit.
Starmer never looked comfortable.
Sunak tetchy, rude and pathetic.
The format and the hosting even worse.
I suspect it will have zero effect on the election because most won't watch and/or care. Those that have watched will probably come away with something like this:
Starmer - Meh.
Sunak - Hell No!
YMMV - and I'm sure will.
AFZ
We did learn that if a member of Sir Keir's family really needed a urgent operation, he would not use his wealth to pay for it. They would have to remain on the NHS waiting list.
YouGov Snap poll had Sunak 51 / Starmer 49 on the question of "who won?"
Obviously, the Conservative accounts are pumping this out as 'A WIN.' Disappointingly, news agents also reporting it as a win for Sunak when in reality, it's a statistical tie.
However, the truth is this. It was bad for Sunak. And I'll tell you why.
Sunak needs a game-changing event. He got nowhere close to it. It should also be noted that the 'who won?' question is hugely influenced by who the responder supported before the debate. Also, "x won the debate" is very much not the same as "I am now more likely to vote for x." And it's a world away from "I was going to vote for y, but now I'll vote x."
These numbers tell you two important things. Firstly, as I said, what people thought before the debate is a big determining factor on what they think about the debate, as previously noted. More importantly, though, Starmer out-performed Sunak on most of these factors: "trustworthy" / "likable" / "in touch with ordinary people." These things are more important in deciding who to vote for than who notionally won.
So, what actually went well for the Tories? Sunak managed to embed his £2000 tax bill trope. Apparently he said it 11 times. Starmer did manage once to respond to it properly, The Tories will push it very hard over the next couple of days and the media will pick it up. Labour will struggle to be heard as to why it's a complete lie. However, I do not think it matters. Why? Because polling shows that most people think taxes are going up whoever wins the election, so again, even if the charge sticks, it will not actually change how people vote.
If I was a Labour strategist, I would have one worry from this debate (and the next one, potentially). Starmer did not come across very well. He appeared nervous and struggled with the time restrictions. The time rules were ridiculous but they were what they were. I think that Sunak's hectoring and petulance was a bad look but it appealed to people who already like or support him. Starmer's issue is that he looked uninspiring. For the most part on the campaign trail he has looked a lot better than this. So the worry here is voter apathy. Many will not like Sunak but won't necessarily want to vote Starmer as a consequence.
Having said all of that, I expect no meaningful effect on the polls at all. I also was pleasantly surprised by the YouGov data the other week suggesting that we might have around 70% turnout. Notwithstanding what I've just said, I think, on balance, turnout will be unaffected.
@Gamma Gamaliel - Thank you. That's exactly what I was getting at. @Arethosemyfeet - yes, if only the BBC could be persuaded to treat Farage the same was as they (appropriately) treat Galloway.
@Baptist Trainfan The devolution effect is indeed real. All parties are guilty of obfuscating to some extent to shift the blame. However, I do want to respond to the specifics of NHS Wales.
On certain indicators, NHS Wales underperforms compared to NHS England. It is a devolved service so the Welsh government are responsible.
However, NHS Wales is underfunded compared to England and that is controlled by the UK treasury. If you look at the headline numbers, you won't see this. I cannot remember but the crude per-capita spending may be higher in Wales, I'm not sure. However, the healthcare needs in Wales are higher.
It's not a perfect measure but historically* NHS resources have been weighted according to healthcare needs based on simple demographics. So some areas receive more funding proportionately than others as a consequence. When you think about this, it makes sense. We know that older people use the majority of healthcare resources. Therefore areas with an older population on average will need more resources. Similarly, healthcare needs correlate with lower socio-economic groups and hence more resources are needed.
In simple terms, Wales has a population that is older and poorer than England and therefore the NHS needs more resources to cover this population. They do not get it. NHS Wales is under-resourced compared to England.
As you may have noticed, it's taken me 200 words or so to explain this situation which is why our disingenuous government can shout that NHS Wales is failing because of the Labour government in Cardiff when it's not really true. Or at the very least, it's a lot more complicated than that. 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...
AFZ
*Pre the 2012 reforms, I knew how this worked. The PCTs funding was per-capita they were responsible for and adjusted up or down according to their local demographics. I am not sure how it works now.
Farage is the leader of a party that is likely to make inroads into the Tory vote - enough to possible lose them seats or drive them into third place in seats. Galloway is a one man band.
In simple terms, Wales has a population that is older and poorer than England and therefore the NHS needs more resources to cover this population. They do not get it. NHS Wales is under-resourced compared to England.
Thanks for the explanation, which parallels (with a bit more detail) my own understanding.
Apologies for double posting but different topic: The debate.
YouGov Snap poll had Sunak 51 / Starmer 49 on the question of "who won?"
Obviously, the Conservative accounts are pumping this out as 'A WIN.' Disappointingly, news agents also reporting it as a win for Sunak when in reality, it's a statistical tie.
However, the truth is this. It was bad for Sunak. And I'll tell you why.
Sunak needs a game-changing event. He got nowhere close to it. It should also be noted that the 'who won?' Is hugely influenced by who the responder supported before the debate. Also, "x won the debate" is very much not the same as "I am now more likely to vote for
Farage is the leader of a party that is likely to make inroads into the Tory vote - enough to possible lose them seats or drive them into third place in seats. Galloway is a one man band.
He is now.
But he's been given a platform for 20 years when he wasn't.
The £2000 tax figure has been challenged on the BBC. It appears to be put together by Tory staffers. The theory is they got information and span it somewhat.
As to the debate.
Sunak: a few lines of attack used over and over. £2000 somewhat debunked now, we have turned a corner, we should look forwards not backwards whilst often referring to the furlough scheme.
Starmer: needed to be more positive. Came across as confused a bit.
Both needed to spend more time on their policies and less time on pulling their opponent down.
Both need to stop taking over each other so much as the public watching cannot understand what either are saying. That is the reason for the debate. The show us why they should win.
If I was the host I would have shut them up or gone to an add then neither of them would be heard. I did like the way she treated like naughty school boys.
But generally speaking, I don't regard the BBC as 'Fox News in a school-tie' any more than I credit it with Boris's demise.
But it depends where we're coming from. If I were a Tory I'd think they were out to get me. If I was on the Labour left the same. Or if I were a particular type of Lib Dem I'd be suggesting there was an Establishment conspiracy to ignore us completely ...
And this is a variant on the argument that purports to support the claim that the BBC represents balance, and a more than a moments thought shows it to be without merit.
Which is rather different to what I was saying.
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.
On the Farage thing yes, I agree they give him more of a platform than they allow Galloway.
On the Lib Dems I do think they sideline us to a certain extent and I noticed a gratuitous shot they carried of a Lib Dem supporter holding one of our distinctive diamond shaped placards upside down. But that's more fool the activist for doing so.
I agree with AFZ on the facts thing and with the Labour left on the way it gets portrayed. I have my issues with the Labour left (as I do with aspects of the Labour right) but know that it doesn't conform to caricature or stereotype any more than any other group does.
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'.
The £2000 tax figure has been challenged on the BBC. It appears to be put together by Tory staffers. The theory is they got information and span it somewhat.
As to the debate.
Sunak: a few lines of attack used over and over. £2000 somewhat debunked now, we have turned a corner, we should look forwards not backwards whilst often referring to the furlough scheme.
Starmer: needed to be more positive. Came across as confused a bit.
Both needed to spend more time on their policies and less time on pulling their opponent down.
Both need to stop taking over each other so much as the public watching cannot understand what either are saying. That is the reason for the debate. The show us why they should win.
If I was the host I would have shut them up or gone to an add then neither of them would be heard. I did like the way she treated like naughty school boys.
Comments
It would appear so:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/04/nigel-farage-reform-uk-tories-labour
I think his intention is to continue to consume news cycles.
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.
100% true
I'll happily admit that I have often found Boris to be entertaining. I rather enjoyed his time hosting HIGNFY, for example. But there's a considerable difference between "this person is quite amusing to watch" and "this person would be a good choice to be PM".
Generally speaking, when I'm looking for someone to have a senior role in government, "being entertaining" is not high on my list of requirements.
Good point. His visage is all over the Noos, like a pernicious and very unpleasant rash, and will be for the next month or so. If there be gods, he'll crash and burn, and then retire into obscurity for a week or two...
It depends which media we are talking about.
I came across Conservatives who were convinced the BBC didn't want Brexit and were out to queer Boris's pitch.
I'd agree that Corbyn didn't get a fair press but equally I think it's more complicated than that.
My daughter was exhilarated by the Corbyn rallies she attended in the northern city where she lives but within 5 or 6 weeks it had all worn off. I don't think we can blame the media for that.
I think his long-term post-Brexit aspiration is to keep chipping away at Conservative support until they reach the point where they have to merge with Reform in order to maintain political significance, dragging the Tories further to the right and gaining himself a place on the frontbenches of the Commons where he thinks he belongs.
The scary thing is it might just work.
And the Express, Times, Sky, ITV and, despite what tories may think, the BBC.
Now clearly this is a real issue and the Electoral Commission say that those who arrange hustings "should give some thought to what you will do to ensure the safety and security of the representatives who attend your event, and control the event effectively" - although they don't say how. But we're sensing an excuse, even an unwillingness to meet with voters. We're trying to find out if this is Party or Police policy - has anyone here run into the same problem?
If this is happening nationwide then it's a blow both to democracy and to public (as opposed to media) scrutiny of candidates.
Yes, Brexiteers loved to whine about the BBC but it was absolute Bollocks. They both-sided arguments between facts and lies and enabled Johnson constantly.
AFZ
Security and candidate safety is a big issue, and will be a real concern for some candidates. Our candidate last year in Rutherglen was subject to vile online comments, and some nasty comments at hustings from one of the other candidates.
Question from the US - what kind of security do MPs have at public events? Members of Congress here don't get Secret Service protection or anything like that, but if one of them gives a speech it isn't unusual to see police there, either on duty or hired as security off duty. Not sure who pays for it.
Depends - those who have been Northern Ireland Secretary have quite good protection. Run of the mill MPs (knowing a couple personally), ‘none’ is the default.
Starmer never looked comfortable.
Sunak tetchy, rude and pathetic.
The format and the hosting even worse.
I suspect it will have zero effect on the election because most won't watch and/or care. Those that have watched will probably come away with something like this:
Starmer - Meh.
Sunak - Hell No!
YMMV - and I'm sure will.
AFZ
Someone else from the US who is more politically active than I and attends events where candidates for Congress and state and local office are present could comment more on what security there is and how conspicuous it is.
In my lifetime it has become more and more normal to see police on duty in schools or off-duty hired as security at synagogues and sometimes at churches. In cities with high crime I have also seen police officers off duty working as security in supermarkets. When police are hired as security off duty they often wear vests or shirts (not their official uniform) that say "police." Not sure if this is legally required or if it's done to make people feel safer knowing that police are present.
I'm not convinced they were as enabling as that but no, I'm not convinced by the Brexiter Bollocks that they were out to nobble him either.
That doesn't mean I go along with everything the BBC says or does.
Many Lib Dems will tell you that they don't get the BBC coverage they think they deserve. Conservatives will tell you the BBC is irredeemably lefty/liberal. Labourites will tell you they had it in for Corbyn.
Can they all be right?
False balance is its own kind of bias.
No, because generally there are facts involved.
You and I would both agree that 2 + 2 = 4. Unless we were being tortured in some kind of '1984' style dystopia.
But we may will disagree on how to interpret particular facts and that will depend on all manner of factors such as perspective, ideological viewpoint, age, social background, life experience etc etc.
But you know that ...
Spot on. Where are the Aneurin Bevans of yesteryear?
(We’re on holiday abroad during the last two weeks prior to the Election, arriving back on 4 July. Booked in advance of the announcement. I’m basically relieved. I’ll be voting by post for the candidate who has the best chance of unseating the Tory MP. There’s a chance this time.)
We did learn that if a member of Sir Keir's family really needed a urgent operation, he would not use his wealth to pay for it. They would have to remain on the NHS waiting list.
I didn't believe him.
During the Iraq War, I saw one Canadian leftist deride the BBC's coverage of the war as "Fox News with a school tie". Pretty sure that wasn't the view of the beeb taken by the average Sun reader in the UK.
It's an undeniable fact that Farage has been feted by the BBC far more than us warranted by the seats his parties have won.
I was coincidentally also thinking about Nye Bevan recently. For me, whilst it is true that he was a soaring rhetorical figure and (as someone who essentially identifies as a socialist) a giant of the 20th century, I can't agree that we need someone from that rhetorical tradition.
Well, no, in fairness we have one - George Galloway.
If we had more people who stubbornly insisted on their own stump and called everyone else names and attempted to crush the opposition with rhetorical flourishes, the quality of political debate would get worse not better. Be careful what you wish for.
As former Senator Moynihan put it:
It is this conflating facts with opinion that's so problematic. One academic refers to this as the Flat Earth theory: opinions difference as to the shape of the earth.
I'll give you a specific Brexit example. Emily Maitliss has decscribed the editorial room when they had an economist explaining the risks of Brexit, there was a lot of scrabbling around to find someone to offer an alternative position. Usually they booked Patrick Minford. Now, the fact is that around 95% of economists were predicting a big cost of Brexit and no economic benefit. So a truly balanced debate would have put Minford up on one side and 19 other economists on the other.
Economics is complicated. Most people do not understand it. When you have a ten minute back and forth between two experts, most people take away from it "oh, they don't know, it could be either..." That is simply not the case. The majority of the evidence showed big costs of Brexit. That's not to say that alternative views shouldn't be allowed. They really, really should. But in context. Any expert worth listening to will not just tell you what they think but will walk you through the data and show you why they have that view. The very best will also explain the uncertainties in the data and what they are confident of and what they don't know. An hour long special with multiple other experts and Minford could have been very informative. Moreover, the detail here is interesting and important. Minford's modelling assumed a complete collapse of some manufacturing industry. That's politically quite unpalatable, so not likely to happen and thus you lose the benefit. Plus most people would not want it, even if the headline figure is an economic gain. All of which was not seen is these 'debates' where they just put up two sides.
All the BBC gave us was 'economists differ' when in fact there was a very strong consensus and a few who disagreed.
See also, historically, vaccines, climate change.
AFZ
Ditto "evidence" and "proof" which some people seem to use interchangeably.
If ever there was a near-miss, that was it.
And yes, the Beeb is bound to make faux-pa's in the interests of apparent 'balance' in a cack-handed way at times.
On its coverage of Farage. He's a colourful character and comes out with juicy quotes. So he's bound to carve out coverage for himself. The media like characters. Thats why Boris cultivated a persona.
It's also why Sir Ed totters about on Windermere (and in Windermere) on a waterboard or pulls blue bricks out of Jenga stacks. Nobody would take much notice otherwise.
'He's a nice guy. But his party is boring. Let's run a piece about a poodle on a unicycle in Milton Keynes.'
But generally speaking, I don't regard the BBC as 'Fox News in a school-tie' any more than I credit it with Boris's demise.
But it depends where we're coming from. If I were a Tory I'd think they were out to get me. If I was on the Labour left the same. Or if I were a particular type of Lib Dem I'd be suggesting there was an Establishment conspiracy to ignore us completely ...
I certainly feel that Farage gets far too much airtime. Why on earth was he on last week's "Question Time"? I also feel that the LibDems tend to get sidelined, although there was a good and sensible interview with Davey on (I think) last Sunday evening's main ITV news bulletin, with particular focus on his disabled child. (I have to say that, while I rather deplore the LibDems stunts as making them look unserious, I applaud the gambit of sailing their boat along the Thames behind Sunak's interview!)
One other thing: here in Wales (as, I'm sure, in Scotland and NI) people are still confused by "Who runs what?" And both main parties take advantage of devolution, hence Labour will say, "Look at the shambles the Tories have made of the NHS in England, vote for us" and the Conservatives will say the exact opposite!
And this is a variant on the argument that purports to support the claim that the BBC represents balance, and a more than a moments thought shows it to be without merit.
Why not?
YouGov Snap poll had Sunak 51 / Starmer 49 on the question of "who won?"
Obviously, the Conservative accounts are pumping this out as 'A WIN.' Disappointingly, news agents also reporting it as a win for Sunak when in reality, it's a statistical tie.
However, the truth is this. It was bad for Sunak. And I'll tell you why.
Sunak needs a game-changing event. He got nowhere close to it. It should also be noted that the 'who won?' question is hugely influenced by who the responder supported before the debate. Also, "x won the debate" is very much not the same as "I am now more likely to vote for x." And it's a world away from "I was going to vote for y, but now I'll vote x."
The headline figures of the debate therefore do not mean anything, in my view. However, the more detailed questions are more meaningful:
https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1798112326752842098?t=g_IVnIFKzCKlIhAaGkShtQ&s=19
These numbers tell you two important things. Firstly, as I said, what people thought before the debate is a big determining factor on what they think about the debate, as previously noted. More importantly, though, Starmer out-performed Sunak on most of these factors: "trustworthy" / "likable" / "in touch with ordinary people." These things are more important in deciding who to vote for than who notionally won.
So, what actually went well for the Tories? Sunak managed to embed his £2000 tax bill trope. Apparently he said it 11 times. Starmer did manage once to respond to it properly, The Tories will push it very hard over the next couple of days and the media will pick it up. Labour will struggle to be heard as to why it's a complete lie. However, I do not think it matters. Why? Because polling shows that most people think taxes are going up whoever wins the election, so again, even if the charge sticks, it will not actually change how people vote.
If I was a Labour strategist, I would have one worry from this debate (and the next one, potentially). Starmer did not come across very well. He appeared nervous and struggled with the time restrictions. The time rules were ridiculous but they were what they were. I think that Sunak's hectoring and petulance was a bad look but it appealed to people who already like or support him. Starmer's issue is that he looked uninspiring. For the most part on the campaign trail he has looked a lot better than this. So the worry here is voter apathy. Many will not like Sunak but won't necessarily want to vote Starmer as a consequence.
Having said all of that, I expect no meaningful effect on the polls at all. I also was pleasantly surprised by the YouGov data the other week suggesting that we might have around 70% turnout. Notwithstanding what I've just said, I think, on balance, turnout will be unaffected.
Just my thoughts.
AFZ
@Arethosemyfeet - yes, if only the BBC could be persuaded to treat Farage the same was as they (appropriately) treat Galloway.
@Baptist Trainfan The devolution effect is indeed real. All parties are guilty of obfuscating to some extent to shift the blame. However, I do want to respond to the specifics of NHS Wales.
On certain indicators, NHS Wales underperforms compared to NHS England. It is a devolved service so the Welsh government are responsible.
However, NHS Wales is underfunded compared to England and that is controlled by the UK treasury. If you look at the headline numbers, you won't see this. I cannot remember but the crude per-capita spending may be higher in Wales, I'm not sure. However, the healthcare needs in Wales are higher.
It's not a perfect measure but historically* NHS resources have been weighted according to healthcare needs based on simple demographics. So some areas receive more funding proportionately than others as a consequence. When you think about this, it makes sense. We know that older people use the majority of healthcare resources. Therefore areas with an older population on average will need more resources. Similarly, healthcare needs correlate with lower socio-economic groups and hence more resources are needed.
In simple terms, Wales has a population that is older and poorer than England and therefore the NHS needs more resources to cover this population. They do not get it. NHS Wales is under-resourced compared to England.
As you may have noticed, it's taken me 200 words or so to explain this situation which is why our disingenuous government can shout that NHS Wales is failing because of the Labour government in Cardiff when it's not really true. Or at the very least, it's a lot more complicated than that. 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...
AFZ
*Pre the 2012 reforms, I knew how this worked. The PCTs funding was per-capita they were responsible for and adjusted up or down according to their local demographics. I am not sure how it works now.
YouGov Snap poll had Sunak 51 / Starmer 49 on the question of "who won?"
Obviously, the Conservative accounts are pumping this out as 'A WIN.' Disappointingly, news agents also reporting it as a win for Sunak when in reality, it's a statistical tie.
However, the truth is this. It was bad for Sunak. And I'll tell you why.
Sunak needs a game-changing event. He got nowhere close to it. It should also be noted that the 'who won?' Is hugely influenced by who the responder supported before the debate. Also, "x won the debate" is very much not the same as "I am now more likely to vote for
He is now.
But he's been given a platform for 20 years when he wasn't.
"He" = Galloway or Farage?
Farage
As to the debate.
Sunak: a few lines of attack used over and over. £2000 somewhat debunked now, we have turned a corner, we should look forwards not backwards whilst often referring to the furlough scheme.
Starmer: needed to be more positive. Came across as confused a bit.
Both needed to spend more time on their policies and less time on pulling their opponent down.
Both need to stop taking over each other so much as the public watching cannot understand what either are saying. That is the reason for the debate. The show us why they should win.
If I was the host I would have shut them up or gone to an add then neither of them would be heard. I did like the way she treated like naughty school boys.
https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1798258155391942656?t=UFsZt88Hdl3QEQRn5BrQDA&s=19
Starmer 53%
Sunak 33%
Still don't think it means anything.
AFZ
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/05/treasury-warned-tories-not-to-say-it-was-behind-sunaks-2000-tax-hike-claim
The row about this claim is still running, of course, but it looks like yet another *own goal* for Sunak.
Which is rather different to what I was saying.
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.
On the Farage thing yes, I agree they give him more of a platform than they allow Galloway.
On the Lib Dems I do think they sideline us to a certain extent and I noticed a gratuitous shot they carried of a Lib Dem supporter holding one of our distinctive diamond shaped placards upside down. But that's more fool the activist for doing so.
I agree with AFZ on the facts thing and with the Labour left on the way it gets portrayed. I have my issues with the Labour left (as I do with aspects of the Labour right) but know that it doesn't conform to caricature or stereotype any more than any other group does.
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'.
Yes.