New editor of Evening Standard: George Osborne

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I think you (and maybe Barna) are the only people who care about this. Why don't you arrange a protest march?

I can see why you would suggest that but I don't think this is a protest march situation really, but I have written to numerous MP's as I think this has to be dealt with by Parliament.
I would find it extremely alarming if anyone felt it was acceptable for a member of the governing party to dictate what is written and what is ignored in London's biggest newspaper. Anyone who has any understanding of history will be appalled by this and those that aren't - you get what you deserve.

 

[rigsby]

I can see why you would suggest that but I don't think this is a protest march situation really, but I have written to numerous MP's as I think this has to be dealt with by Parliament.
I would find it extremely alarming if anyone felt it was acceptable for a member of the governing party to dictate what is written and what is ignored in London's biggest newspaper. Anyone who has any understanding of history will be appalled by this and those that aren't - you get what you deserve.

Anybody who understands life knows that any young Tory boys, especially members of the Bullingdon club will live a life of privilege. Their reward for not rocking the boat and making sure the rich carry on getting even richer at our expense are these sort of jobs.......Just ask Tony Blair and his family.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Anybody who understands life knows that any young Tory boys, especially members of the Bullingdon club will live a life of privilege. Their reward for not rocking the boat and making sure the rich carry on getting even richer at our expense are these sort of jobs.......Just ask Tony Blair and his family.

this goes beyond the secret hand shakes and old school tie network for me and goes beyond vast sums of money being paid for very little work. A member of the governing party dictating what news features in the free press and what news is buried is something we expect to find in a dictatorship.

 

[MK Shrimper]

this goes beyond the secret hand shakes and old school tie network for me and goes beyond vast sums of money being paid for very little work. A member of the governing party dictating what news features in the free press and what news is buried is something we expect to find in a dictatorship.

I think I heard on Andrew Marr that GO has simply taken the job so he can exact revenge on May's Tory Government and publish all manner of anti-Tory stories, so maybe it's a positive. :smile:

 

[rigsby]

this goes beyond the secret hand shakes and old school tie network for me and goes beyond vast sums of money being paid for very little work. A member of the governing party dictating what news features in the free press and what news is buried is something we expect to find in a dictatorship.

When has their ever been a free press? Most public sector workers can be sacked for speaking to the press without going through the strict propaganda departments of their service.

 

[C C Csiders]

You cannot deny that the Conservative government has created jobs. It is just that they are all for George Osborne.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You cannot deny that the Conservative government has created jobs. It is just that they are all for George Osborne.

That's 6 jobs George I believe.:winking:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

You are an intelligent person but if you are not sure what my objection is then I probably don't have the necessity vocabulary at my disposal to explain it to you. I am surprised that my reasons are not self-evident. Plenty of other people will understand as it is a very simple concept.

I will put you down as not outraged by this appointment, and its clear that I am outraged by this appointment. And the discussion between us can have a nice clear end. If anyone else has an opinion on this I'm sure they will chip in.

I'm willing to be persuaded but so far you've just said it is wrong without saying why it is wrong.

I know you're a Corbynite but you need to engage with a wider audience and win them round. My vote is up for grabs - I'm not voting Tory or UKIP next time - so give it ago at explaining why it's wrong for someone who is a member of Parliament, but not part of the executive, to be an editor.

I'm also interested in where you think the line needs to be drawn. Several MPs are also journalists and columnists. Should this be allowed?

Others are regularly paid to appear on TV. Should they be allowed to appear on TV and if so, should they be paid for their time?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I'm willing to be persuaded but so far you've just said it is wrong without saying why it is wrong.

I know you're a Corbynite but you need to engage with a wider audience and win them round. My vote is up for grabs - I'm not voting Tory or UKIP next time - so give it ago at explaining why it's wrong for someone who is a member of Parliament, but not part of the executive, to be an editor.

I'm also interested in where you think the line needs to be drawn. Several MPs are also journalists and columnists. Should this be allowed?

Others are regularly paid to appear on TV. Should they be allowed to appear on TV and if so, should they be paid for their time?

I'm not a Corbynite. I canvassed for the Labour Party on / off since 1988. If am an any kind of 'ite' I am a Labourite.

I refuse to believe that you don't understand why a current MP of the party in government deciding what news does or doesn't get reported is a bad thing and goes against the very notion of democracy.

I think you would have some weird kick out of dumbing down an argument to that extent, I don't get what the appeal of that is but its not something I'm interested in going along with.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I'm not a Corbynite. I canvassed for the Labour Party on / off since 1988. If am an any kind of 'ite' I am a Labourite.

I refuse to believe that you don't understand why a current MP of the party in government deciding what news does or doesn't get reported is a bad thing and goes against the very notion of democracy.

I think you would have some weird kick out of dumbing down an argument to that extent, I don't get what the appeal of that is but its not something I'm interested in going along with.

I'm not dumbing down the argument. I'm doing the opposite and trying to explore the idea further.

But you're not interested in justifying your position.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I'm not dumbing down the argument. I'm doing the opposite and trying to explore the idea further.

But you're not interested in justifying your position.

I justified my position on post number 1 and you decided that semantics were more important to you - that's where you have a very different focus to me.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I justified my position on post number 1 and you decided that semantics were more important to you - that's where you have a very different focus to me.

It's not semantics but a basic grasp of the British constitution.

A government minister is bound by collective responsibility. They are therefore required to publicly support the government's position (or resign).

The backbench MP however owes his position to his constituents and not to the PM's power of patronage. The backbench MP is free to criticise the government from the backbenchers or the pages of the Standard (a point MK clearly gets). An example of this would be Corbyn voting against Blair's Labour government on numerous occasions or Ken Clarke voting against Brexit.

A newspaper proprietor may or may not wish to align him or herself/their newspaper with a party, but it is a fundamental part of a free press that they have the choice to do so, just as people have the choice not to read a newspaper they know is partisan - be it the Grauniad, the Daily Heil, a Labour party newsletter, the Torygraph, the Morning Star, or now the Standard (not that it was neutral before).

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

It's not semantics but a basic grasp of the British constitution.

A government minister is bound by collective responsibility. They are therefore required to publicly support the government's position (or resign).

The backbench MP however owes his position to his constituents and not to the PM's power of patronage. The backbench MP is free to criticise the government from the backbenchers or the pages of the Standard (a point MK clearly gets). An example of this would be Corbyn voting against Blair's Labour government on numerous occasions or Ken Clarke voting against Brexit.

A newspaper proprietor may or may not wish to align him or herself/their newspaper with a party, but it is a fundamental part of a free press that they have the choice to do so, just as people have the choice not to read a newspaper they know is partisan - be it the Grauniad, the Daily Heil, a Labour party newsletter, the Torygraph, the Morning Star, or now the Standard (not that it was neutral before).

if a basic grasp of anything is needed then you'd best count me out.
MK I believe was being jovial - if you want him as back up you should probably check if he is ok with that first.

I'll refer you to my first point - MPs should not be deciding what type of news is written about in newspapers. If an MP has a column where they are stating their views that is clearly very different from editing the whole thing. You don't even really need a basic grasp of how newspapers operate to be able to make that distinction.

 

[Bearded Shrimper]

no more than the constituents of Sedgefield were whilst Brown was PM and Blair was sulking.

Point of order - Blair stood down as an MP when he stopped being PM so he wasn't an MP under Brown. One of many Labour people who stopped being Labour MPs under Brown

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

if a basic grasp of anything is needed then you'd best count me out.
MK I believe was being jovial - if you want him as back up you should probably check if he is ok with that first.

I'll refer you to my first point - MPs should not be deciding what type of news is written about in newspapers. If an MP has a column where they are stating their views that is clearly very different from editing the whole thing. You don't even really need a basic grasp of how newspapers operate to be able to make that distinction.

What's the basis for your opinion that MPs shouldn't be deciding what was written about in newspapers?

Do you see it as a conflict of interest? (and if so what are the conflicting duties)

Is it because you believe that newspapers should be neutral?

Do you disapprove of CP Scott editing the Guardian and pursuing a progressive agenda through it whilst a Liberal MP?

Point of order - Blair stood down as an MP when he stopped being PM so he wasn't an MP under Brown. One of many Labour people who stopped being Labour MPs under Brown

Oops, apologies. You are quite correct. I think it was Brown whose attendance in the house was something of a novelty, post-Cabinet career.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

What's the basis for your opinion that MPs shouldn't be deciding what was written about in newspapers?

Do you see it as a conflict of interest? (and if so what are the conflicting duties)

Is it because you believe that newspapers should be neutral?

Do you disapprove of CP Scott editing the Guardian and pursuing a progressive agenda through it whilst a Liberal MP?

I am not a young man but CP Scott died 40 years before I was born - the fact you are using him as a point of comparison just reiterates my point that for some unknown reason being a pedant is more appealing to you than the functions of democracy.

You will not be surprised to find out that his supposed conflict of interest gets me as riled as the repeal of the corn laws - i.e. not at all.


I assume this line of discussion is some kind of strange dare, but I'm not sure who would have put you up to it. All very strange.

 

[Bearded Shrimper]

Fine, I'll do it.
It is a conflict of interest, and therefore wrong, because George Osborne has an interest in the Conservative Party, and their MP for Tatton in particular, receiving positive coverage/not receiving negative coverage.

The press is not neutral and I can see both sides for and against. However, what is not in dispute is that those who legislate and those who scrutinise both have important roles to play. Anything that impares that, OR IMPLIES IMPAIRMENT, is dodgy.

Not only must nothing bad be done, but there must be the appearance of nothing bad going on too.

Therefore I have a problem with him getting that job.

Was that really so difficult?

Other opinions welcome but actual opinions

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I am not a young man but CP Scott died 40 years before I was born - the fact you are using him as a point of comparison just reiterates my point that for some unknown reason being a pedant is more appealing to you than the functions of democracy.

You will not be surprised to find out that his supposed conflict of interest gets me as riled as the repeal of the corn laws - i.e. not at all.


I assume this line of discussion is some kind of strange dare, but I'm not sure who would have put you up to it. All very strange.

As one of the more noteworthy editors in history - I think he edited the Grauniad for more than 50 years - I think he was a reasonable comparison.

It's not a dare. You're passionate about politics and are one of the few who comment on politics on here who can string a coherent sentence together and as I like to challenge my opinions I thought we might be able to have an intelligent reasoned conversation about democracy, but it appears I was wrong. My fault.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Fine, I'll do it.
It is a conflict of interest, and therefore wrong, because George Osborne has an interest in the Conservative Party, and their MP for Tatton in particular, receiving positive coverage/not receiving negative coverage.

The press is not neutral and I can see both sides for and against. However, what is not in dispute is that those who legislate and those who scrutinise both have important roles to play. Anything that impares that, OR IMPLIES IMPAIRMENT, is dodgy.

Not only must nothing bad be done, but there must be the appearance of nothing bad going on too.

Therefore I have a problem with him getting that job.

Was that really so difficult?

Other opinions welcome but actual opinions

Ok, so it's more about appearance than actual wrong doing? i.e a perceived conflict than an actual conflict

I can certainly see that side of the argument, although I'm not sure I agree with it.

I think my issue is if that's the stance than newspapers are already hugely conflicted as their proprietors have huge interests in the outcome of elections and of policy and are making their papers take political stances all the time. Saying a MP can't be an editor is papering (no pun intended) over the cracks and won't make them any more responsible/neutral in their reporting. If anything there's an argument that a MP editing would make them have to be more responsible as a MP is at least accountable.




Assuming I can eventually get this to post I'll come back to this when I've got a proper internet connection and more time.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

As one of the more noteworthy editors in history - I think he edited the Grauniad for more than 50 years - I think he was a reasonable comparison.

It's not a dare. You're passionate about politics and are one of the few who comment on politics on here who can string a coherent sentence together and as I like to challenge my opinions I thought we might be able to have an intelligent reasoned conversation about democracy, but it appears I was wrong. My fault.

I may well have misread the situation but it seemed like you were creating a diversion from what was a very obvious point of order. One that Osborne might well get away with if there are not enough dissenting voices.

Inexplicably Blair has no issue with the appointment and Sadiq Khan went as far as to congratulate Osborne. I think this is explained by him experiencing the difference between ES attacks on him when a candidate and ES support when mayor - he wants to keep them on side - for me that is just the Murdoch effect in a new guise. I hate the phrase Red Tories but the difference between these two reactions and those within the Labour Party who are actively resisting this has made me wonder if that insult has some grounds to be used.


I didn't go back and re-explain the issue because I had expressed it in basic terms as it is a very straight forward concept. I don't think I have the words to explain it other than in a simplistic way because the reason it is bad politics is so clear.


The political role of the media is to report on laws and parliamentary discussion and to analyse these. There needs to be an element of neutrality. Newspapers will have a known bias and though this is generally known there are still a large amount of opinion or slant that is accepted as fact. Those in power know this and if they have the power to makes laws and to dictate how these laws should be perceived that is a step towards a dictatorship.


Anyone saying that Osborne will hold the government to account - that does not wash. Until very recently May and Osborne were the united front of a Conservative government. She has changed tack on one crucial policy because she has no real choice - other than that they are the same. Members of the governing party should not be planted into a position where they are the biggest influence on the critique of the government.


The point is so obvious and the timeline so tight that explaining why this should be stopped is not the best use of time. Making sure it is stopped is the best use of time.