New editor of Evening Standard: George Osborne

[Bearded Shrimper]

One thing we're forgetting is that he is paid, very well from the public purse, to be the representative for Tatton. He should do that rather than putting his focus on other things

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

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.

There is no element of neutrality in newspapers. They are under no duty to report laws and parliamentary discussion, nor analyse it and most don't. Only a miniscule percent of Parliament's proceedings is ever reported or discussed in newspapers.

Neither this neutrality nor this duty exist. What exists and protects us against dictatorship is a plurality of views amongst our many newspapers and the right to free speech. That right to free speech means that the press isn't fettered by who can edit them and press barons and more humble individuals can put out newspapers, newsletters and web-sites that propagate their view. For example the Morning Star is hardly neutral in it's outlook, nor should it be required to be. Murdoch's newspapers are hugely political and not in the slightest bit neutral. Historically parties even had their own newspapers - should these have been censored?

It's not for government to say who can and can't edit a newspaper but it is for the proprietor - no doubt prompted by it's readers and advertisers who can vote with their feet. If Osborne is seen pulling punches when it comes to the Tory party it will undermine the Evening Standard's credibility (which I think you are already overestimating as it is but a single voice in a sea of newspaper voices).

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.

You seem to have a higher view of Osborne than I do. He's been stabbed in the back by May who deliberately and publicly snubbed him for a job in favour of inferior candidates (the likes of Grayling, Hunt and Truss are in the Cabinet!) so I don't think he'd have any qualms about sticking the knife in and in suggesting otherwise I think you are overestimating his loyalty. You also seem to think the Tory party is about principles and not power, and again I think you are overestimating their motives.

You're also dismissing the idea that he's a mercenary whose view will depend upon who pays him the most. Again, I think you give him too much credit.

He's outside of government, no longer constrained by Collective Responsibility and free to criticise. He has no future in a May administration and the PM's powers of patronage is the only way a PM would have of controlling a backbencher. Like Ken Clarke, Osborne will now be free to roam the backbenches, making his view heard as and when he can be bothered.

If your issue is a conflict between being a Conservative MP and being an editor this would be resolved by him stepping down as a MP and being replaced in Tatton by another Tory with a larger majority. But surely you don't believe this would change the editorial line of the Evening Standard one bit?

One thing we're forgetting is that he is paid, very well from the public purse, to be the representative for Tatton. He should do that rather than putting his focus on other things

I don't think that point has been forgotten as I made that point in one of my opening posts on this thread. However that applies to his other jobs (and other MPs and their other jobs). It is for the people of Tatton to decide if he's not pulling his weight as MP. The public however seem to very rarely think their local MP isn't pulling their weight - as an aside it's an interesting phenomena where everybody basically thinks their MP is very hardworking but that all the other MPs are slackers. Personally I think the issue of former Cabinet Ministers taking semi-retirement once they lose their Ministry is an issue that plagues both sides of the House. I'm not sure of a solution for it.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

There is no element of neutrality in newspapers. They are under no duty to report laws and parliamentary discussion, nor analyse it and most don't. Only a miniscule percent of Parliament's proceedings is ever reported or discussed in newspapers.

Neither this neutrality nor this duty exist. What exists and protects us against dictatorship is a plurality of views amongst our many newspapers and the right to free speech. That right to free speech means that the press isn't fettered by who can edit them and press barons and more humble individuals can put out newspapers, newsletters and web-sites that propagate their view. For example the Morning Star is hardly neutral in it's outlook, nor should it be required to be. Murdoch's newspapers are hugely political and not in the slightest bit neutral. Historically parties even had their own newspapers - should these have been censored?

It's not for government to say who can and can't edit a newspaper but it is for the proprietor - no doubt prompted by it's readers and advertisers who can vote with their feet. If Osborne is seen pulling punches when it comes to the Tory party it will undermine the Evening Standard's credibility (which I think you are already overestimating as it is but a single voice in a sea of newspaper voices).



You seem to have a higher view of Osborne than I do. He's been stabbed in the back by May who deliberately and publicly snubbed him for a job in favour of inferior candidates (the likes of Grayling, Hunt and Truss are in the Cabinet!) so I don't think he'd have any qualms about sticking the knife in and in suggesting otherwise I think you are overestimating his loyalty. You also seem to think the Tory party is about principles and not power, and again I think you are overestimating their motives.

You're also dismissing the idea that he's a mercenary whose view will depend upon who pays him the most. Again, I think you give him too much credit.

He's outside of government, no longer constrained by Collective Responsibility and free to criticise. He has no future in a May administration and the PM's powers of patronage is the only way a PM would have of controlling a backbencher. Like Ken Clarke, Osborne will now be free to roam the backbenches, making his view heard as and when he can be bothered.

If your issue is a conflict between being a Conservative MP and being an editor this would be resolved by him stepping down as a MP and being replaced in Tatton by another Tory with a larger majority. But surely you don't believe this would change the editorial line of the Evening Standard one bit?



I don't think that point has been forgotten as I made that point in one of my opening posts on this thread. However that applies to his other jobs (and other MPs and their other jobs). It is for the people of Tatton to decide if he's not pulling his weight as MP. The public however seem to very rarely think their local MP isn't pulling their weight - as an aside it's an interesting phenomena where everybody basically thinks their MP is very hardworking but that all the other MPs are slackers. Personally I think the issue of former Cabinet Ministers taking semi-retirement once they lose their Ministry is an issue that plagues both sides of the House. I'm not sure of a solution for it.

Infighting within the governing party does not justify a member of the governing party becoming editor of a newspaper. These two jobs must be separated in the name of democracy. I have no issue with the people of Tatton electing another Tory MP - this is the 2nd time within my memory that the party has offered them a Parliamentarian who does not have their best interests at heart and if they think lightning doesn't strike three times that is their prerogative - that is how democracy works. Having a member of Parliament dictate what news is reported and what news is buried - that is not how democracy works.