OT: IN the end you get the PM you deserve

[Elite_Pie]

When you see politicians being directly challenged by members of the public, it's obvious that some of those challengers are very well informed, savvy folk who aren't willing to be fobbed off with waffle, whereas others are perhaps less intelligent or perhaps too lazy to properly inform themselves, and thus are more vulnerable to being misled.

True. I think the former group are called remainers, the latter group leavers.

[OP67]

True. I think the former group are called remainers, the latter group leavers.

*YAWN*

[drillerpie]

Jackal from part of what you've written it seems like you appreciate the importance of good public service journalism, even if you are disappointed with the way it's being carried out now as opposed to in the past.

From other things you've written it seems like you're in favour of total accountability for anyone in public life, plus a kind of libertarian light-touch approach towards expressing opinions based on a high level of trust in the public to do the right thing.

I don't agree with much of it but I do find it all interesting.

Can I ask, does your disappointment in the lack of accountability extend to other public servants? For example a police officer doesn't have a mandate and is not directly accountable to the public but he can still arrest you. The most you can do is complain to the relevant regulator as with a complaint about the BBC, but the regulator wouldn't be directly accountable to the public either.

Does your trust in the will/ability of the public to reach the right decision extend to all realms of life or only politics? Should there be regulation of misleading advertising for example? Again that happens via a regulatory body which is not directly accountable to the public. Would you prefer to see cigarettes sold with advertising saying they'll clear your chest and leave people to make their own mind up about it? If not, why should politics be any different?

The advent of the internet has reduced the role of journalists as intermediaries in public discourse. Now Trump can tell you directly via Twitter that he has been exonerated by the Mueller report when he hasn't. Salvini can beam a Facebook live directly into your brain saying that African migrants have been found with credit cards issued by George Soros and nobody can challenge him. This is as close as we have ever been to the situation you describe as ideal, where raw information (or disinformation) is presented and it is down to each individual to fact check everything (or not). Do you think this has improved public discourse?

[jackal2]

Jackal from part of what you've written it seems like you appreciate the importance of good public service journalism, even if you are disappointed with the way it's being carried out now as opposed to in the past.

Yes.

From other things you've written it seems like you're in favour of total accountability for anyone in public life, plus a kind of libertarian light-touch approach towards expressing opinions based on a high level of trust in the public to do the right thing.

Depends what you mean by 'total'. I accept you can't have direct accountability for everyone in public life, but there should be at least indirect accountability, to keep people reasonably honest. And yes, if we want to consider ourselves a democracy then by definition we should have trust in the people's judgement (whether it turns out to be right or not). The opposite is to not trust the public to make decisions, in which case you're leaning towards a dictatorship, be that a good or bad thing.

Can I ask, does your disappointment in the lack of accountability extend to other public servants? For example a police officer doesn't have a mandate and is not directly accountable to the public but he can still arrest you. The most you can do is complain to the relevant regulator as with a complaint about the BBC, but the regulator wouldn't be directly accountable to the public either.

A police officer swears to uphold the law, and legislation is decided by our elected Parliament. Admittedly, the waters get muddier when you factor in interpretation of the law by (unelected) judges, but at present it's the system we've got be it right or wrong.
Regarding police complaints, I suppose you can say that independent regulators such as OFCOM or the Independent Office for Police Conduct have a certain democratic legitimacy in being set up by the elected government to serve a purpose, but there's an argument for more direct public involvement in them. Whether the public would be interested is another matter. In America there's a culture around direct election of public servants, but the Police & Crime Commissioner elections in this country haven't really caught the public's imagination, for better or worse.

Does your trust in the will/ability of the public to reach the right decision extend to all realms of life or only politics? Should there be regulation of misleading advertising for example? Again that happens via a regulatory body which is not directly accountable to the public. Would you prefer to see cigarettes sold with advertising saying they'll clear your chest and leave people to make their own mind up about it? If not, why should politics be any different?

Poignant question. My dad died from cancer from smoking and for all the public health warnings, he only believed it was killing him when much of the damage was already done. Likewise, I can't believe the number of young people I still see smoking, given the prevalence and strength of the warnings you're talking about.

Again, the elected Parliament ultimately played their part in changing the legislation on smoking advertising, so at least there's indirect democratic accountability in that decision. Ultimately though, it is still the responsibility of the public to educate themselves, or at least research the validity of warnings they receive from others.