OT: IN the end you get the PM you deserve

[seriouspie]

When has Johnson ever had a job that he didn’t get by virtue of his family connections?

You’re the sort of bloke who’d have been the house slave in pre civil war America, the sort who’d have told the SS where the Jews were hiding, the sort who’d have grassed up the resistance in Vichy France. Know your place and don’t upset your superiors and betters. Doff hat and tug forelock.

Providing one can do a job, the easiest way to get it is by connections if you have any - always has, always will be. But at the end of the day it depends if the individual has the drive and ambition to better himself by whatever means he can (if lawful).

Your other remark could be classed as a little slanderous .... but hey ho!, water off a ducks back to me lad, you're entitled to your opinions which in truth are garbage. Of course I know my place and in the past never upset my employer who in reality paid my mortgage. If I didn't like an employer's attitude or thought it unfair ....... then I left for pastures new, which I did a few times..... simple really. Finally yes, I do touch my cap but only when greeting or saying goodbye to ladies. It's manners if you didn't know.

[ncfcog]

Stewart for me was easily the least bad of a bad bunch, but what a way of picking the most important politician in the land. The only positive of a Bozo victory is that we'll get to see if Trump really will give him a great deal. The downside on that is that the NHS will form the bedrock of that deal.
As Notts County fans, all our bad chickens have come home to roost at the same time. What did we do to deserve it?

Thought he did a U Turn on those comments saying the NHS actually doesn't come under the 'Trade' banner?

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...le-uk-us-trade

[drillerpie]

Thought he did a U Turn on those comments saying the NHS actually doesn't come under the 'Trade' banner?

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...le-uk-us-trade

He didn't know what the NHS was, he probably still doesn't now, he was just waffling as always. They almost certainly prepared a briefing on it for him but he probably didn't read it because he doesn't like reading.

[ncfcog]

He didn't know what the NHS was, he probably still doesn't now, he was just waffling as always. They almost certainly prepared a briefing on it for him but he probably didn't read it because he doesn't like reading.

Yeah I realised that, just wanted to clarify

[jackal2]

Journalists don’t correct politicians nearly enough.

But who corrects the journalists?

If the argument is that politicians lie or at least are selective with the truth, then the same accusation can be levelled at many journalists, either because their news editors want them to favour a certain view, or sometimes just because they're not very good at their job and haven't researched their subject properly.

Politicians are ultimately accountable to the public through the ballot box, but journalists aren't. Nobody elects them, and yet somehow they consider themselves to be defenders of the public interest. The closest you can get to holding a journalist to account for misleading the public is to report it to OFCOM or the Independent Press Standards Organisation (and nobody elected them either).

[jackal2]

To say that people can make their own minds up whether a politician is telling the truth is like saying people use fact checking websites - ie to be extremely optimistic about human nature.

But this takes us back to the title of this thread, doesn't it?

We live in an internet age where it has never been easier to find information for yourself, or as you say, use fact-checking websites that do the job for you. If some members of the public choose not to use those opportunities, that's up them, and they may or may not end up with a worthy leader.

I'm not convinced that journalists (at least in recent years) are the antidote to politicians lying or telling half truths, or that journalists can be trusted to be the impartial arbiters of what's right and wrong. That's the public's job, whether they are any good at it or not. Most journalists are self-selecting and unelected and every bit as devious as the politicians in terms of trying to lead the public to draw certain conclusions.

[seriouspie]

But who corrects the journalists?

If the argument is that politicians lie or at least are selective with the truth, then the same accusation can be levelled at many journalists, either because their news editors want them to favour a certain view, or sometimes just because they're not very good at their job and haven't researched their subject properly.

Politicians are ultimately accountable to the public through the ballot box, but journalists aren't. Nobody elects them, and yet somehow they consider themselves to be defenders of the public interest. The closest you can get to holding a journalist to account for misleading the public is to report it to OFCOM or the Independent Press Standards Organisation (and nobody elected them either).

100% correct ..... a good reply jackal2 especially if you mean TV presenters. Just brings me back to Maitlis, obviously a well read woman but I've noticed the past couple of weeks she's now wearing trousers or longer skirts rather than exposing nigh on her arse when sitting down. No doubt been told to do her job rather than pose as a glamour puss. I don't think much of any of the Newsnight crew although the new young lass who wears specs (Emma Barnett?) is pretty good at interviewing.

[BigFatPie]

But who corrects the journalists?

If the argument is that politicians lie or at least are selective with the truth, then the same accusation can be levelled at many journalists, either because their news editors want them to favour a certain view, or sometimes just because they're not very good at their job and haven't researched their subject properly.

Politicians are ultimately accountable to the public through the ballot box, but journalists aren't. Nobody elects them, and yet somehow they consider themselves to be defenders of the public interest. The closest you can get to holding a journalist to account for misleading the public is to report it to OFCOM or the Independent Press Standards Organisation (and nobody elected them either).

That seems quite an odd viewpoint. Last night Johnson told an outright lie about the most important issue of the day, that we could be in some sort of transition if there’s no deal Oct 31st, whilst also being equivocal on whether we would leave on that date. He rowed back on cutting tax for high earners, which he only announced last week, he appeared to do an about turn on the 3rd runway at Heathrow, and he tried to shirk responsibility for the continued imprisonment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

He’s the hot favourite to be our next PM, are you saying he shouldn’t be challenged on those issues, and that it’s up to voters to do their own research? This isn’t a party political point I’m trying to make, I would expect the same standards from Corbyn.

[jackal2]

That seems quite an odd viewpoint. Last night Johnson told an outright lie about the most important issue of the day, that we could be in some sort of transition if there’s no deal Oct 31st, whilst also being equivocal on whether we would leave on that date. He rowed back on cutting tax for high earners, which he only announced last week, he appeared to do an about turn on the 3rd runway at Heathrow, and he tried to shirk responsibility for the continued imprisonment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

He’s the hot favourite to be our next PM, are you saying he shouldn’t be challenged on those issues, and that it’s up to voters to do their own research? This isn’t a party political point I’m trying to make, I would expect the same standards from Corbyn.

Well let's be fair, the first paragraph is your subjective interpretation of what Boris Johnson said, and others may have a different view, but I will accept that you're not intending to make a party political point and that your key question is should politicians (whoever they are) be challenged, and if so, who should do it?

The answer in my view is yes, politicians should be challenged, and in the purest sense they are, because they have to persuade enough people to vote for them.

Do the voters challenge them enough? Are the voters knowledgeable enough? The truth probably is that some voters are and some voters aren't. 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.

Are journalists the answer to "helping" those who aren't very well informed or less intelligent? In my opinion, not really. Don't get me wrong, there are (or were) some very good journalists like the aforementioned Brian Walden who I think performed a fine service for the public and was as incisive and impartial as a political journalist could be, but that was a long time ago. In my opinion, a lot of the journalists these days are no more reliable than the politicians, and are just as likely to present a lie or a half truth as fact. Obviously, if you read The Sun or the Daily Mail or the Daily Mirror then you (should) understand that those papers have an agenda, but there are other newspapers and (more so) TV broadcasters who try to maintain the pretence of being reasonably impartial when they are really anything but.

One of my pet hates on TV news in recent years is when a politician is shown speaking at an event or in an interview but the sound is turned down, and over the top a 'political correspondent' gives you their interpretation of what was said, and how it was received, as if the journalist's interpretation is the de facto true interpretation. Call me old fashioned, but let me hear the politician's words directly and I'll make up my own mind what they meant and how truthful or untruthful they were being. Frankly, I couldn't care less about some self-selecting journalist's interpretation.

The only real difference between many politicians and journalists is that politicians are still ultimately accountable to the public through the electoral process, whereas journalists aren't elected by anyone. They are self-appointed and ask the questions or make the points they want, ostensibly on the public's behalf, but with no genuine mandate to do so.

Therefore, yes, ultimately, I am indeed saying that voters should ask their own questions and do their own research. That's the responsibility that comes with having a vote. Relying on journalists to "uncover the truth" is as dodgy as relying on politicians to "tell you the truth", because both have their own vested interests and their own message to sell.

If people can't be bothered to challenge their politicians or do their own research, and likewise if people are too willing to trust the media's interpretation of reality, then, as the title of this thread suggests, those people get the PM/politicians they deserve.

I honestly don't think that's an odd or extreme point of view, but of course I respect your right to see things differently.

(PS. Apologies to Navypie for not going into more depth )

[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.