The Dictatorship of the Etonariat

[muzzer]

Indeed so; I listened to that myself and could not help but note that PH is not one customarily given to incandescent fury! I fear that he may be wrong on one thing, though and that is that, should the sacked Sonia Khan take her case to an employment tribunal, she would win it; she was not merely sacked but escorted from the building by armed police, which fact would in ordinary circumstances be expected to assist her case but, in this instance, I feel sure that the government would dictate to the employment tribunal that it must dismiss her case hands down and, should it fail to comply with such an order, it would take steps to dismiss that employment tribunal.

What makes you say that?

[ahinton]

What makes you say that?

For one thing, if a government adviser (even one who is apparently ot even a party member) can act in this way towards an employee by instantly dismissing her, apparently without evidence against her and securing the instant service of armed police to escort her from her place of work, dismissal of an employment tribunal that refused not to uphold her case (should she bring one) would seem to be wholly consistent with such conduct.

[Hitch]

"It's an unfair cop, Govenor."

[muzzer]

For one thing, if a government adviser (even one who is apparently ot even a party member) can act in this way towards an employee by instantly dismissing her, apparently without evidence against her and securing the instant service of armed police to escort her from her place of work, dismissal of an employment tribunal that refused not to uphold her case (should she bring one) would seem to be wholly consistent with such conduct.

I understand your concern but I have a greater faith in the rule of law.

[ahinton]

I understand your concern but I have a greater faith in the rule of law.

I'm sorry to have to say that mine is gradually evaporating and has been doing so for some time and, in this instance, it might seem that the government's own conduct so far already illustrates its own disrespect for the rule of law, just as does its threat to deselect MPs that fail to toe the party line - something which Philip Hammond noted would likely give rise to litigation on the part of some deselected MPs (and quite rightly, too although, even then, the government would probably tell the judiciary how to handle such cases).

[DracoM]

[muzzer]

I'm sorry to have to say that mine is gradually evaporating and has been doing so for some time and, in this instance, it might seem that the government's own conduct so far already illustrates its own disrespect for the rule of law, just as does its threat to deselect MPs that fail to toe the party line - something which Philip Hammond noted would likely give rise to litigation on the part of some deselected MPs (and quite rightly, too although, even then, the government would probably tell the judiciary how to handle such cases).

I can’t see any member of the judiciary bending to that pressure now. But I agree entirely about the current government.

[ahinton]

I can’t see any member of the judiciary bending to that pressure now. But I agree entirely about the current government.

I don't say that they necessarily would but I do expect that efforts will be made to order it as to how to handle such cases and no response to such efforts would surprise me...

[Dave2002]

Now written to my MP yet again, thought I suspect that he follows the sheep algorithm, and my comments will be ignored or misinterpreted one more time. What a mess, but I do what I can, which may be very little. Today does appear to be a critical one - of many!

[Frances_iom]

Today does appear to be a critical one - of many!

I'm waiting for BJ's enabling act - don't forget that Adolf's majority was just 51.9% - after which ...

[Serial_Apologist]

Having tuned in to the purportedly more "intelligent" news presenting TV channels last night left a sense of utter disillusionment at the level of informative discussion presented in response to the political events of yesterday.

A debate on the normally issues-clarifying Channel 4 News in which no one, panel or audience, seemed in any way aware of the day's events, or any inclination to modify held views in the light of them - kicked things off, weakly led by the normally on-the-ball Krishan Guru-Murthy.

A Paxman-the-commentator-led programme on Channel 5 purporting to ask why present-day politicians are cr*p followed at 9; it turned out to be just a sequence of cherry-picked clips of decontextualised politicans from all the main political parties, subjected to typical "interpretation" by Paxman, namely a series of non-sequiturs.

And lastly, a debate led by the overworked Jeremy Vine on the abovementioned before a participating audience, also on Channel 5, with a changing panel of "experts": the first four being Rachel Johnson, sister of Boris, and now ex-Change but still Remain-affiliated, I think; Gloria de Piero, self admittedly an anti-Corbynite; Dave Davies, who needs no introduction; and ex Daily Wail political editor Isabel Oakshott; the second round with Alister Campbell, famous Blair apologist; Chuka Umma, another in similar mould, ex-Labour right now in the Libs; Julia Hartley-Brewer, well-known smugness epitomised socialite and right-wing commentator; the third round Simon Jenkins, right-of-centre political and social commentator; Tracy Brabin, actress friend of the murdered Jo Cox, who came closest to presenting an alternative albeit rather defensive line to the groupthink of the aforementioned; and in the final round Tom Newton Dunn, the political editor of The Sun, of all papers; independent journalist Ash Sandar; Iain Dale, the perennially trotted out gay Conservative commentator; and Michelle Dewberry, ex-Apprentice cast member-turned businesswoman, who articulated little to the debate.

Vine has the manner of a daddy longlegs married to an infuriating way of treating other contributions as if they change the entire direction of debate, having no connection with what has preceded. But my main point is how the above cannot be seen as other than representing a typical evening of politically unbalanced broadcasting by a TV channel covered by non-bias bias requirements - as they all are by law. The channel bigwigs will as usual argue that "balance" does not have to be exercised programme by programme but should be adhered to across the spectrum over a reasonable period of time. As it was, the only smidgeon of dissent came courtesy Ash Sandar, who questioned the programme format and its predominant journalistic groupthink, accusing other panellists of being part of the cabal of Parliamentary lobby friends that always dominated political TV debates. Hooray for Ash is all I can say - we need to hear more from this person. But this came in the last 10 minutes of the hour-long programme. In the final five minutes she was predictably accused by Mr Dale of being herself part of the same circle "invited along to dinner parties", but defended herself in good humour, saying she nevergot invited to dinner parties.

[Stanfordian]

Having tuned in to the purportedly more "intelligent" news presenting TV channels last night left a sense of utter disillusionment at the level of informative discussion presented in response to the political events of yesterday.

A debate on the normally issues-clarifying Channel 4 News in which no one, panel or audience, seemed in any way aware of the day's events, or any inclination to modify held views in the light of them - kicked things off, weakly led by the normally on-the-ball Krishan Guru-Murthy.

A Paxman-the-commentator-led programme on Channel 5 purporting to ask why present-day politicians are cr*p followed at 9; it turned out to be just a sequence of cherry-picked clips of decontextualised politicans from all the main political parties, subjected to typical "interpretation" by Paxman, namely a series of non-sequiturs.

And lastly, a debate led by the overworked Jeremy Vine on the abovementioned before a participating audience, also on Channel 5, with a changing panel of "experts": the first four being Rachel Johnson, sister of Boris, and now ex-Change but still Remain-affiliated, I think; Gloria de Piero, self admittedly an anti-Corbynite; Dave Davies, who needs no introduction; and ex Daily Wail political editor Isabel Oakshott; the second round with Alister Campbell, famous Blair apologist; Chuka Umma, another in similar mould, ex-Labour right now in the Libs; Julia Hartley-Brewer, well-known smugness epitomised socialite and right-wing commentator; the third round Simon Jenkins, right-of-centre political and social commentator; Tracy Brabin, actress friend of the murdered Jo Cox, who came closest to presenting an alternative albeit rather defensive line to the groupthink of the aforementioned; and in the final round Tom Newton Dunn, the political editor of The Sun, of all papers; independent journalist Ash Sandar; Iain Dale, the perennially trotted out gay Conservative commentator; and Michelle Dewberry, ex-Apprentice cast member-turned businesswoman, who articulated little to the debate.

Vine has the manner of a daddy longlegs married to an infuriating way of treating other contributions as if they change the entire direction of debate, having no connection with what has preceded. But my main point is how the above cannot be seen as other than representing a typical evening of politically unbalanced broadcasting by a TV channel covered by non-bias bias requirements - as they all are by law. The channel bigwigs will as usual argue that "balance" does not have to be exercised programme by programme but should be adhered to across the spectrum over a reasonable period of time. As it was, the only smidgeon of dissent came courtesy Ash Sandar, who questioned the programme format and its predominant journalistic groupthink, accusing other panellists of being part of the cabal of Parliamentary lobby friends that always dominated political TV debates. Hooray for Ash is all I can say - we need to hear more from this person. But this came in the last 10 minutes of the hour-long programme. In the final five minutes she was predictably accused by Mr Dale of being herself part of the same circle "invited along to dinner parties", but defended herself in good humour, saying she nevergot invited to dinner parties.

The electorate might soon have the chance to sack the lot of em! At least May didn't and Boris hasn't started any wars, well he hasn't yet!

[Joseph K]

Having tuned in to the purportedly more "intelligent" news presenting TV channels last night left a sense of utter disillusionment at the level of informative discussion presented in response to the political events of yesterday.

A debate on the normally issues-clarifying Channel 4 News in which no one, panel or audience, seemed in any way aware of the day's events, or any inclination to modify held views in the light of them - kicked things off, weakly led by the normally on-the-ball Krishan Guru-Murthy.

A Paxman-the-commentator-led programme on Channel 5 purporting to ask why present-day politicians are cr*p followed at 9; it turned out to be just a sequence of cherry-picked clips of decontextualised politicans from all the main political parties, subjected to typical "interpretation" by Paxman, namely a series of non-sequiturs.

And lastly, a debate led by the overworked Jeremy Vine on the abovementioned before a participating audience, also on Channel 5, with a changing panel of "experts": the first four being Rachel Johnson, sister of Boris, and now ex-Change but still Remain-affiliated, I think; Gloria de Piero, self admittedly an anti-Corbynite; Dave Davies, who needs no introduction; and ex Daily Wail political editor Isabel Oakshott; the second round with Alister Campbell, famous Blair apologist; Chuka Umma, another in similar mould, ex-Labour right now in the Libs; Julia Hartley-Brewer, well-known smugness epitomised socialite and right-wing commentator; the third round Simon Jenkins, right-of-centre political and social commentator; Tracy Brabin, actress friend of the murdered Jo Cox, who came closest to presenting an alternative albeit rather defensive line to the groupthink of the aforementioned; and in the final round Tom Newton Dunn, the political editor of The Sun, of all papers; independent journalist Ash Sandar; Iain Dale, the perennially trotted out gay Conservative commentator; and Michelle Dewberry, ex-Apprentice cast member-turned businesswoman, who articulated little to the debate.

Vine has the manner of a daddy longlegs married to an infuriating way of treating other contributions as if they change the entire direction of debate, having no connection with what has preceded. But my main point is how the above cannot be seen as other than representing a typical evening of politically unbalanced broadcasting by a TV channel covered by non-bias bias requirements - as they all are by law. The channel bigwigs will as usual argue that "balance" does not have to be exercised programme by programme but should be adhered to across the spectrum over a reasonable period of time. As it was, the only smidgeon of dissent came courtesy Ash Sandar, who questioned the programme format and its predominant journalistic groupthink, accusing other panellists of being part of the cabal of Parliamentary lobby friends that always dominated political TV debates. Hooray for Ash is all I can say - we need to hear more from this person. But this came in the last 10 minutes of the hour-long programme. In the final five minutes she was predictably accused by Mr Dale of being herself part of the same circle "invited along to dinner parties", but defended herself in good humour, saying she nevergot invited to dinner parties.

Ash Sarkar?

[LMcD]

The government has lost its majority, as Philip Lee has defected to the LibDems.

[ahinton]

The government has lost its majority, as Philip Lee has defected to the LibDems.

Yes; he announced some time ago that he was to consider this during the recess.