Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

daniel stallion

Newsnight - Wed 19Th May

Recommended Posts

Interesting stance from Newsnight tonight. All the stories so far have fully concentrated on very negative perspectives on the 'Reform Bill' and proposed Parliamentary changes.

I did notice, this week, that they very much glossed over the alleged 'scorched earth' Labour spending and focussed on the Liam Byrne comedy letter.

Amazing the different view of the days events you get depending upon the media you consume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Cash, Tory Grandee, was not az happy man.

He did not like the 55% proposition, he did not like the change to the 22 Committee proposals.

He has powerful friends. The Libcons cannot take unity for granted.

For the first time, I agree with him. Dave and Nick are snake oil salesmen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Cash, Tory Grandee, was not az happy man.

He did not like the 55% proposition, he did not like the change to the 22 Committee proposals.

He has powerful friends. The Libcons cannot take unity for granted.

For the first time, I agree with him. Dave and Nick are snake oil salesmen.

Yeah, he has been on TV all day banging his fist.

Do you reckon he genuinely has a problem with the proposals, or he is just miffed that Cameron is daring to try and change things without jumping in a hooker filled Sauna with grey old men, sipping brandy, smoking cigars, toweling each other down and then heading to 'the club' to drunkenly plot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you two just get a room somewhere please.

Good point.

Although there is a vast, featureless, moral wilderness between our Political views, the fact that we both saw something on BBC2 smacks of a mutual back-scratching cult being formed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he has been on TV all day banging his fist.

Do you reckon he genuinely has a problem with the proposals, or he is just miffed that Cameron is daring to try and change things without jumping in a hooker filled Sauna with grey old men, sipping brandy, smoking cigars, toweling each other down and then heading to 'the club' to drunkenly plot?

Amazing insight on the Tory party. You should turn it into a movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newsnight's political editor, Michael Crick, also broke the story regarding the Liberal Democrats' announcing that they are 'seeking... to keep receiving Short money'.

(If you don't know, Short money is an annual payment made to Opposition parties to allow them to more effectively to fulfil their Parliamentary functions. Short money has never been made available to a governing party because their Parliamentary functions are handled by civil servants at no cost to that party.)

The Lib Dems' case seems to be that, because they don't have ministers in all government departments and are not fully represented (as they're the minority party in a coalition), the civil service don't comprehensively assist them in the necessary Parliamentary business. A Lib Dem spokesman said that the 'Liberal Democrats believe any such financial support for parliamentary functions should be less than received in opposition.'

Between them, Jeremy Paxman and Crick treated Norman Lamb (an advisor to Nick Clegg) rather badly I thought, and didn't permit him a whole sentence practically throughout the interview in order for him to explain the relatively simple principle that: the spirit in which Short money has been provided to Opposition parties to aid them in Parliamentary business for which they receive no civil service support should, presumably, allow a portion of such money to be made available when a party only has partial civil service support.

On the face of it, this is a non-story. Paxman should've asked Lamb to justify the Liberal Democrats' position, then, when Lamb had presumably said pretty much what I've said above, that 'in the spirit of Short money...', he should have turned back to Crick and said, 'Well, that doesn't sound unreasonable. What's the problem, Michael?'

In a vibrant democracy, the media (rather like the Opposition) have a duty. By feeling, as in this case, the need to dish the dirt, Newsnight is undermining its own duty. When the media often responds in this way to such a trifling matter, so muddy do the waters become that, when there really is some dirt to dish, it gets lost in the noise. In short, how can the public know when something really is wrong when programmes like Newsnight generate so much froth over nothing?

I'm reminded of the comment made by David Cameron in April regarding the prospect of his being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman: 'If I want to be shouted at by an overpaid prima donna, I’ll join a Premier League football club.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newsnight's political editor, Michael Crick, also broke the story regarding the Liberal Democrats' announcing that they are 'seeking... to keep receiving Short money'.

(If you don't know, Short money is an annual payment made to Opposition parties to allow them to more effectively to fulfil their Parliamentary functions. Short money has never been made available to a governing party because their Parliamentary functions are handled by civil servants at no cost to that party.)

The Lib Dems' case seems to be that, because they don't have ministers in all government departments and are not fully represented (as they're the minority party in a coalition), the civil service don't comprehensively assist them in the necessary Parliamentary business. A Lib Dem spokesman said that the 'Liberal Democrats believe any such financial support for parliamentary functions should be less than received in opposition.'

Between them, Jeremy Paxman and Crick treated Norman Lamb (an advisor to Nick Clegg) rather badly I thought, and didn't permit him a whole sentence practically throughout the interview in order for him to explain the relatively simple principle that: the spirit in which Short money has been provided to Opposition parties to aid them in Parliamentary business for which they receive no civil service support should, presumably, allow a portion of such money to be made available when a party only has partial civil service support.

On the face of it, this is a non-story. Paxman should've asked Lamb to justify the Liberal Democrats' position, then, when Lamb had presumably said pretty much what I've said above, that 'in the spirit of Short money...', he should have turned back to Crick and said, 'Well, that doesn't sound unreasonable. What's the problem, Michael?'

In a vibrant democracy, the media (rather like the Opposition) have a duty. By feeling, as in this case, the need to dish the dirt, Newsnight is undermining its own duty. When the media often responds in this way to such a trifling matter, so muddy do the waters become that, when there really is some dirt to dish, it gets lost in the noise. In short, how can the public know when something really is wrong when programmes like Newsnight generate so much froth over nothing?

I'm reminded of the comment made by David Cameron in April regarding the prospect of his being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman: 'If I want to be shouted at by an overpaid prima donna, I’ll join a Premier League football club.'

Yes. Exactly.

To be honest I don't have any issues with them 'dishing the dirt' or looking at negative aspects of a story. It is part of their job.

I did find, however, this week so far, that there has been nothing in the way of balance. It was all negative, particularly in regard to the Reform Bill, extremely cynical and sneering, focussed on belittling Clegg's claim of significant change, scoffing at the attempt to shake up Politics, nothing about how the Bill might restore civil liberty. As I said I was also surprised how shallow their journalism was regarding the 'scorched earth' allegations - to my mind, if it is true, it is one of the most outrageous acts of the Labour Government, utterly disgusting and antisocial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

Do you reckon he genuinely has a problem with the proposals, or he is just miffed that Cameron is daring to try and change things without jumping in a hooker filled Sauna with grey old men, sipping brandy, smoking cigars, toweling each other down and then heading to 'the club' to drunkenly plot?

Now that made me chuckle. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Exactly.

To be honest I don't have any issues with them 'dishing the dirt' or looking at negative aspects of a story. It is part of their job.

I did find, however, this week so far, that there has been nothing in the way of balance. It was all negative, particularly in regard to the Reform Bill, extremely cynical and sneering, focussed on belittling Clegg's claim of significant change, scoffing at the attempt to shake up Politics, nothing about how the Bill might restore civil liberty. As I said I was also surprised how shallow their journalism was regarding the 'scorched earth' allegations - to my mind, if it is true, it is one of the most outrageous acts of the Labour Government, utterly disgusting and antisocial.

Yes, why did it not seem to be picked up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.