• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

UK politics general discussion

It's sounding like the Tories may be facing yet another by-election in Blackpool South, with Scott Benton losing his appeal against his suspension from the Commons. At the 2019 election the Tories had a majority here of 3,690, which - given the big swings in Labour's favour in last week's by-elections - is arguably looking to be incredibly shaky indeed.
 
The beginning of the end for 30p Lee? Let’s bloody hope so.

Lee Anderson: MP suspended from Tory party over criticism of London mayor https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68392621
On a similar note, there are also calls from Labour for Liz Truss to lose the Tory whip after she attended a right-wing conference in the USA and claimed that she was “sabotaged” by “the deep state”: https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/liz-trus...unak-to-strip-former-pm-of-conservative-whip/
 
What a moron she is.
I can think of plenty of words to describe her - none of which can be said outside the Tavern. It's hardly surprising that she seems incapable of accepting the blame for screwing things up so badly, though.
 
At this rate, the culture war that the Conservative Party wants on a national level (i.e. during a forced election campaign) may end up being confined entirely to itself in a spectacular act of self-destruction.
 
I know this isn’t politics per se, but I thought it might be relevant; GB News has been threatened with sanctions by Ofcom following five alleged breaches of impartiality law: https://deadline.com/2024/03/gb-new...s-news-presenters-jacob-rees-mogg-1235860985/

This is in regard to them having sitting politicians serving as presenters. A crop of current and former Tory MPs present or have presented segments on the channel, most notably including Jacob Rees-Mogg among the currently serving Tory MPs.

I don’t know if I’m just being overly touchy, and I apologise if I am, but I must admit that the idea of having sitting MPs presenting on a broadcast news channel has never quite sat right with me… I did wonder how the likes of Rees-Mogg presenting on GB News and Nadine Dorries presenting on TalkTV, amongst others, didn’t breach impartiality law. For clarity, that’s not because they’re Tories either; I’d feel exactly the same about sitting Labour MPs, or sitting MPs from any party, presenting on a broadcast news channel.
 
GB News is essentially a brain washing channel. Dodgy MP's use it to spout their conspiracy theories and unsavoury views, given credence by being disguised as news and current affairs.

I think Ofcom have only tolerated their bending of the rules so far due to competition from the internet. When Sky News was set-up in the 1980's, there were very strict regulations on what you could call News. But then there was no internet. It's why Sky News has always been impartial like ITN and the BBC.

GB News isn't a news channel. It's a bunch of sad right wingers talking nonsense with a few headlines and the weather forecast interlaced.

Jacob Reece-Mogg has a load of kids, a dog, and a full-time job. He shouldn't have time to present a nightly sermon because he should be working hard for his constituents doing his £90k per year full-time job shouldn't he?
 
And still there are idiots that claim the BBC is biased - and that's idiots on both sides of the argument: Conservatives that say it's biased in order to deflect away from their own foul interests, and fools that are supposed to be anti-Tory but prioritise slating the BBC over actual legitimate targets.

On another note, I rarely swatch ITV News, but all it seems to do is ridicule the government in an unprofessional way. Don't get me wrong, I find it amusing, but striking that no one ever seems to call ITV out.
 
Did I hear right yesterday, when commenting on his party's shenanigans about a new leader, that Sunak actually said he isn't really interested in the politics of Westminster?
You are in the wrong bloody job then mate!
He just stumbled into the job when walking down Whitehall one day.
 
It's why Sky News has always been impartial

I lol'd.

True impartiality is basically imposible, but News International is not an impartial organisation in the slightest and that is very evident in their output. Nothing as brazen as GB News and the like I grant you, but Murdoch didn't set any of his empire up as a public service.
 
I lol'd.

True impartiality is basically imposible, but News International is not an impartial organisation in the slightest and that is very evident in their output. Nothing as brazen as GB News and the like I grant you, but Murdoch didn't set any of his empire up as a public service.
Let me rephrase it then as striving to be impartial, as I agree human nature makes this impossible. But it's an excellent news service and I stand by that. Murdoch has always touted it as his greatest achievement actually, always been run at a loss and the only thing he's ever put out that didn't act as a mouthpiece for his own views.

It also has nothing to do with News International. It's owned by Comcast and has been for the last few years.
 
Let me rephrase it then as striving to be impartial, as I agree human nature makes this impossible. But it's an excellent news service and I stand by that. Murdoch has always touted it as his greatest achievement actually, always been run at a loss and the only thing he's ever put out that didn't act as a mouthpiece for his own views.

It also has nothing to do with News International. It's owned by Comcast and has been for the last few years.

It was part of News International for decades and a very obvious (if much subtler) mouthpiece in line with his print media, that may have changed to an extent but it certainly has not always been impartial. It wasn't striving to be impartial either, more it put measures in place to show an acceptable level of impartiality to regulators when the intent of the output was not in question if you actually watched it. Their big name presenters, who are still there, have an overt consistency of political alignment.

Sun readers would also tell you their shitrag of choice was impartial, because that same shitrag had told them it was!

It may well be what that old shiveled scrotum of a human considers his greatest achievement, but considering what he was trying to achieve that is no good thing.
 
It was part of News International for decades
Not quite, I understand what you're getting at but you're slightly off about the ownership.

Murdoch could never get complete ownership of BSkyB (including News), later just Sky. The then News Corp famously only owned 49% of the company and Murdoch didn't have editorial control of Sky News by design.

After the failed purchase attempt of the entirety of Sky in 2011 and the phone hacking scandals, Sky was spun off into 21st Century Fox and the paper interests of Murdoch became News UK.

Sky News has a duty to report their Editorial Guidelines to parliament. You can find an archived copy of an old version here (before the Comcast acquisition).
Attempts to influence

In the event that you become aware of an attempt by any employee, officer or director of the 21st Century Fox group or Sky outside the Sky News editorial function to influence matters within the authority of the Head of Sky News, you must report this immediately to the Head of Sky News and/or Ofcom. If you make a report to the Head of Sky News and/or Ofcom, you may request compensation from Sky
News for any costs you incur in making the report to the Head of Sky News and/or Ofcom. Any request for reimbursement may be made through Ofcom and you may also request that payment of your reimbursement from Sky News be made via Ofcom, for example where you wish to remain anonymous.
James Murdoch was, at one point, the overall managing director of BSkyB and there were accusations that he may have attempted to influence editorial decisions at Sky News. The extent of these accusations never went further than a request about what not to cover (influence by omission), rather than put a direct spin on things. Certainly not the same level of control that the Murdochs have/had on their news outlets. Although, again quite famously, Murdoch also wasn't allowed to influence or prevent the editorial independence of The Times / The Sunday Times, also by design.
 
Top