This is what frustrates me. There are often subtleties to the facts of any given situation that people are willing (and that could be being generous) to overlook. One example is the Angela Rayner 'growler' situation- she never actually did that but because, after comments about the dress she wore she made a joke about it, it was reported as her laughing about having done it. The two scenarios are very different but people seem happy to believe the inaccurate version because it confirms their beliefs.
This is a perfect example of what I've just been talking about. I watched that interview and Gérard Lyons was much more measured in his analysis than that headlines suggests.
OK, I've not seen the interview just the sky analysis and agree, people with agenda's twist stories to their liking
As you've demonstrated, it's difficult for people to see anything other than what they want to see. Just recently I was calling Truss a gonk and saying Starmer's speech was decent. As usual though, because I'm not screaming evil Tories in every post, that makes me a Tory. What we're seeing at the moment is the result of this infantilism in conducting and reporting on politics. Dumber and dumber generations of politicians who only need to regurgitate soundbites, supporters who treat it like a football team.
He didn't say it was all roses mind, he was very critical of it, as he should be. Like I said in my earlier post, looking at analysis of it across the board its not just complete incompetence that has caused it. Probably is arrogance though. There are still some voices out there saying it's nothing to worry about, which is clearly not true either.
I think the key comment was... Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng failed to adequately prepare the financial markets ahead of his announcement. I'm sure we seen this type of lazy government from The Liar...
Yeah, I think I posted yesterday that there was an economist on the telly saying that there were parts of it that the markets weren't anticipating. Seems like arrogance to me because someone on his position must have been aware of how the markets react.
Or they knew exactly what the reaction would be and knew they'd need to ride it out. Which beggars the question 'to what end?'. This is just part one, remember. There'll be more in November.
No you don't, you never afford the same courtesy to Labour. And again, I'm not sure how you have the gall to throw around the sides argument as if you are some sort of paragon of impartiality when in fact you're probably the most partisan poster I've seen on politics across the two boards.
The market reaction, the plummeting of the pound and the near liquidation of our pension funds is absolutely not driven by anti-Conservative sentiment I can assure you. Plus if you're claiming the media are bias in Labour's favour then I doubt we're going to find consensus on much.
It is incompetence though. Even if the policies are right and it's the timing or the messaging/communication that has caused the reaction then that is still incompetence. It's all part of the Treasury's role and its requisite skillset.
That's not what I'm saying at all, although, as you bring it up, there are plenty of media outlets which are left-leaning if not openly pro-Labour. Neither did I say that the market reaction, the plummeting of the pound and the near liquidation of pension funds was driven by anti-Conservative sentiment. Because that would be silly, wouldn't it? What I did say is that there is a lot of criticism of the Conservatives because people are anti-Conservative. Much of what I see written about them across a wide variety of platforms is inaccurate.
The Mirror and The Guardian are the two that spring to mind for me, any others? That versus The Mail, The Express, The Telegraph, The Times which are the opposite. Half the criticism I've seen is from Conservatives themselves, their supporters and historically Tory leaning economists. It's completely disingenuous to dismiss criticism by claiming that it comes from an ingrained bias. It's being criticised because it's ill thought out bollocks and/or because it was appalling handled and communicated.
Two boards eh? I left the other one because of all the crackpots. Quite a long time ago now. Which crackpot are you? And as I said, I'm not impartial. I don't like or prefer any of them. However, ideological ****ups are easier to rationalize than basic organisational ****ups. The Tories have one, Labour have the other.
The BBC for one, is widely considered to lean to the left, as this comparison of Sky News and the BBC points out https://constitutionus.com/media/where-does-sky-news-stand-politically/ Although it largely depends on your own political stance. I think to some extent we're talking at cross-purposes here as my comments weren't specifically about reaction to this crisis but about attitudes to the Conservatives in general.
Emily Maitlis would disagree and would be pretty well placed to know. Their entertainment arm is considered to lean to the left for having the audacity to have a female Doctor Who or to appoint Alex Scott as host of Football Focus but the news side of the Corporation are not left leaning at all.
You're absolutely right, those that have been commenting on the incompetence of the Government since Johnson purged the party of all its talent and its identity are definitely the crackpots. That's been completely born out with all that's come to pass since.
They've undoubtedly had some journalists who have been more aligned with the right. And they've said that they thought the organisation was left-leaning. Reading Emily Maitlis comments, it seems her personal sympathies might be more towards the left, so she'll maybe see things as being more right-leaning. Which is why it's probably best to listen to independent organisations. None of which changes the fact that the BBC have often been assessed as being left-leaning.
