Boris Johnson's post-truth government marks the end of the Nolan consensus

Pantglas2

It wouldn’t have put off any unbiased person, MaizieD, no more than when someone quotes the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mail! And for the record, nobody here thinks GagaJo is stupid.

But if you don't think GaagaJo is stupid why did you feel it necessary to point it out as if she didn't know it already?

How was it relevant to the idea that the Nolan principles might be dead in the water?

To know the political stance of the author of a piece criticising a particular party puts some perspective on the article.

Why? Surely the important thing is the content? Don't people use their own judgement when it comes to evaluating a piece?

Most of my quotes are actually from organisations such as the IFS or the ONS, giving facts and data. I don't see the point of rewriting facts when others have already done the hard work.

Pantglas2

It wouldn’t have put off any unbiased person, MaizieD, no more than when someone quotes the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mail! And for the record, nobody here thinks GagaJo is stupid.

I thought it gave some balance, Pantglas.

To know the political stance of the author of a piece criticising a particular party puts some perspective on the article.

Leighton Andrews - brilliant, divisive, was a Liberal at one point I think, Education Minister of the Welsh Assembly (frankly, education in Wales was not good before he took over) and ousted by Plaid Cymru Leanne Wood.

GagaJo

So when someone posts a Mail article, do they need to announce the right wing leaning and Tory bias of the paper? Does the poster need to give the credentials of the journalist?

Actually, I would say that Peter Oborne is non-partisan.

He used to write for The Mail, has written for other newspapers but got fed up, he said, of journalists being used to peddle fake news from Downing Street.
He has called out The Times, the BBC, the Telegraph and even The Independent and is an independent thinker.

Pantglas, clearly you already know if I'm posting something it will be left leaning. You could let others make their own mind up.

Or should I trumpet leftie alert!

Growstuff I always find it interesting when posters criticise the Guardian because they obviously don't read it that much.

I remember when Corbyn was going out of favour the number of anti opinion pieces in the paper exceeded the pro Corbyn pieces.

It is also one of the few papers to have opinion pieces by a wide range of writers, including Tory politicians.

It wouldn’t have put off any unbiased person, MaizieD, no more than when someone quotes the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mail! And for the record, nobody here thinks GagaJo is stupid.

You don’t have to of course, but it helps other posters.

Yes, lemon. It helps them to not bother to read the piece that's been linked to because it's from the 'wrong' side.

Look how GagaJo was immediately, and rather disingenuously, I thought, 'told' the political stance of the person she'd quoted. ( as if she was too stupid not to know it herself ) Why was that necessary? To warn others off reading it?

Speaking as a Remainer, it saddens me that no forethought was ever given to the unholy mess that Brexit would cause/create. The same as with this pandemic that was foretold in 2007 but no preparation was undertaken for the arrival of it.

Because a leader happens to dictate what HE thinks on these subjects and without hesitation, everyone follows suit and it's been wrong that no strong voice of opposition has bothered to question these decisions which is why we've got Boris.

Oh for a strong and powerful leader ! One who can see sense over the disaster of leaving the EU and one who didn't get ill with the virus ! One man should be strong enough to hold government without " henchmen " at his side as it makes you wonder why Cummings et al are there pulling the strings.

Am sure that most on GN remember a poster who used links/quotes ad nauseam without a hint of the standing of the original writer (something like one angryactivist# was one popular oft quoted source) .....although at least everyone knew the political slant.

MaizieD

^Yes, I would say that they should .Always quote your sources and don’t assume that readers know the political leanings of the said source.^

More amusement. This little lecture comes from someone who I have never known to post a source on this forum.

Surely it's more valuable to not know the political leanings of a source. Makes it easier to view it objectively.

I'm constantly reminded of the polls where people are asked to rate policies without knowing which party originated or supports them. They usually favour what are seen as 'leftwing' policies but, when told which party's policies they are, say that they would never vote for that party...

I rarely ( if ever) ?use quotes in my posts, as I prefer comments to be from me, but if I needed to then I would give the source and the political leanings of the original writer.
You don’t have to of course, but it helps other posters.?

Andrew Neil doesn't think much of Johnson either.

Agree Pantglas. I doubt very much whether they want to bring down a Conservative government, but I certainly believe they have a conscience and care enough about their country to try to bring about a change of leadership. Trouble is I think Gove is waiting for his chance and I doubt if they think much of him either.

Rifkind is another Growstuff, whose opinion of Boris is pretty low! Always more telling when your own party members start criticising.

growstuff

I agree with you too Drum.

As for political bias, I think we might see people like David Gauke and Dominic Grieve speaking up more. They're Conservative to the core - and I think always will be - but they seem to be as appalled as anyone about what's going on.

But they are not the same 'Conservative' as the current crop of tory MPs. They're old fashioned, one nation conservatives who have standards of decency in politics far higher than those exhibited by our present government.

(I'm not saying they were perfect, but at least one could criticise their policies on an ideological basis, rather than on the fact that they were a result of lies and corruption)

Exactly Drum1234.

With the additional point to consider, that this is the type of reporting that goes on overseas about the British government, given that this publication is Middle East Eye.

I also read a lot of Al Jazeera content. Good to know the position of the foreign media about the UK

I agree with you too Drum.

As for political bias, I think we might see people like David Gauke and Dominic Grieve speaking up more. They're Conservative to the core - and I think always will be - but they seem to be as appalled as anyone about what's going on.

Drum1234 precisely ?

Yes, I would say that they should .Always quote your sources and don’t assume that readers know the political leanings of the said source.

More amusement. This little lecture comes from someone who I have never known to post a source on this forum.

Surely it's more valuable to not know the political leanings of a source. Makes it easier to view it objectively.

I'm constantly reminded of the polls where people are asked to rate policies without knowing which party originated or supports them. They usually favour what are seen as 'leftwing' policies but, when told which party's policies they are, say that they would never vote for that party...

Whether this is from the left wing, the right wing, the middle of the road or the planet Jupiter doesn't matter. What does matter is its content. That is what should be discussed. Obviously, there will be bias on the part of the writer, and the reader. But condemning an article just because of the author's own political bias is a distraction, and leads the debate down a rabbit hole. So, my viewpoint is that I agree with what the writer is arguing - that this government does not abide by the Nolan consensus.

But ... but ... but when I do that, posters just dismiss anything from the Guardian. :-(

If I find something interesting, I actually look for it in a number of sources and read about it from different angles. I conscientiously try not to give the Guardian as a source because I know what the reaction will be, but sometimes the Guardian has the best summary of whatever it is.

If I can, I go back to an original report, but they're often quite wordy and people don't read them.

I give sources:

a) so people can make up their own mind about bias and come back with a counter-argument if they want

b) so that people can read more about a topic if they're interested.

I still get rants about being a leftie, Guardian reading "one of the usual suspects".

It doesn't happen on GN. But if you'd like to implement it in your own posts, feel free.

BUT the point is that the link was provided. Even in academic terms, that reference suffices.

GagaJo

So when someone posts a Mail article, do they need to announce the right wing leaning and Tory bias of the paper? Does the poster need to give the credentials of the journalist?

Yes, I would say that they should .Always quote your sources and don’t assume that readers know the political leanings of the said source.

You don't have to support the political affiliation of a poster Pantglas. And as Dinahmo has confirmed, sources are referenced in the article.

Clarify further what your issue with the post is.