Good, appropriate appointment. Makes the standard look even less like a credible news source and more like a Russian billionaire's fawning love letter to the British Establishment
This is the paper that published the headline 'Let Charlton Die' once upon a time, so fuck 'em
This is his third job, at least, and he's supposedly working four days a week there. It's wholly incompatible with being an MP and a huge conflict of interest.
This is his third job, at least, and he's supposedly working four days a week there. It's wholly incompatible with being an MP and a huge conflict of interest.
I'm not disputing any of that, my issue was more Leuth making it a party issue, when both sides are at it.
His political career is stuffed. He's just cashing it in now and getting his nose in as many troughs as possible. A proper tory - only Blair does it better!
This is his third job, at least, and he's supposedly working four days a week there. It's wholly incompatible with being an MP and a huge conflict of interest.
I'm not disputing any of that, my issue was more Leuth making it a party issue, when both sides are at it.
I'm sure if you worked out the average "other" earnings of Labour MPs and Tory MPs there would be a massive imbalance in favour of the Tories, but I agree the issue here isn't that Osborne is a Tory, rather that he's an MP. I can't imagine he'll be allowed to do both for very long.
His seat gets almagamated with another in 2020 and so he is thinking ahead. Nothing wrong in my view with MPs having other jobs, as long as it is declared. But the conflicts of interest on both sides are huge. But it has ben a shit paper for a long time. Equally disturbing was the previous editor going to Today on Radio 4.
There's a lot more to worry about regarding local / national / international politics than Georgie Boy getting the gig at the Standard
Quite possibly there is a lot more to worry about with reagrds to politics. Notwithstanding that, however, this is an important story about journalism. London's only newspaper being edited by someone with no journalistic background, experience or qualifications. That's extraordinay to say the least.
But, as you say, there are even more important things ging on in the political landscape right now. For example, Brexit...
It's interesting, then, to see that a leading Remain proponent is now editor of London's daily newspaper. It will be even more intereting to see to what extent the Standard, under Osborne, becomes a serious thorn in the side of Theresa May, David Davis, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and all the other Cabineet Brexiteers. For once, we will see an influential newspaper, speaking the language of its readership (ie London Remain voters) diamterically-opposed to a key Tory government policy. We'll no longer see the leading Tories benefiting from the unfettered support (and, in fact direction) of all of London's press. Interesting times indeed.
There's a lot more to worry about regarding local / national / international politics than Georgie Boy getting the gig at the Standard
Quite possibly there is a lot more to worry about with reagrds to politics. Notwithstanding that, however, this is an important story about journalism. London's only newspaper being edited by someone with no journalistic background, experience or qualifications. That's extraordinay to say the least.
But, as you say, there are even more important things ging on in the political landscape right now. For example, Brexit...
It's interesting, then, to see that a leading Remain proponent is now editor of London's daily newspaper. It will be even more intereting to see to what extent the Standard, under Osborne, becomes a serious thorn in the side of Theresa May, David Davis, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and all the other Cabineet Brexiteers. For once, we will see an influential newspaper, speaking the language of its readership (ie London Remain voters) diamterically-opposed to a key Tory government policy. We'll no longer see the leading Tories benefiting from the unfettered support (and, in fact direction) of all of London's press. Interesting times indeed.
Hold up Chizz, his background IS journalism...
He just happened to f*cking fail at that too.
Refused trainee places at The Observer and The Economist IIRC, only to make ends meet doing freelance work for a small opinion section in The Daily Telegraph, before a friend pointed him towards a position at CCHQ IIRC.
He would've had an impressive CV when starting his career too, a decent education and undoubtedly with an impressive network.. It makes you wonder prevented him from getting a trainee journalists job?
I do think there's a major conflict of interest in this position, and I don't think senior press positions should be allowed for an MP. That said, I think you provide Mr. Osborne with far too much credit if you believe he will stick by his principles and be s thorn in the side of the Conservative Party.
I'm not surprised. Putting a rank amateur in charge must be pretty annoying for those of them there that know what they're doing. It's like putting a Belgian Third Division manager in charge of a Championship club or something.
Party politics aside, I think there are a number of major issues with this.
Poor public service in terms of time spent on on the job: Being an MP should be considered a full time job. I know that many MPs come from other professions and many will need to undertake a certain amount of CPD to maintain their professional status. I don't think any reasonable person would have an issue with that. But for most professions, 5 days per year is considered sufficient. I can't think of any off the top of my head that require more than 10 days. There are currently no official records of the time MPs spend in parliament, but records show the Mr Osborn has voted in just 36% of opportunities this Parliament (well below average) and spoke in just 12 debates last year; just one per month and again, well below average. Now, it may be reasonable to say that as former chancellor he'll have spent time working on budgetary issues and could be excused some time, but surely not that much?
Out of touch with real people: How can someone be expected to understand how their policies affect ordinary people when their income is so far removed from the norm? I believe there's a very good case for restricting the income of MPs to ensure that they understand what life is like for the majority of their constituents. The current £75k doesn't seem too far removed from that to me. Any income over a certain threshold should be given to charity or taxed at 100%. If £75k isn't sufficient for a person to take on the role, then I don't think they are the right calibre person. Whatever their personal politics, MPs should be in the house because they want to make a difference to society, not because they want to feather their own nests and if anyone argues that this would restrict the talent pool of potential MPs, I'd suggest they take a look at the talent pool of MPs as is.
Political bias in the press: How can it be right and proper that a sitting MP gets to edit a newspaper with a daily circulation of 700k? There is surely a huge conflict of interests here. It makes me laugh when people on the right imagine that the BBC has a leftist bias when what they judge it against is a national press that's so far to the right it, slides off the edge.
Party politics aside, I think there are a number of major issues with this.
Poor public service in terms of time spent on on the job: Being an MP should be considered a full time job. I know that many MPs come from other professions and many will need to undertake a certain amount of CPD to maintain their professional status. I don't think any reasonable person would have an issue with that. But for most professions, 5 days per year is considered sufficient. I can't think of any off the top of my head that require more than 10 days. There are currently no official records of the time MPs spend in parliament, but records show the Mr Osborn has voted in just 36% of opportunities this Parliament (well below average) and spoke in just 12 debates last year; just one per month and again, well below average. Now, it may be reasonable to say that as former chancellor he'll have spent time working on budgetary issues and could be excused some time, but surely not that much?
Out of touch with real people: How can someone be expected to understand how their policies affect ordinary people when their income is so far removed from the norm? I believe there's a very good case for restricting the income of MPs to ensure that they understand what life is like for the majority of their constituents. The current £75k doesn't seem too far removed from that to me. Any income over a certain threshold should be given to charity or taxed at 100%. If £75k isn't sufficient for a person to take on the role, then I don't think they are the right calibre person. Whatever their personal politics, MPs should be in the house because they want to make a difference to society, not because they want to feather their own nests and if anyone argues that this would restrict the talent pool of potential MPs, I'd suggest they take a look at the talent pool of MPs as is.
Political bias in the press: How can it be right and proper that a sitting MP gets to edit a newspaper with a daily circulation of 700k? There is surely a huge conflict of interests here. It makes me laugh when people on the right imagine that the BBC has a leftist bias when what they judge it against is a national press that's so far to the right it, slides off the edge.
all agreed but its all such a flagrant 2 fingers up to ordinary people it doesnt need to be explained its so obvious
Comments
This is the paper that published the headline 'Let Charlton Die' once upon a time, so fuck 'em
But, as you say, there are even more important things ging on in the political landscape right now. For example, Brexit...
It's interesting, then, to see that a leading Remain proponent is now editor of London's daily newspaper. It will be even more intereting to see to what extent the Standard, under Osborne, becomes a serious thorn in the side of Theresa May, David Davis, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and all the other Cabineet Brexiteers. For once, we will see an influential newspaper, speaking the language of its readership (ie London Remain voters) diamterically-opposed to a key Tory government policy. We'll no longer see the leading Tories benefiting from the unfettered support (and, in fact direction) of all of London's press. Interesting times indeed.
He just happened to f*cking fail at that too.
Refused trainee places at The Observer and The Economist IIRC, only to make ends meet doing freelance work for a small opinion section in The Daily Telegraph, before a friend pointed him towards a position at CCHQ IIRC.
He would've had an impressive CV when starting his career too, a decent education and undoubtedly with an impressive network.. It makes you wonder prevented him from getting a trainee journalists job?
I do think there's a major conflict of interest in this position, and I don't think senior press positions should be allowed for an MP. That said, I think you provide Mr. Osborne with far too much credit if you believe he will stick by his principles and be s thorn in the side of the Conservative Party.
Poor public service in terms of time spent on on the job: Being an MP should be considered a full time job. I know that many MPs come from other professions and many will need to undertake a certain amount of CPD to maintain their professional status. I don't think any reasonable person would have an issue with that. But for most professions, 5 days per year is considered sufficient. I can't think of any off the top of my head that require more than 10 days. There are currently no official records of the time MPs spend in parliament, but records show the Mr Osborn has voted in just 36% of opportunities this Parliament (well below average) and spoke in just 12 debates last year; just one per month and again, well below average. Now, it may be reasonable to say that as former chancellor he'll have spent time working on budgetary issues and could be excused some time, but surely not that much?
Out of touch with real people: How can someone be expected to understand how their policies affect ordinary people when their income is so far removed from the norm? I believe there's a very good case for restricting the income of MPs to ensure that they understand what life is like for the majority of their constituents. The current £75k doesn't seem too far removed from that to me. Any income over a certain threshold should be given to charity or taxed at 100%. If £75k isn't sufficient for a person to take on the role, then I don't think they are the right calibre person. Whatever their personal politics, MPs should be in the house because they want to make a difference to society, not because they want to feather their own nests and if anyone argues that this would restrict the talent pool of potential MPs, I'd suggest they take a look at the talent pool of MPs as is.
Political bias in the press: How can it be right and proper that a sitting MP gets to edit a newspaper with a daily circulation of 700k? There is surely a huge conflict of interests here. It makes me laugh when people on the right imagine that the BBC has a leftist bias when what they judge it against is a national press that's so far to the right it, slides off the edge.
“I am proud to have an editor of such substance.” What substance? Is it crystal meth?