I have met journalists who think exactly like that. In order of competence it goes:
Engineer: This is a big complex project that will need lots of different resources and will require detailed planning. Even so it could go wrong.
Council official: We’ll go with the cheapest quotation, or at least the one with the best kickbacks.
Barrister: I’ve been studying this subject for a month for my brief, I’m an expert*.
Politician: I’ve spent several evenings discussing this in the House bars, I know better than the experts.
Journalist: I once wrote an article about this, I know better than the so-called experts. And the government.
The Chinese government is run by engineers. Figures, consistent strong growth for years.
In the UK we used to have a lot of politicians who were also barristers. They were good at argument but tended to change their ideas slowly, because the law is very conservative.
We now have politicians who are journalists (Cameron was in PR, which is similar.) To my mind this is the worst possible combination. If “long term” is the daily print run going to bed, this is not conducive to running a country. E.g. Gove wanting to take history education back to Imperialist soundbites, enthusiastically supporting neoliberalism, and then suddenly in a day trying to sound like Jeremy Corbyn.
*There are some subjects on which barristers are extremely knowledgeable, but they tend to be matters of law. Sometimes law is contrary to the laws of physics and chemistry, but in such cases the law has precedence.
I quite agree about Guido’s politics and his tactics; although his motives are almost invariably nasty, the material he makes available should - of course - be assessed on its own merits.
Prejudiced, in common with most journalism; but which claim do you think was actually libellous?
I am not a libel lawyer. I suspect it was libellous because it never reached the print edition and was withdrawn from the web, which is a common cause of articles being withdrawn.
It is not possible to assess material when someone cherry picks to the extent that Guido does. I don’t go to conspiracy websites, and I include his in this.
That would be interesting — and I hope that would happen — but it would probably further erode Europe’s and the world’s confidence in Britain: because Europe now knows that 50% of the UK pobulation is against them and the government would look even more confused that it does now.
I think that the Commission knows perfectly well that half the population of the EU is probably against them, the difference is that their governments have more sense than to hold plebiscites on subjects beyond the comprehension of the average voter. I’m sorry if that sounds a little snooty, but I do have a fair bit of experience of the European law making process, Euronorms, cross-border trade, and a little economics, and I voted Remain economically and politically on the basis that I was unable to judge what option would be better, and if you don’t know the answer, don’t change the status quo. (The fact that the idea of Gove, Johnson, Farage or Leadsom anywhere near government policy was utterly horrifying was the other reason that trumped everything, but that’s my subjective opinion.)
… the days where the UK got any influence in the EU are over - Brexit or not. Threatening to leave to get another opt-out or special treatment was the usual tactic but now they basically called their own bluff.
My problem is that I find May more horrifying than all of them because she’s stayed below the radar. But she embraced Osborne’s austerity programme with a passion, gives the distinct impression that she’d like to abolish the Home Office altogether, and was a bit lucky with the Police Federation because they blinked first. (Which was a surprise, I admit.)
I consider this one of her virtues. The Home Office is (according to a former contact, ex-Cabinet Office) the home of some of the most repressive and backward looking civil servants. It needs root and branch reform, and perhaps the only way to do that is to break it up and replace each component part, starting from scratch.
Please understand, my argument is that, given there won’t be a General Election and that if there were the present shower of Labour MPs would guarantee a larger Conservative majority, May is the least worst option. Leadsom is the candidate of the banks, Gove is the candidate of Murdoch and Dacre, Crabb is Cruz with a beard. Knowing my luck with prediction, the one whose name I can’t even remember will win it, if there is one.
