Keir Starmer at it again..

[Templeton Peck]

You can't have Ed Balls interviewing Yvette Cooper on national TV. Even GB News would have a think about that. They need to pay him off

It's shocking. He's got no reason to be there anyway. He's not a presenter and he's not a journalist - his qualification seems to be making a tit of himself on Strictly.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

It's shocking. He's got no reason to be there anyway. He's not a presenter and he's not a journalist - his qualification seems to be making a tit of himself on Strictly.

Well he clearly is a presenter given that he presents a TV programme in the same way Gary Lineker is a presenter.

 

[Templeton Peck]

Well he clearly is a presenter given that he presents a TV programme in the same way Gary Lineker is a presenter.

Not his trade though.

 

[Johnny75]

Not his trade though.

What trade do you think presenting is?

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Not his trade though.

Have you only had one job all your life? Every TV presenter did something different before they became a TV presenter…and being a politician is not a trade.

 

[Templeton Peck]

Well he clearly is a presenter given that he presents a TV programme in the same way Gary Lineker is a presenter.

Lineker presents a show about football which is something he excelled at. There's a logic there. If he presented a show about Norwich City you'd get it. Balls qualification for presenting GMB??

There are hundreds of presenters who could do what Balls does and ITV could hire them. What we've got instead is effectively a spokesperson for the govt of which his wife is a senior member.

 

[Del Woppio]

It's really should he somebody that comes from a good morning background presenting it.

Seriously though Ed obviously has no business interviewing his wife on TV but that's all, talk of him losing his job is just weird.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Lineker presents a show about football which is something he excelled at. There's a logic there. If he presented a show about Norwich City you'd get it. Balls qualification for presenting GMB??

There are hundreds of presenters who could do what Balls does and ITV could hire them. What we've got instead is effectively a spokesperson for the govt of which his wife is a senior member.

Balls presents a current affairs show, I think his background is relevant...he also has a profile, ITV is a commercial organisation so their choice of presenters will in part be determined by commercial interests. I think it was a mistake for him to interview his wife editorially, I can bet it won't happen again but to dismiss him from his role because of what his wife does would be weird.

I present a current affairs show on radio. The opportunity arose because I was a politician. Most of the guests I have on the show know my background and my politics. I am not a journalist but my background is relevant, but it is what I do and how I go about it that is important.

The mistake ITV made was allowing this to happen in the first place, but it doesn't disqualify Balls from being a presenter.

 

[The Bear]

Lineker presents a show about football which is something he excelled at. There's a logic there. If he presented a show about Norwich City you'd get it. Balls qualification for presenting GMB??

There are hundreds of presenters who could do what Balls does and ITV could hire them. What we've got instead is effectively a spokesperson for the govt of which his wife is a senior member.

Balls is a politician presenting a show about politics.

That's exactly the same logic as your Lineker is an ex footballer presenting a show about football isn't it?

 

[Templeton Peck]

Balls is a politician presenting a show about politics.

That's exactly the same logic as your Lineker is an ex footballer presenting a show about football isn't it?

Although not a huge conflict of interest with Lineker hosting football. Maybe he should let Ed Balls do it when Leicester are on.

 

[Del Woppio]

The Lineker analogy is about as stupid a thing as I've ever read.

GMB, whilst not a politics show, is very popular and influential within its demographic. Having a senior politician being interviewed by her husband is as big a conflict of interest as it's possible to imagine - worse imo than a Tory MP interviewing a Tory MP, even though the latter will clearly have political advantage to gain from it. They're married for fucks sake, any balance or criticism can be easily struck off as choreographed over breakfast. Absolutely terrible editorial decision making.

The comparison to footballing allegiance is just a nonsense.

I know politically there's no such thing as impartial. It's impossible to be knowledgeable about a subject like that without having preferences and dislikes. Whether it's Neill or Ferrari or Maitlis or JOB, you know who are they are or what they stand for but at least they're career journalists

 

[The Saturday Boy]

The Lineker analogy is about as stupid a thing as I've ever read.

GMB, whilst not a politics show, is very popular and influential within its demographic. Having a senior politician being interviewed by her husband is as big a conflict of interest as it's possible to imagine - worse imo than a Tory MP interviewing a Tory MP, even though the latter will clearly have political advantage to gain from it. They're married for fucks sake, any balance or criticism can be easily struck off as choreographed over breakfast. Absolutely terrible editorial decision making.

The comparison to footballing allegiance is just a nonsense.

I know politically there's no such thing as impartial. It's impossible to be knowledgeable about a subject like that without having preferences and dislikes. Whether it's Neill or Ferrari or Maitlis or JOB, you know who are they are or what they stand for but at least they're career journalists

The analogy with Lineker related to his position as a presenter in general, not the interview with his wife.

 

[Johnny75]

The Lineker analogy is about as stupid a thing as I've ever read.

GMB, whilst not a politics show, is very popular and influential within its demographic. Having a senior politician being interviewed by her husband is as big a conflict of interest as it's possible to imagine - worse imo than a Tory MP interviewing a Tory MP, even though the latter will clearly have political advantage to gain from it. They're married for fucks sake, any balance or criticism can be easily struck off as choreographed over breakfast. Absolutely terrible editorial decision making.

The comparison to footballing allegiance is just a nonsense.

I know politically there's no such thing as impartial. It's impossible to be knowledgeable about a subject like that without having preferences and dislikes. Whether it's Neill or Ferrari or Maitlis or JOB, you know who are they are or what they stand for but at least they're career journalists

Why do you think journalists would be good presenters on a morning magazine show?

I don't rate Ed Balls at all and think there are much better but to think journalists would be good is just bizarre.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Neither James O’Brien or Nick Ferrari are career journalists, both started in journalism (JOB a gossip columnist and Ferrari a show business reporter), their careers have been in broadcasting.

 

[Del Woppio]

Why do you think journalists would be good presenters on a morning magazine show?

I don't rate Ed Balls at all and think there are much better but to think journalists would be good is just bizarre.

Sorry conflating a few things. I'm not talking about Ed Balls the GMB presenter, he's inoffensive enough. But as a political interviewer he's too Labour to have any chance of appearing impartial, even dyed in the wool political journalists/commentators struggle, so the hubby of the home office minister and a former Labour shadow minister has no place doing political interviews.

 

[Del Woppio]

The analogy with Lineker related to his position as a presenter in general, not the interview with his wife.

Yeah I misinterpreted that while skimming, thought it was more about inherent bias

 

[Templeton Peck]

After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about our country. This is why he won't | Nesrine Malik

The violence exposed racist narratives based on lies. Yet where is the counter-argument, asks Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dire Wolf]

After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about our country. This is why he won't | Nesrine Malik

The violence exposed racist narratives based on lies. Yet where is the counter-argument, asks Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik

www.theguardian.com

That is quite brilliant.

 

[Tony Towner]

That's a very good article. The only thing it fails to hammer home imo is that although the rioters were relatively small in number and their actions aren't supported significantly, their views are widespread. It's scary what some people who aren't fundamentally bad believe because they've been spoon-fed it for years

 

[EpsomWolf]

It also fails to address the concerns of the much larger band of people who are pretty pissed off that someone can get on a boat in a perfectly safe country to travel to another perfectly safe country to cherry pick which perfectly safe country they choose to live in, and all done at the tax-payers expense whilst often having absolutely no idea who it even is you’re welcoming in the first place. You don’t need to be ‘all Farage’ to see that’s a problem, just pretty damn blinkered if you can’t see it is.

The arguments around the relatively low percentages involved are largely irrelevant, it’s something everyone I know bar the odd dreamer wants stopping and if Keir’s solution is to just wave everybody through more efficiently then we’re just kicking the can down the road.