back to article Brit MPs: Our policies are crap and the political process is in tatters, but it's Twitter's fault, OK?

Some 42 per cent of Brit MPs reckon social media has damaged their policy-making processes, which is in turn having a negative affect on members of the public. In a further demonstration of self-flagellation, nearly half – 48 per cent – of the Conservative MPs surveyed felt this way even though they are the party in government …

  1. Tigra 07
    Holmes

    No s##t Sherlock...

    "Labour MPs did not seem to mind so much, with fewer than a third holding such pessimistic views about the baying mob dictating party policy with tweets, likes and trolls"

    Because the two thirds who don't mind are Momentum plants and want to rapidly increase Communist Socialist policies in the UK...Can hardly be a coincidence that Labour supporters are now copying the anti-semitism of the party elite can it?

    1. Tigra 07
      Facepalm

      Re: No s##t Sherlock...

      And I say as a Conservative party supporter that the current Opposition is ridiculously bad. Ed Miliband was bad...But i don't think any of us expected his replacement to be so bad, even 9 years on, that they flip flop on everything, and are a walking advertisement of why not to vote for them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No s##t Sherlock...

        Out of curiosity, have you noticed what's going on with your own party, who they elected as PM, and their spectacular success in dealing with social, economic and infrastructure problems while navel-gazing over who can be the most anti-EU?

        I last voted Conservative in 1997, since then the party has been taken over by people even more swivel eyed lunatic than the worst of Labour and I can't vote for them even with a nosepeg.

        It's easy to remember that Miliband's problem was the attack dogs of the Mail and the Sun, with their dog whistle anti-Semitism and constant attempts to remind people his family were recent immigrants (even if they were in the Navy in WW2). Labour is so anti-Semitic it elected a secular Jewish leader; the tabloids kept their hints (ooh look, can't eat a bacon sandwich...)

        The problem in the UK isn't entirely social media; it's the toxicity of the gutter press who pay people like Hopkins and Mrs. Gove, and the users of Twitter and Facebook who read them and think that's a right and proper way to discuss public issues.

        1. Dr. Mouse

          Re: No s##t Sherlock...

          "Out of curiosity, have you noticed what's going on with your own party"

          Here here!

          To be honest, BOTH the two major parties are terrible at the moment. Tories are having a p*****g contest over who can be "the most Brexit of Brexiteers" (although their split/infighting over the EU was what caused the referendum in the first place). Labour are not giving a consistent message on Brexit and so many traditional Labour voters dislike Corbyn (rightly or wrongly).

          I foresee both losing a lot of seats at the next GE, another hung parliament (something FPTP is supposed to avoid), and a scrabble to find a coalition to run the country (which I expect could well be BP/Tory, probably leading to a No Deal scenario).

          1. Chris Parsons

            Re: No s##t Sherlock...

            My moronic MP sent a batch email to all who'd harangued him saying that we just have to accept he's right and it's time to get behind him and 'enjoy the benefits of Brexit'. This is the same tw@ who suggested knife crime could be solved by putting a GPS RECEIVER!!! in every knife sold. Still, at least the knives would know where they were...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: No s##t Sherlock...

              Yes,a swivel-eyed looney... everyone knows it should be bluetooth in teaspoons so you can find them when they go 'missing'

      2. MJI Silver badge

        Re: No s##t Sherlock...

        Conservatives died a couple of weeks ago.

        The sacking of the 21 has killed the party for many voters.

        Millliband was no worse than Cameron. He was wrecked by the media.

        One thing did come out well from the coalition is the growth of the LIb Dems.

        Yes they got hammered in 2015 as uninformed numpties came down hard on them. Yet a lot of people saw that they could govern, that they had for them worthwhile policies. Large numbers of young people who do not like the two main parties like them, and young people have caused MP changes already.

        1. jospanner

          Re: No s##t Sherlock...

          Watching the Lib Dems openly brag about throwing benefit claimants under the bus to get policy through was disgusting. Their actions working with the tories have literally killed people. I hope they stay in irrelevance forever.

    2. Paul 195

      Re: No s##t Sherlock...

      I'm not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn, but his policies are not in any way "communist". They would have been the consensus view anytime before Thatcher. Saying that employees should be properly protected under law, and that large corporations and rich individuals should pay their share of tax is not communism.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No s##t Sherlock...

        What about the policy to allow tenants to buy the privately owned house they are letting from the landlord at a discounted rate? The landlord will be compelled to sell under this policy.

        Incidentally, what do you call 'their share' of tax? The top 1% of income tax earners pay something like 40% of ALL income tax collected.

        1. illuminatus

          Re: No s##t Sherlock...

          According to the government's own figures (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/812844/Income_Tax_Liabilities_Statistics_June_2019.pdf)

          "The Top 1% (broadlyall Additional Rate taxpayers) had 12.3% of total income in 2016-17 and were liable for 28.1% of total income tax.**

          Now, what proportion of the total tax take is income tax? Well, according to parliament documents (https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8513)

          "UK government raises over £785 billion a year in receipts – income from taxes and other sources – equivalent to around 37% of GDP. The majority are from three main sources: income tax, National Insurance contributions (NICs) and value added tax (VAT). Together these raise over £460 billion. Income tax contributes £192 billion."

          So, about 6.9% of the total tax yield.Or, if you want to use the 460bn figure, 11.7%

        2. H in The Hague

          Re: No s##t Sherlock...

          " The top 1% of income tax earners pay something like 40% of ALL income tax collected."

          What is your source for that?

          This article quotes an IFS study which suggests the to 1% pay about 25% of all income tax:

          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/05/record-number-adults-pay-no-tax-top-one-per-cent-earners-shoulder/

          For the underlying data see:

          https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/shares-of-total-income-before-and-after-tax-and-income-tax-for-percentile-groups

          1. Cederic Silver badge

            Re: No s##t Sherlock...

            While you (and another person) have suggested that the actual figure is 25% rather than 40%, I don't see that materially changing the question that was asked: What would be a fair share, given that one in a hundred people in the country are already between them paying a quarter of the income tax?

            Disclosure: Last year I paid no income tax.

        3. Jonathon Green

          Re: No s##t Sherlock...

          So why is extending the right to buy which public sector tenants have enjoyed to private sector tenants such a bad thing?

          Are private sector tenants Bad People who don’t deserve the same opportunities as public sector tenants??

          1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

            Re: No s##t Sherlock...

            Stealing assets off the private sector will send them bankrupt. Stealing public sector assets off them and they have taxation powers.

            Not to mention destroy the UK's reputation for rule of law and property rights. Who the **** is going to pay for anything if the state can take it off you like some 95-year-old African dictator?

          2. Kernel

            Re: No s##t Sherlock...

            "Are private sector tenants Bad People who don’t deserve the same opportunities as public sector tenants??"

            Unless UK law and property market is very different to the rest of the world, private sector tenants already do have this right - provided the owner of the property is wanting to sell and is happy with the money being offered by the prospective purchaser, the owner would have no reason to refuse the offer - that's not the same animal as the owner being forced to sell, whether they want to or not, at a below-market price plucked out of the collective arse of some government department.

            It's nothing to do with whether private sector tenants are 'Bad People" or not - it's about the fact that Public Sector housing owners are often willing sellers by policy, with taxpayer funding behind them that allows them to sell at below-market prices to people who meet the criteria for such home ownership schemes.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: No s##t Sherlock...

              "Are private sector tenants Bad People who don’t deserve the same opportunities as public sector tenants??"

              "Unless UK law and property market is very different to the rest of the world, private sector tenants already do have this right - provided the owner of the property is wanting to sell and is happy with the money being offered by the prospective purchaser"

              Exactly this. Not to go with the Daily Mail view (or indeed John Mcdonnell view of London landlords..)

              I rent a house. I bought it when I was a student, worked extremely hard to pay off what was owed - and 6 years ago - finished paying it off. We got the deeds. My in-laws were divorcing and seeing what had gone on there with assets, decided to place the deed just in my wife's name (as a protective blanket - if anything was to ever happen). My wife and children wouldn't be without a non-mortgaged home if we were to ever separate or divorce.

              We did this home up, put a new boiler in and looked for tenants. We charge below market rental rates as our tenants are good and look after the home. We service the boiler every year without fail and even replaced a cooker, shower, boiler when those things broke. Our good tenants have no intention of leaving, the home is in a nice area and the rent is less than any mortgage.

              If this private Labour policy got in, what would happen?

              I'd have to evict my tenants, whom I like. They'd lose the house that they only want to rent (and not buy). My wife would lose her asset.

              That is the problem with that Labour policy.

          3. Dr. Mouse

            Re: No s##t Sherlock...

            As others have stated, FORCING a person to sell their property, especially at below market rates, amounts to theft.

            Now, I would support a policy saying that IF a person was selling, they must offer to the existing tenants first. I would also support a "Help to Buy" scheme to help those tenants purchase at a reasonable price.

            I would also support rules on long-term tenancy allowing those in private rented accommodation to take on a property with some stability.

            I would not support state-sponsored theft of private assets (and I'm actually pretty left-leaning in most things).

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: No s##t Sherlock...

              > As others have stated, FORCING a person to sell their property, especially at below market rates, amounts to theft.

              As an example. A number of years ago my wife's father had to go and work abroad for a few years. Rather than having the house empty they rented it out while they were abroad. If they were forced to sell it at below market value to the tenant they'd be homeless when the job moved him back home.

              The alternative would be not to rent the house out and leave it empty. Is this what they want to achieve at a time when there is a shortage of housing?

          4. TrumpSlurp the Troll
            Mushroom

            Re: No s##t Sherlock...private sector tenants/landlords

            Accepting that some landlords are inhuman money grubbing amoral bastards and that some tenants are unscrupulous chancers with no intention of ever paying rent and instead intentions gaming the system to stave off eviction for as long as possible.

            No legislation however should be designed to punish either of these subsets at the expense of everyone else.

            We found ourselves as unexpected landpeers (I assume that is the correct gender neutral term for landlord/lady) due to the house price crash brought on by the financial crisis.

            We tried to be ethical, charging slightly below market rent and cutting our tenants a great deal of slack when they fell behind in rental payments for a full year due to employment difficulties.

            However if there was even a slight chance of laws being brought in which prevented us evicting tenants or forced us to sell at below market price then the tenants would have been out of the door as soon as possible. Given their financial problems and employment record they would have been in no position to buy anyway. So a reduction in the availability of property on the rental market, a reduction in income for us, and a strong chance that our ex-tenants would be short or long term homeless. Given that a lot of people would have quite obviously reached the same conclusion at the same time.

            That gives an idea of the possible immediate effect.

            The broader question is "Why does a Government try and solve a problem like housing by victimising a small randomly selected subset of the population at no cost to itself and propose making them responsible for all the woes in the housing sector?"

            Is "at no cost to itself" the driving factor alongside the hope that painting landpeers as evil people who need punishing will be a cynical vote winner?

            A responsible Government would step up and address the underlying problem. There is a housing shortage. Forcing or leveraging more sales of the existing and immediately new housing stocks just forces prices up. The obvious answer is for the Government to fund the building of new publicly owned rental housing to provide affordable rental accommodation. This would take the steam out of the rental market and eventually free off private rentals for purchase because rental values would fall.

            No. Far easier to put clauses about "affordable housing" (whatever that is) on private developers (no cost to Government) and target private landpeers (no cost to Government) and then wonder why the magic pixie dust they were promised isn't working.

        4. raving angry loony

          Re: No s##t Sherlock...

          The real number is not the total tax they pay, but how much tax they pay as a percentage of their income. By THAT measure, the 1% (or even the 10%) pay a disproportionately low amount of tax compared to the rest of the 90%.

          Attempting to make it a "look at how much they pay" is part of the confidence scam trick that hopefully won't work any more.

          1. Dr. Mouse

            Re: No s##t Sherlock...

            "The real number is not the total tax they pay, but how much tax they pay as a percentage of their income. By THAT measure, the 1% (or even the 10%) pay a disproportionately low amount of tax compared to the rest of the 90%."

            Not by studies I have seen, at least in relation to income tax.

            The top 1% earn 14% of all income, but pay 27% of all income tax. Therefore on average they pay more income tax as a proportion of their income than those below.

            Now, when factoring in indirect taxes, like VAT etc, this may change the result. These are known to be regressive, but I have no data on hand for them. I would still expect the figures to add up to them paying more in tax as a proportion of their income than most other percentiles, though.

            1. raving angry loony

              Re: No s##t Sherlock...

              You are incorrect in assuming that "total tax" is "maximum possible tax", and that therefore the wealthy are paying anywhere near their fair share.

              Example:

              Total income tax paid: 100

              Person making 10 pay 5 = 50% of income. Pays 5% of total tax collected.

              Person making 1000 pay 95 = 9.5% of income. Pays 95% of total tax collected, but has a MUCH lower rate of taxation. If they were paying taxes equally, the top would pay the same rate as the lower-middle. But if the rich paid their actual fair share, the lower-middle would not need to be taxed at all as heavily.

              You are, like so many of the apologists for the rich, comparing total PAID and trying to equate it with percentage of income. In other words, your math is misleading. I'd say deliberately so, at least by those who first came up with that particular bit of propaganda that you are repeating.

              A more fair, graduated distribution of tax would be for person making 10 to pay 1 (leaving only 9, but paying only 10% of total income as tax), and for the person making 1000 to pay 200, leaving 800, which is still 88 times more, but paying 20% of total income as tax.

              Total tax revenue would therefore be 210, which would equate to more money for social programs, education, and health care, especially for those who aren't even making 10.

              Making any changes revenue "neutral" (as compared to the current unequal system), the person earning 10 could pay 0.5 (5%), and the person earning 1000 would pay 95.5, or a net 9.5% of income. Just 1/2 a percent more than they pay under the old system. Total tax revenue stays at 100 under that model, but with a more equitable distribution.

              Again, it's percentage of income that counts, with those at the top being MUCH more able to afford higher percentage than those at or near the bottom. "Total tax paid" is a meaningless and even completely misleading metric.

              PS: off the cuff example, so there might be calculation errors. If so, my apologies,but I think the argument still stands in the face of potential miscalculations.

              1. Dr. Mouse

                Re: No s##t Sherlock...

                Right, let's break this down:

                Say the total wages, added up, of every person in a country is 100 bn Schmeckles, and there are 100 million people in the country. There is a total income tax take of 20 bn Schmeckles.

                The top 1% is 1 million people, and they earn 14% of all income which is 14bn Schmeckles. This gives an average of 14,000 Schmeckles each. They pay 27% of all income tax, which is 5.4bn, or 5,400 Schmeckles each. This gives a tax rate of 39%.

                The other 99% is 99m people, earning 86bn between them or approx 870 Schmeckles each. They pay 14.6bn between them, or 147 Schmeckles each on average. This gives an average tax rate of 17%.

                You can swap numbers around in this all you like, but if the top 1% pays a larger proportion of the total tax than their proportion of total income, the have a higher tax rate than the rest. This is fairly simple maths and logic.

                Taking your example, the person making 1000 is taking home 99% of total income but paying 95% of total tax, so he is obviously going to be paying a lower tax rate.

              2. Dr. Mouse

                Re: No s##t Sherlock...

                For anyone who wants more proof, here's a mathematical approach:

                I: Total income

                T: Total tax

                R: Average tax rate

                i: Income top 1%

                t: Tax top 1%

                r: Average tax rate top 1%

                p: Proportion of total income top 1%

                q: Proportion of total tax top 1%

                y: Ratio of proportions (q/p) (>1 if q>p)

                j: Income rem 99%

                u: Tax rem 99%

                s: Average tax rate rem 99%

                Z: Difference between top and remaining avg rate (+ve if top higher rate)

                T=IR (R=T/I)

                i = pI

                t = qT = qIR

                r = t/i = qIR/pI = Rq/p

                y = q/p (q = yp)

                r = Ry

                j = (1-p)I

                u = (1-q)T = (1-q)IR

                s = u/j = (1-q)IR / (1-p)I

                = R(1-q)/(1-p)

                = R(1-yp)/(1-p)

                Z = r - s

                = Ry - R(1-yp)/(1-p)

                = R( y - (1 - yp)/(1 - p) )

                = R( y - 1/(1-p) + yp/(1-p) )

                = ( R/(1-p) )( y(1-p) - 1 + yp )

                = ( R/(1-p) )( y - yp - 1 + yp )

                = ( R/(1-p) )( y - 1 )

                So, if:

                * p is between 0 and 1 (a valid proportion of total income)

                * y > 1 => q > p => Proportion of tax by top 1% is more than their proportion of income

                Then:

                Z > 0 => The average tax rate for the top 1% is greater than the avg tax rate for everyone else

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No s##t Sherlock...

          ohj FFS - housing is one of the things thet is keeping and even driving folk into poverty, as too many landlords charge exorbitant rents at the same time that employers are doing their damndest to drive salaries down. Iv;e paid way more over the years in rent to landlords than I would have in mortgage for the properties Iv;e lived in - and I don;t mean a few percent, i mean WAY more - because I've never been paid well enough to have a hope of getting a mortgage, yet I have to pay rents greatly greater than the mnortgage would be on same properties (typical seems to be that it;d only take about half the tenants in any property to cover teh actual mortgage amount. Granted there's repairs and maintenance costs, but , and this is only anecdotal, only about half of the landlords I've had have been good about such things).

          Personally, I don't advocate any kind of "simple fix" partly because I doubt there is such a thing, but mostly because this is an area where, aside from my direct experience, I am well out of my depth. But I do know with certainty, that the cost of keeping a roof over ones head is what is keeping the pooestr of this country in poverty and unwontedly enriching those lucky enough to have been able to buy property. It's all just part of a broken economic system, that makes it easier to gain wealth the more wealth you already have, once you get past a certain point. Below that point, you;re kept in poverty, enriching others.

          And no, I am not communist. I'm old enough to remember Wilson and Ted Heath (the last Conservative I trusted)., and IMO Scargill and Thatcher were the ruination of this country. I'm sick to death of the Labour/Tory axis dominating politics, still fighting the battles of Victorian times. Yes, some of those battles are still being fought, but heck, times have moved on, and those two parties have mot adapted well, either of them. It's clear that the whole economic system upon which both parties focus is not fit for purpose, yet I;ve never heard either of them say anoything about looking into a system that might work better - they just keep tweaking the current broken one.

          Capitalism is not natural law or divine writ (and nor is it politics in the common sense of the term; it is the economic background against which politics is played out) - it's a creation of mankind, and just as it is the latest in a string of systems that supplanted earlier ones all the way back to barter, there's no reason it couldn't be supplanted by something else, hopefully something that works better for society as a whole, rather than funnelling most wealth to the already well off for very little effort on their part. Yes, social inertia, I do understand that, and no, I do not advocate revolution - folk die in revolutions. But folk are dying now anyway, and I fear that the way the worlds going things are likely to get way nastier before they start getting markedly better. I do so hope that I am wrong about that, for the sake of the generations after mine.

          1. Nick Kew

            Re: No s##t Sherlock...

            ohj FFS - housing is one of the things thet is keeping and even driving folk into poverty, as too many landlords charge exorbitant rents

            True.

            But (bugbear alert) it's a lot less bad now than it was a generation or so ago - which is why renting has become less of a problem and more people do it, including some who could buy.

            The house I just (last month) moved out of was £700/month. Translate that back to the era of my first job as a young grad, and that house could've been an HMO for seven[1] people, each of us paying in relative terms[2] well north of £1k/month. And that £700 got me both a proper tenancy (not available in my youth[3]) and extra luxuries like hot water that worked.

            [1] Or for a London landlord, nine or more people.

            [2] As a proportion of a graduate salary after tax.

            [3] From 1977 to 1989, a law was in force granting excessive rights to tenants. It drove landlords right out of the open market leaving only (borderline-)gangsters to rent from, and you'd get only a non-exclusive "license" to live somewhere, not a tenancy with legal rights. Unless you had a grapevine - such as that provided for students by university accommodation offices.

            1. Stork Silver badge

              Re: No s##t Sherlock...

              Countries like Germany and Switzerland seem to have found a better balance between tenants and landlords. There investment in property is about long term predictable income, not a get rich quick scheme. Of course there are problems too.

            2. sabroni Silver badge

              Re: it's a lot less bad now than it was a generation or so ago

              I paid £300 a month to rent a house 20 years ago. My son pays £1000+ a month to rent half a house now.

              You are talking bollocks.

              1. Cederic Silver badge

                Re: it's a lot less bad now than it was a generation or so ago

                I paid £300/month to rent a single room in a house 20 years ago. I'd get less than £1000/month if I rented out my house now.

                Anecdotes are wonderful things.

        6. phuzz Silver badge

          Re: No s##t Sherlock...

          This 'discounted rate' would have to be about 30-40% of the market value of the house before I could afford to buy a house.

          Mind you, that would still leave our landlords making about double what they originally paid for the place fifteen years ago.

          1. sabroni Silver badge

            Re: No s##t Sherlock...

            I think I'd rather see landlords lose a property or two than see famillies sleeping rough.

            I'm a communist apparently.

        7. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

          Re: No s##t Sherlock...

          "The top 1% of income tax earners pay something like 40% of ALL income tax collected."

          Nah, it won't be as much as 40%.

          Nevertheless, if they make between 10 and 300 times a normal wage, it's no wonder that end up paying a fair bit of tax, in absolute terms, on that. Can't say I feel pity for them.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No s##t Sherlock...

        problem with Corbyn is that he's an _extremely_ shifty individual, I can expect anything from the man, really anything. If it wasn't for him and his leadership over the last 3 - 4 years, I might consider voting labour. But as long as he's anywhere near the top, not a chance.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Corbyn is that he's an _extremely_ shifty individual

          I know what you mean. Consistently saying the same stuff for 20+ years is not politician behaviour.

          Now Bojo, there's an honest, ethical, consistent man that I can get behind.

    3. martinusher Silver badge

      Re: No s##t Sherlock...

      >increase Communist Socialist policies in the UK....

      I'm old enough to have been born during, voted for an lived under several Labour governments (but mercifully not the Blair NuLab abomination....). They were actually pretty ordinary, definitely not communist and not even very socialist. They were pretty good at handling the economy (which always seemed to be in crisis when they took over -- I wonder why?).

      So cut the scaremongering, please. I know most of El Reg readers' memories don't go much further back than the Thatcher years -- if that -- so they probably don't know the extent of the "Thatcher Revolution", the whole "There Is No Alternative" thing and how society was changed back into a dog eat dog sort of place where everything that benefited ordinary people was 'unaffordable'...(or to put simply, it was "back to the 1930s but this time in color).

      (Incidentally, Momentum are probably Globalist sellouts -- but don't let that bother you. Just keep thinking that a bunch of Etonian old boys are really 'men of the people' -- it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.)

      1. Tigra 07

        Re: No s##t Sherlock...

        "They were actually pretty ordinary, definitely not communist and not even very socialist. They were pretty good at handling the economy (which always seemed to be in crisis when they took over -- I wonder why?"

        Funny that the economy is always in crisis when Labour are thrown out of power too. Coincidence?

        1. LewisRage

          Re: No s##t Sherlock...

          It's almost like any and every politician will throw the opposition under the bus for a few cheap points.

        2. DJO Silver badge

          Re: No s##t Sherlock...

          Funny that the economy is always in crisis when Labour are thrown out of power too. Coincidence?

          Not a coincidence, it's a lie. The broad economy always fares better under Labour, yes the rich get their tax breaks under the Tories but that's about it. The only times the national debt has been reduced was under Labour administrations. Just because the Tories and the rabid red-tops keep saying "Labour are weak on the economy" or "Corbyn is unelectable" 300 or 400 times a day, does not make it true.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: No s##t Sherlock...

        They were pretty good at handling the economy (which always seemed to be in crisis when they took over -- I wonder why?).

        My recollection is the converse although normally things got worse before they got better given that it takes a good while to fix a broken economy.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No s##t Sherlock...

        > I'm old enough to have been born during,

        Funnily enough my memories are of three day weeks, piles of rubbish sacks piled up on the corner of roads. Everyone being on strike with no proper ballots to find out whether this is what members wanted rather than what a few militants could intimidate them to stick their hands up for. Bugger all investment coz who'd invest if there was no prospect of anyone choosing to make anything. Closed shops where you couldn't get a job if you were black. Totally f***ing useless management, I'm sure I could go on.

    4. macjules
      Trollface

      Re: No s##t Sherlock...

      I hear the sound of Nigella Farage calling. She wants her comment back.

  2. Paul 195
    Flame

    The beginning of the end?

    It seems quite likely that social media in general (not just Twitter) is having a damaging effect on public discourse. Facebook is being used to micro target particular groups with political advertising tailored to appeal to their prejudices. YouTube's tendency to "radicalize" vulnerable individuals has been the subject of many news articles. And Twitter is just a poisonous troll-den of like-minded people clubbing together to reinforce each other's prejudices before shouting at everyone who disagrees with them. Not to mention the misogyny and rape threats directed at women in public life. Plus, it's full of bots busy tweeting support for the indefensible.

    A few years ago I believed that the growing incivility and unpleasantness of social media was a growing pain that would subside as we all found new norms of acceptable behaviour on these platforms. Now it would appear that a number of malicious actors have weaponised humanity's worst tendencies to turn us all against each other. The poisonous, shrill, shouty and above all moronic debate over Brexit is just the most visible symptom.

    1. Tigra 07

      Re: The beginning of the end?

      Agreed. People are losing the ability to shrug things off they disagree with, or have a meaningful conversation. No, it's just online echo chambers and competition for likes and upvotes. I upvoted you too btw. Please don't get addicted.

      1. Paul 195

        Re: The beginning of the end?

        @tigra07

        I must admit, I got a tiny thrill from the upvote. Is this how it starts?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The beginning of the end?

          Downvote to help you kick the habit.

        2. Tigra 07

          Re: The beginning of the end?

          Psst. [Opens jacket] Wanna buy some upvotes?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The beginning of the end?

            Votes Conservative. Offers to sell upvotes.

            Our MPs qualifications to legislate are that he made enough money selling ringtones to take time out to stand.

            And that's one of the problems. No rising through ranks, gaining experience, being a local councillor or social activist, just get the attention of Lord Ashcroft and be found a seat.

            1. Tigra 07
              Thumb Up

              Re: The beginning of the end?

              It's free real estate.

            2. Stork Silver badge

              Re: The beginning of the end?

              I thought the problem was the opposite: all the politicians who graduate with a ppe or similar, then get a job assisting a politician after which they run themselves. Any knowledge of life outside the bubble is coincidence or theoretical. Call me Dave?

              This is not only in the UK, the pattern is similar in other European countries, even if details differ.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I suspect the worst thing about social media

    is how hard it makes it to try and backtrack and pretend you either did say something you claim you didn't, or didn't say something you wish people thought you had.

    1. Ordinary Donkey

      Re: I suspect the worst thing about social media

      A subset of how easy it is for proof you lied about anything to go worldwide, surely?

    2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Unsaying/pretending to have said

      You can always claim that what you said before is fake news created by deep state as a false flag operation. Likewise anything you did not actually say is something you said before but was censored by the biased left wing media. If you can routinely spout nonsense like that you can be president.

    3. IGotOut Silver badge

      Re: I suspect the worst thing about social media

      "...how hard it makes it to try and backtrack and pretend you either did say something you claim you didn't"

      There is one prolific politician on Twitter that denies he said something, despite it being right there in front of him.

  4. Rich 11

    The Hon Member for the 18th Century

    I'd love to know if they'd asked Jacob Rees-Mogg for his opinion on the subject. He'd probably have promised them a reply by the end of next week, hand-inked by his scribe and delivered in a cleft stick.

    1. Twanky

      Re: The Hon Member for the 18th Century

      'I'd love to know if they'd asked Jacob Rees-Mogg for his opinion on the subject. He'd probably have promised them a reply by the end of next week, hand-inked by his scribe and delivered in a cleft stick.'

      At least you could be reasonably sure he had thought about it before replying.

      I do think the perceived need to urgently reply and seize the attention of 'social; media users reduces the quality (and increases the quantity) of the debate - such as it is.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: The Hon Member for the 18th Century

        "I do think the perceived need to urgently reply and seize the attention of 'social; media users reduces the quality (and increases the quantity) of the debate - such as it is."

        This! I have certain...contacts...with some people who seem to live on their phones/laptops. If they message me (email or text message, call me a luddite, natch!) and I don't reply within a very short timescale, eg a few minutes, I get a where are you? Are you busy? type message. They still haven't realised yet that those kind of messages just make me delay even longer in replying :-)

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: The Hon Member for the 18th Century

          "Are you busy?"

          Wait a couple of days and tell them yes, you have been busy doing something important.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The Hon Member for the 18th Century

            Wait a couple of days and respond "yes - is it important?"

            If they choose to respond again, increase the delay.

      2. Tigra 07

        Re: The Hon Member for the 18th Century

        "I do think the perceived need to urgently reply and seize the attention of 'social; media users reduces the quality (and increases the quantity) of the debate - such as it is"

        Innit tho.

        #PaidPromotion #ThugLife #GetRichQuick #Sarcasm

  5. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
    Unhappy

    The saddest thing I've ever read

    Twitter is running a big advertising campaign of billboards showing Tweets from twits who love Twitter. The saddest Tweet, and possibly the saddest thing I will ever read, was:

    I think Twitter is my love language.

    I think Twitter is my love language.

    I think Twitter is my love language.

    I have no words.

    1. Chris G

      Re: The saddest thing I've ever read

      Far worse is the fact that the platform has brought us tweetocracy; government by twits, or is that tweetocraps ( no that's not a typo).

      1. OssianScotland

        Re: The saddest thing I've ever read

        I think you mean "government by twats"

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The saddest thing I've ever read

          Not government by twats, but government by twat-grabbers.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The saddest thing I've ever read

        In Twitters defence, it has also brought us Nihilist Arby's, the gold standard in fast food social media interaction:

        https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys?lang=en-gb

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Who knew the dissemination of information would change the political discourse?

    Take "fake news" out of the equation and it seems politicians are getting caught out more often and more people are aware of it. If fact you could surmise "fake news" is a by product that allows politicians plausible deniability.

    1. tfewster
      Facepalm

      As well as greater awareness by the public, Twitter also gives MPs feedback from the voters on their proposals. How could that be a bad thing in a Representative Democracy? It's not like they'll get immediately sacked if they support something unpopular with their constituents "for the good of the nation as a whole".

      P.S. I don't use Twitter, I despise my politicians the old fashioned way - from the news and at the polling booth.

      1. Mark 110

        "How could that be a bad thing in a Representative Democracy?"

        Its a bad thing because then you start making policy based on the opinions of shouty people on Twatter instead of talking to your average everyday person (like me) that stays as far away from that toilet of garbage nonsense spouted by uninformed idiots as I possiblly can.

        1. Teiwaz

          Its a bad thing because then you start making policy based on the opinions of shouty people on Twatter instead of talking to your average everyday person

          It's not like that's new - a certain type of MP will always cow-tow (yes I know spelling) to some shouty group that think they represent more than their relatively small sampling of their membership and not the silent majority after all - said types of MP think some movement or other will sweep them into power.

          Twitter and the concept of 'influencers' have just whittled the mass effect down to individuals.

          You can't blame Twitter if you've gone on it and made a Twat of yourself.

          1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

            How *DARE* humans communicate with each other! They should be told what to do by Lord Beaverbrook like the plebs they are.

          2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            a certain type of MP will always kowtow to some shouty group

            It's called their constituency party.

      2. Dr. Mouse

        It's not like they'll get immediately sacked if they support something unpopular with their constituents "for the good of the nation as a whole".

        Nope, just if they support something unpopular with their Glorious Leader for the good of the nation as a whole....

      3. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        "Twitter also gives MPs feedback from the voters on their proposals."

        Only from a small selection of voters: Those that use Twitter.

        Not always the people you should take advice from.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          A few months ago I signed up for Twitter. 8 hours later I deleted my account.

          I saw enough to convince me that Twitter users are the very last people to be allowed near power.

  7. cantankerous swineherd

    it's Usenet all over again.

    1. hplasm
      Coat

      it's Usenet all over again.

      it's Mumsnetall over again.

      FTFY

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: it's Usenet all over again.

        It's news papers all over again...

        1. Ordinary Donkey

          Re: it's Usenet all over again.

          It's all over. Again.

  8. ma1010
    Coat

    A filter?

    Perhaps social media is the Great Filter that explains why we haven't contacted any other civilizations?

    Perhaps galactic civilizations have come into being, invented social media and then collapsed into Dark Age chaos and eventual extinction?

    1. Teiwaz

      Re: A filter?

      We haven't contacted any other civilisations because we prefer to do pointless carp like 'grow the economy'.

      Humanity is a couple of kids totally obsessed with 'Swap Shop'.

      If we ever do, we;ll be regarded as the same way star fleet officers view ferengi

      insert Lyrics to 'fire coming out of the monkeys head'

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: A filter?

        Even the speed of light isn't fast enough to contact "other people". Sorry.

        And we really don't want to contact "other people", anyway. It wouldn't be like Star Trek.

  9. martinusher Silver badge

    I think the operative word is 'short'

    Social media has its place, especially as a tool for 'guiding' the masses, but the real driver behind Brexit is money. Not 350 million for the NHS -- that's got a much more interesting fate. No its the fascinating way that the people backing the 'hard' Brexit are also holding short positions on the pound. They already made a bit of a killing from the referendum, now its time to finish the job, so an investment in the politicians likely to deliver is actually a pretty good bet.

    To paraphrase a 1959 Conservative electron slogan -- "You've Never Been Had So Good". The EU has its (numerous) faults, various politicians have their faults but to hand over the fate of the country to an unelected crowd of financial insiders who, with their sponsors, stand to make a killing at the expense of the country as a whole and not to have the whole country up in arms about it ...... that's successful propaganda for you, the 'right' way to use media, both social and traditional.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I think the operative word is 'short'

      but to hand over the fate of the country to an unelected crowd of financial insiders

      Too late for that

    2. RPF

      Re: I think the operative word is 'short'

      Citation needed on those short positions.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I think the operative word is 'short'

        >Citation needed on those short positions.

        https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I think the operative word is 'short'

          I believe that this argument has already been disproved:

          https://fullfact.org/economy/short-positions/

          1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

            Re: I think the operative word is 'short'

            A bet on a no-deal is a risky bet.

            Much easier and safer to make money on day-to-day announcements. Like when the Maybot puppet said this one day, and that the next day. Advance knowledge of what she was told to say would have made money making dead easy. DIdn't her husband work in speculative banking?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: I think the operative word is 'short'

              If you look at Johnson's posturing from the point of view that it is deliberate and designed to ensure short term swings in the £, it is a classical pump and dump strategy. He has discovered from Trump that market manipulation is legal in some circumstances.

              Knowing what he is going to say the day before has meant that speculators could make a steady series of profits of around 1%, which doesn't sound like a lot, but five times a month is 60% a year.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: I think the operative word is 'short'

                So the evidence will be obvious then.

                Or will the evidence consist of poorly selected historical market information that clearly shows this profiteering but actually turns out to be very poor journalism that was immediately discredited?

  10. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

    Oh no, it is the other way around

    The internet does not make you more dumb, aggressive, or generally more an asshole.

    The internet exposes those already existing sides without filter and without mercy.

    1. Tigra 07
      Devil

      Re: Oh no, it is the other way around

      I disagree. Kids are growing up with their entire lives online now. And let's not forget that many people will say things online they wouldn't in person (rape threats for example).

      This is the start of us devolving into basement dwelling morlocks...

      "Facebook and Twitter likes good. Outside scary and bad."

  11. IceC0ld

    Social Media and open society

    The politicians certainly blame social media for their own loss of public status: 81 per cent said that it has worsened the public's attitude towards them.

    I would like to make it publically clear that here at least, my attitiude towards MP's couldn't actually get any lower

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: my attitiude towards MP's couldn't actually get any lower

      Optimist.

  12. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "it has worsened the public's attitude towards them"

    Well duh, now when they spout nonsense it's caught and exposed to millions on the Web - they can't faff about and try to make it look like they didn't say it.

    They're going to actually have to learn to <gasp> think about what they say.

    1. Paul 195

      Re: "it has worsened the public's attitude towards them"

      @Pascal Monett

      I'm pretty sure the effect of shortening public discourse to what you can get over in 280 characters has done little to improve the quality of debate.

      1. Teiwaz

        Re: "it has worsened the public's attitude towards them"

        I'm pretty sure the effect of shortening public discourse to what you can get over in 280 characters has done little to improve the quality of debate.

        not really from the Politicians perspective, they've been used to that amount for 'sound bites' for ages, but were people would have had to research to find the actual choco ration, it's there recorded in writing.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "it has worsened the public's attitude towards them"

      You realised that Trump made an idiot mistake about a hurricane warning and then his office instructed the weather forecasters not to contradict him? He denies being wrong and then comes over all North Korean Great Leader, though he can't machine gun dissident scientists. Yet.

  13. IGotOut Silver badge

    Twitter is to blame!

    Or is it the infighting, party politics, corruption and chain of fuck ups and lies we've endured non stop for the last several years?

    Nope, it's Twitter

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Twitter is to blame!

      Hah! One only has to look at British history (I'm in the UK) to see that that's nothing new. Power corrupts, etc. The question is how well whatever system the nation has in place keeps the corruptible from causing too much damage, and that varies over time. Right now, the answer appears to be "hardly at all".

      1. Teiwaz

        Re: Twitter is to blame!

        Power corrupts, etc.

        Frank Herbert writes (in Dune: God Empereror I think) that instead it should be 'Power attracts the corruptible'.

        1. ganymede io device

          Re: Twitter is to blame!

          Douglas Adams write in RatEoU. Chapter 28.

          "The major problem --- one of the major problems, for there are several --- one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

          To summarise: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarise the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

          And so this is the situation we find: a succession of Galactic Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in power that they very rarely notice that they're not.

          And somewhere in the shadows behind them --- who?"

      2. Rol

        Re: Twitter is to blame!

        If the world recognises the extent of your reach, then you have failed to grasp the fundamental key to wielding power.

        You do it in a manner that no one can detect. Subtly, by proxy, and an unwitting proxy at that.

        Even manipulating the puppets is too close to the action, better that you influence the puppeteer in ways they can't perceive. Their dreams and fears, desires and beliefs become buttons and levers you can adjust at a distance, leaving them to act on your will, while firmly believing it is their own.

        The British establishment have honed these skills over many centuries, and guided Britain, not always successfully, toward a socio-political position where their wealth and power becomes unassailable.

        As an example. The working classes, who were best placed to get in on the housing boom early are now immoveable sandbags, defending morally indefensible disparities in our nation. And it wasn't luck, but a ruthlessly connived design to swell the ranks of those that think they now have something to protect that is worth more than the lives of millions of their fellow citizens. That's how power is wielded in Britain.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    but it's Twitter's fault

    in all seriousness, I do blame twitter and facebook (more generally, "social" media in general), because what was once stupid and mad, but restricted to a very narrow field, not only became widespread (internets), but the infected participants, which is pretty much every participant, take it out on and to the real world. And it's leadership by example, eg. Trump and every littlest tinpot me-too dictator.

    p.s. what I find the absolute disgrace about our MPs though, is their shameless and widespread usage of mobiles when Parliament is in session, and they're seen scrolling happily through their fb profile, or ebay sale, when they're paid handsomely to work for this country. This is leading by example made in the UK.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: but it's Twitter's fault

      When one of my lecturers, back in the 1970s, did a series of radio programmes, he filled a filing cabinet drawer with choice samples of the green ink hate mail he received.

      Today that stuff instead of reaching one amused recipient gets put on the web and may be seen by thousands of other people.

      It can't be good.

  15. andy 103
    Stop

    It's thick people

    It's no coincidence that people's view of politics got to new lows just as social media became so prolific.

    This is why your average thicko in Wetherspoons, who has a "solution" to every known problem (albeit totally simplified and ignoring facts) shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a decision making process. Whilst moaning about others making decisions, naturally.

    All social media has done is given these morons a platform to air their voice. This information then filters down to other people.

    The decisions pre-social media might have been questionable. But they weren't so mixed in with loads of bullshit by some twat on their 14th pint of Abbot.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's thick people

      Actually disparaging politicians for party political gain got really bad with the Mail and the Sun, and then people on social media repeated their garbage.

    2. Mark 110

      Re: It's thick people

      "This is why your average thicko in Wetherspoons, who has a "solution" to every known problem (albeit totally simplified and ignoring facts) shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a decision making process."

      This is why referendums are a bad thing.

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: It's thick people

        Referenda are bad when you are sh*t at them.

        Why didn't we ask the Swiss how it's done?

        (Of course we didn't. We are best at everything, thanks to the Empire, and winning the War single handedly.)

  16. Ripper38
    Pint

    Only 19%

    read the article, beer and crisps ready, going to enjoy the comments

  17. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    Since they are actually on Twitter, it's a bit hard to feel sorry for the politicians.

    And now the Clown Prince himself has fake PMQs on some video channel (Facebook, perhaps?) where he hand picks easy questions, and answer them with some hand waving bollocks -as he always does. So much easier than standing in Parliament and answering actual questions from knowledgable MPs.

    Hurrah for shutting down democracy! Cummings for President for life!

  18. Rol

    Fork Off

    I heard Twitter was thinking of forking the brand to better group its users.

    Suggestions currently doing the rounds are:-

    "MeOw" for masochists / financially insecure leave voters.

    "Oink" for Republican Presidents

    "Woof" for UK government and associated right wing media.

    "Whiffle Waffle" for hateful buffoons that entered politics to better trample what little sanity remains in this world.

    "Squawk" for those who couldn't care less if the world blew itself to pieces, just so long as they made some money out of it.

    "Cock-a-doodle-do" for taggers

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like