New research into public attitudes to democracy in the UK shows integrity is valued above all other traits in a politician.
When asked which traits politicians should have, “being honest” came top, followed by “owning up when they make mistakes”. ucl.ac.uk/constitution-u…
When respondents were asked to “imagine that a future prime minister has to choose between acting honestly & delivering the policy that most people want”, 71% chose honesty & only 16% delivery.
When asked if they agreed more that “healthy democracy requires that politicians always act within the rules” or that “healthy democracy means getting things done, even if that sometimes requires politicians to break the rules”, 75% chose the former & just 6% the latter.
These findings come from the summer – BEFORE the Owen Paterson affair & the #DowningStreetParties.
They are not knee-jerk reactions to short-term headlines.
The overwhelming majority of voters expect politicians to act honestly & follow the rules.
Also, voters do not want power to be unduly concentrated in the hands of the PM & their govt. Many favour at least somewhat greater powers for parliament – 45% think MPs should decide what the House of Commons debates, against 30% who think the PM or government should do so.
When asked about whether judges should play a role in resolving whether a new law violates rights, between 65% & 77% of respondents said that the courts should have their current powers under the Human Rights Act or even be given stronger powers to strike down laws directly.
The reason for these answers appears clear: most people don’t trust politicians, and they trust the politicians closest to power least. They therefore welcome limits on what those in power can do.
"People in the UK expect their leaders to act with integrity – and they expect a system of checks and balances on executive power to be maintained. A leader who violates these principles harms him or herself and damages confidence in democracy."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#OnThisDay, 21 July, 1969, the Chicago Daily News published: The ‘love it or leave it’ nonsense, by Sydney J. Harris.
It began: One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
I reproduce it, below.
Harris was born in London in 1917, moving to the US in 1922. A formidable journalist who established a distinct voice integrating incisive social commentary with wit and humour, his weekday column, ‘Strictly Personal’, was syndicated in 200 US newspapers.
The ‘love it or leave it’ nonsense, by Sydney J. Harris.
One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
That attitude is the main reason America was founded, in all its hope and energy and goodness.
A few thoughts on Bob Vylan leading the #GlastonburyFestival crowd in chants of "Death to the IDF" (Israeli Defence Force), livestreamed by the @BBC, and the mischaracterisation of the chant by some MPs, news media, and activists.
In England, where #GlastonburyFestival is located, all of us have the right to freely express our criticism of anyone or anything - as long as there is no intent to provoke immediate unlawful violence or there is a reasonable likelihood it will occur as a consequence.
In England, free speech is protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, inciting violence is a criminal offence under several laws which attempt to balance public safety with free expression rights.
In many countries, especially since Musk bought Twitter/@X, underregulated online extreme content has been used to groom and radicalise vulnerable people.
Too many cowardly politicians are scared to speak up for fear of being branded 'anti-free speech'.
Some MPs who have been in parliament for many years NEVER appear on any of the @BBC's "flagship" politics shows - but Reform's privately educated shit-stirring 'anti-elite' former Tory Sarah Pochin - an MP for FIVE WEEKS - gets her own special introduction on #PoliticsLive.
Politicians using dangerously irresponsible anti-Muslim rhetoric know their comments are normalising Islamophobia and endanger British Muslim women. Islamophobic incidents rose by 375% in the week after Boris Johnson called veiled Muslim women “letterboxes” in 2018.
#PolitcsLive
Britain prides itself in NOT being the sort of country that tells women how to dress. States that do dictate women’s clothing (eg Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia) are vilified as misogynistic & ultra-controlling: the antithesis of the enlightened, liberal west. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The 'Women's Safety Initiative' is an anti-migrant AstroTurf disinformation group founded by Jess Gill, a Fellow of the Koch-funded climate change denial group, the Foundation for Economic Education, & an apprentice at the Mises Institute. The '1 in 4' claim is a lie.
Before I outline the evidence that (despite what we are told every day by politicians, activists, and news media) there is no discernable link between either legal or illegal immigration and increased crime rates in OECD countries, including ours, some context about Jess Gill.
Jess Gill’s involvement with these radical free-market climate change denying Koch foundation funded organisations is deeply concerning.
The WSI exploits young women to make misleading claims about supposed links between immigration with women’s safety.
"Foreigners" DO NOT claim £1BILLION/month in benefits.
This disgusting anti-migrant dogwhistle by shameless liar and former Head of Policy Exchange, Neil O'Brien MP, is just one of several recent dispicable divisive Telegraph front page lies.
WTAF @IpsoNews? @HoCStandards?
The claims that the UK spends £1bn/month "on UC benefits for overseas nationals" (O'Brien) and "Foreigners claim £1bn a month in benefits" (Telegraph) are revealed to be lies in the article: the£1bn relates to "Benefits claims by HOUSEHOLDS with AT LEAST ONE FOREIGN NATIONAL."
The Telegraph claims that (unnamed) "experts suggested the increase reflected a SURGE in the number of asylum seekers being granted refugee status and in net migration."
To evaluate/make sense of this sensational unsourced claim, additional context is needed (but not provided).