Ofgem calls for ministers to rethink price cap.

You can't do that and remain impartial because all consequences have not happened and are not yet facts.

This is why we have a party system - ie we vote for a controlling group. A party is the means by which consequences are folded into the calculation of what can be offered without any one body making an official declaration (ie it remains a matter of opinion)

Reformers, in their enthusiasm for change, often miss key reasons the system is the way it is.

But some consequences are facts. If you vote for not increasing taxes a consequence is that you wont get new drugs and treatments. Someone claiming both can be done would need to show how. 


So you don't want direct democracy? At the end of the day almost everything we could vote on is a matter of opinion.

Thus the debate before the vote. 

In a very limited physical sense, some might be impartially argued as such. No politically pertinent or social consequence gets anywhere near that level of certainty.

Part of the purpose of the democratic process is the public argument / discussion about what policy causes what consequence and by how much. You appear to want this discussion removed and replaced with one official view (presumably your opinions restated as official facts)

You display this undemocratic tendency often btw

You appear to want my opinions shutdown because they are not yours. 

My suggestion has always been that a debate is put to the public on a proper website. 
That emotive pictures of mile long queues of refugees on the side of buses would be banned as spam. 

Only because you view anything that disagrees with your twisted view of the world as undemocratic. You would have every official or expert gagged like they don't have a right to their say. 

Now you're really talking nonsense. The picture I described carried no facts, it was just emotive. It implied things people were fearful of but carried no facts. 

This is an opinion and should not share equal status with the truth.

Public employees will have the same rights to transmit their opinion as anyone else. What they wont be allowed to do is use their privileges to take public money to do so or claim their opinions are 'official facts'

Zany, there are uses of photography and words that we might both agree are misleading. The problem isn't the cases that we all agree on, it's the cases when there is no or little agreement.

Politics  is the part of any issue that people disagree about.

In short - If everyone agrees something is misleading, there is no need for enforcement and, if people disagree , there is no truly objective basis for enforcement.