Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
It's getting worse from all sides for all reasons.
This sort of thing is a bit more personal though than a lot of the other "fake news" we get.
How about vise versa? My friend was in the police for 20 years an he would freely agree that his views on black youths had changed over the years, the amount of **** he got on a daily basis from these youths was scary whilst he was on his beat. They had no respect for him or what he represented, if there was a group and he approached them to ask what they were doing, school day or the like he would get an earful of abuse and there was nothing he could do.
He retired after 20years because he hated the job, there will be a lot of bitter and twisted police out there just doing time for their pension, and I am pretty sure most joined the force to do good
Don’t disagree there’s a class issue but systemic racism hides before it disappears and some ‘activists’ are really ‘whistle blowers’ which has a less negative ring to it
A lot of coppers do join up to help people. And I also know some who left because that’s not how the job worked out
So you think it’s genetic that black kids distrust the police or something else?
It was in the manifesto fats...... you can't argue that.......and the tories got a decent majority......you can't deny that either. I don't see how you can argue that the people didn't want the referendum if the party they voted for made it clear what they wanted to do.
Mind you I can't remember why the heck Cameron and co wanted the referendum in the first place. I dont remember too much moaning about the EU back then or was there?
Looking at this chart suggests that most of the Leave vote came from areas where the average wage is about 22k.
It also shows the problem we have with wages at the moment with a few constituencies averaging circa £17,500-£18,000. Considering the NMW was £7.2 and for 40 hours (most low paid full time jobs are 40 hours+ unlike median jobs which tend to be 35-38 hours) so the NMW full time job is £14976. So higher paid jobs have barely shifted the average above the NMW.
It also shows the problem we have with wages at the moment with a few constituencies averaging circa £17,500-£18,000. Considering the NMW was £7.2 and for 40 hours (most low paid full time jobs are 40 hours+ unlike median jobs which tend to be 35-38 hours) so the NMW full time job is £14976. So higher paid jobs have barely shifted the average above the NMW.
You must log in or register to see media
Just my opinion, but the main reason for the Tories winning so many elections is because they have the best spin machine. The media and the majority readership of right wing papers.
If the media was truly neutral, and stopped building the Tories up for their own personal gain, and consistently lying about the opposition to harm their credibility, I think many people, especially the less well off, wouldn’t vote for them, and the balance of power would swing.
The Daily Fail has just run 15 pages of anti Corbyn stories, much of which has been confirmed as false information, but their readership won’t get to know that, unless they have access to alternative viewpoints.
The media needs a total “honesty” makeover and, again just my opinion, I would put into law the following.
Any paper that has been found to print false information, should be made to write apologies in exactly the same format and over the same number of columns/pages.
Therefore, taking the 15 page anti Corbyn rant, as an example, should the report be contested and found to be untrue, the apology should run for 15 pages and include a massive front page clearly stating that they had lied/misrepresented the truth.
Similarly, broadcast media would follow the same way. If the misinformation led the news bulletin and ran for 5 minutes, then so should the apology. And it should be repeated over the same number of news bulletins as it was reported in, to catch as many viewers/listeners as the original false broadcast reached.
So, in ending, again just my opinion, we get the Government the media wants, and I may be wrong, but I think all the right wing papers supported Brexit.
Can;t speak for benditlikebanana but I don't think it is genetic nor anything "directly" to do with ethnicity. It think ethnicity is just one tool that influential people use to make sure that these attitudes are nurtured.
There may well be a problem here but if people with influence (from within the community or outside) keep telling a demographic that there is a huge problem then eventually they will believe it. Whether it is true or not. I have said on many subjects (not just this subject) the same thing.
Rather than deal with those actually in poverty there seems to be more interest in increasing the demographic and dilute what you can actually achieve.
Rather than deal with racism or discrimination they do the same.
And you are right about going into hiding however, I disagree with the phrase "before it disappear" because these things will never disappear. They can be minimised by attitudes evolving but they can never be eradicated because there will always be that minority that are of that mind.
I think a lot of things we could deal with these days are distracted from the actual problem by others that spend much more time trying to widen the target demographic of the problem which then stops anything from working because when they try and widen the demographic they eventually have a much larger group of people that are "affected" and thus it looks much more of a problem within that demographic because of the "new" numbers.
I suppose you could pin the Brexit result on this as well if you want to think about it in that way. It is the same across all politics these days. The name on these policies is "progressive" but the reality is that politically they are not trying to achieve what the title on the policy says, they are trying to fill up the target group with as many people as possible in order to herd votes/funds/agendas in a particular direction.
Maybe not in Southampton but lots of people have wanted a referendum for a long long time. I don't understand how anyone could argue that most people (who vote) wanted a referendum. They were just never asked that particular question. It was always complicated by other questions.
Tony Blair stated in 2004 that a referendum "will" be held to ratify the "European Constitution Treaty" which was what became the Lisbon Treaty.
All 3 main parties promised a referendum in their 2005 manifestos that they would hold a referendum to ratify the EU constitution treaty. Again which was to become the Lisbon Treaty.
Nick Clegg (backed by the Lib Dems) tabled an amendment, to the Lisbon Treaty bill, for an in/out referendum on EU membership and then proceeded to lead his party out of the chamber in protest at the speaker blocking it!!
this whole "Tory internal division" ignores that all 3 parties promised one in 2005, that it was the Lib Dems that mounted a referendum amendment in 2008 etc.
And most of the country's "voters" voted for those 3 parties in 2005.
They should have had it back then. they might have won the referendum back then instead of letting things fester further and further.
UKIP would never had made that ground in 2015 if not for the 3 main parties ignoring their promises on that one.
Populus poll for the times in 2012 suggested 8 out of 10 voters wanted a referendum!!!
"The survey by Populus for The Times found almost half - 49 per cent - wanted a referendum immediately while a further third - 33 per cent - believed there should be one "in the next few years".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...ers-want-referendum-on-Europe-poll-finds.html
Lies and deceit should be covered by libel law or similar. If the Corbyn stories in that awful rag were false and could be proved as such then action should be taken. I can't bring myself to read the article, life is to short, it's a lovely day I'm about to jump on my bike and head for the beach.
Jab
This is not true at all. The screen and most of the internet media (all of it) is majority run and presented by a Centrist supporting narrow vision that of course at present supports May's Tories. They also support the Labour "moderates" because there is a cigarette paper (if that) between them despite how they try and pretend they are different. This part of media is vastly dominant and equally ridicules anything non Centrist whether it be Tory right, UKIP (as was with Farage) or Corbynite far left.
Newspapers have very limited reach and far from it being able to say what it wants without scrutiny the 29% reach it has are also funnily enough mostt likely to also watch the BBC which spends its day broadcasting how horrible the "right wing press" is and pushing every centrist under the sun.
We are of course here talking about media's opinion on Tory/Labour here and they support what they think Tory/Labour should be. i.e. They should be a better version of the Lib Dems. That the leadership of the Tories fits firmly (still) in that centrist point while the Labour leadership is outside of that "acceptability" is why it may seem to Labour voters that the dominant media are attacking Labour and not attacking the Tories.
The truth is that most Tory voters are not Centrists and thus they also think that Tories (what they see as Tories) are getting the kicking while Labour moderates and "wet tories" are lauded.
This graph is quite useful but we should remember that most of the "reach" of newspapers is actually provided by those trying to discredit them. Most people would not know what the Mail (or the Sun or Express for that matter) has printed IF the BBC, CH4 and social media didn't spend so much time sharing it round in disgust. Similarly radio being 33%!!! If it weren't for BBC TV constantly showing what someone said on the today programme every day then no-one would have a clue what John Humphries was told in an interview.
The "indirect" viewership/readership of radio and newspapers is much greater than "direct." they would have almost no influence at all if it weren't with the TV/Internet obsession with showing us what was in the newspapers or on the radio. Mostly presented by people disagreeing with whatever the newspaper / radio interviewee was saying.
You must log in or register to see images
I pretty much agree with the idea that corrections should have equal space as the original articles however that would apply to all including Carole Cadwalladr who makes accusations without proof all the time as well as adding made up details on some things that are true creating falsehoods all over the place. So much so that nearly every one of her articles ends up needing several "corrections" in small print in following editions.
Never mind the public wish for a referendum. It happened, there was a narrow, less than 4% "victory" for the leave propaganda machine. Would any rational person, in hindsight, have voted for the inept negotiations and the possibility of a no deal exit?
Last edited:
Soooo John McDonnell decides to have a pop at the person that was voted "Greatest Briton" in a Beeb poll.
I get that Churchill was a bit of a bastard and wasn't the best peacetime politician and leader and was against worker's rights but it's probably best to keep opinions like that out of the public domain at this time.
At least nobody can accuse the Shadow Cabinet of being "populist"...
I get that Churchill was a bit of a bastard and wasn't the best peacetime politician and leader and was against worker's rights but it's probably best to keep opinions like that out of the public domain at this time.
At least nobody can accuse the Shadow Cabinet of being "populist"...
Of course no-one would have voted for "inept" negotiations. I don;t think rational can be used in relation to the no deal. I daresay there are rational people that think no deal will not end up as is being suggested.
However the mess that has been made since the vote does not mean the vote should not have been held.
He was asked a direct question "Churchill - hero or villan?", and he gave a two word answer "Villan" and ,some name of a historical incident that I can't remember. So it was a crap question, given a crap but honest answer. I much prefer honesty to a direct question, then dodging the question like he did to an earlier question, but to describe it has having a pop is a bit strong.Soooo John McDonnell decides to have a pop at the person that was voted "Greatest Briton" in a Beeb poll.
I get that Churchill was a bit of a bastard and wasn't the best peacetime politician and leader and was against worker's rights but it's probably best to keep opinions like that out of the public domain at this time.
At least nobody can accuse the Shadow Cabinet of being "populist"...
Mess it was indeed! It shouldn't have happened in the form it did (if at all). The simple majority should have been qualified majority voting. It should have been a mandate to negotiate terms followed by a second referendum to ratify. The negotiations should have been carried out by a cross party committee co-opting expert advice as required. No deal is a disastrous outcome, I haven't seen any logical positives for it just "leave means leave", "it's the will of the people" rhetoric with the leave posters on various forums handing out the greatest amount of abuse.
As previously posted, as an overseas pensioner I'm astounded that a large number of people in a similar situation voted for a pay cut. I wonder to how many grumbles there are from leave voters as they book their overseas holidays. Exchange rates (spot) 30-6-2015 £= €1.41, 30-6-2016 €1.20, today €1.14 source www.poundsterlinglive.com
Jab
Last edited:
In this day and age though it is ammo (for the media.) Not so much for most people but the media that seem obsessed by these meaningless little tidbits.
to most people it is yet more "pfft."