The problem isn't with Carney's numbers. It is with the way they are presented. Take for example yesterday's announcements. He is presenting a worst case scenario not a prediction, yet the media allied with those that the worst case figures help jump on them for the "sensational" story. Then because of the way it was presented Carney gets it in the neck for getting "predictions" wrong when they were never predictions. They were analysis of whether they/we can cope with the worst case scenario. Like said above. Despite the negative equity aspect I don't think in the current climate house prices falling is going to be an argument against Brexit. I would however guess that they know those who would prefer lower house prices are much more likely to be staunch remainers (young people, graduates) whereas those that would lose out with lower prices (40+) are much more likely to be leave voters. Hence the presentation. It is just another case where it isn't about "leave lied, remain didn't." They should be reporting this stuff more accurately and those on both sides should not be playing the game and going along with the idea that these worst case scenarios are predictions. Carney has not done what Osborne did. Osborne went out and said "this will happen." Carney presents it quite honestly but then it isn't reported as what it is.
I agree to a point. However newspapers do tend to exaggerate things with blatant headlines. In there eyes it is what sells newspapers sadly!! Why the hell the Television news media have to do the same is baffling. Although I suppose they want you to watch and listen to their drivel too.
It used to be the tradition in this country that while Newspapers were notoriously sensationalist, televised news generally operated to higher standards of accuracy and impartiality. In the US, the opposite was true - televised news over there was always a circus, but there was a tradition of journalistic integrity in print that the main newspapers attempted to uphold. Nowadays all news outlets everywhere are desperate for attention, and will say anything to catch the reader or viewers eye. Too much competition isn't always to the benefit of the bewildered consumer, and the internet hasn't been a universal force for good in the dissemination of information.
Just another point.....unless I was imagining it. I saw on the Tele some french lady saying we wouldn't be able to fly over the EU if there was no Brexit agreement. That airspace agreement cannot possibly be because we are in the EU surely. All the other countries of the world that are not part of the EU manage to fly into and across them. So are they saying they wouldn't give us permission? Because we are the same as all the others.........?????? Am I missing something here??
It looks like the whole "vote leave broke the law" argument is about to unravel. The Elecctoral Commission just lost a case in court: Seems that the electoral commission had given vote leave advice that they could make these donations and how to "account" for them in the expenses. The Electoral commission it seems tried to deny they had given such advice. The judge has not given his conclusion yet but likely to rule against the electoral commission as they gave vote leave the wrong advice. Advice which vote leave followed to the letter: "We find ourselves in a complete Alice in Wonderland situation. Vote Leave asked for, and received, the Electoral Commission’s advice. We followed that advice. During the Judicial Review, the Electoral Commission tried to avoid admitting that it had given that advice to us, but we were able to establish that they had – and the judges clearly ruled in the Preliminary Hearing that we had received that advice. Yet we are now told that, by having followed that advice, we broke the law." https://brexitcentral.com/electoral-commissions-defeat-high-court-matters/
Oh Heck is there no-one we can trust????? All it wants now is for someone to say the Brexit referendum was/is illegal...........That really would send the **** into the fan.......
vote leave aren't off scott free yet. They still broke the law despite them receiving the wrong advice when asking for clarification. The key thing though is the electoral commission refusing to supply the FOI on the e-mail and then trying to deny there was an e-mail before it was eventually dug up in court. They tried to pretend they had never given that advice.
That was my meaning the denial then the proof. An official body lying its head off..........Makes you wonder how we are governed at times!!? Same with MP's when you tackle them about something they previously said......Ahh I didn't mean it that way. Or thats not quite what I meant.......All a load of bull ****...........
possibly the most feeble explanation ever! and I was under the impression that Putin was way more intelligent than Trump!
He is but the "red lines" a few years ago sent a message that "the west" is all words and no action. This is obviously meant to sound so weak. A "what are you going to do about it" stance. There is no way that they thought this would wash.
This segment on the German far-right is a bit worrying. And is there any language Matt Frei can't speak?
Not joined this Brexit debate and just spent the last 20 mins reading the last 10 pages. I’m going to to give my very incisive and detailed opinion. We’re screwed. The biggest issue was giving us the chance to decide. It is like this forum, we are all football managers and know better than the actual manager and the people in charge. Every 4/5 years we vote in a government. We should let them get on with running the country and we should get on with our day to day lives. In or out should never have been put to the public in a single yes/no vote. Still the damage has been done. Nothing we can do now.
