Off Topic Politics Thread

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Sorry, but I totally disagree

The reason for corbyn being unpopular was because Rupert murdoch and the other media moguls all don’t want to be taxed more, so they printed slur after slur in all the papers about him.

The mass media has ultimate say over people’s opinions unfortunately.
If anything their influence is stronger now than ever. There is a huge lack of critical thinking, and seeing things from both sides.

Look at the last few weeks for example. They’ve been sat on the Boris party story for over a year, and can discredit him at any moment.

Never forget that the media controls who is in power at all times. Never.

They haven't been sat on that story. It's only just come to light. The members of the tory party that want shot of Johnson now are the ones that have sat on that story, not people in the media.

 

[Osvaldorama]

They haven't been sat on that story. It's only just come to light. The members of the tory party that want shot of Johnson now are the ones that have sat on that story, not people in the media.

Indeed. But the media is the ones that shape the narrative.

I have said it before, but Tony Blair’s election is everything you need to know about how much power the media has.

 

[San Tejón]

Indeed. But the media is the ones that shape the narrative.

I have said it before, but Tony Blair’s election is everything you need to know about how much power the media has.

Totally agree with this.
Murdoch always decides who will be PM, because he decides which political party his papers will support.
When John Major pissed him off, he swung everything behind Blair, taking his readers with him, before reversing the situation when the pig shagger came along.

 

[StJabbo1]

"Senior Tory Tells MPs To Go To The Police Over "Blackmail" Attempts To Protect Boris Johnson." Unfortunately, the Met seem strangely reluctant to pursue any criminal investigations into this, partygate, the PPE cronyism and any number of other possible offences by the corrupt incumbants.
Below some quotes from:-
https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...r-blackmail-attempts-to-protect-boris-johnson
"Senior Conservative MP William Wragg has accused the government of "intimidation" in their efforts to stop MPs from criticising Boris Johnson.
The Hazel Grove MP made several serious allegations against the government at an influential parliamentary committee session, including attempts to encourage the publication of "embarrassing" stories in the press to "intimidate" MPs who might criticise the Prime Minister.
Wragg said such attempts could "constitute blackmail" and urged any MPs who felt they had been targeted to contact the police.
In a statement to the Public Affairs Committee which he chairs, Wragg accused government whips of having breached the ministerial code by threatening those who had spoken out against the Prime Minister of having funding removed from their constituency."
"The intimidation of an MP is a serious matter. Moreover the reports of which I am aware would seem to constitute blackmail. As such, it would be my general advice to colleagues to report these matters to the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police."

 

[San Tejón]

Something to stir up the anti 5G mast brigade. Some flights into some US airports are being cancelled over concerns that 5G masts are interfering with some plane’s equipment, with one reference being made to a plane’s altimeter.
Various airlines, including BA have cancelled a few flights.
Do we not have 5G masts near UK airports?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/19/airlines-cancel-some-us-flights-over-5g-concerns

 

[The 83rd Minute]

I think that Corbyn was unable to handle the Breixt debate because , deep down, he was not convinced by the European project. You can understand his reticence because the whole EU raison d'etre is to protect business and put economies before people. The wierd thing about the EU is that it is an excellent idea in principle and, strictly speaking, should be working harder for it's citizens as opposed to the banks and businesses. I can entirely appreciate Jeremy's position but I was always of the opinion that if the EU had been in favour of a more "Internationalist" approach and less capitalist, it would have been very popular on the Left. I never understood why the Left in the UK have never presented this argument. There are too many people in the EU who are thinking of their country's own interest as opposed to working as a whole. The problem seems to get worse as you head eastwards. It is not helped by the likes of Macron whose concept of what a united Europe should be is entirely wrong.

I never felt that the British public were ever entirely on board with the EU nor had the ability to grasp that the changes necessary could only be made by working from within. Corbyn understood the flawed ideology of the EU but could not offer an alternative. It would be really difficult too to align yourself with an organisation that incorporates countries with an outlook such as Hungary. Like many politicians on the Right and Left, Corbyn could see the flaws in the EU and perhaps could also envisage all countries beyond Europe working together. Given the current situation with the environment, you wonder if a Euro-centric vision is now too narrow minded. Personally, the advantages of being in the EU far outweigh the disadvanatges and Brexit was never going to resolve issues like immigration which actually has little to do with the EU and is a world-wide issue.

Good points Ian. I think the basic issue with the British Public (huge generalisation here) is that they were never 'European' as people. In Europe, the countries have their issues with each other, but maybe as they are joined by land, they just feel the same, but different. I always felt it was an "us and them' feeling in the country. Maybe that is my insecurities creeping in, but the UK always seemed to try to assert "we're British". Nothing wrong with that, but it often came across as "We are superior and look at what all you silly Europeans are up to". Mainly the media probably, but that is how it felt. The average man on the street was never going to weigh up the pros against the cons and accept it.

We are also an island - this maybe contributes to the feeling of isolation and wanting to be ourselves. Sadly, the separation from Europe IMO has caused a lot more harm than good and the perception of "johnny foreigner" is even worse now.

With the Tories so pro Brexit at the last election, we needed the other side to balance it out with a clear remain stance..let's face it on that alone they would have got nearly 50% of the vote. Sadly, it was a wishy washy in between stance.

Some good points there Ian.......and from you too thereisonlyoneno7.


For decades, the Tories were publicly and divisively split, over the issue of the European Union. In the lead up to the 2015 UK general election, the biggest threat to a possible Tory victory was the potential loss of votes to UKIP. To minimise the risk of Tory voters defecting to UKIP Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s future within Europe. Cameron won the GE partly as a result of the referendum promise. The referendum should never have been left to the Great British Public to vote a simple “Leave” or “Remain”. It was far more important than that. It was asking the British people one question on a series of complex issues which it was unrealistic to expect most voters to make a fully informed assessment. The referendum was based on a foundation of bad faith and misleading information that the voting public were meant to base their decision on. Also the Eurosceptic propaganda over the years, made it impossible for the truth to be filtered in an unbiased way. If the outcome had been different and we remained in the European Union, we would have the option to reform the EU excesses, whilst still enjoying the many benefits it offered. By instigating an entirely unnecessary and ill- structured referendum in order to solve a party political issue, the Tory government has caused lasting and substantial damage to UK individuals and businesses.

Does anyone honestly believe that the ‘new circus in town’ will be better?

 

[StJabbo1]

Some good points there Ian.......and from you too thereisonlyoneno7.


For decades, the Tories were publicly and divisively split, over the issue of the European Union. In the lead up to the 2015 UK general election, the biggest threat to a possible Tory victory was the potential loss of votes to UKIP. To minimise the risk of Tory voters defecting to UKIP Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s future within Europe. Cameron won the GE partly as a result of the referendum promise. The referendum should never have been left to the Great British Public to vote a simple “Leave” or “Remain”. It was far more important than that. It was asking the British people one question on a series of complex issues which it was unrealistic to expect most voters to make a fully informed assessment. The referendum was based on a foundation of bad faith and misleading information that the voting public were meant to base their decision on. Also the Eurosceptic propaganda over the years, made it impossible for the truth to be filtered in an unbiased way. If the outcome had been different and we remained in the European Union, we would have the option to reform the EU excesses, whilst still enjoying the many benefits it offered. By instigating an entirely unnecessary and ill- structured referendum in order to solve a party political issue, the Tory government has caused lasting and substantial damage to UK individuals and businesses.

Does anyone honestly believe that the ‘new circus in town’ will be better?

You must log in or register to see images

 

[San Tejón]

Some good points there Ian.......and from you too thereisonlyoneno7.


For decades, the Tories were publicly and divisively split, over the issue of the European Union. In the lead up to the 2015 UK general election, the biggest threat to a possible Tory victory was the potential loss of votes to UKIP. To minimise the risk of Tory voters defecting to UKIP Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s future within Europe. Cameron won the GE partly as a result of the referendum promise. The referendum should never have been left to the Great British Public to vote a simple “Leave” or “Remain”. It was far more important than that. It was asking the British people one question on a series of complex issues which it was unrealistic to expect most voters to make a fully informed assessment. The referendum was based on a foundation of bad faith and misleading information that the voting public were meant to base their decision on. Also the Eurosceptic propaganda over the years, made it impossible for the truth to be filtered in an unbiased way. If the outcome had been different and we remained in the European Union, we would have the option to reform the EU excesses, whilst still enjoying the many benefits it offered. By instigating an entirely unnecessary and ill- structured referendum in order to solve a party political issue, the Tory government has caused lasting and substantial damage to UK individuals and businesses.

Does anyone honestly believe that the ‘new circus in town’ will be better?

“To minimise the risk of Tory voters defecting to UKIP Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s future within Europe.”

I think you are doing Cameron a massive favour, with the above sentence, as I think that is just a small part of the story.
The story, as I understand it, is that when Cameron realised that the EU were pushing ahead with creating an Anti Tax Avoidance Law, he approached the EU and said that he would support it, through the enactment stage, so long as the UK were exempt from it.
The EU’s response was, basically, if you don’t want the law enacted, use your power of veto, to stop it.
That put Cameron in a hole, because voting against a law that would enable governments to go after money hidden offshore, would confirm that he and the Tory party were supportive of tax avoidance. His own father did it.
Yes he wanted to keep votes from being lost to UKIP, but more than anything he offered the referendum in the hope it would be a victory for Leave, and helps to explain why he and his other “Remainer” MPs did such a **** job to counter the obvious lies put forward by Johnson and his cohort of ****s.

I will see if I can find a link to the original report, about Cameron’s attempt to dodge the law.

 

[The 83rd Minute]

“To minimise the risk of Tory voters defecting to UKIP Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s future within Europe.”

I think you are doing Cameron a massive favour, with the above sentence, as I think that is just a small part of the story.
The story, as I understand it, is that when Cameron realised that the EU were pushing ahead with creating an Anti Tax Avoidance Law, he approached the EU and said that he would support it, through the enactment stage, so long as the UK were exempt from it.
The EU’s response was, basically, if you don’t want the law enacted, use your power of veto, to stop it.
That put Cameron in a hole, because voting against a law that would enable governments to go after money hidden offshore, would confirm that he and the Tory party were supportive of tax avoidance. His own father did it.
Yes he wanted to keep votes from being lost to UKIP, but more than anything he offered the referendum in the hope it would be a victory for Leave, and helps to explain why he and his other “Remainer” MPs did such a **** job to counter the obvious lies put forward by Johnson and his cohort of ****s.

I will see if I can find a link to the original report, about Cameron’s attempt to dodge the law.

Oh, I have no doubt you are right Badge, I don't claim to have the definitive account of Cameron & Co.
It probably explains why he didn't want to enforce a threshold majority in the 2016 referendum.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Indeed. But the media is the ones that shape the narrative.

I have said it before, but Tony Blair’s election is everything you need to know about how much power the media has.

I think people need to be careful lobbing the whole of "the media" together like one amorphous blob. There's a massive difference between The Guardian, The Mail, The Times, Reuters, BBC, AP, Bloomberg etc etc etc etc. But it's very common to say "the media" or (more irritatingly) "the MSM" like it's all one big thing. It really isn't.

 

[StJabbo1]

I think people need to be careful lobbing the whole of "the media" together like one amorphous blob. There's a massive difference between The Guardian, The Mail, The Times, Reuters, BBC, AP, Bloomberg etc etc etc etc. But it's very common to say "the media" or (more irritatingly) "the MSM" like it's all one big thing. It really isn't.

Absolutely, I learnt on WEA courses many years ago to read a story from a number of sources verifying where possible. Much easier nowadays with so much information at our fingertips but so much of it fake.

 

[San Tejón]

Oh, I have no doubt you are right Badge, I don't claim to have the definitive account of Cameron & Co.
It probably explains why he didn't want to enforce a threshold majority in the 2016 referendum.

Found this piece from the Guardian, 2016, which shows Cameron trying to keep offshore trusts from scrutiny. I might have been thinking about this, but it shows that he was definitely concerned about the Anti Tax Avoidance law affecting anything his daddy had left him.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-201

 

[The 83rd Minute]

Found this piece from the Guardian, 2016, which shows Cameron trying to keep offshore trusts from scrutiny. I might have been thinking about this, but it shows that he was definitely concerned about the Anti Tax Avoidance law affecting anything his daddy had left him.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-201

Unbelievable innit?
Cameron, Rees-Mogg, Osborne, Johnson are all at it.
Come to think of it, I don't know of any good that Cameron done for the country during his premiership.

 

[StJabbo1]

Unbelievable innit?
Cameron, Rees-Mogg, Osborne, Johnson are all at it.
Come to think of it, I don't know of any good that Cameron done for the country during his premiership.

Hello, call me Dave, Dodgy Dave. Want anyfink? ***s, booze, nylons, something for the weekend?

 

[The Ides of March]

He wasn’t purged from the party like Clarke, Stewart, Grieve etc., and signed up to Johnson’s English Nationalist manifesto.

I was about to ask a stupid question unitl I applied a bit of thought to your statement.

 

[The Ides of March]

"It is a tragedy that Jeremy Corbyn probably peaked too early."

You really should be putting jokes in the off topic thread.

But the joke's now on Johnson!!!!

 

[Gregm1988]

But the joke's now on Johnson!!!!

How? He is still in power and could get away with it

 

[San Tejón]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Osvaldorama]

I think people need to be careful lobbing the whole of "the media" together like one amorphous blob. There's a massive difference between The Guardian, The Mail, The Times, Reuters, BBC, AP, Bloomberg etc etc etc etc. But it's very common to say "the media" or (more irritatingly) "the MSM" like it's all one big thing. It really isn't.

Oh, I totally agree. The problem is that there is a monopoly on the papers and media that matter.

The highest selling papers are owned by a very small amount of people, essentially a monopoly on information.

And they use this power to divide and conquer. They steal from the public and then get the public to blame each other.

The real battle isn’t a left v right battle, it’s a rich v poor battle… And the poor have very little chance to win thanks to the aforementioned media control.

It’s like the Brexit thing. The real ulterior motive for most of it was likely tax avoidance related.

Absolutely no one in power is fighting for the good of the people & society anymore.

The conservatives want to hoard wealth & avoid tax and the Labour Party want to debase the currency & give free money to everyone.

Meanwhile the country gets worst and worse as wages stagnate and infrastructure spending goes down.

 

[The Ides of March]

How? He is still in power and could get away with it

The Tories turned on Thatcher for less, so he will get his get his comeuppance eventually, and that will be immensely enjoyable when he and the smug Rees-Mogg are confined to the dustbins of history.