Off Topic Politics Thread

They didn't invest in schools etc. We are paying for that now. £60bn of capital programmes (how much they cost to build) are going to cost us £200bn. We paid £10.3bn last year for PFI. All of those extras that Blair added are great but because of the cost of all that lot we are in a right mess now because while he/they did it (not just PFI) they were also changing the system to divert the funds up the tree. Give the people crumbs to distract them and they didn't see what was happening.

We are in "austerity" yet we are still borrowing more than we take in!!! interest debt is £48bn. We pay £6bn from our tax take and then have to borrow another £42bn to pay the rest. The whole world system is a joke at the minute and the public protecting "globalisation." Just a complete scam. How can anyone think Blair did good things? He gave you £1 and you felt so happy you didn't notice he was pushing £5 up the tree.

 

Major started PFI. Blair though it was a great idea and expoanded it massively. Major/Blair/Cameron - 3 peas in a pod.

 

No, Capitalism favours selling weapons to others in order to murder each other - in fact, more people have died in wars since World War 2 than during it, it's just that it occurs mostly in the third world, with British, French, German or American weapons and it's called big business.

 

By those who don't like the mail because of the constant "shock horror" posters on the internet continually sharing Mail articles they are annoyed with.

How many people go there because they want to read the Mail? Or is all of that traffic from incensed people who hate the mail? I'm sure Katie Hopkins would be drawing more than 4 people to her demo if the traffic was actually there because they agreed with her sentiment.

And visited website? How much traffic from the UK, seeing as they are the ones that "the press" influence regards Brexit is concerned.

EDIT:Blame the Mail fro Trump
Traffic 276.8m (no doubt that Oxford Professor could say the population of the UK was 276.8m)
34.23% US traffic (they are to blame for Trump, I was right)
34.03% UK traffic
3.45% Canada (They failed to keep Trudeau out)
3.15% Australia (They need no help picking right wingers)
1.3% South Africa

Average visit time 6 minute 9 seconds!!! How much of a paper can you read in 6 minutes?
Pages per visit 18?? 20 seconds per page....some absolute demon speed readers visit the Mail.

Bounce rate 44.76% This is very telling. IF as you assert people go there because they are positive about an article (i.e. BREXIT - BLASTED EU) they are more likely then to stay there and actually peruse other things.

So 44.76% of people who leave after the page tends to lead to the "irate with the article" people going there, getting incensed and leaving. (Very crude, of course some headbangers will also do the same.)

 

Yes, true.

 

Err you forgot the Russians.........They too have a big market for their weapons......!!

 

OK, New Labour had its less than savoury side to it but I cannot recall one positive since 2015 with the current lot, and anything good implemented during the Coalition 10/15 was largely obscured. More the pity that Harold Wilson lost the 1970 election as that set the nation back onto confrontational issues. Heath v The Miners. In Northern Ireland, Labour had the trust of the Nationalist population at the time, it was lost when the Conservatives militarised operations at the time.

 

That isn't true. My Brexit voting parents love the Mail and the Express. They won't be the only ones informed that way.

 

Fair enough. I will replace "nobody" with "nowhere near as many as the screen media dominance. Add to that the internet whose users are skewed to the left and younger.

So with social media, on the Brexit issue, there is much more anti on there than pro. And on TV it is constant "cliff edge", "crash out", Tory Rebels pointed at those who are actually wanting to comply with their manifesto, Tory moderates (The Soubry's who are actually the ones rebelling against their own manifesto.) etc.

They put Farage on because they think they are the beacon and attack him every time. And it quite often works. For the number of times he chuckles his way through his soudbites, chitty chatting as if "we're all good mates" there are twice as many when they get him angry and he loses his temper.

 

Agreed, it is a **** state, but that is a global issue.

The only way to solve it is by working together more closely, not in isolation. No single political party or Brexit can cure any of that.

The governments plan will be to let inflation erode away the debt over the long term, the same as a household mortgage.

 

Someone said earlier that there will be a compromise for it to go through. If it does, I agree there will be a compromise.

However, the thing that sticks in my mind is when I was talking to a Lawyer once about a mediation they attended for a will dispute. Both sides agreed on concessions, but were furious. All he said is that if either side is happy with the mediation, the other lawyer hasn't done his job properly.

 

Same here and I know of many more parents of friends like it

 

actually everyone tailors their social media so that they only receive what they like to read. I keep a couple of bellends on facebook to remind me that I'm right! (and you Imps!)

 

The press was completely managed by Campbell, and you may re-call that especially in Blair’s first term, there was often no-one from the Government to reply to questions on programmes like Newsnight (in those days a quality programme). You could say this was a clever strategy but it often felt like a world being gradually conned, if very subtly and so eventually it was. Iraq.

 

Maybe you are different. There is a lot more "anti" stuff shared by people of your own persuasion than "pro" stuff. So if you support Brexit there will be more "they are bad" stuff shared than "we are good" stuff. I mean that in terms of the press / media articles. Yes people aurrounding you are more likely to share your viewpoint because you set up your echo chamber. I am implying (for the Mail as an instance) that there are more shares from Mail haters preaching to other mail haters than there are Mail lovers preaching to other Mail lovers.

Just look at any left wing or right wing (into politics) twitter or facebook feed. Owen Jones shares more negative things than positive things for example........and by that he is sharing to his followers the bad stuff (from his viewpoint) to others that share his viewpoint. There are more "disagree" shares than "agree" shares.

Just on this board there are more "bloody newspapers" shares than there are "lovely article about Saints" shares. It is symptomatic of the internet echo chamber. Share what the "enemy is doing and then agree with each other it is bad. There is not a lot of selling positivity around. Hasn;t been for years. All about detailing how bad the other lot are, virtually no selling how good "we" are. "They are bad, no need to comment on us."

A big change from years ago. You aren't going to buy the mail to show your mates a bad article. You probably wouldn't have seen that bad article if it wasn't on the front page as you walked past a papershop. Even if you did see it your audience was your network of friends and that was it.

These days a "bad article" has a vast amount of views within minutes and mostly from the "offended" or "shocked" viewpoint than someone saying "I agree with this."

 

The media - in particular the Telegraph, The Mail, The Sun and The Express have been briefing against the E.U. for decades. A relentless drip drip drip of either deliberately misleading, or blatantly untrue stories have slowly poisoned the attitudes of vast numbers of people who, if you ask them, are seldom able to point to one single tangible (rather than nebulous) negative impact the E.U. has had on their lives.

Straight bananas anyone?

 

The con was that they managed to sell a pitch that they were giving working people something (minimum wage, tax credits, free childcare) when the reality was it was a short-term loss leader while they changed the system to let employers pay less. In the long term we gained nothing. Other than now the state pays a lot of what business used to pay. The state doesn't get employer/employee NI or tax from the tax credits they have substituted employer wages with.

 

Not straight bananas, just not "abnormal curviture." Nice "nebulus" slip in there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94

 

Boris Johnson completely fabricated the bent bananas story, as he fabricated many others, when a columnist for The Telegraph.

 

So the above wiki is all about something that did not exist at all? And was not repealed a few years ago? There most definitely was a regulation that defined "abnormal curviture" of bananas. The "myth" part was simply an insinuation that "bendy bananas were to be banned when the reality was that "extremely bendy" bananas was the truth.

Page 4 - — free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1994R2257:20060217:EN:PDF

If it were indeed Boris that highlighted the regulation he has just taken that and misrepresented it, or exaggerated it. The point was not about bananas though it was about ridiculous regulations. Who cares if a banana is "abnormally curved." Why did we need regulations on things like this? There is no need for regulations on the shape or appearance of fruit, veg. It was to point out that the EU makes regulations for the sake of making them.

Seems the in thing at the moment to not be silly and sell the "misformed" crops and not to waste things just because they aren't perfect. "wonky" veg is all the rage now. I sure don't go out into my garden and chuck half of my potatos because they have a nodule on them or carrots if they have 2 points etc, and when my banana tree stops stubbornly resisting producing an end product I won't be bothered if they come out like Cumberland Rings as long as they are tasty.

The main problem with the Brexit debate (and politics in general at the moment) is it there is no straight talking on either side with each taking any element to an extreme, out of context, finding offence or finding fault and resorting to contumely.