Off Topic Politics Thread

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Le Tissier's Laces said:
I really wish people (of whichever persuasion politically) would stop doing this. You can't discount the reporting because you don't like the publication. You should only discount it if it's wrong.
Click to expand...
You would have a point - if this was reporting. But it isn’t. It’s an opinion piece.

If it were reporting we could judge it on whether the facts are accurate and not worry about who published it.

In an opinion piece the publications editorial stance (right leaning with a focus on “anti woke” and libertarianism) becomes very relevant. Because it is using selected examples and loaded language to create and argument - one that will be influence by the bias / editorial stance.

My response came from the eye rolls I get from anything that leads from the “anti woke” perspective. Not least because I was partially pulled into that sphere for a while and took longer than I’d like to spot what was going on. And then of course having a right leaning bias with a libertarian (so inherently anti institution) message means that I am hardly going to consider it to have a fair and reasonable view of what it at least supposed to be a centre left government (or at least one that is left of the Tories that are used as the comparison piece)
 
Le Tissier's Laces said:
I really wish people (of whichever persuasion politically) would stop doing this. You can't discount the reporting because you don't like the publication. You should only discount it if it's wrong.
Click to expand...
I've said this many times on here but you are banging your head against the brick wall of bigotry. When you have disagreed with my posts in the past LTL, it's fair to say it's always about the issues raised. And even if you are invariably wrong you are at least being sincere about it. <ok>

The spiked article is of course an opinion piece such as you would also get in the Guardian for example (although I've never seen anyone on here criticise a Guardian article for being an opinion piece). But I wonder which points it raises that Gregg thinks are inaccurate. The truth is, opinion pieces are welcome on here as long as they are the right opinions, or in this case left opinions.
Gregg may think he's being objective but he's acting no differently to many others on here who, because they have no plausible answer, take the easy route out by trying to discredit the source.
 
Gregm1988 said:
You would have a point - if this was reporting. But it isn’t. It’s an opinion piece.

If it were reporting we could judge it on whether the facts are accurate and not worry about who published it.

In an opinion piece the publications editorial stance (right leaning with a focus on “anti woke” and libertarianism) becomes very relevant. Because it is using selected examples and loaded language to create and argument - one that will be influence by the bias / editorial stance.

My response came from the eye rolls I get from anything that leads from the “anti woke” perspective. Not least because I was partially pulled into that sphere for a while and took longer than I’d like to spot what was going on. And then of course having a right leaning bias with a libertarian (so inherently anti institution) message means that I am hardly going to consider it to have a fair and reasonable view of what it at least supposed to be a centre left government (or at least one that is left of the Tories that are used as the comparison piece)
Click to expand...

It's an opinion piece, sure. But I'm fairly confident people are bright enough to be able to separate the opinion of the writer from the examples which are raised? That's the discussion point that IOAG was raising. Not "do you think x writer's opinion is correct", but "is Starmer or Labour as bad as Boris". For me, the answer to that is no, but the points in the article correctly show that their hands are hardly clean either, regardless of where that article was published.

My frustration comes from when people will refuse to read an opposing view to theirs "because it's from Spiked" or something (not saying you didn't read it, but it came across as that). I read a Brendan O'Neil post from there the other day that IOAG posted, thought it was riddled with nonsense, and made that point. But to not read an article because of its location* means everyone gets entrenched in their own views and we end up where we are today and with an inability to argue coherently.



*Unless it's Melanie Phillips. She's an idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
Another arson attempt on a synagogue, there's been loads recently.

Feels like we're gonna have a big attack again like Manchester soon.
 
Who said this:-
“We welcome migrants, we don’t scapegoat them. Low wages, poor housing, poor public services, are not the fault of people who come here: they’re political failure. So we have to make the case for the benefits of migration; for the benefits of free movement.
I want people in this country to be able to go and work abroad, in Europe; and I want people in Europe to be able to come and work here. I want families to be able to live together – whether that’s in Europe, or here.”
 
StJabbo1 said:
Who said this:-
“We welcome migrants, we don’t scapegoat them. Low wages, poor housing, poor public services, are not the fault of people who come here: they’re political failure. So we have to make the case for the benefits of migration; for the benefits of free movement.
I want people in this country to be able to go and work abroad, in Europe; and I want people in Europe to be able to come and work here. I want families to be able to live together – whether that’s in Europe, or here.”
Click to expand...

Starmer in 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StJabbo1
John Crace giving Starmer both barrels. I'm at a loss to understand how Mandelson's history didn't preclude him from being considered let alone be appointed. Worth noting it was the Guardian that first broke the story.
www.theguardian.com

Starmer the Incurious asks no questions and sees no Mandy-shaped red flags

Appointing an amoral narcissist was the PM’s biggest crime, but he was keen to prosecute others in his Commons statement
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
StJabbo1 said:
John Crace giving Starmer both barrels. I'm at a loss to understand how Mandelson's history didn't preclude him from being considered let alone be appointed. Worth noting it was the Guardian that first broke the story.
www.theguardian.com

Starmer the Incurious asks no questions and sees no Mandy-shaped red flags

Appointing an amoral narcissist was the PM’s biggest crime, but he was keen to prosecute others in his Commons statement
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...


Appointing an amoral narcissist to a senior role in the foreign office has certainly backfired. But to be fair, appointing an amoral narcissist as senior Trump Whisperer looked inspired at the time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OddRiverOakWizards and StJabbo1
Archers Road said:
Appointing an amoral narcissist to a senior role in the foreign office has certainly backfired. But to be fair, appointing an amoral narcissist as senior Trump Whisperer looked inspired at the time.
Click to expand...
Olly Robbins giving his side of the story to the foreign affairs committee. Its live on parliament TV. Hope he doesn't make a boob on the beeb. https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8bb998a7-ca51-48d5-98f8-35bdf68dd800
tomw24 said:
Robbins is throwing Starmer under the bus. I can't see how Starmer survives this.
Click to expand...
We'll see what happens when the dust settles, a leadership contest and new PM is the last thing needed with all the **** that's hitting the fan worldwide. There's a touch of teflon about SKS and, as Archie says and many commentators at the time thought, appointing an amoral narcissist as senior Trump Whisperer looked inspired. No doubt he'll survive after Tom has him seen off, classic Tomming.
 
Archers Road said:
Appointing an amoral narcissist to a senior role in the foreign office has certainly backfired. But to be fair, appointing an amoral narcissist as senior Trump Whisperer looked inspired at the time.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that Mandy would have been ideal for the job, it's the Epstein baggage that wrecked the appointment. Robbins appears to be passing the buck to the Foreign Office?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back