UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
and their (West Germany's) economic miracle too don't forget
Without the Euro and the Southern European states, Germany would suffer the same fate as any successful exporting country - rising currency values.
They sounded very amenable to the idea yesterday.
Will wrote: "As to your great question, I have answered it. Let me answer it again. If we trigger article 50 and we don't get what we want in the negotiations, we are royally stuffed. We will have thrown away a highly advantageous trade agreement that we have built up over 43 years for a vague hope that we might be able to negotiate something better on the outside. ..."no you haven't answered the question
The question is, what is the point of a second referendum which is taken after we trigger article 50. Because by the time the negotiations have taken place we will be outside the EU and the vote is irrelevant because by definition the EU is bound in any way to take any sort of notice of it whatsoever
Will wrote: " The need to give the unemployed of southern Europe a chance to find a job. . ..."how on earth with a second referendum in the UK get the EU to reform or even scrap the euro?
Another sad victim of the right wing media and their anti-Eu biashttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2...
Jim - you're jumping to conclusions. Who said the second referendum had to happen after we trigger article 50? Why not before? Why not before and after?
As it stands, we have a narrow referendum decision which we have all now accepted was based on dodgy campaigning. If we were sold a car on that basis (or anything else) we would reject it. The public (or at the very least Parliament) needs to get a chance to choose which of the many Brexits the UK will take into the negotiations. We also need to check that we do want to leave, now that we are learning more about just how dodgy the campaigning was.
We can (and should) do that before triggering article 50. We gain nothing by triggering article 50 while the country is so divided because as you rightly say we can't undo it once we have started. Why rush? Or is the idea to rush into article 50 so there isn't a chance for the truth to come out and we're committed to leaving? Is that the plan?
What we are now seeing is the bizarre sight of a Prime Minister rejecting things because she personally doesn't like them. She rejected the points based immigration system because of her experience as Home Secretary. Today she is making up policy on the hoof about grammar schools. Earlier in the week she was correcting David Davis about access to the single market.
It's all very odd. We don't seem to have Government by cabinet or consultation or manifesto any more. It now seems to be what Theresa May wants.
If this was a democratic process, we would have either another referendum or a vote in Parliament about the UK's position before signing article 50. It shouldn't be something that Mrs May makes up over her cornflakes.
I guess you could say it's all about taking control.
Jim wrote: "Another sad victim of the right wing media and their anti-Eu biashttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2..."
What's your problem with this? It's a good article, which incidentally reports a sensible question being raised by Jeremy Corbyn.
One of the fundamental points about the EU is that it bans states from giving "State Aid" to companies. All companies should compete on a level playing field, which means that states shouldn't give unfair subsidies to companies in their territories. It's the basis of the EU's challenge to Ireland's tax breaks to Apple.
Corbyn's point is that states should be able to subsidise companies. If a company is about to go bust and sack its workers, the state should step in and help.
It's an interesting debating point which is far from clear cut. Free-marketeers believe in banning state aid. Socialists generally agree with Corbyn that states can and should help to prop up local employers. I am not quite sure where I stand on that. I can see both sides.
The article describes Corbyn's view and also describes the opposing views. It gives equal space to both. That's good balanced journalism from the Guardian.
By contrast, this is how the Telegraph reported the same story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/...
Spot the difference? The Telegraph article doesn't describe Corbyn's views dispassionately. Instead it focuses on a split with John McDonnell and the "fury" of moderate Labour MPs. Where the Guardian gives equal treatment to both points of view, the Telegraph article is attacking Jeremy Corbyn. From the headline on, it is all about knocking Corbyn and not allowing a sensible debate.
I tend to read between 3 and 5 newspapers a day (print and online) and I will from time to time dip into the red tops. I find it's the only way to get a balanced view of the world. And it is very clear that there is a pattern emerging where the Telegraph and Mail are very heavily slanted towards EU cynicism. If that was all that someone read, then it's easy to see how they are being misled.
Great example. Keep 'em coming.
message 4511:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Sep 08, 2016 01:07AM)
(new)
We don't need another referendum, Will, no matter how much you go on about one. That ship sailed over 2 months ago. Stop harking on the past and let's get on with the future. It was a democratic vote, and you not agreeing with it doesn't make it any less democratic.There is no point in another vote before triggering Article 50. There is no further information available now than there was then, except that the sky hasn't fallen in as the Remain campaign predicted.
It is now beginning to become apparent that all the doom mongering that the Remain campaign tried to push down our throats about the end of the world if we voted leave, was just that. More people would vote leave now, as they realise that the Remain campaigners cannot be trusted any more than they could before the referendum.
Furthermore, another referendum before Article 50 would cover the same ground as no negotiations have been started. A referendum after negotiations have been completed would be pointless too, as the negotiations would be complete and we would have already handed over the keys to our EU membership.
All a referendum would do is waste public money, and we'd all be paying for it.
Will wrote: "Jim - you're jumping to conclusions. Who said the second referendum had to happen after we trigger article 50? Why not before? Why not before and after?
..."
I was presuming based on comments which may not have been yours.
Basically the argument was we had the second referendum when we see what deal we are offered.
But the EU commission has said there will be no negotiation until after we trigger article 50
Therefore we cannot no what deal we are offered until we've triggered article 50 and the EU negotiates with us
By which time it's a waste of time having a second referendum because whatever we vote, we're out of the EU
What doom mongering?The predictions made by the Remain campaign were based on Article 50 being activated immediately, which is what David Cameron had said would happen if the referendum went that way.
And as we all know, that hasn't happened yet... but several of the Leave campaign's predictions have occurred.
Will wrote: "I tend to read between 3 and 5 newspapers a day (print and online) and I will from time to time dip into the red tops. I find it's the only way to get a balanced view of the world. And it is very clear that there is a pattern emerging where the Telegraph and Mail are very heavily slanted towards EU cynicism...."All that you've said is that you disagree with some media outlets and agree with others.
It is just as legitimate to say that other papers are very heavily slanted towards an enthusiastic acceptance of the EU
So, what's going on with this gerrymandering, er, I mean, boundary changes in England and Wales? Surely the Conservatives won't put party before country and subvert democracy?
well I looked at the Cumbrian changes and they seem entirely sensible. All the populations have increased but instead to them being from between 59,000 and 70,000 they're now between 72,000 and 76,000given the nature of geography etc they've probably balanced them up as well as could be expected
You can only call it gerrymandering, Rumph, if it is done for political advantage. This is done by an independent organisation, the Boundary Commission.
I'm not convinced with our boundary changes though.
Some areas are difficult. For example Lancaster and Morecambe, They've ended up taking the university off Lancaster and moving it into an adjacent constituency because otherwise Lancaster would be far too big, or Morecambe would extend round Lancaster so far as to almost swallow it
Is it purely by population?
Abbot V Thornberry V Corbyn for the red republic of Islington & Hackney ought to make for a great bun fight
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "Is it purely by population?"I think it's based on the electorate, by act of parliament it was the number who registered for the 2015 general election
Marc wrote: "Abbot V Thornberry V Corbyn for the red republic of Islington & Hackney ought to make for a great bun fight"we could sell tickets :-)
That would have to be billed as a heavyweight contest plus Corbyn.
I think people are forgetting one very important point: Number of unelected peers goes up.
Number of elected MPs goes down...
I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions from that...
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "You can only call it gerrymandering, Rumph, if it is done for political advantage. This is done by an independent organisation, the Boundary Commission."Independent? Please, tell me you're not that naive! :)
Jim wrote: "well I looked at the Cumbrian changes and they seem entirely sensible. All the populations have increased but instead to them being from between 59,000 and 70,000 they're now between 72,000 and 76,..."I'm surprised you never got lumped in with the Scottish borders!
R.M.F wrote: "Independent? Please, tell me you're not that naive! :) "So, what makes you think otherwise?
We can read the boundary changes one of three ways.The Tories have felt for a long time that the current boundaries do them no favours. The world has changed since the boundaries were last set with some areas growing and others declining. As a result, the current boundaries are apparently good for Labour and UKIP.
Labour, on the other hand, are happy with the boundaries as they currently are, because the changes would give the Tories a boost.
The Electoral Commission have ignored all that and proposed new boundaries which reduce the number of MPs and make each parliamentary constituency contain approximately the same number of people.
I'm a bit meh about the whole thing. I reckon we should have one set of rules - say that boundaries will be reviewed and reset every so many years. Then we should take the politics out of it and hand the job entirely to the electoral commission.
Right now both Conservatives and Labour arguing for whichever option gives them the most votes. That shouldn't be how we decide things.
The proposed changes seem broadly sensible. I'd go with them, but want to see a fixed review period. If we go with the electoral commission's recommendations now we should so in the future, whichever party that helps.
R.M.F wrote: "I'm surprised you never got lumped in with the Scottish borders!.."given that the two borders constituencies are big for Scottish constituencies, they'd about fit with Cumbria, so it would shift Cumbria from five seats to seven
Will wrote: "The proposed changes seem broadly sensible. I'd go with them, but want to see a fixed review period. If we go with the electoral commission's recommendations now we should so in the future, whichever party that helps. ..."The rate of population movement does seem to change, but having a review at fifteen year intervals would make sense. This change was supposed to happen in the last parliament but the Libdems and Labour blocked it and of course populations have shifted even more since then
But yes, we need it doing regularly, why on earth should some seats have more voters than others?
Yes I agree each constituency should have a similar number of voters otherwise we aren't represented equally. Local councillors deal with regional issues so Parliament should be fair.
It's wrong to attribute the Brexit result to the right-wing print media that supported it. Whisper it however so quietly, but the owner of 'The Daily Mail' supported Remain. However, 'The Daily Mail' reflected its readership rather than its owner's preference. Rupert "I'm for Brexit because when I say 'Jump' in Downing Street, the Prime Minister answers 'How high?' whilst if I say 'Jump' in Brussels the Eurocrats answer 'Rupert Who?'" Murdoch threw his weight behind Brexit, but 'The Times' came out with Corbyn-like enthusiasm for Remain. The newspapers rely on 'Confirmation Bias' for reader loyalty.
The Times has actually been pretty balanced in its coverage. Although it's overall stance was Remain, it was also prepared to show both sides of the story. It did some pro-Leave stories and most of its articles were reasonably balanced "on the one hand, on the other hand" type of stories.Similarly with the Guardian. Its recommendation was Remain but it published opposing views too.
The Independent online was pretty good at showing both sides of the story.
The right wing media, especially the Telegraph and Mail, have been far more biased. They hardly ever (if ever) published a point of view which was counter to their editorial stance and their language and presentation has been emotional bordering on hysterical.
I'm afraid this is another of those instances where it is tempting to say that "both sides were as bad as each other", but when you look at the evidence it really wasn't so. The trashy newspapers print what their readers want to read. The more intelligent newspapers give a more balanced and reasoned view of the world.
"... give a more balanced and reasoned view of the world."Which is what their readers want!
I confess I struggle to get my head round the reasons that people voted Leave. Reason doesn't usually seem to be in evidence. The right wing newspaper coverage reflects this.
I rest my case, m'lud ...
Newspapers...You've gotta admit that the Mail has the prettiest, most user friendly website of them all.
It's no wonder it's so popular.
Are there any completely independent newspapers in the UK?
David wrote: ""I confess I struggle to get my head round the reasons that people voted Leave. Reason doesn't usually seem to be in evidence. The right wing newspaper coverage reflects this...."
you overlook the fact that in the north a majority of labour voters appear to have voted leave.
And Corbyn himself spent time frantically deleting anti-EU blog posts when he became leader of the labour party. I hardly think he's a major reader of the right wing press
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Are there any completely independent newspapers in the UK? "If by independent you mean lack all bias, the answer is no. Even the BBC has an institutional drift in certain directions on certain issues.
People voted leave for many different reasons. The genius of the leave campaign was to make their promises so vague and so wide that they attracted people who wouldn't normally vote the same way on anything.They appealed to right wing voters with talk of "taking back control" and the notorious £350 million a week figure.
They appealed to mainly older voters with anti-immigration talk, and by not slapping down the worst excesses of Farage.
They appealed to left wing voters by talking up EU bureaucracy and by turning the issue into a vote against the establishment.
All helped by silly stories in the trashy press like the EU banning bananas, an EU army, Turkey joining the EU, unelected organisation, etc.
We didn't get an effective counter from the Remain campaign. The Treasury report into the cost of Brexit ought to have blown the £350 million figure clear out of the water, but few people read it.
Farage was allowed to carry on spreading his poison.
Corbyn went AWOL - in part because he isn't a natural communicator and partly because he torn about the EU.
Cameron and Osborne ran a campaign that was too polite and too honest. They were worried about the long-term credibility and cohesion of the Tory party and so didn't resort to the Leave campaign's post Truth tactics.
And we don't have a counter to the trashy press. There is no response to silly stories like bananas, armies and Turkey other than to point out - repeatedly - that they simply aren't true. But by then the damage was done.
The BBC was, if anything, too neutral. They had to give equal weight to both campaigns which meant that Remain's large evidence base was given the same coverage as Leave's very small evidence base.
So sure, the right wing press didn't influence Corbyn or all of the natural left-leaning voters. But there were enough vague promises in there to appeal to people from a broad spectrum.
I am truly amazed at how you understand the motivations of people you have never met and don't understandI am awed by your perception
Or are you just parroting what the pro-remain media have been telling you to say?
I am truly amazed that you know who I have met and who or what I understand.We are all allowed our opinions. You state yours, I state mine. That's how it goes. Sarcasm usually doesn't help.
You ought to know by now that I read newspapers across the political spectrum and I never ever parrot what I have read. I take it all with a pinch of salt and make my own mind up.
But I'm intrigued. Exactly what do you think the "pro-remain media" is? The Times? The BBC? What?
Brexiteers tend to get all huffy when the psephological truths (they are generally older (and by implication, more prejudiced), less well educated (and by implication, more stupid), and less likely to be working (either retired or unemployed, and thus relying on the efforts of those of us still in work to generate a surplus and taxes to allow them to draw their pensions and/or benefits; spongers, perhaps?)) are laid before them."None of that applies to me."
Well, good on you.
When you start to study history the first thing you realise is that all sources are biased. It's inevitable. Restricting ourselves to the media we could see how during the referendum campaign various media outlets actually supported the opposing campaign to their owners and instead supported the campaign that their readers supported.But to expect any media outlet to be unbiased is nonsense. At the very least you can start looking at the named writers they recruit. These can be used as a 'sentinel' (in the epidemiological sense) and will give you a quick and dirty way of testing the bias within that outlet.
Indeed when you look at people who read newspapers, almost inevitably you find that those media outlets that they regard as 'less biased' or even 'honest' are merely those which pander to their own preconceptions.
But strangely enough it's been my experience that people I speak to tend to do just what you do, take what they read with a pinch of salt (like you they disregard the experts, a phenomena you should surely welcome) and make their own minds up.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Newspapers...You've gotta admit that the Mail has the prettiest, most user friendly website of them all.
It's no wonder it's so popular."
That and showing scantily clad girls, yes that's girls rather than women...
All sources are biased? Maybe, but some are more biased than others. That much is obvious. We do need to get away from this argument that both sides were as bad as each other. It really doesn't wash.The Times and the BBC in particular ran articles which were both pro and anti for both remain and leave. Even the Guardian, which was pro Remain in its editorial stance, was not afraid to publish a story arguing for Leave.
By contrast the red tops and the Telegraph hardly ever ran a pro Remain article.
Take a look at the political headlines in Today's guardian. We have one article from Geoffrey Wheatcroft arguing that: "These boundary changes aren’t gerrymandering. They redress imbalance". And right alongside it we have an article by Tristram Hunt with the counter view: "This boundary gerrymandering is grotesque. What’s next, abolish Labour seats?"
That's good journalism. It presents both sides of an argument and helps the reader to choose. It educates and provokes debate. It doesn't just tell you what have already decided that you want to hear. It is most certainly not about pandering to one point of view over another. It is about presenting all points of view.
Disregard experts? No, no, a thousand times no! An expert is someone who has ... ahem ... expertise. They generally know what they are talking about. I am sure that you have expertise in your own fields - surely you expect people to recognise and respect that expertise?
By all means question what experts tell us. They don't always get it right. But they are far more likely to get it right than someone with no expertise.
I have a different experience to you. You say that the people you speak to all operate in much the same way and that they disregard experts. I meet some people like that. I also meet some people who respect experts without slavishly believing everything they say. Maybe you're meeting a rather select and unrepresentative group of people?
But I really would like to know - which bits of the media do you think were "pro remain"? I saw some who came out in their editorials to recommend Remain, but I did not see anything like the antics of the pro-Leave media with their scare stories about bananas and EU armies.
Human nature dictates that people have prejudices and therefore aim their information gathering accordingly, to believe otherwise is naive.Even when one is reading all the papers across the political and moral spectrum we are still filtering out the things that do not agree with our preconceptions.
Those same preconceptions, based on life experience, can be equally, if not more valid than what is read. However, those same prejudices can be manipulated, as evinced by many political belief systems.
both sides in the referendum campaign were as equally bad but in different ways. The campaign was there for the taking by remain. They blew it. What points they chose to put forward were ridiculous and increasingly shrill instead of remaining calm and rational and sticking to their arguments. instead they bullied and hectored about pensions, about people's trips abroad and any manner of threats. And so they lost it because the other side, empty of fact as it was, exploited those tactics to their own advantage. Dismissed expert opinion. Offered it as a good opportunity to give the establishment a kicking and that establishment included Brussels bureaucrats. As a remain voter I was disgusted with the craven nature of the campaign my side ran.
Marc wrote: "both sides in the referendum campaign were as equally bad but in different ways. The campaign was there for the taking by remain. They blew it. What points they chose to put forward were ridiculous..."one of the best summations of the situation. The remain campaign never offered anything positive for people to get hold of. They never tried to 'sell the European dream' or hold out a positive future. It might be that those leading the remain campaign were so out of touch with the electorate they didn't feel that the electorate could grasp the european dream, or that it wasn't for the likes of the proles, but instead all we got was shrill negativity
Marc - good points. I would agree that the Remain lobby ran a pretty weak campaign for what should have been a pretty straight-forward decision.But they were in a very difficult place because they couldn't follow the Leave campaign into the post-truth tactics of making stuff up. That was the more responsible position than making promises that couldn't be kept. It may seem craven and dull, but the alternative was worse.
It's also very hard to argue for the status quo. Change often sounds more exciting because it can offer something new. I've even heard people running the ridiculous argument that "we've tried the EU and it hasn't work so let's try being outside the EU. It can't be any worse." That doesn't work as a logical argument because there is no guarantee that change is necessarily better, but it's a tempting thought.
In an ideal world, Corbyn would have done more. The Advertising Standards Agency and Electoral Commission would have been allowed to take action against the dishonest claims. Osborne might not have panicked with his threat of an emergency budget. The press might have reported both sides of the argument and not just the one that they thought their readership wanted to hear.
But we didn't get it. Now we need to make the best of the mess we find ourselves in. The Government are putting a brave face on it but behind closed doors they are struggling.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
To hell it is :)"
actually "emotional and vanity-ridden guff" probably sums up most politics
Let's ..."
Worked for Tony Blair. Seems to work for Nicholas Soames.