Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

Just now, leicsmac said:

 

I don't deny either of those arguments. It's an obligatory payment and some folks get annoyed at that.

 

My point is that bias is bias regardless of the way a media group is funded and though you can choose not to find ones you think are biased, they get funded anyway - and in the internet age it's reasonably possible to fund a "news" site with little to no voluntary contributions at all (just need ad revenue). So even if you don't fund them, the misinformation gets out there and has an effect on the political process and society in general - whether you choose to pay or not.

 

The market argument doesn't really apply here, not any more, IMO. The Beeb being voluntary paid isn't going to stop other networks spouting rubbish with not a lot of accountability.

So lets have a Fox news here so we can have both sides of the argument.

[lifted*fox]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

I don't deny either of those arguments. It's an obligatory payment and some folks get annoyed at that.

 

My point is that bias is bias regardless of the way a media group is funded and though you can choose not to find ones you think are biased, they get funded anyway - and in the internet age it's reasonably possible to fund a "news" site with little to no voluntary contributions at all (just need ad revenue). So even if you don't fund them, the misinformation gets out there and has an effect on the political process and society in general - whether you choose to pay or not.

 

The market argument doesn't really apply here, not any more, IMO. The Beeb being voluntary paid isn't going to stop other networks spouting rubbish with not a lot of accountability.

Yeah sorry dude, I wasn't arguing anything you'd said, I was just raging at what a joke the TV license fee is. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So lets have a Fox news here so we can have both sides of the argument.

By all means. Tbh I find most of this stuff totally subjective anyway so it should be examined from all angles.

 

(Apart from science/environmental matters. )

[lifted*fox]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What about the people on the fence who believed the big increase in unemployment or the recession in 2016 or the Jungle camp being moved to Kent?

 

I don't recall anyone particularly taking those fabricated stories particularly seriously. Not to say they didn't, maybe I just didn't hear about it. Having said that, nobody was driving about in massive ****ing busses / pointing to billboards with those lies on. 

 

Again, I don't disagree that both sides were full of shit but all of the tactics on the leave side were aimed at morons who weren't able to deduce information from anything other than big shouty busses. 

[ajthefox]

As someone who lurks a lot on this thread, I find it really baffling reading sometimes. 

 

I'm not as informed as some of you more regular posters but the benefit from my point of view is that I get a running debate. No source is ever going to be completely free of bias so I find that at least in here, I know quite well where most posters are coming from politically and interpret what is said with that in mind.

 

I do find nuggets of useful or at the very least, thought provoking information quite often, but it is scattered amongst a fair amount of dog-shit point scoring & dick swinging that is no better than 'the media' it so often decries. 

 

I am aware of how easy it is to sit back and judge but I would rather not post than make myself look like someone with no interest in learning and simply posting to push their own agenda.

 

I'm just saying I think this thread could be an awful lot better if there were a bit more objectivity about debate.

 

Yeah yeah it's a forum everyone's got an opinion, everyone is bias, it gets heated sometimes and I'm a just snowflake jabba jabba jabba.

 

*puts on tin hat*

Edited 20 September 2017 by ajthefox

[The Floyd]

34 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

There's a lot of people out there who aren't able to make well-informed decisions unless they are spoon fed shouty slogans and big pictures. I'd imagine there was a significant portion of the population sat on the fence who then saw that and thought 'yeah, too right, why pay the EU 350m a ****ing week when we can put it in the NHS' or 'yeah, Farage is right - look at the queues of ****ing immigrants pouring in, they make my life worse!' and marched down to the polling station and made their vote because of those lies. In fact, since the occasion there's been plenty of people who've admitted as much. 

I think you're wildly wrong - the impact of the slogan and poster would have been minimal. A very limited amount of people may indeed have interpreted the poster and slogan as you suggest, but they would not have discovered their distaste for immigration at the introduction of that poster, nor, for the most part, would the proposal of extra money for NHS suddenly sway those who were undecided. 

 

I voted to remain but this nonsense argument is just repeated time after time to try and discredit the authenticity of the outcome.

[lifted*fox]

Yes, marketing doesn't influence anyone. That's why nobody really bothers with it. 

 

Said nobody, ever. 

[The Floyd]

4 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Yes, marketing doesn't influence anyone. That's why nobody really bothers with it. 

 

Said nobody, ever. 

Fantastically translated, well done.

[lifted*fox]

Just now, The Floyd said:

Fantastically translated, well done.

Thanks m8 x

[Strokes]

10 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

Yes, marketing doesn't influence anyone. That's why nobody really bothers with it. 

 

Said nobody, ever. 

If the remain side had played fairly from the off then it might not of been needed but they had more the funding and a head start because the government sent out leaflets before campaigning and it had its own bit of bullshit in it like this. 

• EU membership is essential to “controlling immigration and securing our borders” and keeping Britain safe from terrorists.

People do want to leave and did before the referendum, If the remain side had focussed on why we should remain instead of why we shouldn't leave, I think they would have won.

Edited 21 September 2017 by davieG
increased font of quote

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

So lets have a Fox news here so we can have both sides of the argument.

In the uk printed new is allowed to be biased - hence all newspapers being blatantly so.

All broadcast news has to be impartial. Its a legal requirement. Both the left and right acuse the BBC of bias in the opposite direction.  

The likes of Fox news would be unable to comply with this. 

[theessexfox]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lords-expenses-millions-despite-barely-speaking-parliament-peers-house-a7957541.html

 

"Peers who have barely spoken in the House of Lords for an entire year have claimed more than £7m in expenses and allowances, new research reveals.

Critics have condemned the “something-for-nothing culture” in the second chamber after analysis of official figures found that 115 peers – around one in seven – failed to speak at all in debates during the 2016-17 session, despite claiming more than £1.3m in attendance fees.

Analysis by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) found that nearly half of the 798 peers made 10 contributions or fewer in the same year, claiming £7.3m, while some £4m was pocketed by 277 members who spoke five times or fewer. 

 

The research prompted calls for a move away from “couch-potato peers” towards an elected upper House with a smaller number of salaried peers, instead of current rules where members do not receive a salary but can claim up to £300 for sitting days."

[David Guiza]

I studied Constitutional Law as a module at Uni and naturally covered the House of Lords, it was during the inception of the Supreme Court, and there was widespread talk about how the Lords would finally be revolutionised and here we are with little to no change.

 

Considering how wappy some get about the unconstitutional and anti-democratic EU the Lords gets a gentle ride. 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, David Guiza said:

I studied Constitutional Law as a module at Uni and naturally covered the House of Lords, it was during the inception of the Supreme Court, and there was widespread talk about how the Lords would finally be revolutionised and here we are with little to no change.

 

Considering how wappy some get about the unconstitutional and anti-democratic EU the Lords gets a gentle ride. 

You could also argue this point the other way around, it's bizarre how many remainers who are happy to see decision making taken away from the British government then complain about the influence of the HoL.

 

For what it's worth I think the Lords should be abolished, everything about it is wrong from having bishops in it affecting law to it being unelected.

[Guest MattP]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-budget/uk-posts-smallest-august-budget-deficit-in-10-years-sale-tax-revenues-strong-idUKKCN1BW11Q

 

 

Quote

 

Britain unexpectedly posted its smallest budget deficit for any August since 2007, helped by record sales tax revenues for the month in a boost for Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond.

The deficit in August stood at 5.7 billion pounds, down 18 percent compared with the same month last year, the Office for National Statistics said on Thursday, citing figures that exclude state-controlled banks.

The shortfall for August was smaller than all forecasts in a Reuters poll of economists that had pointed to a much larger deficit of 7.1 billion pounds.

August’s surprisingly strong performance followed an unexpected budget surplus in July, a boon for Hammond who is under pressure to relax his grip on spending when he announces budget plans in November.

 

Extremely good news for the country and the chancellor, whisper it quietly but the country is now just starting to head towards getting back into a half decent financial position.

Edited 21 September 2017 by MattP

[Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-budget/uk-posts-smallest-august-budget-deficit-in-10-years-sale-tax-revenues-strong-idUKKCN1BW11Q

 

 

Extremely good news for the country and the chancellor, whisper it quietly but the country is now just starting to head towards getting back into a half decent financial position.

 

It would also suggest that consumer spending is in fact holding up and you'd therefore expect GDP figures for Q3 to be alright. I suspect we'll still get the 'we haven't left yet' rhetoric from the remainders watching their predictions crumble further, or maybe something new like 'well interest rates will rise soon'.

 

Edit: thinking about it, it's all the more impressive because I imagine interest repayments have increased because of inflation too.

Edited 21 September 2017 by KingGTF

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

It would also suggest that consumer spending is in fact holding up and you'd therefore expect GDP figures for Q3 to be alright. I suspect we'll still get the 'we haven't left yet' rhetoric from the remainders watching their predictions crumble further, or maybe something new like 'well interest rates will rise soon'.

 

Edit: thinking about it, it's all the more impressive because I imagine interest repayments have increased because of inflation too.

Would interest rates rising really be such a bad thing? Surely that would encourage more investment and lending, which we could do with about now.

[Innovindil]

19 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Would interest rates rising really be such a bad thing? Surely that would encourage more investment and lending, which we could do with about now.

Rising a little would be great. Rising too much and you risk people being unable to afford their mortgages. Would personally prefer them to get to around 2-3% and stabilise. 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Rising a little would be great. Rising too much and you risk people being unable to afford their mortgages. Would personally prefer them to get to around 2-3% and stabilise. 

Yeah I'd prefer it not to rise until after the summer 2018, I'll be hopefully moved and sat on a fixed at low rates. 2-3% would be about right I think. 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

Someone I know at RBS told me they'd been told that interest rates are going to start rising quite sharply over the next 18 months.  It's going up to 0.5% in the next couple of weeks and by this time next year, they think it'll be up to around 2%.

[David Guiza]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

You could also argue this point the other way around, it's bizarre how many remainers who are happy to see decision making taken away from the British government then complain about the influence of the HoL.

 

For what it's worth I think the Lords should be abolished, everything about it is wrong from having bishops in it affecting law to it being unelected.

Absolutely. I believe I am correct in saying that the House of Lords is the only wholly unelected body in any major democracy in the world - yet faces little to no scrutiny outside of those who pay an interest. Ironically the likes of Norman Tebbit, Norman Lamont, Michael Howard and Nigel Lawson were spouting about the anti-democratic nature of the EU during the vote whilst sitting in the Lords.

 

Comparisons with the EU are fair, though something like 60%+ of people, post if/whenever Brexit is actually complete, will be subject to a Government whom they did not elect and face little to no legal scrutiny - which is arguably as or more anti rule of law than the EU was in the first place. Difficult to get a balance. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-budget/uk-posts-smallest-august-budget-deficit-in-10-years-sale-tax-revenues-strong-idUKKCN1BW11Q

 

 

Extremely good news for the country and the chancellor, whisper it quietly but the country is now just starting to head towards getting back into a half decent financial position.

 

2 hours ago, KingGTF said:

 

It would also suggest that consumer spending is in fact holding up and you'd therefore expect GDP figures for Q3 to be alright. I suspect we'll still get the 'we haven't left yet' rhetoric from the remainders watching their predictions crumble further, or maybe something new like 'well interest rates will rise soon'.

 

Edit: thinking about it, it's all the more impressive because I imagine interest repayments have increased because of inflation too.

Pwc have suggested that staycations have improved the outlook in these figures  because more people stayed at home with the pound being weaker. 

 

Oecd have downgraded expectations of growth for the uk down to 1% for next year and hsve us even below Italy. Still worst in the g7.

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

Would interest rates rising really be such a bad thing? Surely that would encourage more investment and lending, which we could do with about now.

Given the recent stories about personal debt being a huge worry for the economy then this doesn't sound great. 

[Guest]

The City of London’s most senior official has told the government it must move fast with its Brexit negotiations or risk an exodus of jobs and damage to the UK’s financial sector.

Before Theresa May’s much-anticipated Brexit speech in Florence on Friday, Catherine McGuinness said posturing over the so-called divorce bill was delaying negotiations over the much-needed transition deal that would prevent the financial sector facing a “cliff-edge” in March 2019, when the UK will leave the EU. A quick deal, she said, might be better than a perfect deal.

McGuinness, who chairs the policy and resources committee at the City of London Corporation – the local authority for the heart of the capital’s financial district – warned that this was a critical moment if major insurers, banks and fund managers were to avoid implementing their Brexit contingency plans.

She said: “We have to have progress … We’re talking about jobs and the economy and ordinary people.”

The corporation is keeping a tally of official announcements from City firms about their contingency arrangements. It currently puts 9,770 roles at risk, with Frankfurt receiving more business than any other EU financial centre.

Before the speech, it has been reported that the UK will offer €20bn to fill the hole in the budget of the remaining 27 members.

“They need to get on and agree, and in considering what they need to pay, to consider the fact that if you haggle out every last penny you might get the most perfect deal in the world but find you lose more because business has gone unnecessarily and your tax-take has gone down,” she said.

The prime minister’s speech has been billed as an attempt “to update on Brexit negotiations so far” and to “underline the government’s wish for a deep and special partnership with the European Union once the UK leaves the EU”.

City firms have been instructed by the Bank of England to plan for all eventualities, including a “hard Brexit” where the UK leaves the EU without any transition arrangement. The Bank had demanded details of their plans by 14 July and firms have begun to reveal how they intend to cope. For instance, Amsterdam has been picked for expansion by Royal Bank of Scotland, Dublin by Bank of America and Barclays, and Frankfurt by Morgan Stanley.

“This is a critical moment where transition needs to be agreed and if we don’t agree transition … people will have to start making arrangements, implementing the arrangements they have been making,” McGuinness said.

Without a transition deal, McGuinness said there would an “unravelling” of the City – which others have described as eco-system of financiers, lawyers and fund managers. But, she said, EU financial centres would not be overall beneficiaries, with New York and Singapore more likely to benefit from London’s loss of business.

McGuinness said the transitional deal must maintain the current trading relationship with the EU – a sentiment reflected by the chancellor, Philip Hammond, when he told a House of Lords committee this month that the transitional deal that the government was seeking would “look a lot like the status quo”. She said the City was seeking a bespoke deal once it left the EU, rather than copying other countries’ trading arrangements with the bloc.

McGuinness also called for clarity as soon as possible about the status of EU nationals living in the UK. Recent research by the City of Londonshows that capital’s finance and insurance sectors rely on foreign workers: while 78% of jobs are held by British workers, 13% are from the EU and 9% from elsewhere.

“The simple issue [is] people ought to feel welcome in their jobs and we need clarity as soon as we can,” she said, warning that financial firms had told her EU nationals were hesitating in applying for jobs, while those here might be “feeling unwanted and unwelcomed”.

There was a need to spell out the status of people living here, she said, because “it’s just not fair”.

[theessexfox]

Farage's LBC show on legalising drugs - interesting discussion I thought. 

[Guest]

Almost 10,000 EU health workers have quit NHS since Brexit vote

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/21/almost-10000-eu-health-workers-have-quit-the-nhs-since-brexit-vote?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard