Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Pretty sure editors don't structure a running order based upon the positivity or negativity of a story.

Pretty sure negative headlines sell better than positive ones.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Pretty sure negative headlines sell better than positive ones.

So they have a negativity bias? Come on. Take your tinfoil hat off Izzy

[Izzy]

7 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

So they have a negativity bias? Come on. Take your tinfoil hat off Izzy

Doesn't all news media have a negativity bias?

 

Since when did 'good news' sell?

 

"If it bleeds, it leads"

Edited 22 February 2018 by Izzy Muzzett

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

So they have a negativity bias? Come on. Take your tinfoil hat off Izzy

Perhaps this is me being overly cynical...but I do think that most media outlets concerned with the bottom line do know that fear and negativity do tend to sell better than most feel good stories, so they do tend to angle more towards them, IMO.

 

Think how many copies the Daily Mail shifts on a day when they're branding someone "enemies of the people", for instance.

 

 

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps this is me being overly cynical...but I do think that most media outlets concerned with the bottom line do know that fear and negativity do tend to sell better than most feel good stories, so they do tend to angle more towards them, IMO.

 

Think how many copies the Daily Mail shifts on a day when they're branding someone "enemies of the people", for instance.

 

 

Never! 

[Guest]

 

3 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Doesn't all news media have a negativity bias?

 

Since when did 'good news' sell?

You were suggesting that leading with negativity is a choice. It's news. Stuff that's new or is happening now or recently. 

 

Perceived importance/relevance  is the choice. Not the inherent positivity or negativity in a story.

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm one of several posters who has previously pointed out that the European Commission does not "impose" legislation/regulations. It proposes and implements them, but policy decisions and legislation are introduced by the European Council (heads of state & government of nation states), Council of Ministers (national ministers) & the directly-elected European Parliament. Some of these decisions require unanimity, some a qualified majority. Major changes are approved by EU Treaties, from which opt-outs can sometimes be negotiated: e.g. the Tory opt-out from the Social Chapter on employment/social rights, subsequently reversed by Labour.

 

I appreciate that you seem to have a closed mind and zero interest in challenging your own thinking, but for anyone else interested.... https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies_en

 

 

Again, I'm one of several posters who have previously pointed out that no reasonable Remainer believes that all Brexiteers are racist pensioners. I can only assume that you choose to ignore such comments, as you continue to peddle the same old misrepresentations. Of course, some Brexiteers are racist pensioners, just as some Remainers are naive virtue-signallers every bit as narrow-minded as some of the Brexiteers. But, for the umpteenth time, I don't assume that all or even a majority of Brexit voters are racists, so would appreciate it if you stopped your offensive misrepresentation of my views. The same applies to that vile, dishonest propaganda from the verminous Melanie Phillips, which you posted so approvingly.

 

 

Are those predictions so hysterical or unrealistic? The Tories previously opted out of the Social Chapter. May and Hammond (?) have made veiled threats about turning post-Brexit Britain into a new, low-tax Singapore (low tax = low social standards + low employment rights). Just a few days ago, May insinuated that the UK might even be less than fully cooperative on security. In the interests of austerity politics, the govt is currently destroying public services and the social fabric of the nation like a pack of rabid hyenas. If we negotiate a Hard Brexit, we will lose a proportion of by far our largest export market, so will be desperate for trade deals from the likes of Trump and China....just imagine the terms for those. All may turn out well, but @Donut's predictions are not "based on nothing" and seem anything but "hysterical and unrealistic" to me. 

 

So asking someone if he's "thick" and describing people as "a bunch of liars" is your idea of polite disagreement, is it? Not to mention the disgraceful abuse in Phillips' article?

 

Frankly, over the last few pages you have come across like an angry, dishonest, blinkered, narrow-minded old bigot. Are you having a stressful time after moving home or something? I know that we mainly disagree about politics but you're not usually quite this objectionable.

 

If you don't like your views being challenged, Webbo, maybe this thread isn't for you?  

You seem to be taking this very personally even though I wasn't replying to you. I'll try to reply to every point, I know people are very precious about that, but if I miss something you can highlight it and I'll have another go.

 

Quote

I'm one of several posters who has previously pointed out that the European Commission does not "impose" legislation/regulations. It proposes and implements them, but policy decisions and legislation are introduced by the European Council (heads of state & government of nation states), Council of Ministers (national ministers) & the directly-elected European Parliament. Some of these decisions require unanimity, some a qualified majority. Major changes are approved by EU Treaties, from which opt-outs can sometimes be negotiated: e.g. the Tory opt-out from the Social Chapter on employment/social rights, subsequently reversed by Labour.

If it's a qualified majority and we vote against it, is it imposed on us anyway? A few years ago the EU imposed a £2million maximum bonus for banker on us against our wishes. Irrelevant of whether you think it was justified or not, we didn't want it and seeing as we're the major financial services provider it disproportionately affected us.If the other countries of Europe wish to impose that on their businesses that's up to them, why did they have to interfere in our business?I notice that now France is trying to take some of our banking industry they want to get rid of this rule.

 

Quote

Again, I'm one of several posters who have previously pointed out that no reasonable Remainer believes that all Brexiteers are racist pensioners. I can only assume that you choose to ignore such comments, as you continue to peddle the same old misrepresentations. Of course, some Brexiteers are racist pensioners, just as some Remainers are naive virtue-signallers every bit as narrow-minded as some of the Brexiteers. But, for the umpteenth time, I don't assume that all or even a majority of Brexit voters are racists, so would appreciate it if you stopped your offensive misrepresentation of my views. The same applies to that vile, dishonest propaganda from the verminous Melanie Phillips, which you posted so approvingly.

Did I refer to you when I said that? You might not say that, there are plenty on here and elsewhere, that do. As for the Melanie Phillips Article, I posted it because Mac asked if someone would, I hadn't read it until then. I signed up to view 2 free articles from The Times a week which I don't use very often. The article itself rang true to me.

 

Quote

Are those predictions so hysterical or unrealistic? The Tories previously opted out of the Social Chapter. May and Hammond (?) have made veiled threats about turning post-Brexit Britain into a new, low-tax Singapore (low tax = low social standards + low employment rights). Just a few days ago, May insinuated that the UK might even be less than fully cooperative on security. In the interests of austerity politics, the govt is currently destroying public services and the social fabric of the nation like a pack of rabid hyenas. If we negotiate a Hard Brexit, we will lose a proportion of by far our largest export market, so will be desperate for trade deals from the likes of Trump and China....just imagine the terms for those. All may turn out well, but @Donut's predictions are not "based on nothing" and seem anything but "hysterical and unrealistic" to me. 

Yes, because any govt that took away holidays, holiday pay and maternity leave would never win another election. 

The EU are forever insinuating terrible things that'll happen to us (which nobody on the remain side ever finds offensive) It's all part of the negotiations. 

The public services are not being destroyed.

The rest is just refighting the referendum campaign and I can't bothered with that, there are hundreds of posts on here that explain my views.

Quote

 

So asking someone if he's "thick" and describing people as "a bunch of liars" is your idea of polite disagreement, is it? Not to mention the disgraceful abuse in Phillips' article?

 

Frankly, over the last few pages you have come across like an angry, dishonest, blinkered, narrow-minded old bigot. Are you having a stressful time after moving home or something? I know that we mainly disagree about politics but you're not usually quite this objectionable.

 

Fox ulike has invented opinions for me in the past that he's gone on the ridicule, he denied that the treasury issued the project fear assessment before the referendum, and he denied that anyone had ever called Brexiteers Nazis before calling Melanie Phillips a Nazi. If the cap fits  As for Donut, he replied to my polite post with this

Quote

"If youre seriously trying to say you voted brexit in the name of democracy so you could lose all your employment rights at work youre either lying, a boss looking forward to exploiting people for your own gain, or an absolute fool.

So he call me a liar and a fool(another word for thick) and yet I don't see you taking offence at that.

Quote

 

Frankly, over the last few pages you have come across like an angry, dishonest, blinkered, narrow-minded old bigot. Are you having a stressful time after moving home or something? I know that we mainly disagree about politics but you're not usually quite this objectionable.

 

If you don't like your views being challenged, Webbo, maybe this thread isn't for you?  

 

Stop shouting at me!

[Wymsey]

The number of benefits claimants has increased locally.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/business/leicestershire-dole-queues-getting-longer-1250068

[Fox Ulike]

29 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Heaven forbid the BBC (or anyone else for that matter) actually leads with the positive news first.

 

But then negative headlines get more attention and clicks I guess...

Yes fair doos there's probably some truth in that.

 

Found this - on the BBC website so it's probably FAKE 

 

 

The researchers present their experiment as solid evidence of a so called "negativity bias", psychologists' term for our collective hunger to hear, and remember bad news.

It isn't just schadenfreude, the theory goes, but that we've evolved to react quickly to potential threats. Bad news could be a signal that we need to change what we're doing to avoid danger.

As you'd expect from this theory, there's some evidence that people respond quicker to negative words. In lab experiments, flash the word “cancer”, “bomb” or “war” up at someone and they can hit a button in response quicker than if that word is “baby”, “smile” or “fun” (despite these pleasant words being slightly more common). We are also able to recognise negative words faster than positive words, and even tell that a word is going to be unpleasant before we can tell exactly what the word is going to be.

 

We tend to pay more attention to negative words in headlines (Getty Images)

 

So is our vigilance for threats the only way to explain our predilection for bad news? Perhaps not.

There's another interpretation that Trussler and Soroka put on their evidence: we pay attention to bad news, because on the whole, we think the world is rosier than it actually is. When it comes to our own lives, most of us believe we're better than average, and that, like the clichés, we expect things to be all right in the end. This pleasant view of the world makes bad news all the more surprising and salient. It is only against a light background that the dark spots are highlighted.

So our attraction to bad news may be more complex than just journalistic cynicism or a hunger springing from the darkness within.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Never! 

Treading the line between cynicism at the way the world is and optimism at the way it could be in the future ain't easy, you know? 

 

5 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

 

You were suggesting that leading with negativity is a choice. It's news. Stuff that's new or is happening now or recently. 

 

Perceived importance/relevance  is the choice. Not the inherent positivity or negativity in a story.

2

There's something in this, too. Of course the media exist to give the people what they want...and what they want seems to be a steady diet of fear and negativity.

 

....reckon that's a judgement on people in general?

[Webbo]

23 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I'm not being pedantic, I'm not pretending. I'm being factual. I think that's the bit you're struggling with.

 

Look. I'll only say this one more time because it's really not in dispute and I can't really say it any more simply. The EU doesn't impose laws.

 

The UK can't agree to a law in one legislative chamber (EU Parliament) and then seek to overturn that same law in a different legislative chamber (UK Parliament). That's clearly nonsense. And with every post that you seek to support this, you will just expose yourself to more and more ridicule.

 

Can I offer some advice? You don't know everything. If you make a mistake or post something that's wrong, just 'fess up about it. People will respect you for it.

 

 

Can we opt out of freedom of movement? Yes or no?

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Yes fair doos there's probably some truth in that.

 

Found this - on the BBC website so it's probably FAKE 

 

 

The researchers present their experiment as solid evidence of a so called "negativity bias", psychologists' term for our collective hunger to hear, and remember bad news.

It isn't just schadenfreude, the theory goes, but that we've evolved to react quickly to potential threats. Bad news could be a signal that we need to change what we're doing to avoid danger.

As you'd expect from this theory, there's some evidence that people respond quicker to negative words. In lab experiments, flash the word “cancer”, “bomb” or “war” up at someone and they can hit a button in response quicker than if that word is “baby”, “smile” or “fun” (despite these pleasant words being slightly more common). We are also able to recognise negative words faster than positive words, and even tell that a word is going to be unpleasant before we can tell exactly what the word is going to be.

 

We tend to pay more attention to negative words in headlines (Getty Images)

 

So is our vigilance for threats the only way to explain our predilection for bad news? Perhaps not.

There's another interpretation that Trussler and Soroka put on their evidence: we pay attention to bad news, because on the whole, we think the world is rosier than it actually is. When it comes to our own lives, most of us believe we're better than average, and that, like the clichés, we expect things to be all right in the end. This pleasant view of the world makes bad news all the more surprising and salient. It is only against a light background that the dark spots are highlighted.

So our attraction to bad news may be more complex than just journalistic cynicism or a hunger springing from the darkness within.

As humans we’re five times more likely to try and avoid danger (threat) than seek pleasure.

 

We’re pessimistic as a race and apparently optimism is learned skill.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You seem to be taking this very personally even though I wasn't replying to you. I'll try to reply to every point, I know people are very precious about that, but if I miss something you can highlight it and I'll have another go.

 

If it's a qualified majority and we vote against it, is it imposed on us anyway? A few years ago the EU imposed a £2million maximum bonus for banker on us against our wishes. Irrelevant of whether you think it was justified or not, we didn't want it and seeing as we're the major financial services provider it disproportionately affected us.If the other countries of Europe wish to impose that on their businesses that's up to them, why did they have to interfere in our business?I notice that now France is trying to take some of our banking industry they want to get rid of this rule.

 

Did I refer to you when I said that? You might not say that, there are plenty on here and elsewhere, that do. As for the Melanie Phillips Article, I posted it because Mac asked if someone would, I hadn't read it until then. I signed up to view 2 free articles from The Times a week which I don't use very often. The article itself rang true to me.

 

1

That'll teach me for setting things off. 

 

But, in all seriousness, you're ok with views on Brexit being lumped in with climate change denial and intelligent design? As I said, it seems to do it something of a disservice - at least Brexit has something of expert opinion in its favour, and hasn't been pretty much entirely dismissed (though not ostracised and ridiculed as Ms Philips says) by the community of which it is a part.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

That'll teach me for setting things off. 

 

But, in all seriousness, you're ok with views on Brexit being lumped in with climate change denial and intelligent design? As I said, it seems to do it something of a disservice - at least Brexit has something of expert opinion in its favour, and hasn't been pretty much entirely dismissed (though not ostracised and ridiculed as Ms Philips says) by the community of which it is a part.

My reading of the article is that there are academics who are frightened of speaking against the groupthink because it would be detrimental to their career and friendships. Melanie Phillips mentioned a secret meeting she went where some scientists discussed ID, none of them wanted their names to get out as they knew they'd be subject to ridicule if it got out, which I'm sure would have happened but seems to me to go against the spirit of what research is supposed to be about. If scientists will only say these things in private it's almost impossible for me to find documented proof that this has happened.

[Innovindil]

16 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

The number of benefits claimants has increased locally.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/business/leicestershire-dole-queues-getting-longer-1250068

Data collected by East Midlands Chamber in its quarterly economic survey for the last three months of 2017 showed that firms were having difficulty recruiting people with relevant skills at all levels.

Six-out-of-ten survey respondents said they had had tried to recruit, with 58% of them saying they had struggled to find suitable candidates.

 

Interesting tidbit of the article for me, I was under the impression that Leicester was mostly low-skilled jobs. Seems odd that so many would be unable to find suitable candidates. 

[Fox Ulike]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Can we opt out of freedom of movement? Yes or no?

 

Right. This is going to get complicated. EU Parliament yes. UK Parliament no.

 

It’s like, if you bought a hat from Primark, do you understand why you can’t take it back to Debenhams to get a refund?  Even if you’ve kept the receipt. They just won’t do it. They’re different shops.

 

 It doesn’t mean that Debenhams are imposing their laws on you.

[Innovindil]

Just now, Fox Ulike said:

 

Right. This is going to get complicated. EU Parliament yes. UK Parliament no.

 

It’s like, if you bought a hat from Primark, do you understand why you can’t take it back to Debenhams to get a refund?  Even if you’ve kept the receipt. They just won’t do it. They’re different shops.

 

 It doesn’t mean that Debenhams are imposing their laws on you.

So who do I vote for to get rid of freedom of movement? 

[Webbo]

Just now, Fox Ulike said:

 

Right. This is going to get complicated. EU Parliament yes. UK Parliament no.

 

It’s like, if you bought a hat from Primark, do you understand why you can’t take it back to Debenhams to get a refund?  Even if you’ve kept the receipt. They just won’t do it. They’re different shops.

 

 It doesn’t mean that Debenhams are imposing their laws on you.

The European Parliament can neither propose nor repeal laws. So how would our MEPs be able to vote us out of freedom of movement?

[Fox Ulike]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

So who do I vote for to get rid of freedom of movement? 

You vote for the Party who wants to leave the EU.

 

Does that make sense?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

My reading of the article is that there are academics who are frightened of speaking against the groupthink because it would be detrimental to their career and friendships. Melanie Phillips mentioned a secret meeting she went where some scientists discussed ID, none of them wanted their names to get out as they knew they'd be subject to ridicule if it got out, which I'm sure would have happened but seems to me to go against the spirit of what research is supposed to be about. If scientists will only say these things in private it's almost impossible for me to find documented proof that this has happened.

That's right - we only have her word to go on regarding this, and given her own beliefs she quite possibly has an axe to grind against the scientific community for challenging the orthodoxy that she believes in.

 

My own take - backed up by history - is that the scientific method and the community that apply it allows for changes against the consensus over time, and that's how theories change. If a theory is valid, it will be considered, if it isn't, it will be dismissed - there's no room for disparaging in the method itself.

[Fox Ulike]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The European Parliament can neither propose nor repeal laws. So how would our MEPs be able to vote us out of freedom of movement?

Any EU citizen can request that the European Commission initiate legislative proceedings.

 

What's stopping you?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

That's right - we only have her word to go on regarding this, and given her own beliefs she quite possibly has an axe to grind against the scientific community for challenging the orthodoxy that she believes in.

 

My own take - backed up by history - is that the scientific method and the community that apply it allows for changes against the consensus over time, and that's how theories change. If a theory is valid, it will be considered, if it isn't, it will be dismissed - there's no room for disparaging in the method itself.

Historically that may be the case. Science seems very politicised to me now.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

Any EU citizen can request that the European Commission initiate legislative proceedings.

 

What's stopping you?

Don't need to now. we're leaving.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Historically that may be the case. Science seems very politicised to me now.

There's always been a political element to it tbh - Darwin got dismissed by a great many folks when he floated his ideas in the Origin of Species for instance...but over time, the method, through observational evidence, proved his theory true and so the community accepted it.

 

If, somehow, ID or a refutation of human-caused climate change (or any climate change at all) were to supply similar evidence, the same would occur IMO.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm one of several posters who has previously pointed out that the European Commission does not "impose" legislation/regulations. It proposes and implements them, but policy decisions and legislation are introduced by the European Council (heads of state & government of nation states), Council of Ministers (national ministers) & the directly-elected European Parliament. Some of these decisions require unanimity, some a qualified majority. Major changes are approved by EU Treaties, from which opt-outs can sometimes be negotiated: e.g. the Tory opt-out from the Social Chapter on employment/social rights, subsequently reversed by Labour.

 

I appreciate that you seem to have a closed mind and zero interest in challenging your own thinking, but for anyone else interested.... https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies_en

 

 

 

Quote

 

Again, I'm one of several posters who have previously pointed out that no reasonable Remainer believes that all Brexiteers are racist pensioners. I can only assume that you choose to ignore such comments, as you continue to peddle the same old misrepresentations. Of course, some Brexiteers are racist pensioners, just as some Remainers are naive virtue-signallers every bit as narrow-minded as some of the Brexiteers. But, for the umpteenth time, I don't assume that all or even a majority of Brexit voters are racists, so would appreciate it if you stopped your offensive misrepresentation of my views. The same applies to that vile, dishonest propaganda from the verminous Melanie Phillips, which you posted so approvingly.

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

Are those predictions so hysterical or unrealistic? The Tories previously opted out of the Social Chapter. May and Hammond (?) have made veiled threats about turning post-Brexit Britain into a new, low-tax Singapore (low tax = low social standards + low employment rights). Just a few days ago, May insinuated that the UK might even be less than fully cooperative on security. In the interests of austerity politics, the govt is currently destroying public services and the social fabric of the nation like a pack of rabid hyenas. If we negotiate a Hard Brexit, we will lose a proportion of by far our largest export market, so will be desperate for trade deals from the likes of Trump and China....just imagine the terms for those. All may turn out well, but @Donut's predictions are not "based on nothing" and seem anything but "hysterical and unrealistic" to me. 

 

So asking someone if he's "thick" and describing people as "a bunch of liars" is your idea of polite disagreement, is it? Not to mention the disgraceful abuse in Phillips' article?

 

Frankly, over the last few pages you have come across like an angry, dishonest, blinkered, narrow-minded old bigot. Are you having a stressful time after moving home or something? I know that we mainly disagree about politics but you're not usually quite this objectionable.

 

 

 

 

Quote

If you don't like your views being challenged, Webbo, maybe this thread isn't for you?  

 

Edited 22 February 2018 by Rogstanley