Also in the news

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

If that doesn't sum up this sorry mess then nothing will

It at least brings us closer to a conclusion though - don't really see the point in more indicative votes when we've already had twelve and even May now is probably going to go for a customs union on the back of Labour support.

[Guest MattP]

Last time we had a parliamentary tie was 1993.

 

Ironically on a bill relating to the Maastrict Treaty.

[MC Prussian]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

That last post was the clincher for me, who seriously complains that a news story is the product of "biased" media but equally seriously protests that they've not claimed the story has been "twisted" as though there's any difference beyond the semantics of which specific collection of words was used to convey the same meaning.  

That's not what I said, though. I was also on about the omission of information, but no word on that from you.

 

But carry on.

 

And if you think the media in general are unbiased and impartial, your choice. They're trying, but no trying hard enough. For various reasons.

[AKCJ]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Last time we had a parliamentary tie was 1993.

 

Ironically on a bill relating to the Maastrict Treaty.

According to the BBC that tie was later found to be an error and was corrected the next day.

[Carl the Llama]

Actually never mind it's not even worth continuing this particular conversation, it's just going to go in circles.  Feel free to delete this comment, mods.

Edited 3 April 2019 by Carl the Llama

[Wymsey]

17 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Actually never mind it's not even worth continuing this particular conversation, it's just going to go in circles.  Feel free to delete this comment, mods.

Imagine how Webbo feels reading this thread as a guest..

[AKCJ]

Quite funny to see Labour voters on Twitter and the UKPolitics subreddit only just realise that the Labour party said Brexit would result in the end of Freedom of Movement. Despite it being clearly written into their manifesto from the start.

 

So annoying when people don't actually read manifestos or listen to intended policies before voting. If there are policies that would render you unable to vote for a party then surely you need to ensure that the party you think you're going to vote for DOESN'T have those policies in their manifesto?

 

Surely?

[Foxxed]

4 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

That's part of the reason why he's got as far as he has already. People went on the attack early doors with him about really frivolous stuff and now the legitimate criticism just gets mixed in with all of that to the extent that a large proportion of people simply don't believe anything they read about him if it's negative.

Aye. And the more criticism he gets, the more entrenched his supporters will become.

 

You can see this behaviour in Trump supporters: they simply don't believe any criticism - they're sure the system is out to get him.

 

It's the story is the heroic little guy against the evil empire. And it will probably attract more supporters.

 

It's got so bad that when you criticise then you are part of the establishment, or conned by the establishment.

 

Like Trump, Farage and all the populists: Immune to criticism. The criticism may even increase their appeal.

 

Corbyn's polling isn't great. But I wonder if the sampling is incorrect. Are they sampling the kind of people who are attracted by the 'little guy against the evil empire' line?

 

The exit polls normally get this right. But not the smaller polling done in the run-up to elections. 

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Quite funny to see Labour voters on Twitter and the UKPolitics subreddit only just realise that the Labour party said Brexit would result in the end of Freedom of Movement. Despite it being clearly written into their manifesto from the start.

 

So annoying when people don't actually read manifestos or listen to intended policies before voting. If there are policies that would render you unable to vote for a party then surely you need to ensure that the party you think you're going to vote for DOESN'T have those policies in their manifesto?

 

Surely?

It's not just his naive Momentum students either, this is a journalist who writes for the Guardian and often appears on high profile TV shows to give her "expertise" on politics. 

 

It's almost like a lot of them were putting fingers in their ears and trying to convince themselves St Jeremy wasn't doing it.

 

Some of them still think he wants a second referendum despite whipping his MP's against it - beggers belief. 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Corbyn's polling isn't great.

I think thats an understatement

 

He comes behind "don't know" and May in Who would make the best PM polls with about 15-25%. Labour would be 30 points in front now if Blair was in charge pre-Iraq. 

 

How he is still there after the litany of antisemitism, terrorist sympathy, incompetence, idiocy and procrastination I don't know but he somehow could actually be running the country soon - we could have a PM our own troops shoot at in practice

[AKCJ]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's not just his naive Momentum students either, this is a journalist who writes for the Guardian and often appears on high profile TV shows to give her "expertise" on politics. 

 

It's almost like a lot of them were putting fingers in their ears and trying to convince themselves St Jeremy wasn't doing it.

 

Some of them still think he wants a second referendum despite whipping his MP's against it - beggers belief. 

Unbelievable isn't it? 

[AKCJ]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

I think thats an understatement

 

He comes behind "don't know" and May in Who would make the best PM polls with about 15-25%. Labour would be 30 points in front now if Blair was in charge pre-Iraq. 

 

How he is still there after the litany of antisemitism, terrorist sympathy, incompetence, idiocy and procrastination I don't know but he somehow could actually be running the country soon - we could have a PM our own troops shoot at in practice

Labour and Conservative both need to get rid. 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Labour and Conservative both need to get rid. 

I agree - both could do with being shutdown and restarted. 

 

Most people I know now vote for either of them because they hate the other and don't want them in power - terrible place for our democracy to be in.

[Foxxed]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think thats an understatement

 

He comes behind "don't know" and May in Who would make the best PM polls with about 15-25%. Labour would be 30 points in front now if Blair was in charge pre-Iraq. 

 

How he is still there after the litany of antisemitism, terrorist sympathy, incompetence, idiocy and procrastination I don't know but he somehow could actually be running the country soon - we could have a PM our own troops shoot at in practice

Your last paragraph is pretty much the kind of thing that makes him look like the heroic little guy who's been slurred by the media. I'm not disagreeing with you since my research is limited. And I'm in no way a fan of Corbyn. But I wouldn't be surprised if this litany of criticism is seen as a litany of abuse against an underdog and backfire when the voters come to cast their votes.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Your last paragraph is pretty much the kind of thing that makes him look like the heroic little guy who's been slurred by the media. I'm not disagreeing with you since my research is limited. And I'm in no way a fan of Corbyn. But I wouldn't be surprised if this litany of criticism is seen as a litany of abuse against an underdog and backfire when the voters come to cast their votes.

Well if people do vote for him because the media report on him laying wreaths at antisemitic terrorists etc then that's upto them. It is outrageous though a man who invited IRA members into the commons weeks after they had murdered members of parliament now leads a major party.

 

Imagine Michael Gove inviting a member of Britain First in after the murder of Jo Cox? He would quite rightly be completely ostracised in the same way Corbyn was back then.

 

I do agree though a lot of the stuff the media did has played into his hands. The stuff attacking his dress sense and way he sang the national anthem was pathetic and has allowed his supporters to create a siege mentality to some of the completely immoral actions he has undertaken. 

[AKCJ]

11 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Your last paragraph is pretty much the kind of thing that makes him look like the heroic little guy who's been slurred by the media. I'm not disagreeing with you since my research is limited. And I'm in no way a fan of Corbyn. But I wouldn't be surprised if this litany of criticism is seen as a litany of abuse against an underdog and backfire when the voters come to cast their votes.

Matt isn't a Corbynite  He means what he says there.

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

There are lots of jobs that have pressure and many many more jobs that have more boredom.

 

There is no excuse for the racist, sexist, homophobic etc... jokes and attitudes which are awkwardly present in the armed forces. "because men" is no excuse, in fact it is both sexist and the cause of the problem. 

There are no excuses for what these guys have done and I expect that they will be punished severely given ithe detrimental effect it will have on the Army's reputation.  That said, given the Army recruit from society, the issues you raise are no more prevalent in it than out, but the difference is the Army have a disciplinary regime in place to deal with this sort of behaviour.  

 

On the the video itself, I believe that it will be related to the Soldier F prosecution seeing as they are Paras.  I would suggest that Corbyn's image is being used due to his perceived support of the IRA during the troubles.

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Matt isn't a Corbynite  He means what he says there.

I'm not, but I'm delighted he is the leader at this point in time - as recent votes show, Brexit was finished if he wasn't. 

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Somebody should do a TV series on Brexit - it has it all.

 

 

 

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

There are no excuses for what these guys have done and I expect that they will be punished severely given ithe detrimental effect it will have on the Army's reputation.  That said, given the Army recruit from society, the issues you raise are no more prevalent in it than out, but the difference is the Army have a disciplinary regime in place to deal with this sort of behaviour.  

 

On the the video itself, I believe that it will be related to the Soldier F prosecution seeing as they are Paras.  I would suggest that Corbyn's image is being used due to his perceived support of the IRA during the troubles.

3

 

Is that true, though? I'm guessing that the Army recruits from a particular section of society, which would mean that percentage wise the issues are more concentrated in the Army.

[Foxxed]

24 minutes ago, MattP said:

Well if people do vote for him because the media report on him laying wreaths at antisemitic terrorists etc then that's upto them. It is outrageous though a man who invited IRA members into the commons weeks after they had murdered members of parliament now leads a major party.

 

Imagine Michael Gove inviting a member of Britain First in after the murder of Jo Cox? He would quite rightly be completely ostracised in the same way Corbyn was back then.

 

I do agree though a lot of the stuff the media did has played into his hands. The stuff attacking his dress sense and way he sang the national anthem was pathetic and has allowed his supporters to create a siege mentality to some of the completely immoral actions he has undertaken. 

From a completely disinterested point of view, I'm looking forward to seeing if Corbyn defies the polling gloom. He polled poorly before the last election except in the more accurate exit polls.

 

If he can tap into the "I'm the underdog who's being slurred by the establishment and who's fighting the establishment for people like you" he could shake the system up, and for better or worse, a lot of people would like the sound of that, and vote for it too.

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Actually never mind it's not even worth continuing this particular conversation, it's just going to go in circles.  Feel free to delete this comment, mods.

It's ok, I feel the same way.

 

Probably need to stay absent from the internet for a while for my own sanity. The amount of information you can gather on subjects outside of the legacy media can be overwhelming at times.

So glad I'm not on Twitter.

Edited 3 April 2019 by MC Prussian

[Salisbury Fox]

19 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Is that true, though? I'm guessing that the Army recruits from a particular section of society, which would mean that percentage wise the issues are more concentrated in the Army.

From my experience we recruit from all sections of society, although I would accept that the Infantry tend to be from what I would deem the poorer areas, well the Other Ranks certainly.  Other cap badges though are more representative.  We do have a shortage of BAME recruits like many of the other emergency services, but it is not through a lack of effort to resolve this.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Salisbury Fox said:

From my experience we recruit from all sections of society, although I would accept that the Infantry tend to be from what I would deem the poorer areas, well the Other Ranks certainly.  Other cap badges though are more representative.  We do have a shortage of BAME recruits like many of the other emergency services, but it is not through a lack of effort to resolve this.

 

Thanks.

 

So, if we accept that the Army isn't representative of wider society's demographics, we can also assume these issues may be more prevalent in the Army then. Is that not a reasonable assessment?

[Salisbury Fox]

21 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Thanks.

 

So, if we accept that the Army isn't representative of wider society's demographics, we can also assume these issues may be more prevalent in the Army then. Is that not a reasonable assessment?

I believe that the Army as a whole is representative of wider society's demographics but could perhaps accept that the Infantry isn't.  Most other trade groups within the Army are from all walks of life. I disagree that the Army has anymore of a problem than most other large organisations but accept that incidents like this one can make it seem like that is the case.