• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

parklane1 said:
Of course there was a angle by some just like there was agendas by some who wanted to remain. However it was NOT the majority ( as some have suggested) and ( imo) its foolish to think that, because if that is the reason they think Brexit happened we will never learn.
Click to expand...

Whether it was or was not the majority is unknown (and rightly so - the most important thing in voting is the choice for anonymity.)
But the arguments from all sides are clearly so nuanced that a 50/50 split on a top line statement was stupid and easily to manipulate.

I went a study of the media coverage of the referendum last year and the results in the print media were very biased towards leave. It is very conceivable that the UK print media (especially the Murdoch publications who we know are anti EU pro Westminster because they know they can control Westminster) influenced a 2.1 percentage point swing.

This, and the campaigns, did the electorate a huge disservice.
That said, the information is available for people to seek out - but too many choose to believe the media and politicians and ignore their actual intentions.
The assumptions being;
Print media = news. Just because it's called a newspaper doesn't make it news.
Politician = policy makers in national interest. Human nature sadly means this is rare.

The whole debate was horribly highjacked and the whole shaping now is almost impossible to reach consensus on - no matter what it's lose/lose.

Yes I still believe leave voters were idiots for voting leave. But any remain voters still acting the martyr are just as bad.

We all have to take responsibility for our society and we all accept the state of UK politics and media.

The result is crap, but we have to stand up to anyone trying to highjack it for anything less than the best possible outcome for the UK. And studies such as "half of X now believe Y" followed a few weeks later by "half of Your now believe Z" isn't helpful.
That said, what other way is there for a public voice?

My argument before the referendum was it was lose/lose because UK politics wasn't ready for it.
 
monkeybarry said:
Whether it was or was not the majority is unknown (and rightly so - the most important thing in voting is the choice for anonymity.)
But the arguments from all sides are clearly so nuanced that a 50/50 split on a top line statement was stupid and easily to manipulate.

I went a study of the media coverage of the referendum last year and the results in the print media were very biased towards leave. It is very conceivable that the UK print media (especially the Murdoch publications who we know are anti EU pro Westminster because they know they can control Westminster) influenced a 2.1 percentage point swing.

This, and the campaigns, did the electorate a huge disservice.
That said, the information is available for people to seek out - but too many choose to believe the media and politicians and ignore their actual intentions.
The assumptions being;
Print media = news. Just because it's called a newspaper doesn't make it news.
Politician = policy makers in national interest. Human nature sadly means this is rare.

The whole debate was horribly highjacked and the whole shaping now is almost impossible to reach consensus on - no matter what it's lose/lose.

Yes I still believe leave voters were idiots for voting leave. But any remain voters still acting the martyr are just as bad.

We all have to take responsibility for our society and we all accept the state of UK politics and media.

The result is crap, but we have to stand up to anyone trying to highjack it for anything less than the best possible outcome for the UK. And studies such as "half of X now believe Y" followed a few weeks later by "half of Your now believe Z" isn't helpful.
That said, what other way is there for a public voice?

My argument before the referendum was it was lose/lose because UK politics wasn't ready for it.
Click to expand...

I can agree with some of that especially the bolded bit, i have always said there are far too many people who believe what they read in the press. However that worked both ways and did/could have influenced both sides of the vote, some papers were making a big thing about immigration but there were just as many papers that were saying all the doom and gloom scenarios about how we were doomed if we voted out.

However i still believe the majority ( of both sides) had enough intelligence to make their own minds up about the decision and voted accordingly. Without being influenced by flimflam storys printed in the papers who all had their own agenda.
 
StephenH said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-reason-european-union-survey-a7811651.html
Click to expand...
I was invited to take part in that survey and the article doesn't do a very good job of conveying how the results were achieved.

The question they're referring to asked you to pick up to three issues that you were most concerned about for the UK.

There were about 10 options from memory ranging from the economy as a whole to taxation, employment and immigration (no details, just "immigration"). You had to choose your three greatest concerns, without ranking or qualifying. Seeing as lots of the issues were items like the environment and transport, I'd say they were creating a high likelihood of people choosing immigration.

I don't give a fudge about immigration but it was 5th on my list just because I give even less of a fudge about the other options.
 
milo said:
This is worth five minutes of your time

https://twitter.com/x/status/893723466763042817
Click to expand...
The worst thing about the election is that it cemented May in her seat despite doing so badly.

Because the media picked up this ridiculous "Corbyn won" theme and ran with it (despite him doing no better than the widely ridiculed Gordon Brown), there's absolutely no chance of the Conservatives getting rid of her.

So as long as the Irish tossers behave, we'll be stuck with her for another few years yet. Had she slightly increased her majority - enough to make the party safe but little enough to be a failure - we might have a better PM by now.
 
scaramanga said:
The worst thing about the election is that it cemented May in her seat despite doing so badly.

Because the media picked up this ridiculous "Corbyn won" theme and ran with it (despite him doing no better than the widely ridiculed Gordon Brown), there's absolutely no chance of the Conservatives getting rid of her.

So as long as the Irish tossers behave, we'll be stuck with her for another few years yet. Had she slightly increased her majority - enough to make the party safe but little enough to be a failure - we might have a better PM by now.
Click to expand...

I think that the Tories would have got rid of her after the election if there was a credible alternative and if there was any chance of a successful Brexit.
 
milo said:
I think that the Tories would have got rid of her after the election if there was a credible alternative and if there was any chance of a successful Brexit.
Click to expand...
The only current alternative is an MSP and would need a by-election to stand!
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
The was a council byelection near me and the results were very systemic. This is really worth a read in what is a tory strong hold. I would put good money on Labour winning the next election. http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1545..._party_target__considerable_number_of_seats_/
Click to expand...

The Margate council by-election this week with Labour taking a seat off UKIP with a massive swing was interesting too. But it is dangerous to read too much into council results, if they always followed through to general elections the Tories would have a massive majority right now and the LibDems would have twice as many MPs.
 
milo said:
And isn't interested. She wants to kill of the SNP and Scottish independence.
Click to expand...
In her position I'd be saying the same.

Anyone sensible will wait until after the negotiations have developed a lot more before jumping in.
 
scaramanga said:
In her position I'd be saying the same.

Anyone sensible will wait until after the negotiations have developed a lot more before jumping in.
Click to expand...

She's young enough that she can leave it for ten or twenty years.

The only candidate I think has an interest in an early leadership challenge is Davies. He will be too old and his reputation trashed if it is left too long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back