• Punshhh
    899
    but in part it reflects a public view on the EU rules.
    I just wanted to pick up on these two points. The "public view" on EU rules has been primed by the tabloid press and figures like Boris Johnson spreading spurious claims about EU rules. Most if not all of it is wrong, or inaccurate.

    The anti-EU view is a legitimate one
    Of course there is such a thing as anti-EU sentiment. But the only legitimate one I can identify is the one of political independence and Sovereignty. Although most of the rhetoric I hear on this point is spurious, which is due to a misunderstanding of how the EU works and what we are doing in cooperating in such a Union.
    Again this has been primed by the tabloids and anti EU politicians spreading spurious claims.

    This is evident in the fact that if one looks at the comment on the EU and our involvement in it in the media, it has for a number of years been entirely negative, i.e. Pointing out things about our membership which are not in our interest, while at no point mentioning what is in our interest.

    If this is not a bias in the media, then where is the comment in favour of both our involvement and our future in the EU?
  • Tim3003
    144
    I was blaming the idea of leaving the EU on the Tory party. On the assumption that UKIP was a Tory party phenomenon, part of the split in the party.Punshhh

    That's what I find hard to accept. The right of the Tory party reflects a public view. Its Mps don't exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of us.

    What added fuel to the fire was Blair's decision to allow unfettered access for east European citizens in 2004.Punshhh

    I'm not sure what it was that Blair allowed then... And why didn't the Tories un-allow it from 2010? Thereafter is when the immigration issue really blossomed.

    The "public view" on EU rules has been primed by the tabloid press and figures like Boris Johnson spreading spurious claims about EU rules. Most if not all of it is wrong, or inaccurate.Punshhh

    I agree that most of the media is appalling. However, their aim is to sell copy, and their usual tactic is, just like the populists, to whip up fear. It's not surprising they've jumped on the opportunity Brexit offers to do that. If you're read The Guardian or the 'I' you'll know there are moderate voices, it's just that they can get drowned out in the ranting - which is why its propogators do it..

    Still, fishermen could surely be said to have genuine grievances, so could those opposed to free movement. And even those who object to the EU directives - usually trivial though they are.
  • Punshhh
    899
    That's what I find hard to accept. The right of the Tory party reflects a public view. Its Mps don't exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of us.
    Yes I don't deny that they did reflect a public view. But the public was from my experience quite isolated from the general public politically. It was mainly well off Tory supporters in Tory heartlands. Anyway going back to the hard right, I heard it from the horses mouth at the time. My ex partners father was the political editor of The Times during the 1980's, the time I am referring to and was present in the political establishment throughout the period. Anti EU rhetoric spread slowly through the party base, I was persuaded to an extent at the time. But decided a few years later that the fears were largely unfounded and the benefits of EU membership outweigh the issues they were concerned about. Well apart from those who were convinced that the Germans where planning to create a European superstate which they would control. If you subscribed to that view, there was no way back.

    I'm not sure what it was that Blair allowed then... And why didn't the Tories un-allow it from 2010? Thereafter is when the immigration issue really blossomed.

    In 2004 the other countries already in the EU put working and residency restrictions on immigrants from the east European states when they joined. The UK didn't, they could have done, but Blair didn't think many would come and thought it would be beneficial.
  • Punshhh
    899
    There will be a leaders debate tonight at 8.00pm on ITV. Between Johnson and Corbyn. It will be broadcast widely on news channels if you're not in the UK.
  • Punshhh
    899
    Highlights of the leaders debate, its difficult to be impartial due to the depth of the political division. Audience and initial public reaction is split, meaning that their opinions can't be taken as impartial.

    For me the stand out points come down to the compulsive lying, the failure to answer questions and sound plausible by Johnson and the inability of Corbyn to address Brexit other than his fixed party line. Both were hamstrung by their party lines, Johnson "get Brexit done", Corbyn " I'll negotiate a sensible deal and offer it back to the people in a referendum".

    Johnson's weakness, is he only has one policy, one slogan, one goal, get it done. Corbyn's weakness is he has to straddle a split party so has to try to appeal to both sides and not to alienate one, or the other.

    Johnson is a one trick pony, a pony, who is untrustworthy, divisive and doesn't care for the real issues in the country.

    Corbyn is balancing on a fence and finding himself a socialist up against four decades of anti socialist sentiment, drip fed by the press and pretty much endemic in public perception at this time. While having an extensive and progressive socialist plan to restore the social and economic health of the country, which is desperately wanted by a portion of the population and dismissed as Marxist by another portion.

    Johnson's policy other than "just get it done", is more of the same deregulated capitalism, failure to address the disintegrating public services. More stripping of workers rights. And the prospect of a rip roaring capitalist trade deal with Trump selling out the NHS and access to a deregulated marketplace, a race to the bottom.

    The sensible choice for me is a no brainer, it is depressing how many people are caught up in prejudice and deceit and can't think clearly about what is important for the country.
  • Punshhh
    899
    James OBrian on LBC has just made an interesting observation. In reference to the fraudulent change of the name and title of the Conservative press twitter account, yesterday during the debate lastnight.
    The title was changed to FactcheckerUK aping genuine fact checker organisations, which have become important in UK politics, due to so much disinformation and untruths. This is a big story this morning.

    What James is saying is that in the Tory spin press office during the debate, while in the knowledge that the headlines in the dominant right wing press would slam Corbyn in the morning. Decided to create this fraudulent fact checker because they were worried about Corbyn's attack on what a Johnson government would do to sell out the NHS. Why are they so scarred? That they would pull that stunt.

    Maybe it's because the younger generations have been signing up to vote in large numbers since the vote was called and we all know what they think of the Tory's.
  • Punshhh
    899
    Thanks for that, there is so much going on now, I can't write it all here. The first time I saw this false poll was on BBC in the follow up coverage. Looks like the gremlins in the BBC are spreading fake news again.


    Update,
    The i newspaper is saying that the poll wasn't held before the debate, but immediately after and that the time referenced on the webpage had not been updated. Also they say the claim went viral amongst Corbyn supporters. I'm not sure what to think on that one. YouGov who ran the pole is run by Nadim Zahawi, a Conservative cabinet minister, so the result is dubious anyway.
  • unenlightened
    4k
    "YouGov confirmed to i that the page was uploaded as a placeholder, originally without the data or the headline, but that it was updated when the data came in after the debate. That means when the headline was updated, the time stamp was not, giving the post the appearance of being pre-planned."
    https://inews.co.uk/news/itv-debate-poll-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-opinion-shared-before-false-1310553

    unenlightened confirmed today that he doesn't think much of yougov anyway, and you can't trust anyone, especially unenlightened.
  • Punshhh
    899
    I have seen a few other polls on the debate, Corbyn is well ahead in all of them. I don't have time now to link them.

    Anyway Dominic Raab the Tory Secretary of State said "no one gives a toss about social media" on BBC breakfast this morning. So it doesn't matter anyway.
  • unenlightened
    4k
    It was the best of Doms, it was the worst of Doms. — Charley Dickeds
  • Tim3003
    144
    For me the stand out points come down to the compulsive lying, the failure to answer questions and sound plausible by Johnson and the inability of Corbyn to address Brexit other than his fixed party line. Both were hamstrung by their party lines, Johnson "get Brexit done", Corbyn " I'll negotiate a sensible deal and offer it back to the people in a referendum".Punshhh

    I think they stuck to their lines deliberately. They were given little time to answer questions and so chose to ram their core messages home. This was ITV, don't forget. I watched the whole thing and I don't think I learned anything of policy.

    I don't think Corbyn can survive the Johnson attack which should have been: 'He wants to lead the country, yet after 3 years of Brexit debate he must be the only person in the country without a view! He's not a Remainer, not a Leaver, indeed he can't even decide that he's an Undecided! How can he negotiate a new withdrawal treaty with the EU when he has no view if what he's suggesting is a good or a bad idea?'
  • Punshhh
    899
    Yes, I agree about sticking to party lines. I mentioned it because the media focussed on it as being boring and not broadening the debate and were spinning lines that they were unfit to be prime minister because of it. Which I didn't agree with, I realised that they were aiming at a small audience of undecided, or poorly informed voters, so wanted to give them, their primary attack lines.

    I thought Corbyn's reluctance to commit to a view was Johnson's attack line, he didn't seem to have any others apart from a few mumbled references to " the highest corporation tax in Europe", or 1.2 trillion in spending under Corbyn. Both blatantly in accurate. When I realised that was his only attack line, I was surprised and relieved, because it is in fact irrelevant. As Rebecca Long Bailey pointed out on Newsnight after the debate. Their policy is that the people would decide in a referendum, and the party would decide democratically in conference when the referendum is called what the party line would be and frontline politicians wouldn't be whipped on it. That It is sensible for Corbyn not to express a view going into a renegotiation with the EU, as it was a matter of negotiation.

    I don't know why the right wing rags were banging on about it yesterday morning. Do they really not have anything else to attack Corbyn with?
  • Tim3003
    144
    I don't know why the right wing rags were banging on about it yesterday morning. Do they really not have anything else to attack Corbyn with?Punshhh

    The Labour manifesto comes out shortly. I forecast they'll go into orbit re the spending plans. It'll be Gordon Brown all over again. This will be an open goal for the Tories who can say they are spending on what the public wants, but responsibly. Personally I don't believe the UK public will trust the huge socialist spending sums can be repaid. The one thing above all which was clear from the debate is that neither leader has any public trust. It's a great opportunity for the Lib Dems, if they can get some air time..
  • Punshhh
    899
    Interesting that the conversation has moved on from Brexit...


    The problem with the view that a labour government would bankrupt the country which is the usual slur. Is that most people don't remember what happened in the 1950's and 1970's. The older predominantly Tory supporting part of the population, who were there at the time, are falling in number due to demographic forces.

    Whereas on the other side of the debate, the string of failing, or profiteering private provision of essential services over the last 30 years spells out that privatisation is not all it's cracked up to be either. I think I only need to mention two names to illustrate this point, for now. Jarvis and Carillion.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.