RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:All this is doing is reminding me why I think debates are a bloody waste of time.

They strike me as especially pointless for this vote - why have several televised public debates for the candidates in a vote that most of the public are not eligible for?! What purpose do they serve?

Puja

They give more airtime to the Tory party.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
7 to 8, and whilst I started early with an interest in politics it hadn't kicked in quite that early. Maradona's handball was of much more importance to me back then, so too having to kiss a girl called Sally as part of a dare to secure the return of a stone stolen from my garden, not a valuable stone in a monetary sense, it was merely a very big stone and accordingly of some value to a group of 6-7 year olds

Snowballs to Absinthe is quite a leap

I've been reminded I was drinking snowballs at Sally's 18th birthday party, sadly by then Sally and I were only friends, and she may even reject that observation.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:
They strike me as especially pointless for this vote - why have several televised public debates for the candidates in a vote that most of the public are not eligible for?! What purpose do they serve?

Puja

They give more airtime to the Tory party.

do you think the Beeb is pro tory?

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
They give more airtime to the Tory party.

do you think the Beeb is pro tory?

In general, no. In terms of political and economic reporting, yes.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Snowballs to Absinthe is quite a leap

I've been reminded I was drinking snowballs at Sally's 18th birthday party, sadly by then Sally and I were only friends, and she may even reject that observation.

she can wait

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: do you think the Beeb is pro tory?

In general, no. In terms of political and economic reporting, yes.

You must be joking.

Sandydragon wrote:I grant you that they aren’t socialists, but neither are they supportive of the Tory party. The BBC would present itself as apolitical but the reality is that the staff are mostly in the political centre, with perhaps a slightly left leaning.

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I grant you that they aren’t socialists, but neither are they supportive of the Tory party. The BBC would present itself as apolitical but the reality is that the staff are mostly in the political centre, with perhaps a slightly left leaning.

I find that if you ask a Labour supporter, they'll say the BBC is Tory-biased, and if you ask a Conservative, they'll say it's Labour-biased. Probably a good guide that it's somewhere near the middle.

Puja

Sandydragon wrote:I grant you that they aren’t socialists, but neither are they supportive of the Tory party. The BBC would present itself as apolitical but the reality is that the staff are mostly in the political centre, with perhaps a slightly left leaning.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I grant you that they aren’t socialists, but neither are they supportive of the Tory party. The BBC would present itself as apolitical but the reality is that the staff are mostly in the political centre, with perhaps a slightly left leaning.

I find that if you ask a Labour supporter, they'll say the BBC is Tory-biased, and if you ask a Conservative, they'll say it's Labour-biased. Probably a good guide that it's somewhere near the middle.

Puja

Yup. Isn't the problem that they're becoming more and more like every other bit of clickbait media where they'll happily spread the nonsense of Farage, Tommy Robinson (etc.) because it gets people going, but seem to have no interest in opposing views if they aren't particularly outrageous? It just seems there a lot more of these nutters on the right. All the talk about impartiality and giving everyone a platform is incredibly disingenuous.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:
I find that if you ask a Labour supporter, they'll say the BBC is Tory-biased, and if you ask a Conservative, they'll say it's Labour-biased. Probably a good guide that it's somewhere near the middle.

Puja

Yup. Isn't the problem that they're becoming more and more like every other bit of clickbait media where they'll happily spread the nonsense of Farage, Tommy Robinson (etc.) because it gets people going, but seem to have no interest in opposing views if they aren't particularly outrageous? It just seems there a lot more of these nutters on the right. All the talk about impartiality and giving everyone a platform is incredibly disingenuous.

Yet, Nick Green and the BNP disappeared from view after his performance on Newsnight/QT, I forget which, and Tommy Robinson has had to crawl back to the shadows after recently getting into the main stream. All because shining a light on their racist bs and removing their ‘the establishment want to silence me’ bs shows them up for what they are.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
Yup. Isn't the problem that they're becoming more and more like every other bit of clickbait media where they'll happily spread the nonsense of Farage, Tommy Robinson (etc.) because it gets people going, but seem to have no interest in opposing views if they aren't particularly outrageous? It just seems there a lot more of these nutters on the right. All the talk about impartiality and giving everyone a platform is incredibly disingenuous.

Yet, Nick Green and the BNP disappeared from view after his performance on Newsnight/QT, I forget which, and Tommy Robinson has had to crawl back to the shadows after recently getting into the main stream. All because shining a light on their racist bs and removing their ‘the establishment want to silence me’ bs shows them up for what they are.

And when is the light being shone on Farage due to cause his retirement?

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yet, Nick Green and the BNP disappeared from view after his performance on Newsnight/QT, I forget which, and Tommy Robinson has had to crawl back to the shadows after recently getting into the main stream. All because shining a light on their racist bs and removing their ‘the establishment want to silence me’ bs shows them up for what they are.

And when is the light being shone on Farage due to cause his retirement?

Puja

The public at large clearly don’t hate his policies and opinions. The man was is/was the leader of the party that won the last two EU elections. It’s ridiculous to think he’s not mainstream and/or worthy of spots on tv politics programmes.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
And when is the light being shone on Farage due to cause his retirement?

Puja

The public at large clearly don’t hate his policies and opinions. The man was is/was the leader of the party that won the last two EU elections. It’s ridiculous to think he’s not mainstream and/or worthy of spots on tv politics programmes.

But he was getting lots of television coverage long before he had any political credibility. He's mainstream now, but a lot of that is because the media put him there.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I’m glad you seem so sure and able to predict the future. Nobody even knows what Brexit will look like, let alone which of the numerous forecasts linked to each numerous Brexit scenario will come to pass. The research programme money that comes on the back of our EU membership is just the UK’s money coming back to the UK. Given sensible, non-ideological people on both sides (a long shot, I know), the UK can continue to be part of those various research programs.
With a bit of luck, Brexit will start a devolution of power to a more local level and the Cornish , can decide what they should spend money on rather than requiring approval from Brussels and or Westminster.

There's not one serious piece of research which doesn't think we'll have less money as a consequence of Brexit. I've more time for a counter argument that we shouldn't be judging success by rising GDP and an entirely different socio-economic model is needed than saying we might get a good deal, that's how far out there I think the positive thinking position taken up by Boris and co is worth.

And no, it's not just UK money coming back into the UK to fund our research. There are any number of foreign inputs into any number of projects, those and all the associated spinoffs are at significant risk. And yes the UK will still play a part, but we'll have a reduced role when it comes to securing funding, it'll be harder with the loss of free movement and so on and so on.

Point being on balance we're not net contributors, we gain hugely, or did. That isn't to say we're not free to turn our backs on that and do something different, we should though be honest about the problems.

There are plenty of scenarios where we don’t lose money compared to the status quo. Note the difference between ‘losing money’ and ‘less money’. The UK are net contributors to the EU budget however you spin it.

I’m once again straying into defending something I don’t believe in, so I’ll leave it there.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
There's not one serious piece of research which doesn't think we'll have less money as a consequence of Brexit. I've more time for a counter argument that we shouldn't be judging success by rising GDP and an entirely different socio-economic model is needed than saying we might get a good deal, that's how far out there I think the positive thinking position taken up by Boris and co is worth.

And no, it's not just UK money coming back into the UK to fund our research. There are any number of foreign inputs into any number of projects, those and all the associated spinoffs are at significant risk. And yes the UK will still play a part, but we'll have a reduced role when it comes to securing funding, it'll be harder with the loss of free movement and so on and so on.

Point being on balance we're not net contributors, we gain hugely, or did. That isn't to say we're not free to turn our backs on that and do something different, we should though be honest about the problems.

There are plenty of scenarios where we don’t lose money compared to the status quo. Note the difference between ‘losing money’ and ‘less money’. The UK are net contributors to the EU budget however you spin it.

I’m once again straying into defending something I don’t believe in, so I’ll leave it there.

There are lots of scenarios wherein we leave with a hard Brexit and never mind a recession the economy continues to grow, but whatever the relative size Vs the status quo is lower and that constricts the available money given we are reliant on a certain level of growth just to maintain given the influence of inflation

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The public at large clearly don’t hate his policies and opinions. The man was is/was the leader of the party that won the last two EU elections. It’s ridiculous to think he’s not mainstream and/or worthy of spots on tv politics programmes.

But he was getting lots of television coverage long before he had any political credibility. He's mainstream now, but a lot of that is because the media put him there.

Puja

Can’t say I agree. His media exposure has correlated with his and his party’s success. Also, what is this ‘credibility’? He has been an elected member of the EU parl for 20 years, albeit with approx 40 days of attendance. Even if you are correct, he is clearly saying things a large section of the population agree with but because you (and I) don’t like it he should be censored? That’s not really what an open, free and democratic society is built upon.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
But he was getting lots of television coverage long before he had any political credibility. He's mainstream now, but a lot of that is because the media put him there.

Puja

Can’t say I agree. His media exposure has correlated with his and his party’s success. Also, what is this ‘credibility’? He has been an elected member of the EU parl for 20 years, albeit with approx 40 days of attendance. Even if you are correct, he is clearly saying things a large section of the population agree with but because you (and I) don’t like it he should be censored? That’s not really what an open, free and democratic society is built upon.

Who's talking about censorship? I'm talking about the massive coverage he and his party has got historically. Obviously now he's a major player, but it's things like him getting invited to the 2015 leadership debate despite having no Parliamentary seats while the Greens were refused, or his continuous appearances on Question Time. There's lots of people who've been members of the EU parliament for 20 years and don't get nearly so much of a puff, mostly because most people in this country don't care about the EU Parliament.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: There are plenty of scenarios where we don’t lose money compared to the status quo. Note the difference between ‘losing money’ and ‘less money’. The UK are net contributors to the EU budget however you spin it.

I’m once again straying into defending something I don’t believe in, so I’ll leave it there.

There are lots of scenarios wherein we leave with a hard Brexit and never mind a recession the economy continues to grow, but whatever the relative size Vs the status quo is lower and that constricts the available money given we are reliant on a certain level of growth just to maintain given the influence of inflation

Don’t start quoting your fake economics degree syllabus at me. Someone once of this parish debunked your economic education ages ago.

Banquo wrote:Bojo v Hunt. WTAF.