General Election 2017

[dAVe80]

9 minutes ago, supermon said:

This infuriated me yesterday, that that it is a surprise anymore.  Just cannot fathom how the BBC and the Conservatives are getting away scot free with their bias and propaganda.  

Seriously need to consider about cancelling my licence, just use catch up services maybe.

OT, but you have to have a TV licence for that now too.

[mjmooney]

I think the worst thing was the cosy Mr and Mrs May spot on The One Show. 

[sharkyvilla]

6 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I think the worst thing was the cosy Mr and Mrs May spot on The One Show. 

That was awful.  I know Jeremy and his missus have been invited too, I can just imagine his face as he's forced to sit through it.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

14 hours ago, Awol said:

Take back control. That was the leave message. Borders, laws, money. That's what was the message of the entire campaign, wasn't it?

Single market membership blocks all of those things which is why the Remain campaign spelled it out over and over again.

A vote to leave the EU is a vote to leave the single market. We all heard it, saw it and read it in black and white in the Government leaflet under the heading "What happens it we leave?" 

I really don't understand how people can still deny it.

Awol I'm with you. I understand everyone else's point of view and Blandy is right that it wasn't explicit but heck, we need to do some thinking for ourselves and make informed decisions on how much we want to engage with lasting political choices.

I notice the same ill-feeling is not directed at other votes.
Alternative Vote - Yes / No - Not a vote for 'electoral reform' but clearly that's what it was for.
Join the EEC - Not to join the EU or single currency system.
General election - So I'm choosing a candidate to represent me locally but actually forms national government.....erm, okay. I bet people really understand that.
 

Edited May 12, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[snowychap]

36 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

OT, but you have to have a TV licence for that now too.

And, in a few weeks, will have to register and log in.

[StefanAVFC]

12 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Alternative Vote - Yes / No - Not a vote for 'electoral reform' but clearly that's what it was for.
 

I have huge ill-feeling towards this ref. I spoiled my ballot. It wasn't a choice at all; it was a purely political move.

Yes to AV: "There you go, you've got what you wanted" - even though AV is a massively flawed system and no better than FPTP.
No to AV: "well clearly the people didn't want it" - even though many may have voted no because AV is a joke as well.

The problem with referenda is that there's no grey area. I hate them being used for anything remotely important.

[snowychap]

14 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Join the EEC - Not to join the EU or single currency system.

Come again?

[blandy]

41 minutes ago, supermon said:

This infuriated me yesterday, that that it is a surprise anymore.  Just cannot fathom how the BBC and the Conservatives are getting away scot free with their bias and propaganda.  

Seriously need to consider about cancelling my licence, just use catch up services maybe.

[As a general comment - not directed at any posters ] I don't think there's anything to get angry about whatsoever. I'm kind of amazed when people get irate that a member of an audience is clearly a supporter of [whatever] party. These people exist, they're out their in society and there's nothing wrong with them being allowed into buildings, even BBC buildings.

I absolutely guarantee that there will also have been Labour, LibDem, Green, SNP, UKIPs party members, supporters, councillors who will have been in an audience or called a phone in and asked questions. What's wrong with that? "Well", you might say, "when the person asked the question, I didn't know they were a Tory and I should have been told".

Which is a better point altogether., but still not evidence of much. I mean did the person tell the BBC (or ITV, as it happens on other channels too) that they were a Tory councillor? Did they hid or lie about their allegiance? and if they did why are you angry at the BBC that someone lied to it? SHouldn't you be angry at the Councillor?

Given the BBC has an obligation to be impartial, they go to some lengths to "balance" the make up of audiences. That does not mean all individuals have to be neutral, only that the overall make up has to be fair.

To me, this "outrage" is both comical and indicative of a kind of paranoia (which doesn't mean people aren't out to get Labour...). But it comes across to me as a losing mentality, looking for reasons why..."it's so not fair. Stomps off to bedroom and slams door."  

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The problem with referenda is that there's no grey area. I hate them being used for anything remotely important.

Sorry to quote myself, but to expand on this.

The fact that the EU referendum was a yes/no question to an obscenely difficult situation is the biggest political hack job I've ever witnessed. Regardless of what any politicians, campaigners, voters etc may say; a no result for that question is not a mandate for the UK to just 'leave' without considering any of the consequences; and it is not a mandate to silence those who have serious doubts in the manner in which we leave.

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Awol I'm with you. I understand everyone else's point of view and Blandy is right that it wasn't explicit but heck, we need to do some thinking for ourselves and make informed decisions on how much we want to engage with lasting political choices.

I notice the same ill-feeling is not directed at other votes.
Alternative Vote - Yes / No - Not a vote for 'electoral reform' but clearly that's what it was for.
Join the EEC - Not to join the EU or single currency system.
General election - So I'm choosing a candidate to represent me locally but actually forms national government.....erm, okay. I bet people really understand that.

The difficulty is (and I don't know the solution) that campaigns are conducted by slogans and sound bites. There are few if any detailed, fact checked, discussions of the issues. Whether it's T.May saying stable  and strong and chaos or whether it's Boris the dick going round in a bus with £350 million a week painted on it, or David Davis saying the deal we get after we leave will be better than what we have now, or Osbourne saying everyone will be £4000 a year worse off - it's all done on lies and fear and ludicrous "promises".

So asking voters to make "informed decisions" is asking a lot, when the information is missing. Even people who spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the, ahem,  ins and outs of it were largely seeking the unfindable.

The memorable things from the EU referendum were probably (for me at least) the bus with 350 mill... NHS lie on, Farage's refugee poster abomination and the use of the phrases "project fear" and "take back control" oh and Gove's idiocy on experts. None of which were remotely helpful in making a decision, other than they showed up the people involved as contemptible clagnuts.

The single market was mentioned from time to time - usually at the same time as "German BMWs and French wine" and "they need us more than we need them" - so my suspiscion is that people were told that the EU would "cave in". It's possible they might, but highly improbable, IMO. People were misled and lied to about the single market.

[darrenm]

3 hours ago, PauloBarnesi said:

Its funny how the Tories think the BBC is left leaning and Labour think the opposite. Not sure what the Lib Dems think.

The BBC always were a bit progressive and possibly more left leaning, right up until the point Corbyn became leader of Labour and since then the knives have been out specifically for him. And this is objective stuff, with evidence. The right still think the beeb is left and vice-versa, but May gets an easy ride, Corbyn is ripped apart.

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

[As a general comment - not directed at any posters ] I don't think there's anything to get angry about whatsoever. I'm kind of amazed when people get irate that a member of an audience is clearly a supporter of [whatever] party. These people exist, they're out their in society and there's nothing wrong with them being allowed into buildings, even BBC buildings.

I absolutely guarantee that there will also have been Labour, LibDem, Green, SNP, UKIPs party members, supporters, councillors who will have been in an audience or called a phone in and asked questions. What's wrong with that? "Well", you might say, "when the person asked the question, I didn't know they were a Tory and I should have been told".

Which is a better point altogether., but still not evidence of much. I mean did the person tell the BBC (or ITV, as it happens on other channels too) that they were a Tory councillor? Did they hid or lie about their allegiance? and if they did why are you angry at the BBC that someone lied to it? SHouldn't you be angry at the Councillor?

Given the BBC has an obligation to be impartial, they go to some lengths to "balance" the make up of audiences. That does not mean all individuals have to be neutral, only that the overall make up has to be fair.

To me, this "outrage" is both comical and indicative of a kind of paranoia (which doesn't mean people aren't out to get Labour...). But it comes across to me as a losing mentality, looking for reasons why..."it's so not fair. Stomps off to bedroom and slams door."  

My comment about BBC planting Tories is a bit glib, I wasn't being fully serious. But it's not great that the expectation of the audience on Question Time is a random group of laymen, then an elected Tory councillor is given quite a bit of airtime in the context of a layman. I'm sure he didn't tell the BBC but at the very least the BBC should be asking if they need to vet audience members a bit better in future. There's no real outrage, just an attempt to redress the balance a bit with a BBC that currently isn't playing fair in this election campaign. I'm sure there's no direct decision or even anything remotely formal at the BBC about this, it'll be more like a culture thing. Most of the BBC political correspondents are ex-members of Conservative clubs and societies, so it's no surprise.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, darrenm said:

The BBC always were a bit progressive and possibly more left leaning, right up until the point Corbyn became leader of Labour and since then the knives have been out specifically for him. And this is objective stuff, with evidence. The right still think the beeb is left and vice-versa, but May gets an easy ride, Corbyn is ripped apart.

The "flip point" for me was the whole thing with Andrew Gilligan and Iraq and the dead scientist and Greg Dyke etc. Alistair Campbell and Blair and the Hutton enquiry. It was after that that the BBC went more compliant ot the Gov't of the day. They've become more timid about challenging whoever is the Gov't, and particularly so with this Gov't.

I don't think or agree that "the BBC" has the" knives out" for Corbyn. Nor do I think that the conspiracy theories about Channel 4 news are true either. There are an awful number of people on social media, messageboards etc. who see any criticism of Corbyn as "Tory bias" or "helping the tories" and being "Blairite" and how the "MSM" is just lies. It's comical paranoia. It's also massively counter-productive. 

[darrenm]

55 minutes ago, blandy said:

The "flip point" for me was the whole thing with Andrew Gilligan and Iraq and the dead scientist and Greg Dyke etc. Alistair Campbell and Blair and the Hutton enquiry. It was after that that the BBC went more compliant ot the Gov't of the day. They've become more timid about challenging whoever is the Gov't, and particularly so with this Gov't.

I don't think or agree that "the BBC" has the" knives out" for Corbyn. Nor do I think that the conspiracy theories about Channel 4 news are true either. There are an awful number of people on social media, messageboards etc. who see any criticism of Corbyn as "Tory bias" or "helping the tories" and being "Blairite" and how the "MSM" is just lies. It's comical paranoia. It's also massively counter-productive. 

Like I said, it's objective. There's evidence. Not sure how you can disagree when it's fact: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2017/jan.pdf

"The audience would have an expectation that a scripted item on one of the BBC’s prime time television news programmes on such a day would reflect with the greatest accuracy what the Leader of the Opposition had said on the matter. In conclusion the item was not duly accurate with regard to this point. Finding: upheld as a breach of accuracy"

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Corbynresearch.pdf

"What was perhaps of most concern in this respect was the repeated way in which supporters of the Labour leadership were labelled with pejorative terms that suggested extreme positions, with the implication that Labour rebel MPs were, by contrast, moderate in both their political views and actions."

"More problematic was the way in which BBC reporters used particular language and imagery when discussing the crisis that systematically undermined the legitimacy of arguments in support of the Labour leadership"

"One of the most striking patterns that emerged was the repeated use of language that invoked militarism and violence."

"Corbyn’s position in the Labour leadership crisis was repeatedly described in terms that invoked bewilderment over his defiance."

And so on.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, darrenm said:

Like I said, it's objective. There's evidence. Not sure how you can disagree when it's fact: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2017/jan.pdf

"The audience would have an expectation that a scripted item on one of the BBC’s prime time television news programmes on such a day would reflect with the greatest accuracy what the Leader of the Opposition had said on the matter. In conclusion the item was not duly accurate with regard to this point. Finding: upheld as a breach of accuracy"...

 

That's not anything like evidence the BBC "has the knives out" for Corbyn. It is evidence that on a particular occasion (out of how many news and current affairs reports since he's been leader?) that a BBC reporter wasn't neutral and was unfair.

The second link we've discussed before, at the time it came out.

I've posted before that there is sometimes (to my perception) a degree of bias in the coverage of Corbyn and Labour in the media (including the BBC). Is that bias because of

a) some reporters/editors don't like Labour or Corbyn or prefer Tories?

b ) The shambolic nature of Corbyn's leadership?

c) The BBC has a "knives out" mission to get rid of Corbyn?

FWIW as I've posted previously, media coverage is more against than pro Corbyn. I think the BBC coverage sometimes appears harder on Corbyn or his chums than on the Gov't.

Unfortunately he and his chums are in part the cause of that. They do the opposite of what is needed to address the problem and they in part created the problem themselves.

 

[a m ole]

I don't want the BBC (or any channel) to stop scrutinising Corbyn or Labour, I just want the same level of effort and resources to go into scrutinising the Conservatives too. They're getting a heavily discounted ride at the moment.

[Chindie]

The Tories have also been given an easier ride, certainly in the last fee weeks, by saying the square root of **** all, and the square root of the sum total of May's humanity of that was anything of substance.

[Awol]

5 hours ago, PauloBarnesi said:

Its funny how the Tories think the BBC is left leaning and Labour think the opposite. Not sure what the Lib Dems think.

Probably stoned and raiding the fridge. 

 

 

 

[darrenm]

43 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's not anything like evidence the BBC "has the knives out" for Corbyn. It is evidence that on a particular occasion (out of how many news and current affairs reports since he's been leader?) that a BBC reporter wasn't neutral and was unfair.

The second link we've discussed before, at the time it came out.

I've posted before that there is sometimes (to my perception) a degree of bias in the coverage of Corbyn and Labour in the media (including the BBC). Is that bias because of

a) some reporters/editors don't like Labour or Corbyn or prefer Tories?

b ) The shambolic nature of Corbyn's leadership?

c) The BBC has a "knives out" mission to get rid of Corbyn?

FWIW as I've posted previously, media coverage is more against than pro Corbyn. I think the BBC coverage sometimes appears harder on Corbyn or his chums than on the Gov't.

Unfortunately he and his chums are in part the cause of that. They do the opposite of what is needed to address the problem and they in part created the problem themselves.

 

OK, 'knives out' too strong. Incorrect use of a colloquialism. Unfair reporting is all I claim, which you've agreed with.

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Unfair reporting is all I claim, which you've agreed with

I think @a m ole has written it best when he said "I don't want the BBC (or any channel) to stop scrutinising Corbyn or Labour, I just want the same level of effort and resources to go into scrutinising the Conservatives"

It's not that Labour is treated harshly, by and large, but that the tories are not subjected with the same rigour. I also think that UKIPs has been massively over-covered and the SNP, Plaid, Greens and LibDems and the different Irish ones under-covered.

[Chindie]

UKIPs presence in anything is a farce. They're irrelevant.