General Election 2017

[peterms]

7 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Option (1): televised leaders' debate is filled with hundreds of lefty plants, contravening the strict regulations regarding impartially in the run up to an election, and likely risking the BBC's future at the hands of the almost-certain Conservative government if this were discovered.

Option (2): demographic more likely to identify with Corbyn is also more likely to make a bit of noise when he says something they like than the demographic likely to identify with MayRudd is.

Occam etc.

There's also the point that when the conduct on the stage is more raucous, the audience will certainly also be noisier.

[Xann]

53 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 ...how the public have returned a strong, stable leadership for Brexit and beyond.

You let us brutalize the vulnerable, inside trade, bend over for the Saudis and tear foxes to shreds for kicks, and you might get to keep what you've got?

You're not going to be shouting about it.

 

[jon_c]

The audience was obviously completely balanced. If it's an equal amount of supporters from each party represented. Bar UKIP each set of supporters will probably give each candidate a fair hearing. It's just supporters of Labour, Lib Dems, Plaid, SNP and Greens all hate the Tories. So it is bias against them.  A fair representation, just 70% hate the Conservatives.

Edited June 1, 2017 by jon_c

[peterms]

This is good on the magic money tree nonsense.

Quote

Amber Rudd used the expression “magic money tree” twice in the leaders’ debate last night.

I hadn’t heard it for a while, and had hoped that maybe it wasn’t focus-grouping very well. I guess I was wrong.

Why do politicians talk about money at all? Why do voters respond well to politicians’ pompous pronouncements about it? They have no idea what they’re talking about. Why would they?

Even academic economists struggle to understand money, as do philosophers and sociologists who devote their lives to thinking about it. Why would a career politician understand the first thing about it?

Luckily, you don’t need to think about money to make your political decisions. You need to think, of course, about your own finances. You need to worry about whether you have enough to pay the bills each month. You need to worry about how much pay you’ll take home after paying your taxes and other contributions. But that’s one of the few things politicians are usually relatively clear about. Few voters are taken by surprise by an income tax increase.

What you don’t need to worry about is how the government will pay for this or that programme or public service. Think about this instead: Are there enough resources to provide the proposed service? Is there enough wood, bricks, glass, PVC, to build new council houses? Is there enough land to build them on? Are there enough builders to build them? If not, are there enough apprenticeships to train them? Are there enough staff in the schools and hospitals? If not, are there enough colleges to train them? If not, are there enough resources to create more of these?

These are things you can see with your own eyes. They’re questions you can answer by looking around you, using your common sense, and talking to your friends and family. If you think there are enough resources to provide more of these services than currently, and if you want those services provided, then vote for the politicians who promise to use the available resources to provide them.

Don’t let anybody tell you this isn’t possible because of some fact about money. When politicians talk money and numbers, they conjure up an enchanting ballet of bloodless abstractions. Money is an abstraction — a ledger, an accounting record, a “set of positions on an abstract ratio scale”, as one article puts it. But however the abstractions might dance about on their unearthly stage, here in the concrete world if there are resources then those resources can be put to use for a public purpose. No abstract object can rush in to interrupt the work. To think otherwise is to literally worship money.

The government, remember, has coercive authority. It can claim whatever resources it wants, it can use them however it wants, and it can distribute them however it wants, so long as it retains its authority. Money is a handy accounting tool. By mentally marking positions on an abstract scale, we can record which resources have been used here and which resources are reserved for use there. But mere mental makings on an abstract scale can’t determine whether or not there are enough resources for a given purpose. That’s a matter of hard, physical fact, and of the political will to use the resources in the chosen way.

So in deciding on how you’d like available resources to be used for public purposes, you just don’t need to think about money at all. Unless you want to think about it. In which case, educate yourself on the economics, the sociology, and above all the philosophy of money. But be prepared to feel a bit embarrassed about the way you used to fall for silly lines about the “magic money tree”.

 

 

[Demitri_C]

9 hours ago, DK82 said:

Tonight's 'bias', Makes a change from the shit biased print media I guess. I forget that doesn't count though. Only bias is when it helps Labour.

but there is certain bias towards labour as well.  The mirror is anti conservatives just like how the torygraph is anti-labour. So works both ways

Yesterday was very biased towards Labour. If that had halpened in a live debate against corbyn everyone would be  moaning. That at least should have been neutral in my view.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Demitri_C

[Seat68]

Just now, Demitri_C said:

but there is certain bias towards labour as well.  The mirror is anti conservatives just like how the torygraph is anti-labour. So works both ways

Yesterday was very biased towards Labour. If that had halpened in a live debate against corbyn everyone would be  moaning. That at least should have been neutral in my view.

I think a valid point is made further up, it was biased against the tories as most participants werent tory

[Jareth]

13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

but there is certain bias towards labour as well.  The mirror is anti conservatives just like how the torygraph is anti-labour. So works both ways

Yesterday was very biased towards Labour. If that had halpened in a live debate against corbyn everyone would be  moaning. That at least should have been neutral in my view.

You should also factor in how ludicrous Rudd's statement was.

[blandy]

10 hours ago, Davkaus said:

https://streamable.com/5h70v

 

Corbyn's paying more attention to being on telly, when he should be thinking about Brexit negotiations, says May. On Telly. 

This is monumentally, astoundingly, insultingly idiotic from the tories to voters. Never mind policies and all that, if anyone should be concentrating on Brexit it's the government. But they're not, because some hollow efftard called an election. It's worse than the crap Trump came out with. 

[Wainy316]

I'm sure the audience was balanced it's just Rudd gave the Tory supporters nothing to cheer.

Even Nuttall got a few rounds of applause.

[chrisp65]

So we're all agreed that last night the lefty 'coalition of chaos' were all able to easily find multiple points of agreement to attack the missing strong and stable leader.

Like a school bully that's suddenly realised that 6 kids from the year below is actually too much to take on, so doesn't turn up for the big scrap behind the bikes after school. The scrap they organised on their own terms to prove how hard they were. Bottled.

The little kids are still little kids. The bully is still a bully.

But everyone now knows the bully isn't all that. Including the bully.

[magnkarl]

At least the election has become terribly exiting now. What I am most exited about is how we are going to have have a strong opposition no matter who wins. I won't get into last nights debate much other than saying that I thought the audience was a bit biased and booed, jeered etc mainly against the conservatives, this doesn't necessarily reflect the population where close to 40% would probably be conservative supporters. BBC have to do better than that - and it could come back to haunt them. They're a publicly funded channel who needs to be unbiased.  

[a m ole]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

So we're all agreed that last night the lefty 'coalition of chaos' were all able to easily find multiple points of agreement to attack the missing strong and stable leader.

Like a school bully that's suddenly realised that 6 kids from the year below is actually too much to take on, so doesn't turn up for the big scrap behind the bikes after school. The scrap they organised on their own terms to prove how hard they were. Bottled.

The little kids are still little kids. The bully is still a bully.

But everyone now knows the bully isn't all that. Including the bully.

To add to that, the 'coalition of chaos' sounds **** awesome.

[Davkaus]

Do any of the conservative voters on here think that Rudd said anything that was worth cheering..?

[Chindie]

They seem to think Brexit is a magic word that stops people using common sense.

You'd call it dogwhistle stuff, but that's probably giving it too much credit.

Yes of course I'm a vile barely human coward, but Brexit.

I genuinely don't know how anyone can look at her and how she acts and go 'yeah, that's what I want in a leader. Power hungry, cowardly, contemptuous, liberty grabbing, heartless... Perfect'.

Yet apparently a large segment of the population do. I can only assume you could peg a blue rosette on a pig and they'd go for it.

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

. I can only assume you could peg a blue rosette on a pig and they'd go for it.

In more ways than one. Allegedly.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Davkaus

[Demitri_C]

6 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Do any of the conservative voters on here think that Rudd said anything that was worth cheering..?

To be fair i didnt  think corbyn said that much. Rudd was hopeless (but at least she had the guts to attend unlikr her boss) as was farron but i think some are over hyping corbyn he wasnt impressive either. Only caroline lucas spoke well and looked like a prime minster out of the lot.

Corbyn performed better in the other debate in my view.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Demitri_C

[villaglint]

The other point about bias audiences is that I think people like to jeer the party in power. Especially when they've had experience of their "tough decisions which have to be made". I remember lots of Labour politicians getting a rough ride from public audiences over the years and of course Osbourne was loudly booed at the Olympics. I doubt that was a heavily left wing biased stadium audience. 

The other thing is it's fun to jeer, it's about as close as we get to having any power to hold these cretins to account. It's less fun to cheer the terrifying prospect of losing your home if you get some disease. I can't remember what it's called but there's a 1 in 10 chance I will get it. 

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, Chindie said:

 

Yet apparently a large segment of the population do. I can only assume you could peg a blue rosette on a pig and they'd go for it.

Well they would.

And that's not unique to Tory voters. I'm sure there is a huge proportion of Labour voters who would vote for anyone representing Labour.

It's the worst thing about politics, imo. People who vote and support one party no matter what. Everything the othe rparty does is wrong, even though you know if it was their party doing it they'd be backing it.

[villaglint]

5 minutes ago, Chindie said:

 I can only assume you could peg a blue rosette on a pig and they'd go for it.

Well not ON a pig no. 

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Well they would.

And that's not unique to Tory voters. I'm sure there is a huge proportion of Labour voters who would vote for anyone representing Labour.

It's the worst thing about politics, imo. People who vote and support one party no matter what. Everything the othe rparty does is wrong, even though you know if it was their party doing it they'd be backing it.

Oh absolutely. There are staunch Labour fans that will vote for them regardless.

I'm just at a loss how anyone can think she's a good leader. Even if I didn't find her politics vile, I could see she **** hopeless. It's painfully obvious. Even last night was clear, how strong must a leader be to dodge being visible amongst their rivals and to the public?