The Hung Like a Donkey General Election December 2019 Thread

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm expressing my opinion, I have no doubts that he says colour

Fair enough. I think it sounds like talent but I'm not 100% sure either way.

If the next day is spent on people debating whether it was colour or talent, though, then CCHQ will be mightily relieved as they'll be able to put it down to 'people will hear what they want to hear'.

Edited December 6, 2019 by snowychap

[Seat68]

I watched his mouth and not subtitles and I see talent. 

 

As a second note, is it really the EU imposing rules on the VAT on tampons? I see other EU countries dont have the same rate as us.

Seemingly Irelans has zero rate on tampons as this is a historical rate and the EU does indeed impose rules on introducing zero rates of VAT.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Seat68

[StefanAVFC]

Seriously

Where is the 'T' sound for 'talent'?

Unless he's mumbling and saying 'Calent' then I don't see how he is saying talent.

[Seat68]

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Seriously

Where is the 'T' sound for 'talent'?

Unless he's mumbling and saying 'Calent' then I don't see how he is saying talent.

Well he is mumbling thats where this discussion is coming from, if it was clear there wouldnt be a discussion, I am only saying on balance for me its Talent, for others its colour. 

[StefanAVFC]

It was talent

[tonyh29]

53 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

What are your thoughts on Etchingham and his own consistency hustings? 

Tbh i've had my head down at work on projects the last few days so not following the election that closely lately  , ( plus I'm kinda bit bored with it already , election campaigns should be 24 hours long !!  )  so Etchingham I've just had to google .. hadn't even realised she was the person who did the Corbyn Queens speech thing that was being discussed the other day

It looks like they gone for the " ours to lose " approach and our keeping Johnson locked away  ., the current trend seems to be lets trap a politician , hence why I guess team Boris is ducking everything , it allowed Corbyn some momentum last time out v May , so it's a dangerous approach imo... that said , and obviously Surrey ins't Corbyn heartland but all I'm hearing wherever I go and people are discussing the election is that people don't' want Corbyn as PM , nobody seems to be discussing Johnson and what interviews he's ducked or how many children he might have .

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, tonyh29 said:

It looks like they gone for the " ours to lose " approach and our keeping Johnson locked away  ., the current trend seems to be lets trap a politician , hence why I guess team Boris is ducking everything , it allowed Corbyn some momentum last time out v May , so it's a dangerous approach imo... that said , and obviously Surrey ins't Corbyn heartland but all I'm hearing wherever I go and people are discussing the election is that people don't' want Corbyn as PM , nobody seems to be discussing Johnson and what interviews he's ducked or how many children he might have .

Do you think the PM should face the same scrutiny as all other party leaders have put themselves up for? Do you think he's acting in good faith? 

[bickster]

FWIW I listened on headphones in work, without looking at the screen. Something I do for my job all the time on much worse recordings than this. Colour, it sounds absolutely nothing like talent

[snowychap]

13 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

As a second note, is it really the EU imposing rules on the VAT on tampons? I see other EU countries dont have the same rate as us.

Seemingly Irelans has zero rate on tampons as this is a historical rate and the EU does indeed impose rules on introducing zero rates of VAT.

They aren't imposing rules on the VAT on tampons, there are EU-wide directives that set ranges for VAT and I think that 5% is the lowest applicable unless a previous exemption existed.

I believe that the rules are due to change in 2022 and thus EU countries would have the ability to reduce the VAT on women's sanitary products from, perhaps, January 2022.

I'm guessing we would have to abide by the EU directives on VAT whilst in the transition period - so until 31 Dec 2020 at the earliest and quite possibly a year after, if extended, which would mean having the ability to reduce VAT on women's sanitary products in, say, January 2022.

It rather underlines how much of a nonsense the 'getting Brexit done' thing is when it is being sold on such flimsy claims (that's not to downplay the issue of VAT on sanitary products, obviously).

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Do you think the PM should face the same scrutiny as all other party leaders have put themselves up for? Do you think he's acting in good faith? 

well , yes  , they should all be put under scrutiny  ....  but the only debate I watched wasn't really anything other than plants trying to derail the process  ... I learnt nothing from the deabte other than the young kid with the Afro's parents failed in his upbringing and some tory activist doesn't like Corbyn very much.

The AN interview , was more of the same , ask a question but talk over you when you try and answer it whilst I hammer home my agenda ... I didn't really learn anything other than when you challenge Corbyn he rolls his eyes a lot and looks at you with contempt ( but tbh I already knew that as he's done it in  numerous interviews)

 

If , the party leaders could face scrutiny in a  constructive manner , it would probably make for dull TV and nobody would watch , but we might actually learn something

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

I agree with that point, but I do also agree that the way many presenters behave detracts from the aim of the interview, or what the aim should be.  It's meant to be about eliciting information, scrutinising claims, analysing and probing, holding to account.  Too often it's about the presenter grandstanding, playing gotcha, engaging in stupid little games to try and put one over on someone, like a 10 year old arguing.

I suppose it's to be expected that many presenters are narcissistic, especially those who have a show branded with their name, but I would really like to see a lot more real analysis and challenge of actual ideas, rather than the look-at-me Billy Big Bollocks nonsense.

Yes, this is right. I hate this 'gotcha' stuff. Even this whole Neil saga, while obviously showing yet again that Johnson is a man with tiny, tiny testacles who can't stand even a little scrutiny, is still fundamentally about Andrew Neil's ego, rather than actually holding Johnson to account. 

As you say, interviews that really drilled down into the policy would be a lot more meaningful, and would help voters understand how the choice they're going to make is actually going to affect their lives. 

[tonyh29]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

FWIW I listened on headphones in work, without looking at the screen. Something I do for my job all the time on much worse recordings than this. Colour, it sounds absolutely nothing like talent

i know you northerners have bastardised the English language , but even you mob haven't got around to putting an "ENT" sound on the end of the word colour 

its definitely Talent

This weblink might help you going forward ,

[sharkyvilla]

27 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It was talent

I mean, how hard is it just to check something these days?  I'm genuinely hating this election, from the leaders and the parties to the media and people on social media.

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

As you say, interviews that really drilled down into the policy would be a lot more meaningful, and would help voters understand how the choice they're going to make is actually going to affect their lives. 

In order for that to happen, you'd have to have politicians who were willing to have that discussion and who were on top of the detail as well as an audience that listened.

I fear you might have to wind the clock back a bit if there were ever, actually, any time when that was the case.

I think there's some difference, though, between the 'gotcha' kind of interview and pressing the interviewee for an answer and not letting them waffle and obfuscate.

There have been a lot of pointless questions asked (the 'have you ever lied in your political career?' one to Johnson was just daft and created a three second viral clip for hits and nowt else) but there have been even more actual questions ignored and talked over.

I'm not sure that a 30 minute one to one interview should drill down in to policy (it's not long enough unless it's on one or two subject areas at most) but it is an opportunity to expose what a politician is and isn't willing to say (the latter may well be much more telling than the former).

[Davkaus]

19 minutes ago, bickster said:

FWIW I listened on headphones in work, without looking at the screen. Something I do for my job all the time on much worse recordings than this. Colour, it sounds absolutely nothing like talent

Have you watched the video a couple of posts above you?

He's a bellend, but he absolutely did not say 'people of colour'.

[bannedfromHandV]

4 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

I mean, how hard is it just to check something these days?  I'm genuinely hating this election, from the leaders and the parties to the media and people on social media.

It’s just totally indicative of modern culture.

The whole does art imitate life or does life imitate art conundrum.

We live in a post-truth world, a world where idols are formed in bikinis on beaches, where facts and statistics count for nothing.

 

[Davkaus]

I **** despair. Elsewhere this is being posted. It's clearly wrong, and when it's pointed out, people double down.

"Well, it's the kind of thing he would think". Argh. 

People calling it a "dog whistle", which as far as I can tell is modern nomenclature for "someone I dislike said something that wasn't offensive, but I wish he'd said something outrageous instead".

[HanoiVillan]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

In order for that to happen, you'd have to have politicians who were willing to have that discussion and who were on top of the detail as well as an audience that listened.

I fear you might have to wind the clock back a bit if there were ever, actually, any time when that was the case.

I think there's some difference, though, between the 'gotcha' kind of interview and pressing the interviewee for an answer and not letting them waffle and obfuscate.

There have been a lot of pointless questions asked (the 'have you ever lied in your political career?' one to Johnson was just daft and created a three second viral clip for hits and nowt else) but there have been even more actual questions ignored and talked over.

I'm not sure that a 30 minute one to one interview should drill down in to policy (it's not long enough unless it's on one or two subject areas at most) but it is an opportunity to expose what a politician is and isn't willing to say (the latter may well be much more telling than the former).

I'm not under any illusion that there was some kind of golden age of political interviewing, nor that there aren't structural incentives to the way interviews are conducted, and the way politicians answer, that would be difficult to solve.

But we could start with the baby steps of not asking 'gotcha' questions; as you say, 'have you ever lied in your political career' is a pointless question, as is 'will you take this opportunity to apologise for X', and 'do you watch the Queen's Christmas Address' as well. The answers to these questions - whatever they are, however truthful or otherwise - make no difference to anything at all. 

I think 30 minutes is enough to ask two or three meaningful questions on five or six policies. Maybe slightly less. That's enough to make the average voter considerably better-informed. 

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

"dog whistle", which as far as I can tell is modern nomenclature for "someone I dislike said something that wasn't offensive, but I wish he'd said something outrageous instead".

Not so sure about that. Obviously, it can be misused as well as abused but there's very much a place for using the term 'dog whistle' and there's a lot of 'dog whistle' stuff out there.

Edited December 6, 2019 by snowychap
overdid the 'very much'

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I **** despair. Elsewhere this is being posted. It's clearly wrong, and when it's pointed out, people double down.

"Well, it's the kind of thing he would think". Argh. 

That is silly. He clearly stated 'talent' but that was only clear from a much high quality clip.

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

People calling it a "dog whistle", which as far as I can tell is modern nomenclature for "someone I dislike said something that wasn't offensive, but I wish he'd said something outrageous instead".

This is just wrong IMO. A dogwhistle is a clever tactic and is used frequently. People with certain views will hear support for their position but the person dogwhistling can't really be accused as they didn't say anything explicitly offensive.