Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: ‘Return to three party politics’

  1. #1
    gmc
    Currently Offline
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,137
    Local Date
    05-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:04 PM
    Points
    27,748
    Gifts Cocktail Car Beer

    ‘Return to three party politics’

    Sir Vince claimed: “These results show a return to three party politics and a strong future for the Liberal Democrats. We stand as the only party fighting for an exit from brexit, and are making gains against both a Conservative party driven by their right wing, and a left wing Labour party absorbed by Corbyn’s dated economic vision.
    The man can't do basic arithmetic too bad the lid dems aren't the third party
    - The lib dems have 12 MP's the snp have 35. I really can't see any more what we have to gain by staying in this toxic union.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,086
    Local Date
    05-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:04 PM
    Points
    28,092
    Gifts Beer Cake

    Re: ‘Return to three party politics’

    Labour gain 79 seats & the Tories lose 34. And the BBC are promoting this as a "Disastrous result for Labour". Even the Lib Dems gained 34. The only ones to come out worse than the Tories were UKIP, with 120 down.

  3. #3
    gmc
    Currently Offline
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,137
    Local Date
    05-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:04 PM
    Points
    27,748
    Gifts Cocktail Car Beer

    Re: ‘Return to three party politics’

    Good grief you're not accusing the BBC of any bias are you? Pandering to the tories won't stop them privatising it.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,086
    Local Date
    05-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:04 PM
    Points
    28,092
    Gifts Beer Cake

    Re: ‘Return to three party politics’

    Quote Originally Posted by gmc View Post
    Good grief you're not accusing the BBC of any bias are you? Pandering to the tories won't stop them privatising it.
    It already is privatised, and that's the way they want it to stay. With a monopoly of a State enforced subscription. After all, the BBC is the British Broadcasting CORPORATION. They also own UKTV - a Commercial company, with programs made at the cost of the Licence Payer.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kingston-upon-Thames
    Posts
    4,868
    Local Date
    05-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:04 PM
    Points
    7,972
    Gifts Beer Beer

    Re: ‘Return to three party politics’

    The BBC is independent of the Government of the day, whichever flavour that is. It is governed by a Charter (the famous inform and entertain phrase) has editorial independence and can and does highlight government failings. This makes it pretty much unique. Other State media are government controlled or privately owned and do NOT have guaranteed editorial independence. If you get your information from RT then you hear what the Russian Government wants you to hear and that alone. Not the case with the BBC - you get the news whether it suits the Government of the day or not.

    It isn't perfect - no human institution is: being made up of human beings it makes mistakes - but it is at least trying to find and tell the truth as best it can. That can't be said of eg RT, which is an agent of the Russian Government, pure and simple.

    How does the Skripals' poisoning look now? Still think it was a cover up for dreadful Tory local election results? Or are you now going to claim the UK Gov't poisons Russians at random just in case it will be useful for something?

    The Licence Fee is a tax I happily pay as it gives me a news service not in hock to the Government - we pay the BBC direct - and profits from UKTV help fund the BBC, thus keeping the tax down a bit. Fine with me. The BBC is therefore independent of Government and also of Big Business and Press Barons. That is a very good place for it to be.

    Oh - and we did have a really good result in the Kingston local election: took control of the Council from the Tories and have I think it was 44 out of 52 Lib Dem Councillors in the end. Something like that anyway. Nationally the collapse of UKIP means it is hard to read the result - how many went to Labour, how many to the Tories? One thing for sure: they didn't go to the Lib Dems. This meant the Lib Dem opposition vote was split between two, not three, parties which made it harder for us nationally (Labour barely exists here. 0 councillors. UKIP even less. So that doesn't apply here so much). I do have the impression - contrary to most pundits I have seen - that brexit played a bigger part in local elections than is normal for any national event. Local elections are always about the bins and it was certainly Lib Dem election policy to focus on the local, even in a strongly Remain area like this one. But nationally the UKIP vote went to the Leave side and that ISN'T the Lib Dems.

    I do wonder whether both Labour and Conservatives are going to split over the brexit issue. It's hard to see how they can stay together but that's from the perspective of a Party not split on the issue. It seems to me at present that the hard brexiters are going to win because all they have to do is block and destroy any attempts to agree a deal to get what they want. That puts enormous pressure on Remain Tories like Soubry and it comes down to how many will in the end put Country before Party when the crunch happens.

    edit: And poor old Vince. He's ten years past it now imo. I can see where he's coming from: these are the English local elections and honestly the SNP in Westminster seem a bit semi-detached. What precisely is their purpose? They aren't planning (ok this is an assumption and open for discussion ) to form a Government. As the second biggest opposition party they are pretty unimportant and unlikely ever to provide a Leader of the Opposition. Tory, Labour and Lib Dem all intend to form Government or at least lead the opposition (a longer term plan in the case of the Lib Dems I grant you...) but the SNP don't. They seem more like the DUP: representing their area in Westminster but not part of the mainstream. But to me Vince shows signs of being old. He doesn't seem to be reacting quickly to the changing situation. Hey, maybe I'm reading too much into what might have just been a misstep.*

    * Wasn't he an early hit on Strictly Come Dancing...doubt he's much of a tango-er now but maybe I'm wrong...
    Last edited by Clodhopper; 05-07-2018 at 05:49 AM. Reason: lots of little edits...
    The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
    Lone voice: "I'm not."

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,086
    Local Date
    05-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:04 PM
    Points
    28,092
    Gifts Beer Cake

    Re: ‘Return to three party politics’

    Even with Labour in power the BBC has always been Conservative biased. They have, on several occasions, even been chastised by OfCom for being so. The Mainstream Media is primarily Conservative biased. That is not surprising, as most of it is owned by Tax Avoiding Tory Donors.

    Don't you find it strange that the Skripal case has now all but been brushed under the carpet, as has Syria?

    The Conservatives have, in the meantime voted to block the release of secret Windrush documents.

    It is also obvious that most of the UKIP swing voters would probably have turned to Conservative, or perhaps Lib Dem (which explains why Lib Dems did pretty well), but that, too, demonstrates an even bigger Labour victory, as there wouldn't have been quite so much Tory division of vote.

    Labour did better in London than at any other time since 1971. They took more than twice as many seats than the Tories. Their change of seats was +77 whilst the Tories were -33. And the Blatantly Biased Conservatives claim this as "No Clear Winner" & "Neck & Neck", doing their best to spin the results to favour the Tories.
    Local election results 2018: No clear winner as Labour and Tories neck and neck - BBC News

    As for RT vs BBC. To be honest, I would be far more inclined to take the word of RT over the BBC on most things. They do, at least, come up with things to support their claims. Such as, for instance 17 witnesses from Douma - all of which were clearly identifiable in the video - giving evidence in the Hague that the alleged chemical attack never happened & that the video was staged by the White Helmets. Just how much coverage did that get on the BBC? Regardless of whether you give credence to the witnesses or not, it's an item of International Importance & was totally ignored by the BBC. In other words, if it doesn't benefit the Tories, hush it up.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kingston-upon-Thames
    Posts
    4,868
    Local Date
    05-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:04 PM
    Points
    7,972
    Gifts Beer Beer

    Re: ‘Return to three party politics’

    RT produces "evidence" supporting the Russian position surprise surprise. No serious outlet even bothers with such obvious propaganda.

    This is why the BBC's editorial independence is important and why you SHOULD believe it over RT. RT is a part of the Russian State. It is the Government's agent. It serves the Russian Government. The BBC does not serve our Government, or Big Business, or anyone but the British people who it has a duty to inform.

    The Corporation bit: Corporations are set up to give an organisation an existence beyond the life of any individual. Mostly these are (I think) businesses but they don't have to be and the BBC is non-commercial by it's Charter. I think all Corporations have to have a Charter to BE Corporations, legally speaking. I could be wrong on this but my impression is that most if not all Charities are actually Corporations, but they have to be non-profit by their Charter. Either way, just being a Corporation does not necessarily make you a standard commercial business.

    edit: The other thing about a Corporation is that it is legally defined by its Charter, which describes its purpose in legally binding terms. So the purpose of the BBC is to inform and entertain.

    On the politics: I don't think any party can look at these results and go whoopee. Certainly there was no wipeout of the Tories and the results for Labour don't look that impressive to me especially given the state of the government. I'm not that impressed by the Lib Dem results either but we can at least say there's progress. I don't think we'll have picked up many UKIP votes since to be a Kipper you had to be a pretty hardline brexiter and would you really now vote for the only clearly anti-brexit party when you had both Labour and Con to vote for, both of which are officially pro-brexit (though split to hell and back...)? I don't think so.

    edit: And no, I don't think it strange it's gone quiet on the Skripals and Syria. Unless something happens in either case I expect the day's events to run the news agenda. I don't expect, "...and in further news, on the Skripal case there's nothing new to report and it's been comparatively quiet in Syria. Also, nothing much to report from Africa today, Asia's been fairly quiet and Trump continues to make a fool of America..."

    In fact I think we'll hear very little more from the Skripals. I expect he in particular wants to disappear and I wonder how long she'd last back in Russia? I've no idea if they'd whisk them away to say, Canada, or the US, or double bluff and they are in Newcastle?
    The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
    Lone voice: "I'm not."

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,086
    Local Date
    05-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:04 PM
    Points
    28,092
    Gifts Beer Cake

    Re: ‘Return to three party politics’

    The fact remains that Russia provided witnesses who appeared in the said video to testify that the Chemical Attack never happened. Nobody else has managed to find any evidence or even witnesses to say that it did.
    Previous claims had been made of all the fatalities of this Chemical Attack, yet no-one has been able to provide any of these bodies. The people in the video state that there was no Chemical Attack. They even describe the faking of the video itself.
    Bear in mind that the White Helmets have a track record of faking videos.
    The real reason that it wasn't treated more seriously is that those responsible for hearing the evidence were members of NATO.
    Denial of the evidence given by those who were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, at the scene is on a par with a Creationist denying the evidence for Evolution. Just what evidence would you accept before you would admit it never happened?
    In the meantime, Philip May's share profile as the largest individual Shareholder with BAE (who just so happened to make the missiles they fired, as their share value goes sky high) continues to benefit comfortably.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kingston-upon-Thames
    Posts
    4,868
    Local Date
    05-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:04 PM
    Points
    7,972
    Gifts Beer Beer

    Re: ‘Return to three party politics’

    The reason is, as I said, that RT is part of the Russian State apparatus and takes orders just like any other civil servant. The BBC by contrast is independent of government. It is not controlled by the government the way RT IS controlled by the Russian Gov't. It is not controlled by NATO either. Its purpose is to inform (and entertain) the British people. The purpose of RT is to reduce trust in our institutions, provide fake news to confuse the issues and basically it is a propaganda weapon.

    I would accept NOTHING reported by RT as fact without independent verification.

    edit: I'll just add to that last a little: I would expect them on minor issues or on global events like the Japanese Tsunami to be reasonably accurate. But one of the classic ways to set up people to accept big lies is to set it up with lots of little, harmless, verifiable truths (perhaps a little twisted to suit, but basically correct). So I would actually expect that they fabricated the whole film you refer to or filmed it in another town also called Douma which wasn't gassed. Is there any way you can prove me wrong? No? Ok, that's when the status of the news provider becomes important.

    RT is a part of the Russian State apparatus. It does what Putin tells it to. The BBC is not part of the British State, it is a separate Corporation whose editorial independence is guaranteed by its Charter. The BBC does NOT work for anyone but the British people. You persist in regarding a report on RT as being like one on the BBC: it is not. A report on the BBC may be right or wrong, but you can be sure that it was created by a journalist attempting to find the truth and tell it to us. They work for the BBC, not the Government. You cannot say that about RT reports because they have NO duty to tell you the truth and are there to make Russia look good. They are propaganda agents who work for the Russian Government because RT is PART of the Russian Government. More like GCHQ than the BBC, in that respect.

    Put it another way: In the BBC you will get the occasional bad egg in the human nature of things. RT in its entirety is one big bad egg.

    Brexit is a great success for Putin. So is RT, which is NOT positive about the EU and seems to have quite a brexit following. (This has helped with another issue that was puzzling me - I now know where a group of posters on the BBC that support Putin but aren't Russians get their lies)

    The report I saw on Douma (iirc) was not a military one. No white helmets that I saw. Besides, I'd like to see these reports of faked UN videos. Link? Oh, don't bother if it's RT. Putin is doing his best to **** us up and you are helping him.
    The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
    Lone voice: "I'm not."

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    is .
     
    I am:
    Happy
     
    Bryn Mawr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    15,274
    Local Date
    05-23-2018
    Local Time
    11:04 PM
    Points
    23,054
    Gifts Balloons Car Gift Naughty Mag Certificate Beer Beer

    Re: ‘Return to three party politics’

    Register to remove this ad.
    The one thing I do note re: the Syria chemical attack is that Robert Fisk, a journalist I've long admired for his objectivity and the consistency of his message over many years of reporting from the middle east, visited the hospital where the film claiming the use of chemical weapons was made and interviewed the doctors who said no, not chemical weapons but asphyxia from being in almost sealed underground hideaways during the attack :-

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8307726.html

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.5.2