EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 553
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9226 Posts
According to a source in the rebel group, Mr Cummings said: "You Tory MPs need to get it through your f---ing heads that we are leaving the EU on Oct 31." The Telegraph has been told by two sources in the rebel group that relations between Mr Johnson and Mr Cummings are becoming strained thanks to the behaviour of his chief adviser. ... Mr Cummings was reported to have seen Mr Corbyn on the parliamentary estate and said: “Come on Jeremy, let’s do this election, don’t be scared.” Labour MP Cat Smith tweeted: “As one of several shadow cabinet members stood right next to Jeremy (who was on the phone at the time) I just thought there was some loud bloke who stunk of booze yelling at us.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/04/dominic-cummings-personally-sabotaged-tory-rebels-compromise/ | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9914 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Apparently Corbyn is now tied with Thatcher for most defeats of a government as opposition leader. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22452 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9914 Posts
Boris tried to inject some bantz but it was poor and he didn't answer a single one of Corbyn's questions at all. He's shit. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
Despite his reputation I actually think if he had won in 2016 we would never have been in this mess. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
Or at least that's what they're saying, idk about ulterior motives. Or is there some other reason why Labour is openly (!) against new elections? Because looking from the outside a new election seems like something that's needed. The government has no majoritiy and your weird way of doing government basicly doesn't allow for people to work together aside from coalitions to form a government in the first place. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On September 05 2019 07:33 Jockmcplop wrote: PMQs today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhgw7glWR4k Boris tried to inject some bantz but it was poor and he didn't answer a single one of Corbyn's questions at all. He's shit. Some of these guys lol 'EU rules on VAT of our energy bills costing our households X money per year, take back control of our energy bills!!111" Boris deflecting is lame. He had no answers to the very real questions by Corbyn. I don't know how he gets away with it. He has to show responsibility as leader of a country surely There's no negotiation strategy, there's no progress, he has nothing but calling his opponent a chlorinated chicken 'Surrendering Scottish fish, just when they've been taken back by our country' What a useless rhetoric. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9226 Posts
On September 05 2019 08:22 Toadesstern wrote: Just to make sure I don't misunderstand this. Labour is against a general election because the 15h oct would be a bad date with the election being right ahead of when they are supposed to leave the EU and want one after making sure they have more time to leave via another extension to get a more neutral campaigning phase? Or at least that's what they're saying, idk about ulterior motives. Or is there some other reason why Labour is openly (!) against new elections? Because looking from the outside a new election seems like something that's needed. The government has no majoritiy and your weird way of doing government basicly doesn't allow for people to work together aside from coalitions to form a government in the first place. Because that would be giving up their leverage for a coin flip. Why would Labour accept to have an election right before a 100% guaranteed blow to Boris? There's only 2 options if Boris is PM by Oct 31st. Since there's no time to negotiate anything else by then, either he fails to keep his promise and the only thing on his manifesto, which is to leave on that date, and he loses some support because of it. Or no deal goes ahead which damages everyone rather than just him but can't happen unless he wins a GE and gains the votes and mandate to repeal the act passed this week that forces an extension. That's why Boris' chief strategist is losing his mind screeching at Corbyn to accept the GE, because they can't get ahead of this without winning one before the next deadline. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On September 05 2019 08:22 Toadesstern wrote: Just to make sure I don't misunderstand this. Labour is against a general election because the 15h oct would be a bad date with the election being right ahead of when they are supposed to leave the EU and want one after making sure they have more time to leave via another extension to get a more neutral campaigning phase? Or at least that's what they're saying, idk about ulterior motives. Or is there some other reason why Labour is openly (!) against new elections? Because looking from the outside a new election seems like something that's needed. The government has no majoritiy and your weird way of doing government basicly doesn't allow for people to work together aside from coalitions to form a government in the first place. It's also that they don't trust Boris' word that the election will be held on October 15. If they voted for an election now, it would then be for Boris to set the date as he saw fit. So he could set it to Nov 2 and have the UK crash out while the parliament is closed for the election. Or something along thise lines. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On September 05 2019 08:22 Toadesstern wrote: Just to make sure I don't misunderstand this. Labour is against a general election because the 15h oct would be a bad date with the election being right ahead of when they are supposed to leave the EU and want one after making sure they have more time to leave via another extension to get a more neutral campaigning phase? Or at least that's what they're saying, idk about ulterior motives. Or is there some other reason why Labour is openly (!) against new elections? Because looking from the outside a new election seems like something that's needed. The government has no majoritiy and your weird way of doing government basicly doesn't allow for people to work together aside from coalitions to form a government in the first place. Nobody trusts Boris at all. I think Labour would be happy to have a general election AFTER an extension has been agreed with the EU. Until an extension has been agreed though, there is the possibility that Boris will do everything he can to push the general election back to after the Brexit date. Boris has done nothing to earn trust and plenty to earn mistrust, even in his short term as PM, so I fully understand people not trusting him. Since becoming PM, everything he has done has been to force no-deal. There is no other explanation for his behaviour. The Telegraph (usually pro-Tory, pro-Brexit) has strongly claimed that the negotiations with the EU are a sham to maintain appearances domestically while waiting out the clock. Moreover, Boris has repeatedly said that he doesn't want to rule out no-deal because it hurts our (allegedly non-existant) negotiations, but won't release any of the reports that supposedly say no-deal wouldn't be as bad as claimed. If they wanted to use a plausible no-deal to strengthen their negotiating position then they certainly would make public any positive reports on no-deal or alternatives to the backstop. Instead, we have a government dismissing newspaper articles about these reports but refusing to release the reports, not even to Parliament. Finally, why would Boris say he doesn't want a general election when he asks for it and his party is the only party voting for it? Why ask for a general election rather than a no-deal vs remain referendum? If no-deal has a public majority then that referendum would decide it. (Sometimes Boris sounds like an abusive husband towards parliament; trying to take any any autonomy, blaming them for everything, even now going 'I don't want to do this, why are you making me do this?') | ||
|
Razyda
1044 Posts
Unfortunately though judging by the moods (I am generaly going through both Guardian like and Daily Mail like comments) doesnt matter if another extension happens, or not, election will happen and it seems BJ will get a landslide. He already avoided TM mistake of making election about Brexit, so far his message is I'll solve all the problems of this country, but first I'll make EU bend the knee and beg for forgiveness. Only thing is his promises are of the kind which even communist parties in Eastern Europe werent doing back in the days. Funny thing is people there didnt believe them, but didnt have a choice, here people have a choice, but believe them. Out of what he promised, only thing i kinda believe to happen is additional 20000 police on the streets, only it wont be 20k but 50k and they all will be in newly created department enforcing only right and just political views. Worst part is I believe now he may as well remain PM otherwise people will just not f...ng learn. BJ not the PM people need, but the one they do deserve. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2396 Posts
I've been shocked at the complete lack of any sort of attempt to offer a reasoned, balanced commentary on the matter by the high-brow papers. Meanwhile, the tabloids seem to be written for Neardenthals. The covers of today's papers kind of represent what I mean: http://theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/pm-cornered-how-the-papers-covered-johnsons-horror-day-in-commons#img-1 The only papers I find digestible nowadays are the Guardian (and I'm not left-wing at all) and FT. | ||
|
Maverick_2009
Somewhere2002 Posts
| ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On September 05 2019 19:08 warding wrote: To those from outside the UK and US paying attention to the Brexit debate within Britain, how do you think the information digest of the British people compares to that within your country? I've been shocked at the complete lack of any sort of attempt to offer a reasoned, balanced commentary on the matter by the high-brow papers. Meanwhile, the tabloids seem to be written for Neardenthals. The covers of today's papers kind of represent what I mean: http://theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/pm-cornered-how-the-papers-covered-johnsons-horror-day-in-commons#img-1 The only papers I find digestible nowadays are the Guardian (and I'm not left-wing at all) and FT. you forgot the actual big news item today + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RxxGS8a.png) | ||
KwarK
United States44177 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8126 Posts
On September 05 2019 19:08 warding wrote: To those from outside the UK and US paying attention to the Brexit debate within Britain, how do you think the information digest of the British people compares to that within your country? I've been shocked at the complete lack of any sort of attempt to offer a reasoned, balanced commentary on the matter by the high-brow papers. Meanwhile, the tabloids seem to be written for Neardenthals. The covers of today's papers kind of represent what I mean: http://theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/pm-cornered-how-the-papers-covered-johnsons-horror-day-in-commons#img-1 The only papers I find digestible nowadays are the Guardian (and I'm not left-wing at all) and FT. I believe the Murdoch controlled tabloid press is one of the top 3 problems of the UK. Its nefarious and toxic influence is felt at all level of political life. I lived 6 years in London and just to not have to get angry seeing people reading this goebellian junk in the tube in the morning, I am happy to have GTFOed of there for good. It’s depressing and utterly infuriating. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On September 05 2019 19:08 warding wrote: I've been trying to keep up with UK news because of Brexit, and honestly the state of news media there pretty appalling. In some cases (particularly the tabloids, which seem much more prominent there), it's much worse than even the US. All of the Murdoch-owned media entities are abhorrent, but that's to be expected. I haven't read the Financial Times, but of the British media sites I've read, only the Guardian and the BBC seem somewhat reasonable and at least put in some sort of attempt to be neutral. The rest are either blatantly biased or are written in an exaggerated manner in hopes of getting people to click/buy while containing almost no information in the articles. I don't know how the hell the Daily Mail and The Telegraph get away calling themselves news outlets.To those from outside the UK and US paying attention to the Brexit debate within Britain, how do you think the information digest of the British people compares to that within your country? I've been shocked at the complete lack of any sort of attempt to offer a reasoned, balanced commentary on the matter by the high-brow papers. Meanwhile, the tabloids seem to be written for Neardenthals. The covers of today's papers kind of represent what I mean: http://theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/pm-cornered-how-the-papers-covered-johnsons-horror-day-in-commons#img-1 The only papers I find digestible nowadays are the Guardian (and I'm not left-wing at all) and FT. Contrast that with Canada. While our media and news situation isn't perfect, it is much better. Tabloids aren't really much of a thing here. Print media (newspapers, etc.) is not in a great state here because a large company, Postmedia, purchased many regional papers and has both forced these papers to do drastic cost-cutting measures, killing off a lot of local content in doing so, and has forced them to include a section from the largest Postmedia paper, the National Post, which is blatantly right wing. At least what remains of the local sections still tend to be pretty good depending on the paper. Papers like the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail however have survived and been around to challenge Postmedia's grip on print media, which I think is a good thing. There's also the Toronto Sun, which I consider closest to a tabloid and is similar to the National Post in that they are right-leaning and don't try to hide it (more on The Sun later), but the Sun is much more akin to something like the Daily Mail. Television and internet news media here though is fantastic. We have several prominent news organizations, and for the most part they're pretty good. The CBC is owned by the government but run independently (they're somewhat similar in concept to BBC. They have national radio channels and television channels. They show parliament, etc.). CBC's editorial staff have admitted the editorial section tends to lean left, but their news coverage is second to none. CBC puts in obvious effort to be as neutral as possible when reporting the news and actively avoids controversial news-reporting techniques and concepts. For example, if there is an active event going on (a shooting or something), CBC will not do what outlets like CNN do in that they will not show a live shot or report unconfirmed witness accounts. They wait until they have a decent amount of verified information before reporting with any level of depth. They've won journalism awards because of this behaviour. We have other news organizations that are decent too like CTV. Their editorial commentary is centre-right but like CBC they tend to be fairly neutral with the actual news. Between the two, there's a lot of great news information available should someone want any and it tends to be quite trustworthy. There's also Global News, but it got bought out by a company that basically gutted it, and it has been a shadow of its former self for a few years now. They went from being a solid third option to a centrally run organization that has a rightward bend to their reporting and very little local news. What happened to Global is a real shame. Finally, we previously had a channel called Sun News (related to the Toronto Sun and Sun Media), which was nicknamed "Fox News North" that was, as implied, basically Fox News but for Canadian news. It didn't last very long. There just wasn't the appetite for that kind of thing, and the channel was only available as a special option on cable, so it didn't get a lot of viewership. In the aftermath there have been several internet news sites (I use news very loosely here) that have popped to fill the void, but they haven't really caught on. I'm honestly glad Sun News went under when it did. The last thing we need in this political environment is yet another divisive news organization that operates by making people angry so they'll keep watching. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
We're living in upside down land here. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On September 06 2019 08:00 iamthedave wrote: I won't go deep to bat for our news media, but Brexit is a singularly polarizing issue that has turned everyone stupid. It's been dreadful since day one and it will be dreadful until the whole mess is over. We're living in upside down land here. Three cheers for the Anglosphere. | ||
| ||
