the snap general election thread

.string.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

She just did.

Yes, plaudits to her (I am assuming it's her) I found it refreshing that someone is voting for the overall good of the country.

By contrast, I note that the SNP's manifest cynically bribes their voters and wants to spend billions on infrastructure from funds we don't have plus other goodies, getting it from increased taxes from the rest of us, and from borrowing it and increasing the UK debt. All this while knowing it is something they cannot deliver and in the context of wanting to abandon ship, pocketing the loot and then, as they have explained many times, refusing to repay their share of the national debt.

gfplux

Up to now mid afternoon Tuesday no comments on the Chanel 4/sky news May and Corbyn show. I assume all posters watched it.
I watched it and thought Corbyn did well and May less well.
I don't think it will have changed many minds although Corbyn doesn't quite look the guy described in the Tory newspapers.

Fella

wotsthat wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I know what confirmation bias is thanks, however thanks to not being a moron or a hypocrite it doesn't apply to me.

Rather than sling a lazy insult via a url you could try to make a case for the BBC being unbiased. Difficult job as I say, since by definition they are the very opposite of free enterprise & rely on an outdated tax (rather than say, objective reporting people would pay for) to fund themselves.

Here's an example from the last 30 minutes that sums up exactly the kind of low-level bias the BBC throw out all the time:

- Earlier today, Corbyn announces another uncosted bribe - 30 hours "free" childcare for 2-4 year olds.

- When given the most basic question possible, ie what would it cost, he has no idea. Typical of the man & the way he leads his party, just rush out another bribe in such a sloppy fasion you haven't bothered to remember what it'll cost.


Here's how that was reported on BBC 5 live just now:

- Newsreader: "Jeremy Corbyn has explained the cost of free childcare for 2-4 year olds"

- Cut to Corbyn, now fully prepped who gives a 30-second spiel on the figures, how fully costed they are, and how great free childcare for all 2-4 year olds will be.

- Cut back to Newsreader who finishes the item merely by muttering that Corbyn hadnt been able to provide the exact figures earlier.

So the facts: Corbyn rushes out another uncosted bribe without doing even the most basic of homework.

The reporting: Effectively a nice little one-minute partly political broadcast for the Labour Party.

Nobody listening would have been any the wiser & the message many people would have got would simply have been "how wonderful, yet another thing that will be free under the Labour party".

As Peter Sissons (former presenter of Question Time) said himself from the link earlier:

"By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’."

Anybody who can't see that for themselves either doesn't have the foggiest or simply chooses not to see it because they're quite happy for the BBC to be biased when it's in their favour.

Fella

Herzlos wrote: »

Can you honestly say you are happier with the Tories approach to the NHS than Labour?

Serious questions as I genuinely wonder whether people who support the likes of Corbyn ever think about either of these;

1. Do you realise that no Prime Minister ever spent a penny of their own money on the NHS or on anything else. Every penny they spend is our money, your money, or maybe your kids money. Calling a party "the nasty party" because they don't want to spend someone elses money, is just beyond daft. Likewise, applauding the Labour party because of how much of someone elses money they're promising to spend is just beyond daft.

2. All of that aside, do you realise that if Corbyn gained power & did even a fraction of what he's suggesting, the country would go bankrupt in a way that would make Greece look like Apple, and the end result would be far less money for the NHS, for Schools, for Police, and for everything else Labour supporters claim to care about.

Commonsense should tell you that if this wasn't the case, the Tories themselves would be happily proposing to spend just as much money in the same ways. By far the thing they care most about is being in power for as long as possible. If the stuff Corbyn is proposing was remotely viable they'd be doing it themselves & sitting back having an easy life.

ukcarper

Fella wrote: »

I know what confirmation bias is thanks, however thanks to not being a moron or a hypocrite it doesn't apply to me.

Rather than sling a lazy insult via a url you could try to make a case for the BBC being unbiased. Difficult job as I say, since by definition they are the very opposite of free enterprise & rely on an outdated tax (rather than say, objective reporting people would pay for) to fund themselves.

Here's an example from the last 30 minutes that sums up exactly the kind of low-level bias the BBC throw out all the time:

- Earlier today, Corbyn announces another uncosted bribe - 30 hours "free" childcare for 2-4 year olds.

- When given the most basic question possible, ie what would it cost, he has no idea. Typical of the man & the way he leads his party, just rush out another bribe in such a sloppy fasion you haven't bothered to remember what it'll cost.


Here's how that was reported on BBC 5 live just now:

- Newsreader: "Jeremy Corbyn has explained the cost of free childcare for 2-4 year olds"

- Cut to Corbyn, now fully prepped who gives a 30-second spiel on the figures, how fully costed they are, and how great free childcare for all 2-4 year olds will be.

- Cut back to Newsreader who finishes the item merely by muttering that Corbyn hadnt been able to provide the exact figures earlier.

So the facts: Corbyn rushes out another uncosted bribe without doing even the most basic of homework.

The reporting: Effectively a nice little one-minute partly political broadcast for the Labour Party.

Nobody listening would have been any the wiser & the message many people would have got would simply have been "how wonderful, yet another thing that will be free under the Labour party".

As Peter Sissons (former presenter of Question Time) said himself from the link earlier:

"By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’."

Anybody who can't see that for themselves either doesn't have the foggiest or simply chooses not to see it because they're quite happy for the BBC to be biased when it's in their favour.

Did you watch today's politics show, they showed the radio video and were very critical. Listening to yo you would think they are always easy on Labour and hard on Tories which is not the case.

kabayiri

gfplux wrote: »

Living in Surrey probably gives you an insite in to this.
However I thought that British people objected to these Romanians and Poles working in Britain and claiming child benefit while their children still live in their home Country's. They can't do that if they are on the black.

When my cousin bought a food processing factory, it was sold on the understanding that he was buying a working enterprise.

This meant not only the factory, but the dormitory attached, and the EE workers already employed. Only the production manager and the office staff were not migrant labour.

Charging the workers for the accommodation allows you to keep the effective wage down, but it has it's downside too. There are more issues to deal with.

...this isn't Surrey! Far too rich a region.

wotsthat

Fella wrote: »

I know what confirmation bias is thanks, however thanks to not being a moron or a hypocrite it doesn't apply to me.

..........

I'm reading on the BBC how Corbyn struggled with child care costs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520

This was on a par, or possibly even worse, than Diane Abbott getting into a pickle on the cost of Labour's policing pledges.

That's not just because Jeremy Corbyn is the party leader, but also because childcare is an absolutely key pledge, he's campaigning on it today - and he was clearly struggling badly for the numbers.

When you get the leader struggling to say how much a core Labour policy is going to cost it sparks questions about how clear, how thorough, how credible its spending plans are.

Have another read through the definition of confirmation bias.

michaels

Herzlos wrote: »

Can you honestly say you are happier with the Tories approach to the NHS than Labour?

I thought both parties were promising to spend similar amounts but Labour would spend a higher proportion of the money paying higher salaries - or can someone explain how I have misunderstood the policies?

Fella

setmefree2 wrote: »

Without a doubt the Tory Manifesto was a car crash - politics students will be studying it forever....

I have to say - grammar schools, fox hunting, and bashing pensioners - what were you thinking?

Fox hunting in particular was staggeringly dumb. It's a subject that sums up the worst fears of anybody a bit suss of the Tories. It is loathed across the board by plenty of people. And I would bet a ton of money that there isn't a single person in the country it'll influence to vote Tory. Nobody in the country, not already intending to vote Tory, heard that policy & thought "I'm voting Tory then".

Stupid beyond belief & IMO it sums up best the extent to which May thought she couldn't lose this election. That manifesto was written as if they'd already won & were deciding what they wanted to do first.

It almost makes you wonder if the Tories want to win by (little) enough that Corbyn clings on & they get to face him again next time. Alas I don't think anybody writing their strategy is that clever.

Fella

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm reading on the BBC how Corbyn struggled with child care costs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520



Have another read through the definition of confirmation bias.

No need to carry on with the insults. I have no respect for you whatsoever but I still do you the decency of replying as if you're intelligent enough to argue with. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

So in reply, I was driving home from work when I was listening to 5 live & I wrote about what I heard in good faith.

If you've had time to view, listen & read every outlet the BBC has to offer, you obviously have more free time than me.

PS - you might want to reflect on the fact that an unbiased report (such as the one you posted) and a very biased bit of reporting (that I reported) does not equal unbiased reporting. It equals very biased reporting. Telling two sides of a story that only has one side is not unbiased. It's biased, just in a clever enough way to fool some people.