the snap general election thread

Fella

ukcarper wrote: »

I think this post show bias. I agree that the Labour manifesto doesn't stand up to scrutiny and deserves to be criticised. But the vagueness iof the Tory manifesto also deserves to be scrutinised as we haven't the slightest idea of what a better off pensioner is, also at first there wasn't a cap on social care and now there is but we have no idea what it is.

How is this remotely biased? I'm criticizing the Tory manifesto for not being costed (which it isn't) and the Labour manifesto for being a fantasy based on lies (which it is). The very essence of non-bias. On several occasions I've pointed out that the Tory manifest is uncosted & that it was a strategic blunder.

Notwithstanding the above the Tory manifesto is still by far the lesser crime & I make no secret of my belief in that. Again, not remotely biased.

Opinion is not bias. I happily put forward the opinion that the current Labour party are dreadful on all counts & that I hope they lose heavily.

Bias would be something along the lines of saying May is a great leader, the Tories have a great manifesto, the social care thing wasn't a U-turn etc, none of which I have ever done. Or anything remotely similar.

ukcarper

Fella wrote: »

How is this remotely biased? I'm criticizing the Tory manifesto for not being costed (which it isn't) and the Labour manifesto for being a fantasy based on lies (which it is). The very essence of non-bias. On several occasions I've pointed out that the Tory manifest is uncosted & that it was a strategic blunder.

Notwithstanding the above the Tory manifesto is still by far the lesser crime & I make no secret of my belief in that. Again, not remotely biased.

Opinion is not bias. I happily put forward the opinion that the current Labour party are dreadful on all counts & that I hope they lose heavily.

Bias would be something along the lines of saying May is a great leader, the Tories have a great manifesto, the social care thing wasn't a U-turn etc, none of which I have ever done. Or anything remotely similar.

You said that the Tory manifesto should not have been subjected to the same scrutiny as Labour, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.

Fella

wotsthat wrote: »

You proved the BBC were biased based on a 5 minute clip. You didn't spend a further 5 minutes seeing how the BBC subsequently reported it because your bias had been fed.

The BBC actually reported it as Diane Abbott moment which, if anything, was somewhat harsh.

No, I pointed out an example of BBC bias. There are a million of these but that was just one from today.

When you say calling it a Dianne Abbott moment was "somewhat harsh" who are you saying it was harsh on? Jeremy Cornyn, staunch supporter of Dianne Abbott (& the man who appointed her as shadow home secretary) or Dianne Abbott, staunch supporter of Jeremy Corbyn & the woman that get's wheeled out first every time to defend his indefensible policies?

(you'll note I had the good grace to not even go near their other possible, too-sick-making-to-mention relationships).

Either way, quite amusing to call it harsh eh?

wotsthat wrote: »

Plus you said you weren't biased which shows a misunderstanding of what bias is. I bet you think advertising and marketing has no effect on you either.

O well, another bet you use. It's you that misunderstands what bias is. Here's a handy guide to help you in future:

- recognizing lies from an extremist as what they are & calling them out as the same = not bias

- defending the party you want to win regardless of what crap they come out with = bias

- giving both sides of a debate the same amount of airtime regardless of how invidious their position = bias

Fella

ukcarper wrote: »

You said that the Tory manifesto should not have been subjected to the same scrutiny as Labour, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.

Rather than repeat myself, I stand by what I said for all the reasons I posted in http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72624693&postcount=1527

To quote meself:

So why exactly, should Corbyn be given the same even-handed treatment as the Tories or the Libdems? He is an extremist, peddling dangerous, utterly deceitful & potentially ruinous policies.

Put another way, if somehow the Labour party had been overrun by a leader on record as supporting some of the more recent atrocities, and who shows no sign whatsoever of having changed that view, do you really think he'd be getting the same generous coverage Corbyn is? Really?

As recently as last week Corbyn still refuses to condemn the IRA. There's a very straightforward reason for this. His beliefs haven't changed.

If Corbyn was the leader of some niche far-left party (as he should be) with the identical beliefs and the identical policies, you would be denouncing him louder than me. So why aren't you?

wotsthat

Fella wrote: »

No, I pointed out an example of BBC bias. There are a million of these but that was just one from today.

When you say calling it a Dianne Abbott moment was "somewhat harsh" who are you saying it was harsh on? Jeremy Cornyn, staunch supporter of Dianne Abbott (& the man who appointed her as shadow home secretary) or Dianne Abbott, staunch supporter of Jeremy Corbyn & the woman that get's wheeled out first every time to defend his indefensible policies?

(you'll note I had the good grace to not even go near their other possible, too-sick-making-to-mention relationships).

Either way, quite amusing to call it harsh eh?

It's harsh on Jeremy Corbyn - he wasn't on top of his figures (not a good thing of course). Abbott was in a different league of cringe.

I note you said you had the good grace of not mentioning something about their other sick making relationships but mentioned it anyway. Irony's funny isn't it?

Fella wrote: »

O well, another bet you use. It's you that misunderstands what bias is. Here's a handy guide to help you in future:

- recognizing lies from an extremist as what they are & calling them out as the same = not bias

- defending the party you want to win regardless of what crap they come out with = bias

- giving both sides of a debate the same amount of airtime regardless of how invidious their position = bias

A handy guide to the bleeding obvious.

ukcarper

Fella wrote: »

Rather than repeat myself, I stand by what I said for all the reasons I posted in http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72624693&postcount=1527

To quote meself:

So why exactly, should Corbyn be given the same even-handed treatment as the Tories or the Libdems? He is an extremist, peddling dangerous, utterly deceitful & potentially ruinous policies.

Put another way, if somehow the Labour party had been overrun by a leader on record as supporting some of the more recent atrocities, and who shows no sign whatsoever of having changed that view, do you really think he'd be getting the same generous coverage Corbyn is? Really?

As recently as last week Corbyn still refuses to condemn the IRA. There's a very straightforward reason for this. His beliefs haven't changed.

If Corbyn was the leader of some niche far-left party (as he should be) with the identical beliefs and the identical policies, you would be denouncing him louder than me. So why aren't you?

The BBC have continuously asked him about the IRA, whether you like it he is the leader of the opposition and has to be treated as such and so long as the BBC don't ignore his faults or go soft on him I don't see it as being biased.

Fella

wotsthat wrote: »

It's harsh on Jeremy Corbyn - he wasn't on top of his figures (not a good thing of course). Abbott was in a different league of cringe.

I note you said you had the good grace of not mentioning something about their other sick making relationships but mentioned it anyway. Irony's funny isn't it?

A handy guide to the bleeding obvious.

seriously, you think it's harsh when the actual leader of a party doesn't know the simple cost of a policy he's on air to announce? That makes him about as clever as most kids are when they are two years old.

Sadly I think you believe Irony means "kind of like Iron" but hang in there.

Glad you liked the guide, I could tell you needed it.

Fella

ukcarper wrote: »

The BBC have continuously asked him about the IRA, whether you like it he is the leader of the opposition and has to be treated as such and so long as the BBC don't ignore his faults or go soft on him I don't see it as being biased.

I don't believe he deserves any special treatment purely by dint of managing to get elected as leader of the opposition, any more than I would think Nick Griffin would if the Tories made the same stupid change to their electoral process & he managed to get himself elected as leader of the Tories.

Either way you're talking about an extremist scumbag who is no friend to the UK & will bring utter ruin to it if he ever got to power. Just because Corbyn can adopt a measured tone (at least until he's rattled & he shows his teeth) & look kind of like a beardy schoolteacher doesn't change what he is. And what he is is deeply unpleasant.

In a way you make the very point I'm trying to make. The BBC having a "bit of a go" at Corbyn & then the same at May or whoever, makes them all very similar in the eyes of the public. But they are utterly different. May is a very mainstream fairly boring politician, there are a hundred like her. Corbyn is an extremist who has spent his whole life lending support to extremist groups & who has both praised and appears to want to emulate the fiscal policy of Venezuela. I repeat, he does not deserve to be given the time of day, let alone an equal footing with the rest of them.

ukcarper

Fella wrote: »

I don't believe he deserves any special treatment purely by dint of managing to get elected as leader of the opposition, any more than I would think Nick Griffin would if the Tories made the same stupid change to their electoral process & he managed to get himself elected as leader of the Tories.

Either way you're talking about an extremist scumbag who is no friend to the UK & will bring utter ruin to it if he ever got to power. Just because Corbyn can adopt a measured tone (at least until he's rattled & he shows his teeth) & look kind of like a beardy schoolteacher doesn't change what he is. And what he is is deeply unpleasant.

In a way you make the very point I'm trying to make. The BBC having a "bit of a go" at Corbyn & then the same at May or whoever, makes them all very similar in the eyes of the public. But they are utterly different. May is a very mainstream fairly boring politician, there are a hundred like her. Corbyn is an extremist who has spent his whole life lending support to extremist groups & who has both praised and appears to want to emulate the fiscal policy of Venezuela. I repeat, he does not deserve to be given the time of day, let alone an equal footing with the rest of them.

No it doesn't by treating people the same the public can draw thier own conclusions. Although I don't think BBC are biased I don't think Corbyn will make a good Prime Minister and the fact that they scrutinise May doesn't alter that.

kabayiri

I find it depressing that neither Labour or Tories have set out any real visionary plans.

It was over 50 years ago when Wilson made his memorable White Heat of Technology speech.

Okay, so maybe it didn't come off, but where is the comparable ambition today?

I'll be honest. I find the research material my Indian friends dig up more interesting at the moment. I think India and China will be at the vanguard of technology like AI; robotics; and material science.

Our politicians will sell us down the river for short term gain once again.