Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:57 pm

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 98):
Of course you want the biggest selling daily and Sunday paper in your camp.

Why, if it has no influence?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 99):
Because consistent pressure from the same side would still just prop up the same status quo.

Precisely- it's hard to think of any other way to state this.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:40 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 99):
Because consistent pressure from the same side would still just prop up the same status quo.

Not that I disagree, but this debate is whether it will influence the result of the GE. Will it?

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 100):
Why, if it has no influence?

Because the Sun is not the mouthpiece of an idealogue. It is a business tool. One which has flip flopped at the owner's whim when that tool would otherwise have become impotent and just joined the majority chorus spitting into the tent. Politically, the price was not high.

Campbell said as much at leveson, the Sun was in an 'odd place' on allegiance shifting. Its not difficult to figure out why.


Still waiting for the trivial issues that will decide this election.

[Edited 2015-04-22 10:41:40]
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Klaus
Posts: 21556
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:45 pm

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 101):
Not that I disagree, but this debate is whether it will influence the result of the GE. Will it?

If it stopped its pushing to the right? Most likely!

Influence only shows up as a change when that influence changes, not when it is merely maintained at the same level. Otherwise you just stay at a constant distance to the neutral baseline for as long as the skewing influence persists.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:59 pm

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 101):
Because the Sun is not the mouthpiece of an idealogue. It is a business tool. One which has flip flopped at the owner's whim when that tool would otherwise have become impotent and just joined the majority chorus spitting into the tent. Politically, the price was not high.

You haven't explained why:

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 98):
Of course you want the biggest selling daily and Sunday paper in your camp.

If the media have no influence on voters as you claim, why does it matter? Why would you care if they were "in your camp" or not?

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 101):
Not that I disagree, but this debate is whether it will influence the result of the GE. Will it?

If you DON'T disagree with Klaus, then the answer is yes.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 98):
Then why then hasn't Milliband courted the majority right wing press more? He seems to have missed a trick according to you.

Well, to do so he'd have to swing to the right policy-wise, something he hasn't been willing to do. So in that respect one could argue he's sticking to his principles. Clearly he believes he can win the election without selling his soul- we'll have to see if that turns out to be true.

If not, it's really the Labor Party who missed a trick by electing his as leader.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:58 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 103):
If the media have no influence on voters as you claim, why does it matter?

I have previously but.... Blair didn't want the backing to get elected, he had that sown up. The Sun didn't influence electoral victory, therefore it didn't influence voters. Once in, even with its backing, Labour still had minority press support to deal with. In other words, fewer accommodating outlets than any Conservative government would traditionally have. It was a political no brainer.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 103):
Clearly he believes he can win the election without selling his soul

He made the decision four years ago and its not really a principled decision when the only switchable title had already chosen the other side. He had no choice. Nice spin though.

Last time, what trivial issues?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 102):
If it stopped its pushing to the right? Most likely!

No. That consistent pressure IS maintaining the status quo. And doing a terrible job of influencing elections, which is what this debate is actually about.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:25 pm

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 104):
He made the decision four years ago and its not really a principled decision when the only switchable title had already chosen the other side. He had no choice. Nice spin though.

All titles can provide a range of coverage, from very favorable, to slightly favorable, to neutral and so on. It's not an on/off button.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 104):
Last time, what trivial issues?
Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 96):
But back to the actual point, which trivial issues will decide the 2015 GE?

Sorry- didn't realize that was directed at me. I have no idea- there will be a mix of major and trivial issues as in any election. Not sure what you're driving at here.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 104):
I have previously but.... Blair didn't want the backing to get elected, he had that sown up. The Sun didn't influence electoral victory, therefore it didn't influence voters.
Whether a party wins or not cannot be used to judge if the media have had an effect on the election result. For example, if Labour won 66% of the available seats in a fictional election, 5% of that might have been down to favorable press coverage. They still would have won the election with 61%, but to say the media did not have an effect in that scenario would be incorrect.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 104):
Once in, even with its backing, Labour still had minority press support to deal with. In other words, fewer accommodating outlets than any Conservative government would traditionally have. It was a political no brainer.

That doesn't answer my question. Why if the media have no influence do "you want the biggest selling daily and Sunday paper in your camp."? Why would Blair care even if every single newspaper in the land hated his guts? Why would Cameron for that matter?

I think fundamentally the confusion in this discussion may lie in the definition of "influence". To "influence" something you simply need to affect its result, which in the case of an election means at least one person in the country voted differently than they would have done without the press being present.

The only question is how many votes were affected. Who won the election is completely irrelevant.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
Klaus
Posts: 21556
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:16 pm

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 104):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 102):
If it stopped its pushing to the right? Most likely!

No. That consistent pressure IS maintaining the status quo. And doing a terrible job of influencing elections, which is what this debate is actually about.

If one-sided media pressure is maintaining the status quo, that still means that without this distortion the true results would be different. Which is the whole point here.
 
opethfan
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:35 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:27 pm

I'm not registered to vote in the UK (probably never will be) but all this talk of voter disenfranchisement, low turnout, minority govts, coalitions, etc leads to my biggest talking point as a poli sci major:

Electoral reform!

Issues 1 - 10 to every govt still using first past the post voting should be fixing the voting system. So many votes get wasted, so much of the popular vote is ignored, and no one wins (except for the major political parties, which is why it continues)
 
offloaded
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:56 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:26 am

Quoting opethfan (Reply 107):

I used to think that the first past the post system was about the best but now I'm not so sure. I like the system where you have to choose in order of preference. That to me this is the most democratic way it can be. I think Australia has this system? However, in countries where there are endless coalition governments, it can be a lot harder to get things done, and even harder to make tough decisions.

It saddens me that there are so many so called "safe seats" - more than half, according to the Electoral Reform Society.



Quoting Klaus (Reply 106):

We do have left-leaning papers you know: The Guardian, Mirror, Independent

Polls can be a good indicator, but if someone rang me up out of the blue and asked who I was going to vote for, how do I know they really are who they say they are. If I lived in Scotland I'd probably say SNP to avoid getting a brick through my front window, but on the day would have absolutely no intention of voting for them.
To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:32 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 105):
All titles can provide a range of coverage, from very favorable, to slightly favorable, to neutral and so on. It's not an on/off button.

Of course they could but they're not. Even allowing for being 2 weeks from polling the usual suspects aren't printing anything remotely neutral to the leaders.


Quoting zckls04 (Reply 105):
Sorry- didn't realize that was directed at me. I have no idea- there will be a mix of major and trivial issues as in any election.

Reply 96 & 98 you were the only quoted poster. Who was I addressing if not you?

NHS, spending cuts, welfare, tax, pensions, education, immigration and the EU is where this election is being fought. And major missteps could be decisive in an election seemingly deadlocked. Trivial isn't going to decide this election.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 105):
Whether a party wins or not cannot be used to judge if the media have had an effect on the election result. For example, if Labour won 66% of the available seats in a fictional election, 5% of that might have been down to favorable press coverage. They still would have won the election with 61%, but to say the media did not have an effect in that scenario would be incorrect.

I actually wish I had posted this because this is basically my point. In your scenario, even if the they lost 5% due to negative press coverage from where they were polling they would still gain office with a large majority. The press would not have had the influence to change the expected outcome. Thats what I mean when I talk about the influence on the result of the election.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 105):
That doesn't answer my question. Why if the media have no influence do "you want the biggest selling daily and Sunday paper in your camp."? Why would Blair care even if every single newspaper in the land hated his guts? Why would Cameron for that matter?

I have answered the question across several posts, that you're not satisfied isn't my problem.

Politicians overestimate what a national newspaper endorsement actually brings to the table. My position is that they shouldn't care. Mirror backs Milliband. No shit. Telegraph back Tories. Never. What changes.

And where I have said the press have 'No influence' at all in general. I have maintained throughout this thread that the influence of the press on the election RESULT has been exaggerated in the UK. Even the quote you started this off with ('Despite what the print media publishes it has next to no affect on the polls') I didn't discount a single one of the thousands (millions?) of permutations which could lead to deadlocked polls, just offered three of a multitude of possible reasons. The decline of newsprint being a statistically correct one.


Quoting zckls04 (Reply 105):
I think fundamentally the confusion in this discussion may lie in the definition of "influence".

The confusion is that we are actually arguing different issues.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 106):
If one-sided media pressure is maintaining the status quo, that still means that without this distortion the true results would be different.

And yet it doesn't necessarily mean the resultant outcome would be different.

[Edited 2015-04-23 05:05:20]
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Klaus
Posts: 21556
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:07 pm

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 109):
And yet it doesn't necessarily mean the resultant outcome would be different.

The question of polling accuracy doesn’t change when you’re removing a skew which affects both to a similar degree.
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:18 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 110):
The question of polling accuracy doesn’t change when you’re removing a skew which affects both to a similar degree.

Is that a yes?
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Klaus
Posts: 21556
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:28 pm

Obviously not, as that would not make any sense.
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:31 pm

So its a definite change of outcome.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Klaus
Posts: 21556
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:42 pm

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 113):
So its a definite change of outcome.

Nope. That doesn’t follow either. You’re producing logical fallacies in series. Logic doesn’t work like that.

Detecting an existing influence can be done by removing it and then checking whether the outcome changes as well, then ideally adding the influence again and checking whether the outcome changes back.

Within a real political system such repetitive experiments are of course impractical, but that propaganda does in fact have an effect has unfortunately been proven many times before already. It is not in doubt any more, and public media with a mandate of neutrality are a direct result of this existing knowledge.

So are laws mandating certain minimum quality standards for commercial media, and that is where things get relevant here.
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:04 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 114):
Nope. That doesn’t follow either.

The removal of press influence doesn't necessarily dictate one outcome over the other. You cannot logically hold any other position without the data (which I agree is practically impossible to gain) to come to a certain conclusion one way or the other.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 114):
but that propaganda does in fact have an effect has unfortunately been proven many times before already. It is not in doubt any more, and public media with a mandate of neutrality are a direct result of this existing knowledge.

Journalistic objectivity is a principle and neutrality is not mandated in the press. You know this. Even at election time when the rules tighten remarkably for TV and Radio.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12856
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:52 pm

Quoting opethfan (Reply 107):
Issues 1 - 10 to every govt still using first past the post voting should be fixing the voting system. So many votes get wasted, so much of the popular vote is ignored, and no one wins (except for the major political parties, which is why it continues)

You wouldn't think that way if you lived in a country where tiny political parties with really no right to be there can hold the govt to ransom over confidence and supply.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 108):
However, in countries where there are endless coalition governments, it can be a lot harder to get things done, and even harder to make tough decisions.

Like Sweden where there hasn't been effective govt for many years.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 23, 2015 4:23 pm

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 109):
I actually wish I had posted this because this is basically my point. In your scenario, even if the they lost 5% due to negative press coverage from where they were polling they would still gain office with a large majority. The press would not have had the influence to change the expected outcome. Thats what I mean when I talk about the influence on the result of the election.

Ah- then your contention is actually not about the outcome of the election, but about who becomes prime minister- which is a separate question.

In the scenario above for example, the press would have changed the expected outcome if they swung the public mood by 5%. The "outcome" of the election is not just about who wins, it's about the results of every single constituency in the UK. So if one constituency falls to a different party, the election outcome was different. Just because the prime minister is the same person in both scenarios doesn't mean the outcome was the same.

The number of seats a party gains is important and does make a difference. And of course given that no party is expected to win a majority, every seat is critical. Even a couple of seats either way could decide who forms the next government- so actually you're wrong there as well. Would this be a more accurate way of phrasing your assertion?

"I believe press coverage will be a relatively minor factor in determining who is the next prime minister".

That at least would make logical sense, even if the data isn't there to prove it either way.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:13 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 117):
The number of seats a party gains is important and does make a difference. And of course given that no party is expected to win a majority, every seat is critical. Even a couple of seats either way could decide who forms the next government- so actually you're wrong there as well

Your logic doesn't follow when you apply it to ALL possible outcomes, not just a presumed advantage for the party the influence outwardly supports.

And Repeating myself again - as I've never claimed there isn't some minor press influence, I fail to see how I would be wrong if the election is as tight as as a couple of seats.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 117):
then your contention is actually not about the outcome of the election, but about who becomes prime minister- which is a separate question.

As we're bordering on definitions again, I think this debate has come to its natural conclusion and maybe the thread should focus on the actual election itself.

Can we at least agree that the cumulative outcome decides the PM?
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:39 pm

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 118):
Can we at least agree that the cumulative outcome decides the PM?

Yes, the outcome of the election does strongly influence who the PM turns out to be.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
opethfan
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:35 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:00 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 116):
You wouldn't think that way if you lived in a country where tiny political parties with really no right to be there can hold the govt to ransom over confidence and supply.

Governance should be more about compromise than parliamentary supremacy. If tiny parties are able to influence govt, then they're likely large enough to have quite a few followers. Of course, certain systems (such as a nationwide party list system) are more susceptible to smaller parties gaining influence than others.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8272
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:40 pm

Quoting offloaded (Reply 108):
I like the system where you have to choose in order of preference. That to me this is the most democratic way it can be. I think Australia has this system?

We do indeed have preferential voting in Australia. I fully believe that it is the fairest voting system, as it seems to strike a balance between the pros and cons of FPTP and PR.

When you have to number every box to display your preference of candidates you can indicate not only who you want to win (putting a 1 in their box), but also say in order who you would despise the least (2, 3, 4) etc. This means that instead of someone winning with 40% of the vote in a 3+ way race, which necessarily means that 60% of the electorate didn't vote for them, the candidate who wins is the most preferred by the majority of the electorate.

The other fantastic innovation that Australia has, and God only knows why other country's don't get on board, is compulsory voting.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 108):
However, in countries where there are endless coalition governments, it can be a lot harder to get things done, and even harder to make tough decisions.

Notwithstanding any comment on the quality of our current politicians and their ability to "make tough decisions", this is the benefit of our system. It usually delivers strong majorities, unlike PR, but is a lot more democratic.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
winterlight
Posts: 1432
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:57 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:47 am

It's truly the final nail in the coffin if Millipede and the SNP get in. Sturgeon hates England full stop and Blair Mk2 Millipede just wants to turn us into Pakistan.
Question everything. Trust no-one.
 
offloaded
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:56 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:56 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 121):

Thanks for explaining how it works. Does seem like a damn good system. Someone'll be along to explain why I'm wrong though.
To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6165
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:19 am

Quoting offloaded (Reply 108):
I like the system where you have to choose in order of preference

It's neat for countries with constituencies that only elect a single member of parliament, and thus only have a handful of candidates on the ballot. Compare to the (proposed) ballot for my constituency, where we elect several members of parliament and where there are at present 72 candidates lined up. Going to take a while sorting those by order of preference 
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:48 am

A few things that Labour have popped up with in the past few days which has got my blood boiling:

- capping private landlord rent increases to no more than inflation for 3 years in each tenancy
- requiring new private tenants to be given full details of how much previous tenants paid in rent in the same accommodation, so they can fight any rent increases above inflation
- requiring half of all new build properties to be offered to locals before non-locals

Sorry, but this is, in my mind, far too invasive into a private market that the government should have no business sticking its nose into as far as Labour is proposing.
 
User avatar
winterlight
Posts: 1432
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:57 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:03 am

Quoting moo (Reply 125):
A few things that Labour have popped up with in the past few days which has got my blood boiling:

Not to mention making reasoned criticism of Islam a criminal offense. Eid Mullahband: pandering to the Muslims that his Labour party brought here in the first place.



[Edited 2015-04-27 04:50:16]
Question everything. Trust no-one.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12856
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:28 pm

Quoting opethfan (Reply 120):
If tiny parties are able to influence govt, then they're likely large enough to have quite a few followers

Under MMP used in NZ a piss ant party can with a seat then drag in other members from the party list, this sucks, if you don't win a electoral seat you have to score 5% of the list vote to bring in a member. So it’s entirely possible to win several seats despite not crossing the 5% threshold.

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 124):
Going to take a while sorting those by order of preference

I think they only have a limited number of choices, 4-5 I think, so you don't have to rank all 72.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:23 pm

Quoting winterlight (Reply 126):
Not to mention making reasoned criticism of Islam a criminal offense

Really? Can you point to a source on that at all, because I can't find it in their released manifesto pledges thus far...
 
User avatar
winterlight
Posts: 1432
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:57 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:14 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 128):
Really? Can you point to a source on that at all, because I can't find it in their released manifesto pledges thus far...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ounding-islamophobia-10203918.html
Question everything. Trust no-one.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:41 pm

Quoting winterlight (Reply 129):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ounding-islamophobia-10203918.html

I don't see anything in there which supports this:

Quoting winterlight (Reply 126):
Not to mention making reasoned criticism of Islam a criminal offense. Eid Mullahband: pandering to the Muslims that his Labour party brought here in the first place.

And certainly not the unedited version of your above post...

I do see a lot of unreasoned abuse of friends of mine who happen to be muslims, and that is the sort of crap which is covered by Labours pledge there - they certainly aren't attacking "reasoned criticism of Islam" by any stretch. You have to go quite far to fall foul of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, and only the sentencing is being tightened in that pledge, not the underlying crimes. If its illegal now, it will still be illegal if Labour act on that pledge - and conversely, if it is legal now, it will still be legal after Labour act.
 
opethfan
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:35 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:29 am

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 127):
Under MMP used in NZ a piss ant party can with a seat then drag in other members from the party list, this sucks, if you don't win a electoral seat you have to score 5% of the list vote to bring in a member. So it’s entirely possible to win several seats despite not crossing the 5% threshold.

So you're saying that in some ridings, an independent or fringe group can form a small block out of MPs elected in constituencies rather than from the party list?
 
gkirk
Posts: 23411
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:16 am

Quoting winterlight (Reply 122):
It's truly the final nail in the coffin if Millipede and the SNP get in. Sturgeon hates England full stop and Blair Mk2 Millipede just wants to turn us into Pakistan.

I wouldn't say Sturgeon hates England. In fact, I'd say the opposite, the English hate the Scottish more than the other way round, a shame really. But you can guaranteee they'll be another Independence referendum if Sturgeon and Milliband join forces
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
offloaded
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:56 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:20 am

Quoting gkirk (Reply 132):
I wouldn't say Sturgeon hates England. In fact, I'd say the opposite, the English hate the Scottish more than the other way round, a shame really

Come on, you've got to be kidding! You'll find the English supporting Scotland or Wales (if England aren't playing) in whatever sporting event it happens to be, but it's never the other way round. When England played Germany, every Scot out there was supporting Germany! And if the realtionship between England and Scotland has deteriorated in recent times, I'm sorry, but hardly surprising considering the rise and rise of the SNP. Of course voting SNP is two fingers to England, how else do you look at it? A bit like Quebec and Canada. Eventually you feel like saying "OK then, off you go!" I'm one of a shrinking group who actually believe our country is stronger and better with the 4 nations we have at the moment.
To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:10 am

Quoting moo (Reply 130):
Quoting winterlight (Reply 129):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ounding-islamophobia-10203918.html

I don't see anything in there which supports this:
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspape...iliband-in-an-exclusive-interview/

Quote:
“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” Miliband told the Editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J Versi in a wide ranging exclusive interview.
“We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country,” he said

Any criticism of Islam and Jihad of course is immediately labeled Islamaphobic.

Vote Labor, and say goodbye to the UK's proud tradition of free speech.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23411
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:12 am

Quoting offloaded (Reply 133):

That's a load of garbage. The amount of hatred for our free Prescriptions and Tuition fee's I read about s off the scale

Why should the Scottish/Welsh/Irish support England in sporting events? And I don't see why the English should support the Scots/Welsh/Northern Irish either? The SNP has been rising in popularity thanks to the Tory government, a governemtn with only 1 MP in Scotland. The SNP are the only party that is actively looking to change things in Scotland for the better, the Tories will never be popular in Scotland, so each time England vote the Tories in, the popularity of the SNP will continue to grow. As I say, it's the English that are ruining the UK, not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
There is a time when Scotland will be independent, and I hope Wales and Northern Ireland get the same. I don't hate the English, far from it, but I do believe it's in the best interests in Scotland to have all decisions decided in Edinburgh, rather than by a Governemtn in London which we didn't vote for.

As for English votes for English laws, it's about time that happened too as I don't think Scottish MPs should be having any say on what Westminster decides for England.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:08 am

The SNP are in it for the Scots, no one else.

Is that a bad thing? no, not for the SNP, but for the UK yes. Should she hold the sword over Millibands head, or more properly the strings, will the UK be run for the UK's benifit?

She, like all politians will say "yes, of course", and indeed has.......But like all politicians of all flavours, you can tell shes lying, because her mouth is moving.

It really doesn't matter who wins or who loses the end result will be changes as follows:

Conservatives. Rich get richer, poor get more help. Middle get screwed.

Lanour. Rich get richer, Poor get more help, and middle get screwed.

In other words, it will be the same as after every election we've had for years!

Libdems.....Irrelevent in next Parliamant. SNP/UKIP etc will all stick thier oars in depending on where the slim majority line falls, demonstrating how much of a bad thing they are.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:11 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134):
Any criticism of Islam and Jihad of course is immediately labeled Islamaphobic.

Vote Labor, and say goodbye to the UK's proud tradition of free speech.

Except it isn't - there is plenty of criticism of Islam and Jihad going on in the UK, and yet we aren't seeing thousands of court cases each day under current law. Which means that there is still nothing supporting the original posters assertion, edited or otherwise. Or now, your assertion.

So please drop the hyperbole, its childish.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19038
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:48 am

Quoting bjcc (Reply 136):
In other words, it will be the same as after every election we've had for years!

The fallacy is in thinking that politicians of any persuasion can actually exert influence over the things that affect us all - like the global economy.

I haven't voted in a general election for years. I happen to live in a very safe Tory constituency - my vote (or non-vote) makes zero difference to the result of any election.

I would, however, fully support a fairer voting system where the political landscape at Westminster was a more accurate representation of the votes cast for each party. I would also support compulsory voting.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:00 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 138):
I would, however, fully support a fairer voting system where the political landscape at Westminster was a more accurate representation of the votes cast for each party

The problem is, that would introduce as many issues as it would solve - so we went to a representative voting system, who actually gets elected?

Independent candidates are straight out the window, as they will never get enough on their own to gain a seat.

Constituencies are suddenly a lot more difficult, because you may no longer have a local MP that can do anything. Your local count may have come out as 90% for one party, but because that same party received less than 1% of the overall vote it may mean they don't win any seats at all, thus you get stuck with a local MP that received sod all of the actual local vote. I can see that being popular.

There is a lot broken in the Westminster system, but there is also a lot of unanswered questions about alternatives.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 138):
I would also support compulsory voting.

I swing wildly on this - people should have a right not to have a voice if they so choose, but they should also have a right to vote for "none of the above" and have that vote count in some way (say, if a constituency returned 30% for Labour, 25% for Tory, and 35% for None of the Above, the local election is null and void and must be rerun with new candidates).
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:01 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 137):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134):
Any criticism of Islam and Jihad of course is immediately labeled Islamaphobic.

Vote Labor, and say goodbye to the UK's proud tradition of free speech.

Except it isn't - there is plenty of criticism of Islam and Jihad going on in the UK, and yet we aren't seeing thousands of court cases each day under current law. Which means that there is still nothing supporting the original posters assertion, edited or otherwise.

Uhh, hello... That's the law Miliband wants to impose - it's not there yet.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:16 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 140):
Uhh, hello... That's the law Miliband wants to impose - it's not there yet.

No, it isn't - Milliband is proposing to tighten the existing laws, not expand them. As I said before, if its illegal now, it will be illegal if Milliband does his thing. If its not illegal now, it still won't be illegal if Milliband does his thing. So what's changing? How its dealt with after conviction. That's it.

So, "Uhh, hello..." yourself.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:40 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 141):
No, it isn't - Milliband is proposing to tighten the existing laws, not expand them. As I said before, if its illegal now, it will be illegal if Milliband does his thing. If its not illegal now, it still won't be illegal if Milliband does his thing. So what's changing? How its dealt with after conviction. That's it.

He wants to make something that is legal today illegal - Specifically criticism of anything Muslims don't want criticized. Hide behind semantics all you want, but this is a severe restriction of the freedom of speech.

In fact his repeated use of the word "Islamaphobia" is telling. There is no such thing as Islamaphobia. There are millions of people who criticize Christianity - do we call them Christophobes? Criticism of an ideology - particularly one whose doctrine includes not only religious doctrine but purports to represent the only legitimate law for civil, criminal and political matters, is the first and foremost right that separates a free society from a dictatorship.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:50 pm

"The fallacy is in thinking that politicians of any persuasion can actually exert influence over the things that affect us all - like the global economy."

Agreed, up to a point.

The reality is that we have see saw politics in the UK. Both sides can fix it, and in reality in much the same ways, although Labour always seems to leave us without any cash......And so will the SNP if thier 5% of the electorate get to hold the rst of us to ransom.

Hence why they really are not the party we want running things after next week. Spend to return to fiscal equalibrium doesn't work.

Also lets face it Milband ain't no PM, not that Cameron is much better.
 
GIANCAVIA
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:45 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:55 pm

No interest in Labour coming to power, They are so pro Islam the UK would look like Afghanistan but with less Finances in no time. They also seem to be keen on bankrupting us again to fund dossers who dont want to work. Ed Balls is a clueless cretin and Miliband is just a creepy hypocritical champagne socialist. No thanks.

Ukip are a joke, Everything is Europes fault.. Aids, The Weather, Housing, Weeds, The common flu. tedious zzzzzzz.

Conservatives are doing ok, I am not blown away by them but they turned around the mess that labour created and seem less interested in giving all our money away to lazy scroungers that have no interest in being part of a working society. The downside, Big corps get away with Murder under them.

Greens? Isis apologists, anti anything enjoyable.. Nah.

Lib dems.. Heh hehe hahaha...

The Independent Raving Looney party? They get my vote.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:56 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 142):
He wants to make something that is legal today illegal - Specifically criticism of anything Muslims don't want criticized.

No he doesn't, stop jumping to conclusions, you are starting to sound like the Daily Mail.

You do realise that, with the current mindset of the UK general population, any party leader promising to do such a thing is basically guaranteed to lose the election. The Muslim population of the UK does not hold the sway in the coming election, and general sentiment is that Muslims are too catered for already, so promising to make simple criticism illegal would kill a parties election campaign there and then.

Once again, Milliband isn't actually changing the criteria for arrest, charging or conviction in these offenses - he is changing sentencing and ongoing monitoring of the offender, but nothing legal now would become illegal because the criteria isn't changing.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 142):
In fact his repeated use of the word "Islamaphobia" is telling. There is no such thing as Islamaphobia.

Many things don't exist until they do - "homophobia" didn't exist until May 23, 1969.

And yes, it is a thing, but its not what you think it is. There are far too many people who dislike Muslims purely because they are Muslims and not for valid, constructive, valid reasons. That is what these laws are orientated around - but not simply hating Muslims, but for actually carrying out acts backed by that hatred.

It won't stop reasoned discussion and debate about Islam et al. So do yourself a favour and stop pushing an aspect that doesn't exist.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 142):
There are millions of people who criticize Christianity - do we call them Christophobes?

If you want.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 142):
Criticism of an ideology - particularly one whose doctrine includes not only religious doctrine but purports to represent the only legitimate law for civil, criminal and political matters, is the first and foremost right that separates a free society from a dictatorship.

Interesting that you mention Christianity then, as the sole reason Christianity lost its sway in those things here in the UK was due to the decline in Christianity itself. We still have major figures in the Church of England sitting in the House of Lords solely through their position rather than any other reason.
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 3:58 pm

"Interesting that you mention Christianity then, as the sole reason Christianity lost its sway in those things here in the UK was due to the decline in Christianity itself. We still have major figures in the Church of England sitting in the House of Lords solely through their position rather than any other reason. "

We have a numbver of groups who sit in the Lords purely because they hold a position. The Law Lords for example.

But the bigger question, and the more worrying one is why it is that Politians seem to think they are the ones who should decide sentencing.

Leaving aside what peoples inturpretation of a new 'race/religion' ism statute might be, who's in the best position to decide sentence, a Judge, or a Politian?

The simple fact that people can inturpret Millibands intentions as being those that D'naught suggests is a problem, and the idea that idiot can inflence sentence is a huge worry!
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: The UK Election Thread

Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:58 pm

Quoting gkirk (Reply 132):
I wouldn't say Sturgeon hates England. In fact, I'd say the opposite, the English hate the Scottish more than the other way round, a shame really. But you can guaranteee they'll be another Independence referendum if Sturgeon and Milliband join forces

No English political party supporting destroying the union has ever had significant political support in England. You can trade anecdotes all you like, and others will match them like for like, but that is a far more telling story IMO.

Quoting gkirk (Reply 135):
Why should the Scottish/Welsh/Irish support England in sporting events? And I don't see why the English should support the Scots/Welsh/Northern Irish either?

Fair enough if you always support the same team. If you just switch your allegiance to whomever England is playing at that moment in time, it indicates you are doing so not for sporting reasons but for antipathetic reasons.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 142):
He wants to make something that is legal today illegal - Specifically criticism of anything Muslims don't want criticized. Hide behind semantics all you want, but this is a severe restriction of the freedom of speech.

Nothing in his proposals criminalizes anything which is not already illegal under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006. That act is just an amendment to the Public Order act of 1986, which criminalized all the same things on racial grounds.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:31 am

Quoting bjcc (Reply 146):
We have a numbver of groups who sit in the Lords purely because they hold a position. The Law Lords for example.

The Law Lords do not sit in the House of Lords due to their position, they hold the position of Law Lord due to their qualification in the judiciary.

Quoting bjcc (Reply 146):
But the bigger question, and the more worrying one is why it is that Politians seem to think they are the ones who should decide sentencing.

Because that's what they are elected to do - create the laws of the land. And part of the creation and maintenance of laws is setting recommended sentencing limits and guidelines, and setting the severity of the breach of those laws.

Otherwise you have Judges sentencing based on their own judgement with little to no recourse, with one judge giving a week for a murder and another judge giving life.

This is *precisely* what politicians should be doing.

Quoting bjcc (Reply 146):
The simple fact that people can inturpret Millibands intentions as being those that D'naught suggests is a problem, and the idea that idiot can inflence sentence is a huge worry!

You can only come to that interpretation if you squint really really hard and ignore most of what was actually said. Idiots being able to spin it to their own agenda doesn't make it a bad policy, sentence or announcement, as you can do that with anything.
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: The UK Election Thread

Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:00 am

The Law Lords do not sit in the House of Lords due to their position, they hold the position of Law Lord due to their qualification in the judiciary.


In other words, you've just revamped what I said........Please don't, all it does it show you can't think for yourself.

"Because that's what they are elected to do - create the laws of the land. And part of the creation and maintenance of laws is setting recommended sentencing limits and guidelines, and setting the severity of the breach of those laws."

Not correct, they are responsible for creating law, and deciding a maximum sentence. As for Guidelines, thats a different matter, and one thats led to much dissatisfaction with the Judiciary, much of it wrongly aimed. Think about those who whine when they get 3 points and a fine for 33 in a 30mph. Thats a result not of Police or Judicary but of politics.

An independent Judge who has heard both the facts and mitigation should be the only person deciding sentence.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KFTG, olle, stl07 and 55 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos