Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

32 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I've just looked back to check. Previous posts were about various issues: Tory leadership contenders, "sound finances" v. stimulating growth, whether deficit cutting should be the priority etc.

 

Webbo didn't respond to any previous post, he just posted a biased statistical table - without any source but clearly taken from a pro-Tory publication and designed to say "Tories good, Labour bad". Most of the issues covered in his table hadn't been discussed at all in previous posts (unemployment, NHS, minimum wage, tax threshold, exports etc.)

Im not going back to check now but as I recall there were posts stating, how can tories defend Austerity, they aren't even reducing the deficit, we've stagnated etc etc. Given they were the freshest posts in my mind, I'd have thought that's possible why @Webbo did not think it would be a problem comparing the two years. As effectively it shows what they started with and where we are now. 

Edited 5 July 2017 by Strokes

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Daniel Hannah posted it on Twitter. I don't deny you could have selected different stats that would have made the govt look bad but I think that table shows the govt's record in a good light.

 

Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP, I presume you mean?

So, we have the revelation that a leading Tory thinks the Tories are doing a good job and are better than Labour? 

 

Yes, if you select a single year, opt for the worst possible year for your opponents (e.g. just after a global crash), omit those stats that don't suit your bias (inflation, VAT, immigration, social care spending), ignore long-term trends (unemployment, exports), and ignore other relevant factors (aging population increasing NHS demand).....then you can produce some dishonest stats to make your side look good.

 

Yes, I could produce similarly biased, dishonest stats to show the Tories in a bad light (e.g. comparing Labour 2001-2005 to Tories 1982-84 or 1990-92).

 

But I'd prefer to have an honest debate. That's why the stats I quoted were long-term, covering many years if not decades re. unemployment, inflation, exports & social care.

As I said, though, I appreciate that honest debate isn't your thing. You prefer biased propaganda - and I find it pointless getting into a biased propaganda war.

 

Must work, anyway - deadline pending.

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, Buce said:

Well, the Sun is cheaper, after all..

I wouldn't know the price of a newspaper Bucey.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

I wouldn't know the price of a newspaper Bucey.

 

Touché!

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

I wouldn't know the price of a newspaper Bucey.

Out of touch Jon, ask the butler 

[Buce]

Just now, Strokes said:

Out of touch Jon, ask the butler 

 

[Webbo]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP, I presume you mean?

So, we have the revelation that a leading Tory thinks the Tories are doing a good job and are better than Labour? 

 

Yes, if you select a single year, opt for the worst possible year for your opponents (e.g. just after a global crash), omit those stats that don't suit your bias (inflation, VAT, immigration, social care spending), ignore long-term trends (unemployment, exports), and ignore other relevant factors (aging population increasing NHS demand).....then you can produce some dishonest stats to make your side look good.

 

Yes, I could produce similarly biased, dishonest stats to show the Tories in a bad light (e.g. comparing Labour 2001-2005 to Tories 1982-84 or 1990-92).

 

But I'd prefer to have an honest debate. That's why the stats I quoted were long-term, covering many years if not decades re. unemployment, inflation, exports & social care.

As I said, though, I appreciate that honest debate isn't your thing. You prefer biased propaganda - and I find it pointless getting into a biased propaganda war.

 

Must work, anyway - deadline pending.

You've really got a bug up your arse about me haven't you?

 

I'm not interested in propaganda, I'm not trying to convince anyone, as I've said many times nobody's ever charged their mind over anything written on here. I'm just stating my opinion and defending my views.

[Alf Bentley]

Just now, Webbo said:

You've really got a bug up your arse about me haven't you?

 

I'm not interested in propaganda, I'm not trying to convince anyone, as I've said many times nobody's ever charged their mind over anything written on here. I'm just stating my opinion and defending my views.

 

No bug up my arse about you or anyone else, Webbo. We're just a bunch of people on an Internet football forum.

 

I just enjoy honest debate. I find people swapping biased propaganda pointless. Seriously, must work!

[Guest Kopfkino]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP, I presume you mean?

So, we have the revelation that a leading Tory thinks the Tories are doing a good job and are better than Labour? 

 

Yes, if you select a single year, opt for the worst possible year for your opponents (e.g. just after a global crash), omit those stats that don't suit your bias (inflation, VAT, immigration, social care spending), ignore long-term trends (unemployment, exports), and ignore other relevant factors (aging population increasing NHS demand).....then you can produce some dishonest stats to make your side look good.

 

Yes, I could produce similarly biased, dishonest stats to show the Tories in a bad light (e.g. comparing Labour 2001-2005 to Tories 1982-84 or 1990-92).

 

But I'd prefer to have an honest debate. That's why the stats I quoted were long-term, covering many years if not decades re. unemployment, inflation, exports & social care.

As I said, though, I appreciate that honest debate isn't your thing. You prefer biased propaganda - and I find it pointless getting into a biased propaganda war.

 

Must work, anyway - deadline pending.

 

Not really, the point is you compare start of time in office to the current time. So you could do 1997 and compare with 2004 (7 years) but it doesn't count cos it was a global economic boom

[katieakita]

7 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Easy on the cliches, I haven't picked up a copy of the Daily Mail for abour 20 years.  Neither I suspect have you, you are just quoting the same lefty guff like anyone with a sensible economic argument reads the daily mail.

 

I personally use and have for a number of years several successful post offices run by WHSmith, Tesco, and Martins respectively, as well my now nearest one in a Nisa convenience store which manages to be open from 6am to 10pm seven days a week.  Bloody brilliant.

Steady on I might point out Tony Benn set up a pretty successful Post Bank until someone sold it. The likes of WH Smiths, Tesco and Martins have also been paid very well by the tax payer to take over Post Office services, though Tesco's are not particularly keen, McColls get given them and WH Smiths were threatening to remove them until further tax payer funded support was secured . Interestingly the Co-operative in the region have started to walk away from offering Post Office services stating they are not viable. £2 billion pound has given since 2010 to deliver a viable Post Office Network of 11,500 offices nationwide a number vital to have secured the funding. Anyone who has dealings with the Post Office knows these figures are untrue due to a huge amount of closures they refuse to acknowledge, they are currently appealing a Information Commissioners ruling to release information regarding Office locations for the 3rd time that would expose the extent of the mess they have created, they also  face a GLO order that will cost the taxpayer potentially many millions in compensation payments, a class action for miss selling contracts and a criminal investigation involving the conduct of the senior management so hardly a government owned organisations to sing the praises of but again I possibly have more idea than most regarding the matter.

 

Also was a bit poor suggesting reading the Daily Mail that was uncalled for so apologies. 

[Steven]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I haven't got the time for a propaganda war, but cannot let such slanted stats pass by without one comment.

 

- If you were interested in honest debate (I appreciate that you're not), you'd quote your source.

 

Where everyone gets their stats from; Dwarf porn weekly. Right? 

[Innovindil]

9 minutes ago, Steven said:

Where everyone gets their stats from; Dwarf porn weekly. Right? 

Nah, they back labour. 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

You've really got a bug up your arse about me haven't you?

 

I'm not interested in propaganda, I'm not trying to convince anyone, as I've said many times nobody's ever charged their mind over anything written on here. I'm just stating my opinion and defending my views.

 

Have you been at the weed, Webbo?

 

[katieakita]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

You've really got a bug up your arse about me haven't you?

 

I'm not interested in propaganda, I'm not trying to convince anyone, as I've said many times nobody's ever charged their mind over anything written on here. I'm just stating my opinion and defending my views.

Don't about this, when we were not challenging them I used to think Spurs and Arsenal fans were pretty OK some of their "fans" recent postings have raised serious doubts. Anyway back to politics it has been suggested that many of us involved with Post Office Ltd should remind our MP's about the forthcoming legal issues they face and the corruption and dishonestly pulsing through their veins. Living in Leicester East I believe the modern phrase is #awkward

[Webbo]

37 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Have you been at the weed, Webbo?

 

Quote

 

 If you were interested in honest debate (I appreciate that you're not),

Again, if you were interested in honest debate and not slanted propaganda

I appreciate that honest debate isn't your thing. You prefer biased propaganda

 

Seemed pretty personal to me, it isn't the first time either. 

[Bobby Hundreds]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP, I presume you mean?

Yesterday on Twitter, Daniel Hannan said Brits invented DNA.

Edited 5 July 2017 by Bobby Hundreds

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

You've really got a bug up your arse about me haven't you?

 

I'm not interested in propaganda, I'm not trying to convince anyone, as I've said many times nobody's ever charged their mind over anything written on here. I'm just stating my opinion and defending my views.

Speak for yourself, I'm not going to trawl the forum for specific instances but I've definitely seen people alter their opinions following an exchange on here.  You don't change your mind.

 

Indeed you so regularly fail to actually digest the opposing argument in the first place before autopiloting into a rebuttal which very often misses the point (ie. yesterday with the Grenfell cladding debate where you completely ignored specific terms in the article I posted and argued that it was saying something else entirely then gave up on even addressing the points I and others were making to give spurious alternative explanations that made no sense) that I can perfectly understand what Alf's getting at about honest debate.

 

And tbf you weren't stating your opinion at all, you just blind posted a table of figures without giving your views on it.  You know, the sort of thing Ken's received regular shit for on here, something you're surely aware of.

 

19 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Have you been at the weed, Webbo?

 

Tbf he has a point but Alf isn't wrong to raise the issue, as you can see above he's not the only one who gets exasperated at Webbo's approach to political debates.  Bug up one's arse is overstating the level of emotion I suspect though, it's more resignation than infuriation.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Speak for yourself, I'm not going to trawl the forum for specific instances but I've definitely seen people alter their opinions following an exchange on here.  You don't change your mind.

 

Indeed you so regularly fail to actually digest the opposing argument in the first place before autopiloting into a rebuttal which very often misses the point (ie. yesterday with the Grenfell cladding debate where you completely ignored specific terms in the article I posted and argued that it was saying something else entirely then gave up on even addressing the points I and others were making to give spurious alternative explanations that made no sense) that I can perfectly understand what Alf's getting at about honest debate.

 

And tbf you weren't stating your opinion at all, you just blind posted a table of figures without giving your views on it.  You know, the sort of thing Ken's received regular shit for on here, something you're surely aware of.

 

Tbf he has a point but Alf isn't wrong to raise the issue, as you can see above he's not the only one who gets exasperated at Webbo's approach to political debates.  Bug up one's arse is overstating the level of emotion I suspect though, it's more resignation than infuriation.

The facts spoke for themselves, what did you want me to say?

 

I pick holes in people's argument, if that's exasperating make better arguments.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

The facts spoke for themselves, what did you want me to say?

 

I pick holes in people's argument, if that's exasperating make better arguments.

Sometimes.  Sometimes you just ignore the evidence and misconstrue the point being made.

[Webbo]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

Sometimes.  Sometimes you just ignore the evidence and misconstrue the point being made.

Evidence is subjective, just because it backs your argument doesn't make it true.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

We're just a bunch of people on an Internet football forum.

 

What football forum?

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Speak for yourself, I'm not going to trawl the forum for specific instances but I've definitely seen people alter their opinions following an exchange on here.  You don't change your mind.

 

Indeed you so regularly fail to actually digest the opposing argument in the first place before autopiloting into a rebuttal which very often misses the point (ie. yesterday with the Grenfell cladding debate where you completely ignored specific terms in the article I posted and argued that it was saying something else entirely then gave up on even addressing the points I and others were making to give spurious alternative explanations that made no sense) that I can perfectly understand what Alf's getting at about honest debate.

 

And tbf you weren't stating your opinion at all, you just blind posted a table of figures without giving your views on it.  You know, the sort of thing Ken's received regular shit for on here, something you're surely aware of.

 

Tbf he has a point but Alf isn't wrong to raise the issue, as you can see above he's not the only one who gets exasperated at Webbo's approach to political debates.  Bug up one's arse is overstating the level of emotion I suspect though, it's more resignation than infuriation.

 

No, Alf isn't wrong to raise the issue.

 

However, I doubt very much that it was intended to be as personal as Webbo took it; Alf has said as much.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

No, Alf isn't wrong to raise the issue.

 

However, I doubt very much that it was intended to be as personal as Webbo took it; Alf has said as much.

But I'm never personal. for all my exasperating debating style, I don't call people stupid, evil or liars.People do that to me and when I disagree with them I'm accused of trolling.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Evidence is subjective, just because it backs your argument doesn't make it true.

21 hours ago, Webbo said:

 

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

No, Alf isn't wrong to raise the issue.

 

However, I doubt very much that it was intended to be as personal as Webbo took it; Alf has said as much.

Yeah that's fair and kinda what I was getting at in the final line, I don't think Alf was as emotionally charged over the matter as Webbo interpreted.  In some cases it's very hard to type what you mean without the feelings or intent behind it being amplified in the other person's mind, it's a major cause of misunderstandings on internet forums.

 

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

But I'm never personal. for all my exasperating debating style, I don't call people stupid, evil or liars.People do that to me and when I disagree with them I'm accused of trolling.

Usually because of the things you've ignored in order to disagree.

 

I think this subject's been well enough covered now, I don't want to keep it going any longer than it has to because as much as I seem to be having a go at you I do actually quite like you as a member of the forum, Webs, and I don't want you to get the impression I'm holding some kind of grudge here.  It just is what it is.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

Yeah that's fair and kinda what I was getting at in the final line, I don't think Alf was as emotionally charged over the matter as Webbo interpreted.  In some cases it's very hard to type what you mean without the feelings or intent behind it being amplified in the other person's mind, it's a major cause of misunderstandings on internet forums.

 

Usually because of the things you've ignored in order to disagree.

 

I think this subject's been well enough covered now, I don't want to keep it going any longer than it has to because as much as I seem to be having a go at you I do actually quite like you as a member of the forum, Webs, and I don't want you to get the impression I'm holding some kind of grudge here.  It just is what it is.

Alf has said that all the facts were correct. 

 

If you make 5 points in an argument and I only query 1 that's targeting your argument. If you try and argue 5 things at once you lose focus and it comes out as waffle. Maybe 4 points of your argument are correct but it doesn't mean your conclusions are. If I misconstrue your points sometimes maybe it's because you didn't make your point clearly?

 

Why do you (not just you but quite a few on here) get so pissy about it? Why you think you've got the right to demand everyone agrees with you. I argue until I get fed up. I know I've not changed anyone's mind and I don't really care.