Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

There has to be an explanation more complex than simply "didn't like the EU/Hillary Clinton" out there, because surely that antipathy would have been accounted for, or at least accounted for in November 2016 after being overlooked earlier in the year.

 

The problem is (or as I see it) the CA stuff threatens to mask the myriad of reasons, thus the complexity, of why people voted as they did. I would not contest an argument that said CA's involvement tipped the balance in favour of Trump given the tiny margin that gave him victory, but the hysteria around CA now threatens our ability to understand it. Ted Cruz's campaign used CA (the data was then also used for Trump in the election) and plenty of unsuccessful campaigns have made heavy use of similar data (maybe not to this extent). The important thing is to understand why people were so persuadable (yes maybe they're stupid) such that CA was able to exploit. 

 

I appreciate this needs investigating and understanding and proper due process (it's not new, 'The Secrets of Silicon Valley' docu on BBC last year was pretty clear with CA), looking backwards is obscuring what this tells us about the future. Too much focus solely on CA and Facebook and Trump etc could lead us to miss the bigger picture, because they certainly aren't the only ones nor the first. We have been woefully inadequate and slow on understanding data and technology and now we have a glimpse of what risks it poses to democracy in the future. If everyone is seeing different messages then accountability is gone and public debate dead. It will encourage politicians to be more politiciany. There will be no place for politicians with ideas, but a place for politicians that don't say much you can nail down as they will be able to change their message depending on the person, and fundamentally it will polarise our politics. Poltics will become a battle of the algorithms. 

 

Trump is just a microcosm of where we're actually headed. I've just not seen enough chatter about the wider consequence of what this tells us for the future, such is the clamour to find an explanation for events people refuse to believe any of the existing political reasons for.  

Edited 21 March 2018 by Kopfkino

[Rogstanley]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

"This is because the associated higher labour costs could "encourage firms to innovate in ways that could increase their underlying productivity," Mr Chote said. "That could have longer-lasting positive effects."

He is an expert, moosey.

Yes that's the theory he came up with under pressure to think of something - anything potentially positive. Then he said it could also go completely tits up

[Strokes]

43 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I suppose it depends on the honestly of the information that is targeted upon the selected groups. If, for example, the Tories paid CA to send round fake news about Corbyn (I know, really hard to imagine), there'd be something really dark about that. I give that example are there was noticeably more anti Corbyn stuff on Facebook than Twitter.

I'd like to see if they were involved in anything like this during any election campaign in this country.

I think it’s the personal nature of this that makes it so disgusting and dangerous. From how I understand it so far, it’s not to promote positives it’s to to destroy confidence. I think it’s unwise to use uk politics at the moment so let’s use the US as an example. You have somebody in a marginal seat that is a Hillary Clinton supporter right, it’s unlikely you are going to persuade them to vote trump but you might be able to persuade them not to vote. So what does this person love more than Hillary? Oh look animal welfare. So this person gets fake news on their feed that appears to be shared by relatively close friends that Hillary hates animals, kicked a dog, wears fur.....You get the picture and then the doubt is in.

Now that’s a made up extreme example, I’m sure it’s far more subtle but it’s incredibly dangerous. If it has been used and it is provable i hope the law covers it enough to bring the justice it deserves. 

Edited 21 March 2018 by Strokes

[Webbo]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

Yes that's the theory he came up with under pressure to think of something - anything potentially positive. Then he said it could also go completely tits up

Come on moosey, you're struggling now. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

The problem is (or as I see it) the CA stuff threatens to mask the myriad of reasons, thus the complexity, of why people voted as they did. I would not contest an argument that said CA's involvement tipped the balance in favour of Trump given the tiny margin that gave him victory, but the hysteria around CA now threatens our ability to understand it. Ted Cruz's campaign used CA (the data was then also used for Trump in the election) and plenty of unsuccessful campaigns have made heavy use of similar data (maybe not to this extent). The important thing is to understand why people were so persuadable (yes maybe they're stupid) such that CA was able to exploit. 

 

I appreciate this needs investigating and understanding and proper due process (it's not new, 'The Secrets of Silicon Valley' docu on BBC last year was pretty clear with CA), looking backwards is obscuring what this tells us about the future. Too much focus solely on CA and Facebook and Trump etc could lead us to miss the bigger picture, because they certainly aren't the only ones nor the first. We have been woefully inadequate and slow on understanding data and technology and now we have a glimpse of what risks it poses to democracy in the future. If everyone is seeing different messages then accountability is gone and public debate dead. It will encourage politicians to be more politiciany. There will be no place for politicians with ideas, but a place for politicians that don't say much you can nail down as they will be able to change their message depending on the person, and fundamentally it will polarise our politics. Poltics will become a battle of the algorithms. 

 

Trump is just a microcosm of where we're actually headed. I've just not seen enough chatter about the wider consequence of what this tells us for the future, such is the clamour to find an explanation for events people refuse to believe any of the existing political reasons for.  

I get what you saying, I wouldn’t advocate nullifying election results or dare I say referendums but we need to learn fast how to deal with it and hopefully hold the perpetrators to account so election results are never in doubt. It could ruin democracy if people lose total faith in it.

Edited 21 March 2018 by Strokes

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I get what you saying, I wouldn’t advocate nullifying election results or dare I say referendums but we need to learn fast how to deal with it and hopefully hold the perpetrators to account so election results are never in doubt. It could ruin democracy if people lose total faith in it.

There's obviously been a lot of talk previously about Russian trolls influencing votes - notably the referendum and the us election are mooted - through the sort of negative campaigning you're talking about. We obviously doing really know annoying about the sophistication of the Russian version but I agree that it's the personal focus coupled with negative messenging - particularly false negative messaging - that seems particularly dangerous.

 

Because of my obvious biases you can take or leave this comment as you wish but I did find it noticeable how many obviously false and racist posts were circulating amongst my right wing friends on Facebook (none of whom are still Facebook friends as I have a no strikes policy when people share Britain first type bullshit). It's not unlike a lot of the anti Corbyn stuff which, let's face it, it's hard to argue hasn't been bought hook, line and sinker by certain people.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

There's obviously been a lot of talk previously about Russian trolls influencing votes - notably the referendum and the us election are mooted - through the sort of negative campaigning you're talking about. We obviously doing really know annoying about the sophistication of the Russian version but I agree that it's the personal focus coupled with negative messenging - particularly false negative messaging - that seems particularly dangerous.

 

Because of my obvious biases you can take or leave this comment as you wish but I did find it noticeable how many obviously false and racist posts were circulating amongst my right wing friends on Facebook (none of whom are still Facebook friends as I have a no strikes policy when people share Britain first type bullshit). It's not unlike a lot of the anti Corbyn stuff which, let's face it, it's hard to argue hasn't been bought hook, line and sinker by certain people.

Like I said I don’t want to draw to many comparisons yet to uk elections because we have no idea if it’s been used here but it’s unlikely that it won’t have. Jon Snow on LBC said there are more revelations to come, so watch this space.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

The problem is (or as I see it) the CA stuff threatens to mask the myriad of reasons, thus the complexity, of why people voted as they did. I would not contest an argument that said CA's involvement tipped the balance in favour of Trump given the tiny margin that gave him victory, but the hysteria around CA now threatens our ability to understand it. Ted Cruz's campaign used CA (the data was then also used for Trump in the election) and plenty of unsuccessful campaigns have made heavy use of similar data (maybe not to this extent). The important thing is to understand why people were so persuadable (yes maybe they're stupid) such that CA was able to exploit. 

 

I appreciate this needs investigating and understanding and proper due process (it's not new, 'The Secrets of Silicon Valley' docu on BBC last year was pretty clear with CA), looking backwards is obscuring what this tells us about the future. Too much focus solely on CA and Facebook and Trump etc could lead us to miss the bigger picture, because they certainly aren't the only ones nor the first. We have been woefully inadequate and slow on understanding data and technology and now we have a glimpse of what risks it poses to democracy in the future. If everyone is seeing different messages then accountability is gone and public debate dead. It will encourage politicians to be more politiciany. There will be no place for politicians with ideas, but a place for politicians that don't say much you can nail down as they will be able to change their message depending on the person, and fundamentally it will polarise our politics. Poltics will become a battle of the algorithms. 

 

Trump is just a microcosm of where we're actually headed. I've just not seen enough chatter about the wider consequence of what this tells us for the future, such is the clamour to find an explanation for events people refuse to believe any of the existing political reasons for.  

5

I certainly agree that it's a many-layered problem and that what CA did is only one factor of many, and that society, in general, is desperately short on catching up on how technology is applied in a manipulative fashion - "If everyone is seeing different messages then accountability is gone and public debate dead", never have truer words been spoken. It's an issue that needs to be understood and addressed, quickly, because right now all I can see is it being used to greater consolidate power with a few select people at the top, and that's never a good thing.

 

Regarding this specific instance of it, Strokes has addressed it better than I.

 

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I think it’s the personal nature of this that makes it so disgusting and dangerous. From how I understand it so far, it’s not to promote positives it’s to to destroy confidence. I think it’s unwise to use uk politics at the moment so let’s use the US as an example. You have somebody in a marginal seat that is a Hillary Clinton supporter right, it’s unlikely you are going to persuade them to vote trump but you might be able to persuade them not to vote. So what does this person love more than Hillary? Oh look animal welfare. So this person gets fake news on their feed that appears to be shared by relatively close friends that Hillary hates animals, kicked a dog, wears fur.....You get the picture and then the doubt is in.

Now that’s a made up extreme example, I’m sure it’s far more subtle but it’s incredibly dangerous. If it has been used and it is provable i hope the law covers it enough to bring the justice it deserves. 

4

This is pretty much spot on. Perhaps that's the key thing - that the application has been able to become much more personal in recent times, which perhaps boosts the effectiveness.

 

The bolded part, in particular, was the key element in Trumps victory - getting enough people who voted Dem in 2012 to stay home in 2016, especially in key states, was pivotal.

 

 

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

I get what you saying, I wouldn’t advocate nullifying election results or dare I say referendums but we need to learn fast how to deal with it and hopefully hold the perpetrators to account so election results are never in doubt. It could ruin democracy if people lose total faith in it.

Also this. It can't be overstated how much of a potential threat to the democratic process this could turn out to be. 

 

I'd also agree that it seems to be more of a factor in the US than the UK right now, given what has surfaced.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Like I said I don’t want to draw to many comparisons yet to uk elections because we have no idea if it’s been used here but it’s unlikely that it won’t have. Jon Snow on LBC said there are more revelations to come, so watch this space.

Obviously if Corbyn turns out to be directly implicated in labour doing it I'll be on holiday that week ?

[Strokes]

27 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Obviously if Corbyn turns out to be directly implicated in labour doing it I'll be on holiday that week ?

I think it’s unlikely we will hear of them backing a failure, this is undercover sting in which they were touting for business. It’s hardly a good tactic to show, so I think that’s fairly safe. What’s important is who has hired them and where did the money come from.

Edited 21 March 2018 by Strokes

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

I think it’s unlikely we will hear of them backing a failure, this is undercover sting in which they were touting for business. It’s hardly a good tactic to show, so I think that’s fairly safe. What’s important is who has hired them and where did the money come from.

I've read somewhere that variants of the company - so probably the parent and maybe sister companies or something are currently in use by a number of government depts including the foreign office. Apparently it touches gordon Brown's government in terms of company links. I'm not insinuating any wrongdoing, I don't know about that.

[Rogstanley]

Another billion in the bin thanks to the total incompetence of this Tory government.

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43489454

Edited 21 March 2018 by Rogstanley

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Another billion in the bin thanks to the total incompetence of this Tory government.

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43489454

How is it in the bin if it's being paid to who it's meant to be paid to?

[Rogstanley]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How is it in the bin if it's being paid to who it's meant to be paid to?

It's a billion out of your budget and all the costs of having to go back and re-assess all the claims. Had they done it right first time they could have avoided those costs and budgeted properly. It's a debacle and a right old embarrassment given that saving on benefits was a big thing for this Tory government don't you agree.

Edited 21 March 2018 by Rogstanley

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

It's a billion out of your budget and all the costs of having to go back and re-assess all the claims. Had they done it right first time they could have avoided those costs and budgeted properly. It's a debacle and a right old embarrassment given that saving on benefits was a big thing for this Tory government don't you agree.

It's 830 million for a start, the money is being paid to who it's meant to have been paid to. There might be a bit more in administration costs but it won't be anywhere near a billion.

 

Do you remember when you used to rip the piss out of Ken when he posted stuff like this?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

18 hours ago, toddybad said:

Senior managers have completely separate negotiations in much of the public sector. Not sure about the nhs. I suspect not but don't know.

 

Re labour. I support getting rid of tuition fees (or at least minimising them). I support nationalisation of energy and rail. I'd personally then rewrite the law to force cargo off the motorways and onto the railways. I support (surprise, surprise) better pubic sector pay deals. I support more money into core pubic sector departments (health, education, social care, housing, local services). I don't actually support endless debt creation and would want to see infrastructure investment that provides returns.

 

I don't necessarily support every labour pronouncement about spending. I actually wish they'd rein it in a bit at this point and stop making any more promises as they have made enough commitments.

 

Re student loans. If graduates don't have to repay through a 9% levy then there is an additional 9% to be spent in the real economy. Theres your growth.

I also don't disagree with most of what you say. If some of the items can be costed properly then fair enough. 

 

Infrastructure Investment is something we all support I am sure.

[Alf Bentley]

What do Brexit fans reckon to this? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/21/brexiteers-furious-dutch-company-poised-win-contract-make-iconic/

 

Although Minister Hancock is backtracking and saying it isn't a done deal, the new "blue" (black, surely?) British passport is currently set to be made by a Franco-Dutch firm. 

The British firm that makes the existing British/EU passports has been told that it has lost to a Franco-Dutch firm in the tendering process as that firm is asking a lower price.

 

Should it be seen as just business in a free market - if the French firm offered a better deal, then fair enough?

But the British firm has presumably proved its reliability while making the existing passport. So, is it a case of the Govt just saving a few quid by exporting British jobs to France?

Surprising that the French firm could undercut the British firm, anyway, when the fall in the pound has made imports more expensive.

 

I was also reading (not sure if true) that France insists its own passports are made in France for security reasons.

 

I suppose there's an argument that we're still playing by EU competition rules (though maybe other countries aren't playing so strictly by those rules?). 

Maybe some time after 2020 the UK might set its own rules.....but that will depend whether we agree to mirror EU competition laws post-2020, if Theresa is serious about wanting a "deep and erotic" relationship with the EU, or whatever...

 

 

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

15 hours ago, Strokes said:

I think it’s the personal nature of this that makes it so disgusting and dangerous. From how I understand it so far, it’s not to promote positives it’s to to destroy confidence. I think it’s unwise to use uk politics at the moment so let’s use the US as an example. You have somebody in a marginal seat that is a Hillary Clinton supporter right, it’s unlikely you are going to persuade them to vote trump but you might be able to persuade them not to vote. So what does this person love more than Hillary? Oh look animal welfare. So this person gets fake news on their feed that appears to be shared by relatively close friends that Hillary hates animals, kicked a dog, wears fur.....You get the picture and then the doubt is in.

Now that’s a made up extreme example, I’m sure it’s far more subtle but it’s incredibly dangerous. If it has been used and it is provable i hope the law covers it enough to bring the justice it deserves. 

 

Ah OK. That’s started to make more sense now. But surely it’s purely the false messaging thing that’s wrong. I don’t understand why it’s significant that CA have targeted their false messaging to individuals, rather than blanket coverage of false messaging such as the Daily Mail/Britain First or Socialist Worker do?

 

Targetted messaging happens all the time. Whenever I browse a product on Amazon – that data is then harvested and then is targeted towards me and appears in my Facebook feed.

 

How is it different to Britain First posting a video of celebrating cricket fans on Twitter and telling people it’s muslims celebrating a terrorist attack?

[lgfualol]

16 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

What do Brexit fans reckon to this? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/21/brexiteers-furious-dutch-company-poised-win-contract-make-iconic/

 

Although Minister Hancock is backtracking and saying it isn't a done deal, the new "blue" (black, surely?) British passport is currently set to be made by a Franco-Dutch firm. 

The British firm that makes the existing British/EU passports has been told that it has lost to a Franco-Dutch firm in the tendering process as that firm is asking a lower price.

 

Should it be seen as just business in a free market - if the French firm offered a better deal, then fair enough?

But the British firm has presumably proved its reliability while making the existing passport. So, is it a case of the Govt just saving a few quid by exporting British jobs to France?

Surprising that the French firm could undercut the British firm, anyway, when the fall in the pound has made imports more expensive.

 

I was also reading (not sure if true) that France insists its own passports are made in France for security reasons.

 

I suppose there's an argument that we're still playing by EU competition rules (though maybe other countries aren't playing so strictly by those rules?). 

Maybe some time after 2020 the UK might set its own rules.....but that will depend whether we agree to mirror EU competition laws post-2020, if Theresa is serious about wanting a "deep and erotic" relationship with the EU, or whatever...

 

 

 

 

Wow, satire really is dead in this day and age.

[Innovindil]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

What do Brexit fans reckon to this? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/21/brexiteers-furious-dutch-company-poised-win-contract-make-iconic/

 

Although Minister Hancock is backtracking and saying it isn't a done deal, the new "blue" (black, surely?) British passport is currently set to be made by a Franco-Dutch firm. 

The British firm that makes the existing British/EU passports has been told that it has lost to a Franco-Dutch firm in the tendering process as that firm is asking a lower price.

 

Should it be seen as just business in a free market - if the French firm offered a better deal, then fair enough?

But the British firm has presumably proved its reliability while making the existing passport. So, is it a case of the Govt just saving a few quid by exporting British jobs to France?

Surprising that the French firm could undercut the British firm, anyway, when the fall in the pound has made imports more expensive.

 

I was also reading (not sure if true) that France insists its own passports are made in France for security reasons.

 

I suppose there's an argument that we're still playing by EU competition rules (though maybe other countries aren't playing so strictly by those rules?). 

Maybe some time after 2020 the UK might set its own rules.....but that will depend whether we agree to mirror EU competition laws post-2020, if Theresa is serious about wanting a "deep and erotic" relationship with the EU, or whatever...

 

 

 

 

Pretty sure the only thing I could care less about than the colour of it is who's going to make it. 

 

If it's the same quality at a lower price, no problem whatsoever. 

[Guest MattP]

26 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

What do Brexit fans reckon to this? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/21/brexiteers-furious-dutch-company-poised-win-contract-make-iconic/

 

Although Minister Hancock is backtracking and saying it isn't a done deal, the new "blue" (black, surely?) British passport is currently set to be made by a Franco-Dutch firm. 

The British firm that makes the existing British/EU passports has been told that it has lost to a Franco-Dutch firm in the tendering process as that firm is asking a lower price.

 

Should it be seen as just business in a free market - if the French firm offered a better deal, then fair enough?

But the British firm has presumably proved its reliability while making the existing passport. So, is it a case of the Govt just saving a few quid by exporting British jobs to France?

Surprising that the French firm could undercut the British firm, anyway, when the fall in the pound has made imports more expensive.

 

I was also reading (not sure if true) that France insists its own passports are made in France for security reasons.

 

I suppose there's an argument that we're still playing by EU competition rules (though maybe other countries aren't playing so strictly by those rules?). 

Maybe some time after 2020 the UK might set its own rules.....but that will depend whether we agree to mirror EU competition laws post-2020, if Theresa is serious about wanting a "deep and erotic" relationship with the EU, or whatever...

Couldn't care less, both on colour and who makes it.

 

The idea of Brexit is to go global, not to have ridiculous market protectionism to such an extent passports have to be made here. That should be everything Brexit is the opposite of.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Couldn't care less, both on colour and who makes it.

 

The idea of Brexit is to go global, not to have ridiculous market protectionism to such an extent passports have to be made here. That should be everything Brexit is the opposite of.

 

To clarify, I'm not pretending that many Brexit supporters see blue British-made passports as a priority.

Though I do find it ironic, if not hilarious that such a flagship project, assigned to a British firm that has apparently done a good job, should be outsourced to an EU supplier post-Brexit.

Even ignoring any potential security issues of having passports made abroad and any job losses, that's a massive realpolitik/PR error, surely?

 

I presume that your opinion is based on the argument that free markets are inevitably more efficient and produce better outcomes in the long run?

 

If so, do you think that the Govt was wrong to offer whatever financial guarantees it gave to UK-based car makers? https://www.politico.eu/article/nissan-written-post-brexit-guarantees-from-uk-business-secretary/

If British car makers struggle to compete post-Brexit and the market deems French or German cars to be more desirable, should the Govt just allow British car plants to close down with the loss of countless thousands of jobs?

I presume the free market argument is that the consumer is always right and govt subsidy wrong, so if Brit firms cannot compete they should go to the wall...then through market economics, capital will inevitably create UK jobs in other sectors? 

 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

To clarify, I'm not pretending that many Brexit supporters see blue British-made passports as a priority.

Though I do find it ironic, if not hilarious that such a flagship project, assigned to a British firm that has apparently done a good job, should be outsourced to an EU supplier post-Brexit.

Even ignoring any potential security issues of having passports made abroad and any job losses, that's a massive realpolitik/PR error, surely?

 

I presume that your opinion is based on the argument that free markets are inevitably more efficient and produce better outcomes in the long run?

 

If so, do you think that the Govt was wrong to offer whatever financial guarantees it gave to UK-based car makers? https://www.politico.eu/article/nissan-written-post-brexit-guarantees-from-uk-business-secretary/

If British car makers struggle to compete post-Brexit and the market deems French or German cars to be more desirable, should the Govt just allow British car plants to close down with the loss of countless thousands of jobs?

I presume the free market argument is that the consumer is always right and govt subsidy wrong, so if Brit firms cannot compete they should go to the wall...then through market economics, capital will inevitably create UK jobs in other sectors?

No problem, I didn't think for a minute you were.Is there really a security issue regarding passports being made elsewhere? My article in the Times today says the De La Rue provides passports for over 40 countries so it can't be that big an issue.

 

I've still not met a single leave voter that cares about a blue passport, maybe I'm lucky - maybe those people are out there, but if they are I haven't met them, the whole Blue passport wanting, flag waving, Rule Britannia singing Brexiteer doesn't exist to me, I've only heard the description of them come from Remain voters when describing their opponents in this debate.

 

I can't remember enough about the Nissan plant deal (I don't blame the Japanese either making these demands, it was the perfect time to do so) if I'm being honest but imagine securing their investment was far more important than a passport form that earns over 80% of it's revenue from outside the UK. I think they provide about 50,000 jobs so that had to be treated with far more care than this. My Dad does consultancy work for Jaguar Land Rover and there is little worry from them about British car manufacturing struggling to compete, more worrying is the tariffs possibly being imposed from the US that we'll certainly get if we stay inside the Customs Union.

 

We might have got into surplus day to day (although this should be treated with caution) but I still don't think we should start spending government money that can be saved elsewhere, we should still be prudent where possible and engage as much as we can in global markets.

[Beechey]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

To clarify, I'm not pretending that many Brexit supporters see blue British-made passports as a priority.

Though I do find it ironic, if not hilarious that such a flagship project, assigned to a British firm that has apparently done a good job, should be outsourced to an EU supplier post-Brexit.

Even ignoring any potential security issues of having passports made abroad and any job losses, that's a massive realpolitik/PR error, surely?

 

I presume that your opinion is based on the argument that free markets are inevitably more efficient and produce better outcomes in the long run?

 

If so, do you think that the Govt was wrong to offer whatever financial guarantees it gave to UK-based car makers? https://www.politico.eu/article/nissan-written-post-brexit-guarantees-from-uk-business-secretary/

If British car makers struggle to compete post-Brexit and the market deems French or German cars to be more desirable, should the Govt just allow British car plants to close down with the loss of countless thousands of jobs?

I presume the free market argument is that the consumer is always right and govt subsidy wrong, so if Brit firms cannot compete they should go to the wall...then through market economics, capital will inevitably create UK jobs in other sectors? 

 

Why though? We're probably by far Europe's most open major economy. Companies here have to compete globally because the government won't snuggle them and give them contracts solely because they're British. If a competitor offers a better deal why should we pay over the odds for a service we could otherwise get for cheaper? The difference between passport makers and the automotive industry is how many they employ, and thus there's a national need to sustain that industry because of it. Some will disagree with government assurances to businesses, but the difference between between your points about passports and the automotive industry is that one is a direct government contract, the other is private enterprise with barely any government contracts beyond police forces/government agencies using certain car brands.

 

I think they're too different to compare.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Ah OK. That’s started to make more sense now. But surely it’s purely the false messaging thing that’s wrong. I don’t understand why it’s significant that CA have targeted their false messaging to individuals, rather than blanket coverage of false messaging such as the Daily Mail/Britain First or Socialist Worker do?

 

Targetted messaging happens all the time. Whenever I browse a product on Amazon – that data is then harvested and then is targeted towards me and appears in my Facebook feed.

 

How is it different to Britain First posting a video of celebrating cricket fans on Twitter and telling people it’s muslims celebrating a terrorist attack?

I’m not sure how I can add to my explanation to add further to my point. If you don’t see how effective the use of personal data combined with fake news could be to subvert the democratic process, then I’m beaten. 

Oh it’s different to Britain’s first because they make sure you see it and make the message personal to you.

Edited 22 March 2018 by Strokes