Politics

[ewerk 30385]

[Howmanheyman 32847]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

[Alex 34938]

4 hours ago, Rayvin said:

Why is Priti Patel joining the police on arresting people? That doesn't feel like it should be a thing.

Mark Francois wasn’t available for some reason

[Monkeys Fist 42149]

5 hours ago, Alex said:

Mark Francois wasn’t available for some reason

He’s standing behind her. 

[Rayvin 5188]

The BBC seems to be in something of a shitstorm this morning - fresh calls for privitisation following it.

 

Just wondering on that though - if it was privatised, could it end up actually impartial? So for instance, both the left and right believe it to be flawed against their own ends. What if it was largely bought into by the left/centre? If we ended up with a controlling stake in it, we could make it fully factual, could we not? Then we'd have a huge platform as a counter to all the right wing nonsense. I find it unlikely that the right wingers would take the same approach.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3860]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

The BBC seems to be in something of a shitstorm this morning - fresh calls for privitisation following it.

 

Just wondering on that though - if it was privatised, could it end up actually impartial? So for instance, both the left and right believe it to be flawed against their own ends. What if it was largely bought into by the left/centre? If we ended up with a controlling stake in it, we could make it fully factual, could we not? Then we'd have a huge platform as a counter to all the right wing nonsense. I find it unlikely that the right wingers would take the same approach.

Privatisation is code for Rupert Murdoch.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Kevin Carr's Gloves

[ewerk 30385]

21 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

The BBC seems to be in something of a shitstorm this morning - fresh calls for privitisation following it.

 

Just wondering on that though - if it was privatised, could it end up actually impartial? So for instance, both the left and right believe it to be flawed against their own ends. What if it was largely bought into by the left/centre? If we ended up with a controlling stake in it, we could make it fully factual, could we not? Then we'd have a huge platform as a counter to all the right wing nonsense. I find it unlikely that the right wingers would take the same approach.

That's worked well with which private media companies?

[sammynb 3353]

10 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

Privatisation is code for Rupert Murdoch.

 

Yep, the same has been happening here for the whole time our Tories have been in charge.

They strip funding until it is barely able to provide the services it needs to, then they can just tell the country it's not working and it needs to be sold.

Both the Beeb and Aunty (ABC) have invested heavily in online presence and that is Rupert the cunt's biggest issue as he does not want to spend to have to be competitive and he also wants to charge readers for the service - something he cannot not do while government broadcasters offer their services for free.

 

22 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

The BBC seems to be in something of a shitstorm this morning - fresh calls for privitisation following it.

 

Just wondering on that though - if it was privatised, could it end up actually impartial? So for instance, both the left and right believe it to be flawed against their own ends. What if it was largely bought into by the left/centre? If we ended up with a controlling stake in it, we could make it fully factual, could we not? Then we'd have a huge platform as a counter to all the right wing nonsense. I find it unlikely that the right wingers would take the same approach.

 

It will never happen because once it is a privately owned broadcaster commercial necessities come into to play and shareholders/owners want returns, which drives that whole circle you know is not powered by the left/centre part of society.

Also things like regional services are the first thing to be dropped as they don't make money.

[NJS 4375]

Bashir might have lied to get the interview but at the end of the day it boiled down to "Do you want to go on national TV and knife Charles squarely in his face" and she said "yes please". 

 

There may have been deceit within the bbc but she and her brother went in with their eyes open imo. 

[Rayvin 5188]

So my logic was more that if they opened it up to public ownership as per royal mail, and gave priority to average citizens, that there might be enough people who think like us to grab a controlling stake.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Rayvin

[ewerk 30385]

Aye, centre lefts like myself who bought the max stake in Royal Mail and sold a few months later for profit. Don’t trust us.

[Rayvin 5188]

Fair.

[ewerk 30385]

That this even has to be said.  

 

 

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

We all know a daft shit that's bad with money. Bozza, one of the lads.

[Dr Gloom 21861]

On 20/05/2021 at 13:11, Rayvin said:

It's the arrogance of it that gets me - why does she feel entitled to watch this man get arrested? To stand in his yard? To make a PR stunt out of his moment of humiliation?

 

She's a fucking bitch.

at least she talks sense 

 

 

[Alex 34938]

Which Marr no doubt let slide 

[PaddockLad 17131]

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1398242011761741824?s=19

[Rayvin 5188]

Indicates yet more Labour losses to the left/remainder side.

 

This doesn't feel like it's working. Maybe Starmer believes all of those people will hold their nose in the end and pull back into Labour at the right time, but I am doubtful of this personally.

[Gemmill 44539]

Big shocker here. The bloke Johnson appointed to determine whether he had broken the ministerial code with his flat refurb has, and you're not gonna believe this, found that there was no breach of the ministerial code. 

 

A Tory donor covered the £200k cost 

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

Johnson was unaware though 

[Alex 34938]

38 minutes ago, TheGingerQuiff said:

Johnson was unaware though 

If that’s true, which is unlikely, it should reflect badly on him anyway

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

He's got more to worry about like a GLOBAL PANDEMIC than to worry about who's paying for the new dresser

[Alex 34938]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

Indicates yet more Labour losses to the left/remainder side.

 

This doesn't feel like it's working. Maybe Starmer believes all of those people will hold their nose in the end and pull back into Labour at the right time, but I am doubtful of this personally.

Does it feel like anything would work? Doesn’t to me. I’m at the point where I’m happy to have the plebs reap what they’ve sown. I’ll be probably be fine, they won’t. Let them own it. The stupid fucking cunts 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Alex

[Rayvin 5188]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Does it feel like anything would work? Doesn’t to me. I’m at the point where I’m happy to have the plebs reap what they’ve sown. I’ll be probably be fine, they won’t. Let them own it. The stupid fucking cunts 

 

Honestly, same. It's just not possible to continue to be emotionally invested in this - but that said, I do continue to feel bad for people who are vulnerable, who can see this exactly for what it is, and who will be negatively affected by it. Ultimately though, I'm just not sure what any of us can do anymore.

 

I would be interested to learn how these polls translate into actual population driven numbers though - my understanding is that all of the responses they get are fed through constituency modelling. If this is representative of where we are across the population on the whole then we genuinely are in trouble.

 

Silver lining to all of this could be an actual electoral pact (not a fake one, not a "we could work with Labour if they would only..." pact). Labour clearly can't challenge the Tories from where they are - the sooner this is recognised, the sooner they can start doing something about it.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Rayvin

[Alex 34938]

17 hours ago, Gemmill said:

Big shocker here. The bloke Johnson appointed to determine whether he had broken the ministerial code with his flat refurb has, and you're not gonna believe this, found that there was no breach of the ministerial code. 

 

A Tory donor covered the £200k cost 

The Hancock thing is far worse. I.e. ruling it was a minor breach of the code because he didn’t realise his sister’s company was tendering for nhs contracts. Massive corruption at the highest level brushed under the carpet.