Current Affairs The General Election

[nsno-chris]

They are, though. Facebook moderate their content, sell advertising (and increasingly offer themselves as a marketplace for other goods and services) and offer you news items. It is a media company, the "social" bit is just a fig leaf to allow the company and those who shill for it (including very senior political figures) to pretend that what should be obvious to us all isn't actually happening.

As for US law allowing it, that really should not matter - US law also allows considerably more things to be said without being defamatory, but that isnt the case here.

they’re not publishers, that’s a simple fact has stated in law, no matter what your argument is. I don’t agree with it because it allows them to push any agenda they want with no repercussions. But is what it is.

would there be any difference if you owned a piece of land and dedicated it local artists to promote their artwork by graffiti (as done in the Baltic triangle a couple of years ago) and someone started right racist comments on the wall, are you as the landowner responsible for what others right or is it your duty to remove it and ensure it doesn’t happen again

like I said I don’t like the large social media companies, they have to much power for my liking

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Why doesn't he have any credibility? If what he is saying is correct, and I've not read it so I'm not commenting on that, then that provides the credibility does it not?

The same principle could be applied to those that simply trust Rees- Mogg when he tells them complete nonesense because he's a 'very clever man' and 'went to Eton'.

Edit: reading it has made me doubt his credibility somewhat.

I don't have the time or the inclination to go through what is a very lengthy article to discern whether every statement in there is correct, hence why I asked what the bloke's credibility was as a commentator on modern healthcare. That seems a fairly standard shortcut in a world in which we can't be experts in every topic, so we defer to those who are. Is this film maker an expert on healthcare, and if so, what makes him so? All I've found on him is a very short Wikipedia entry, with no previous work on healthcare in his resume.

Surely the question should be, why does he have credibility? Because he believes the NHS is being sold off and therefore fits with a Labour trope?

 

[thirdmantackle]

The UK is loosing £800m a week £3.2Bn a month , £80Bn a year, 2.5% hit to the economy because of economic uncertainty over Brexit.

The billion a month is small change when you realise they get much of it back and it's already knocked £6Bn and counting off the divorce bill that they'll have to pay if they ever want a free trade deal with the EU in the future.



Economic predictions from UK's National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) for GDP in 10 years time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50219036

2% hit if there's extensions instead of a deal
3% hit with May's deal
3.5% hit with the Boris deal - that's £70Bn a year that won't be going to the NHS
5.6% hit with No Deal

These would be on top of the 2.5% hit due to uncertainty since the referendum.


2.5% hit already

 

[abelard]

I don't have the time or the inclination to go through what is a very lengthy article to discern whether every statement in there is correct, hence why I asked what the bloke's credibility was as a commentator on modern healthcare. That seems a fairly standard shortcut in a world in which we can't be experts in every topic, so we defer to those who are. Is this film maker an expert on healthcare, and if so, what makes him so? All I've found on him is a very short Wikipedia entry, with no previous work on healthcare in his resume.

Surely the question should be, why does he have credibility? Because he believes the NHS is being sold off and therefore fits with a Labour trope?

In other words, I only have time for analysis which reinforces my opinions and prejudices.

You genuinely regret universal suffrage, don't you?

Ordinary people (in this case a man who has spent years researching and writing the NHS and is clearly, whatever his conclusions, very well informed) are like children, or cattle. They are not capable of complex ideas or abstract thought, and are beholden to and therefore misled by their emotions.

So they require the tutelage and at times the discipline of enlightened elders. A vanguard, if you will.

It is always amusing how closely communist and liberal technocrats (or commenters who self-identify as technocrats) resemble each other, though of course they'd each be the last people on earth to notice.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

In other words, I only have time for analysis which reinforces my opinions and prejudices.

You genuinely regret universal suffrage, don't you?

Ordinary people (in this case a man who has spent years researching and writing the NHS and is clearly, whatever his conclusions, very well informed) are like children, or cattle. They are not capable of complex ideas or abstract thought, and are beholden to and therefore misled by their emotions.

So they require the tutelage and at times the discipline of enlightened elders. A vanguard, if you will.

It is always amusing how closely communist and liberal technocrats (or commenters who self-identify as technocrats) resemble each other, though of course they'd each be the last people on earth to notice.

You appear to have put 2 and 2 together and made 5. I didn't say he had no credibility, I asked what it was. The research I had done on him showed no previous work or experience in UK healthcare, or healthcare more broadly. If you know more than I do and can explain his years of research then I'm all ears.

 

[Blue 1]

While I'm a Remainer I think the Libdem policy of revoking article 50 without going back to the electorate is risible. It would be just about the biggest gift to the hard right imaginable. They would never shut up about traitors and stolen referendums and Brexit would hang around like the stench it is forever.

The only sensible position for Remainers to take is to vote Labour, unless they live in a Tory/Libdem marginal. If Labour get into power there will be another referendum with remain on the ballot and remain stands a very high probability of winning.

If Corbyn is not PM after this election, the dream of Remainers IS over. Done. Toast.

Whether they like it or not, FPTP means that Labour are LITERALLY Remain's only hope.

 

[Kev The Rat]

First poll since election was called shows cons with 15 point lead

 

[Bruce Wayne]

While I'm a Remainer I think the Libdem policy of revoking article 50 without going back to the electorate is risible. It would be just about the biggest gift to the hard right imaginable. They would never shut up about traitors and stolen referendums and Brexit would hang around like the stench it is forever.

The only sensible position for Remainers to take is to vote Labour, unless they live in a Tory/Libdem marginal. If Labour get into power there will be another referendum with remain on the ballot and remain stands a very high probability of winning.

If Corbyn is not PM after this election, the dream of Remainers IS over. Done. Toast.

Whether they like it or not, FPTP means that Labour are LITERALLY Remain's only hope.

They've said they'll only do that if they're the majority in government, so given that's a clear policy of theirs, isn't a majority of people voting for it sending a clear message that most people want A50 revoked?

 

[abelard]

They've said they'll only do that if they're the majority in government, so given that's a clear policy of theirs, isn't a majority of people voting for it sending a clear message that most people want A50 revoked?

A majority of votes or a majority of seats?

 

[Tubey]

They've said they'll only do that if they're the majority in government, so given that's a clear policy of theirs, isn't a majority of people voting for it sending a clear message that most people want A50 revoked?

Yeah if the Lib Dems actually won an election outright it'd be as definitive as a second referendum with a 95% vote for remain.

The policy has backfired though as people weirdly have missed the point of what they've said.

 

[Tubey]

A majority of votes or a majority of seats?

Literally Jo Swinson as PM.

e.g. absolutely impossible.

 

[abelard]

Literally Jo Swinson as PM.

e.g. absolutely impossible.

Thankfully that's probably true, but thanks to the wonders of FPTP, if three parties are competitive along with the regional parties and Farage then winning a majority with less than 30% of the vote isn't unrealistic.

 

[Blue 1]

They've said they'll only do that if they're the majority in government, so given that's a clear policy of theirs, isn't a majority of people voting for it sending a clear message that most people want A50 revoked?

Unless they got in with at least 52% of the popular vote then the argument about it being a gift to the far right still stands.

 

[neil999]

Yeah if the Lib Dems actually won an election outright it'd be as definitive as a second referendum with a 95% vote for remain.

The policy has backfired though as people weirdly have missed the point of what they've said.

i guess they are trying to distinguish themselves from labour who look like they are going to back a peoples vote, it just comes across badly

 

[Bruce Wayne]

A majority of votes or a majority of seats?

Seems a largely hypothetical question anyway, but it's rare for a majority government to be formed without both being the case.