Current Affairs The General Election

[tsubaki]

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

They are publishers, though. Twitter will let you promote your posts, as will (I believe) Facebook; they sell advertising space on their platforms and circulate it. They even have full rights to the content you post on the site.

As for your example - yes, if you allowed graffiti artists to put a racist slogan on your property you would be liable (probably criminally).

 

[Billy Dean]

If the referendum showed anything, it's that something that's popular with the people isn't always a good idea for the country. There's a reason why many analyses are suggesting that a Corbyn government would be almost as bad for the economy as Brexit.

And some are not: https://www.ft.com/content/6da72060-cfd2-11e9-99a4-b5ded7a7fe3f

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Which ones did you have in mind?

The manufacturers lobby believe a Corbyn government would be a nightmare - https://www.ft.com/content/b635e6ea-e654-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec

Morgan Stanley citing a Corbyn government as a bigger risk to the UK economy than Brexit - https://www.theguardian.com/politic...eat-to-british-business-than-brexit-says-bank

Shares in firms in the crosshairs of McDonnells share grab underperforming compared to peers - https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/10/30/how-jeremy-corbyn-would-radically-transform-britain

Tim Harford's take on policies such as the daft landlord/right to buy policy - http://timharford.com/2019/10/beware-of-simple-ideas-that-become-serious-pains/

 

[dwightschrute]

So much for voting tactically, Lib Dems trying to pretend Labour don't exist in Jacob Rees-Moggs seat that only Labour could win

 

[Bruce Wayne]

And some are not: https://www.ft.com/content/6da72060-cfd2-11e9-99a4-b5ded7a7fe3f

I was tempted to post that in my list above. I don't think there is much of an argument against things changing, but the degree of change McDonnell wants to bring about is crazy, especially at a time when Brexit is being debated (still).

 

[dwightschrute]

The two main vote tactical campaigns are basically Lib Dem fronts at this point

 

[catcherintherye]

If the referendum showed anything, it's that something that's popular with the people isn't always a good idea for the country. There's a reason why many analyses are suggesting that a Corbyn government would be almost as bad for the economy as Brexit.

Well there are slightly different questions there aren't they?

Firstly what is objectively good for the country (as often decided by business groups) alongside the challenges required to get elected. Labour have to focus on the 2nd point initially.

 

[abelard]

The manufacturers lobby believe a Corbyn government would be a nightmare - https://www.ft.com/content/b635e6ea-e654-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec

Morgan Stanley citing a Corbyn government as a bigger risk to the UK economy than Brexit - https://www.theguardian.com/politic...eat-to-british-business-than-brexit-says-bank

Shares in firms in the crosshairs of McDonnells share grab underperforming compared to peers - https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/10/30/how-jeremy-corbyn-would-radically-transform-britain

Tim Harford's take on policies such as the daft landlord/right to buy policy - http://timharford.com/2019/10/beware-of-simple-ideas-that-become-serious-pains/

Of course, only one of those actually makes the claim that Corbyn would be worse than Brexit, but it actually A) says only that Corbyn may be perceived to be a bigger threat not to the UK economy as a whole, but to the stock valuations of listed British firms (which is not at all the same thing as the British economy though I can't say I'm surprised you conflate them); B) is entirely speculative and does not present any real evidence and C) comes from Morgan Stanley, which said more or less the same thing about Ed Miliband and is clearly not an impartial observer.

I know these are febrile times, but it's such a shame how people these days suspend their critical faculties, and set aside the facts in order to cling to simple and familiar emotional narratives.

But I'm sure after having had a go at Rebecca Long Bailey recently you'll immediately retract the error ; )

 

[catcherintherye]

I was tempted to post that in my list above. I don't think there is much of an argument against things changing, but the degree of change McDonnell wants to bring about is crazy, especially at a time when Brexit is being debated (still).

As I said at the time of the manifesto that manifesto will not be implemented in it's entirety. However it is very popular and stands the best chance of them being elected.

How Labour manage that contradiction will become important. From a structural standpoint the aim will be to pinpoint there inability to deliver the programme on the wealthy, who are either witholding, avoiding or refusing to pay tax that is due.

From a left perspective that is better than the current impasse where increasingly migrants have taken a lot of the blame.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Of course, only one of those actually makes the claim that Corbyn would be worse than Brexit, but it actually A) says only that Corbyn may be perceived to be a bigger threat not to the UK economy as a whole, but to the stock valuations of listed British firms (which is not at all the same thing as the British economy though I can't say I'm surprised you conflate them); B) is entirely speculative and does not present any real evidence and C) comes from Morgan Stanley, which said more or less the same thing about Ed Miliband and is clearly not an impartial observer.

I know these are febrile times, but it's such a shame how people these days suspend their critical faculties, and set aside the facts in order to cling to simple and familiar emotional narratives.

But I'm sure after having had a go at Rebecca Long Bailey recently you'll immediately retract the error ; )

Of course, because what I say on here is comparable to the shadow business secretary misrepresenting how corporate taxes work. The fact that you were happy to overlook that and yet a few days later post about other people setting aside facts to cling to emotional narratives is rather amusing.

 

[neil999]

interesting to see how well the trump/nhs line will work, might be enough to keep traditional labour voters on side

 

[nsno-chris]

They are publishers, though. Twitter will let you promote your posts, as will (I believe) Facebook; they sell advertising space on their platforms and circulate it. They even have full rights to the content you post on the site.

As for your example - yes, if you allowed graffiti artists to put a racist slogan on your property you would be liable (probably criminally).

the legal standpoint is the they are not content publishers, they do not write the news. Like I’ve said before, I don’t agree with it buts the law and that’s all that matters.

make with regards to the second point. No you wouldn’t. If you refused then you’d criminally liable.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

General election 2019: Jeremy Corbyn vows to 'transform' UK

The Labour leader vows to take on the "elite" in "radical" election pitch, but the PM blames him for delaying Brexit.

www.bbc.co.uk

Corbyn says in this speech that Tory trade deals with the US would see £500 million extra given to US pharmaceutical companies every week, yet the entire NHS only spends just over £300 million on drugs per week.

And that's aside from this continued suggestion that paying more for drugs that already come from pharmaceutical companies is somehow selling the NHS off.

 

[Connor]

The two main vote tactical campaigns are basically Lib Dem fronts at this point

The LDs are absolutely despicable rats.

They will be crushed.

 

[Milkman]

So much for voting tactically, Lib Dems trying to pretend Labour don't exist in Jacob Rees-Moggs seat that only Labour could win