UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion & DIY Home Improvement Thread

[Svip]

I think that analysis is right, BRITLAND. Boris Johnson definitely seems to be positioning himself for a leadership challenge in the Conservative Party. There have long been chatter about Johnson for the leadership, and it seems prudent to positioning himself as an alternative to Cameron's leadership. Indeed, insofar that the British vote leave, Johnson would quickly move for a leadership challenge against Cameron. He would be riding high on a huge victory, with Cameron in defeat.

 

A later leadership challenge would not have the same momentum in the population. Indeed, the public would probably accept such a challenge amid the smoke settling from the referendum.

 

But - of course - that's assuming Johnson's gambit works. The problem is it doesn't appear that he is actually helping the Leave campaign. While the Remain continues to lead in the polls and the gap have narrowed, there still remains over 15% of undecided voters. Particularly in Northern Ireland and Scotland, Remain is popular, and it's really only in England that there is a challenge.

 

However, as you point out; suppose the result is Leave, that still doesn't make Johnson's leadership challenge a walk in the park. Indeed, the opinion may be that Leave won despite Johnson. Johnson is also blurbing out a lot of bullsh*t, turning into a classic politician. It's only his act that is unusual.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Svip

[SouthLand]

EU Referendum: Gibraltar chief minister says Spain can stick joint sovereignty 'where the sun doesn’t shine'
If Britain votes to leave the EU at next month’s referendum, it could pose serious problems for Gibraltar’s economy

 

 

Now, Mr Picardo believes the Spanish government would make joint-sovereignty between Spain and Gibraltar “a prerequisite to Gibraltar having access to the single market” in the event of a Brexit.

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-referendum-brexit-would-hit-gibraltar-says-chief-minister-fabian-picardo-but-spain-can-stick-a7055501.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hahahahahahahhaha now Spain should say to them "NO, We don't feel like it".

[GTA_stu]

But I do think this referendum has lowered Boris's chances of the Conservative leadership, no way would the public or the majority of the Conservative party membership see him as a Prime Minister now.

 

I disagree. Who else is there that would fare better than Boris with the public? He's still quite popular, for a politician at least. He's more popular and well liked than any other Tory. Nobody actually cares about the manufactured outrage of the media over his Obama comments. As for his position and popularity within the party, it'll become clearer in the months after the referendum. If Leave wins he'll have a very strong position, but even if Remain wins he would still be a main contender.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

No matter what happens, the biggest danger to Boris pushing for Camerons' top spot is Boris himself.... The gaffe machine still has plenty of time to shoot himself in the foot.

 

Personally, I would prefer we remain, but both sides are guilty of upping the ante and artificially upping the numbers, either for the good or bad. But that's a typical UK Election at work, nothing new there.

 

When the Scottish Independence Referendum occurred, we were holidaying in Scotland during the build up and the Scottish BBC actually produced a 'series' that was aimed more at younger voters, but it was actually brilliant! It was funny, impartial and laid the facts for both sides fair and square. This sort of broadcasting is what's missing in this referendum buildup!

 

I don't want spin, I want facts, plans and a solid future whatever the result.

 

Besides, if we do vote to leave I think a second Scottish referendum will be the result, and I think they'd split if they went to the polls again.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Sikee Atric

[sivispacem]

It's interesting Boris holds up the bit of the Australian system which welcomes people without jobs, at a time the quota for that gets smaller and smaller, and immigrants on work visas represent higher and higher percentage of those emigrating to Aus.

[Argonaut]

On the other side of the spectrum, it may also be interesting to watch out in the case of a Brexit how Jeremy Corbyn's leadership will fair- what we've seen so far is some criticism directed for him not doing enough (maybe deliberate on his part as to meet the minimum expectation of the party's view but not to damage the chances of his own views being carried out through a Brexit) which would probably turn into another sh*t slinging match for him to go sooner, even if those MPs or "senior Labour figures" and the like didn't contribute much to the campaign in the first place.

[BRITLAND]

 

But I do think this referendum has lowered Boris's chances of the Conservative leadership, no way would the public or the majority of the Conservative party membership see him as a Prime Minister now.

I disagree. Who else is there that would fare better than Boris with the public? He's still quite popular, for a politician at least. He's more popular and well liked than any other Tory. Nobody actually cares about the manufactured outrage of the media over his Obama comments. As for his position and popularity within the party, it'll become clearer in the months after the referendum. If Leave wins he'll have a very strong position, but even if Remain wins he would still be a main contender.

 

Who else would fare better? Stephen Crabb is one candidate. His working class background would make him more relatable to the average Briton, is very likeable and does have the look of a Prime Minister. Being in a Welsh constituency and having Scottish roots will probably help the Conservatives in those part of the UK as well, Scotland particularly where Tory support is on the rise. He is for sure a dark horse when the Conservative leadership comes.

 

Sajid Javid is another good choice who again comes from a working class background (which is more relatable to the average Brit than the standard old Etonian) and worked his way up to the top. he would have obvious appeal to ethnic minorities as well. Though I think he ruled himself out a while ago, he's more likely to become the new Chancellor of the Exchequer or Home Secretary when a new leader is picked.

 

Michael Gove may not be the most popular politician in Britain but he is apparently the most popular politican within the Conservative party, if he runs and makes the final round where the party votes in that case he's almost certain to get the leadership whether we like it or not. On other forums which discuss politics a lot of people are predicting Theresa May to be the successor to Cameron. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if she won the leadership by presenting herself with an anti-terrorist, tough on crime and immigration agenda that appeals to the typical readership of the Daily Mail. Liam Fox will probably run as well and he appears to be getting more support(the last poll I saw saw him coming third with Gove being the most popular and Boris at no2). Plus the next leader could also be someone totally unexpected, maybe someone like Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom? or Priti Patel? Or the Tories might do a Corbyn and elect a right wing dinosaur like Peter Bone (god help us if that happens).

 

I'm not saying Boris is definitely not getting the leadership, I just think his chances have lowered, at one point it a while back it looked almost certain he would get it a it was a battle between him and Theresa May while now there's more contenders. And as Svip mentions he doesn't appear to have helped the leave campaign much at all and is certainly not helping it with that rubbish regarding bananas he blubbered about weeks ago.

 

I can see Boris becoming PM if the Leave campaigns wins by a good majority, and the likes of Gove and Fox don't stand in the leadership, which would probably make Boris the only top Brexit candidate standing. Which I have a feeling would lead to Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Chancellor Michael Gove, with all the Brexit crew getting the top cabinet posts like Foreign Sec Theresa Villiers, Home Sec Iain Duncan Smith, Justice Sec Priti Patel, Defence Sec Chris Grayling, Health Sec John Whittingdale, Education Sec Andrea Leadsom, W&P Sec Liam Fox. But at this stage I'm not confident the leave campaign will win, they may be neck and neck but look at all the undecided, if they're still that way come 23rd June they will most likely vote to keep the status quo, just like how the Better Together campaign won the Scottish referendum two years ago with a larger majority than expected, as there will still many undecided voters that decided on the day to keep the status quo.

 

I honestly think Prime Minister Stephen Crabb and Chancellor Sajid Javid are more appealing to voters (particularly working and middle class) than Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Chancellor Michael Gove but that's just my opinion.

 

However if it comes down to him and Osborne then I do hope Boris prevails. As Boris may have a jokey character that will likely grow stale after a while at the PM job, at least he can interact with humans, while Osborne.....

 

 

 

 

On the other side of the spectrum, it may also be interesting to watch out in the case of a Brexit how Jeremy Corbyn's leadership will fair- what we've seen so far is some criticism directed for him not doing enough (maybe deliberate on his part as to meet the minimum expectation of the party's view but not to damage the chances of his own views being carried out through a Brexit) which would probably turn into another sh*t slinging match for him to go sooner, even if those MPs or "senior Labour figures" and the like didn't contribute much to the campaign in the first place.

I'll be surprised if Corbyn is Labour leader by 2020. I feel he doesn't actually want to be Prime Minister but just to take labour back to it's roots. I can see him standing down in 2018 by choice and having someone like Hilary Benn or Andy Burnham (if he doesn't run for Greater Manchester Mayor) take his place as leader with centre left policies to try and bring both sides of Labour together instead of tearing themselves further apart.

 

Or maybe someone will eventually challenge him for the leadership at some point this year or next, Yvette Cooper seems like the person who would do that, while she would be a strong opposition leader she isn't particularly the most likable person on the planet, and the name Mrs Balls probably won't help her either as leader. Chuka Umunna could challenge Corbyn but that'll probably lead to many Labour members who joined last year leaving as he is basically Tony Blair V2.

Edited June 1, 2016 by BRITLAND

[Svip]

Just imagine. Prime Minister Boris Johnson and President Donald Trump at a joint press conference, stand before the destruction they've created. And it's windy.

[BRITLAND]

Just imagine. Prime Minister Boris Johnson and President Donald Trump at a joint press conference, stand before the destruction they've created. And it's windy.

I'm expecting Channel 4 to make one of their political mockumentary films based on that scenario, would be interesting and entertaining to see what they come up with. Probably the obvious US & UK ground troops in Iraq and Syria, and maybe they'll start air strikes in Boko Haram occupied areas of Africa for the sake of it. And maybe President Trump shaking hands with Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang.

[Smith John]

Don't know how many of you watched the Sky News 'debates' these past two nights, but given the lacklustre/winning performances of Cameron/Gove, I can assure you the sweating editors over there at the BBC will certainly be carefully selecting their carefully selected audiences for their carefully constructed debate very carefully after this.

[GTA_stu]

I f*cking hate in studio audiences. It makes the participants on all sides go for sh*tty clap seeking empty platitudes. I also hate how 0.0001, or whatever percentage of the population is in the audience, can massively impact and influence everyone else. Because a debate with no crowd reaction, and the same debate with crowd reaction, will often be perceived very differently. Which is a big problem when the crowd is biased or one side is more vocal. Even if it's a perfectly balanced crowd, you can still make it unfair by selectively highlighting disapproving people for reaction shots when one participant speaks and people approving when another participant speaks.

 

Just make them be silent and emotionless. Or better yet have a deaf blind audience just for decoration.

[Smith John]

It is, afterall, an 'murican thing, and to be honest? I enjoy it. Just not when it's the BBC arranging it. Perhaps I'm taking a biased (not really) view of the two 'debates' on Sky News, but I thought they were very well balanced when it came to audience selection. I mean, I've been accustomed to experiencing Question Time and their "carefully selected" audiences for the best part of the last decade, so it was quite refreshing to see a more neutral reaction of applause on the Sky News editions. Again, don't expect to see such neutrality when it comes to the Beeb's upcomimg main 'debate'.

 

That said, their [Question Time's] audience have been fairly neutral these past Thursday nights - They've either deliberately done this thinking it will boost the remain side, or they're so removed from the dirty commoner they've lost any relatable cause. Farage is going to be on the panel in a few weeks, so the treatment he receives then will settle my already questioning opinion of the BBC (not that the daily scaremongering headlines haven't already done so)

Edited June 4, 2016 by John Smith

[Argonaut]

I think, regardless of the Sky News audience for Gove's debate atleast (which did seem to be atleast a tad better for clapping for agreeable points and not deciding not to because a Conservative said it, from what I've seen of previous TV audience political debates), anything was better than having to listen to that utter twat of an interviewer attempt a woeful pastiche Paxman-style approach to questioning where whatever he said is wrong to the point where it beckoned constant interruptions before finishing and Donald Trump buzzword comparisons.

 

This sort of style of questioning I feel is what people want a clean break from, as epically the viewing figures may jump as big wigs go at loggerheads, which seemed to be reflected by the stream of twitter comments I watched come in as the program progressed. Almost unwatchable at some points.

[BRITLAND]

Yeah that Jeremy Paxman wannabe made me cringe. Only Paxman should interview people Paxman style.

[GTA_stu]

 

 

 

 

The Express had a pretty good debate. Farage, Rees-Mogg, Chuka, and a few others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9dJWg4TtAY&app=desktop

[sivispacem]

I find it pretty amusing to see you complain about the apparent lack of impartiality in BBC debates and then highlight the Express debate as "pretty good".

[Clem Fandango]

"We now have to build a new house every four minutes to cope with current levels of immigration" exactly how stupid do you have to be to not see that every social ill associated with immigration is a wider structural issue, which is at best exacerbated by immigration? There is a surplus of housing- there's a surplus of everything! It's the Jetsons out here, but our society is poorly organised.

 

And lmao at Farage being a posh boy stockbroker, that's the first time I've heard him speak.

[GTA_stu]

I find it pretty amusing to see you complain about the apparent lack of impartiality in BBC debates and then highlight the Express debate as "pretty good".

 

Well what's your gripe? The audience had minimal input, the line ups were even, it wasn't perfect but then The Express has obvious bias, and considering that I thought it was decent. I pick on the BBC because they're supposed to be impartial and the national broadcaster, but they do a worse job than a biased newspaper.

[Argonaut]

 

I find it pretty amusing to see you complain about the apparent lack of impartiality in BBC debates and then highlight the Express debate as "pretty good".

 

Well what's your gripe? The audience had minimal input, the line ups were even, it wasn't perfect but then The Express has obvious bias, and considering that I thought it was decent. I pick on the BBC because they're supposed to be impartial and the national broadcaster, but they do a worse job than a biased newspaper.

 

 

And you're surprised that at any point in time, especially in the unique context of the EU Referendum, that the main government-funded broadcasting organisation wouldn't have occasions of questionable impartiality (whether seen to be accidental or not)? I mean based on your political alignment, I assume you would keep in fresh memory the time where Farage in the BBC General Election debate called out a more left wing audience, so why you would continue to be surprised surprises me.

 

And whilst not donning a tinfoil hat by mixing up "funded" with "controlled" to describe the BBC's relation to the government, such a debate at a level of discourse which has projected all sorts of extraordinary claims into the limelight could not reasonably expect to escape the topic of broadcasting impartiality, in my mind.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Argonaut

[sivispacem]

"Worse job" in what way? I really don't see the level of supposed bias in the BBC's presentation you claim is there. I've been quietly tallying BBC News headlines and so far there has actually been more time and prominence given to comments from the "out" campaign than the "in" one.

 

There's much more criticism from third party organisations of claims made by out than claims made by in, but that's to be expected as in enjoys far more widespread backing amongst the kinds of third party organisations that speak about the subject in a coherent way.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

"Worse job" in what way? I really don't see the level of supposed bias in the BBC's presentation you claim is there. I've been quietly tallying BBC News headlines and so far there has actually been more time and prominence given to comments from the "out" campaign than the "in" one.

 

There's much more criticism from third party organisations of claims made by out than claims made by in, but that's to be expected as in enjoys far more widespread backing amongst the kinds of third party organisations that speak about the subject in a coherent way.

 

I'm with you Sivis....

 

Given all the huff, puff and exaggeration I've found the BBC the most balanced of all the UK broadcasters, simply because they are not allowed to have an opinion and be as unbiased as possible. The other news companies are all owned and as such their bosses are pulling the overall strings for the entire station. Hell, even regional radio shows are suffering the problem with this debate, let alone television!

 

I'm made up you quoted that Express debate debacle Stu, you're forgetting the Express is owned by Richard Desmond, emblazons the pages with the Crusade for 'GET US OUT OF THE EU', and Northern and Shell (Desmond's company) is the biggest donor for UKIP by quite a margin.... That is clearly a shining example of impartiality!

Edited June 5, 2016 by Sikee Atric

[GTA_stu]

 

"Worse job" in what way? I really don't see the level of supposed bias in the BBC's presentation you claim is there. I've been quietly tallying BBC News headlines and so far there has actually been more time and prominence given to comments from the "out" campaign than the "in" one.

 

There's much more criticism from third party organisations of claims made by out than claims made by in, but that's to be expected as in enjoys far more widespread backing amongst the kinds of third party organisations that speak about the subject in a coherent way.

 

I'm with you Sivis....

 

Given all the huff, puff and exaggeration I've found the BBC the most balanced of all the UK broadcasters, simply because they are not allowed to have an opinion and be as unbiased as possible. The other news companies are all owned and as such their bosses are pulling the overall strings for the entire station. Hell, even regional radio shows are suffering the problem with this debate, let alone television!

 

I'm made up you quoted that Express debate debacle Stu, you're forgetting the Express is owned by Richard Desmond, emblazons the pages with the Crusade for 'GET US OUT OF THE EU', and Northern and Shell (Desmond's company) is the biggest donor for UKIP by quite a margin.... That is clearly a shining example of impartiality!

 

 

Your argument is "The BBC aren't allowed to be biased and therefore their reporting and debates are impartial" And "The Express newspaper debate was biased because it's got vested interests." So essentially you're just superficially look at what's written on the tin and deciding based on that. What about The Express debate was biased? The moderating? The crowd? What?

 

The BBC doesn't simply report the news any more, it actively pushes agendas. It's incredibly PC, it's definitely not neutral when it comes to multiculturalism and immigration. It's coverage of Trump has been hugely negative, like a Democrat's wet dream.

[sivispacem]

Neutrality and impartiality aren't the same thing, though. The BBC isn't neutral, and its blurb on Editorial Guidelines which accompanies the BBC chapter states as much in fairly explicit terms. I rather get the impression people who criticise the BBC's lack of impartiality are usually criticising a lack of neutrality.

[Argonaut]

To add to this, I don't see this assumed obligation for the BBC to not have an opinion on anything, (especially with other competing News alternatives readily available to offer a more engaging view) no matter how conclusive the recent information is to one side at the time of broadcasting and/or a lack of a response from the other side. I can understand for such prepared things such as political debates and debates in general that there would be fair criticisms of seeing equal sides, but to by and large claim the uneven nature in which news comes in can hold a bias would be wrong in my mind.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Argonaut

[Smith John]

The BBC reaches to a huge audience in this country, and can, has and will influence crucial decision-making amongst its audience. Therefore, it needs to be neutral with its reporting when it comes to hugely important issues such as this. 'Remainers' like sivispacem can't see the biased stance the Beeb have assigned themselves with because, well, they're 'Remainers', but I've come across many who want to stay in the EU who can also admit and acknowledge the daily scaremongering headlines that grace the BBC's main bulletins. The first thing I do while drying myself off after taking a shower each day is check the BBC News app, and the overwhelming majority of the EU referendum reporting on the main headline section is negativity about a 'Brexit'. Sure, they cover the arguments for the leave campaign, but they're mostly published in the politics section, and rarely make the 6 o'clock/10 o'clock news. (Remember what I said here - "MAIN HEADLINE"

 

"HEADLINE"

 

Somebody earlier touched on Farage calling out the BBC's left-wing audience during the lead up to last year's general election, and no matter what your position on the spectrum is, I don't think you can deny it. That audience was definitely not representative of the the sentiments of much of the British public, yet Dimbleby's response to Farage's assessment was "this audience has been carefully chosen by an independent polling organisation", a 'polling organisation' of which turned out to have an affiliation with The Guardian. So, yeah.

 

I've said this a thousand times before, but being a 'No' voter for Scottish independence, I could at least observe and submit that there was a blatant BBC bias against the 'Yes' campaign in the countdown to 2014's indy referendum. I'm just glad and respectful of those on the EU side in this referendum who can at least observe and acknowledge a similar train of favouring a side from our glorious British Broadcasting Channel.

 

Oh yeah, and comparing a tabloid newspaper like the Express with a publicly-taxed TV news channel is f*cking laughable...

[sivispacem]

The BBC reaches to a huge audience in this country, and can, has and will influence crucial decision-making amongst its audience. Therefore, it needs to be neutral with its reporting when it comes to hugely important issues such as this.'Remainers'

No, it doesn't. It's the BBC's job to give proportionate and reasonable analysis to statements made by both sides of the argument. If you read the BBC Chapter, that's exactly what they mean by "due impartiality". The BBC should not be forced to, for instance, temper the publication of claims by subject matter experts that the assertions made by the "leave" campaign are technically inaccurate just because they cannot find similar experts in an equivalent number to do the same to the "remain" campaign. The understanding of what BBC impartiality actually means amongst it's critics is absolutely woeful.

 

The BBC are not responsible for the fact the overwhelming weight of academic and technical opinions lie in favour of the "Remain" campaign. It's disingenuous and highly inaccurate to claim that them reflecting this in their reporting is a breach of impartiality; as I've already highlighted they explicitly explain that neutrality and impartiality are not the same

 

Sivispacem can't see the biased stance the Beeb have assigned themselves with because, well, they're 'Remainers', but I've come across many who want to stay in the EU who can also admit and acknowledge the daily scaremongering headlines that grace the BBC's main bulletins.

Arguments from anecdote notwithstanding, the BBC have been criticised by both sides. As I already said, Leave and Remain seem to be getting relatively comparable amounts of prominence and it's sort of their job to present the claims made by large organisations with a vested interest in either side of the debate. They do so by caveating the headlines to ensure they always cite the source of a claim. That's not scaremongering, it's simply reporting what someone has said. Can you find examples of tgese supposed "scaremongering" headlines where the BBC has made claims that aren't explicitly repetition or paraphrasing of comments made by key figures in the debate?

 

Also, I find belief that my own views on the matter must cloud my ability to interpret the BBC's apparent partiality quite hilarious given that you don't seem able of distinguishing impartiality from neutrality.

 

Somebody earlier touched on Farage calling out the BBC's left-wing audience during the lead up to last year's general election...That audience was definitely not representative of the the sentiments of much of the British public

I'm not sure which event you're talking about here. Are you talking about the Question Time leadership election special, or the Any Questions audience at a similar tine?

 

In the case of the latter, the BBC always has some bias in Any Questions episodes as the audience's are both local and unvetted. They tend to represent the political leanings of the constituency they take place in and that's how it's been for about 35 years now.

 

The former, there was a fairly transparent system used for selecting the audience which the Telegraph even cites in their criticism. 25% was given to each of the three main parties, with 15% split between minor parties and 10% given to undecided voters. Of course, though all major parties are represented equally, two of those parties have a left-leaning bias. Similarly, most smaller parties- Green, SNP, Plaid- also have a left-leaning bias. So it's not surprising really.

 

The question is, if that's an unfair way of apportioning an audience from an impartiality perspective, what would be a fair way? Share of parliamentary seats? That gives the largest share to the Conservatives but excludes UKIP entirely. Share of the popular vote? You still end up with more than 50% of the audience being left-leaning. Got any bright alternative ideas? I can't think of a single way of proportionality selecting an audience which doesn't result in someone being able to claim bias against them.

[BRITLAND]

UKIP leaflet claims EU will abolish the monarchy:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/saraspary/eu-will-end-the-monarchy-the-british-army-and-parliament-cla?utm_term=.nuLPYrl2W#.pmWPORaAB

 

UKIP are seriously deluded to think that people will decide to vote leave because it will save the monarchy from the evil Brussels who will force Brits to elect the head of state. They also bring up the whole EU army issue too.

Edited June 7, 2016 by BRITLAND

[Svip]

Maybe they are forgetting that Belgium has a monarch too? And Spain, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark and Sweden?

[sivispacem]

UKIP are an organisation entirely composed of pathological liars and complete morons. The level of factually challenged idiocy in that leaflet is just flabbergasting.

[Stephan90]

Will the EU become more centralised if the UK stays or if it leaves?