The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[AlunB]

Blaming the media is often the politician's underhand way of blaming the voters, usually working class voters. Left and right are equally as guilty.

Again, this is true. But the papers really do try and shape and lead the format and the content of the debate.

[DaveShoelace]

It's more an observation than an insult.  Labour is better served getting out there and making the socialist argument, rather than grumble about the Daily Mail.  To be fair this seems to be the approach Corbyn is taking.

This is very true. But remember Milliband refused to engage with the Murdoch press and as a result got absolutely hammered by them.

TV and radio is bound by the Ofcom code of impartiality. No matter what the lunatics on the right say about the BBC being a marxist haven of left wing bias, it's bound by law to be balanced in its news coverage. It can't proselytise, harangue and generally brow beat its viewers to think a certain way.

The right wing press is not objectionable because it's right wing, it's objectionable because it uses a non democratic platform to consistently try and influence politics. It's still and incredibly loud and incredibly effective voice. If it runs a story saying Corbyn is a crazed communist then it makes TV and radio news and is talked about all day.

Now I'm a fairly pragmatic person and I managed to convince myself that in a social media world the newspapers didn't matter anymore and nobody listened to them. But certainly what seemed to happen is people believed what they said and did what they asked them to do in the last election.

Where else did you hear the SNP will unite with Milliband to create communist Russia in Chesterfield apart from Murdoch/Dacre axis of evil?

/rant

Personal observation is that this imbalance is rapidly appearing in the opposite direction where digital and social media are concerned. The 'blogosphere' and social media are heavily influencing politics towards the left leaning stuff. Conservative voices get drowned out, censored and shamed on social media, especially Twitter. I think that's one of the reason why so many people were surprised at the General Election result, because those of us who get our media online had seen nothing but left wing leaning stuff all year.

Obv you have outliers like the Daily Hate who, if you ignore their views for a second, are really crushing it as an online platform.

[AlunB]

It's more an observation than an insult.  Labour is better served getting out there and making the socialist argument, rather than grumble about the Daily Mail.  To be fair this seems to be the approach Corbyn is taking.

This is very true. But remember Milliband refused to engage with the Murdoch press and as a result got absolutely hammered by them.

TV and radio is bound by the Ofcom code of impartiality. No matter what the lunatics on the right say about the BBC being a marxist haven of left wing bias, it's bound by law to be balanced in its news coverage. It can't proselytise, harangue and generally brow beat its viewers to think a certain way.

The right wing press is not objectionable because it's right wing, it's objectionable because it uses a non democratic platform to consistently try and influence politics. It's still and incredibly loud and incredibly effective voice. If it runs a story saying Corbyn is a crazed communist then it makes TV and radio news and is talked about all day.

Now I'm a fairly pragmatic person and I managed to convince myself that in a social media world the newspapers didn't matter anymore and nobody listened to them. But certainly what seemed to happen is people believed what they said and did what they asked them to do in the last election.

Where else did you hear the SNP will unite with Milliband to create communist Russia in Chesterfield apart from Murdoch/Dacre axis of evil?

/rant

Personal observation is that this imbalance is rapidly appearing in the opposite direction where digital and social media are concerned. The 'blogosphere' and social media are heavily influencing politics towards the left leaning stuff. Conservative voices get drowned out, censored and shamed on social media, especially Twitter. I think that's one of the reason why so many people were surprised at the General Election result, because those of us who get our media online had seen nothing but left wing leaning stuff all year.

Obv you have outliers like the Daily Hate who, if you ignore their views for a second, are really crushing it as an online platform.

Indeed they are. But that's mostly led by celebrity news and a big factor in that is its growing US audience.

It's still the old school print brands that makes the difference, weirdly. But I agree with you on the other point to an extent. I'm just not convinced it's actually an effective influencing platform yet. I think you've said something similar before about it just being an echo chamber.

[DaveShoelace]

It's more an observation than an insult.  Labour is better served getting out there and making the socialist argument, rather than grumble about the Daily Mail.  To be fair this seems to be the approach Corbyn is taking.

This is very true. But remember Milliband refused to engage with the Murdoch press and as a result got absolutely hammered by them.

TV and radio is bound by the Ofcom code of impartiality. No matter what the lunatics on the right say about the BBC being a marxist haven of left wing bias, it's bound by law to be balanced in its news coverage. It can't proselytise, harangue and generally brow beat its viewers to think a certain way.

The right wing press is not objectionable because it's right wing, it's objectionable because it uses a non democratic platform to consistently try and influence politics. It's still and incredibly loud and incredibly effective voice. If it runs a story saying Corbyn is a crazed communist then it makes TV and radio news and is talked about all day.

Now I'm a fairly pragmatic person and I managed to convince myself that in a social media world the newspapers didn't matter anymore and nobody listened to them. But certainly what seemed to happen is people believed what they said and did what they asked them to do in the last election.

Where else did you hear the SNP will unite with Milliband to create communist Russia in Chesterfield apart from Murdoch/Dacre axis of evil?

/rant

Personal observation is that this imbalance is rapidly appearing in the opposite direction where digital and social media are concerned. The 'blogosphere' and social media are heavily influencing politics towards the left leaning stuff. Conservative voices get drowned out, censored and shamed on social media, especially Twitter. I think that's one of the reason why so many people were surprised at the General Election result, because those of us who get our media online had seen nothing but left wing leaning stuff all year.

Obv you have outliers like the Daily Hate who, if you ignore their views for a second, are really crushing it as an online platform.

Indeed they are. But that's mostly led by celebrity news and a big factor in that is its growing US audience.

It's still the old school print brands that makes the difference, weirdly. But I agree with you on the other point to an extent. I'm just not convinced it's actually an effective influencing platform yet. I think you've said something similar before about it just being an echo chamber.

Absolutely an echo chamber, but I also think the right wing print media is for the most part. Someone that buys the Mail is always going to vote one way. I think the Sun is probably the rag that will influence the most people on the fence. The Corbyn stuff is probably going to be the biggest example of that in recent memory, but I actually think that's an outlier too. Other than that, 90% of the time you can probably guess accuratly which way the person buying the paper will vote just from which paper it was.

[AlunB]

It's more an observation than an insult.  Labour is better served getting out there and making the socialist argument, rather than grumble about the Daily Mail.  To be fair this seems to be the approach Corbyn is taking.

This is very true. But remember Milliband refused to engage with the Murdoch press and as a result got absolutely hammered by them.

TV and radio is bound by the Ofcom code of impartiality. No matter what the lunatics on the right say about the BBC being a marxist haven of left wing bias, it's bound by law to be balanced in its news coverage. It can't proselytise, harangue and generally brow beat its viewers to think a certain way.

The right wing press is not objectionable because it's right wing, it's objectionable because it uses a non democratic platform to consistently try and influence politics. It's still and incredibly loud and incredibly effective voice. If it runs a story saying Corbyn is a crazed communist then it makes TV and radio news and is talked about all day.

Now I'm a fairly pragmatic person and I managed to convince myself that in a social media world the newspapers didn't matter anymore and nobody listened to them. But certainly what seemed to happen is people believed what they said and did what they asked them to do in the last election.

Where else did you hear the SNP will unite with Milliband to create communist Russia in Chesterfield apart from Murdoch/Dacre axis of evil?

/rant

Personal observation is that this imbalance is rapidly appearing in the opposite direction where digital and social media are concerned. The 'blogosphere' and social media are heavily influencing politics towards the left leaning stuff. Conservative voices get drowned out, censored and shamed on social media, especially Twitter. I think that's one of the reason why so many people were surprised at the General Election result, because those of us who get our media online had seen nothing but left wing leaning stuff all year.

Obv you have outliers like the Daily Hate who, if you ignore their views for a second, are really crushing it as an online platform.

Indeed they are. But that's mostly led by celebrity news and a big factor in that is its growing US audience.

It's still the old school print brands that makes the difference, weirdly. But I agree with you on the other point to an extent. I'm just not convinced it's actually an effective influencing platform yet. I think you've said something similar before about it just being an echo chamber.

Absolutely an echo chamber, but I also think the right wing print media is for the most part. Someone that buys the Mail is always going to vote one way. I think the Sun is probably the rag that will influence the most people on the fence. The Corbyn stuff is probably going to be the biggest example of that in recent memory, but I actually think that's an outlier too. Other than that, 90% of the time you can probably guess accuratly which way the person buying the paper will vote just from which paper it was.

Yeah agreed. And especially on the bold bit. It's still a hugely influential paper in many ways beyond simply directing its readership.

[DungBeetle]

It's more an observation than an insult.  Labour is better served getting out there and making the socialist argument, rather than grumble about the Daily Mail.  To be fair this seems to be the approach Corbyn is taking.

This is very true. But remember Milliband refused to engage with the Murdoch press and as a result got absolutely hammered by them.

TV and radio is bound by the Ofcom code of impartiality. No matter what the lunatics on the right say about the BBC being a marxist haven of left wing bias, it's bound by law to be balanced in its news coverage. It can't proselytise, harangue and generally brow beat its viewers to think a certain way.

The right wing press is not objectionable because it's right wing, it's objectionable because it uses a non democratic platform to consistently try and influence politics. It's still and incredibly loud and incredibly effective voice. If it runs a story saying Corbyn is a crazed communist then it makes TV and radio news and is talked about all day.

Now I'm a fairly pragmatic person and I managed to convince myself that in a social media world the newspapers didn't matter anymore and nobody listened to them. But certainly what seemed to happen is people believed what they said and did what they asked them to do in the last election.

Where else did you hear the SNP will unite with Milliband to create communist Russia in Chesterfield apart from Murdoch/Dacre axis of evil?

/rant

Papers will ultimately pander to their readers.  At the end of the day they just want to sell more copy and will write stories that their readers will pick up.   I certainly agree that there is a right wing bias in the press, but it is more because the section of our electorate who buy newspapers are more right leaning and that's what they want to read.

It's not a bond style baddie sitting in a volcano plotting to bring down the Left.  It's just a business decision.

[AlunB]

It's more an observation than an insult.  Labour is better served getting out there and making the socialist argument, rather than grumble about the Daily Mail.  To be fair this seems to be the approach Corbyn is taking.

This is very true. But remember Milliband refused to engage with the Murdoch press and as a result got absolutely hammered by them.

TV and radio is bound by the Ofcom code of impartiality. No matter what the lunatics on the right say about the BBC being a marxist haven of left wing bias, it's bound by law to be balanced in its news coverage. It can't proselytise, harangue and generally brow beat its viewers to think a certain way.

The right wing press is not objectionable because it's right wing, it's objectionable because it uses a non democratic platform to consistently try and influence politics. It's still and incredibly loud and incredibly effective voice. If it runs a story saying Corbyn is a crazed communist then it makes TV and radio news and is talked about all day.

Now I'm a fairly pragmatic person and I managed to convince myself that in a social media world the newspapers didn't matter anymore and nobody listened to them. But certainly what seemed to happen is people believed what they said and did what they asked them to do in the last election.

Where else did you hear the SNP will unite with Milliband to create communist Russia in Chesterfield apart from Murdoch/Dacre axis of evil?

/rant

Papers will ultimately pander to their readers.  At the end of the day they just want to sell more copy and will write stories that their readers will pick up.   I certainly agree that there is a right wing bias in the press, but it is more because the section of our electorate who buy newspapers are more right leaning and that's what they want to read.

It's not a bond style baddie sitting in a volcano plotting to bring down the Left.  It's just a business decision.

I've worked in media all my life so I'm not an ingenue about this. But I honestly believe it's a bit of both.

[AlunB]

I think the politics is based on (personal) business benefit rather than ideology though so you could argue it's the same thing.

[DaveShoelace]

It's more an observation than an insult.  Labour is better served getting out there and making the socialist argument, rather than grumble about the Daily Mail.  To be fair this seems to be the approach Corbyn is taking.

This is very true. But remember Milliband refused to engage with the Murdoch press and as a result got absolutely hammered by them.

TV and radio is bound by the Ofcom code of impartiality. No matter what the lunatics on the right say about the BBC being a marxist haven of left wing bias, it's bound by law to be balanced in its news coverage. It can't proselytise, harangue and generally brow beat its viewers to think a certain way.

The right wing press is not objectionable because it's right wing, it's objectionable because it uses a non democratic platform to consistently try and influence politics. It's still and incredibly loud and incredibly effective voice. If it runs a story saying Corbyn is a crazed communist then it makes TV and radio news and is talked about all day.

Now I'm a fairly pragmatic person and I managed to convince myself that in a social media world the newspapers didn't matter anymore and nobody listened to them. But certainly what seemed to happen is people believed what they said and did what they asked them to do in the last election.

Where else did you hear the SNP will unite with Milliband to create communist Russia in Chesterfield apart from Murdoch/Dacre axis of evil?

/rant

Papers will ultimately pander to their readers.  At the end of the day they just want to sell more copy and will write stories that their readers will pick up.   I certainly agree that there is a right wing bias in the press, but it is more because the section of our electorate who buy newspapers are more right leaning and that's what they want to read.

It's not a bond style baddie sitting in a volcano plotting to bring down the Left.  It's just a business decision.

I've worked in media all my life so I'm not an ingenue about this. But I honestly believe it's a bit of both.

I used to think it was all about selling papers/generating clicks, and for the most part (90% of the time) I still do. However, I've recently started to look at some of the stuff the (Mostly right wing, but not exclusively) do and it does strike me that there are political motives behind them too. For example, the way in which benefits fraud is demonised strikes me as much as a way to divert attention from tax evasion, which obviously wealthy media types have been guilty of in the past.

Cant remember the exact story now, but a few years back some major newspaper hit back at some government proposal to tax people more for four wheel drive cars and it turned out most of the editorial staff involved drove them.

Basically when it impacts the wealthy there is probably a political bias to the story.

[DaveShoelace]

Question of the day

Does the end justify the means? If a policy is passed which you agree with, but it got there using undemocratic processes, are you ok with that?

For example, if your party lied to get a new lass passed which you agree with, do you accept that?

[doubleup]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-to-be-given-powers-to-view-everyones-entire-internet-history-a6714581.html

So the tories are pushing ahead with the "snoopers charter".  Its a bit ironic that the EU court just shot down data sharing with the US because security agencies could access personal data and the UK is basically saying that any old plod can just have a look at what anyone has been up to online without a warrant.

Another thing that might come about is the demand for details of internet activity in discovery for civil legal cases.  If they are kept by the ISP and a court orders it, that would be that.

On top of this there is security at the ISP - how long before newspapers start offering a few quid to see what this or that celeb has been up to.

[kukushkin88]

Please watch this and more importantly don't vote until you've read 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropst's'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKx3MUqzCcQ

[kukushkin88]

Please watch this and more importantly don't vote until you've read 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropst's'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKx3MUqzCcQ

Democracy is a disgrace and it's let us all down but it's better than any of the alternatives..

[AlunB]

OK, potentially risky question of the day here from me. But interested to hear what people think.

Is it OK for politicians and public figures to choose to not wear a poppy?

[AndrewT]

OK, potentially risky question of the day here from me. But interested to hear what people think.

Is it OK for politicians and public figures to choose to not wear a poppy?

It obviously should be ok, but it isn't, particularly for politicians. I think we're kinda stuck with poppy fascism until the last veteran of WW2 dies - that would be an ideal time to let it drop.