UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[FiF]

brenflys777 said:

Cognitive bias isn't something I've come across under that name.

I do think the conservatives under Cameron seem to be suffering from two negative concepts familiar to my field in aviation.

Confirmation bias and poor situational awareness. They are being overwhelmed by events, at home and in the EU and seem to be ignoring mounting evidence that they need to change - not the voters.

That's a reasonable view I think though all the suppprters from all sides and even the independents suffer from a predisposition to give more weight to opinions which support our own. It's what you do about trying to retain objectivity that counts.

More I think about it the bill for 2.1 billion euro and timing is the Barroso et al version of the infamous Treasury note "There is no more money"

In other words an up yours from those exiting office. There are other examples eg Cllintonites to Bush jnr.

[dandarez]

Greg66 said:

don4l said:

Greg66 said:

You say its because he lies about everything, but it is obvious to anyone that your views are formed around an immovable preconception that he lies about everything; hence everything he says is construed (contorted really) by you into a gross untruth that fits into your preconception.

Cognitive bias at its very best.

I don't think that he lies about everything.

He says whatever he thinks will serve him best.

If the truth will serve his interests best, why would he lie?

So, the question is - why would you believe that I think that he lies about everything?

No, that isn't the question. The question (which you have yet to answer) is why you chose to contort what Cameron said to focus on the two courses of action which would make what he said truthful in only the most technical of senses.

Phew!
Contender for the wf sentence of the year.

[NicD]

FiF said:

brenflys777 said:

Cognitive bias isn't something I've come across under that name.

I do think the conservatives under Cameron seem to be suffering from two negative concepts familiar to my field in aviation.

Confirmation bias and poor situational awareness. They are being overwhelmed by events, at home and in the EU and seem to be ignoring mounting evidence that they need to change - not the voters.

That's a reasonable view I think though all the suppprters from all sides and even the independents suffer from a predisposition to give more weight to opinions which support our own. It's what you do about trying to retain objectivity that counts.

More I think about it the bill for 2.1 billion euro and timing is the Barroso et al version of the infamous Treasury note "There is no more money"

In other words an up yours from those exiting office. There are other examples eg Cllintonites to Bush jnr.

I think the timing may just be co-incidental.
this is from an Economist article from August, no excuse for the Treasury not to be prepared.
Interestingly the graph shows NO illegal activity in France! Pull the other one.

European countries are adopting new global standards for what counts as output. These replace rules dating back to 1995, when the internet age had barely begun. By far the biggest change in how output is measured will come from reclassifying research and development (R&D). By treating it as an investment, rather than as if it is being consumed in the course of production, it will add to GDP.

In research-intensive Finland, one of a handful of European states that have unveiled accounts conforming to the new guidelines, reclassifying R&D has lifted the level of GDP in 2010 by 4%. Other countries will get a smaller boost; for example R&D is reckoned to have raised GDP in France by 2.1% and in Germany by 2.3%. In southern Europe, where R&D is especially low, the new international standards may in total raise GDP by only 1-2%.

The European revisions will also recognise in the national accounts that prostitution, drug-peddling and cigarette and alcohol smuggling are economic activities, even if illegal ones. But the effect will be modest, saving national blushes. In Germany, where prostitution has been made legal and is already included in GDP, the lawbreakers will add only 0.1%. The impact is higher in Britain and Ireland, where it raises GDP by 0.7%.

[BGARK]

Greg66 said:

Thanks for the tip. Perhaps you should reflect on the question of whether Britons trust politicians to tell the truth means that in fact politicians are not telling the truth. Perception vs reality and all that. There's a Mark Twain quote about getting up late that sheds some light on this.

As you concede, lying and not telling the truth are different again. The reasonableness of your assumption is no doubt assisted by, err, what's he concept I'm looking for, err, oh yes - cognitive bias!

How many politicians believe the are telling the truth even though they might be lying and not even think they are. If you are surrounded by brainwashed people for long enough you will end up believing what you say is the truth. Look at religious people.

We need a change, its that simple.

[Scuffers]

All this skating round the current events is somewhat a distraction from the basic problem.

Said problem is that nobody really believes our current stock of politicians actually belive their own bullst.

The reason people like carswell come over so well is that it's pretty obvious he is doing what he believes in, and in he is following his own convictions (rightly or wrongly)

These days, that's a pretty rare thing, and something we need to get back to,

Cleggs tv debates really showed that, he's not a moron, yet would have to be one if he belive the crap he was coming out with.

Mix this with the legions of MPs that are seriously stupid, and you have a pretty toxic mix.

I'll leave it for you to pick domyou belive falls into which group...

[steveT350C]

dandarez said:

Greg66 said:

don4l said:

Greg66 said:

You say its because he lies about everything, but it is obvious to anyone that your views are formed around an immovable preconception that he lies about everything; hence everything he says is construed (contorted really) by you into a gross untruth that fits into your preconception.

Cognitive bias at its very best.

I don't think that he lies about everything.

He says whatever he thinks will serve him best.

If the truth will serve his interests best, why would he lie?

So, the question is - why would you believe that I think that he lies about everything?

No, that isn't the question. The question (which you have yet to answer) is why you chose to contort what Cameron said to focus on the two courses of action which would make what he said truthful in only the most technical of senses.

Phew!
Contender for the wf sentence of the year.

'What the fk sentence of the year' posted by Greg66.

Where's my popcorn?.....

[anonymous-user]

NicD said:

Greg66 said:

NicD said:

Most people would agree that politicians do not, in the main, tell the truth.
I had no statistic, so Googled and found this MORI poll from 15 February 2013 https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/re...
Just one in five (18%) Britons trust politicians to tell the truth compared to 21% trusting journalists and bankers and 24% who trust estate agents.

Leave aside that not telling the truth is not ipso facto, lying. The latter requires the intent to deceive, but with politicians, this is a reasonable assumption.

Greg,

are you a comedian or Russell Brands pen pal?
you say 'but it is obvious to anyone' htf do you know this?

you say 'Cognitive bias at its very best.' but the preceding 'proof' is anything but. You need to up your game, by using logic and presenting evidence, not wild speculation dressed up as 'it is obvious to anyone'

Thanks for the tip. Perhaps you should reflect on the question of whether Britons trust politicians to tell the truth means that in fact politicians are not telling the truth. Perception vs reality and all that. There's a Mark Twain quote about getting up late that sheds some light on this.

As you concede, lying and not telling the truth are different again. The reasonableness of your assumption is no doubt assisted by, err, what's he concept I'm looking for, err, oh yes - cognitive bias!

You might try writing something that makes sense instead of trying to be clever. I have not conceded anything.

Your comprehension skills need a brush up, my boy!

[anonymous-user]

steveT350C said:

dandarez said:

Phew!
Contender for the wf sentence of the year.

'What the fk sentence of the year' posted by Greg66.

Where's my popcorn?.....

Now, now, you two. Don't try to make being dumb as a pair of rocks into a virtue.

[brenflys777]

I wonder if the Defense secretary is one of the MPs that Kenneth Clarke wants to ship off to UKIP ?

Or is this just a panicked attempt to make up for inaction on immigration and the EU with rhetoric.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29776970

[brenflys777]

Sky political reporter thinks it's a ploy...



Jon Craig, Chief Political Correspondent
Michael Fallon is a vastly experienced and normally sure-footed TV performer for the Conservatives.

So was his use of the word "swamped" about migrants in UK towns a gaffe or deliberately provocative and inflammatory?

Here was a senior Tory using UKIP language. Was it a cynical appeal to voters in the Rochester and Strood by-election, where opinion polls suggest UKIP is on course for victory on November 20? The Tories' opponents certainly think so.

Sometimes TV interviewers try to coax a certain answer by asking a question like: "Would you agree that whole towns and communities are being swamped by huge numbers of migrant workers?" The aim is to get the interviewee to say: "Yes."

Farage On Fallon Comments
But that wasn't the case in Mr Fallon's interview on Murnaghan on Sky News. Dermot simply asked him about Angela Merkel's reported comments in The Sunday Times that she would not support David Cameron's plans to limit freedom of movement within the EU as part of his planned re-negotiation of Britain's relationship with Brussels.

Mr Fallon then launched into this answer: "The Germans haven't seen our proposal yet, and we haven't seen our proposal yet.

"That is still being worked on at the moment to see what we can do to prevent whole towns and communities being swamped by huge numbers of migrant workers…"

"Where is being swamped at the moment?" asked Dermot, scarcely believing what he had heard.

Mr Fallon ploughed on: "In some areas, particularly on the east coast, yes, towns do feel under siege from large numbers of migrant workers and people claiming benefits. It is quite right that we look at that."

British Towns 'Swamped'
Several hours later, as the storm over "swamped-gate" swirled around Westminster, Mr Fallon's words were clearly been seen as a gaffe in 10 Downing Street.

Political journalists were briefed by a Number 10 source: "He accepts he should have chosen his words better. He should have said under pressure."

The same source told Sky News he wouldn't describe this as a "slapdown". It certainly sounded like one, though.

Labour's Douglas Alexander said later on the same programme that Mr Fallon's choice of language was a mark of the Tories' desperation. Nigel Farage later told Sky News the Conservatives were panicking.

The Tories are rattled because they're throwing everything at the Rochester by-election and it isn't working.

The latest poll showed Mark Reckless, defending the seat for UKIP after his shock defection, on 43%, the Conservatives on just 30% and Labour trailing on 21%.

The Prime Minister and Tory Cabinet ministers like Mr Fallon are due to make five visits, Tory backbenchers three.

But a derisory turnout of around 5,000 in the primary to select the Tory candidate suggests Conservative supporters can't be bothered to turn out and vote and is an ominous sign that Mr Reckless is heading for victory.

Back in 2002, when he was Home Secretary, David Blunkett provoked a storm when he said some schools were being "swamped" by the children of asylum seekers.

He was attacked by the Commission for Racial Equality, but dug himself deeper into the row by refusing to apologise, saying his critics were being ridiculous and oversensitive.

Mr Fallon made his "swamped" remarks the day after visiting Rochester and Strood. So we can only assume that he was motivated by attempting to halt the UKIP surge. But the trouble is, all the Tories' attempts to out-UKIP UKIP appear to backfire.

So the Defence Secretary, who is normally a safe pair of hands, almost certainly wasn't a gaffe or an unintentional slip of the tongue, but chose his words deliberately.

And as the Tories' opponents have claimed, it does indeed look like desperation and panic.

Because what he really meant when he said some towns were being swamped by migrants was that the towns of Rochester and Strood have become swamped by UKIP supporters.

[steveT350C]

Greg66 said:

steveT350C said:

dandarez said:

Phew!
Contender for the wf sentence of the year.

'What the fk sentence of the year' posted by Greg66.

Where's my popcorn?.....

Now, now, you two. Don't try to make being dumb as a pair of rocks into a virtue.

Fail

[don4l]

Greg66 said:

don4l said:

Greg66 said:

You say its because he lies about everything, but it is obvious to anyone that your views are formed around an immovable preconception that he lies about everything; hence everything he says is construed (contorted really) by you into a gross untruth that fits into your preconception.

Cognitive bias at its very best.

I don't think that he lies about everything.

He says whatever he thinks will serve him best.

If the truth will serve his interests best, why would he lie?

So, the question is - why would you believe that I think that he lies about everything?

No, that isn't the question. The question (which you have yet to answer) is why you chose to contort what Cameron said to focus on the two courses of action which would make what he said truthful in only the most technical of senses.

You seem to be digging yourself into a bit of a hole.

You said:-

Greg66 said:

You say its because he lies about everything

Did I say that?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

I think, but am not sure, that your second point is about my interpretation of Cameron's Promise to give us a vote on the Lisbon treaty.

He promised a referendum. Brown signed the treaty before the general election. I don't remember Cameron telling us that this meant that we couldn't have a referendum until after he was in Downing Street. An honest man would have told us immediately after Brown signed the treaty.

Furthermore, a treaty is nothing more than an act of parliament that binds us into obligations to a foreign state. Acts of parliament can be repealed. Many past treaties have been repealed by acts of parliament. So, Cameron lied on two fronts.

He promised us a referendum. He didn't deliver it.

He claimed that we couldn't back out of a treaty. We can.

The man is a liar.

If I am wrong, then he can sue me.

[mrpurple]

brenflys777 said:

I wonder if the Defense secretary is one of the MPs that Kenneth Clarke wants to ship off to UKIP ?

Or is this just a panicked attempt to make up for inaction on immigration and the EU with rhetoric.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29776970

Perhaps he is a slippery jellied eel trying to pass himself off as smoked haddock.

[rudecherub]

don4l said:

Greg66 said:

don4l said:

Greg66 said:

You say its because he lies about everything, but it is obvious to anyone that your views are formed around an immovable preconception that he lies about everything; hence everything he says is construed (contorted really) by you into a gross untruth that fits into your preconception.

Cognitive bias at its very best.

I don't think that he lies about everything.

He says whatever he thinks will serve him best.

If the truth will serve his interests best, why would he lie?

So, the question is - why would you believe that I think that he lies about everything?

No, that isn't the question. The question (which you have yet to answer) is why you chose to contort what Cameron said to focus on the two courses of action which would make what he said truthful in only the most technical of senses.

You seem to be digging yourself into a bit of a hole.

You said:-

Greg66 said:

You say its because he lies about everything

Did I say that?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

I think, but am not sure, that your second point is about my interpretation of Cameron's Promise to give us a vote on the Lisbon treaty.

He promised a referendum. Brown signed the treaty before the general election. I don't remember Cameron telling us that this meant that we couldn't have a referendum until after he was in Downing Street. An honest man would have told us immediately after Brown signed the treaty.

Furthermore, a treaty is nothing more than an act of parliament that binds us into obligations to a foreign state. Acts of parliament can be repealed. Many past treaties have been repealed by acts of parliament. So, Cameron lied on two fronts.

He promised us a referendum. He didn't deliver it.

He claimed that we couldn't back out of a treaty. We can.

The man is a liar.

If I am wrong, then he can sue me.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/david-cameron-ill-tear-up-the-eu-treaty-even-if-it-has-been-signed-6649946.html

"
David Cameron: I'll tear up the EU treaty even if it has been signed


Published: 31 December 2007
David Cameron has given his clearest commitment yet to tearing up the revised EU Constitution if he wins power, even if it has been signed.

The Conservative leader told the Daily Mail he will "not let matters rest" if Gordon Brown succeeds in forcing the controversial treaty through Parliament and into law.

His intervention ratchets up the pressure on Mr Brown over the document which is likely to dominate debate at Westminster in the New Year. "

" Mr Cameron said: "While this treaty is still being debated and other countries are having referendums or whatever, it's still open for Britain to have a referendum. Let's focus on the need for a referendum now.

"If we reach circumstances where the whole treaty has been not only ratified but implemented that is not a situation we would be content with.

"We wouldn't let matters rest there. "

[FiF]

The frantic messaging out of No10 saying that Fallon shouldn't have said "swamped" but "under pressure" doesn't really help in the slightest. All it does is a) confirm there's an issue that is affecting the town and services and b) reinforces public belief about politicians and spin with carefully scripted words to make a position appear better than it is.

Words were said, leave it move on and don't make a big deal. Admittedly the press make it difficult or impossible in some cases to move on when they are trying to create a story out of fairly thin air.

[jogon]

Comedian Andrew Lawrence has a rant at BBC liberal biast comedians, I've never heard of him myself but I think I'll tune in from now on..

Can't help but notice increasingly, a lot 'political' comedians cracking cheap and easy gags about UKIP, to the extent that it's got hack, boring and lazy very quickly.

Particularly too much moronic, liberal back-slapping on panel shows like Mock The Week where aging, balding, fat men, ethnic comedians and women-posing-as-comedians, sit congratulating themselves on how enlightened they are about the fact that UKIP are ridiculous and pathetic.

Yet the Clacton by-election victory and what looks to be a likely victory in the Rochester by-election goes to show that UKIP have their supporters.

Out of touch, smug, superannuated, overpaid TV comics with their cosy lives in their west-London ivory towers taking a supercilious, moralising tone, pandering to the ever-creeping militant political correctness of the BBC with their frankly surreal diversity targets.

The reason UKIP have resonated with voters is because all the other parties are too spineless to tackle the issue of immigration.

Our elected representatives seeded control of the borders of this country to the EU and it's been catastrophic for us all, an unmitigated disaster. Nothing works. Public transport infrastructure is dysfunctional. Hospitals and Schools are dysfunctional. The housing crisis continues to blight our economic potential and destroy the hopes and dreams of a generation. The benefits system is totally out of control. All because there are far,far too many people living here.

For every wonderful, welcome skilled worker our open borders bring into this country, there are also benefit tourists and criminals. For every person that comes here and contributes richly to our culture, there are those that refuse to assimilate, which breeds distrust and has led to a fractured, broken society, where people have lost all sense of community.

Can't say that I'm a UKIP supporter, but I can see why other people are, and I don't disrespect them for it.

What I don't respect is lazy comedians, who market themselves as 'political' but rather than having the courage of their own convictions jump on the militant liberal bandwagon- which has been the source of so much st stand-up over the years- so that they can get TV work and line their own pockets.

There is a deeply ingrained militant liberal politics at every level of the BBC, despite the fact that it's tax-payer funded and supposed to be neutral. It's a biased organisation and the only sorts of political comedians that are welcome within its corridors are those that reflect it's values.

Essentially when we're watching these 'political' comedians cracking their piss-poor UKIP gags on the BBC, I think we need to be aware they are neither engaged nor passionate about their subject- but money-grubbing charlatans, toadying up to the militant liberals that pay their wages, mirroring their own beliefs back at them in an act of false flattery so that they'll feel smug and validated and keep them on the BBC tax-payer funded gravy-train.

I'm not a political comic, my only ambition for my comedy is to make a room full of people laugh. But there are those that disingenuously market themselves as political comics, not out of any genuine conviction, but in an effort to line their own pockets, and I don't like their hypocrisy.

[The Hypno-Toad]

Wow. Seems a novel enough way to commit career suicide.

Judging by the comments about this around the net tonight, the biggest problem people have this is his statements about women comedians rather than his perceived support for UKIP. Seems a lot of them are very pissed off and I would imagine he will have great difficulty sharing a mixed billing again.

Having seen some of his stand up act, I'm not sure he had a massive future ahead of him so I'm guessing he's taking a bit of a gamble and probably setting himself on course to be the headline act at a certain kind of corporate event.

But you have to admire his honesty and conviction to speak out against the left wing bias that is clearly ingrained at the BBC. One of CMD's big mistakes was not taking a broom and a bottle of bleach to that organisation. Hopefully the first one to be flushed would be that odious turd Jeremy Hardy.

[jogon]

Dave is indoctrinated by the very same liberal doctrine that permeates through the BBC, new Labour and these new 'progressive' Conservstives we have seen parachuted in to safe seats across the country over the years.

Andrew speaks the truth and will be vilified for it by your usual liberal socialist mouthpieces but it is another small step towards common sense and UKIP.

[vetrof]

jogon said:

Comedian Andrew Lawrence has a rant at BBC liberal biast comedians, I've never heard of him myself but I think I'll tune in from now on..

Can't help but notice increasingly, a lot 'political' comedians cracking cheap and easy gags about UKIP, to the extent that it's got hack, boring and lazy very quickly......

I don't live in the UK. But do, superficially, follow your news etc. And I do tend watch online a batch of comedy panel shows from time to time. I have just got through a few of the latest QI, HIGNFY and 8/10Cats. I had noticed that it seems that no show is allowed to go to air with at least one "joke" item which is a poor setup for a UKIP gag. Clarkson also seems to be a bullet point for the script writers of these shows more often than not.
Very poor excuse for "political" humour in my opinion, the main target of which ought to be those actually in office.
I find UK political satire is a poor second to the likes of Jon Stewart and Bill Maher.

Edited by vetrof on Monday 27th October 07:14

[HonestIago]

The Hypno-Toad said:

Wow. Seems a novel enough way to commit career suicide.

I'd never heard of him before - now I think he's brilliant!