Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)

[9xxNick]

Evanivitch said:

As opposed to the current Prime Minister having financial interests within the Press Industry and several key editors/owners of press establishments being Tory hardliners too?

Which one is more democratic?

Which of the UK and China do you think is more democratic?

[turbobloke]

Evanivitch said:

fblm said:

biggbn said:

You think that doesn't happen already?

If government owned the network they would have a massive stick to beat FB/Google etc... whilst I doubt the uk government has the competence to spy on the whole population, it's far more likely IMO that a hard left government would force editorial control over news and social media under the cover of controlling fake news.

As opposed to the current Prime Minister having financial interests within the Press Industry and several key editors/owners of press establishments being Tory hardliners too?

Which one is more democratic?

Whichever gives a government direct rather than indirect influence is more harmful. Having actual State ownership / control of the media isn't a feature of an open democracy.

Is an elected government with a raft of totalitarian policies (centralising powers, hence dictatorial) ok if it can fool enough people with bribes? Fortunately this democratic route to a diktat scenario remains unlikely.

On the media side with news and current affairs, the BBC has been joined in its left leanings by other broadcasters in recent years.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/channel-4-does...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/17/ch...

On the newspaper editorial angle there's the DT, Sun, Express and DM alongside The Guardian, Observer, Independent (more so recently), FT and Daily Mirror. None carry any form of 'official' imprimatur and people generally know what they're buying.

[Evanivitch]

9xxNick said:

Evanivitch said:

As opposed to the current Prime Minister having financial interests within the Press Industry and several key editors/owners of press establishments being Tory hardliners too?

Which one is more democratic?

Which of the UK and China do you think is more democratic?

Does China have a democratic government?

[Dont like rolls]

Evanivitch said:

9xxNick said:

Evanivitch said:

As opposed to the current Prime Minister having financial interests within the Press Industry and several key editors/owners of press establishments being Tory hardliners too?

Which one is more democratic?

Which of the UK and China do you think is more democratic?

Does China have a democratic government?

Duck, here comes a parrot

[biggbn]

fblm said:

biggbn said:

You think that doesn't happen already?

If government owned the network they would have a massive stick to beat FB/Google etc... whilst I doubt the uk government has the competence to spy on the whole population, it's far more likely IMO that a hard left government would force editorial control over news and social media under the cover of controlling fake news.

So you are happy with private individuals having access to all your information? I am in anomalous position of having equal concern and lack of concern about the state or private individuals having such ownership. It's here, it's a fact of life. Someone will always be privy to our cyberlife. It is, in an utterance of a saying I detest but is apt, what it is. No more, no less.

[Dont like rolls]

biggbn said:

So you are happy with private individuals having access to all your information? I am in anomalous position of having equal concern and lack of concern about the state or private individuals having such ownership. It's here, it's a fact of life. Someone will always be privy to our cyberlife. It is, in an utterance of a saying I detest but is apt, what it is. No more, no less.

In Labour hands your local commissar will watch you.

[anonymous-user]

biggbn said:

fblm said:

biggbn said:

You think that doesn't happen already?

If government owned the network they would have a massive stick to beat FB/Google etc... whilst I doubt the uk government has the competence to spy on the whole population, it's far more likely IMO that a hard left government would force editorial control over news and social media under the cover of controlling fake news.

So you are happy with private individuals having access to all your information? I am in anomalous position of having equal concern and lack of concern about the state or private individuals having such ownership. It's here, it's a fact of life. Someone will always be privy to our cyberlife. It is, in an utterance of a saying I detest but is apt, what it is. No more, no less.

Not really worried about being spied on, we already are. I'd be far more concerned that government could use control of the network and the power that gives them over publishers to control content. It's not difficult to imagine, for example, someone advocating for austerity being deemed offensive by the far left leading to such content being banned... other examples are available with a far right government which might make you pause. I'm not convinced giving any government total control at the press of a button over every printing press in the country is a good idea either.

[biggbn]

fblm said:

biggbn said:

fblm said:

biggbn said:

You think that doesn't happen already?

If government owned the network they would have a massive stick to beat FB/Google etc... whilst I doubt the uk government has the competence to spy on the whole population, it's far more likely IMO that a hard left government would force editorial control over news and social media under the cover of controlling fake news.

So you are happy with private individuals having access to all your information? I am in anomalous position of having equal concern and lack of concern about the state or private individuals having such ownership. It's here, it's a fact of life. Someone will always be privy to our cyberlife. It is, in an utterance of a saying I detest but is apt, what it is. No more, no less.

Not really worried about being spied on, we already are. I'd be far more concerned that government could use control of the network and the power that gives them over publishers to control content. It's not difficult to imagine, for example, someone advocating for austerity being deemed offensive by the far left leading to such content being banned... other examples are available with a far right government which might make you pause. I'm not convinced giving any government total control at the press of a button over every printing press in the country is a good idea either.

But again, as others have pointed out, this happens already. Storm in a tea cup and never gonna happen anyhow. Another election promise soundbite that will never be followed up on. I am, broadly, in favour of the idea in a world where we can do little without an internet connection or email, but the logistics would be way to difficult to implement. Tis the silly season remember, all parties will make outrageous promises to impress the naive or appease their fan base. Net result will be same excrement, different day

[Evanivitch]

turbobloke said:

Whichever gives a government direct rather than indirect influence is more harmful. Having actual State ownership / control of the media isn't a feature of an open democracy.

Is an elected government with a raft of totalitarian policies (centralising powers, hence dictatorial) ok if it can fool enough people with bribes? Fortunately this democratic route to a diktat scenario remains unlikely.

On the media side with news and current affairs, the BBC has been joined in its left leanings by other broadcasters in recent years.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/channel-4-does...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/17/ch...

On the newspaper editorial angle there's the DT, Sun, Express and DM alongside The Guardian, Observer, Independent (more so recently), FT and Daily Mirror. None carry any form of 'official' imprimatur and people generally know what they're buying.

The incredibly Left Wing BBC that consistently provides a place for Nigel Farage (never an MP) to represent a party (UKIP) that has achieved one parliamentary seat, and yet doesn't provide the same prominence to any other European Parliament candidate or political group?

Or, if we want to share dubious opinions...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar...

Or we could actually use quantitative studies that show very much a right bias...

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2019-07-1...

[biggbn]

Can someone please explain to me...apparently labours plans are ridiculous and wrongly costed, which I can well believe...people are claiming it couldn't be done for 20bn, it would cost 100bn...boris had rubbished it..but pledged 5bn for his similar plan? What's going on here somebody, I now have no dog in the fight and view both parties as lost causes with the potential of a burst balloon covered in birdcrap...im just curious as to what the hell these claims and counter claims are all about....

[turbobloke]

Evanivitch said:

turbobloke said:

Whichever gives a government direct rather than indirect influence is more harmful. Having actual State ownership / control of the media isn't a feature of an open democracy.

Is an elected government with a raft of totalitarian policies (centralising powers, hence dictatorial) ok if it can fool enough people with bribes? Fortunately this democratic route to a diktat scenario remains unlikely.

On the media side with news and current affairs, the BBC has been joined in its left leanings by other broadcasters in recent years.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/channel-4-does...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/17/ch...

On the newspaper editorial angle there's the DT, Sun, Express and DM alongside The Guardian, Observer, Independent (more so recently), FT and Daily Mirror. None carry any form of 'official' imprimatur and people generally know what they're buying.

Or we could actually use quantitative studies that show very much a right bias...

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2019-07-1...

A standard beebophile defence, not unexpected.

Inappropriate choice of metrics gives misleading results. The opinion piece from that shadow whatever was supposedly substantiated by an academic study from Cardiff Uni - which you have read presumably - in which case you'll have noted that the study cherry picked a period after an election which produced a Conservative PM in order to look at the political party of talking heads interviewed by the bbc. As pointed out previously, it would be expected to see newly appointed ministers being interviewed by any news channel at such a time. Nil points from the objectivity jury. When senior bbc staffers and long-serving presenters confirm the left-liberal bias, with producers regularly using The Guardian to give a presenter a steer on topics, it's a waste of time citing weak methodology in a non-defence. However this is the Corbyn thread, covering the unappealing policy punts from JC's Labour Party including media muppetry.

[Bullett]

biggbn said:

Can someone please explain to me...apparently labours plans are ridiculous and wrongly costed, which I can well believe...people are claiming it couldn't be done for 20bn, it would cost 100bn...boris had rubbished it..but pledged 5bn for his similar plan? What's going on here somebody, I now have no dog in the fight and view both parties as lost causes with the potential of a burst balloon covered in birdcrap...im just curious as to what the hell these claims and counter claims are all about....

The £20bn is just to buy Openreach (the broadband provisioning wing of BT) that's a valuation roughly based on markets. It's another £40-100bn to upgrade the network to fibre across the board.
Then running costs.
Then the fact it puts everyone else out of business.
Then the fact the Gov running something like this is a bad idea. (inefficient, lack of innovation, censorship, control etc.)

BJ is just proposing a subsidy to get High speed BB to parts of the counry that it's not really commercially viable to do at the moment.

[biggbn]

Bullett said:

The £20bn is just to buy Openreach (the broadband provisioning wing of BT) that's a valuation roughly based on markets. It's another £40-100bn to upgrade the network to fibre across the board.
Then running costs.
Then the fact it puts everyone else out of business.
Then the fact the Gov running something like this is a bad idea. (inefficient, lack of innovation, censorship, control etc.)

BJ is just proposing a subsidy to get High speed BB to parts of the counry that it's not really commercially viable to do at the moment.

Thanks man, much appreciated.

[kev1974]

I see Corbyn has smartened up for the debate, but he still can't put his glasses on his head straight.

[paulw123]

They are more wonky than most of his policies

[Mothersruin]

kev1974 said:

I see Corbyn has smartened up for the debate, but he still can't put his glasses on his head straight.

His glasses are straight, it's his head that's wonky.

[Dont like rolls]

kev1974 said:

I see Corbyn has smartened up for the debate, but he still can't put his glasses on his head straight.

I think that is funny, funny how many votes he will loose for that

[biggbn]

One thing I find incredible is how many criticise corbyn for his appearance whilst giving clown Johnson a free pass. Not saying either of the above posters do so but it is fairly common. Neither are suitable to govern our country and not for their lack of sartorial differentiation.

[tamore]

Mr Corbyn is winning this hands down. He's got my vote.

Phew! Mr McDonnell and his shotgun have gone next-door now.

[anonymous-user]

tamore said:

Mr Corbyn is winning this hands down. He's got my vote.

Phew! Mr McDonnell and his shotgun have gone next-door now.

You had me worried there for a moment!