|
 conservative_government.jpg hookerbot 5000 posted:With seven of them up there I'm assuming it's just going to be an almighty rabble of people shouting over each other and no one saying anything worth anything. Then David Cameron will look smug and say that that's why he doesn't want to lower himself to taking part in such an undignified spectacle (ignoring the fact that Prime Ministers questions is like a school playground). And in completely unrelated news, you're the official thread moderator now! Look at that shiny name
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Whitefish posted:The Guardian has been running a similar story, but I honestly can't see what's so damning about this. People who make a statement supportive of the Tories are largely Tory supporters!! Shocking! It's a weird line of attack. Because it's not been presented as 'Tory donors support Tories', it's presented as 'important experts on business warn that Labour will damage the recovery and make everything worse for everyone'. And it's definitely not being presented as the astroturfing that it really is Businesspeople are elevated in our society to the role of experts, neutral ones even, which is exactly why this kind of thing works and gets uncritical media coverage. It would be nice if everyone was already aware of that, but that's not the world we live in, so articles like the Independent one are breaking down exactly why these people have vested interests and why their 'social good' justifications are ridiculous. The fact they're Tories just makes it clear how much of an organised political stunt the whole thing is
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:Follow-up to my previous post, from BBC: The Gurndiar posted this thing  So the order of chat is there - Cameron gets the last, empty word a couple of times Also 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
And maybe the moderator and a good chunk of the audience
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Prepare to be surprised as all hellquote:A briefing document seen by the Guardian reveals that leaders who are most criticised or questioned will be given more time to respond by Julie Etchingham during tonights two-hour ITV debate. Our political correspondent Rowena Mason reports:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
The thread said you had the last post but there wasn't even one there! Britain is open for posting business
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Lugaloco posted:So it's a one minute statement per person per question and then an 18 minute free-for-all before it starts all over again. Can't wait. No, it's a one-minute statement followed by the moderator telling everyone to shut up and let the worst people speak, because being rightfully criticised means they should get the most airtime to push their narrative
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
quote:Ed Miliband has been buying shoes in Manchester ahead of tonights debate, the Manchester Evening News reports. Rather, he sent an aide to buy two pairs for him, for 65 each. New drinking game rule - if the Earl of Cameron has a line about this, drink the entire bottle of whatever
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Goons only had one rule: drink when Cameron mentions his dead child. See you have to know what you're getting into. It's all very well thinking it's a bit of a laugh and 'haha I'll take a shot if the Tories happen to say something lovely', half an hour later the room's going black and all you can see is Cameron's simpering face. It's like playing russian roulette without removing any of the bullets
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
We are pretty nice to each other! UK Mates Thread In the spirit of friends, here's a vine to loop for the next 45 minutes https://vine.co/v/OlZdMYKjT66 baka kaba fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Leanne and Nicola are super friends by the way, here they are chillaxing earlier And gently caress I should have known an ITV news debate would be a shitshow. No control, interrupting people instead of letting them answer interesting questions, even interrupting the person who's meant to be talking 'Ed Miliband' *Ed starts talking* 'Ed Miliband! Ed Miliband!'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Someone already uploaded the debate somehow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPX6Pm6cbDk&t=294s
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Phoon posted:Aaaahh I want a show where they solve crimes so much Me too, but the crime is the governing of the UK, and the English guy is David Cameron. There's a scene where they chase him in a 90s Ford Fiesta, and he drives his Bentley off a cliff Also who mentioned Borgen? Guardian had a Borgenisation article about the debate format. Borgen is great, everybody watch Borgen
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:i really do I got your jam right here e- wait no I don't, here http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8199000/8199372.stm
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I honestly do not understand how anybody could think Cameron performed best tonight. He stayed on message and he's way more practiced at the whole PR bullshit, with Ed it was really obvious when he did the whole 'intro talk to person, next turn to camera and deliver rehearsed lines with hand movements' thing. I wanted to like him more but I was rolling my eyes pretty drat hard, he's way better when he actually argues with people - especially since Cameron is so bad at that There was way too much speech making anyway, but Cameron just needs to lean on the narrative the media's been building for him all this time. He basically just has to not gently caress it up, and the fact the polls have him neck and neck with everyone else is hilarious and I love it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I didn't watch it myself but Farage was described by most people as having a meltdown. What actually happened? Depends, I suppose if you're unfamiliar with him you might perceive his usual espousal of his views as someone having a meltdown. He did get pretty shouty when Cleggmania and his tie brought up the fact both of their wives are immigrants. Maybe it's the pain that never heals He also tried to pull some human faces which was kind of an event. Do the smile thing Nigel! Ok sort of like that good!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I guess I was just shocked that he did so well. But then I realised that 21% of a country being absolute scum is actually a pretty normal amount. That a room of 10 people will have 2 individuals who'd murder and lie their way to the top is about right. You just have to remember there are still more people NOT voting UKIP than are and never lose hope. Well he is a pretty good speaker (polemicist) and charismatic in his way, which means talking poo poo and delivering sweet burns if you don't actually scrutinise them. And in fairness he did lean left a couple of times, at least in what he was saying, so I could see a few people who aren't already buying his poo poo thinking 'yes this guy gets our problems!' He also did come across as pretty honest, owning his horrible opinions and not feeling rehearsed - he also didn't get that much time to speak really Actually his closing statement was something else, it sort of felt like he'd been holding back so he could launch a final surprise attack. It had an air of strong oratory if you get my meaning
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Christ they are now doing a magnificent seven parody, right i really am turning the telly off now i cant take it anymore You forgot to turn off before This Week came on didn't you
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:The Sun will have decided on that headline before the debate even aired. Furious Miliband subjected David Cameron to 20 minutes of verbal abuse, before physically assaulting him for 30 seconds
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
I don't think a guy working in a castle (which, at a wild guess, is a lot less glamorous and fun than it sounds) is automatically protecting the aristocracy's wealth and position
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
I wonder if Miliband's wooden soapboxing actually plays well overall. I mean it makes me cringe, but I'm assuming they at least did some focus group work and had some experts coach the potential prime minister of the UK about what helps and what doesn't. I want to think that acting like a human being instead of a salesman is what makes Sturgeon and he who shall not be named poll well, but there must be some reason they're making Miliband act that way
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Jedit posted:The Sun are right, then - Miliband did throw it away. If only it had been 30 seconds of verbal abuse followed by 20 minutes of physical assault. Red Ed is too weak to take on the powerhouse of British recovery!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Teddles posted:If I want to hang the landlords which party should I vote for? The tories. If you mean like hanging the moon Otherwise uhhh weren't the greens the ones with the most socialist stance on housing? Everyone else seemed to be running on some variation of 'you can be a homeowner and sell it off to BTL landlords!'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:the yellow tie guy is a a slick sleaze and honestly what is the point of his party? Nick Clegg's personal motto is 'wahey!!'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The SNP has good policies except for the separatism. It would make a good UK party in all other ways. The separatism actually gives them teeth, because if they hold a significant amount of sway, demand vaguely leftist policies, and are prepared to cause trouble over not getting them, it makes it harder for the party in power to fob them off. We've already seen how much of a problem the referendum was for the big three, if they have to try and keep the SNP on-side we might actually start to see things dragging a little to the left
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:More of this: I love when I see propaganda and get completely the wrong message from it "Sweet... oh wait it says no, let's piece these quotes together... oh ok this is meant to be bad"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Do let's remember where this ultimately leads, because whether we vote for Labour, SNP, Green or Plaid, even in the best possible outcomes all we'll ever get is.... I read all that in a Welsh lilt  I'm more interested in an antagonistic narrative, really. Realistically Labour or whoever aren't going to give the SNP everything they want, and the SNP aren't going to want their raisin detter eroded by a few symbolic gestures, so I want to see some proper arguments - especially from people like Sturgeon who can string some criticism together without it sounding like it came from a committee. More people pissed off for the right reasons I'm not exactly convinced accelerationism would even work at this point considering how much people buy into the pure shite Cameron and the like produce. We could end up in a smoking nuclear winter, with giant flickering screens silhouetting the shattered landscape, showing Cameron and Thatcher and Farage laughing with the message 'WE LIED AND YOU BELIEVED IT' and the few remaining survivors would be drawing up a 'tough' immigration policy and blaming everything on scroungers
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:I'd argue that leaving the EU because of dirty communist foreigners is a worse basis for a party Excuse me former communist
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I know man. I know. But she's gone now. How much do you love Reagan on a scale of 1 to  ?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:So she has to show that this is factually incorrect: some dude was told about a conversation in which a politician maybe said a single phrase that's probably taken out of context. Well it's not so much 'a guy heard someone say' quote:Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, has privately said that she would "rather see" David Cameron win the general election because Ed Miliband is not prime minister material, a leaked memorandum seen by The Daily Telegraph has revealed. Sounds like there's some kind of paper trail being claimed as evidence here?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Wow this is ineffective as heck nobody is going to share this. I was all set to enjoy that and when it finally loaded... 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:she's a oval office and im glad shes dead Oh poo poo... Your av......! Leggsy posted:And both people actually in that conversation deny that those remarks were made. At this point it was either a civil service cock-up or a Telegraph journalist cock-up. "Whoops!!!" - the Telegraph
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Personally I'm more interested in how many Ferrero Rochers she had Or is it Ferreros Rocher?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:
You realise that by this standard it's impossible to disprove by definition, right? Conveniently
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Yes because there isn't enough info yet. Can you read? They're the only two people who can definitively rule out that this conversation ever took place, and you're saying their accounts can't be trusted. What info are you waiting on here?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Another leak or a concession that the amount of arbitrary trust granted Sturgeon over all others, in this thread, is ridiculous. Look back at the comments and people were all "TORYGRAPH LIES!!!" before the Ambassador's spokesperson even made a statement on the issue. No I'm asking what possible new information could come to light that would prove this 'leak' never at any point happened. What would it take to disprove it, if you refuse to accept the accounts of the only two people who could ever know?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Presumably a perfect impartial observer or a recording of the conversation? gently caress knows. I mean the civil service don't have the best record of good faith when it comes to the snp anyway. It still wouldn't prove it never ever happened though, only while that person was listening to them talk. We got some crazy high standards for disproving a Telegraph story right here
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
The 96%
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
^^^ People are already charged for treatment, unless it's for contagious diseases (which protects the UK population) or emergencies, which aren't exactly 'health tourism' jaunts. http://www.nhs.uk/nhsengland/aboutnhsservices/uk-visitors/pages/accessing-nhs-services.aspx If you have anything specific then maybe someone can address that, but it's very easy for the right wing to bang the drum and shout about them coming over here and taking all the benefits that we pay for without actually backing it up with any evidence of a problem OwlFancier posted:Whether or not someone is legally resident in the UK This is the other thing - saying 'there are foreigners here with HIV' doesn't actually mean anything in itself. They could have moved here decades ago and started families, or married UK nationals, or they could be long-term residents or working here for a few years, at any level. They could be refugees we've taken in, or they could be here without authorisation, or they could be students or anything. There are people living in the UK, some of them are sick, the NHS treats the people living here. Some of the people living in here are very sick, and treating them costs the system a lot more than treating others. That's the luck of the draw in life, and the whole point of a national healthcare system is to spread that cost, so an individual's misfortune doesn't become 'hey too bad, that's your problem, gently caress off now'. When you start talking about revoking that covenant and those protections because you suddenly don't feel like holding to it anymore, that's dangerous for everyone. It threatens the whole basis of the NHS. And the fact it's being decided based on a person's background is a whole other problem baka kaba fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:This answers the question, I think, to be honest. I think my real confusion was how the whole thing worked in the first place, because all the rhetoric makes it sound like coughing people are getting straight of the plane from wherever, heading to the local GP, getting some of that sweet sweet free treatment then heading home again. I knew that was almost certainly just that - nonsensical rhetoric - but I was struggling to find out the truth through the bullshit. Well that's the trouble with fighting vague assertions and empty rhetoric, it leaves you chasing phantoms and trying to find some evidence of what they're even talking about in the first place, so you can set about tearing that evidence down. In any kind of decent political climate the pressure would be on the people shouting about it to pony up and show some proof. The entire thing's reversed, to the point where they (or you, or anyone) can find a handful of examples and it suddenly becomes evidence of the massive underlying problem instead of, y'know, all anyone could turn up These things aren't generally based on any real issues, just the vague idea that things might be a problem. It's pub logic, people saying "I reckon it's all because of this" and spinning a story, and it's just designed to appeal to fear and prejudice and to give people a target to blame. People don't even care if there's any evidence, they just like the idea that it's true Oberleutnant posted:Let's have some optimistic news: Nigel Farage is marginally behind in a three-cornered fight to win the seat of South Thanet and could lose his attempts to become an MP, according to a poll released on Sunday by ComRes.  An honest straight-talking guy just can't beat the establishment, it's political correctness gone mad innit
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 21:13
|
|