Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Cheetah, Jul 26, 2019.
The hot takes really are coming thick and fast today.
I think comparing a Murdoch-owned tabloid to something like the Guardian (I even hold the Telegraph to a higher standard than the mail) is a bit of a poor comparison. As is trying to pin an ideological base on any one outlet - all of the major outlets either have a proxy party or major ideological base that overlaps significantly with one (but not often more than one) party.
So, sure, call the Guardian stupid names, I (for one) will continue to call the Telegraph the Torygraph. But yeesh, the Daily Mail is neither of those. It's so far below it's . . . insert some silly nerdish comparison here. Preferably involving Google page results, thanks.
In actual Brexit news, our Health Secretary has refused to rule out that people could die due to medical shortages. Swell!
In today's parlance, "refusing to rule out something" means "this is likely going to happen", just like the Prime Minister saying that they "have full confidence" in a minister means that they're about to resign or be sacked.
This is an excerpt from JCs speech in Corby today, full text available on labour/press:
I will bring a vote of no confidence in the government, and if we’re successful, I would seek to form a time-limited caretaker administration to avert No Deal, and call an immediate general election so the people can decide our country’s future.
If MPs are serious about stopping a No Deal crash out, then they will vote down this reckless government and it falls to the Leader of the Opposition, to make sure No Deal does not happen and the people decide their own future.
Labour believes the decision on how to resolve the Brexit crisis must go back to the people.
And if there is a general election this autumn, Labour will commit to holding a public vote, to give voters the final say with credible options for both sides including the option to remain.
Now watch the tragedy that is the comment section on anything JC on the Guardian today - like for example Guardian LIVE right now. The Guardian has whipped up a ****storm of an ill-informed general public on par with the doings of the Daily Mail when it comes to Brexit. Only the other way around. On international news Guardian is still a good source of varied opinion, I’ll give it that.
The Guardian is not alone in that, though, and as such pinning it on the Guardian is hardly indicative of the entire outlet. The Telegraph and the Mail (and others) have done enough work on this regard that to blame the Guardian for anti-Corbyn feelings is incredibly unfair.
But then, it's not even anti-Corbyn opinions you're talking about. In one sentence you say look for the comment section on anything Corbyn-related, and then accuse the Guardian of misinforming people on Brexit itself. The two are related, but separate, and unfortunately where we are these days whatever Corbyn says, there is a sizeable amount of people that will ridicule or attack him for even suggesting it. It's pretty much impossible, especially in comment sections and the like, to really work out if people are being anti-Corbyn, anti-Labour's plans on Brexit, anti-Lib Dems and just want to stuff Labour, etc, et al.
The public, in general, I would say are widely misinformed. But I would never pin that just at the Guardian's feet. I'd much rather point at the Telegraph and its recent (linked in here) commissioned poll in which a private polling company basically found people had more trust in Boris than they did other parties. Very specific language from a leading Tory mouthpiece designed to emphasise the "will of the people" heading into a disastrous no deal Brexit.
All media is culpable, but no one outlet (even the Telegraph, as much as I don't like it) is responsible.
Well, absolute shocker, looks like the Lib Dem and the Blairites were - gasp - lying when they said nothing was more important than stopping a no-deal Brexit and that Corbyn was bad because he wasn't doing enough to prevent it.
Seriously, I have no sympathy for people who plan to vote for the lib dems. If you want to vote for an opportunist party that just wants to survive politically and literally nothing else, then you shouldn't expect help or success.
As for the guardian, it cannot say anything positive about Corbyn. Corbyn could have had single-handedly kept Britain in the Eu and the guardian would still snipe at him. Priorities are priorities.
(it should also go without saying that the guardian doesn't give a crap about actual change in the Uk).
Have I ever said The Guardian is alone? No, I have not. I said look at the comments section today. I meant it to be a bit of a barometer. Not an exact science. I know there are far worse examples of JC witch-hunting out there but it makes a very liberal excuse for the G to join in. I really only read the Guardian out of all the UK papers and mainly for international news - and Brexit is international news to me and Brexit in general and JC in particular is covered in such stark biased contrast to other news and opinions it’s almost frightening.
To try again to make the point I tried above, there is zero chance of anyone but tories or lib dem winning my constituency (and many others). However much I may want to vote of Jeremy Corbyn or whoever, if I want to avoid another tory win I need to vote for the lib dems.
It does, in that it doesn't want to see actual change that might threaten the financial position of its owners and higher-ups.
I think I now despise the Lib Dems even more than the Tories. At least the Tories are honest villains (though obviously dishonest about everything else).
What's the substantive difference between Tories and Lib Dems at this point? Lib Dems claimed their cardinal issue was preventing a no-deal Brexit, well, obviously that isn't true, so what is their cardinal issue? Looks like it's the same as the Tories': preventing Corbyn from becoming Prime Minister.
Then there is very little point, I suppose. I mean isn't it clear that the lib dems only aspire to either rule again in coalition with the tories (like they did when they allowed Cameron to come to power) or manage to push Corbyn out and find a nice blairite?
Either way, like Lexicus said, at least the tories are honest about being scum. The lib dems are a party akin to what the "centrist" branch of the US democrat one would have been if it split - just on a more provincial scale, due to this being little England.
That's pretty much my take on it as well. (Very similar to my take on the US Democratic Party vs. Rep in regards to Sanders but that's for another thread.)
I feel these responses are a bit like the "not Hillary" voices prior to the presidential election. Sure the Lib Dems are not very left wing, but they are better than the tories. Even without the Brexit issue, the lib dems are not likely to do all they can to privatise the NHS, they will not erode workers rights to the extent a BoJo majority government would etc.
Oh hey apparently Change UK, a party that split off from Labour under the pretext that its sole issue was stopping a no-deal Brexit, has also rejected the offer to prevent a no-deal Brexit.
I suppose the really sad thing is that the anti-Corbyn propaganda has done its job. The public careers of all these people should simply be over now but they will have their defenders.
Well, uh, I sincerely wish you good luck with that.
The lib dems are the party which brought you ridiculously high tuition fees, and ultimately allowed Cameron to become PM, which famously led to him promising a referendum on brexit to become pm a second time. And you still think the lib dems are a force for good or even not hugely responsible for what has been going on for more than a decade now?
They aren't even opportunists - they are more like pirates or parasites & utterly irrelevant.
It's certainly possible to think they are a force for not-as-bad-as-the-Tories, if not exactly a force for good.
At least the comments present anger against the lib dems.
Also has an interview with the leader of the lib dems. She is really ridiculous.
I was very disappointed by their decision to go into coalition with the tories, and in particular on going back on their tuition fee pledge. However had they not the only realistic option would have been another general election, and the tories were expected to win that outright (as they were the only party with deep enough pockets to fight 2 in a row). So it may have stopped the referendum for the length of that parliament. I do not hold them responsible for what the tories have done since they a majority (or then lost it again).
To echo Lex, "a force for not-as-bad-as-the-Tories".
Even if you just look at the lib dem leader it is pretty clear she is a dishonest piece of crap. And she is on record for having voted for loads of destructive things, including massive tuition fees and no help for students with their loans.
And she is beyond ridiculous for trying to negotiate that Corbyn isn't the caretaker PM. She is the leader of a tiny party, ffs. Let alone that the lib dems only try to steal a few votes by presenting themselves as the anti-brexit party - would be ironic if they manage to destroy any prospect of avoiding no-deal
I really agree, but I stand by my "not as bad as the tories" statement.
Separate names with a comma.