/ The BBC and Nigel Farage

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Offwidth 11 May 2019

Has Nigel got photos of the Director General behaving badly? He never seems to be off the channel and with the pulling of Have I Got News For You, we have yet another example of one rule for him and another for a different politician. It's even happening for the brexit parties as I've not seen any mention of the scandals linked below and yet UKIP were hammered for their scandals yesterday. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/05/brexit-party-figures-who-left-over-offensive-posts-are-still-directors

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-party-claire-fox-ira-bombing-warrington-father-colin-parry-a8893796.html

5
Offwidth 11 May 2019
The Lemming 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

It's a light entertainment TV show, not hard hitting polotical journalism which has been delayed for a few weeks.

Not exactly the end of the world.

Post edited at 09:55
16
summo 11 May 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

She is clearly not left leaning enough. Whilst they do take the Mick out of most, there is clearly a bias. 

14
john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

Which rather begs the question as to why Farcage's 34th appearance on QT couldn't also have easily waited a few weeks?

3
Gordon Stainforth 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Unbelievably (well sadly now, not unbelievably), having banished Heidi Allen, the Brexshit Broadcasting Corporation are now having Farage BACK on Marr tomorrow!

I really need to add about half a million exclamation marks.

Just how is this extreme crap possible? In the UK, in the 21st Century.

Post edited at 10:13
10
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Gordon, the guidelines for entertainment programmes and political/news programmes are different. If Farage were on entertainment programmes just before an election you would have a point.

Like him or loathe him, Farage is probably one of  most influential political figures in the UK and a key figure in the brexit debate which dominates current politics and the forthcoming elections. Not having him regularly on news and current affairs programmes would be the scandal.

31
Gordon Stainforth 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I can only reply to that by saying (lines from some old comedy programme) 'I'm happy that you're happy', Nick.

5
summo 11 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Perhaps if the leader of the oppodition; a person who claims to be a prime minister in waiting, went on national media there would be less slots and air time available for farage? 

5
Gordon Stainforth 11 May 2019
In reply to summo:

Yes, that's another huge problem, but not the same problem.

6
Eric9Points 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Gordon, the guidelines for entertainment programmes and political/news programmes are different. If Farage were on entertainment programmes just before an election you would have a point.

This is just before an election.

2
JimR 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Gordon, the guidelines for entertainment programmes and political/news programmes are different. If Farage were on entertainment programmes just before an election you would have a point.

> Like him or loathe him, Farage is probably one of  most influential political figures in the UK and a key figure in the brexit debate which dominates current politics and the forthcoming elections. Not having him regularly on news and current affairs programmes would be the scandal.

He's a serial liar funded by dubious money. He's never won a parliamentary election. The man is a disgrace fuelling social hatred and promoting policies detrimental to the social and economic good. How he gets airtime is beyond me.

8
summo 11 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Yes, that's another huge problem, but not the same problem.

But time programmes like newsnight, today programne, QT, AQ ... etc only have a finite amount of guests and air time..  if Corbyn was to just once appear on national media and defend his policies it would deprive others of their time? 

Farage, is just on the ball. He makes sure he is always available for comment, interviews abd appearances. It's not the BBCs fault that other party leaders and their advisors are incompetent.

15
Gordon Stainforth 11 May 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> This is just before an election.

Which is the very argument they used, very primly and correctly, regarding HIGNFY.

1
Gordon Stainforth 11 May 2019
In reply to summo:

You think just because someone's 'on the ball' they can just walk in and sit down on a BBC TV programme? Heidi Allen was effectively blocked. I'm sure if we'd had the same Director General and News Editor in 1938/39 we would have had Oswald Mosley on the Beeb almost every night.

6
Offwidth 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

The guidelines end up with Heidi pulled and last time on HIGNFY just before the euro elections Farage wasn't. I think they need to be more careful on news shows than on political comedy. 

2
Gordon Stainforth 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

And, point I was making, Farage is coming back again tomorrow.

2
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> This is just before an election.


Read what I wrote.

The Marr programme (which Gordon referenced)  is designated a politics and current affairs programme. Have I got news for you is an entertainment programme. Different guidelines apply.

5
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I can only reply to that by saying (lines from some old comedy programme) 'I'm happy that you're happy', Nick.


It's nothing to with whether I'm happy, although it seems reasonable that given the substantial proportion of the population who like Farage (I don't really) that he should get appropriate airtime.

  I am pointing out that you were drawing a false equivalence to make your argument.

1
Rob Parsons 11 May 2019
In reply to JimR:

>... He's never won a parliamentary election ...

He's been a MEP since 1999. (Or doesn't the European Parliament count ...)

john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Like him or loathe him, Farage is probably one of  most influential political figures in the UK

Given that he's never had any role more prominent than MEP, does it not make you wonder even slightly how he has gained such influence?

A clue might be in the absurdly disproportionate amount of airtime he gets on our state broadcast media, which utterly dwarfs that afforded to far more electorally successful party leaders such as those from Libdem and Greens. If you were to see such inequity in relation to an African of maybe East European nation you'd rightly conclude the state media was very far from impartial.

8
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Given that he's never had any role more prominent than MEP, does it not make you wonder even slightly how he has gained such influence?

>

   Yes, and I think you'd have to go way back to the 1990s to analyse his appearance time and the popularity of his party and his views to see if your point was valid. Certainly his supporters would argue the opposite to you.

  It's a commonplace that the consensus in the BBC was remain One senior producer was quoted as saying "you do realise they're all mad?" about Tory Euroseptics. Gavin Esler thinks of brexiteers as "village idiots".

Of 4,275 guests talking about the EU on BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme between 2005 and 2015, only 132 (3.2 per cent) were supporters of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

In 274 hours of monitored BBC EU coverage between 2002 and 2017, only 14 speakers (0.2 per cent of the total) were left-wing advocates for leaving the EU. These 14 contributors delivered 1,680 words, adding up to approximately 12 minutes. During the same period, two strongly pro-EU Conservatives, Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine, made between them 28 appearances, with contributions totalling 11,208 words – over nine times the amount of airtime allocated to all left-wing withdrawalists.

(civitas report)

  In the run up to the referendum the BBC was legally required to give appropriate airtime to both sides, and since Farage makes himself available as a spokesman and makes good TV he got lots of airtime.

1
Robert Durran 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Farage, loathsome shit though he is, is without doubt one the most influential, if not the most influential, politician of recent times. So I suppose the question is whether that influence is due to TV appearances or whether the TV appearances are due to his influence. I'm not sure the answer is obvious. 

4
Gordon Stainforth 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Remind me when a Lib Dem was last allowed on a political programme on the BBC. Despite recent huge swing to Lib Dems in local elections. I believe it's a fortnight now.

2
MonkeyPuzzle 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

How about right-wing advocates for leaving the EU, seeing as that is the more common flavour?

2
Gordon Stainforth 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Here are some extracts from the BBC guidelines:

'News and current affairs programmes for international, national, regional and local output are subject to the most stringent tests of impartiality. … Once an individual has been selected as a prospective candidate, at national or local government level, he or she may not engage in programme work which could be linked to political issues, even if the date for the election has not been confirmed….  If a candidate continues to work during the election period, it is imperative that they are employed in a role where there can be no perception of a conflict of interest and that they could not be seen as campaigning during BBC time…. They may, of course, contribute as candidates according to the relevant election guidelines regarding candidates' appearances.'

From:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/conflicts-of-interest/political-activities

2
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> You think just because someone's 'on the ball' they can just walk in and sit down on a BBC TV programme? Heidi Allen was effectively blocked.

>

   In order to meet the BBC's won guidleines. So would any high profile remainer or brexiteer have been blocked, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

  What we did have on Question Time in the lst century when the BNP (quite rightly) was blocked was a Vanessa Redgrave, a representative of the Revolutionary Workers Party (and its successors) , committed to overthrowing parliamentary democracy and led by a rapist.

1
Gordon Stainforth 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Since your ears appear to be blocked, I can't see any point in discussing it further with you. It is precisely because our democracy is under threat at the moment that I and others here are so concerned about it.

9
JimR 11 May 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

It does in the context of the European Parliamentary Elections, (QT take note). However  , the point I was making , in case you need it spelled out, was that Farage has never won a seat in the UK Parliament despite standing 7 times. One could argue that the UK's lack of interest in EU elections has led to the UK getting the EU Mps it deserves. i.e. UKIP became the largest party with 9.4% of the electorate voting for it.

5
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Remind me when a Lib Dem was last allowed on a political programme on the BBC. Despite recent huge swing to Lib Dems in local elections. I believe it's a fortnight now.


I thought you didn't have a TV anymore?

4
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Since your ears appear to be blocked, I can't see any point in discussing it further with you.

>

  Why do you say that? I was feeling rather the same! I have explained that all the BBC iseems to be  doing is following it's usual guidelines and you see this as some sort of pro brexit bias. It seems to me to be a totally illogical position but you won't explain it.

Post edited at 12:13
4
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> How about right-wing advocates for leaving the EU, seeing as that is the more common flavour?

Don't know but that is surely suggested by the first para?

Post edited at 12:24
1
In reply to Postmanpat:

Exactly right. Farage  has managed the almost impossible by circumnavigating the FPTP system and exuding massive political influence without being an MP. This has been a master stroke and has rendered the usual incumbents impotent as their protective shield (FPTP) has fallen. They , particularly the tories, are probably shitting themselves. 

Interesting times in UK politics

1
Gordon Stainforth 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

You're making me very angry now, because it is you who has become illogical. One reason why I think basic philosophy, including logic, should be taught in all sixth forms - particularly the ability to spot an invalid argument. How about the non-sequitur you've just thrown into the arena about my not owning a television?

If I was an American who didn't own a gun and wanted gun laws to be tightened, would you use it as an argument against me that I didn't own a gun?

Actually, don't answer that, because I'm absolutely fed up with wasting my time. 

Post edited at 12:25
16
summo 11 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> You think just because someone's 'on the ball' they can just walk in and sit down on a BBC TV programme? 

You think the leader of the opposition has never done a political programme because he has never been asked? 

2
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

  But can't you see your argument about Heidi Allen and Farage is a false equivalence? Ive explained why I say so and you appear to have completely ignored my point . Where is the logic of your position?

  Regarding you and your TV, it was a way of asking how you know this. Personally I'd think it unlikely but I don't know and I have a TV. So how do you know this?

2
Rob Parsons 11 May 2019
In reply to JimR:

> ... However  , the point I was making , in case you need it spelled out, was that Farage has never won a seat in the UK Parliament despite standing 7 times.

Why is that relevant in the current context of EU elections?

> One could argue that the UK's lack of interest in EU elections has led to the UK getting the EU Mps it deserves. i.e. UKIP became the largest party with 9.4% of the electorate voting for it.

Quite.

Gordon Stainforth 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Even angrier. Huge clips of the last Question time were broadcast on Twitter, by dozens of different people. They were not fakes. Gone now.

Might watch telly in my local pub ...

Post edited at 12:36
10
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Even angrier. Huge clips of the last Question time were broadcast on Twitter, by dozens of different people. They were not fakes. Gone now.

> Might watch telly in my local pub ...


I don't understand why you are angry, although my question about the TV was a bit provocative, I admit.

I am giving , as far as I can see, a rational explanationof  why Heidi Allen being cut and Farage appearing is not evidence of bias. And, to me, you don't seem to be engaging with it.

And regarding the libdems TV presence I don't know, but the only reasonable way to know would be either if someone had monitored it, or if I could demonstrate evidence of a lib dem on TV in the past two week which I can't, but then I've barely watched the relevant programmes recently so I simply don't know.

PS(I've just reread you gun analogy and realised that you misinterpreted why I asked the TV question)

Post edited at 12:50
5
Trevers 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Gordon, the guidelines for entertainment programmes and political/news programmes are different. If Farage were on entertainment programmes just before an election you would have a point.

Question Time is entertainment though isn't it?

2
john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

You seem to be missing the point that until the 2016 referendum was won by illicit means, government policy was to remain and few politicians were pushing for leaving, which is reflected in the figures (albeit probably skewed towards the government's position). Obviously during the campaign there was a balance requirement but since then it appears to have been enormously skewed towards Farage, even though his only position is MEP and he wasn't even part of the 'official' leave campaign. Not a little odd?

7
The Lemming 11 May 2019
In reply to summo:

Corbyn and you need to get a room because you are so obsessed by him.

2
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> Question Time is entertainment though isn't it?


I'm not sure whether you are trying to make a serious a point. But the serious answer is that whether you or I regard as entertaining or not is irrelevant. It is not designated as an entertainment programme hence not subject to the quidelines relevant to entertainment programmes..

Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

  How am I missing the point?

The leave argument was, according to the survey I quoted, massively underepresented on the BBC until the run up to the referendum despite the fact that as early as 2001 there were polls (Ipsosmori) showing a majority for leave, as early as 2004 UKIP got 16% of the popular vote (Euro elections) and in 2014 26% (Euroelections) and there was always a substantial proportion of the Tory vote, and a (probably smaller) proportion of the Labour vote that was eurosceptic.

 It has been absolutely clear since 2016 that somewhere around 50% of the voting public favour brexit. Since, as you point out, this proportion is hugely under-represented by politicians in mainstream parties, or in Westminster as a whole, it is inevitable and not unreasonable that the few who high profile politicians who do represent them get, on an individual but not an aggregate basis, a disproportionate amount of coverage.

3
Trevers 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I'm not sure whether you are trying to make a serious a point. But the serious answer is that whether you or I regard as entertaining or not is irrelevant. It is not designated as an entertainment programme hence not subject to the quidelines relevant to entertainment programmes..

It was a cheap pop at the BBC with a serious point about how their journalistic standards  and commitment to serious political output have become an utter farce

1
Yanis Nayu 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

It’s really, really weird. I used to have huge respect for the BBC which I’ve completely lost over Brexit. 

2
Yanis Nayu 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Chicken and egg though. He’s bound to be influential - he’s never off the f*cking telly!

2
john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

There you go again, saying that Farage is one the few high profile politicians who support Brexit. What we're asking is how he became so high profile compared to the whole of the ERG and other sitting Tory MPs (not to mention a few key players in the Labour leadership, who sadly could also be called upon to present the Leave position). I don't accept that most of the elected MPs who support Brexit have been routinely unavailable to participate. So how is it that Farage has managed to get invited with such high frequency, compared to all the actual MPs with similar views, onto virtually every BBC politics programme? Nothing slightly suspicious?

1
wercat 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Airtime of any kind is a chance to gain sympathy and influence.  Farage is a serial harmdoer, like lots of "influential" politicians of their time.

If the law really doesn't help us where do we go - self help?

stevieb 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I agree with you, there are clearly different rules for entertainment and news programs. There is a suggestion that farage was on HIGNFY weeks before the last EU referendum, if true that would be a valid comparison. 

But, in an election period, is there a valid reason why farage gets significantly more air time than the leaders of Lib Dems, change and ukip? They have no MPs, no local politicians. They do have a high number of MEPs but none were elected for that party. Do they justify much higher profile than the Lib Dems or the winners of the last euro elections? 

Eric9Points 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

All of your arguments hide behind the BBC guidelines.

This isn't a discussion about the correct application or interpretation of those guidelines but rather whether or not the BBC is guilty of showing political bias by allowing Farage on Question Time while preventing Allen from getting air time on HIGNFY.

While Allen's appearance would have given her little opportunity to promote her party Farage used QT as a hustings for his new party. An hour long party political broadcast. He was allowed to make a substantial contribution to the EU debate while we weren't even allowed to see Allan make a few witty comments.

As someone involved in European politics he has of course a right to airtime but the amount of coverage he gets does seem entirely disproportionate to the position he occupies in UK politics.

Offwidth 11 May 2019
In reply to stevieb:

You forgot they don't even have a manifesto let alone a proper democratic structure.  It's a party based on the cult of its leader that claims to be anti-racist but with arguably racist directors. That claims to be for the people but the people who join have no real say. I have some sympathy with UKIP's argument: that he only left the party as he couldn't get his own way in a party democracy. It's bizarre he isn't being grilled on all of this. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/18/nigel-farage-has-near-total-control-of-brexit-party-constitution-suggests

Post edited at 13:43
stevieb 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

I’m no fan of farage, but it’s clear that as leader of a party with 20+% poll support and a dozen MEPs he deserves some tv coverage. Just not sure why it is higher for all elections than other minority parties. In most elections the Lib Dems have far more sitting mps. 

And i agree, I never understand why after 20+ years he’s still allowed to never have a policy beyond a handy catchphrase.

edit: it was interesting to see the Andrew Neil interview with Ben Shapiro. Ben ended up looking really poor largely because Neil is right wing, so he had to defend his own policies and beliefs rather than attack someone else’s. 

Post edited at 14:04
summo 11 May 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> Corbyn and you need to get a room because you are so obsessed by him.

Don't be bitter with others just because  his incompetence is highlight. 

4
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> There you go again, saying that Farage is one the few high profile politicians who support Brexit. What we're asking is how he became so high profile compared to the whole of the ERG and other sitting Tory MPs

>

  Well, he makes "good telly" is obviously one part of it, at least relevant to some dullard Tory backbencher. He's better at getting his message out than the competition. That's his job.

  He also led the third largest party in the UK (by the popular vote) in 2015. He also led one of the two major brexit campaigning groups in the highest turnout vote in post war history.

  So, I have tried to demonstrate that through much of the early 21st century the leave argument and Farage were under represented on the BBC relative to their popularity in the country.

  Nevertheless, in 2014 UKIP did well enough to be designated a "major party" and therefore get coverage accordingly. By 2015 they were third biggest party in the popular vote. They chose to use Farage, their best weapon, to lead their media presence. Therefore he got an even higher profile. (The ERG use JRM in the same way.)

  He is therefore "high profile" , and now leading a party which seems to be getting astonishing polling numbers, it would seem not unreasonable that this is recognised in terms of allowing him a media presence.

  I don't think there is anything "suspicious" . I may be wrong but I think the leave view and Farage was massively under-represented for years. It's arguable that, having been heavily criticised for this, the BBC has swung too far the other way, but my feeling is that they simply use the names they know, that will attract viewers, and are put up by their respective parties.

1
Robert Durran 11 May 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> It’s really, really weird. I used to have huge respect for the BBC which I’ve completely lost over Brexit. 

Many leavers say the same. 

If anything I have gained respect. I think their coverage has been superb 

Post edited at 14:26
1
neilh 11 May 2019
In reply to summo:

The amusing thing in all this is that Heidi Allen has now just got plenty of publicity about HIGNY.Including plenty of stuff on the BBC about the story( which in my mind shows how reasonably balanced the BBC is on these things, as it is in effect news reporting on the BBC by the BBC).

It would not surprise me to find that Allen’s spin doctors are smiling over the whole news cycle on this issue as it has got her in the news.Probably more so than if she had been on HIGNY in the first place!!

Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> You forgot they don't even have a manifesto let alone a proper democratic structure. 

>

  Does Change UK, which was on Question Time this week?

Offwidth 11 May 2019
In reply to stevieb:

Doesn't he have only 20% for those intending to vote in the Euro elections? UKIP was 26% last time and this time the brexiters have way more to be annoyed about.  I don't deny he deserves coverage but he always seems to get more than his fair share on the BBC and a very easy ride compared to other prominant politicians. These questions I've linked are there in the Guardian and Independant... hardly trivial journalsim

The Lemming 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    Yes, and I think you'd have to go way back to the 1990s to analyse his appearance time and the popularity of his party and his views to see if your point was valid. Certainly his supporters would argue the opposite to you.

This my jog a few rose tinted memories of Farage's influence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HG7eJPC6WU

1
Offwidth 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

They have a good bit more structure than the Brexit party and a manifesto and I suspect they will get hammered. 

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-10/change-uk-sets-out-european-election-manifesto/

Siward 11 May 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

My recollection of the last few decades is that the BBC has been perpetually accused of having a left wing bias (accused by tories naturally). I don't think it's ever worn the mantle of a right leaning organisation. 

1
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> All of your arguments hide behind the BBC guidelines.

> This isn't a discussion about the correct application or interpretation of those guidelines but rather whether or not the BBC is guilty of showing political bias by allowing Farage on Question Time while preventing Allen from getting air time on HIGNFY.

> While Allen's appearance would have given her little opportunity to promote her party Farage used QT as a hustings for his new party. An hour long party political broadcast. He was allowed to make a substantial contribution to the EU debate while we weren't even allowed to see Allan make a few witty comments.

> As someone involved in European politics he has of course a right to airtime but the amount of coverage he gets does seem entirely disproportionate to the position he occupies in UK politics.


I'm not "hiding behind" anything. I explaining why the decisions were taken and were nothng to do with bias.

 It has to implement it's guidelines. It also has a duty on its political programming to give fair coverage to different arguments. Not to give Farage/brexit (or Change UK) airtime would be a dereliction of its duty.

  See my reply to John Arran as to why he gets airtime.

Post edited at 14:32
Offwidth 11 May 2019
In reply to neilh:

Thats true but doesn't justify the decision given Farage was OK last time. Also this constant drip drip of BBC mistakes undermines public faith in public broadcasting.

Siward 11 May 2019
In reply to neilh:

They offered to blur her face! If she wanted publicity she ought to have appeared with a brown paper bag over her head with a couple of eye holes. 

Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to stevieb:

>  They have no MPs, no local politicians. They do have a high number of MEPs but none were elected for that party. Do they justify much higher profile than the Lib Dems or the winners of the last euro elections?

>

  Well, I'll remind you that because of the nature of our FPTP electoral system Farage's previous party got 12.6% (third place) of the popular vote but no MPs.

  Is it your argument that the State broadcaster should compound the failings of the electoral system by denying adequate coverage to popular parties failed by that system?

Pan Ron 11 May 2019
In reply to JimR:

> He's a serial liar funded by dubious money. He's never won a parliamentary election. The man is a disgrace fuelling social hatred and promoting policies detrimental to the social and economic good. How he gets airtime is beyond me.

He also likely represents 52% of the population. 

But we don't like them, so he should be removed.

5
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> He also likely represents 52% of the population. 

> But we don't like them, so he should be removed.


Maybe one of those witches as well?  

Pan Ron 11 May 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Chicken and egg though. He’s bound to be influential - he’s never off the f*cking telly!

You need to start giving people credit for having their own opinions and an ability to make up their own minds.  The patronising approach of saying Brexit voters are fools, easily duped by a Farage figure, is why we are where we are.  Seeing Farage on TV doesn't automatically make people vote for him and it is up to Remain to make the convincing case.  Given the support for Brexit he has about the right proportion of air-time.

If you are worried about the ongoing popularity of Brexit, I'd be less concerned about Farage's appearances and more concerned about coverage of those who oppose him.  If we want to win a followup referendum, we need to swing previous Brexit voters in favour of Remain.  Telling them they are a bunch of morons, not deserving of representation or airtime, is exactly the kindling that fuels the "fvck-you" vote of Brexit.

1
Graeme Alderson 11 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Bollocks. He wasn't part of the official Leave campaign, he left UKIP. He failed on 7 occasions to get elected as an MP, etc etc etc.

Oh and 52% of the population did not vote for Brexit as you well know but never let the chance to slip in a lie or two slip by.

4
stevieb 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> >  They have no MPs, no local politicians. They do have a high number of MEPs but none were elected for that party. Do they justify much higher profile than the Lib Dems or the winners of the last euro elections?

>   Well, I'll remind you that because of the nature of our FPTP electoral system Farage's previous party got 12.6% (third place) of the popular vote but no MPs.

>   Is it your argument that the State broadcaster should compound the failings of the electoral system by denying adequate coverage to popular parties failed by that system?

What a ludicrous response to what I have written. 

1
Pan Ron 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Indeed.  It has been a revelation to me in recent years how, the people I thought had a few clues, might as well be living in the 1500s.  Then again, scientific method and reason is apparently a social construct created by a racist patriarchy, so... 

2
Pan Ron 11 May 2019
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Bollocks. He wasn't part of the official Leave campaign, he left UKIP. He failed on 7 occasions to get elected as an MP, etc etc etc.

Whatever you want to call him, he led the Brexit campaign and was the singular figurehead of the movement.  If you want to swap him for another Leaver, be my guest.  The point is, Brexit voters deserve representation as much as Leave voters do.  If the referendum showed us anything, it pretty clearly established that.

> Oh and 52% of the population did not vote for Brexit as you well know but never let the chance to slip in a lie or two slip by.

You're clutching at straws there.  Remain lost.  Brexit won.  If 100% of the population had been forced to vote there's little to indicate the 52-48 result would be any different.  Even if Remain won 55-45%, that should ring massive alarm bells for what much of the population thinks.  Sidelining them is worse than getting us nowhere - its causing massive anger.

Remain supporters need to pull their heads out of the sand, lose the holier-than-thou elitism, and recognise they aren't winning over anyone.

2
Graeme Alderson 11 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

On one thing we agree, lots of people need to pull their heads out of the sand, me and you included. Goodnight. (I am in Asia working so 11pm).

Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> What a ludicrous response to what I have written. 


Really, you used their lack of MPs as one of your justifications for them receiving less coverage. I am merely pointing out the downside of your argument.

 In addition, of course, they got a bigger proportion of the popular vote than the libdems in the GE and Farage's new party is polling twice as well ahead of the euro-elections.

I agree the Neil/Shapiro interview is a gem

Cú Chullain 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Given that he's never had any role more prominent than MEP, does it not make you wonder even slightly how he has gained such influence?

> A clue might be in the absurdly disproportionate amount of airtime he gets on our state broadcast media, which utterly dwarfs that afforded to far more electorally successful party leaders such as those from Libdem and Greens. If you were to see such inequity in relation to an African of maybe East European nation you'd rightly conclude the state media was very far from impartial.


UKIP gained more votes then the Lib Dems and the Greens combined in the last general election. If we had a PR based electoral system they would be 83 UKIP MPs right now.

Not quite sure why postmanpat's post above has attracted so many downvotes, he is spot in his assessment. Just because you don't like Farage does not make his point any less valid, Farage has dragged the Tory party to the right and forced a referendum pledge out of Cameron who was trying to stem the flow of voters (and a few MPs) to his party.

Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

  The thing that shocks me is the lack of awareness of what is happening. Millions of people are abandoning the major parties, are voting for brexit and drifting towards the extremes or the fringes because they feel that the mainstream politicians and the media don't listen to them and don'trepresent them.

  Apparently the solution to them is to condemn them as extremists and racists, ignore what they are actually saying and try and stop their views being heard in the media. And then say how terrified we are that these people threaten democracy.....

Post edited at 15:14
Eric9Points 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

It is not that he gets airtime but that he gets a disproportionate amount of airtime. You realise that he's also on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday?

QT during the week and Marr at the weekend. Not bad for the leader of a party with no manifesto beyond sound bites.

Hopefully Marr will ask him some grown up questions on Sunday, like policy details and where his party gets their money from.

1
Offwidth 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I know plenty of people who voted for Brexit. Despite being a remain voter I'm highly sympathetic of mainstream views on problems with EU democracy and economics. Talking to people reasons for the vote seem often quite complicated and sometimes conflicted to me. So I think it's a ridiculous caricature to claim all remainers are the same and you even seem to be applying this to all brexiters being the same. On the voting, only half of Brexit voters will have voted for UKIP in the last EU elections. Sure, a good number of brexit supporters are voting this time for Farages party and UKIP. However in the last European elections UKIP got 26% of the vote and the combined percentage is only slighty up and this is despite a mess of titanic proportions in the government's handling of Brexit and the Labour party not doing so well on the subject either. Both main parties have also lost as much ground to remain parties. Greens, Lib dems are also up (in combination by close to the increase in % for hard brexit parties).

Post edited at 15:37
john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   He's better at getting his message out than the competition. 

So presumably, after this wall-to-wall TV and press coverage, we must all now be well informed as to what his "message" is in some detail, beyond the populist trope of demonising all things EU?

But for some reason I for one seem to be drawing a blank when it comes to things he actually wants the UK to do in practical terms, certainly beyond the handwaving generalities of 'global deals' that he never seems to acknowledge are already possible, indeed overwhelmingly already in place.

It's almost as if the leaving itself is his ultimate goal and he cares not what happens afterwards, presumably having gained his reward in the process, a cynic might suppose by disaster capitalist investment means.

2
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> I know plenty of people who voted for Brexit. Despite being a remain voter I'm highly sympathetic of mainstream views on problems with EU democracy and economics. Talking to people reasons for the vote seem often quite complicated and sometimes conflicted to me. So I think it's a ridiculous caricature to claim all remainers are the same and you even seem to be applying this to all brexiters being the same.


  Probably the majority of my friends are remainers so I am well aware that they are not all the same and neither are remainers. The problem is that the loudest voices in the media (and on UKC) tend to adhere to these stereotypes.

  I'm not clear what  conclusions are you drawing or what points are you making from your voting breakdowns?

Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> >   He's better at getting his message out than the competition. 

> So presumably, after this wall-to-wall TV and press coverage, we must all now be well informed as to what his "message" is in some detail, beyond the populist trope of demonising all things EU?

>

   He wants the UK to leave the EU. That's why it's called the "brexit party"

  That's his message. Everything else, for him, is subsiduary.

1
john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Quite. That's what I mean about having no subsequent plan, therefore suggesting he doesn't give two hoots about how bad things turn out for the rest of the population once he's alright Jack.

4
Offwidth 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

My point in the voting numbers is voters flocked from the main parties last time as well. The elections were clearly seen as a way to express a protest vote (as was the brexit vote). The question is, with brexiters even more angry, will the voting percentages change even more. Also if we are talking flocking the current extra flocking to remain seems very similar in size.

stevieb 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Ok, I rather overreacted, but I think it’s quite clear that I’ve acknowledged in my posts, that the brexit party deserve coverage but their current coverage seems disproportionate to the other minor parties. 

I think ukip actually get a rough deal. Their ex leader who left for personal reasons as much as policy gets to bad mouth them on a regular basis, but despite winning the last euro elections they are almost unseen in mainstream programmes. 

Re the FPTP electoral system (a) I thought coverage was largely based on previous performance hence raving loonies not getting a party political broadcast but I may be wrong (b) I voted for electoral reform and (c) if we’re going on historic elections,  the Lib Dems got 23% of the vote in 2010. In the last election ukip got 1.8% and the Lib Dem’s got 4 times that. (And ukip did get 1 seat in 2015) 

JimR 11 May 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Why is that relevant in the current context of EU elections?

> Quite.

It is relevant because we are discussing Farage's exposure on the BBC. What is even more relevant in the case of the European Election is why he continues to get exposure whilst serious politicians in the opposite camp are not only denied exposure but preplanned programs containing them are withdrawn. Doesn't that raise serious questions in your mind?

Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

  We've seen a gradual decline in voter turnout for decades. There are different ways to analyse this but one of them is that people simply don't feel the "system" especially the major parties, represents them. The turnout bounced a bit in 2015 but even so an election would easily have been won by "did not vote" at 34% compared to Tory (24% and Labour (20%). And the share of the big parties (of those who voted) has fallen from 45-50% in the 1950s to 35-40%  now.

The referendum reversed this trend, presumably because people felt they would really influence the result and it would have an outcome.

neilh 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

And it shows how poor most of the other politicians are, you would hope that somebody was good enough to take him on in this media battle. At least Cable with his “bollocks to brexit” had come up with a decent slogan at last.just a pity he is past it.  Taken somebody enough time to come up with that. 

Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to JimR:

>  is why he continues to get exposure whilst serious politicians in the opposite camp are not only denied exposure

>

  To what are you referring?

Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Quite. That's what I mean about having no subsequent plan, therefore suggesting he doesn't give two hoots about how bad things turn out for the rest of the population once he's alright Jack.


>

  Well that's one interpretation. Amongst the others is that, contrary to the nightmares of some remainers, he doesn't want to be a fascist dictator. He simply wants British people to be able to vote in and vote out those who govern them.

2
neilh 11 May 2019
In reply to Siward:

And that is publicity in her favour. 

planetmarshall 11 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> ...Then again, scientific method and reason is apparently a social construct created by a racist patriarchy, so... 

Well, it is, isn't it?

Yanis Nayu 11 May 2019
In reply to Siward:

> My recollection of the last few decades is that the BBC has been perpetually accused of having a left wing bias (accused by tories naturally). I don't think it's ever worn the mantle of a right leaning organisation. 

I think when it’s been studied they’ve found it tends to have a slight bias toward the sitting government of whatever hue. I’m not 100%, but I think over recent years the politics side has been packed with Tories. 

john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   He simply wants British people to be able to vote in and vote out those who govern them.

... which, of course, they can already, to at least as great an extent as they would be able to do post-Brexit, given that the HoL is unelected and would assume a proportionally greater role if the elected European Parliament were no longer to be forming a component of our government process.

2
planetmarshall 11 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Remain supporters need to pull their heads out of the sand, lose the holier-than-thou elitism, and recognise they aren't winning over anyone.

But how are remarks like that any better than the way in which many remainers caricature those who voted for Brexit? If you want to engage in more mature, reasoned debate about political discourse in the UK then your own attitude to Remainers could be a good place to start.

1
planetmarshall 11 May 2019
In reply to Cú Chullain:

> UKIP gained more votes then the Lib Dems and the Greens combined in the last general election. If we had a PR based electoral system they would be 83 UKIP MPs right now.

I suspect you're right that the number of UKIP MPs would be higher, but many of these statistics about PR presuppose that people would vote in the same patterns as they do with the FPTP system. But that is not necessarily the case, as many typical "A vote for [insert small party here] is a wasted vote" arguments during election campaigns become invalid.

john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

You might also ask why, if directly elected UK political decisions were really at the heart of Farage's motivations for pushing  Brexit so hard, why he isn't equally vociferous in pushing for HoL reform. The likely answer, of course, is that HoL reform would not have a dramatic and lucrative effect on the value of Sterling, nor would it weaken both the UK and the EU and leave both more vulnerable to exploitation by external commercial and political forces.

Does make you wonder who he's being funded by, but he refuses to answer that until "the appropriate time", i.e. until after he's managed to convince enough people to vote for his party based on nothing more than populist soundbites.

1
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> Ok, I rather overreacted, but I think it’s quite clear that I’ve acknowledged in my posts, that the brexit party deserve coverage but their current coverage seems disproportionate to the other minor parties. 

>

  Well, surely the issue is that (with the exception of ukip who appear to be dying a death) all the minor parties are pro-remain so if the BBC needs to achieve balance over brexit their coverage will be shared amongst them and so smaller?

Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> You might also ask why, if directly elected UK political decisions were really at the heart of Farage's motivations for pushing  Brexit so hard, why he isn't equally vociferous in pushing for HoL reform. The likely answer, of course, is that HoL reform would not have a dramatic and lucrative effect on the value of Sterling, nor would it weaken both the UK and the EU and leave both more vulnerable to exploitation by external commercial and political forces.

>

  I'm sorry, but I think you've entered tin foil hat territory hat territory here so I'm not going to engage.

 Anyway, I'm not a supporter of Farage, I am just (weirdly) defending the BBC's coverage of him.

Post edited at 18:28
3
john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Why should the BBC feel obliged to represent pro and anti Brexit parties equally when there isn't a forthcoming referendum? It should rather feel obliged to represent proportionally all of the parties competing in the EU elections, which admittedly is difficult because the only indication of proportionality we have of new parties are opinion polls, and if they go down that route they have to face up to the clear and growing majority for Remain.

2
john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

No you're right. He's probably just doing it all because he's a man of principle and knows what's right for the country. I'm sure there's no personal motive at all that he's not letting on about. How silly of me.

3
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> No you're right. He's probably just doing it all because he's a man of principle and knows what's right for the country. I'm sure there's no personal motive at all that he's not letting on about. How silly of me.


Oh please. You're better than that.

5
john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

So are you with your tin hat comment, I'm afraid. We're not in conspiracy territory here, we're in dangerously unknown motivation and incentive territory, and until he comes clean about his funding and aspirations it should be only right and proper that such questions are a central part of the debate.

1
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Why should the BBC feel obliged to represent pro and anti Brexit parties equally when there isn't a forthcoming referendum?

  Probably because the euro election will, as we all know, be all about brexit.

  Question Time had a line up of Tory remainer, Labour remainer, Change remainer, Brexit leaver (Farage) and an independent labour leaver.

  Where is the problem?

stevieb 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Well, surely the issue is that (with the exception of ukip who appear to be dying a death) all the minor parties are pro-remain so if the BBC needs to achieve balance over brexit their coverage will be shared amongst them and so smaller?

If you are treating the Euro elections as a pseudo brexit referendum (as many are) then maybe. 

If you are treating them as, well, genuine elections, then no not at all. 

1
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> So are you with your tin hat comment, I'm afraid. We're not in conspiracy territory here,

>

  I think you are. Anyway, I'm going out.

2
john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

If it was a conspiracy theory it would have a preferred narrative. Farage's doubters don't have a single preferred narrative except to highlight that he's been so secretive about what's behind his drive for Brexit, including funding for it. It's only natural therefore that a number of potential motivations have been speculated. Of course, he could easily clear it all up by coming clean on funding and explaining how he sees Brexit working in practice once it's become final. Not exactly moon landing or JFK terrain, is it?

2
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

  Drink delayed! Just because his funding is dubious doesn't imply some nefarious motivation for wanting brexit. Occam's razor would suggest he needed some funding.

2
Rob Exile Ward 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

I think you're clutching at straws if you think there's a rationale behind Farage. My take is that he had a vague animosity towards the EU - like IDS, for no particularly rational reason other than maybe reading too many war comics as children - which he discovered he could make a living from. 

One might reasonably ask why a singularly unattractive, idle and none too bright Austrian dropout started a world war. One might equally ask why a singularly unattractive character like Farage has managed - pretty much single handedly - to create the chaos that is Brexit.

3
Postmanpat 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

  Incidentally, R4 Any questions today had a Tory leaver, a Labour remainer, a Libdem remainer and a plaid cwmru remainer.

  I really can't see the problem. I'm only surprised that Anna Soubry missed both Question Time and Any Questions. But don't worry, she's on Any Questions next week

1
Coel Hellier 11 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

I normally stay out of Brexit debates these days, but:

> He's probably just doing it all because he's a man of principle and knows what's right for the country. I'm sure there's no personal motive at all that he's not letting on about. How silly of me.

The idea that people go into politics for financial advantage is not plausible: it's simply way easier and more predictable to get rich by running a hedge fund or by becoming a director of a major company than by politics.

Certainly, when Farage started campaigning for UKIP and Brexit the idea that he might one-day succeed was so unlikely that a plan of "I'm going to take the country out of the EU and make a killing on the markets" would have to have been one of the least plausible get-rich-quick schemes ever.  That's presuming that one could indeed then predict the markets (and most pre-referendum predictions have not been borne out).

So, sorry, much as remainers will dislike this, they should actually accept that Farage is sincere and is advocating for Brexit because he thinks it is the best thing for the country.  Yes, really.  He does.  

Remainers will regard that as implausible, but one of the big problems here is that the remainers and the Establishment have never shown the slightest understanding of Brexiters, preferring to indulge in a caricature account instead.  And that's partly why they're so bad at persuading them. 

More generally, in society, people are losing the ability to accept that other people think differently and disagree with them in good faith.  Nowadays, any disagreement is taken as ipso facto bad faith.  

Lastly:

> ... he could easily clear it all up by coming clean on funding and explaining how he sees Brexit working in practice once it's become final.

Well how the heck would he know?  It'll depend on all sorts of things, won't it, and it won't just be up to him.   But he still wants Brexit.  You might regard that attitude as ill-thought-out (and likely it is!), but it's still sincere. 

3
Coel Hellier 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm just reading through the thread, and will nominate this for post of the week:

"The thing that shocks me is the lack of awareness of what is happening. Millions of people are abandoning the major parties, are voting for brexit and drifting towards the extremes or the fringes because they feel that the mainstream politicians and the media don't listen to them and don't represent them.

"Apparently the solution to them is to condemn them as extremists and racists, ignore what they are actually saying and try and stop their views being heard in the media. And then say how terrified we are that these people threaten democracy....."

1
john arran 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Occam's razor: Political players are usually open and relatively transparent about funding, as they want to show they have nothing to hide. Farage seems to take a diametrically opposite approach. You'd have to be a real fanboy to not think that's suspicious.

3
ena sharples 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Well, it's all going swimmingly, isn't it?

MG 11 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

And if they are extremists and racists that threaten democracy ? 

Post edited at 19:57
2
MG 11 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I  More generally, in society, people are losing the ability to accept that other people think differently and disagree with them in good faith.  Nowadays, any disagreement is taken as ipso facto bad faith.  

I don't think that's the case. Rather that some opinions, even if held in good faith, are highly dangerous for society if implemented. 

3
Jim Fraser 11 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Journalists can destroy your country and destroy your life and everything you believe in. 

What gets MORE CLICKS, what gets MORE IMPRESSIONS, what sells MORE COPIES, what gets MORE LISTENERS, what gets MORE VIEWERS, are stories that involve sensational rubbish involving idiots like Farage and Johnson and Yaxley-Lennon. Everything they do will promote stupidity because intelligence is far too boring and doesn't get the universally de-sensitised public's attention. 

Laura Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are just the Jeremy Kyles of current affairs. 

3
Rob Parsons 11 May 2019
In reply to JimR:

> ... why he [Farage] continues to get exposure whilst serious politicians in the opposite camp are not only denied exposure but preplanned programs containing them are withdrawn. Doesn't that raise serious questions in your mind?

Which preplanned programs (plural) are you referring to? 'Have I Got News For You' with Heidi Allen? Or more than that? If just 'Have I Got News For You' then no, that doesn't raise serious questions in my mind: I trust the Beeb is exercising its guidelines in that respect. (If it isn't, no doubt we'll hear more.) If you're looking for balance, Anna Soubry got a spot on Question Time the previous evening.

In general, you appear to be implying that the Beeb is implementing some pro-leave bias - correct? I don't see that myself.

1
Offwidth 12 May 2019
In reply to Jim Fraser:

That reminds me of an interview just a few days back with the odious Scum editor who ran with the Freddie Star ate my Hampster headline. There is a lot of truth in we get the journalism we deserve. In contrast we have this: 

https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-releases/article/ifj-2018-report-on-journalists-and-media-staff-killed-time-for-action.html

1
Offwidth 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

"I normally stay out of Brexit debates these days, but:"

You can almost sense what's coming is going to be nonsense..

" He's probably just doing it all because he's a man of principle and knows what's right for the country. I'm sure there's no personal motive at all that he's not letting on about. How silly of me."

There are numerous people who have looked at Farage from a journalism and modern history perspective and I still think there is a small chance that what you say is possible. Yet, although no one can tell what goes on in his mind other than him, his words, actions, friends and funders make it seem way more likely that other motivations are in play. You being sure in this context is pretty impressive arrogance that might even make Nigel blush.

"The idea that people go into politics for financial advantage is not plausible: it's simply way easier and more predictable to get rich by running a hedge fund or by becoming a director of a major company than by politics."

Just laughable in the context of the hundreds of billions that politicians steal across the world. Even in the US, EU and UK where things are much better, many of our ex politicains join a gravy train of lucrative jobs after they leave office and lets not forget the incredibly generous pensions or the money they control as politicians. In contrast starting a hedge fund or a company is risky and hard work. Other motivations of course are power and influence and not all ideology is honest (especially so on the far right and far left).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/24/long-serving-meps-eligible-transition-payments-european-parliament-uk

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/12/nigel-farage-eu-salary-docked-claim-misspent-public-funds

"Certainly, when Farage started campaigning for UKIP and Brexit the idea that he might one-day succeed was so unlikely that a plan of "I'm going to take the country out of the EU and make a killing on the markets" would have to have been one of the least plausible get-rich-quick schemes ever.  That's presuming that one could indeed then predict the markets (and most pre-referendum predictions have not been borne out)."

What happened is not incompatible with any of the less noble motives laid at his door, nor money being part of the motive. That's as plain a stupid strawman argument as I've ever seen.

"So, sorry, much as remainers will dislike this, they should actually accept that Farage is sincere and is advocating for Brexit because he thinks it is the best thing for the country.  Yes, really.  He does." 

He must be, the mighty Coel says so..... you really are a complete buffoon.  I'm not denying that Farage may be genuine, but to ignore all the evidence that other factors might be at play would be an embarrasing position for a kids debate.

"Remainers will regard that as implausible, but one of the big problems here is that the remainers and the Establishment have never shown the slightest understanding of Brexiters, preferring to indulge in a caricature account instead.  And that's partly why they're so bad at persuading them."

Pot kettle black in some cases for brexiteers. There are plenty of people on both sides who can analyse without such tedious labeling.

"More generally, in society, people are losing the ability to accept that other people think differently and disagree with them in good faith.  Nowadays, any disagreement is taken as ipso facto bad faith."

More sweeping statement nonsense. MG made the most important point here.

"Well how the heck would he know?  It'll depend on all sorts of things, won't it, and it won't just be up to him.   But he still wants Brexit.  You might regard that attitude as ill-thought-out (and likely it is!), but it's still sincere. "

Its amazing how you do this... in the cut section it's about his funding and you completely ignore that and talk about motivation. He certainly knows about the funding but won't say where it comes from, as its often highly embarrasing and may not even all be legal.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/25/why-wont-nigel-farage-answer-my-brexit-questions

Post edited at 08:57
7
RomTheBear 12 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>  Anyway, I'm not a supporter of Farage, I am just (weirdly) defending the BBC's coverage of him.

Lol. Despite agreeing with everything he says and defending him at every single turn.

It’s weird, indeed. Why aren’t you a bit more honest with yourself and others ?

personally I have no problem with having Farage on telly, however I do have a problem with journos not doing their jobs and not challenging the obvious lies that come out of his mouth.

To be fair programmes like question time have become frankly depressing, shouty red-faced audience that ask completely idiotic questions, cheer anybody that tells lies, and boohs anybody’s that tries to be reasonable. 

It pretty much reflects the depths in which English politics have fallen to.

Post edited at 09:46
4
Postmanpat 12 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Lol. Despite agreeing with everything he says and defending him at every single turn.

> It’s weird, indeed. Why aren’t you a bit more honest with yourself and others ?

>

  Lol, you got me there Rom! I'd never realised that myself. Do your awesome mind reading skills have no limits? (Strolls off whistling the Horst Wessel)

5
MG 12 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

It would be interesting know what PMP and Coel wouldn't support from UKIP, Farage etc. I suspect almost nothing. "Banality of evil" springs to mind

2
RomTheBear 12 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Lol, you got me there Rom! I'd never realised that myself. Do your awesome mind reading skills have no limits? (Strolls off whistling the Horst Wessel)

Don’t need any mind reading skills. You’re pretty transparent despite your best efforts. Everybody knows your true colours despite yourself it seems.

Post edited at 10:54
4
neilh 12 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

His funding is subject to legal constraints. It is up to the legal system to enforce the rules.So your point on that is very debateable. 

2
Offwidth 12 May 2019
In reply to neilh:

I don't think so. It's part of what's wrong with the political system that we accept so much that's certainly wrong and possibly illegal but not certain enough, to to take to court and win, that the CPS will prosecute. There should be more 'balance of doubt' solutions in my view based on ombudsmen or tribunals, to keep things clean.

Also Nigel has had decisions made against him and his party in the EU and been asked to repay funding.

Post edited at 11:26
1
neilh 12 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

So the system is there and just not applied, which is a diffferent point. 

We have a reasonably transparent system of funding otherwise we would not know of the recent  £200 k contribution to the Brexit party. 

Pan Ron 12 May 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>  which he discovered he could make a living from. 

I don't think Farage needed to make a living from anything. He had more than enough cash to retire prior to UKIP. 

Its surely ok to object to his political stance while accepting the guy is just a run-of-the-mill human and not, as you insinuate, potentially up there with Hitler?

Again, the is exactly the kind of thing that just repels Brexiteers - if the person they voted for is as kin to Hitler then they are akin to Nazis. And we expect them to swing to Remain, why?

3
Gordon Stainforth 12 May 2019
In reply to neilh:

> So the system is there and just not applied, which is a diffferent point. 

> We have a reasonably transparent system of funding otherwise we would not know of the recent  £200 k contribution to the Brexit party. 

Well it's not a relevantly different point. The system as a whole is still not working properly. I'm sure if you had a car engine that was only half working you wouldn't say it was working properly.

1
planetmarshall 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> So, sorry, much as remainers will dislike this, they should actually accept that Farage is sincere and is advocating for Brexit because he thinks it is the best thing for the country.  Yes, really.  He does.  

> Remainers will regard that as implausible, but one of the big problems here is that the remainers and the Establishment have never shown the slightest understanding of Brexiters, preferring to indulge in a caricature account instead.  And that's partly why they're so bad at persuading them. 

> More generally, in society, people are losing the ability to accept that other people think differently and disagree with them in good faith.  Nowadays, any disagreement is taken as ipso facto bad faith.  

You seem to be contradicting your own viewpoint in this post, Coel, with, "Remainers will..." etc. With that kind of assertion, aren't you as guilty of pigeonholing as the 'Remainers' that you accuse?

I think that exiting the EU is a bad move for the UK, both selfishly as someone who both travels and works abroad, and generally for our society.

Nonetheless, I agree that Farage, Rees-Mogg etc also believe that they are doing what they think best, and do not have some nefarious ulterior motive. I don't think they're evil, I just think they're wrong. I also do not buy this 'BBC bias' nonsense. Typically of those convinced of bias, inconvenient counter examples tend to be quietly ignored.

These kind of deeply polarized and entrenched positions are bad for the future of politics in this country, but I also think some people are somewhat lacking in self awareness when they accuse others of what they themselves are clearly guilty.

Post edited at 12:02
4
RomTheBear 12 May 2019
In reply to neilh:

> So the system is there and just not applied, which is a diffferent point. 

> We have a reasonably transparent system of funding otherwise we would not know of the recent  £200 k contribution to the Brexit party. 

And a very poor enforcement of the rules. Leave won on the back of the biggest campaign financing fraud that has ever occurred in modern times the UK, and yet it’s as if nothing had happened.

4
Graeme Alderson 12 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

So Farage is not in with the AfD in Germany, or Bannon in wherever he is now, or has appeared on Alex Jones' shows at least 6 times? Plus there is other stuff from visits to others countries (Google is your friend).

He is not the cuddly man with a pint. He has hoodwinked many, possibly including you*, but he is a extreme right wing, white supremacist supporter, I think the shorthand for this is Nazi.

I am not calling Leave voters, which include my parents, extreme right wing supremacist supporters but Farage is just that.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/07/nigel-farage-denies-being-conspiracy-theorist-after-far-right-talkshow-appearances

* if you aren't hoodwinked then I guess we know what that makes you

Edited to add link.

Post edited at 14:52
5
neilh 12 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

How much was Aaron Banks and others fined? Had Facebook and others got their acts together to stop a rerun of Cambridge Analytical? With GDPR in place I bet the ICO is breathing down the necks of all the parties 

I agree there could be more bite on this issue , but to imply that nothing has changed is  not  correct. 

1
john arran 12 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Leave won on the back of the biggest campaign financing fraud that has ever occurred in modern times the UK, and yet it’s as if nothing had happened.

It's been referred to police for investigation. Must be getting on 2 years ago now and no investigation started yet.

earlsdonwhu 12 May 2019
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Exactly, he is not the cuddly bloke with a pint.

His views, like those of his Breitbart mates, on issues as diverse as gun control, health provision and climate change are dangerous and obnoxious. He needs challenging on this stuff constantly!

2
Pan Ron 12 May 2019
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

He is going to be in with the AfD because they share an interest in this area.  It's unsavoury, and as a remainer I'm no fan of Nigel Farage, but if the rest of the political sphere rejects him on account of his Brexit views, it should be no surprise that he finds an alliance with right-wing parties at the extreme.  The same is happening in society in general and there is a reason the AfD exists in the first place; if you don't make a home for people with even moderate right-wing views, if you dismiss anyone with immigration concerns as being "anti-immigration" or worse, then they have no place to go other than where they will be accepted...which is further right.

As for Alex Jones, I can't believe people are losing their sh1t over him.  The guy is utterly bonkers.  He comes out with complete lunacy and says extreme stuff.  For that I'm glad, and it says a lot for the US that he is allowed to exist.  In the UK he would likely be having visit from the police.  Try and listen to just 20 minutes, any 20 minutes, of Jones on the Joe Rogan Podcast, then come back and tell me the guy represents any kind of existential threat to the world, and that someone should be tarnished for talking to him.  If Alex Jones discredits Farage then I have to revive the argument that anyone who attends a rally where a hammer-and-sickle flag is on display is also, by association, discredited.

Post edited at 16:38
Pan Ron 12 May 2019
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> His views, like those of his Breitbart mates, on issues as diverse as gun control, health provision and climate change are dangerous and obnoxious. He needs challenging on this stuff constantly!

The idea of declaring these views "dangerous" scares me far more.  Go ahead an challenge them if you want.  But denying a platform, challenges nothing.  If anything it just makes his case stronger. 

Right now the biggest vote winner for the Leave campaign is the claim those in power never had any intention of implementing the referendum result if Leave won.  And here we are, complaining that the people who won the vote are being heard.  If you are looking for anything to strengthen the resolve of leave voters and make them more inclined to vote leave again, even after seeing the manifest failings of their own leadership and the general political arguments in favour of leave, look no further.

Bob Kemp 12 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The idea of declaring these views "dangerous" scares me far more.  Go ahead an challenge them if you want.  But denying a platform, challenges nothing.  If anything it just makes his case stronger. 

Crafty conflation Ron. Declaring views 'dangerous' is not the same thing as denying a platform. 

1
earlsdonwhu 12 May 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Yep.... I think that expressing doubt about climate change is actually more dangerous than the Brexit crap.

Coel Hellier 12 May 2019
In reply to MG:

> It would be interesting know what PMP and Coel wouldn't support from UKIP, Farage etc.

Vast amounts of stuff, since you ask. 

Coel Hellier 12 May 2019
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Nonetheless, I agree that Farage, Rees-Mogg etc also believe that they are doing what they think best, and do not have some nefarious ulterior motive. I don't think they're evil, I just think they're wrong.

Which is a sensible thing to think, in contrast to John Arran's conspiracy theories. 

3
MG 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'd say supporting antivaxers, climate deniers, and attacking Jews is evil. 

1
Coel Hellier 12 May 2019
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> [Farage] is not the cuddly man with a pint. He has hoodwinked many, possibly including you*, but he is a extreme right wing, white supremacist supporter, I think the shorthand for this is Nazi.

Can you supply quotes that would actually substantiate these charges of being "extreme right wing", a "white supremacist" and a "Nazi"?   

And no, I don't think that taking up opportunities to talk to an audience signals agreement with the host or the audience.  You might go there specifically to try to persuade people you don't agree with.   People should be judged on what they say, not by who they are debating with.  Different factions in society need to discuss and talk to each other.  That's how democracy works. 

Coel Hellier 12 May 2019
In reply to MG:

> I'd say supporting antivaxers, climate deniers, and attacking Jews is evil. 

Context?  Are those accusations against Farage?  If so, care to substantiate them?

(That's a genuine question, I'm not that up with what Farage has said these days.)

MG 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

"Farage’s claims include that Soros wants to fundamentally reshape Europe’s racial makeup and to end the continent’s Christian culture. He also praised Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, for having the “courage to stand up against him”." 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/12/farage-criticised-for-using-antisemitic-themes-to-criticise-soros

Pefa 12 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> He is going to be in with the AfD because they share an interest in this area.  It's unsavoury, and as a remainer I'm no fan of Nigel Farage, but if the rest of the political sphere rejects him on account of his Brexit views, it should be no surprise that he finds an alliance with right-wing parties at the extreme.  The same is happening in society in general and there is a reason the AfD exists in the first place; if you don't make a home for people with even moderate right-wing views, if you dismiss anyone with immigration concerns as being "anti-immigration" or worse, then they have no place to go other than where they will be accepted...which is further right.

You never heard of Left. Leave then or the CPB? Or No2eu yes to workers rights? Ot Trade Unions Against The EU? Or CPGB? And one of the facts they don't like the EU is immigration? You think anti-freedom of movement is a right-wing thing do you? 

The Labour Party leader Hugh Gaitskell once declared that joining the European Economic Community (EEC) would mean "the end of a thousand years of history". 

British far-right desire for a United Europe - 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_a_Nation

> As for Alex Jones, I can't believe people are losing their sh1t over him.  The guy is utterly bonkers.  He comes out with complete lunacy and says extreme stuff.  For that I'm glad, and it says a lot for the US that he is allowed to exist.  In the UK he would likely be having visit from the police.  Try and listen to just 20 minutes, any 20 minutes, of Jones on the Joe Rogan Podcast, then come back and tell me the guy represents any kind of existential threat to the world, and that someone should be tarnished for talking to him.  If Alex Jones discredits Farage then I have to revive the argument that anyone who attends a rally where a hammer-and-sickle flag is on display is also, by association, discredited.

Lol let's hear why YOU think Alex Jones is comparable to people who fly the Red Flag then. 

Post edited at 19:28
1
Coel Hellier 12 May 2019
In reply to MG:

> "Farage’s claims include that Soros wants to fundamentally ..."

Well first, that isn't a quote.  The linked article does give some actual quotes, but none of them are full sentences and give surrounding context. 

But, more importantly, all of them are criticisms of the policies of Soros.    There is nothing in the article that suggests that Farage is opposed to Soros because he is Jewish, rather than because of his policies. 

1
MG 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

As I suspected, you will defend anything from Farage.

"Farage said Soros sought “to undermine democracy and to fundamentally change the makeup, demographically, of the whole European continent”. The latter claim directly echoes conspiracy theories against Soros made by far-right groups such as Generation Identity."

MG 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But, more importantly, all of them are criticisms of the policies of Soros.    

If you believe Soros has a policy of "to fundamentally change the makeup, demographically," you are unbelievably naive. You don't of course. You know full well this is an antisemitic  jibe you are defending. 

Coel Hellier 12 May 2019
In reply to MG:

> "Farage said Soros sought “to undermine democracy and to fundamentally change the makeup, demographically, of the whole European continent”.

Which seems to me an attack on Soros (probably an unfair one).

But what is the evidence that he is attacking Soros because Soros is a Jew?  (As opposed to because he disagrees with Soros's policies.)

Soros spends a great deal of money promoting particular causes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations ).  There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but if someone disagrees with those policies then it is fair for them to say so, and to bewail Soros's influence, is it not? 

Are you suggesting that any criticism of any "Open Society Foundation" policy is necessarily anti-Semetic?   Are you suggesting that such advocacy should be exempt from criticism because it is funded by Soros (who happens to be Jewish)? 

2
MG 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

No, I'm saying Soros is widely attacked for being Jewish in far right circles, including by the Hungarian leader. Farage is seeking to attract the votes from the far right and hence is attacking Soros using language widely understood as code for antisemitism. And you are defending him

Pefa 12 May 2019
In reply to MG:

> No, I'm saying Soros is widely attacked for being Jewish in far right circles, including by the Hungarian leader. Farage is seeking to attract the votes from the far right and hence is attacking Soros using language widely understood as code for antisemitism. And you are defending him

No he isn't, he's attacked for wanting the EU to have open borders that allows in over 300,000 every year from Africa and the ME. That has nothing to do with his religion - if he has one- it's just a fact. 

5
Coel Hellier 12 May 2019
In reply to MG:

> Farage [...] is attacking Soros using language widely understood as code for antisemitism.

Farage is attacking Soros.  That's the factual part of the statement. 

The "language widely understood as code for antisemitism" is highly subjective and dubious.  Surely Farage, as someone opposed to immigration, is allowed to criticise someone who gives major funding to groups promoting immigration? 

The idea that this has something to do with Soros being a Jew doesn't seem to be based on much substance.   

2
Rob Exile Ward 12 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I think you'll find he did need to make a living; check it out. Suggestions otherwise are false facts.

So, how does this new information affect your thinking?

1
MG 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The idea that this has something to do with Soros being a Jew doesn't seem to be based on much substance.   

"And who is behind him?” Mr. Erdogan said, according to the report. “The famous Hungarian Jew Soros. This is a man who assigns people to divide nations and shatter them. He has so much money and he spends it this way.”

MG 12 May 2019
Coel Hellier 12 May 2019
In reply to MG:

> "And who is behind him?” Mr. Erdogan said, according to the report. “The famous Hungarian Jew Soros.

Is Farage responsible for what Erdogan says?

4
RomTheBear 12 May 2019
In reply to neilh:

> How much was Aaron Banks and others fined? Had Facebook and others got their acts together to stop a rerun of Cambridge Analytical? With GDPR in place I bet the ICO is breathing down the necks of all the parties 

> I agree there could be more bite on this issue , but to imply that nothing has changed is  not  correct. 

That’s something of an understatement. We know that without the financing fraud, and the social media targeting it bought, the referendum result would likely have been different. Or at least it is a very strong possibility.

The fines you are talking about are frankly peanuts, for the people involved they are the equivalent of a parking ticket. The people responsible should be in jail, and for a long time. 

2
RomTheBear 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Farage is attacking Soros.  That's the factual part of the statement. 

> The "language widely understood as code for antisemitism" is highly subjective and dubious.  Surely Farage, as someone opposed to immigration, is allowed to criticise someone who gives major funding to groups promoting immigration? 

Criticising Soros’ politics is different from peddling the usual antisemetic trope of the evil  Jewish grand puppet master.  Anybody with half a brain would have noticed, and you know it full well, but wilfully pretend to not see it to defend your man.

Post edited at 21:55
Pefa 12 May 2019
In reply to MG:

> Got a link showing that?

Before I went and got that link I looked at yours which has a hyperlink which was written by Mr Soros and I see this in it which means I don't have to-

Here are the six components of a comprehensive plan.

First, the EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly — a principle that a qualified majority. 

I can get a link if you want. 

Post edited at 22:14
1
Graeme Alderson 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

A classic example of Coel Hellier selective quoting.

Coel Hellier 13 May 2019
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> A classic example of Coel Hellier selective quoting.

Go on, then, substantiate your complaint by providing fuller context or suggesting what I should have quoted.

1
summo 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> That’s something of an understatement. We know that without the financing fraud, and the social media targeting it bought, the referendum result would likely have been different. Or at least it is a very strong possibility.

The remain parry had something money just couldn't buy, unrivalled access to national media etc.. they had the prime minister and chancellor, their contacts, a national leafleting campaign, whatever they said would be front pages the next morning. 

The fact they couldn't organise a piss up in brewery and completely blew it is another argument. 

1
Coel Hellier 13 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

By the way, this is why the BBC should indeed feature Farage (along with others), and why it would not be doing its job if it didn't:

Latest polls for the EU vote, from The Times this morning:

Brexit: 34%
Labour: 16%
LibDem: 15%
Greens: 11%
Tories: 10%
Change: 5%
UKIP: 2%

(Presumably this is an English poll, since there's no mention of the Nats.)

3
Mike Stretford 13 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier: Chicken or the the egg?

RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to summo:

> The remain parry had something money just couldn't buy, unrivalled access to national media etc.. they had the prime minister and chancellor, their contacts, a national leafleting campaign, whatever they said would be front pages the next morning. 

They had the same access to media as everybody else.

What they didn’t have is an extra million quid spent on targeted social media advertising. Even with low conversion rates the number of views this buys you is enough to make a significant difference.

In any case, it’s funny how people who claim to defend democracy are quite happy glossing over a clear and proven massive breach of the democratic process.

3
baron 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

Given that we’re always being told that most leave voters are/were ancient, and unlikely to know one social media platform from another, how successful would targeted social media campaigning have been?

Many leave voters had waited years for a chance to express their opinions and didn’t need any convincing to vote leave.

2
john arran 13 May 2019
In reply to baron:

> Many leave voters had waited years for a chance to express their opinions and didn’t need any convincing to vote leave.

The referendum wasn't won by the many, it was won by the few; the relatively small number of voters who were convinced to vote Leave based on targeted social media lies (which were invisible to non-targeted individuals so impossible to effectively counter) paid for by campaign overspend from dubious sources. There seems to have been no equivalent campaign of lies attributable to the Remain campaign, although people wanting to excuse these lies continue to claim some kind of equivalence by referring to the perfectly legal pre-referendum pamphlets issued by the government at the time.

3
baron 13 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

Now that all (some) of the shenanigans that the leave campaign was involved in have been wide publicised should not all those voters who were convinced to vote leave by nefarious means not have changed their minds and be demanding a new referendum so they could vote the way that they would have voted if they hadn’t been deceived?

If that makes any sense?

The only people who seem to want another referendum are those who voted to remain but lost despite spending millions more, albeit legally, on their campaign.

2
john arran 13 May 2019
In reply to baron:

> Now that all (some) of the shenanigans that the leave campaign was involved in have been wide publicised should not all those voters who were convinced to vote leave by nefarious means not have changed their minds and be demanding a new referendum so they could vote the way that they would have voted if they hadn’t been deceived?

You would think so, eh? And opinion polls do suggest that plenty of people have changed their minds and continue to do so in ever greater numbers. You may also have noticed a huge clamour for a second referendum (or a first 'clean' one!) But unfortunately psychology tells us that there also will be people reluctant to accept they were lied to and using confirmation bias to ignore or downplay the lies they were taken in by.

2
stevieb 13 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Re the bbc, did anyone see any of the farage interview with Andrew Marr. I thought I saw a major politician get angry and evasive and refusing to answer questions when asked about his policies and beliefs, but a huge number of people appear to have seen a biased bbc reporter being mean to nigel

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7021579/PETER-OBORNE-Nigel-Farages-blustering-BBC-bias-exposed-gaping-flaws.html#comments-7021579

1
summo 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> They had the same access to media as everybody else.

The same access as any other g20 president or prime minister yes, the same as anyone else, no.

> What they didn’t have is an extra million quid spent on targeted social media advertising. Even with low conversion rates the number of views this buys you is enough to make a significant difference.

How much did Cameron's government funded leaflet drop cost?

> In any case, it’s funny how people who claim to defend democracy are quite happy glossing over a clear and proven massive breach of the democratic process.

I'm not defending or glossing. The campaign on both sides was a shambles. There can't be a person in the UK who didn't hear Osbourne's promises of plagues, war, emergency budgets... they wasted their media opportunities. 

john arran 13 May 2019
In reply to summo:

"people wanting to excuse these lies continue to claim some kind of equivalence by referring to the perfectly legal pre-referendum pamphlets issued by the government at the time."

> How much did Cameron's government funded leaflet drop cost?

Turns out my point was demonstrated far faster than I could have imagined!

2
summo 13 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

I aim to please. 

I don't see how you can compare campaigns. It's a one off vote, where one side is a new party with few elected UK mps(ukip), but has mps siding with their goal (Boris etc). Then the remain has the prime minister etc..  it's impossible to directly compare their campaigns. Any election that crosses all party divides is bound to end up like this.

I wonder how the Swiss system works so well (from an outsiders perspective), where the public might often vote on measures the governing party either do or don't support. 

2
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to summo:

> The same access as any other g20 president or prime minister yes, the same as anyone else, no.

> How much did Cameron's government funded leaflet drop cost?

> I'm not defending or glossing. The campaign on both sides was a shambles. There can't be a person in the UK who didn't hear Osbourne's promises of plagues, war, emergency budgets... they wasted their media opportunities. 

You do gloss over it. A bad campaign is not the same as an illegally financed campaign. You’re trying to tell us this is the same. It isn’t.

1
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to baron:

> Given that we’re always being told that most leave voters are/were ancient, and unlikely to know one social media platform from another, how successful would targeted social media campaigning have been?

Believe it or not the “older” generations are also massively on social media, and unfortunately research has shown that they are even more susceptible to fake news and manipulation. Not surprising really, if you spent your whole life getting your information from trusted sources and suddenly your replace that with social media, it will take some time for your brain to learn to process the information differently.

1
Postmanpat 13 May 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> Re the bbc, did anyone see any of the farage interview with Andrew Marr. I thought I saw a major politician get angry and evasive and refusing to answer questions when asked about his policies and beliefs, but a huge number of people appear to have seen a biased bbc reporter being mean to nigel

  They're probably both right. Marr quite legitimately wanted to explore Farage's views on a number of issues.

   Farage wanted to talk about what he regards as the breakdown of democracy.

  So the real problem in that in a 15 minute (or whatever) interview in which each side wants to talk about something different it's not going to be very productive.

   My criticism of Marr would be two fold: that this "gotcha" approach to exploring peoples' positions is not actually a very constructive way of doing it (having said that I loved Neil's demolition of Shapiro) and can easily look like a cheap smear job. And that, as he very well knows, the failures of democracy are a hugely topical issue and Farage's views on that should be explored and challenged, which he failed to do because he concentrated on other issues.

  Farage looked like he has inconsistent and changing views or ill thought out views on big issues-not exactly a revelation.

  But he never got challenged on his views on the democracy issue: big fail.

2
Coel Hellier 13 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> There seems to have been no equivalent campaign of lies attributable to the Remain campaign, ...

You're right that the Remain campaign was not "lies" -- in the sense of knowingly-wrong statements -- but it was primarily untruths.  The Remain campaign consisted mostly of scare-mongering based on wildly exaggerated prophesies of doom, most of which were and are untrue. 

Yes, the Leave campaign got up to dirty tricks -- though it's pretty unclear how much effect that had, likely not that much -- but the Remain campaign was hardly a model of good practice.  

3
Jim Hamilton 13 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

>  And opinion polls do suggest that plenty of people have changed their minds and continue to do so in ever greater numbers. You may also have noticed a huge clamour for a second referendum (or a first 'clean' one!)

According to an i news article quoting John Curtice, the Remain lead in the opinion polls is not, in the main, due to people changing their minds but takes into account the people who did not vote last time (but are 2 to 1 in favour of Remain) and assumes they would vote in the event of a 2nd Ref.

It also quotes 48% opposing a 2nd Ref (39% support) but 47% support for a "Confirmation" vote (35% oppose). 

  

Offwidth 13 May 2019
In reply to stevieb:

Its funny really. I almost wrote all of that about 20 minutes ago when I lost a reply to Coel due to a technical issue. It's going to be pretty hard to argue Peter is a typical hardline remainer. I thought if anything Andrew was soft on Nigel on current serious questions about his party and too focused on his past statements. It's vital for democracy that the constitutional arrangements of a party are democratic and open. We should know who funds a party and why. We should know why candidates and directors are not being challenged more actively on what they have said, especially given the poll lead. We should know why there is no manifesto unlike all the other big parties. Frankly I'm embarrassed the current status of the party is acceptable in our democracy, being autocratic and based on secretive and evasive donors and in its leading campaign area, an election to the EU, not putting forward a manifesto. I have much sympathy with UKIP's view that on most of the common ideology they haven't really moved away from Nigel and that he only left as he couldn't get his own way in a party democratic structure.

Do we really just have to trust Coel's view, stated as fact (in the face of much hard evidence to the contrary from those looking into his political philosophy, affilations and funders) that he is doing it for the good of the country?

2
summo 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You do gloss over it. A bad campaign is not the same as an illegally financed campaign. You’re trying to tell us this is the same. It isn’t.

But. How do you compare a campaign of an independent party and that of a government in office? It's chalk and cheese. 

I'm not doubting the illegality of it, only how much impact it might have had, given the advantages Cameron had, even if they weren't utilised effectively. 

It's reassuring that despite being in the very last years of their lives there are so many 80 and 90 years old brexit supporters active on social media? I've given up trying to explain to my 70+ year old mother her emails aren't actually saved on her laptop etc. 

Post edited at 11:18
2
Coel Hellier 13 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> And opinion polls do suggest that plenty of people have changed their minds and continue to do so in ever greater numbers.

Not really, there has been some shift, yes, but only by amounts in line with normal variation in such attitudes.  E.g.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

> You may also have noticed a huge clamour for a second referendum ...

Why of course Remainers are clamouring for it!

Rob Exile Ward 13 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's a great shame that the Leave campaign said that catastrophe would strike the day after the Brexit vote (although of course we were all significantly poorer the day after.)  Osborne didn't cover himself with glory there; it gave Farage some easy targets once the result was known.

I'm still think catastrophe *could* strike if/when we leave, particularly with no deal. How sure are you of your job once Erasmus has been dismantled, foreign students - both EU and non-EU - no longer feel welcome, government coffers start to run dry, research projects migrate to blocs with massively larger economic clout....

My argument all along was that you don't take risks like that unless you are absolutely sure that the current model is terminally broken. And patently, it isn't. 

1
Offwidth 13 May 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

To be fair in Osbourne's terms there was some evidence that happened. All UK assets in pounds devalued by around 10%. He was also talking macroeconomics not the average voter experience. I think growth might have been higher than it was. Also much of what he said was about the consequence of the hard brexit wanted by UKIP and was being used against him before the brexit decision. I've never seen the UK public sector in such a worrying state in my lifetime as it is right now.

1
stevieb 13 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > 

>    My criticism of Marr would be two fold: that this "gotcha" approach to exploring peoples' positions is not actually a very constructive way of doing it (having said that I loved Neil's demolition of Shapiro) and can easily look like a cheap smear job. And that, as he very well knows, the failures of democracy are a hugely topical issue and Farage's views on that should be explored and challenged, which he failed to do because he concentrated on other issues.

Yes, the 'old email' approach can look like a setup, though Farage's supporters will happily use the same approach for Corbyn. But I think it is vital for Farage to be challenged on what he stands for.

>   Farage looked like he has inconsistent and changing views or ill thought out views on big issues-not exactly a revelation.

>   But he never got challenged on his views on the democracy issue: big fail.

I actually think the bigger question was how Nigel would deliver his plan and deal with the consequences. Nigel still gets away with saying what is wrong with everyone else's plan (the easy bit) and not coming up with his own fully joined up plan. I have more respect for the Leave Alliance and even (scarily) Patrick Minford for at least coming up with a plan and defending it.

1
john arran 13 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

>  scare-mongering based on wildly exaggerated prophesies of doom, most of which were and are untrue. 

Lack of supporting evidence for personal opinion presented as fact duly noted.

> Yes, the Leave campaign got up to dirty tricks -- though it's pretty unclear how much effect that had, likely not that much 

Lack of supporting evidence for personal opinion presented as fact duly noted.

2
Rob Exile Ward 13 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Fair points - I was throwing sops to PMP and Coel...

1
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to summo:

> I'm not doubting the illegality of it, only how much impact it might have had, given the advantages Cameron had, even if they weren't utilised effectively. 

Well according to the research, the impact may have been enough to sway the result.

But whether it did or did not is not even relevant, the mere fact that the campaign was run completely illegally should be enough to invalidate the result. Or at the very least put those responsible behind bars.

> It's reassuring that despite being in the very last years of their lives there are so many 80 and 90 years old brexit supporters active on social media? I've given up trying to explain to my 70+ year old mother her emails aren't actually saved on her laptop etc. 

I think its more the 55+ we are talking about, not necessarily 80-90

1
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

The treasury analysis got everything right in their scenario except unemployment.

anybody can check.

1
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> You're right that the Remain campaign was not "lies" -- in the sense of knowingly-wrong statements -- but it was primarily untruths.  The Remain campaign consisted mostly of scare-mongering based on wildly exaggerated prophesies of doom, most of which were and are untrue. 

Can you point out what it is that was primarily untruths ?  

Essentially they’ve said that the economy would suffer, it was true, and they’ve said we would lose, not gain, sovereignty, which is now evidently true.

Post edited at 14:20
1
Coel Hellier 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Essentially they’ve said that the economy would suffer, it was true, ...

Without running the counter-factual experiment we can never be sure what the economy would have done if the vote had gone Remain. 

But the economy has done pretty much ok since then; for example the stock market is significantly up, government borrowing is significantly down, unemployment is significantly down, et cetera.  

The doom-and-gloom predictions about what would follow merely from the vote itself, never mind the actual exit, have not come to pass.

1
Coel Hellier 13 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Lack of supporting evidence for personal opinion presented as fact duly noted.

You could say the same about many of your posts.  For example:

"The referendum wasn't won by the many, it was won by the few; the relatively small number of voters who were convinced to vote Leave based on targeted social media lies ..."

1
Offwidth 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

I doubt we can say they got 'everything right' as, if nothing else, we can't compare wth the alternative universe where the vote was lost. I agree the predictions were not unreasonable (and dishonestly portrayed by some opponents,  like Nigel) but that has been the case at other times when they were proved wrong. It's scary when politicians say 'we have had enough of experts'. Economics may be an inexact science but it is a very useful one. Brexit is a sign of strange times,  indicated by things like  physics profs expressing political opinion as fact. I'm watching for the seven seals ;-)

2
Coel Hellier 13 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> It's scary when politicians say 'we have had enough of experts'.

But he didn't quite say that, did he? Wouldn't it be more honest to quote his entire sentence? (Not that anyone ever does.)

3
Offwidth 13 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

"I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong."

Better?... still dangerously unfair in my opinion (and bullshit on the consistently bit)

Post edited at 15:18
1
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> I doubt we can say they got 'everything right' as, if nothing else, we can't compare wth the alternative universe where the vote was lost.

But that argument cuts both ways.

If you look at the forecast pre referendum and the actuals, the impact of Brexit so far has been well within the range predicted by the treasury analysis, except, as I’ve said, on unemployment.

1
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Without running the counter-factual experiment we can never be sure what the economy would have done if the vote had gone Remain. 

Ok, so you basically admit that you are full of shit when claiming it was all untruths.

That’s that sorted, then.

I do love it when you shoot down your own argument.

> The doom-and-gloom predictions about what would follow merely from the vote itself, never mind the actual exit, have not come to pass.

the predictions were not doom and gloom. They were very conservative. And in fact on most indicators the actuals turned out to be worse than predicted (not even considering that we haven’t actually left the EU)

have you even read the treasury analysis ? Or are you again full of shit ?

Post edited at 15:40
2
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But the economy has done pretty much ok since then; for example the stock market is significantly up, government borrowing is significantly down, unemployment is significantly down, et cetera.  

As I’ve said, unemployment they got wrong (they always do). For the rest they did not. As for gov borrowing it went down by less than expected. It wasn’t part of the treasury analysis though.

Thats another clue telling us you haven’t read the treasury analysis.

Coel Hellier 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> have you even read the treasury analysis ? Or are you again full of shit ?

Analysis by the Treasury (an organisation attempting to give neutral advice) is not quite the same thing as the Remain campaigners.    It was the latter that I accused of "doom and gloom" predictions. 

RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Analysis by the Treasury (an organisation attempting to give neutral advice) is not quite the same thing as the Remain campaigners.    It was the latter that I accused of "doom and gloom" predictions. 

The remain campaign referred to the treasury analysis.

In the meantime, brexiteers predicted countries queuing up to do fantastic trade deals with us, plenty of money for the NHS, renewed sovereignty, the Germans would be begging to access the UK market, Turkey would join the EU, and doing a deal with the EU would be the easiest deal in history.

They’ve been proven categorically and beyond any doubt to be wrong on all counts. As soon as the referendum was won the first thing they did was to wipe all the campaign material from their website and fed the shredding machines with their financials.

just look at the vote leave official leaflet. Pretty much every single « fact » is  wrong.

They’re a fraud, have proven to be fraudsters, and now are telling us that the only reason their fantasies have not realised is because of the « «traitors » in government.

And of course you take their side.

Here is one of their « fact » just for laughs:

« taking  back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave »

And now they want no deal...

Post edited at 17:11
1
Coel Hellier 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> In the meantime, brexiteers predicted ...

Well yes, the Brexit side predicted lots of wrong stuff also.  The campaign was hugely badly conducted on both sides.  Just don't try to make out that this was one-sided. 

6
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Well yes, the Brexit side predicted lots of wrong stuff also. 

Not « lots ». They got everything single one completely wrong. All of them.

> The campaign was hugely badly conducted on both sides.  Just don't try to make out that this was one-sided. 

No, it was incompetent and weak, but relatively honest on the remain side, and it was blatantly illegal, fraudulent, and entirely built on lies on the other side.

Remain had water pistols they couldn’t even aim, and leave had mustard gas.

It was very one sided.

Post edited at 17:34
4
Pan Ron 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

I have a nagging feeling that a lot of remainers like yourself don't really know any Brexiteers beyond the caricatures presented in most of the media.  I have never met any in the flesh who were cretons, and who didn't have some well thought-out opinions and a rational backing for their decision.  Interestingly the Trump supporters I've met are much the same.  They simply don't conform to the way they are portrayed.  Maybe my sample size is small, but if you consider in both cases they equal around 50% of the population, and given most people are pretty agreeable, the assumption that they are deluded idiots should, logically, be highly unlikely.

The argument then that their side got every single point completely wrong would seem to be very wide of the mark.  It would imply mass delusion and idiocy - which I grant you, is an attractive way to dismiss your opponents, especially if the alternative to dismissing them would likely be a healthy dose of introspection.  Maybe the absolute certainty of the Remain camp could do with a little flex, and that maybe your perception of half the people you share this country with, and their political inclinations, might be every bit as extreme and distorted as you assume theirs to be.

7
Rob Exile Ward 13 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

You're wrong. My sailing partner for the last few years is an ardent brexiteer; my ex business partner who I've been personal friends with since 1985 is a brexiteer; I've given training courses where in discussions over lunch some of the delegates have been brexiteers.

I''ve never heard a single one put forward anything other than the half baked drivel that Farage comes up with. I could do a better argument for Brexit myself.

john arran 13 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

My mother voted to Leave. She reads the Daily Mail every day and swears it doesn't affect her opinions. She has no argument for Brexit to offer other than the simplistic lies the DM routinely trots out in lieu of genuine reasoning.

1
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I have a nagging feeling that a lot of remainers like yourself don't really know any Brexiteers beyond the caricatures presented in most of the media.  I have never met any in the flesh who were cretons, and who didn't have some well thought-out opinions and a rational backing for their decision. 

Wrong. I know many Brexiteers in the flesh. Some  of them are cretons indeed. But this isn’t the majority.

This has nothing to do with intellectual capacity. Some of the most brilliant minds supported Nazis or communist regimes. And in many cases these awful regimes had the support of the majority. These people were not evil. Nor stupid. But still, they were badly mislead. And completely wrong.

I am afraid the argument that the majority cannot be completely wrong is not only naive, it’s terribly simplistic and one dimensional. There isn’t one majority.

Wisdom is not the same as intelligence. Even the most intelligent people succumb to the power of ideology. In fact they can be highly sensitive to it.

To put it simply, I have nothing against people who honestly support Brexit and honestly think it’s best for them. What I am vehemently against though is for it to be imposed by force on others. 

> The argument then that their side got every single point completely wrong would seem to be very wide of the mark.  

Unfortunately it’s bang on the mark, I’m afraid. I’m struggling to find anything the Brexiteers have said that wasn’t a gross misrepresentation or a straight up lie.

Now of course the problem is that because their fantasies cannot be realised, they just double down on it. I’m afraid this is a process that’s going to have to run it’s course, and in the meantime, many people have to suffer the consequences.

Post edited at 20:26
6
Pefa 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> This has nothing to do with intellectual capacity. Some of the most brilliant minds supported Nazis or communist regimes. And in many cases these awful regimes had the support of the majority. These people were not evil. Nor stupid. But still, they were badly mislead. And completely wrong.

Is that why most Russians wish the USSR was still there? 

Perhaps it is you who is mislead about people from countries that actually had the courage to stand against their ruling class and replace it with a progressive society. 

> Wisdom is not the same as intelligence. Even the most intelligent people succumb to the power of ideology. In fact they can be highly sensitive to it.

Do you think capitalism is something other than another ideology? 

2
Rob Exile Ward 13 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Yes. FYI capitalism is to human behaviour what gravity is to physics: it's what happens.

As Elizabeth Gaitskell put it: 'zxx was not so naive to think everyone could be equal. If they were, someone would get up a half hour earlier the next day and start pulling ahead.'

RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Is that why most Russians wish the USSR was still there? 

According to your argument Russian must all be stupid then. Or maybe , just maybe they’re just being hoodwinked by a bunch of nostalgic authoritarian nationalist. Does that ring any bell ?

> Perhaps it is you who is mislead about people from countries that actually had the courage to stand against their ruling class and replace it with a progressive society. 

Whenever I hear the word « progressive » I call bullshit. It doesn’t mean anything. whenever people call their politic « progressive » what they mean is that they actually have no bleeding idea of what their policies are.

Of course anybody is for « progress ». But I don’t call restricting individual freedom « progress ». And that’s exactly what Brexit does.

> Do you think capitalism is something other than another ideology? 

It is. But some of it component have survived the test of time. Probably because some of it maps to a fairly natural state. Free markets and private property are as old as civilisation is.

However whereever some try to make it an absolutist goal and try to impose it by force, it tends to completely break down.

Identitarian nationalism underpinned by authoritarian ideas never has stood the test of time. It always breaks down.

In the case if Brexit you could say we are already seeing it completely breaking down. The country has spent three years self absorbed in this wretched Brexit, doing nothing else of substance and going nowhere.

Post edited at 22:08
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I''ve never heard a single one put forward anything other than the half baked drivel that Farage comes up with. I could do a better argument for Brexit myself.

Same here.

Pefa 13 May 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Yes. FYI capitalism is to human behaviour what gravity is to physics: it's what happens.

BS

Capitalism was forced on the world by a handful of European countries in order to plunder and control their resources and wealth. It is completely unnatural. 

> As Elizabeth Gaitskell put it: 'zxx was not so naive to think everyone could be equal. If they were, someone would get up a half hour earlier the next day and start pulling ahead.'

Jesus wept! You think that worker control over the means of production doesn't allow people to get ahead of other? 

4
Pefa 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> According to your argument Russian must all be stupid then.

Nice switch but it is you who said "they were completely wrong" or "misled", not I who stated you and many others do not know better than the Russian people how things were for them during socialism. 

> Or maybe , just maybe they’re just being hoodwinked by a bunch of nostalgic authoritarian nationalist. Does that ring any bell ?

They don't pay much attention to the Tory or Blairites or US dynasties so I wouldn't have thought so. 

> Whenever I hear the word « progressive » I call bullshit. It doesn’t mean anything. whenever people call their politic « progressive » what they mean is that they actually have no bleeding idea of what their policies are.

Progressive is just another word for the left, unity, anti-war, anti-imperialism, social welfare, no unemployment, free this free that, workers owning the means of production, a society for the masses and not the ruling class etc

> Of course anybody is for « progress ». But I don’t call restricting individual freedom « progress ». And that’s exactly what Brexit does.

I don't want to get involved in a brexit argument so I'll let you get on with that. 

> It is. But some of it component have survived the test of time. Probably because some of it maps to a fairly natural state. Free markets and private property are as old as civilisation is.

War, slavery, imperialism, racism, starving, repeated genocides, all very old going back and all a part of capitalism, but is that natural or really us or "civilization"? BTW people owned property in socialist countries. 

> However whereever some try to make it an absolutist goal and try to impose it by force, it tends to completely break down.

Depends on how great the force is doesn't it? If you take capitalism it failed loads of times but because the few ruling class had all the power they could get what they want and keep it going. 

Post edited at 23:19
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> BS

> Capitalism was forced on the world by a handful of European countries in order to plunder and control their resources and wealth. It is completely unnatural.

We find plenty of 4000 tablets from Babylonia that show that private investment receipt, market prices and so on. And it was a very prosperous and advanced civilisation. Same thing for ancient China, or India.

It doesn’t mean it has to be the one and only system. One can be a communist at the family level, a socialist at the regional level and a capitalist at the global level, or any other combination, all at the same time.

It is those who seek to push down their one preferred system from the top down you should worry about. Be it the capitalist or the communists.

RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Nice switch but it is you who said "they were completely wrong" or "misled", not I who stated you and many others do not know better than the Russian people how things were for them during socialism. 

No. You still did not get it. Your argument was that Brexit can’t be all wrong if the people who voted for it are not stupid. My argument is that you can be completely wrong, and completely misled, and not be stupid.

> Progressive is just another word for the left, unity, anti-war, anti-imperialism, social welfare, no unemployment, free this free that, workers owning the means of production, a society for the masses and not the ruling class etc

More meaningless drivel.

> I don't want to get involved in a brexit argument so I'll let you get on with that. 

Indeed, I bet that it is much easier for you to keep spouting meaningless ideological drivel than discuss actual policies.

> War, slavery, imperialism, racism, starving, repeated genocides, all very old going back and all a part of capitalism, but is that natural or really us or "civilization"? BTW people owned property in socialist countries. 

Ho yes, because before capitalism there wasn’t war, slavery, racism, and the whole lot. Of course.

> Depends on how great the force is doesn't it? If you take capitalism it failed loads of times.

It failed loads of time and still exists. Not because of some grand multi generational conspiracy, but because it is a robust system, that people in the real world, in practice, outside your little pseudo-intellectual world, end up using wherever it works.

Pefa 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> We find plenty of 4000 tablets from Babylonia that show that private investment receipt, market prices and so on. And it was a very prosperous and advanced civilisation. Same thing for ancient China, or India.

Ancient China and India were not capitalist and nor was Babylonia. Having receipts and a price is no different to what you had in socialist countries (Although a great deal was done without money) Some noble giving gold or jewellery to a king to help fund his attack on another tribe is not capitalism? 

> It doesn’t mean it has to be the one and only system. One can be a communist at the family level, a socialist at the regional level and a capitalist at the global level, or any other combination, all at the same time.

I never heard that one before, can't get my head round it tbh, you shut me up there,well done. 

> It is those who seek to push down their one preferred system from the top down you should worry about. Be it the capitalist or the communists.

Don't worry. 

Pefa 13 May 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No. You still did not get it. Your argument was that Brexit can’t be all wrong if the people who voted for it are not stupid. My argument is that you can be completely wrong, and completely misled, and not be stupid.

Hey, hey, I was not referring to brexit in any way shape or form, you must have picked me up wrong. 

> Indeed, I bet that it is much easier for you to keep spouting meaningless ideological drivel than discuss actual policies.

I can see you are miffed, I don't like to have that affect on anyone but we are at crossed wires here. 

> Ho yes, because before capitalism there wasn’t war, slavery, racism, and the whole lot. Of course.

That is why I wrote "all very old going back" then " and all a part of capitalism". I should have put a coma or an also in. 

> It failed loads of time and still exists. Not because of some grand multi generational conspiracy, but because it is a robust system, that people in the real world, in practice, outside your little pseudo-intellectual world, end up using wherever it works.

I'll let you calm down, I think your emotions are talking, sorry if I caused that,and i genuinely mean it BTW. 

RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Ancient China and India were not capitalist and nor was Babylonia.

Wrong. They were. They had private property, accumulation of capital, and trade. They even had the equivalent of bank and finance. All the essentials of a capitalist system.

> Having receipts and a price is no different to what you had in socialist countries (Although a great deal was done without money) Some noble giving gold or jewellery to a king to help fund his attack on another tribe is not capitalism? 

Well it is. In order to be able to give gold or jewellery to the king you need first to be able  accumulate it. That’s a capitalistic feature.

> I never heard that one before, can't get my head round it tbh, you shut me up there,well done. 

People who spend too much up time practising ideological masturbation don’t get complexity and dimensionality because it explodes their little simplistic mental constructs.

The only systems that are bad are those that don’t allow variety. A purely capitalistic system, or a purely communist system, is like a monoculture, it dies suddenly and catastrophically at the slightest disease. The good systems are those that grow organically and by nature, are too complex to be engineered by humans.

Post edited at 23:59
1
RomTheBear 13 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Hey, hey, I was not referring to brexit in any way shape or form, you must have picked me up wrong. 

Sorry confused you with another poster on this one.

> I can see you are miffed, I don't like to have that affect on anyone but we are at crossed wires here. 

> I'll let you calm down, I think your emotions are talking, sorry if I caused that,and i genuinely mean it BTW. 

It’s not my emotions talking. I genuinely mean it and expressed it this way with calm and intent. So please don’t feel sorry (I do appreciate the gesture though)!

Post edited at 23:54
1
jim robertson 14 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

If Farage had actually attended the European Parliament more frequently (arguably influencing policy) AND appeared as often as he does within the media, then perhaps the dick wouldn't be regarded by so many as precisely that. Statistics for voting and attendances show Farage is ranked 738th out of 751 MEPs for productivity. 

1
Offwidth 19 May 2019

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.