This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
"The return of tariffs to goods and services would cost 526,830 British jobs and 1.209 million jobs in the remaining 27 EU member states, according to researchers at Belgium’s University of Leuven, one of the top 50 global universities. The damage would lead to a 4.48% drop in UK GDP and 1.54% in EU GDP, researchers found."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/25/hard-brexit-will-hurt-eu-britain...
Although it does first try to misrepresent the situation in its headline: "Hard Brexit will hurt EU more than Britain", clearly based on actual numbers rather than any proportional effect expected.
If even the Telegraph is conceding disaster, is there anyone left willing to stick up for it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/25/hard-brexit-will-hurt-eu-britain...
Although it does first try to misrepresent the situation in its headline: "Hard Brexit will hurt EU more than Britain", clearly based on actual numbers rather than any proportional effect expected.
If even the Telegraph is conceding disaster, is there anyone left willing to stick up for it?
21
3
In reply to john arran:
Presumably, The Mail. Mind you, they were apologists for Hitler in the '30s.
Presumably, The Mail. Mind you, they were apologists for Hitler in the '30s.
29
3
In reply to john arran:
PMP will be along soon to explain how the Telegraph is being "emotional" and that it's all great really.
> If even the Telegraph is conceding disaster, is there anyone left willing to stick up for it?
PMP will be along soon to explain how the Telegraph is being "emotional" and that it's all great really.
18
3
In reply to John Stainforth:
The Mail can be quite balanced on the facts of Brexit, though it still whole heartedly supports it, and you do wonder if they just do bad brexit stories to generate comment.
For full frothing at the mouth loony, it has to be the Express
The Mail can be quite balanced on the facts of Brexit, though it still whole heartedly supports it, and you do wonder if they just do bad brexit stories to generate comment.
For full frothing at the mouth loony, it has to be the Express
6
5
4
3
In reply to stevieb:
Oi don't knock the Express; it's where I get my long range weather forecasts from. This winter's going to be the coldest for 5000 years so get your axes sharpened.
> For full frothing at the mouth loony, it has to be the Express
Oi don't knock the Express; it's where I get my long range weather forecasts from. This winter's going to be the coldest for 5000 years so get your axes sharpened.
22
In reply to john arran:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/revealed-hard-brexit-will-cost-b...
Up to 9.5% drop in GDP this time last year - things are looking up!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/revealed-hard-brexit-will-cost-b...
Up to 9.5% drop in GDP this time last year - things are looking up!
1
In reply to john arran:
I've worked out it to be 526,817, so, scaremongering by the Belgium academics there.
> "The return of tariffs to goods and services would cost 526,830 British jobs
I've worked out it to be 526,817, so, scaremongering by the Belgium academics there.
18
In reply to john arran:
You can immediately recognize crap science, and that includes the vast majority of economic "research" without further analyisis, by their blatant abuse of precision. Seriously, prediction of UK job losses down to the tens, which immediately begs the question why the rEU figures are two orders of magnitude less precise?
Brexit will likely hit the UK harder, as there are no dilution effects, and because companies will relocate / prioritize future investments to the single market. To what extent the latter will happen, who knows. Whether that can be balanced by increased efficency, e.g. by increased deregulation is even less clear, as noone knows which regulations will replace the EU versions past Brexit.
Worthless "science", and even worse reporting!
CB
You can immediately recognize crap science, and that includes the vast majority of economic "research" without further analyisis, by their blatant abuse of precision. Seriously, prediction of UK job losses down to the tens, which immediately begs the question why the rEU figures are two orders of magnitude less precise?
Brexit will likely hit the UK harder, as there are no dilution effects, and because companies will relocate / prioritize future investments to the single market. To what extent the latter will happen, who knows. Whether that can be balanced by increased efficency, e.g. by increased deregulation is even less clear, as noone knows which regulations will replace the EU versions past Brexit.
Worthless "science", and even worse reporting!
CB
6
2
6
2
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Yes I would, or at least I would like journalists to report the numbers as "roughly half a million" or "between 100k and ten million", whatever applies here, to give readers not familiar with statistics an honest idea about the reliability of the claims. A link to any original research cited would also be nice.
CB
Yes I would, or at least I would like journalists to report the numbers as "roughly half a million" or "between 100k and ten million", whatever applies here, to give readers not familiar with statistics an honest idea about the reliability of the claims. A link to any original research cited would also be nice.
CB
4
In reply to John Stainforth:
Whilst the Garaniad was supporting Stalin (and firing Malcolm Muggeridge for suggesting that the Ukranian famine might not have been great thing, and the Daily Mirror (along with much of the Fabian left) was supporting Mussolini.
> Presumably, The Mail. Mind you, they were apologists for Hitler in the '30s.
Whilst the Garaniad was supporting Stalin (and firing Malcolm Muggeridge for suggesting that the Ukranian famine might not have been great thing, and the Daily Mirror (along with much of the Fabian left) was supporting Mussolini.
10
6
2
1
In reply to MG:
What an emotional comment.
> PMP will be along soon to explain how the Telegraph is being "emotional" and that it's all great really.
What an emotional comment.
5
6
In reply to cb294:
I'd suspect it would be quite good if all politicians had compulsory stats training....
> Yes I would, or at least I would like journalists to report the numbers as "roughly half a million" or "between 100k and ten million", whatever applies here, to give readers not familiar with statistics an honest idea about the reliability of the claims. A link to any original research cited would also be nice.
> CB
I'd suspect it would be quite good if all politicians had compulsory stats training....
3
In reply to baron:
The point wasn't that the figures were accurate. Being economic predictions it is to be expected that they would have a large margin of error. Rather it was that, given figures that show a clearly disproportionate hit to the UK economy compared to those of the other EU states, the DT still lies to its readership and makes it look like the opposite. No wonder some people still don't see leaving as being the catastrophe in waiting it clearly promises to be.
> Cb294 says your quoted figures are rubbish,mand he's a remainer.
The point wasn't that the figures were accurate. Being economic predictions it is to be expected that they would have a large margin of error. Rather it was that, given figures that show a clearly disproportionate hit to the UK economy compared to those of the other EU states, the DT still lies to its readership and makes it look like the opposite. No wonder some people still don't see leaving as being the catastrophe in waiting it clearly promises to be.
7
4
In reply to john arran:
I wasn't disagreeing with your original post.
Simply trying to show that a fellow remainer was calling your figures rubbish.
One would hope that being DT readers they'd read the article and not just the headline.
I wasn't disagreeing with your original post.
Simply trying to show that a fellow remainer was calling your figures rubbish.
One would hope that being DT readers they'd read the article and not just the headline.
2
4
In reply to Dr.S at work:
The problem really is that we all need stats training. If "We, the Great British people" don't understand the stats then it makes little difference whether politicians understand them; they can still use the numbers that suit them whatever.
And of course, not quite the same point as that made above about absurd error ranges, there are so many, many variables in the 'economic' computations around Brexit that quantifying things at all is slightly daft. As always, most of 'feel' about the issue, rather than 'calculate' about it.
> I'd suspect it would be quite good if all politicians had compulsory stats training....
The problem really is that we all need stats training. If "We, the Great British people" don't understand the stats then it makes little difference whether politicians understand them; they can still use the numbers that suit them whatever.
And of course, not quite the same point as that made above about absurd error ranges, there are so many, many variables in the 'economic' computations around Brexit that quantifying things at all is slightly daft. As always, most of 'feel' about the issue, rather than 'calculate' about it.
3
1
In reply to john arran:
It's an appalling piece of journalism, replicated elsewhere, presumably because the original press blurb was useless. Over what timeframe are these numbers? 1 year? 20 years?
If it's up to 2030 like most such estimates then it's actually at the more positive end of forecasts. If for year 1, then it's much the worst.
It's an appalling piece of journalism, replicated elsewhere, presumably because the original press blurb was useless. Over what timeframe are these numbers? 1 year? 20 years?
If it's up to 2030 like most such estimates then it's actually at the more positive end of forecasts. If for year 1, then it's much the worst.
Post edited at 20:35
4
8
In reply to Postmanpat:
You know, it took me less than 5 minutes of research to ascertain you are, lets just call it revisioning history
> Whilst the Garaniad was supporting Stalin (and firing Malcolm Muggeridge for suggesting that the Ukranian famine might not have been great thing, and the Daily Mirror (along with much of the Fabian left) was supporting Mussolini.
You know, it took me less than 5 minutes of research to ascertain you are, lets just call it revisioning history
5
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Which bit? The only thing to dispute is whether Muggeridge was officially fired or left after being accused by the Granaiad of lying.
> You know, it took me less than 5 minutes of research to ascertain you are, lets just call it revisioning history
Which bit? The only thing to dispute is whether Muggeridge was officially fired or left after being accused by the Granaiad of lying.
Post edited at 20:52
2
4
In reply to john arran:
On the bright side however, many of the newly redundant will be Eastern Europeans who will then go home and tilt the figures a bit more in our favour.
Sorry, if I'm not taking this seriously enough but then how seriously should we take these forecasts anyway?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2017/jan/08/economic-fo...
> "The return of tariffs to goods and services would cost 526,830 British jobs and 1.209 million jobs in the remaining 27 EU member states, according to researchers at Belgium’s University of Leuven, one of the top 50 global universities. The damage would lead to a 4.48% drop in UK GDP and 1.54% in EU GDP, researchers found." >
On the bright side however, many of the newly redundant will be Eastern Europeans who will then go home and tilt the figures a bit more in our favour.
Sorry, if I'm not taking this seriously enough but then how seriously should we take these forecasts anyway?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2017/jan/08/economic-fo...
3
3
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Come on then.....
> You know, it took me less than 5 minutes of research to ascertain you are, lets just call it revisioning history
Come on then.....
Post edited at 21:52
2
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Well lets see.
He was already not working for the Guardian at the time of the Famine, so he could hardly get fired for reporting on it.
Your claim that The Guardian would have somehow fired him because of his reporting on it was critical of the Soviets is somewhat spurious, seeing as the Guardian was 1 of the papers which published Gareth Jones' report of the Famine which blew the lid on it in the West and was anything but 'positive'.
So your claim of firing Malcolm Muggeridge for suggesting that the Ukranian famine might not have been great thing is simply a downright lie.
You say the Garaniad was supporting Stalin which is intentionally misleading as at the time every single newspaper in the UK was being careful of not being critical of Stalin's regime, not because they actually supported him, but because there was a national policy of not pissing off the Russians.
You also point Daily Mirror's support for Mussolini as some sort of left-wing-wide example of depravity, but forgot to mention that at the time the Daily Mirror was owned by the Rothermere family along with the Daily Mail, the same Rothermeres that were personal friends with both Hitler and Mussolini, and unsurprisingly it was a right wing newspaper with all the fascist tendencies the Right has. It was quite a few years after that the Mirror was turned into a paper leaning towards Socialism purely as a move to make more money and not to compete against the Mail, and it took much longer to finally move away from the Rothermere's influence.
So when you write "Daily Mirror was supporting Mussolini." you are being misleading to give the impression that the sentence reads "left wing newspaper supports fascist dictator", when in fact that sentence reads "right wing newspaper owned by nazi sympathizer (unsurprisingly) supports fascist dictators"
Well lets see.
He was already not working for the Guardian at the time of the Famine, so he could hardly get fired for reporting on it.
Your claim that The Guardian would have somehow fired him because of his reporting on it was critical of the Soviets is somewhat spurious, seeing as the Guardian was 1 of the papers which published Gareth Jones' report of the Famine which blew the lid on it in the West and was anything but 'positive'.
So your claim of firing Malcolm Muggeridge for suggesting that the Ukranian famine might not have been great thing is simply a downright lie.
You say the Garaniad was supporting Stalin which is intentionally misleading as at the time every single newspaper in the UK was being careful of not being critical of Stalin's regime, not because they actually supported him, but because there was a national policy of not pissing off the Russians.
You also point Daily Mirror's support for Mussolini as some sort of left-wing-wide example of depravity, but forgot to mention that at the time the Daily Mirror was owned by the Rothermere family along with the Daily Mail, the same Rothermeres that were personal friends with both Hitler and Mussolini, and unsurprisingly it was a right wing newspaper with all the fascist tendencies the Right has. It was quite a few years after that the Mirror was turned into a paper leaning towards Socialism purely as a move to make more money and not to compete against the Mail, and it took much longer to finally move away from the Rothermere's influence.
So when you write "Daily Mirror was supporting Mussolini." you are being misleading to give the impression that the sentence reads "left wing newspaper supports fascist dictator", when in fact that sentence reads "right wing newspaper owned by nazi sympathizer (unsurprisingly) supports fascist dictators"
Post edited at 22:10
25
2
In reply to john arran:
We also need to look at what continued membership would cost us. Having looked at this plenty of folk prefer out. Of course it could all be avoided if European leaders adopted a less confrontational attitude. If the numbers are approximately right then we are not the only ones facing job losses. Seems pretty silly to carry on in the face of British determination to avoid federalism at the hands of JC Juncket and his cohort when a spot of realism might get a better result all round.
We also need to look at what continued membership would cost us. Having looked at this plenty of folk prefer out. Of course it could all be avoided if European leaders adopted a less confrontational attitude. If the numbers are approximately right then we are not the only ones facing job losses. Seems pretty silly to carry on in the face of British determination to avoid federalism at the hands of JC Juncket and his cohort when a spot of realism might get a better result all round.
2
9
In reply to Mr Lopez:
From the New York Times:" While teaching at the University of Cairo in the late 1920's, Mr. Muggeridge wrote several articles on Egypt's struggle for national liberation for The Manchester Guardian, which he considered the most progressive newspaper in the world.
He soon joined its reporting staff, and he also began to review books, an occupation that he pursued for many publications for the rest of his life. In 1931, his play "Three Flats" was a London success, and that, along with his novel "Autumnal Face," launched him as a man of letters.
The Guardian's posting of Malcolm and Kitty Muggeridge to Moscow in 1932 struck the two youthful socialists as being "a wondrous development," he was to recall, and secretly they intended to remain in the Soviet Union forever, even going so far as to jettison bourgeois trappings like their marriage license and university degrees and their evening clothes.
Communism, though, quickly proved to be a god that failed for Mr. Muggeridge, who was appalled in Moscow to see his Guardian dispatches heavily censored and to encounter evidence of new political purges in the making.
Furthermore, he said, his Guardian editors watered down the truthful dispatches he managed to get through, particularly those about the famine of 1932, and so, in 1933, in utter contempt of the Soviet Union and The Guardian, the Muggeridges returned home. He disgustedly quit his job and wrote a best-seller, "Winter in Moscow," which infuriated his old friends on the left because it mercilessly attacked the Soviet system.
Or the Speccie: "On returning to Moscow Muggeridge wrote three of the most important articles he has ever written. His description of the famine and its causes was in effect his public repudiation of Soviet communism and his former beliefs. Now, he argued, 'the tendency in Russia is towards a slave State'. The Fabian had become a harbinger of Stalinism.
In Britain Muggeridge's dispatches were received with scepticism and incredulity. In the Manchester Guardian and the New Statesman he was actually accused of being a liar. The reaction of his former friends is best exemplified by the entry in Beatrice
Webb's diary: 'Malcolm has come back with stories about a terrible famine in the USSR. I have been to see Mr Maisky [the Soviet ambassador in Britain] about it, and I realise he's got it absolutely wrong.' Moreover, Muggeridge claims his standing as a journalist was damaged and no newspaper would hire him. Reluctantly he had to seek employment in Geneva and later Calcutta."
Do you want some more? Others say he was fired as opposed to leaving in disgust. For example "United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror" which I'm sure you'll enjoy.
Gareth Jones actually wrote the Guardian supporting and complaining of the treatment of reports (probably those of Muggeridge) on the Ukrainian famine.
http://www.garethjones.org/overview/muggeridge2.htm
Not in the 1930s they weren't. Why the hell would they be?
I think you'll find that The Rothermere who owned both died some died nearly 80 years ago. Are you responsible for your great grandfather's views? Both the Mirror and Mail supportd Mussolini but funnnily enough the left has a selective memory.
Actually many of the Fabian left were supporters of Mussolini as well: HG.Wells and GB Shaw for a start.
> Well lets see.
> He was already not working for the Guardian at the time of the Famine, so he could hardly get fired for reporting on it.
> Your claim that The Guardian would have somehow fired him because of his reporting on it was critical of the Soviets is somewhat spurious, seeing as the Guardian was 1 of the papers which published Gareth Jones' report of the Famine which blew the lid on it in the West and was anything but 'positive'.
>> Your claim that The Guardian would have somehow fired him because of his reporting on it was critical of the Soviets is somewhat spurious, seeing as the Guardian was 1 of the papers which published Gareth Jones' report of the Famine which blew the lid on it in the West and was anything but 'positive'.
From the New York Times:" While teaching at the University of Cairo in the late 1920's, Mr. Muggeridge wrote several articles on Egypt's struggle for national liberation for The Manchester Guardian, which he considered the most progressive newspaper in the world.
He soon joined its reporting staff, and he also began to review books, an occupation that he pursued for many publications for the rest of his life. In 1931, his play "Three Flats" was a London success, and that, along with his novel "Autumnal Face," launched him as a man of letters.
The Guardian's posting of Malcolm and Kitty Muggeridge to Moscow in 1932 struck the two youthful socialists as being "a wondrous development," he was to recall, and secretly they intended to remain in the Soviet Union forever, even going so far as to jettison bourgeois trappings like their marriage license and university degrees and their evening clothes.
Communism, though, quickly proved to be a god that failed for Mr. Muggeridge, who was appalled in Moscow to see his Guardian dispatches heavily censored and to encounter evidence of new political purges in the making.
Furthermore, he said, his Guardian editors watered down the truthful dispatches he managed to get through, particularly those about the famine of 1932, and so, in 1933, in utter contempt of the Soviet Union and The Guardian, the Muggeridges returned home. He disgustedly quit his job and wrote a best-seller, "Winter in Moscow," which infuriated his old friends on the left because it mercilessly attacked the Soviet system.
Or the Speccie: "On returning to Moscow Muggeridge wrote three of the most important articles he has ever written. His description of the famine and its causes was in effect his public repudiation of Soviet communism and his former beliefs. Now, he argued, 'the tendency in Russia is towards a slave State'. The Fabian had become a harbinger of Stalinism.
In Britain Muggeridge's dispatches were received with scepticism and incredulity. In the Manchester Guardian and the New Statesman he was actually accused of being a liar. The reaction of his former friends is best exemplified by the entry in Beatrice
Webb's diary: 'Malcolm has come back with stories about a terrible famine in the USSR. I have been to see Mr Maisky [the Soviet ambassador in Britain] about it, and I realise he's got it absolutely wrong.' Moreover, Muggeridge claims his standing as a journalist was damaged and no newspaper would hire him. Reluctantly he had to seek employment in Geneva and later Calcutta."
Do you want some more? Others say he was fired as opposed to leaving in disgust. For example "United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror" which I'm sure you'll enjoy.
Gareth Jones actually wrote the Guardian supporting and complaining of the treatment of reports (probably those of Muggeridge) on the Ukrainian famine.
http://www.garethjones.org/overview/muggeridge2.htm
> So your claim of firing Malcolm Muggeridge for suggesting that the Ukranian famine might not have been great thing is simply a downright lie.
> You say the Garaniad was supporting Stalin which is intentional misleading as at the time every single newspaper in the UK was being careful of not being critical of Stalin;s regime, not because they actually supported him, but because there was a national policy of not pissing off the Russians.
>Not in the 1930s they weren't. Why the hell would they be?
> You also point Daily Mirror's support for Mussolini as some sort of left-wing-wide example of depravity, but forgot to mention that at the time the Daily Mirror was owned by the Rothermere family along with the Daily Mail, the same Rothermeres that were personal friends with both Hitler and Mussolini, and unsurprisingly it was a right wing newspaper with all the fascist tendencies the Right has.
>I think you'll find that The Rothermere who owned both died some died nearly 80 years ago. Are you responsible for your great grandfather's views? Both the Mirror and Mail supportd Mussolini but funnnily enough the left has a selective memory.
Actually many of the Fabian left were supporters of Mussolini as well: HG.Wells and GB Shaw for a start.
Post edited at 22:44
3
5
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Well done. Twelve likes for a post that is almost entirely factually incorrect bar one disputed issue. Do lefties have no shame or just no knowledge?
Well done. Twelve likes for a post that is almost entirely factually incorrect bar one disputed issue. Do lefties have no shame or just no knowledge?
Post edited at 23:31
6
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
And where in that wall of text does it says he was fired for reporting on Ukraine? Or that he was actively employed by the guardian when doing so?
He was indeed sent by the Guardian as a reporter, but he instead dedicated his time to write his book and became a paid-per-publication freelance.
Malcolm Muggeridge, a freelance reporter in the soviet union for the Manchester Guardian
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xBOsCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg#v=onep...
the book was not published. This setback caused considerable financial difficulties for Muggeridge, who was not employed at the time, being paid only for articles which were accepted. Increasingly disillusioned by his observations of communism in practice, Muggeridge decided to investigate reports of the famine in Ukraine,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Muggeridge
Muggeridge smuggled his reports back to the Guardian via a British diplomatic bag.
The newspaper published them, somewhat reluctantly, in March 1933. His articles
prompted a furious response. In the west, Muggeridge's revelations were met with
widespread incredulity; he was accused of being a liar. He found it impossible to get a
job as a journalist - he had offended the liberal consensus, he wrote, which still looked
indulgently at the communist experiment taking place under Stalin. He resigned from the
Guardian. He was also unable to return to the Soviet Union.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D3Sd3hLkowcC&pg=PT60#v=onepage&...
Any way you dress it, your claim of firing Malcolm Muggeridge for suggesting that the Ukranian famine might not have been great thing is still a lie.
Apparently they were. Why? I don't know, but when you find out let us know.
I'm struggling to make sense of that.
Understandable for somebody born in the mid-1800's, however at the time the Daily Mirror was supporting his mates Adolf and Benito he was very much alive and kicking and in with his hands firmly in the reins of the paper.
Que? What has anybody's grandson got to do with anything?
El pato grande coge el coche rojo?
> Do you want some more? Others say he was fired as opposed to leaving in disgust.
And where in that wall of text does it says he was fired for reporting on Ukraine? Or that he was actively employed by the guardian when doing so?
He was indeed sent by the Guardian as a reporter, but he instead dedicated his time to write his book and became a paid-per-publication freelance.
Malcolm Muggeridge, a freelance reporter in the soviet union for the Manchester Guardian
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xBOsCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg#v=onep...
the book was not published. This setback caused considerable financial difficulties for Muggeridge, who was not employed at the time, being paid only for articles which were accepted. Increasingly disillusioned by his observations of communism in practice, Muggeridge decided to investigate reports of the famine in Ukraine,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Muggeridge
Muggeridge smuggled his reports back to the Guardian via a British diplomatic bag.
The newspaper published them, somewhat reluctantly, in March 1933. His articles
prompted a furious response. In the west, Muggeridge's revelations were met with
widespread incredulity; he was accused of being a liar. He found it impossible to get a
job as a journalist - he had offended the liberal consensus, he wrote, which still looked
indulgently at the communist experiment taking place under Stalin. He resigned from the
Guardian. He was also unable to return to the Soviet Union.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D3Sd3hLkowcC&pg=PT60#v=onepage&...
Any way you dress it, your claim of firing Malcolm Muggeridge for suggesting that the Ukranian famine might not have been great thing is still a lie.
> Not in the 1930s they weren't. Why the hell would they be?
Apparently they were. Why? I don't know, but when you find out let us know.
> I think you'll find that The Rothermere who owned both died nearly 80 years ago. Are you responsible for your great grandfather's views? Both the Mirror and Mail supportd Mussolini but funnnily enough the left has a selective memory.
I'm struggling to make sense of that.
> I think you'll find that The Rothermere who owned both died nearly 80 years ago
Understandable for somebody born in the mid-1800's, however at the time the Daily Mirror was supporting his mates Adolf and Benito he was very much alive and kicking and in with his hands firmly in the reins of the paper.
> Are you responsible for your great grandfather's views?
Que? What has anybody's grandson got to do with anything?
> Both the Mirror and Mail supportd Mussolini but funnnily enough the left has a selective memory.
El pato grande coge el coche rojo?
13
1
In reply to cb294:
What increased efficiency, from which deregulation? The financial deregulation that led to the 2008 crash? Claims about efficiency gains from deregulation are often from economists - based on the kind of 'crap science' you're talking about?
> increased efficency, e.g. by increased deregulation
What increased efficiency, from which deregulation? The financial deregulation that led to the 2008 crash? Claims about efficiency gains from deregulation are often from economists - based on the kind of 'crap science' you're talking about?
3
In reply to Mr Lopez:
When you say "wall of text" you mean wall of "evidence"? So you are actually reduced to quibbling about the nature of his contract with the Guadian. Really? Talk about missing the point. He was posted there by the Guardian and paid by them to write articles for them that were censored and accused of being lies. He is regularly described as a "correspondent for the Guardian" He spent a short time writing a novel. Does the nature of his contract suddenly make it OK. Bloody hell?
I gave you a source which you clearly never checked. There are others. I won't claim to know which source is correct, just that the Garaniad undermined him and made his role untenable.
https://tinyurl.com/y7kymtp7
Are you going to provide evidence for this?
What's so difficult? The current owners of the respective papers are in neither case the owners at the time so to single one out over the other is clearly invidious. Even the Gardian itself acknowledges that.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-m...
You can deflect all you like about the precise details of Muggeridge's falling out with the guardian but the crux of the matter is that the Guardian and the Fabian left consistently lauded Stalin and undermined and attacked those who told the truth about him. A number of them also supported Mussolini. Hence the endless carping about the Mail and Hitler whilst ignoring the support of the Mirror for the same is just rank hypocrisy.
> And where in that wall of text does it says he was fired for reporting on Ukraine? Or that he was actively employed by the guardian when doing so?
> He was indeed sent by the Guardian as a reporter, but he instead dedicated his time to write his book and became a paid-per-publication freelance.
>> He was indeed sent by the Guardian as a reporter, but he instead dedicated his time to write his book and became a paid-per-publication freelance.
When you say "wall of text" you mean wall of "evidence"? So you are actually reduced to quibbling about the nature of his contract with the Guadian. Really? Talk about missing the point. He was posted there by the Guardian and paid by them to write articles for them that were censored and accused of being lies. He is regularly described as a "correspondent for the Guardian" He spent a short time writing a novel. Does the nature of his contract suddenly make it OK. Bloody hell?
>
> Any way you dress it, your claim of firing Malcolm Muggeridge for suggesting that the Ukranian famine might not have been great thing is still a lie.
>I gave you a source which you clearly never checked. There are others. I won't claim to know which source is correct, just that the Garaniad undermined him and made his role untenable.
https://tinyurl.com/y7kymtp7
> Apparently they were. Why? I don't know, but when you find out let us know.
>Are you going to provide evidence for this?
> I'm struggling to make sense of that.
What's so difficult? The current owners of the respective papers are in neither case the owners at the time so to single one out over the other is clearly invidious. Even the Gardian itself acknowledges that.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-m...
You can deflect all you like about the precise details of Muggeridge's falling out with the guardian but the crux of the matter is that the Guardian and the Fabian left consistently lauded Stalin and undermined and attacked those who told the truth about him. A number of them also supported Mussolini. Hence the endless carping about the Mail and Hitler whilst ignoring the support of the Mirror for the same is just rank hypocrisy.
Post edited at 00:52
7
8
In reply to Bob Kemp:
That'll be elf and safety. If we remove all the safety features from machines in factories, their workers will produce more. A modest investment in the nhs will cover the increased number of lost digits and limbs. Small price to pay in catching up countries like France with higher productivity despite striking weekly.
Ps. Although Corbyns robot tax could impact this plan.
> What increased efficiency, from which deregulation? The financial deregulation that led to the 2008 crash? Claims about efficiency gains from deregulation are often from economists - based on the kind of 'crap science' you're talking about?
That'll be elf and safety. If we remove all the safety features from machines in factories, their workers will produce more. A modest investment in the nhs will cover the increased number of lost digits and limbs. Small price to pay in catching up countries like France with higher productivity despite striking weekly.
Ps. Although Corbyns robot tax could impact this plan.
Post edited at 05:53
2
1
In reply to Bob Kemp:
No idea, don't believe in this either, but wasn't release from the Brussels leash one of the economic arguments pro Brexit?
CB
> What increased efficiency, from which deregulation? The financial deregulation that led to the 2008 crash? Claims about efficiency gains from deregulation are often from economists - based on the kind of 'crap science' you're talking about?
No idea, don't believe in this either, but wasn't release from the Brussels leash one of the economic arguments pro Brexit?
CB
In reply to Postmanpat and Mr Lopez
Lads, Lads....no need to get right into the details of was he / wasn't he, when we have Aung San Suu Kyi. The Guardian would have paid for a statue of her in Trafalger Square a few months ago
Lads, Lads....no need to get right into the details of was he / wasn't he, when we have Aung San Suu Kyi. The Guardian would have paid for a statue of her in Trafalger Square a few months ago
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Oh God... And you are still going...
No, i mean cutting and pasting 2 full newspaper articles that provide zero evidence to back what you wrote.
I'm quibbling about the lies you write, Lets try again, shall we?
You wrote that of the Guardian firing Malcolm Muggeridge for suggesting that the Ukranian famine might not have been great thing
Is that truth or a lie? Come on PMP, by now we both know is a lie.
"United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror". Sounds like a totally unbiased and non-partisan work of journalistic evidence. I'll be sure to take what it says in that book as the truth and ignore every other take on it even if they all unanimously say otherwise.
I'll get on with reading it as soon as i finish my current reading list full of scientific decorum https://www.tfes.org/library.php
I'm kind of busy right now reading about the evidence of the Earth being not spherical to be honest. And there's a few youtube videos about the WTC i want to watch later. All from totally unbiased sources, of course.
We are talking about the freaking 1930's, unless you are now arguing the for Mirror supporting Mussolinni in 2011?
Nazi sympathizer and person in control of 2 right wing newspapers publishes fascist propaganda in said rags shocker! In other news, this winter will be the coldest in 5000 years. You heard it here first!
The crux of the matter is that even when it's obvious everything you said has been debunked as lies or intentional misdirection you still think your point stands "just because". But you know, if that makes you feel better then by all means, feel free to believe whatever you want.
Oh God... And you are still going...
> When you say "wall of text" you mean wall of "evidence"?
No, i mean cutting and pasting 2 full newspaper articles that provide zero evidence to back what you wrote.
> So you are actually reduced to quibbling about the nature of his contract with the Guadian. Really? Talk about missing the point. He was posted there by the Guardian and paid by them to write articles for them that were censored and accused of being lies. He is regularly described as a "correspondent for the Guardian" He spent a short time writing a novel. Does the nature of his contract suddenly make it OK. Bloody hell?
I'm quibbling about the lies you write, Lets try again, shall we?
You wrote that of the Guardian firing Malcolm Muggeridge for suggesting that the Ukranian famine might not have been great thing
Is that truth or a lie? Come on PMP, by now we both know is a lie.
> I gave you a source which you clearly never checked. There are others. I won't claim to know which source is correct, just that the Garaniad undermined him and made his role untenable.
"United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror". Sounds like a totally unbiased and non-partisan work of journalistic evidence. I'll be sure to take what it says in that book as the truth and ignore every other take on it even if they all unanimously say otherwise.
I'll get on with reading it as soon as i finish my current reading list full of scientific decorum https://www.tfes.org/library.php
> Are you going to provide evidence for this?
I'm kind of busy right now reading about the evidence of the Earth being not spherical to be honest. And there's a few youtube videos about the WTC i want to watch later. All from totally unbiased sources, of course.
> What's so difficult? The current owners of the respective papers are in neither case the owners at the time so to single one out over the other is clearly invidious. Even the Gardian itself acknowledges that.
We are talking about the freaking 1930's, unless you are now arguing the for Mirror supporting Mussolinni in 2011?
Nazi sympathizer and person in control of 2 right wing newspapers publishes fascist propaganda in said rags shocker! In other news, this winter will be the coldest in 5000 years. You heard it here first!
> You can deflect all you like about the precise details of Muggeridge's falling out with the guardian but the crux of the matter is that the Guardian and the Fabian left consistently lauded Stalin and undermined and attacked those who told the truth about him. A number of them also supported Mussolini. Hence the endless carping about the Mail and Hitler whilst ignoring the support of the Mirror for the same is just rank hypocrisy.
The crux of the matter is that even when it's obvious everything you said has been debunked as lies or intentional misdirection you still think your point stands "just because". But you know, if that makes you feel better then by all means, feel free to believe whatever you want.
5
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:
The crux of the matter is that you did a quick google of wiki and failed to check any of the evidence that proves you wrong. The only point in dispute is why Muggeridge, the official guardian correspondent in moscow (source: a later such correspondence ,amongst others) left the guardian. The biographer, Ian Hunter, who had access to his letters, diaries etc said that he was fired (as do others).Others have different versions.
If you believe Hunter is lying because Wiki disagrees, then take it up with him instead of sinking to abuse and deflection on here when you're found out.
On your other points: we are also talking about the Mail supporting Hitler in the 1930s!!!
Lets face it we now know that you have no evidence so presumably made up your claim that the UK press was told not to criticise Stalin in the 1930s.
You have not only been shown to be wrong on every single point (situation normal) but shamelessy pretend to have information that you don't. Just be honest.
The crux of the matter is that you did a quick google of wiki and failed to check any of the evidence that proves you wrong. The only point in dispute is why Muggeridge, the official guardian correspondent in moscow (source: a later such correspondence ,amongst others) left the guardian. The biographer, Ian Hunter, who had access to his letters, diaries etc said that he was fired (as do others).Others have different versions.
If you believe Hunter is lying because Wiki disagrees, then take it up with him instead of sinking to abuse and deflection on here when you're found out.
On your other points: we are also talking about the Mail supporting Hitler in the 1930s!!!
Lets face it we now know that you have no evidence so presumably made up your claim that the UK press was told not to criticise Stalin in the 1930s.
You have not only been shown to be wrong on every single point (situation normal) but shamelessy pretend to have information that you don't. Just be honest.
Post edited at 15:12
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
As far as I can see, Hunter is the main source for the claim that Muggeridge was fired by the Guardian. Is there any independent corroboration of this? It looks very much as if Muggeridge was the original and possibly only source, and Hunter was by no means an impartial reporter, being something of a disciple of Muggeridge.
(I'm not taking sides in this dispute by the way, but I'm currently interested in the way that different narratives are co-opted and constructed for political and ideological purposes. It's a Brexit side-effect ).
> The biographer, Ian Hunter, who had access to his letters, diaries etc said that he was fired (as do others).Others have different versions.
As far as I can see, Hunter is the main source for the claim that Muggeridge was fired by the Guardian. Is there any independent corroboration of this? It looks very much as if Muggeridge was the original and possibly only source, and Hunter was by no means an impartial reporter, being something of a disciple of Muggeridge.
(I'm not taking sides in this dispute by the way, but I'm currently interested in the way that different narratives are co-opted and constructed for political and ideological purposes. It's a Brexit side-effect ).
Post edited at 16:08
In reply to Bob Kemp:
That is possible. I dont know. I think Hunter himself quotes Max Belloff as saying Mug resigned. I saw an article by Hunter first and a couple of other similar claims that he resigned and went with them. Ive acknowledged that there are other versions, which I discovered later: the most common being that he just "left" after a fall out,with no detail.
My point is that it is quite ridiculous to describe that as a "lie", let alone to focus on that as the key point.
That is possible. I dont know. I think Hunter himself quotes Max Belloff as saying Mug resigned. I saw an article by Hunter first and a couple of other similar claims that he resigned and went with them. Ive acknowledged that there are other versions, which I discovered later: the most common being that he just "left" after a fall out,with no detail.
My point is that it is quite ridiculous to describe that as a "lie", let alone to focus on that as the key point.
Post edited at 16:16
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
> My point is that it is quite ridiculous to describe that as a "lie", let alone to focus on that as the key point.
Agreed - generally better to find more temperate words if you're not absolutely certain. But things often run hot in here...In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes but the good thing is that you (along with Mr Lopez, in fairness) have managed to distract us from the main point of the thread which is that most sensible folk are now of the view that with Brexit we are being served up a trud on a plate and that, far from rolling it in glitter, the team in charge of it have just thrown up all over it.
> My point is that it is quite ridiculous to describe that as a "lie", let alone to focus on that as the key point.
Yes but the good thing is that you (along with Mr Lopez, in fairness) have managed to distract us from the main point of the thread which is that most sensible folk are now of the view that with Brexit we are being served up a trud on a plate and that, far from rolling it in glitter, the team in charge of it have just thrown up all over it.
4
In reply to Tyler:
Ah, rumbled
> Yes but the good thing is that you (along with Mr Lopez, in fairness) have managed to distract us from the main point of the thread which is that most sensible folk are now of the view that with Brexit we are being served up a trud on a plate and that, far from rolling it in glitter, the team in charge of it have just thrown up all over it.
Ah, rumbled
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Ha, ha. You are getting desperate.
Do you mean the Ian Hunter who wrote his biography "Malcolm Muggeridge: A Life"?
The one biography where the one Ian Hunter writes
Muggeridge was anxious to get back into journalism, but he had
blotted his copybook by the Russian articles and by the circumstances
in which he had quit the Guardian. Applications to The Times, The
Morning Post, Weekend Review, The News Chronicle, and the BBC all met
with refusals or polite evasions. Even some articles offered on a freelance
basis were turned down; one in particular, called "Red Imperialism"
in which he pointed out the territorial ambitions of the
Soviet Union, was considered "too extreme" even by the right-wing
Morning Post. The Spectator rejected a book review in which he pre-
. dieted the demise of liberalism as a moral and political force, while The
Times (which he was later to call "that most faithful follower of public
taste, belatedly endorsing all reputations and making none"8) returned
an article explaining how Western journalists in Moscow were induced
to toe the party line. In his diary, he wrote: "There is nothing before me
but failure ... failure eating away like a disease."
on page 95, which both disproves your claim as to the circumstances of Muggeridge's leaving the Guardian as written by Ian Hunter's own hand, but also provides some evidence of the British editorial policy of not pissing off the Russians?
Lol. Read above
Ha, ha. Back around.
Ha, ha. You are getting desperate.
> The biographer, Ian Hunter, who had access to his letters, diaries etc said that he was fired (as do others).
Do you mean the Ian Hunter who wrote his biography "Malcolm Muggeridge: A Life"?
The one biography where the one Ian Hunter writes
Muggeridge was anxious to get back into journalism, but he had
blotted his copybook by the Russian articles and by the circumstances
in which he had quit the Guardian. Applications to The Times, The
Morning Post, Weekend Review, The News Chronicle, and the BBC all met
with refusals or polite evasions. Even some articles offered on a freelance
basis were turned down; one in particular, called "Red Imperialism"
in which he pointed out the territorial ambitions of the
Soviet Union, was considered "too extreme" even by the right-wing
Morning Post. The Spectator rejected a book review in which he pre-
. dieted the demise of liberalism as a moral and political force, while The
Times (which he was later to call "that most faithful follower of public
taste, belatedly endorsing all reputations and making none"8) returned
an article explaining how Western journalists in Moscow were induced
to toe the party line. In his diary, he wrote: "There is nothing before me
but failure ... failure eating away like a disease."
on page 95, which both disproves your claim as to the circumstances of Muggeridge's leaving the Guardian as written by Ian Hunter's own hand, but also provides some evidence of the British editorial policy of not pissing off the Russians?
> Lets face it we now know that you have no evidence so presumably made up your claim that the UK press was told not to criticise Stalin in the 1930s.
Lol. Read above
> You have not only been shown to be wrong on every single point but shamelessy pretend to have information that you don't.
Ha, ha. Back around.
2
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
You mean the one where he never suggests " there was a national policy of not pissing off the Russians. " but that individual publications took their own decisions? If you can find any evidence of government influence on such editorial decisions so be it but you haven't so far.
Yup, the same Ian Hunter who wrote "But few believed him (Muggeridge). His dispatches were cut. He was sacked by the Guardian and forced to leave Russia. Muggeridge was vilified, slandered and abused, not least in the pages of the Manchester Guardian, where sympathy to what was called "the great Soviet experiment" was de rigour."
http://faminegenocide.com/resources/2journalists.html
But back to the point. Do you acknowledge that large parts of the 1930s left supported Stalin and denied his crimes and some also supported Mussolini?
> Do you mean the Ian Hunter who wrote his biography "Malcolm Muggeridge: A Life"?
> The one biography where the one Ian Hunter writes
>
> on page 95, which both disproves your claim as to the circumstances of Muggeridge's leaving the Guardian as written by Ian Hunter's own hand, but also provides some evidence of the British editorial policy of not pissing off the Russians?
>You mean the one where he never suggests " there was a national policy of not pissing off the Russians. " but that individual publications took their own decisions? If you can find any evidence of government influence on such editorial decisions so be it but you haven't so far.
Yup, the same Ian Hunter who wrote "But few believed him (Muggeridge). His dispatches were cut. He was sacked by the Guardian and forced to leave Russia. Muggeridge was vilified, slandered and abused, not least in the pages of the Manchester Guardian, where sympathy to what was called "the great Soviet experiment" was de rigour."
http://faminegenocide.com/resources/2journalists.html
>
Just be honest and humble and acknowledge, as I have several times, there are different versions of what happened? Hunter himself (I think it was him) has said that Muggeridge's version of events sometimes varied over time. I don't know why Hunter's does but I've already pointed out that he quotes Bellof as saying Muggeridge was fired so I'm not sure what you think you are adding.But back to the point. Do you acknowledge that large parts of the 1930s left supported Stalin and denied his crimes and some also supported Mussolini?
Post edited at 20:35
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...