ot jeremy corbyn

[animallittle3]

Abbott now says she's going to scrap more immigration controls to let many more immigrants in, because there are many coming in ATM.

At least she's being honest I suppose, although not about her reason for doing it, to increase their voter base.

Hardly a vote-winning policy outside London though, well not yet anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...grants-in.html

Current unfilled vacancies within the NHS stand at 100k .

Any progress regarding how we can fill them fire ? .

[great_fire]

Wow, I'm an extremist because I think 300,000 net immigrants a year is too much and Abbott and these people actually want more!

It's already a huge amount, without historical precedent.

[ragingpup]

Abbott now says she's going to scrap more immigration controls to let many more immigrants in, because there are many coming in ATM.

At least she's being honest I suppose, although not about her reason for doing it, to increase their voter base.

Hardly a vote-winning policy outside London though, well not yet anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...grants-in.html

Sickening spin from the Mail here - even more sickening to see how people like Fire swallow it hook lline and sinker.

Look at the points the Mail raise in their headlines:

1. Diane Abbott said Labour would let child refugees bring parents to the UK

GF - do you know how many separated child refugees we took in last year?

in 2015 2100 applications were made for separated child asylum in the UK - of which 94% were refused. Not got my calculator but is that about 120??
In a government statement a couple of weeks ago, 900 were accepted in 2016, 200 of which remained in the UK, the remainder being resettled in Dublin under the Dublin regulation

It is a TINY amount of vulnerable people. Does that matter?


2. She said they would also end policy of deporting children when they turn 18

Again, a tiny amount. In 2016, the figure was that 2748 18 year olds had been deported from the UK in the previous NINE YEARS! This pretty much matches with the incoming numbers of accepted child asylum seekers of 250 per year.

Note how the Mail are spinning a major news story, implying that Labour are further opening the migrant 'floodgates' and completely distorting the numbers of migrants that Abbott is talking about here.

And I love how the Mail manage to scrape in the 3rd bullet point headline:

3. The Conservatives have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands

The dreadful thing is that the Tories got the vote of GF and many like him just on this pledge alone. And of course we all know they made this pledge many years ago and it has got worse even with the non-EU immigration that always was, and still is, completely in their control. Horrific that we can see the Mail actively manipulating the likes of GF on the issue that they know the white working classes are particularly interested in, and voting accordingly.

Here we see the Government supporting right wing mass media machine in action...

[KerrAvon]

FFS! You've clearly never educated yourself on the subject.

Educated or not, I’m really struggling to follow the point that you are trying to make, Amanda. It may be me, but let’s wind it back to see if we can get on track:

In post 17, I observed that: He also seems to be fond of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah, but seems to have very little contact with the Israeli government.

In post 48, you responded by saying: I wouldn't want anything to do with Israeli Government either, you only have to look at the death toll they're by far the bigger terrorists, it's being friends with them that makes you a terrorist sympathiser.

In post 50, I repled: So are you saying that The Great Leader was right to have nothing to do with the Israelis because they drop bombs and shell people, but it was ok for him to talk to Hamas and Hezbollah and refer to them as friends even though they set off bombs on buses etc. and fire rockets onto random targets in Israeli towns?

Your response in post 51 was: Clearly not.

I’m simply asking what you meant by ‘clearly not’.

Distilled down, the issue is this: The Great Leader invited representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah to Westminster and referred to them as friends when he did. Hamas and Hezbollah are organisations that are committed to the destruction of Israel (irrespective of the views of its 8.5 million inhabitants) and which have engaged in bombings, assassinations and the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli towns. So how is it that you feel that The Great Leader was justified in not wanting much to do with Israel, but raise no criticism of his dealings with his friends in Hamas and Hezbollah? Maybe you do, but I’ve missed them.

The spin being put out on behalf of the Great Leader now is that he was talking to Sinn Fein (but not pIRA – lol) to pursue peace and was talking to Hamas and Hezbollah for the same reason. I think that is as demonstrably nonsensical as the notion that he had secrets to give to the Czechs in the 80s. How can you be a peace broker when you demonstrate support for the aims of one side of a conflict (in the case of the Great Leader, for the reunification of Ireland and for the Palestinian cause) and by only talking to one side? It makes no sense.

I have no issue with The Great Leader holding the views that he does on the reunification of Ireland and for the Palestinian cause. It may be that his views and mine are not a million miles apart upon them; it is the re-writing of history to try to paint over the inconvenience of his past words and actions of the slating of the media for reporting them that troubles me.

[KerrAvon]

I think the main issues here regarding political bias are:

1. The sheer volume of political control of the mass media on 'advising' voters how to vote. If we accept that most readers are to an extent influenced by the concentrated, repeated and quite urgent arguments made for/against the different political parties, then let's look at how far this 'control' might go. Of the mass newspapers here is how they breakdown with political support and readership:

The Guardian Labour (although lib dem in 2010) 300k readers
FT Conservatives 400k
Telegraph Tories 700k
The Sun Tories 3 million
Mail Tories 2, 120k
Express Tories 700k
Mirror Labour 1, 200k
Times Tories 500k
Daily Star Tories (albeit very slyly!) 800k

That by my reckoning means that there are 8 million 200 thousand people who receive sustained political arguments advising them to vote Conservative versus 1 million and 500 thousand who receive labour political 'advisement'.

If we further accept that these newspapers are owned by just a handful of businessmen who in themselves are very fearful of any government that might threaten even a small cut of their (and their funding big business advertisers) profits, then you have a very effective historically effective 'machine' that aims to persuade a huge % of the voting public to vote conservative.

Is that a fair, balanced press? Are we all happy with that?

2) The examples you give, of some right wing newspapers attacking Cameron, Heath and Green and the other fella - is that the best you can do? These conservative newspapers offer a systematic personality slaughter of not just Corbyn but any Labour leader that does not explicitly distance themselves from threatening corporate wealth and any semblance of even slight wealth redistribution (hence how Murdoch accepted Blair and smoothed his way into the role). Some ran half of their newspapers in election week with pictures of Corbyn caricatured as the devil, hands around terrorists. And all you can offer as a way of making it appear that they treat parties equally is that they have gone for a PM at the time (Cameron) on a scandal, but CRUCIALLY only 4 months after his safe re-election as PM and therefore not a scandal to ever shake the establishment was it?, a dead former leader from decades ago and a relatively insignificant, easily replaceable MP who had been caught with ****o on his PC. Do you really think this compares? If Green had been Corbyn, with a bit of ****o on his PC instead of "Shed Weekly" or with his old fella in a hog's gob, do you think we'd have heard the end of it at the time that matters, in the run up to election? Come on lad, you're bright enough to know that these were mere 'storms in easily managed tea cups' and no threat at all to the Conservative led establishment.

I have a couple of ideas for how a 'free press' could be more satisfactorily managed in what struggles to think of itself as a democracy but gotta go now - daughter bedtime. Tata

Firstly, I don't accept the premise that most readers are to an extent influenced by the concentrated, repeated and quite urgent arguments made for/against the different political parties. Frankly, I think it slightly desperate of you to try to argue that they are. As I have explained previously, I am of the view that people choose their media source to suit their pre-existing leanings. As I asked young Gisjbert before he picked up his ball and ran off to the corner of the playground with it: How often do you read the Daily Mail and would it turn you into a right winger if you did? It is clear from your latest response to gf that you have read the Daily Mail article that he referred to (putting money into their coffers by clicking on the link). Is that something that you regularly do and does it make you want to vote Tory when you do?

If more people want to buy The Sun rather than the Daily Mirror, that’s their choice, raging, just as the editorial position of those papers is the choice of their proprietors and editorial teams. Where does the concept of ‘fairness’ come into it? I’d love to know how you would seek to override those choices.

How people voted in the election was their choice too.

As you’ve pointed out previously, when Momentum aren’t chanting The Greater Leader’s name in Grime clubs, they have a pretty slick digital operation going. The Tories’ digital presence, on the other hand, is utterly lame. So is that unfair in your view or is Labour merely using an advantage they they have?

I’m loving the way that you think it CRUCIAL that the media had a feeding frenzy around the pig’s head allegations four months after the election and, as I understand it, are seeking to argue that timing was carefully selected. In reality, the reason for the timing is that it coincided with the publication of the book in which the allegation was made…

I confess that you have the advantage on me in that I rarely read the print media these days and didn’t at all in the run up to the election. Do you have examples that you can link to of pictures of The Great Leader caricatured as the devil, hands around terrorists? And are you saying that the pictures of his hands around terrorist were photoshopped? Or are you exaggerating?

In reality, The Great Leader turns inconvenient stories about him in the press to his advantage by painting himself as the victim, as he did with his response to the Czech stories. It’s a strategy that comes straight out of the Trump playbook and fair play to him, it’s a neat bit of politicking.

I’m looking forward to your ideas upon how the free press can be managed. A Ministry of Truth?

[KerrAvon]

Sickening spin from the Mail here - even more sickening to see how people like Fire swallow it hook lline and sinker.

Look at the points the Mail raise in their headlines:

1. Diane Abbott said Labour would let child refugees bring parents to the UK

GF - do you know how many separated child refugees we took in last year?

in 2015 2100 applications were made for separated child asylum in the UK - of which 94% were refused. Not got my calculator but is that about 120??
In a government statement a couple of weeks ago, 900 were accepted in 2016, 200 of which remained in the UK, the remainder being resettled in Dublin under the Dublin regulation

It is a TINY amount of vulnerable people. Does that matter?


2. She said they would also end policy of deporting children when they turn 18

Again, a tiny amount. In 2016, the figure was that 2748 18 year olds had been deported from the UK in the previous NINE YEARS! This pretty much matches with the incoming numbers of accepted child asylum seekers of 250 per year.

Note how the Mail are spinning a major news story, implying that Labour are further opening the migrant 'floodgates' and completely distorting the numbers of migrants that Abbott is talking about here.

And I love how the Mail manage to scrape in the 3rd bullet point headline:

3. The Conservatives have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands

The dreadful thing is that the Tories got the vote of GF and many like him just on this pledge alone. And of course we all know they made this pledge many years ago and it has got worse even with the non-EU immigration that always was, and still is, completely in their control. Horrific that we can see the Mail actively manipulating the likes of GF on the issue that they know the white working classes are particularly interested in, and voting accordingly.

Here we see the Government supporting right wing mass media machine in action...

Damn, you've had me clicking on the link too.

Sickening spin? As far as I can see, Diane Abbott announced a Labour policy - a statement of what Labour would do if the electorate chose to put them in power - and the Daily Mail reported it.

I've not checked the figures that you give, but have no reason to doubt them (though, ironically, perhaps, in a post alleging spin, you've chosen not to mention the Tory response that the policy would encourage an increase in numbers) and agree that it is hardly a significant change, but Abbott clearly though it significant enough to announce it, so why wouldn't the press report it?

What are you saying? That the electorate shouldn't be made aware of Labour policy announcements or that reporting Labour policy announcements is an act of manipulation?

Is reporting Labour policy announcements the sort of bias that you are concerned about? Blimey.

[rolymiller]

... from the king himself. Wow royalty on here!

[great_fire]

Of course the Tories have failed to control immigration, if they even tried, but Labour would be even worse.

That's why they're still ahead in the polls.

EDIT: Just seen it's fallen to 244,000 so at least it's gone down, not up as it would under Corbyn.

But pre-Blair it was only 50,000.

[Slimchance]

I think the main issues here regarding political bias are:

1. The sheer volume of political control of the mass media on 'advising' voters how to vote. If we accept that most readers are to an extent influenced by the concentrated, repeated and quite urgent arguments made for/against the different political parties, then let's look at how far this 'control' might go. Of the mass newspapers here is how they breakdown with political support and readership:

The Guardian Labour (although lib dem in 2010) 300k readers
FT Conservatives 400k
Telegraph Tories 700k
The Sun Tories 3 million
Mail Tories 2, 120k
Express Tories 700k
Mirror Labour 1, 200k
Times Tories 500k
Daily Star Tories (albeit very slyly!) 800k

That by my reckoning means that there are 8 million 200 thousand people who receive sustained political arguments advising them to vote Conservative versus 1 million and 500 thousand who receive labour political 'advisement'.

If we further accept that these newspapers are owned by just a handful of businessmen who in themselves are very fearful of any government that might threaten even a small cut of their (and their funding big business advertisers) profits, then you have a very effective historically effective 'machine' that aims to persuade a huge % of the voting public to vote conservative.

Is that a fair, balanced press? Are we all happy with that?

2) The examples you give, of some right wing newspapers attacking Cameron, Heath and Green and the other fella - is that the best you can do? These conservative newspapers offer a systematic personality slaughter of not just Corbyn but any Labour leader that does not explicitly distance themselves from threatening corporate wealth and any semblance of even slight wealth redistribution (hence how Murdoch accepted Blair and smoothed his way into the role). Some ran half of their newspapers in election week with pictures of Corbyn caricatured as the devil, hands around terrorists. And all you can offer as a way of making it appear that they treat parties equally is that they have gone for a PM at the time (Cameron) on a scandal, but CRUCIALLY only 4 months after his safe re-election as PM and therefore not a scandal to ever shake the establishment was it?, a dead former leader from decades ago and a relatively insignificant, easily replaceable MP who had been caught with ****o on his PC. Do you really think this compares? If Green had been Corbyn, with a bit of ****o on his PC instead of "Shed Weekly" or with his old fella in a hog's gob, do you think we'd have heard the end of it at the time that matters, in the run up to election? Come on lad, you're bright enough to know that these were mere 'storms in easily managed tea cups' and no threat at all to the Conservative led establishment.

I have a couple of ideas for how a 'free press' could be more satisfactorily managed in what struggles to think of itself as a democracy but gotta go now - daughter bedtime. Tata

Fake statistics yet again.

Why have you not included the circulation of The Morning Star, whose sales must have increased by many millions due to ALL the NEW born again Lefties that our Great Leader has brainwashed....sorry recruited.

[mikemiller]

Wow, I'm an extremist because I think 300,000 net immigrants a year is too much and Abbott and these people actually want more!

It's already a huge amount, without historical precedent.

I notice that, although you have an answer for a lot of stuff (usually an entirely wrong answer) you didn't answer the question about Hitler and Mussolini - I wonder why