O/T:- Banks

[forwardmagpie]

Apologies for the delayed reply, Elite, I'm only here sporadically at present!

You're right that the internet carries varied opinion on any subject, but I referred you to the wide range of opinion on how Brexit has benefited us or will benefit us rather than arrogantly assuming that you were specifically/just interested in my own specific take. My view is actually incredibly straight-forward and has little to do with immigration, economic advantages or disadvantages, public funding or who lied about what.

The reason I consider that Britain benefits from Brexit is because I just fundamentally don't accept that we are 'European' and so I believe we should never have joined its political framework, frankly regardless of the supposed 'advantages' or 'disadvantages' people might argue this offers us at any given point in time. Therefore, I believe our identity as a nation benefits from now being "not" part of the European Union. It's as fundamental as that.

Others may disagree either with my choice to vote for Brexit, or my particular reason for doing so, but that's why I referred to the whole range of opinion out there. I can't really speak for anyone else and it's not my job to judge the validity or otherwise of their views, but I recognise there a many!




I suppose my view comes closest to the first part of reason three (i.e. Let's rid ourselves of the EU shackles), but with regard to the other reasons you raise, and several more besides, I agree with you that Britain has not yet 'exploited' (if that's the word) Brexit to anything like it's fullest potential. For that I blame a partially inept and forever shape-shifting Government and, as referenced earlier, anti-Brexit forces (some of whom are inside said Government!) who were always going to do their everything within their very considerable power to prevent the benefits of Brexit from being delivered quickly or fully. That doesn't surprise me. Anyone who voted for Brexit should have known that these dark forces would not suddenly admit defeat, pack up and go home. Winning a Brexit vote was only ever going to be a step in a particular direction.

That does not however mean the Brexit decision was "wrong" or has "failed". From my viewpoint, anything that (at least significantly) removed us from the tanglehairs of the EU represents an automatic and immediate benefit, even if not a full or complete one to date. If there was another Brexit vote in the future - and for precisely the reasons stated above I wouldn't be at all surprised - then I'd vote exactly the same way for exactly the same personal reason and hope many others would too.

This very much matches by views.
In 1975 I voted to remain in a common market which I thought was a good idea.
Since then despite the common market changed, rapidly becoming the EU with treaties that changed our membership. Neither political parties gave us a vote to get our agreement to these fairly radical changes.

I wasn’t taken in or hoodwinked by the various scares, untruths and downright lies told by both sides of the argument.

I am glad we are out of the EU and hope that despite slow progress with some difficulties I foresee that long term (I have always thought 10 years) we will see the benefits outweighs the downsides.

I feel that the quality of our politics and politicians has diminished over the last 40 to 50 years as a lot of legislation taken by the EU.
See the massive amount of EU legislation in our statue book. If you look at all the parties in my opinion we have a dearth of quality.

Members of my family voted in different ways but we manage to have civil discussions.

It is always interesting to be put right by many Brexit experts who know much more than I do !


Nobody on the remain side seems to discuss what the EU will be like in 10 years time.
I for one think it may be a busted flush but what does a council house lad from Gedling know.

[Old_pie]

Nobody on the remain side seems to discuss what the EU will be like in 10 years time.
I for one think it may be a busted flush but what does a council house lad from Gedling know.

Lifted from a financial forum so not BBC Verified!!:

As for GDP size....

EU GDP. 16 Trillion USD (2022)

CPTPP. 12 Trillion USD (2021)

Smaller ATM, but not by that much. And other countries waiting to join. Its expected to eclipse the EU around 2028-30

And the advantage of less political competition (hopefully), plus more friends!

[Magpies1959]

Newish Pie, I do not object to balance and diversity, as I said it is the 'supposed' balance and diversity I do not like. Where is the balance, when you always have at least one woman on pundit's panel, for a men's game of all the main sports, but barely a man in sight for the women's equivalents, and without wishing to upset the particularly sensitive to possible racist comments on here, in general those panels do seem to have a higher proportion of black people than white. This is not racist, just a fact. I like what they have to say in the main, as I do with the white panelists, but it just seems that, to be fair, all TV channels, not just the BBC, are going overboard in their attempts to be seen as balanced and diverse, and in doing so are anything but balanced certainly.

Also to make it quite clear I am not one of the, 'some people', that you describe in your response to my post. The addition of pundits to panels, from opposing countries/teams, of all races, colour and *** has given a new perspective to the way a game is seen.

[Newish Pie]

Newish Pie, I do not object to balance and diversity, as I said it is the 'supposed' balance and diversity I do not like. Where is the balance, when you always have at least one woman on pundit's panel, for a men's game of all the main sports, but barely a man in sight for the women's equivalents, and without wishing to upset the particularly sensitive to possible racist comments on here, in general those panels do seem to have a higher proportion of black people than white. This is not racist, just a fact. I like what they have to say in the main, as I do with the white panelists, but it just seems that, to be fair, all TV channels, not just the BBC, are going overboard in their attempts to be seen as balanced and diverse, and in doing so are anything but balanced certainly.

Also to make it quite clear I am not one of the, 'some people', that you describe in your response to my post. The addition of pundits to panels, from opposing countries/teams, of all races, colour and *** has given a new perspective to the way a game is seen.

Absolutely agree... non-UK pundits have been great, both in terms of football knowledge and different national perspectives. And I've tried to be careful - as I hope I always do - not to jump to uncharitable or unfair conclusions about people.

But I have to say that I find it a bit of an odd thing to get annoyed about. If - on the whole - they're pretty good panellists, though obviously we'll all have our favourites and anti-favourites. Representation is a tricky issue, especially when we're talking about small numbers of people on any one panel - usually the representation I'm most interested in is team perspective or lack thereof. I'm not clear why it would be an issue if most of a panel were black. It's certainly more noticeable, because we're much more used to panels being entirely or mostly white.

I think also there's context of historical under-representation. As the number of black players in the men's game increased, there wasn't a significant increase in the number of black journalists and pundits (or managers, but that's another story) There were no female pundits or commentators at all until very recently - though to be fair Sky did have women presenting the sports news. In that historical context, I think representation matters, and perhaps that's why we're now seeing what some might see as an over-correction.

But, again... I'm not sure why this matters, or why I'd feel strongly about it. Or why it would make me angry. Especially if we agree that there's been no loss in quality overall. Which I think tells us a lot.

To be fair... and I'm trying to be really fair and think about issues with over-representation - there is a habit in some TV dramas to have more diverse casting than the supposed setting. So... my brother lives in Brighton, and he's said that some of the TV series set in Brighton (mainly a couple of recent cop dramas) are significantly more racially diverse than Brighton is. Politically, he's to the left of me, so he's not racially motivated in that comment. He just finds it funny. Mainly he objects to the butchering of geography (chase sequences that make no sense etc). But again... I'm not seeing any change in quality of the production/acting... it's in the context of historial under-representation of diversity on TV and in access to particular roles, and I find it hard to get upset about.

[Magpies1959]

You seem to be a tad obsessed with billionaire TV, I am assuming this is directed mainly at GB News, if it is run by a billionaire/s, they could do with digging a bit deeper in their pockets to help with the production, which is way behind the levels put into the BBC and the likes.

[Newish Pie]

You seem to be a tad obsessed with billionaire TV, I am assuming this is directed mainly at GB News, if it is run by a billionaire/s, they could do with digging a bit deeper in their pockets to help with the production, which is way behind the levels put into the BBC and the likes.

Yeah, guilty as charged, I suppose. I think politicised news channels (of whatever stripe or shade) are fundamentally a very bad thing for democracy in this country, and I'm surprised that more people can't see that. Or at the very least see that active politicians should not be presenting current affairs shows. Maybe I'd include Talk TV in this category too, but I don't know much about them.

If you don't already know who funds GB "News", I'd suggest looking into their backers. It's not only the "News" element of the title that should be in inverted commas, it's the "GB" bit too. They're like the "Taxpayers Alliance" and "Islamic State" in that sense - nothing about their name is accurate.

[Magpies1959]

Newish Pie are you suggesting that every programme, sports team or 'thing' etc, should only be named to give a representation of who/what it's owners are all about.

There is nothing to stop a left leaning, (if you see GB News as right leaning) news or political content channel from starting up. So no 'very bad thing for democracy' issues. GB News only came about because the TV media was leaning so heavily to the left.

I think you are deliberately trying to portray me as one of your 'some people', this not the case. There is a difference between 'not liking' something, i.e. the BBC's idea of balance and diversity, and being annoyed or even angry about it.

[Newish Pie]

Newish Pie are you suggesting that every programme, sports team or 'thing' etc, should only be named to give a representation of who/what it's owners are all about.

There is nothing to stop a left leaning, (if you see GB News as right leaning) news or political content channel from starting up. So no 'very bad thing for democracy' issues. GB News only came about because the TV media was leaning so heavily to the left.

I think you are deliberately trying to portray me as one of your 'some people', this not the case. There is a difference between 'not liking' something, i.e. the BBC's idea of balance and diversity, and being annoyed or even angry about it.

Well, no... I'm not suggesting that County be renamed "Data Nerds Restoring Historic But Underperforming Football Club To Proper Place in Football Pyramid For Fun and Profit". I mean, that would ruin the Wheelbarrow Song. But it's hard to avoid the political right's approach to misleading names. To be absolutely fair, "GB" "News" probably isn't quite in the same category as So-Called Taxpayers Alliance, but neither does it do what it says on the twin.

"GB" "News" is right leaning... just look at the roster of presenters. They're all right wing. Not only that, they're all from the right wing of right wing.. the right wing of the Conservative Party or UKIP or successors. It's there for all to see. TV media only looks left wing to those who are very right wing. Or to people who think the print media is balanced. Of course TV news looks left wing if you're right wing enough to think that "GB" "News" might be anything other than very right wing.

A left wing version would be a bad thing for democracy too, because then even more people would vanish into their echo chambers, as in the US. Not only that, I'd see a TV station with programmes presented by (say) Owen Jones and John McDonnell as just as awful and unwatchable as "GB" "News". Although we have seen a growth in left wing media, it's been largely web based and of distinctly variable quality, but without billionaire backers it's hard to see anything on the scale of "GB" "News" get off the ground... 'cos the left typically doesn't have billionaire backers.

"GB" "News" came about because non-British billionaire backers wanted to create a UK version of Fox News, a right wing echo chamber where right-wingers can interview other right-wingers. I'm honestly not sure whether they think they'll eventually profit from it, or whether it's a loss-leader to try to shift the Overton window towards the right and influence our politics in their preferred direction.

I'm not trying to portray anyone as anything, and I'm sorry if you feel that way or if I've given that impression. I thought you followed up your initial post very clearly with your appreciation for what non-UK pundits have brought. You also said that you had a similar appreciation for the punditry work of female and non-white panellists as to while male panellists... I hope that's a fair summary. I'd also respectfully point out that you raised this topic as a reason to dislike the BBC, not me.

I'm happy to accept that you're not annoyed or angry about the BBC's idea of balance and diversity, but that you just don't like it. I'm still puzzled as to why you don't like it, but you don't owe me an explanation.

[MarcusCole]

Well, no... I'm not suggesting that County be renamed "Data Nerds Restoring Historic But Underperforming Football Club To Proper Place in Football Pyramid For Fun and Profit". I mean, that would ruin the Wheelbarrow Song. But it's hard to avoid the political right's approach to misleading names. To be absolutely fair, "GB" "News" probably isn't quite in the same category as So-Called Taxpayers Alliance, but neither does it do what it says on the twin.

"GB" "News" is right leaning... just look at the roster of presenters. They're all right wing. Not only that, they're all from the right wing of right wing.. the right wing of the Conservative Party or UKIP or successors. It's there for all to see. TV media only looks left wing to those who are very right wing. Or to people who think the print media is balanced. Of course TV news looks left wing if you're right wing enough to think that "GB" "News" might be anything other than very right wing.

A left wing version would be a bad thing for democracy too, because then even more people would vanish into their echo chambers, as in the US. Not only that, I'd see a TV station with programmes presented by (say) Owen Jones and John McDonnell as just as awful and unwatchable as "GB" "News". Although we have seen a growth in left wing media, it's been largely web based and of distinctly variable quality, but without billionaire backers it's hard to see anything on the scale of "GB" "News" get off the ground... 'cos the left typically doesn't have billionaire backers.

"GB" "News" came about because non-British billionaire backers wanted to create a UK version of Fox News, a right wing echo chamber where right-wingers can interview other right-wingers. I'm honestly not sure whether they think they'll eventually profit from it, or whether it's a loss-leader to try to shift the Overton window towards the right and influence our politics in their preferred direction.

I'm not trying to portray anyone as anything, and I'm sorry if you feel that way or if I've given that impression. I thought you followed up your initial post very clearly with your appreciation for what non-UK pundits have brought. You also said that you had a similar appreciation for the punditry work of female and non-white panellists as to while male panellists... I hope that's a fair summary. I'd also respectfully point out that you raised this topic as a reason to dislike the BBC, not me.

I'm happy to accept that you're not annoyed or angry about the BBC's idea of balance and diversity, but that you just don't like it. I'm still puzzled as to why you don't like it, but you don't owe me an explanation.

You really have no idea do you. most of the mainstream TV media in the country has a left wing bias. Look at their positions on things and then see if it alligns with the left wing position or the right wing position.

I am on the left of the political spectrum and when i watch some stuff from GB news to me it looks slightly right of centre and that is at most. When i watch something from the BBC, Channel 4 etc the utter left win bias is almost painful. Just look to the reporting they do on social stuff such as the trans discussion, abortion, racism, immegration. They will always have the left wing position. Whenever anyone raises anything that goes against their narrative the BBC will call them conspiracy theories rather than valid viewpoints.

[OchPie]

I am on the left of the political spectrum and when i watch some stuff from GB news to me it looks slightly right of centre and that is at most. When i watch something from the BBC, Channel 4 etc the utter left win bias is almost painful. Just look to the reporting they do on social stuff such as the trans discussion, abortion, racism, immegration. They will always have the left wing position.

Not that I watch all that much these days, but as also someone on the mild left this is only true if you are on the "no such thing as truth" right.

On abortion, racism and immigration they are usually neutral, if often deferential to the government. On accepted facts like climate change, they follow the facts - facts which most of those clustered around the centre accept.

But guests on news shows have a strong right-wing bias. People from the IEA or other 55 Tufton Street organisations (like the Taxpayer Alliance, the LGB Alliance, the Centre for Policy Studies etc.) are on all the damn time. NGOs / charities, trade unions, campaign groups are only invited on for narrow and specific topics or if they are the focus of a specific news story.