The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

Does this dammed woman never give up?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ard-brexit

It was all to do with parliamentary procedures was it?

Bare faced liar.

I hope not, the bare faced liars promising £350m extra for the NHS need holding to Account.

Oft repeated this was a "promise" rather than the reduction in EU fees could be used for a variety of things including the NHS. Just continuing to state "promise" doesn't make it so.

I mean, it wasn't a "promise". Neither was it a loose, hey guys, we might be able to do this....

It was a very direct campaigning strategy. That was based on absolutely nothing. And was backtracked on immediately.

In short, a bare faced lie to appeal to thickos.

[Rjs37]

In short, a bare faced lie to appeal to thickos.

Just like when the government used tax payers money to tell us that each household would be £4.3k worse off? Even though it was a complete fallacy?

Both sides lied through to their teeth to appeal to those who were ignorant enough not to know better. So stop pretending that the lies were one-sided, as they most definitely weren't.

[BWFC_Insane]

In short, a bare faced lie to appeal to thickos.

Just like when the government used tax payers money to tell us that each household would be £4.3k worse off? Even though it was a complete fallacy?

Both sides lied through to their teeth to appeal to those who were ignorant enough not to know better. So stop pretending that the lies were one-sided, as they most definitely weren't.

That analysis had a caveat of "IF we negotiate a similar model to Canada" IIRC. Plus a lot of other, assumptions that were laid out.

As we don't actually know what model will be negotiated I think it is too early to say whether it was a fallacy or not.

[Rjs37]

In short, a bare faced lie to appeal to thickos.

Just like when the government used tax payers money to tell us that each household would be £4.3k worse off? Even though it was a complete fallacy?

Both sides lied through to their teeth to appeal to those who were ignorant enough not to know better. So stop pretending that the lies were one-sided, as they most definitely weren't.

That analysis had a caveat of "IF we negotiate a similar model to Canada" IIRC. Plus a lot of other, assumptions that were laid out.

As we don't actually know what model will be negotiated I think it is too early to say whether it was a fallacy or not.

It was a complete fallacy and a lie because that's exactly what it was. They were pretending that GDP per household is the same as disposable income. When it clearly isn't. The calculations they used were also way off (and they knew that), and they did this all to try and scare thickos - your word - who believed it into voting remain.

That is all regardless of which model they based their calculations off. They posited an absolute 'stab in the dark' prediction based off numbers that they knew were entirely wrong, and then spent £9m of tax payer's money pushing that rubbish out to every household. And you're complaining about a message on a bloody bus?

We don't know exactly what the next few years (or decades) will hold and who knows we could end up as bad or worse off than that leaflet suggested. That doesn't make it any less of a lie though.

[BWFC_Insane]

In short, a bare faced lie to appeal to thickos.

Just like when the government used tax payers money to tell us that each household would be £4.3k worse off? Even though it was a complete fallacy?

Both sides lied through to their teeth to appeal to those who were ignorant enough not to know better. So stop pretending that the lies were one-sided, as they most definitely weren't.

That analysis had a caveat of "IF we negotiate a similar model to Canada" IIRC. Plus a lot of other, assumptions that were laid out.

As we don't actually know what model will be negotiated I think it is too early to say whether it was a fallacy or not.

It was a complete fallacy and a lie because that's exactly what it was. They were pretending that GDP per household is the same as disposable income. When it clearly isn't. The calculations they used were also way off (and they knew that), and they did this all to try and scare thickos - your word - who believed it into voting remain.

That is all regardless of which model they based their calculations off. They posited an absolute 'stab in the dark' prediction based off numbers that they knew were entirely wrong, and then spent £9m of tax payer's money pushing that rubbish out to every household. And you're complaining about a message on a bloody bus?

They did do those things. But they didn't put a number out there without the assumptions and caveats being clear. It was a calculation of a potential scenario. It was the presentation of the facts in a certain light. Fact is right now, nobody knows for sure that number is wrong. Nobody actually knows whether it might end up being worse. It was a projection, based on assumptions and generalised calculations. Of course and it was designed to demonstrate something. But the assumptions and calculations were at least there to view. They were analysed by the media and discussed. The likelihood of that scenario could be assessed.

However, the bus, website and posters that the leave campaign produced, were a knowingly bare faced lie. They knew we didn't "give the EU £350m a week". And they knew that "it wouldn't mean that money going to the NHS". And they knew that "they had absolutely no power to make such a pledge or idea happen".

They knew all those things, yet still went ahead with that as a major pillar of their campaign. That is downright and bare faced lying. With absolutely no excuse for it.

[Rjs37]

They did do those things. But they didn't put a number out there without the assumptions and caveats being clear. It was a calculation of a potential scenario. It was the presentation of the facts in a certain light. Fact is right now, nobody knows for sure that number is wrong. Nobody actually knows whether it might end up being worse. It was a projection, based on assumptions and generalised calculations. Of course and it was designed to demonstrate something. But the assumptions and calculations were at least there to view. They were analysed by the media and discussed. The likelihood of that scenario could be assessed.

However, the bus, website and posters that the leave campaign produced, were a knowingly bare faced lie. They knew we didn't "give the EU £350m a week". And they knew that "it wouldn't mean that money going to the NHS". And they knew that "they had absolutely no power to make such a pledge or idea happen".

They knew all those things, yet still went ahead with that as a major pillar of their campaign. That is downright and bare faced lying. With absolutely no excuse for it.

Actually that's exactly what they did do. Those assumptions and caveats (incorrect figures being used count as a caveat now do they?) were not in that leaflet. How you can't see those two situations as being directly comparable, I honestly do not know. GDP is not the same as disposable/household income, just like we don't give £350m to the EU a week. They both painted the numbers completely differently to convince those too ignorant to know more. That 350m figure is as much a caveat as the figures in that leaflet. i.e. not one bit.

And no the actual assumptions (not just the rubbish about it being based on the Canada model), and calculations weren't in the leaflet. I checked. They may have made it available elsewhere? but that's not what they put into their leaflet.

This is an absolutely horrendous analogy but here goes, If I tell someone they're going to lose 2 stone by taking paracetamol tablets daily for six months, it doesn't make it less of a lie if they end up actually losing the 2 stone for a legitimate reason (exercising/diet). The point I'm making, is that even if the situation ends up as bad or worse than what they 'projected', the numbers in that document were still a complete lie.

EDIT:
BTW I'm not defending that bus campaign at all. I'm just tired of people painting it as if the Leave campaign were the only ones trying to scare people by completely lying about 'facts'.

[BWFC_Insane]

They did do those things. But they didn't put a number out there without the assumptions and caveats being clear. It was a calculation of a potential scenario. It was the presentation of the facts in a certain light. Fact is right now, nobody knows for sure that number is wrong. Nobody actually knows whether it might end up being worse. It was a projection, based on assumptions and generalised calculations. Of course and it was designed to demonstrate something. But the assumptions and calculations were at least there to view. They were analysed by the media and discussed. The likelihood of that scenario could be assessed.

However, the bus, website and posters that the leave campaign produced, were a knowingly bare faced lie. They knew we didn't "give the EU £350m a week". And they knew that "it wouldn't mean that money going to the NHS". And they knew that "they had absolutely no power to make such a pledge or idea happen".

They knew all those things, yet still went ahead with that as a major pillar of their campaign. That is downright and bare faced lying. With absolutely no excuse for it.

Actually that's exactly what they did do. Those assumptions and caveats (incorrect figures being used count as a caveat now do they?) were not in that leaflet. How you can't see those two situations as being directly comparable, I honestly do not know. GDP is not the same as disposable/household income, just like we don't give £350m to the EU a week. They both painted the numbers completely differently to convince those too ignorant to know more. That 350m figure is as much a caveat as the figures in that leaflet. i.e. not one bit.

And no the actual assumptions (not just the rubbish about it being based on the Canada model), and calculations weren't in the leaflet. I checked. They may have made it available elsewhere? but that's not what they put into their leaflet.

This is an absolutely horrendous analogy but here goes, If I tell someone they're going to lose 2 stone by taking paracetamol tablets daily for six months, it doesn't make it less of a lie if they end up actually losing the 2 stone for a legitimate reason (exercising/diet). The point I'm making, is that even if the situation ends up as bad or worse than what they 'projected', the numbers in that document were still a complete lie.

EDIT:
BTW I'm not defending that bus campaign at all. I'm just tired of people painting it as if the Leave campaign were the only ones trying to scare people by completely lying about 'facts'.

The paper was available online outlining how they'd arrived at the figures.

Where was the other side's justification or calculation? At all...where?

[Rjs37]

The paper was available online outlining how they'd arrived at the figures.

Where was the other side's justification or calculation? At all...where?

Nice of them to not include that in the leaflets they spent £9m on sending out eh?

The £350m calculation was pretty simple in comparison wasn't it? That's before the rebate etc come off it? Which brought the actual weekly number down significantly. The starting figure was still £350m though.

Still don't see the moral difference between "The Average household will lose £4300 per year" and "We send the EU 350m per week".

Both statements are complete lies designed to scare the ignorant. The actual weekly EU figure (after the reductions) is a lot lower as we all know. And that £4,300 figure was their 'projected' GDP divided by number of households, which is not the same as household income. And that is something that they did not even attempt to make clear to people.

[Hoboh]

They did do those things. But they didn't put a number out there without the assumptions and caveats being clear. It was a calculation of a potential scenario. It was the presentation of the facts in a certain light. Fact is right now, nobody knows for sure that number is wrong. Nobody actually knows whether it might end up being worse. It was a projection, based on assumptions and generalised calculations. Of course and it was designed to demonstrate something. But the assumptions and calculations were at least there to view. They were analysed by the media and discussed. The likelihood of that scenario could be assessed.

However, the bus, website and posters that the leave campaign produced, were a knowingly bare faced lie. They knew we didn't "give the EU £350m a week". And they knew that "it wouldn't mean that money going to the NHS". And they knew that "they had absolutely no power to make such a pledge or idea happen".

They knew all those things, yet still went ahead with that as a major pillar of their campaign. That is downright and bare faced lying. With absolutely no excuse for it.

Actually that's exactly what they did do. Those assumptions and caveats (incorrect figures being used count as a caveat now do they?) were not in that leaflet. How you can't see those two situations as being directly comparable, I honestly do not know. GDP is not the same as disposable/household income, just like we don't give £350m to the EU a week. They both painted the numbers completely differently to convince those too ignorant to know more. That 350m figure is as much a caveat as the figures in that leaflet. i.e. not one bit.

And no the actual assumptions (not just the rubbish about it being based on the Canada model), and calculations weren't in the leaflet. I checked. They may have made it available elsewhere? but that's not what they put into their leaflet.

This is an absolutely horrendous analogy but here goes, If I tell someone they're going to lose 2 stone by taking paracetamol tablets daily for six months, it doesn't make it less of a lie if they end up actually losing the 2 stone for a legitimate reason (exercising/diet). The point I'm making, is that even if the situation ends up as bad or worse than what they 'projected', the numbers in that document were still a complete lie.

EDIT:
BTW I'm not defending that bus campaign at all. I'm just tired of people painting it as if the Leave campaign were the only ones trying to scare people by completely lying about 'facts'.

The paper was available online outlining how they'd arrived at the figures.

Where was the other side's justification or calculation? At all...where?

Neville Chamberlin had a paper, Phil Gartside had a fax!

[Hoboh]

We all know Hoboh will vote Tory this time! No need to pretend otherwise.

Then you know more than me buddy.

I've seen first hand the assault on the disabled and it ain't right, Labour have hardly stated they would stop it either.

Given things change over time, Hobes, who do you think will deliver what is closest to your expectations on Brexit?

The reason I ask, is they now have the opportunity to spell out what Brexit will actually look like (below the "Brexit means Brexit" soundbite that actually tells you Fck all). They also have the ability to change its shape and whoever is elected will tell you that their democratic mandate is this one (rather than any previous one).

What are your thoughts regarding this? If for example the Lib Dens were elected, which I don't believe they will be then Brexit would almost certainly end up a different shape than the one I suspect you envisage...but all parties now have the opportunity to adapt Brexit's "shape"

Hand on heart I just wish they would get on with Brexit and given all the noise and underwear changing coming from both the EU and here I wouldn't put a fiver on anything yet.

The GE result affects people far more than Brexit will and as such I will be looking for those who actually care about the people of this Island rather than mither about something that as yet has no form, shape or anything palpable to dwell on.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I knew it, Hobes is voting Greens

[BWFC_Insane]

We all know Hoboh will vote Tory this time! No need to pretend otherwise.

Then you know more than me buddy.

I've seen first hand the assault on the disabled and it ain't right, Labour have hardly stated they would stop it either.

Given things change over time, Hobes, who do you think will deliver what is closest to your expectations on Brexit?

The reason I ask, is they now have the opportunity to spell out what Brexit will actually look like (below the "Brexit means Brexit" soundbite that actually tells you Fck all). They also have the ability to change its shape and whoever is elected will tell you that their democratic mandate is this one (rather than any previous one).

What are your thoughts regarding this? If for example the Lib Dens were elected, which I don't believe they will be then Brexit would almost certainly end up a different shape than the one I suspect you envisage...but all parties now have the opportunity to adapt Brexit's "shape"

Hand on heart I just wish they would get on with Brexit and given all the noise and underwear changing coming from both the EU and here I wouldn't put a fiver on anything yet.

The GE result affects people far more than Brexit will and as such I will be looking for those who actually care about the people of this Island rather than mither about something that as yet has no form, shape or anything palpable to dwell on.

May has called the election and is trying to make it all about Brexit.

Think only one party will try and ignore Brexit and that will be Labour.

[Hoboh]

We all know Hoboh will vote Tory this time! No need to pretend otherwise.

Then you know more than me buddy.

I've seen first hand the assault on the disabled and it ain't right, Labour have hardly stated they would stop it either.

Given things change over time, Hobes, who do you think will deliver what is closest to your expectations on Brexit?

The reason I ask, is they now have the opportunity to spell out what Brexit will actually look like (below the "Brexit means Brexit" soundbite that actually tells you Fck all). They also have the ability to change its shape and whoever is elected will tell you that their democratic mandate is this one (rather than any previous one).

What are your thoughts regarding this? If for example the Lib Dens were elected, which I don't believe they will be then Brexit would almost certainly end up a different shape than the one I suspect you envisage...but all parties now have the opportunity to adapt Brexit's "shape"

Hand on heart I just wish they would get on with Brexit and given all the noise and underwear changing coming from both the EU and here I wouldn't put a fiver on anything yet.

The GE result affects people far more than Brexit will and as such I will be looking for those who actually care about the people of this Island rather than mither about something that as yet has no form, shape or anything palpable to dwell on.

May has called the election and is trying to make it all about Brexit.

Think only one party will try and ignore Brexit and that will be Labour.

Now, did I say I wish to ignore Brexit?

I'm of the opinion there are matters closer to home that need dealing with, at least while we are an independent nation

[Lord Kangana]

Given that we haven't exited the EU yet, how can anyone prove whether or not it'll cost the average household in excess of £4k?

I'd still like to know how and in what ways our lives are going to be better. Anyone?

[bedwetter2]

Does this dammed woman never give up?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ard-brexit

It was all to do with parliamentary procedures was it?

Bare faced liar.

I hope not, the bare faced liars promising £350m extra for the NHS need holding to Account.

Oft repeated this was a "promise" rather than the reduction in EU fees could be used for a variety of things including the NHS. Just continuing to state "promise" doesn't make it so.

I mean, it wasn't a "promise". Neither was it a loose, hey guys, we might be able to do this....

It was a very direct campaigning strategy. That was based on absolutely nothing. And was backtracked on immediately.

In short, a bare faced lie to appeal to thickos.

No, it wasn't a promise and Vote Leave was not the Tories either. That campaign included plenty of Tories but also included a few Labour and other individuals. At that time the figure of £350m quoted was the gross amount with a net amount of approximately £245m per week. That has now increased.

I have no problem with politicians telling porkies as has been pointed out by Rjs. That's their job and has it ever been so. So long as everyone has a robustly questioning attitude, then great. The only one's who don't seem to exercise their critical faculties are the majority of interviewers in the media who irritate the bejasus out of me by just accepting statements made to them by the politicos without asking for empirical evidence.

Whilst I think you have a very low opinion of the mental capacity of your fellow humans, I believe that the electorate in general vote fairly logically based upon their personal circumstance. After all, there are very few truly altruistic voters who would sacrifice what they think may be good for them for the better common good.

[BWFC_Insane]

The 350M ignored the rebate which is automatically applied. Which brings the contribution down to 245M. You cannot call that gross or net because the rebate amount is never sent.

Then on top of that it ignored the money we receive back from the EU for research, regional development, farming etc...

The poster was a deliberate outright lie. There isn't any question or debate to be had of that. Not just the entirely wrong number but the fact they knew it was never going to the NHS.

[Lord Kangana]

The most idiotic part of the statement is the 'give' bit.

I 'give' Tesco a f*cking fortune every week. The problem is, I eat my cake. I'm not sure what level of moron the till person would take me for if I wanted the goods and my money back.

Which I think is BWFCi's point. I think. I'm sure he'll be happy to correct me.

[BWFC_Insane]

The most idiotic part of the statement is the 'give' bit.

I 'give' Tesco a f*cking fortune every week. The problem is, I eat my cake. I'm not sure what level of moron the till person would take me for if I wanted the goods and my money back.

Which I think is BWFCi's point. I think. I'm sure he'll be happy to correct me.

Well yes. That and the number being completely wrong in the first place.

[Hoboh]

The most idiotic part of the statement is the 'give' bit.

I 'give' Tesco a f*cking fortune every week. The problem is, I eat my cake. I'm not sure what level of moron the till person would take me for if I wanted the goods and my money back.

Which I think is BWFCi's point. I think. I'm sure he'll be happy to correct me.

Well yes. That and the number being completely wrong in the first place.

Well if you over pay for your cake........

I suppose the need for an emergency budget, the £4500 under everyone's sofa and the outbreak of WW3 were true as well

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Well, if Trump keeps waving his willy around then we might have WW3 and as for the emergency budget I'm sure was a lie but we'll never know because the boss scarpered as quick as he could. The fact is, that bus was (to many people) akin to a manifesto pledge. You can argue whether that is right or wrong, but knowingly they knew it would influence a lot of people to vote their way because of that statement that clearly no one had any intention of fighting for.

It's like immigration. I'd argue many people voting leave thought they were voting for a serious cut in immigration, yet the morning after the likes of Hannan, with a smirk, said "oh no, not a reduction" and something along the lines of "the immigrants will just come from other places".

Now everything that alluded to something great has morphed in to "take back control" despite the fact we hardly used the control we already had.