All things Labour Party

[Wes Tender]

What about now? Why are those pesky Argentinians still holding the wrong views when the junta is long gone and they are no longer savagely coerced? Below is YouGov survey. Why do they think the islands are more important to Argentina than Brits think they are to Britain?

 

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/fjcjgj8uaj/YG-Archives-YGIbarometro-FalklandResults-100412-Summary_WLogo_corrected.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21673504

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/629216/Argentina-never-give-up-Falklands-new-president-Cristina-Fernandez-de-Kirchner

 

As Nolan says, the leadership in Argentina use the Falklands issue as a tub-thumping exercise to boost their popularity ratings when they flag during periods of dissatisfaction caused by their poor economic performance. Why is the Argentina poll rating claiming sovereignty of the Islands higher than it is here? I would imagine that it is the subject of considerable propaganda, taught to their schoolchildren during their history and geography lessons. Over here, at nearly 34 years ago, it isn't something that high in the minds of those who were only born after the event when geographically the Islands are remote and historically there have been many other military events that we have participated in compared to subsequent Argentinian military actions, which would be more likely to be taken against their own population.

 

Personally, I don't give much credence to polls such as the YouGov one, which got things like the election result badly wrong last year. However, knowing your stance on how you believe we ought to remain in the EU, it is encouraging to see that the currrent YouGov poll shows that there is now a majority of the electorate who would vote to leave.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/28/4-point-lead-leave-eu-referendum-and-support-danis/

[CB Fry]

What about now? Why are those pesky Argentinians still holding the wrong views when the junta is long gone and they are no longer savagely coerced? Below is YouGov survey. Why do they think the islands are more important to Argentina than Brits think they are to Britain?

 

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/fjcjgj8uaj/YG-Archives-YGIbarometro-FalklandResults-100412-Summary_WLogo_corrected.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21673504

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/629216/Argentina-never-give-up-Falklands-new-president-Cristina-Fernandez-de-Kirchner

The referendum held on the island itself held only a couple of years ago kinda pi sses over any YouGov survey you care to post up.

[buctootim]

The referendum held on the island itself held only a couple of years ago kinda pi sses over any YouGov survey you care to post up.

 

How did the Hong Kong one go? and the Chagos?

[CB Fry]

How did the Hong Kong one go? and the Chagos?

What has that got to do with the history of the Falklands, which admittedly already has an infinitesimally small amount to do with Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of Her Majesty's opposition?

[buctootim]

What has that got to do with the history of the Falklands, which admittedly already has an infinitesimally small amount to do with Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of Her Majesty's opposition?

 

I just wanted to confirm that colonial inhabitants only have a deciding voice when it suits us. Its an optional luxury to be given or withdrawn depending on how big a stick / carrot the opposition / allies have.

 

As long as we're clear self determination is not a principled decision as far as the UK is concerned - just a politically expedient one - then Im good with it.

[CB Fry]

I just wanted to confirm that colonial inhabitants only have a deciding voice when it suits us. Its an optional luxury to be given or withdrawn depending on how big a stick / carrot the opposition / allies have.

 

As long as we're clear self determination is not a principled decision as far as the UK is concerned - just a politically expedient one - then Im good with it.

Congratulations on triumphantly winning the Falklands debate.

 

Can you shut up about it now?

[Verbal]

Thats rather rich Verbal.

 

1. You try to condescend to most posters on here and flounced off from Sotonians simply because you were in a minority and losing the argument. Very Corbynist.

2. You make a rather superior ad hominem attack accusing me of ad hominem posts and superiority.

3. I didnt vote for Corbyn. I wouldnt vote for Corbyn, although I think he would make a good minister in the right department with the right PM

4. I have voted Tory, LD or Green far more times than I have voted Labour.

 

I engage in proper argument with anyone who wants proper argument. Those who make snipey remarks but add nothing to the debate I make snipey remarks to or ignore

 

I don't believe I've said anything about Sotonians, let alone anything negative, so I don't know where that comes from.

 

That aside, you seem one confused mofo. With that voting record you're a natural doe-eyed Corbynist:consider your open-minded virtues well and truly signalled.

 

Oh, and look up the definition of ad hominem: you either don't understand it or you don't read.

[Sour Mash]

The whole thing with Corbyn does sort of show why only having 2 main parties in with a shout of power doesn't really work in many ways.

 

Impossible to come close to representing a good share of the population's views with only 2 options, especially when they just have to fight over centre ground to try to get elected.

[buctootim]

The whole thing with Corbyn does sort of show why only having 2 main parties in with a shout of power doesn't really work in many ways.

 

Impossible to come close to representing a good share of the population's views with only 2 options, especially when they just have to fight over centre ground to try to get elected.

 

Thats true. Regardless of your political allegiance, its not good for the country /democracy. You support PR?

[buctootim]

You seem one confused mofo. With that voting record you're a natural doe-eyed Corbynist:consider your open-minded virtues well and truly signalled.

 

Voting differently depending on the candidate and whether its a local council election (where parties dont really matter), EU elections using PR, taking into consideration policies or voting tactically on occasion makes sense to me. I fully understand why it wouldn't to you. Blind allegiance regardless of issue or circumstance - unless the leader is someone you didnt vote for, in which you do everything you can to subvert them. Oh to be as principled.

Edited 2 February, 2016 by buctootim

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Charlie I like your posts and have enjoyed sparring with you. You've made some good points so its a pity you've gone down the lazy route of "well you would think that because because you're leftist anti imperialist". That would be an odd position for me to take as the military junta were systematically killing leftists. You then attack my analysis as "trampling all over history" without giving any examples of where I am factually wrong.

 

Why is it "revisionist" to ask why two different populations see a situation so differently? Both populations saw the conflict as their country rightfully regaining what had been wrongfully taken from them. What the Brits see as an Argentine invasion they see as a liberation from foreign occupation. What we see as a glorious patriotic operation to free Brits from the oppressive yoke (yes the same Brits we had told the previous year they werent Brits anymore) they see as a violent recolonisation killing 1,000 people whereas their operation killed no-one.

 

As I said previously the best result would have been transfer and leaseback for 100 years - thats a much much better deal than we gave Hong Kong or the people of the Chagos. Why did we forcibly evict the 2,000 people of the Chagos Islands at the behest of a foreign power, but get the army to defend the Falklanders? In Hong Kong we had a treaty guaranteeing occupation in perpetuity, instead of "well they were empytish at the time so we annexed them". We didnt need to give Hong Kong up we just decided the economic loss and death toll of defending it wasnt worth it. We sacrificed 255 military personnel and three islanders for a Falklands population out of 2,000. The same death rate for Hong Kong would have seen over 700,000 British dead and 2m Chinese.

 

At what point does a foreign policy sometimes founded on high minded principles and sometimes on elastic pragmatism in a wider national interest become hypocritical? If you are hypocrtical in foreign policy why should other countries respect your actions?

 

It seems to me that you are conducting this debate in a highly partisan manner without a proper degree of respect being shown towards the historical facts of the matter - for example your implying (inaccurately) that no real violence was displayed by the Argentines during their invasion operation. That might reasonably be called trampling over the historical truth methinks. I have already addressed the practicable problems associated with imposing the ''leaseback'' proposal on a unwilling population and a sceptical parliament. So I see no real purpose would be served in repeating those points again. You may feel that this putative deal would have been the best outcome for all concerned, with 20/20 hindsight you may perhaps even be right in that view, but those most directly concerned in the matter - i.e. the islanders themselves - seem to have held a very different opinion on that subject.

 

This is the key point here is it not? Every democratic principle that I am aware of says that those placed in a position of power must take into account the expressed wishes of the people they are supposed to represent. Article 1 of the UN Human Rights Charter enshrines the basic right to ''Self Determination'' in international law. Therefore, in electing to reject Argentinian sovereignty claims over the islands the Falklanders were exercising that human right as they are entitled to. What might seem to be a expedient decision from the perspective of the Foreign Office (or a university lecture hall) may be viewed in a entirely different light from those remote islands where the local population may (quite properly) be more concerned with the fate of their children and grandchildren rather than smoothing the UK's trade relations with Latin America.

 

Drawing a analogy between the Falklands and Hong Kong is a interesting enough debating point I suppose but the two situations are very different. While the ''New Territories'' area had to be returned to the PRC as the 99 year lease in force had expired, the remainder of the colony was voluntarily ceded back to China as a result of a negotiated settlement being agreed. No such agreement was achieved with regard to the Falklands of course and the subsequent Argentinian invasion has effectively scuppered the possibility of one being reached for perhaps a century to come.

Setting aside the problems of water supply provision and the sheer impracticability of the UK militarily defending the colony from the PRC's armed might, the difference that ''dare not speak its name'' between the Falklands and Hong Kong is that the population of the former colony are ethnically of British origin, while the Hong Kong population was always primarily of Cantonese extraction. Now if you want to argue that racial considerations should not effect policy decisions then - in principle - I might agree with you. However, we live in the pragmatic world not a perfect one alas and ethnicity is still a important factor in the minds of men.

 

As for asking why ''we'' sacrificed so many lives, again I can only return to the fact that ''we'' were the victims of foreign military aggression here and not the perpetrators. Therefore, it seems to me that responsibility for the casualties incurred - on both sides - lays more in Buenos Aires rather than in Westminster. In expelling the invasion force it seems to me that the UK was surely acting within every nation's internationally recognised right to self-defence.

Finally, let me put a theoretical scenario to you. Say the UK had granted the Falkland Islands full independent nation status prior to the 1982 war, as we had done with so many other former colony's. If that were so, would you be on here now defending Argentina's right to invade and conquer that virtually defenceless little state, or do you think that such a act of naked military aggression should be viewed as unacceptable in this day and age?

[Batman]

Not from Jezza. But weird!!!!

http://www.lbc.co.uk/rmt-union-leader-tories-should-be-shot-124318

[Jonnyboy]

He's got a point. Why have the deaths of the most vulnerable killed by cuts not been discussed in parliament? Corbyn should be all over this scandal.

[Whitey Grandad]

Charlie I like your posts and have enjoyed sparring with you. You've made some good points so its a pity you've gone down the lazy route of "well you would think that because because you're leftist anti imperialist". That would be an odd position for me to take as the military junta were systematically killing leftists. You then attack my analysis as "trampling all over history" without giving any examples of where I am factually wrong.

 

Why is it "revisionist" to ask why two different populations see a situation so differently? Both populations saw the conflict as their country rightfully regaining what had been wrongfully taken from them. What the Brits see as an Argentine invasion they see as a liberation from foreign occupation. What we see as a glorious patriotic operation to free Brits from the oppressive yoke (yes the same Brits we had told the previous year they werent Brits anymore) they see as a violent recolonisation killing 1,000 people whereas their operation killed no-one.

 

As I said previously the best result would have been transfer and leaseback for 100 years - thats a much much better deal than we gave Hong Kong or the people of the Chagos. Why did we forcibly evict the 2,000 people of the Chagos Islands at the behest of a foreign power, but get the army to defend the Falklanders? In Hong Kong we had a treaty guaranteeing occupation in perpetuity, instead of "well they were empytish at the time so we annexed them". We didnt need to give Hong Kong up we just decided the economic loss and death toll of defending it wasnt worth it. We sacrificed 255 military personnel and three islanders for a Falklands population out of 2,000. The same death rate for Hong Kong would have seen over 700,000 British dead and 2m Chinese.

 

At what point does a foreign policy sometimes founded on high minded principles and sometimes on elastic pragmatism in a wider national interest become hypocritical? If you are hypocrtical in foreign policy why should other countries respect your actions?

 

It was only the island of Hong Kong and Kowloon that were leased in perpetuity, the New Territories reverted to China in 1997 and the rest was untenable without them.

[buctootim]

the rest was untenable without them.

 

Not really. Hong Kong is like Singapore -big ports, similar population size and density. Singapore does just fine.

 

We could have kept them or sent them independent but we didnt want to damage relations with China. It was politically expedient. We could have shared the Falklands sovereignty with Argentina, but that would have meant giving up rights to a huge slice of Antarctica. That wasnt politically expedient.

Edited 3 February, 2016 by buctootim

[Sour Mash]

Not from Jezza. But weird!!!!

http://www.lbc.co.uk/rmt-union-leader-tories-should-be-shot-124318

 

Does he also apply that to the many millions of British people that happily voted in and endorsed this Tory Govt and it's policies?

[Jonnyboy]

Does he also apply that to the many millions of British people that happily voted in and endorsed this Tory Govt and it's policies?

 

Are you implying the 20% of British adults who voted Tory are in favour of euthanising the disabled and vulnerable??

[buctootim]

Are you implying the 20% of British adults who voted Tory are in favour of euthanising the disabled and vulnerable??

 

Sounds a bit low to me. Half?

[Sour Mash]

Are you implying the 20% of British adults who voted Tory are in favour of euthanising the disabled and vulnerable??

 

I'm just saying that statements like that will continue to make those on the left look like bitter, out of touch loonies.

 

If you're so bothered about what the tories are doing you should be more p****d off at such statements than anyone.

[hutch]

Not from Jezza. But weird!!!!

http://www.lbc.co.uk/rmt-union-leader-tories-should-be-shot-124318

 

He's been reading Stalin's guide on how to become a caring socialist.

[Special K]

He's been reading Stalin's guide on how to become a caring socialist.

 

He seems to have lost his marbles. On the link there was a further link to another meltdown he had against Nick Ferrari later on. He needs to have a quiet word with himself.

[Johnny Bognor]

He seems to have lost his marbles. On the link there was a further link to another meltdown he had against Nick Ferrari later on. He needs to have a quiet word with himself.

 

And there was me thinking that a union leader was supposed to represent and stick up for his members. Silly me.

[Nolan]

And there was me thinking that a union leader was supposed to represent and stick up for his members. Silly me.

So why didn't he?

[Johnny Bognor]

So why didn't he?

 

Because when he has air time, he should be using that 100% for the benefit of his members and to argue their cause. Sounding like a Nazi, does not do his members justice. But like most union leaders, they couldn't give a flying **** about their members

[Nolan]

Because when he has air time, he should be using that 100% for the benefit of his members and to argue their cause. Sounding like a Nazi, does not do his members justice. But like most union leaders, they couldn't give a flying **** about their members

Completely agree. In this case, the rmt bloke probably had just found out that the tube strike was off. And was letting out his aggressive communist tendencies.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

Because when he has air time, he should be using that 100% for the benefit of his members and to argue their cause. Sounding like a Nazi, does not do his members justice. But like most union leaders, they couldn't give a flying **** about their members

 

My mum used to work for the TGWU. They paid well with good holidays, but she said it was the worst employer she ever had. Treated their staff really badly.

[bridge too far]

Because when he has air time, he should be using that 100% for the benefit of his members and to argue their cause. Sounding like a Nazi, does not do his members justice. But like most union leaders, they couldn't give a flying **** about their members

 

Nothing like sweeping generalisations is there ? My ex husband was a full time Regional Secretary for the construction trade union UCATT and went to extraordinary lengths to protect his members and fight for their rights. This at a time when the Economic League was in full flood.

[Verbal]

Because when he has air time, he should be using that 100% for the benefit of his members and to argue their cause. Sounding like a Nazi, does not do his members justice. But like most union leaders, they couldn't give a flying **** about their members

 

I've known a lot of union leaders over the years, and most of them certainly do give a flying **** for their members. This guy is a Corbynist on speed. It's what happens when a far-left ideology takes hold of the commanding heights of the Labour party and spreads like cancer.

 

The irony is that Corbyn's 'new politics' and its supposedly gentle, kinder voice finds expression in the vicious hatred uttered by the likes of Ken Livingston (who'd rather make sick jokes about the mental illness of a fellow Labour member than even question the selfless acts of the 7/7 bombers in "giving their lives") and this cretin. The 'new politics' bile aimed at prominent women in the Labour party also underscores the old problem of the relentless woman-hating among the supposedly enlightened ones.

[Johnny Bognor]

Nothing like sweeping generalisations is there ? My ex husband was a full time Regional Secretary for the construction trade union UCATT and went to extraordinary lengths to protect his members and fight for their rights. This at a time when the Economic League was in full flood.

 

Then he is a model to behold for Union leaders, many of whom have received double-digit percentage pay rises, whilst their members (who pay for these wages) cope with pay freezes.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to find examples of extreme hypocrisy from Union bosses...

[Nolan]

Not to mention those Union barons who have previously stayed living in council houses. Despite their 6 figure salaries. Blocking the path of the needy to said council house.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[John B]

Then he is a model to behold for Union leaders, many of whom have received double-digit percentage pay rises, whilst their members (who pay for these wages) cope with pay freezes.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to find examples of extreme hypocrisy from Union bosses...

 

Have you the evidence for this if so please can you post it because I doubt it is true

[John B]

Not to mention those Union barons who have previously stayed living in council houses. Despite their 6 figure salaries. Blocking the path of the needy to said council house.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

I think you are talking about Bob Crowe who died recently but his union is not affiliated to the Labour Party

 

In the 1960s the chap who was the union leader of the dockers in Southampton lived in a non council house next to us in Bitterne Manor

[Nolan]

I think you are talking about Bob Crowe who died recently but his union is not affiliated to the Labour Party

 

In the 1960s the chap who was the union leader of the dockers in Southampton lived in a non council house next to us in Bitterne Manor

They're a union that has endorsed Corbyn.... Thats close enough.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Johnny Bognor]

Have you the evidence for this if so please can you post it because I doubt it is true

 

 

OK, where shall I start...

MILITANT union chief Christine Blower’s pay package rose by an inflation-busting ten per cent to £154,000 last year.

Mrs Blower, head of the National Union of Teachers, saw contributions to her pension rise £10,000 to £36,128.

Her basic salary went up from £103,003 to £106,235 — and overall her remuneration package increased from £140,167 to £154,556 in the year 2010-2011

 

and then there's....

 

UCATT general secretary Steve Murphy enjoyed an eyewatering 15.8 per cent jump to £116,581.

 

 

Not all of them are double digit rises, but even single digit rises fly in the face of their members, when they are already on six figure salaries....

 

Union chief Len McCluskey has pocketed a £5,000 pay rise while thousands of his members struggle with wage freezes.

The powerful Left-wing Unite boss, pictured below, saw his package jump to £140,281 last year – just short of the salary paid to David Cameron.

The 3.7 per cent rise came as thousands of Unite’s public sector members face the fifth consecutive year of pay freezes and below-inflation rises.

 

 

I could go on, but I will be here all day. So how about you post details of any Union boss that has had a pay freeze, to show solidarity with his/her members. Good luck!!!

 

 

 

 

[solentstars]

Nothing like sweeping generalisations is there ? My ex husband was a full time Regional Secretary for the construction trade union UCATT and went to extraordinary lengths to protect his members and fight for their rights. This at a time when the Economic League was in full flood.

I expect your post is more represented of the union officials the other post are the usual rantings you find from the usual suspects.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

Nothing like sweeping generalisations is there ? My ex husband was a full time Regional Secretary for the construction trade union UCATT and went to extraordinary lengths to protect his members and fight for their rights. This at a time when the Economic League was in full flood.

 

It's a shame if what you say is true that the only ones we get in the media are the militant ones only in it for themselves on obscene salaries who are desperate for any excuse to strike. It really does give all unions a bad reputation.

[bridge too far]

It's a shame if what you say is true that the only ones we get in the media are the militant ones only in it for themselves on obscene salaries who are desperate for any excuse to strike. It really does give all unions a bad reputation.

 

I think you've been misled by the media. Most of the General Secretaries' roles are comparable to those of business leaders with whom they negotiate (and, it has to be said, work very closely in many industries and businesses). So it's quite understandable that their salaries should be begin to approach the levels of those business leaders - although of course theyre nowhere near those levels in reality.

 

The other, very important, point to make is this. Their salaries are considered and agreed by the membership. The same membership that votes for industrial action. The 'barons' do not make these decisions without the approval of their members.

 

Shame private enterprise doesn't do the same, eh?

[hypochondriac]

I think you've been misled by the media. Most of the General Secretaries' roles are comparable to those of business leaders with whom they negotiate (and, it has to be said, work very closely in many industries and businesses). So it's quite understandable that their salaries should be begin to approach the levels of those business leaders - although of course theyre nowhere near those levels in reality.

 

The other, very important, point to make is this. Their salaries are considered and agreed by the membership. The same membership that votes for industrial action. The 'barons' do not make these decisions without the approval of their members.

 

Shame private enterprise doesn't do the same, eh?

 

That's fine on the issue of wages but doesn't address any of my other points. Do you feel that they should get more moderate union leaders in the media? (if such a thing exists of course.)

[solentstars]

It's a shame if what you say is true that the only ones we get in the media are the militant ones only in it for themselves on obscene salaries who are desperate for any excuse to strike. It really does give all unions a bad reputation.

Yes but the media in general represents big business so its not balanced is it. I take the nonsense they write a pinch of salt hence why I don't buy newspapers any more.they don't want unions moderate or militant so they can pay the bare minimum in my honest opinion.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Nolan]

Yes but the media in general represents big business so its not balanced is it. I take the nonsense they write a pinch of salt hence why I don't buy newspapers any more.they don't want unions moderate or militant so they can pay the bare minimum in my honest opinion.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Rubbish. The media reflects the feeling of the general population. If it didn't people would stop watching / reading.

[bridge too far]

Rubbish. The media reflects the feeling of the general population. If it didn't people would stop watching / reading.

 

Blimey! Which tree did you fall from? The media DRIVES the feeling of the general population, many of whom take what they read at face value instead of bothering to research the validity of the opinions proffered!

[buctootim]

Rubbish. The media reflects the feeling of the general population. If it didn't people would stop watching / reading.

 

The media knows if its readership is broadly conservative or broadly liberal but clearly the reader / viewer doesn't have a view on each new policy or event which happens. Thats when they are fed what to think. Over time its cumulative.

[Sour Mash]

Classic views of those on the left, viewing the people of this country too stupid to think for themselves and make their own minds up.

[CB Fry]

Blimey! Which tree did you fall from? The media DRIVES the feeling of the general population, many of whom take what they read at face value instead of bothering to research the validity of the opinions proffered!

Not you though. You're jolly clever.

 

I notice youve not linked up any ranting pro-Jezza blog posts "for the sake of balance", recently, have you?

 

Go on, post up another and maybe the rest of us can judge your critical faculties.

[Jonnyboy]

Classic views of those on the left, viewing the people of this country too stupid to think for themselves and make their own minds up.

 

The right are just better at hiding their disdain.

[Verbal]

Blimey! Which tree did you fall from? The media DRIVES the feeling of the general population, many of whom take what they read at face value instead of bothering to research the validity of the opinions proffered!

 

One big problem with this patronising twaddle is that it's just that. How Corbynists love to portray voters as stupid - but this argument itself is ignorant. Studies of media influence in political science don't agree on much, but they do provide lots of evidence against the view that the media tells people what to think and that people "take what they read at face value".

 

The famous chapel Hill study in 1968 found that the media do not determine what people think but set agendas for what they think. Since that study, the influence of the mass media has been studied intensely, and as the media have multiplied and diversified in the online era, agenda-setting by the so-called "mainstream media" has weakened. There are simply too many mediated agendas out there to have the influence that, say, newspapers did in the 1960s.

 

So please do get off your high horse, from which you uniquely see the world with great clarity. Others have political opinions and they they are not invalidated by your equating them with stuff said in The Sun.

[CB Fry]

One big problem with this patronising twaddle is that it's just that. How Corbynists love to portray voters as stupid - but this argument itself is ignorant. Studies of media influence in political science don't agree on much, but they do provide lots of evidence against the view that the media tells people what to think and that people "take what they read at face value".

 

The famous chapel Hill study in 1968 found that the media do not determine what people think but set agendas for what they think. Since that study, the influence of the mass media has been studied intensely, and as the media have multiplied and diversified in the online era, agenda-setting by the so-called "mainstream media" has weakened. There are simply too many mediated agendas out there to have the influence that, say, newspapers did in the 1960s.

 

So please do get off your high horse, from which you uniquely see the world with great clarity. Others have political opinions and they they are not invalidated by your equating them with stuff said in The Sun.

I'm starting to think that BTF has not "bothered to research" the opinion he "proffered".

[Lord Duckhunter]

Classic views of those on the left, viewing the people of this country too stupid to think for themselves and make their own minds up.

 

Spot on .

 

In a recent podcast that loony Toynbee said that the EU was too important to the National interest to allow the public a vote on staying in .Lefties love patronising the very people they claim to represent .

[solentstars]

Rubbish. The media reflects the feeling of the general population. If it didn't people would stop watching / reading.

you are a bit naive and innocent but if you really believe that the companys that who own the newspapers like murdock etc care about you rather than his own interests and agenda. you only got to look at history to see that.

[Lord Duckhunter]

you are a bit naive and innocent but if you really believe that the companys that who own the newspapers like murdock etc care about you rather than his own interests and agenda. you only got to look at history to see that.

 

He didn't claim they cared about him . Only that they're commercial business that give the people what they want . If The Sun or Mail started spouting leftie Guardian nonsense , their circulation would drop like a stone .