antony1969 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 12:06 PM John52 - 2017-10-13 11:04 AM Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 9:19 AM John52 - 2017-10-13 8:08 AM RogerC - 2017-10-12 3:28 PM Yes the property/wages situation is affected but which government benefited? Not Labour's successor that is for certain. Can't you even see how the landed aristocracy have benefitted from higher property prices/rents and lower labour costs? Some interesting statements about who benefits from the CAP in the link below which presents arguments for and against the CAP including the following on the "against" side of the debate. "Eighty percent of CAP aid goes to just 20 percent of farms. The biggest slice of the subsidy pie is handed to the landed gentry, environment- destroying mega-farms and vast agro-industrial conglomerates. Figures from the UK show Queen Elizabeth II gets around half-a-million euros a year. Food industry giants like Campina or Nestle have been handed hundreds of millions. Small-scale European farmers get little and poor farmers in developing nations are shut out of European markets." http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-agricultural-policy/#.WeBxbjco_IU Whilst CAP has its downsides to put it mildly I remain to be convinced that the powers that be in the UK will do anything to redress the disproportionate gains made by the current beneficiaries of CAP in any new domestic scheme. Veronica Its even worse than that Veronica. Farmers usually fit into 2 categories 1) Landowners (rich farmers) 2) Tenants (poor farmers) Even the small proportion of subsidy that goes to poor farmers tends to be clawed back because as soon as they start making money their landlords (rich farmers) put their rent up. Considering joining you at the barricades come the revolution John. I've had a bit of a thing about landowning farmers ever since I went to University where I met a poor little rich girl whose daddy was a farmer and who was on a full grant. I had to rely on contributions from my wage earning parents that they couldn't really afford from earnings or resources they couldn't hide. Cue violins. Veronica Are you suggesting the farmer was breaking the law or merely using the system legally to his advantage ??? Can't see it being him breaking the law as his daughter was hardly likely to know about it and if she did she was hardly likely to tell about it so that leaves using the system legally which means you should blame the system and not the poor little rich girl as you put it or her father Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-10-13 12:17 PM Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 12:06 PM John52 - 2017-10-13 11:04 AM Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 9:19 AM John52 - 2017-10-13 8:08 AM RogerC - 2017-10-12 3:28 PM Yes the property/wages situation is affected but which government benefited? Not Labour's successor that is for certain. Can't you even see how the landed aristocracy have benefitted from higher property prices/rents and lower labour costs? Some interesting statements about who benefits from the CAP in the link below which presents arguments for and against the CAP including the following on the "against" side of the debate. "Eighty percent of CAP aid goes to just 20 percent of farms. The biggest slice of the subsidy pie is handed to the landed gentry, environment- destroying mega-farms and vast agro-industrial conglomerates. Figures from the UK show Queen Elizabeth II gets around half-a-million euros a year. Food industry giants like Campina or Nestle have been handed hundreds of millions. Small-scale European farmers get little and poor farmers in developing nations are shut out of European markets." http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-agricultural-policy/#.WeBxbjco_IU Whilst CAP has its downsides to put it mildly I remain to be convinced that the powers that be in the UK will do anything to redress the disproportionate gains made by the current beneficiaries of CAP in any new domestic scheme. Veronica Its even worse than that Veronica. Farmers usually fit into 2 categories 1) Landowners (rich farmers) 2) Tenants (poor farmers) Even the small proportion of subsidy that goes to poor farmers tends to be clawed back because as soon as they start making money their landlords (rich farmers) put their rent up. Considering joining you at the barricades come the revolution John. I've had a bit of a thing about landowning farmers ever since I went to University where I met a poor little rich girl whose daddy was a farmer and who was on a full grant. I had to rely on contributions from my wage earning parents that they couldn't really afford from earnings or resources they couldn't hide. Cue violins. Veronica Are you suggesting the farmer was breaking the law or merely using the system legally to his advantage ??? Can't see it being him breaking the law as his daughter was hardly likely to know about it and if she did she was hardly likely to tell about it so that leaves using the system legally which means you should blame the system and not the poor little rich girl as you put it or her father No I don't blame the poor little rich girl or her father I do blame the system as it was then Antony. To give you a further idea of the system as it operated in the mid 70s when I applied for my grant parents who completed the means test were allowed to have their income assessed after deducting any private school fees they paid for any other children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 12:28 PM antony1969 - 2017-10-13 12:17 PM Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 12:06 PM John52 - 2017-10-13 11:04 AM Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 9:19 AM John52 - 2017-10-13 8:08 AM RogerC - 2017-10-12 3:28 PM Yes the property/wages situation is affected but which government benefited? Not Labour's successor that is for certain. Can't you even see how the landed aristocracy have benefitted from higher property prices/rents and lower labour costs? Some interesting statements about who benefits from the CAP in the link below which presents arguments for and against the CAP including the following on the "against" side of the debate. "Eighty percent of CAP aid goes to just 20 percent of farms. The biggest slice of the subsidy pie is handed to the landed gentry, environment- destroying mega-farms and vast agro-industrial conglomerates. Figures from the UK show Queen Elizabeth II gets around half-a-million euros a year. Food industry giants like Campina or Nestle have been handed hundreds of millions. Small-scale European farmers get little and poor farmers in developing nations are shut out of European markets." http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-agricultural-policy/#.WeBxbjco_IU Whilst CAP has its downsides to put it mildly I remain to be convinced that the powers that be in the UK will do anything to redress the disproportionate gains made by the current beneficiaries of CAP in any new domestic scheme. Veronica Its even worse than that Veronica. Farmers usually fit into 2 categories 1) Landowners (rich farmers) 2) Tenants (poor farmers) Even the small proportion of subsidy that goes to poor farmers tends to be clawed back because as soon as they start making money their landlords (rich farmers) put their rent up. Considering joining you at the barricades come the revolution John. I've had a bit of a thing about landowning farmers ever since I went to University where I met a poor little rich girl whose daddy was a farmer and who was on a full grant. I had to rely on contributions from my wage earning parents that they couldn't really afford from earnings or resources they couldn't hide. Cue violins. Veronica Are you suggesting the farmer was breaking the law or merely using the system legally to his advantage ??? Can't see it being him breaking the law as his daughter was hardly likely to know about it and if she did she was hardly likely to tell about it so that leaves using the system legally which means you should blame the system and not the poor little rich girl as you put it or her father No I don't blame the poor little rich girl or her father I do blame the system as it was then Antony. To give you a further idea of the system as it operated in the mid 70s when I applied for my grant parents who completed the means test were allowed to have their income assessed after deducting any private school fees they paid for any other children. I don't see anything wrong with that actually Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 9:19 AMJohn52 - 2017-10-13 8:08 AMRogerC - 2017-10-12 3:28 PM Yes the property/wages situation is affected but which government benefited? Not Labour's successor that is for certain. Can't you even see how the landed aristocracy have benefitted from higher property prices/rents and lower labour costs?Some interesting statements about who benefits from the CAP in the link below which presents arguments for and against the CAP including the following on the "against" side of the debate. "Eighty percent of CAP aid goes to just 20 percent of farms. The biggest slice of the subsidy pie is handed to the landed gentry, environment- destroying mega-farms and vast agro-industrial conglomerates. Figures from the UK show Queen Elizabeth II gets around half-a-million euros a year. Food industry giants like Campina or Nestle have been handed hundreds of millions. Small-scale European farmers get little and poor farmers in developing nations are shut out of European markets."http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-agricultural-policy/#.WeBxbjco_IUWhilst CAP has its downsides to put it mildly I remain to be convinced that the powers that be in the UK will do anything to redress the disproportionate gains made by the current beneficiaries of CAP in any new domestic scheme.Veronica Another reason to leave. Those wanting to leave and those who have an interest have been calling for decades for the CAP to be reviewed and amended to better serve those it was intended to serve. However once again the EU screws things up and refuses to rectify such an egregious situation. Oh and it is interesting HM the Queen gets a mention in your reply but not the Saudi Prince who is a billionaire who received almost 460,000 euro at today's conversion rate, or James Dyson who picked up £1,600,000 in 2016. As for our resident arch anti royalist you might like to take a look at the recipients of CAP subsidies. Yes rents are reviewed but the most disgraceful situation is perpetrated by the unmoving EU whereby it continues to make payments directly to landowners and not those who are actually doing the farming. So don't blame the recipients blame those mandarins so many are crying out for us to remain tied to in the EU. Clearly yet another reason to get out of that extremely badly run club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-10-13 12:41 PM Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 12:28 PM antony1969 - 2017-10-13 12:17 PM Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 12:06 PM John52 - 2017-10-13 11:04 AM Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 9:19 AM John52 - 2017-10-13 8:08 AM RogerC - 2017-10-12 3:28 PM Yes the property/wages situation is affected but which government benefited? Not Labour's successor that is for certain. Can't you even see how the landed aristocracy have benefitted from higher property prices/rents and lower labour costs? Some interesting statements about who benefits from the CAP in the link below which presents arguments for and against the CAP including the following on the "against" side of the debate. "Eighty percent of CAP aid goes to just 20 percent of farms. The biggest slice of the subsidy pie is handed to the landed gentry, environment- destroying mega-farms and vast agro-industrial conglomerates. Figures from the UK show Queen Elizabeth II gets around half-a-million euros a year. Food industry giants like Campina or Nestle have been handed hundreds of millions. Small-scale European farmers get little and poor farmers in developing nations are shut out of European markets." http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-agricultural-policy/#.WeBxbjco_IU Whilst CAP has its downsides to put it mildly I remain to be convinced that the powers that be in the UK will do anything to redress the disproportionate gains made by the current beneficiaries of CAP in any new domestic scheme. Veronica Its even worse than that Veronica. Farmers usually fit into 2 categories 1) Landowners (rich farmers) 2) Tenants (poor farmers) Even the small proportion of subsidy that goes to poor farmers tends to be clawed back because as soon as they start making money their landlords (rich farmers) put their rent up. Considering joining you at the barricades come the revolution John. I've had a bit of a thing about landowning farmers ever since I went to University where I met a poor little rich girl whose daddy was a farmer and who was on a full grant. I had to rely on contributions from my wage earning parents that they couldn't really afford from earnings or resources they couldn't hide. Cue violins. Veronica Are you suggesting the farmer was breaking the law or merely using the system legally to his advantage ??? Can't see it being him breaking the law as his daughter was hardly likely to know about it and if she did she was hardly likely to tell about it so that leaves using the system legally which means you should blame the system and not the poor little rich girl as you put it or her father No I don't blame the poor little rich girl or her father I do blame the system as it was then Antony. To give you a further idea of the system as it operated in the mid 70s when I applied for my grant parents who completed the means test were allowed to have their income assessed after deducting any private school fees they paid for any other children. I don't see anything wrong with that actually Veronica I think in some circumstances it would not be wrong as I do accept that there were people who were paying school fees that could just afford them and it would not be right that they had to take their younger kids out of schools they had been in for a while in order to afford to fund university for an older child. For those that could hide their true income in sets of accounts showing losses and yet send their kids to independent schools they were onto a very good thing indeed. My poor little rich girl had been in independent schools throughout her education upto university. She was a very nice girl and a good friend of mine I had no ill feelings towards her at all. Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-10-13 11:34 AM John52 - 2017-10-13 11:06 AM pelmetman - 2017-10-13 9:31 AM Yeah poor old UK eh?.......We're only the 5th biggest economy in the world *-) ....... Turnover is Vanity, Profit is Sanity http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/ Just imagine how fast that clock would tick if Corbyn got hold of the UK cheque book >:-) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ...... So when I try to introduce some Sanity you change the subject :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 12:06 PM Considering joining you at the barricades come the revolution John. I've had a bit of a thing about landowning farmers ever since I went to University where I met a poor little rich girl whose daddy was a farmer and who was on a full grant. I had to rely on contributions from my wage earning parents that they couldn't really afford from earnings or resources they couldn't hide. Cue violins. Veronica I think Lloyd George said it best in 1909; "What is the landlord's increment? Who is the landlord? The landlord is a gentleman - I have not a word to say about him in his personal capacity - the landlord is a gentleman who does not earn his wealth. He does not even take the trouble to receive his wealth. He has a host of agents and clerks to receive it for him. He does not even take the trouble to spend his wealth. He has a host of people around him to do the actual spending for him. He never sees it until he comes to enjoy it. His sole function, his chief pride, is stately consumption of wealth produced by others. What about the doctor's income? How does the doctor earn his income? The doctor is a man who visits our homes when they are darkened with the shadow of death: who, by his skill, his trained courage, his genius, wrings hope out of the grip of despair, wins life out of the fangs of the Great Destroyer. All blessings upon him and his divine art of healing that mends bruised bodies and anxious hearts. To compare the reward which he gets for that labour with the wealth which pours into the pockets of the landlord purely owing to the possession of his monopoly is a piece - if they will forgive me for saying so - of insolence which no intelligent man would tolerate. Now that is the halfpenny tax on unearned increment. This system is not business, it is blackmail Now I come to the reversion tax. What is the reversion tax? You have got a system in the country which is not tolerated in any other country of the world, except, I believe, Turkey; the system whereby landlords take advantage of the fact that they have got complete control over the land to let it for a term of years, spend money upon it in building, in developing it. You improve the building, and year by year the value passes into the pockets of the landlord, and at the end of sixty, seventy, eighty or ninety years the whole of it passes away to the pockets of a man who never spent a penny upon it. Look at all this leasehold system. This system - it is the system I am attacking, not individuals - is not business, it is blackmail. I have no doubt some of you have taken the trouble to peruse some of these leases, and they are really worth reading, and I will guarantee that if you circulate copies of some of these building and mining leases at Tariff Reform meetings, and if you can get workmen at those meetings and the business men to read them, they will come away sadder but much wiser men. What are they? Ground rent is a part of it - fines, fees; you are to make no alteration without somebody's consent. Who is that somebody? It is the agent of the landlord. A fee to him. You must submit the plans to the landlords architect and get his consent. There is a fee to him. There is a fee to the surveyor; and then, of course, you cannot keep the lawyer out - he always comes in. And a fee to him. Well, that is the system, and the landlords come to us in the House of Commons and they say: If you go on taxing reversions we will grant no more leases? Is not that horrible? No more leases! No more kindly landlords with all their retinue of good fairies - agents, surveyors, lawyers - ready always to receive ground rents, fees, premiums, fines, reversions - no more, never again! They will not do it. We cannot persuade them. They wont have it. The landlord has threatened us that if we proceed with the Budget he will take his sack clean away from the hopper, and the grain which we are all grinding our best to fill his sack will go into our own. Oh, I cannot believe it. There is a limit even to the wrath of outraged landlords. We must really appease them; we must offer up some sacrifice to them. Suppose we offer the House of Lords to them? Well, you seem rather to agree with that. I will make the suggestion to them. I say their day of reckoning is at hand." But Lloyd George's plans to impose a land tax were foiled by the unelected landowners in the House of Lords. Now the wealth of the great landowners has become even more obscene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Looks more like a no deal with every passing day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 John52 - 2017-10-13 3:51 PM pelmetman - 2017-10-13 11:34 AM John52 - 2017-10-13 11:06 AM pelmetman - 2017-10-13 9:31 AM Yeah poor old UK eh?.......We're only the 5th biggest economy in the world *-) ....... Turnover is Vanity, Profit is Sanity http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/ Just imagine how fast that clock would tick if Corbyn got hold of the UK cheque book >:-) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ...... So when I try to introduce some Sanity you change the subject :-S So you don't think Corbyn is Sane? >:-) ........ At last we agree on something :D (lol) (lol) (lol) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 I don't think Phillip Hammond should apologise for calling the EU negotiators the opposition or even the enemy. There is too much pussy footing about and political politeness and it's high time more of those in power said it like they see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Tracker - 2017-10-13 8:18 PM I don't think Phillip Hammond should apologise for calling the EU negotiators the opposition or even the enemy. There is too much pussy footing about and political politeness and it's high time more of those in power said it like they see it. What else would you call someone who is trying to screw you for money rather than love? :-S ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Tracker - 2017-10-13 8:18 PMI don't think Phillip Hammond should apologise for calling the EU negotiators the opposition or even the enemy.There is too much pussy footing about and political politeness and it's high time more of those in power said it like they see it. I reckon the guy has spoken some sense in the last few days......not spending £millions on planning for a no deal exit at present. He told the Commons Select Treasury committee: “I don’t believe we should be in the business of making potentially nugatory expenditure until the very last moment where we need to do so.” Looks like he hasn't taken any notice of Brian's desires for dealing with 'what if' scenarios. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 RogerC - 2017-10-12 7:28 PM...........................Oh for goodness sake Brian.....Mandelson has unequivocally admitted, alongside others in the know, that the mass of immigration was promoted by B'liar policy and supported by 'Mandy' and others. It was a cynical attempt to alter the construct of UK society in order to provide wider support for the Labour party and return them to 'power'. There is wide acknowledgement that B'liar intentionally enacted decisions to assist and encourage immigration from the newly acceding nations....so where your 'whether or not' nonsense comes from is beyond me. Sorry Roger, I think you're wide of Antony's point. His point (as I understand it) was that forecasts are pointless because they are invariably wrong. He evidenced this by reference to the now notoriously inaccurate forecasts for A8 migration. What I was trying to explain is that a forecast is only as good as available information allows it to be, and in this case there was little such information. That does not discredit forecasts in general: it merely discredits that forecast, possibly the forecaster, and more especially the way in which it was used. If you read again what I wrote, I said as much. Because the politics were irrelevant to the forecast, I deliberately avoided drawing a political conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 RogerC - 2017-10-12 7:41 PM.........................Disagree till the cows come home.....It really doesn't bother me. However what does are your comments: 'What sensible people do' and 'Sensible people'..... which I enlarged and emboldened in your post quote. IMO it is crystal clear to anyone who reads my reply properly. Those two comments serve to demonstrate that you think anyone who disagrees with your idea of preparations and showing ones hand to the opposition is not sensible. Ergo the opposite of sensible is, according to the online Thesaurus (amongst others), clearly stated as foolish/unwise/irrational....oh and stupid. So arrogant? Most certainly. Yes, you are right. I do regard sound preparation as the essential prerequisite for good decision making. I hold that view because it is what I have observed, especially when clearing up the messes left by those who failed to do so! :-) To me, that is stating the bleedin' obvious. So, if stating the bleedin' obvious is arrogant, so be it. As regarding your other post vis a vis EU citizens etc. I too have a great many pleasant memories of working with and alongside most of the EU nationalities and a great many more outside of the EU. However it is not Joe Public pulling the political or economic strings. Using your premise one could say Germany was OK back in the 20th century. Well actually it likely was until they were under the direction of the Kaiser and Hitler. I have worked with Russians and Japanese all of whom have been very pleasant likeable people until the likes of Stalin came along. I even flew/worked with, for many years, an ex Soviet Air Forces pilot whose nuclear target was Bristol. He was/is a really nice chap. However none of this matters a jot because it is not the 'little' guy that determines direction, except through successful revolution which I don't envisage any time soon. Your turn for the bleedin' obvious! :-D If good people follow bad leaders, they get in a mess. Moral? Don't elect/tolerate bad leaders. Problem is, it is the people (the little guys collectively) who beget the bad leaders. It is the paradox of democracy. How do we detect, and eliminate, the next bad leader, especially in some other land, and what can we do about it? Don't we just have to rely on the people to have the sense to spot them, and not elect/tolerate them? Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer? One either has to retreat from the world into perpetual defence, or embrace it with ones eyes open to the risks, and rely on our collective institutions to resolve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 RogerC - 2017-10-13 10:01 PM Tracker - 2017-10-13 8:18 PMI don't think Phillip Hammond should apologise for calling the EU negotiators the opposition or even the enemy.There is too much pussy footing about and political politeness and it's high time more of those in power said it like they see it. I reckon the guy has spoken some sense in the last few days......not spending £millions on planning for a no deal exit at present. He told the Commons Select Treasury committee: “I don’t believe we should be in the business of making potentially nugatory expenditure until the very last moment where we need to do so.” Looks like he hasn't taken any notice of Brian's desires for dealing with 'what if' scenarios. :-) Oh, I rather think he has! I'm assuming, of course, but I'd expect him to have rough costings for the necessary measures and, looking at those costs, he's decided the money would be much better spent elsewhere. He'd look a grand fool were he to authorise that expenditure, and it then became unnecessary. So, he keeps the money in the piggy bank to spend as, when, and where, it is best spent. That speaks to me of someone who has evaluated the risks and rewards, and has decided accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Surely nobody seriously believes that any published forecast from any source is not biased towards the political leanings of the day of those who instigate and pay for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-10-14 11:31 AM RogerC - 2017-10-12 7:28 PM...........................Oh for goodness sake Brian.....Mandelson has unequivocally admitted, alongside others in the know, that the mass of immigration was promoted by B'liar policy and supported by 'Mandy' and others. It was a cynical attempt to alter the construct of UK society in order to provide wider support for the Labour party and return them to 'power'. There is wide acknowledgement that B'liar intentionally enacted decisions to assist and encourage immigration from the newly acceding nations....so where your 'whether or not' nonsense comes from is beyond me. Sorry Roger, I think you're wide of Antony's point. His point (as I understand it) was that forecasts are pointless because they are invariably wrong. He evidenced this by reference to the now notoriously inaccurate forecasts for A8 migration. What I was trying to explain is that a forecast is only as good as available information allows it to be, and in this case there was little such information. That does not discredit forecasts in general: it merely discredits that forecast, possibly the forecaster, and more especially the way in which it was used. If you read again what I wrote, I said as much. Because the politics were irrelevant to the forecast, I deliberately avoided drawing a political conclusion. But those predictions involving A8 countries weren't the only time lessons hadn't been learnt Brian regarding migrant forecast numbers ... Before the restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians were lifted in 2014 we heard all the usual hot air from many places such as Migration Matters who said a maximum of 50000 a year would come ... Truth is twice the figure come yearly up to 2017 with now over 400000 Romanians and Bulgarians living in Blighty and who can forget Keith Vaz welcoming them at Luton Airport declaring "We see no evidence of people who have rushed out and bought tickets to arrive" ... So Keith reckons that a 100000 yearly from those 2 rather dodgy countries isn't a problem , only later did we find out they were all going to his property to fix his washer ... Think I would rather listen to those further to the right to get somewhere near the real figures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Tracker - 2017-10-14 12:21 PM Surely nobody seriously believes that any published forecast from any source is not biased towards the political leanings of the day of those who instigate and pay for it? Agreed, which is why I said it seemed not to have been peer reviewed. This is equally true for pronouncements from any politically aligned institution, think tank, individual, media outlet etc. It is why one needs to look at the sources of the forecasts, and who commissioned them, and treat them accordingly. So with media reports; many omit aspects of events that are politically embarrassing to their bias, while highlighting the aspects that coincide with it. It is like bad science, that theorises first, and then selects facts to fit the theory, rather than allowing the theory to emerge from established facts. This is why some kind of peer review is so important. The more complex the issue, the greater the importance of the review. But the fact that some information is tainted, and some misrepresented, shouldn't be allowed to devalue honest evaluation. It's our own fault if we allow political bias to become the prism through which we see everything. That, in a democracy, is the path to bad leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Brian, the twists and turns you offer I find are quite amazing......"We should evaluate, we should look at facts/figures/predictions etc etc" but on the other hand us mere mortals who have absolutely no 'real' inside knowledge are then supposed to "read, digest, understand whatever figures/facts or findings are in question".....AND THEN....with our clearly (in reality compared to those with the raw data/information) minute knowledge of said topic decide which is the more accurate/honest with regard to the influence through bias, be it political/environmental/financial etc allegiance or patronage of the author. You claim a peer review of findings would assist in 'straightening out' the facts. Let me offer, what I consider to be, the most glaring situation whereby a 'peer' review of a report did absolutely nothing to alter the intended outcome provided by said 'evidence' of that document because the 'Establishment' was too weak or possibly colluding to ensure a certain outcome intended by it's number one proponent: 'Iraq – Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation' now known as 'The Dodgy Dossier'. Now if the 'Establishment' can manipulate information to such an extent as to take the nation to war what realistic hope is there of Joe Public really getting to grips with the detail of reports of fiscal or socio-economic importance and extracting the 'non biased' content? The bottom line is one either accepts, in the world of politics and big business there is bias in facts/figures/reports etc and unless there are glaring anomalies/untruths or attempts at mis-information (bear in mind we have no opportunity to correct such content) how is Joe Public to ascertain what is truth and what is not? Surely one reads, digests and accepts according to ones own bias that which suits our mindset the best. Lastly you say there should be 'honest evaluation'.....I ask who evaluates the evaluators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-10-14 12:08 PM "If good people follow bad leaders, they get in a mess. Moral? Don't elect/tolerate bad leaders. Problem is, it is the people (the little guys collectively) who beget the bad leaders". You really do appear to have rose coloured glasses or a misguided view of the world of political leadership determination...or are an excellent, practising, devils advocate... So the people of Zimbabwe deserve Mugabe? The people of DRC deserve Kabila, Kenyans deserve Kenyatta.......Papa Doc in Haiti, and clearly Kim Jong-Un etc etc. In those countries and a great many more throughout the world the 'little guy' either follows or ends up in jail, tortured, beaten, executed. In most of those countries and others, the 'opposition' are equally as bad and for the little guy there is no alternative unless you think rebellion is the answer. For the real effectiveness of that avenue I might mention 'The Arab Spring uprisings'....hardly resulted in the imposition of fair and open leadership. Ukraine's Orange Revolution was considered a success but in real terms the people had no influence over who would head the Country. They were merely faced with making a choice, vote for x,y or z or abstain.........as we all do in the democratic process. So unless one advocates rebellion/revolution every time one objects to a certain leadership I don't see what the alternative is? Anarchy maybe? The bottom line is that money and power corrupt so readily that there are, in a great many nations, no real alternatives and no real opportunities to do anything about it. Lastly...the comment 'Sensible People' is the source of my considering the term to be one of arrogance. Just because one does not concur with your idea of sound preparation does not mean those following a different course are not 'Sensible People'. Your comment comes across as arrogant as you clearly indicate that you are one of the 'Sensible people' and those that follow a different path are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 I see the latest yougov poll shows a big swing to remain. Most of the polls since the referendum have showed a swing to remain but a marginal one. Now it's increasing. Interestingly its women who have hugely changed their minds. That's because they don't treat the whole thing like a football match where winning is the only goal at whatever cost. So with that in mind considering the Brexiteers have repeatedly banged on about respecting the will of he people can we now assume that we all agree we should do exactly that and revoke article 50? Surely there has to be a second referendum at the least now. We must respect democracy remember and the majority no longer wish to leave Edit: link posted from mobile so may not work http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-new-eu-leave-regret-remain-yougov-times-latest-theresa-may-bad-idea-a8000156.html Of course that margin is only going to get wider making the decision to remain easier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Barryd999 - 2017-10-15 9:27 AM I see the latest yougov poll shows a big swing to remain. I seem to recall they also predicted a Tory landslide >:-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-10-15 10:03 AM Barryd999 - 2017-10-15 9:27 AM I see the latest yougov poll shows a big swing to remain. I seem to recall they also predicted a Tory landslide >:-) ....... Maybe but also remember the surprise result was a reaction against a possible hard brexit. I bet you and the other crash and burn Brexiteers wouldn't be willing to put it to the test though with a second referendum huh? That's fine but don't bleat on about the will of the people or respecting democracy anymore. As for a possible hard Brexit. If this lot get their way it could be an impossibility https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/14/cross-party-group-no-deal-theresa-may-brexit-eu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 RogerC - 2017-10-14 2:56 PM Brian, the twists and turns you offer I find are quite amazing......"We should evaluate, we should look at facts/figures/predictions etc etc" but on the other hand us mere mortals who have absolutely no 'real' inside knowledge are then supposed to "read, digest, understand whatever figures/facts or findings are in question".....AND THEN....with our clearly (in reality compared to those with the raw data/information) minute knowledge of said topic decide which is the more accurate/honest with regard to the influence through bias, be it political/environmental/financial etc allegiance or patronage of the author. You claim a peer review of findings would assist in 'straightening out' the facts. Let me offer, what I consider to be, the most glaring situation whereby a 'peer' review of a report did absolutely nothing to alter the intended outcome provided by said 'evidence' of that document because the 'Establishment' was too weak or possibly colluding to ensure a certain outcome intended by it's number one proponent: 'Iraq – Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation' now known as 'The Dodgy Dossier'. Now if the 'Establishment' can manipulate information to such an extent as to take the nation to war what realistic hope is there of Joe Public really getting to grips with the detail of reports of fiscal or socio-economic importance and extracting the 'non biased' content? The bottom line is one either accepts, in the world of politics and big business there is bias in facts/figures/reports etc and unless there are glaring anomalies/untruths or attempts at mis-information (bear in mind we have no opportunity to correct such content) how is Joe Public to ascertain what is truth and what is not? Surely one reads, digests and accepts according to ones own bias that which suits our mindset the best. Lastly you say there should be 'honest evaluation'.....I ask who evaluates the evaluators? See my bold above. Those are your words, not mine, so why put them in parenthesis to create the impression they are a direct quote? So, just for the record, this is what I actually said (I've additionally put the important qualification in italics because you see to have missed it): "Agreed, which is why I said it seemed not to have been peer reviewed. This is equally true for pronouncements from any politically aligned institution, think tank, individual, media outlet etc. It is why one needs to look at the sources of the forecasts, and who commissioned them, and treat them accordingly. So with media reports; many omit aspects of events that are politically embarrassing to their bias, while highlighting the aspects that coincide with it. It is like bad science, that theorises first, and then selects facts to fit the theory, rather than allowing the theory to emerge from established facts." Not at all the same meaning. So, once in context, not so difficult to achieve. It means looking up the author, which is an easy Google search, to check their background, and looking at the organisation backing/publishing the item, which is generally even easier. One then knows where the bias is likely to lie, so can treat the information with due caution. I takes but a few minutes. On the dodgy dossier, have a look here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272079/5972.pdf You may find it informative. However, on a quick skim, I see no references to peer review. This notoriously flawed document well exemplifies my point. The conflation of 45 minutes with WMD was always a frightener, intended to persuade the gullible that they were under imminent risk of devastating attack. So, why do that? Surely that outrageous ploy is sufficient evidence that relying on one's own bias - without checking - when deciding whether to accept or reject information is inherently unreliable? It merely leaves those who do so prone to reject what doesn't fit their "mindset", irrespective of its accuracy - because it comes from "the dark side" or similar - while trusting whatever fits their "mindset". Mindsets are no guide to veracity, IMO, as that dossier illustrates. Had Blair's political acolytes not been so unquestioning of their idol, they just might have exercised their little grey cells a bit more - and history would have looked different. No question, Saddam was widely believed to have such weapons (in fact he had some, but not as many as was believed). However, the dossier was silent on the all-important fact that he lacked the means of delivery: his longest range missile being a modified Scud of notorious inaccuracy: technically, it could have reached Cyprus - but with only a limited chance of actually hitting it! This was independently stated at the time, though not acknowledged by the government. So why were New Yorkers (yes, New Yorkers, for goodness sake!) and Londoners not disabused as to the actual level of threat? Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Oh, who evaluates the evaluators? We all should, as with the reports themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Barryd999 - 2017-10-15 10:34 AM pelmetman - 2017-10-15 10:03 AM Barryd999 - 2017-10-15 9:27 AM I see the latest yougov poll shows a big swing to remain. I seem to recall they also predicted a Tory landslide >:-) ....... Maybe but also remember the surprise result was a reaction against a possible hard brexit. I bet you and the other crash and burn Brexiteers wouldn't be willing to put it to the test though with a second referendum huh? That's fine but don't bleat on about the will of the people or respecting democracy anymore. As for a possible hard Brexit. If this lot get their way it could be an impossibility https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/14/cross-party-group-no-deal-theresa-may-brexit-eu[/quote So given the only party in the last election promising a 2nd referendum was the Lib Dems we might have expected a little better from them if your theory is correct ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.