Glastonbury and Politics

[eFestivals]

47 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

What is there besides the initial hit and ideology to stop the state from setting up our own competitive and profitable businesses?

being good at business?

I say that as a joke, but it's true. There's no guarantee of success from any business, and just as the dynamics of capitalism drives businesses to try and be more efficient than their competitors, there's other dynamics that impinge on state enterprises that tends to reduce their comparative efficiency.

So really they'd have no more chance of success or failure as any other business .. in which case the govt might as well stay out of running businesses, and instead invest a basket of stocks and shares for the same financial effect.

 

[RichardWaller]

3 minutes ago, p.pete said:

Haha - they can both attract voters with undiluted campaigns, split the vote and then try to get along within a coalition?

I think compromise is the only way forward - as Neil is saying "any pro-corbyn support not willing to accept some manifesto items need to be ditched or shelved are probably doing more harm than good".  And those anti-traveler and anti-corbyn need to maybe have a rethink also.  The video posted above clearly shows corbyn himself needs to focus on priorities other than his own, while still being true to himself obviously as that's why he was resoundingly voted in to lead the party.  

Labour party seems to be a mess, not really sure why anyone would vote for them at the moment, luckily people did recently though!

That'd be hilarious! Stranger things do happen, seen just the other day Cameron and Khan sharing a platform over EU after all the crap in the Mayor run up... 

I know the Corbyn supporters I know are a small sample, but none of them fit Neil's description of denouncing anyone who disagrees with them as Tories and wanting everything their way. Course there are people like that with all allegiances and it's silly. Just going back to an analogy I used earlier, causes are a bit like the Glastonbury line up for me. There's the ones I don't want to miss, the ones that'd be nice if they work but no deal breakers if they don't, and the ones I want to avoid. Still, there's a lot of dirt being thrown around, that's just politics. Imagine if smearing and lying were illegal?

[RichardWaller]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

being good at business?

I say that as a joke, but it's true. There's no guarantee of success from any business, and just as the dynamics of capitalism drives businesses to try and be more efficient than their competitors, there's other dynamics that impinge on state enterprises that tends to reduce their comparative efficiency.

So really they'd have no more chance of success or failure as any other business .. in which case the govt might as well stay out of running businesses, and instead invest a basket of stocks and shares for the same financial effect.

 

Given how often MPs have experience in and links to business I wouldn't be too concerned about that. If MPs can't run a business, what the hell are they doing running the country? 

Course there's no guarantees but I kinda see it as a free bet in a way. If a private business fails, the state picks up the bill anyway. Loss of income. corporation tax and VAT revenue, payment of benefits (for now, at least) or bailouts if the business is deemed important enough. Some businesses are less risky than others, people are always gonna need food, water and electricity. Stocks and shares, you can fart and they'll take a hit. 

[p.pete]

34 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

That'd be hilarious! Stranger things do happen, seen just the other day Cameron and Khan sharing a platform over EU after all the crap in the Mayor run up... 

I know the Corbyn supporters I know are a small sample, but none of them fit Neil's description of denouncing anyone who disagrees with them as Tories and wanting everything their way. Course there are people like that with all allegiances and it's silly. Just going back to an analogy I used earlier, causes are a bit like the Glastonbury line up for me. There's the ones I don't want to miss, the ones that'd be nice if they work but no deal breakers if they don't, and the ones I want to avoid. Still, there's a lot of dirt being thrown around, that's just politics. Imagine if smearing and lying were illegal?

I would say the same of my admittedly small sample, I think Neil maybe moves in different circles to me though.

 

[DeanoL]

Corbyn doesn't even need to actually compromise. Just say he will until he gets elected then do what he wants. Essentially the approach most politicians take.

[eFestivals]

47 minutes ago, p.pete said:

I would say the same of my admittedly small sample, I think Neil maybe moves in different circles to me though.

Just read the comments under newspaper articles. Or even some of the posts made in threads like this one here.

Yes, I realise plenty are nutters (not here, at newspapers. ), but there's also lots of sensible comment and often better informed stuff than the article that's being commented on.

It's not a bad barometer of where widespread opinions lie, outside of your own bubbles. It always helps to know what the nutters are thinking.

(it helps to read around lots of different places too, cos they're all their own bubbles).

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, RichardWaller said:

Given how often MPs have experience in and links to business I wouldn't be too concerned about that. If MPs can't run a business, what the hell are they doing running the country? 

It's one thing administering an existing business. It's something else entirely to successfully build one from the ground up.

And anyway, who wants parliament to be about business so much in that sense? I'd much rather have a diverse make-up in Parliament, of nurses, shelf-stackers, warehouse workers, engineers, plumbers, brickies, cab drivers, etc, etc.

 

1 hour ago, RichardWaller said:

Course there's no guarantees but I kinda see it as a free bet in a way. If a private business fails, the state picks up the bill anyway. Loss of income. corporation tax and VAT revenue, payment of benefits (for now, at least) or bailouts if the business is deemed important enough. Some businesses are less risky than others, people are always gonna need food, water and electricity. Stocks and shares, you can fart and they'll take a hit. 

The country did it already. Given the losses, I think it's probably fair to say that the bet has been had and we lost. I wish it wasn't so and it doesn't necessarily mean it would be that way again, but it's difficult to scrub that from history. Plus of course if govt does business and failure (which it inevitably will) it loses money, that's taxpayers money its lost and taxpayers don't like their money wasted. There's unintended consequences back on govt from that.

I think, in the scheme of things, ownership is a bit of a red herring, and nationalisation as a solution is playing the trump card only because there's no other ideas. Whoever owns it, it's still capital and we're slaves to it, that part never changes.

[p.pete]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Just read the comments under newspaper articles. Or even some of the posts made in threads like this one here.

Yes, I realise plenty are nutters (not here, at newspapers. ), but there's also lots of sensible comment and often better informed stuff than the article that's being commented on.

It's not a bad barometer of where widespread opinions lie, outside of your own bubbles. It always helps to know what the nutters are thinking.

(it helps to read around lots of different places too, cos they're all their own bubbles).

Good point - I think it's the nutters more likely to post under newspaper articles though.  I do read them though, as you said there's plenty of sense talked there along with the nutters.  I tend to click like if I think they're spouting nonsense I in anyway agree with (with caveats obviously).  As long as they're my kind of nutter or sense talker - not to be taken by you that I'm against compromise obviously - I'm happy to encourage their dissemination of their beliefs.  Tricky sometimes, I can be about ready to like someone's anti-cameron rant and then they have to go and throw in something about brexit or anti-immigration...

[waterfalls212434]

Just read this, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-pmq-prime-ministers-questions-labour-attack-lines-leaked-david-cameron-a7058921.html

 

One thing corbyn does need to start doing is clearing these people out....opposing views is one thing but deliberately trying to undermine your own party because of bitterness over corbyns popularity is quite another and cannot be accepted in any way shape or form. Enough bs if they have that much of an issue with the direction this party is going to the point where they will actually try and hurt that party just to undermine the leader(helping the Tories in the process) then they should be kicked out the door...every last one of the Tory lite c**ts.

Edited June 1, 2016 by waterfalls212434

[p.pete]

11 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Just read this, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-pmq-prime-ministers-questions-labour-attack-lines-leaked-david-cameron-a7058921.html

 

One thing corbyn does need to start doing is clearing these people out....opposing views is one thing but deliberately trying to undermine your own party because of bitterness over corbyns popularity is quite another and cannot be accepted in any way shape or form. Enough bs if they have that much of an issue with the direction this party is going to the point where they will actually try and hurt that party just to undermine the leader(helping the Tories in the process) then they should be kicked out the door...every last one of the Tory lite c**ts.

No idea how much truth is in that story, however it does always amaze me that no matter how random a direction JC fires from Cameron is usually unphased and ready with some form of a bs statistic

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Just read this, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-pmq-prime-ministers-questions-labour-attack-lines-leaked-david-cameron-a7058921.html

 

One thing corbyn does need to start doing is clearing these people out....opposing views is one thing but deliberately trying to undermine your own party because of bitterness over corbyns popularity is quite another and cannot be accepted in any way shape or form. Enough bs if they have that much of an issue with the direction this party is going to the point where they will actually try and hurt that party just to undermine the leader(helping the Tories in the process) then they should be kicked out the door...every last one of the Tory lite c**ts.

 

2 minutes ago, p.pete said:

No idea how much truth is in that story, however it does always amaze me that no matter how random a direction JC fires from Cameron is usually unphased and ready with some form of a bs statistic

Conspiracy?

Or Jezza just that obvious?

 

[p.pete]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Conspiracy?

Or Jezza just that obvious?

 

Maybe neither - I think there's often an obvious subject choice and he frustratingly goes for something else

Edit:  Add to that, that cameron rarely actually answers the question asked so maybe he doesn't need a mole (though as I said before I am surprised how near to hand a convenient counter stat is to him - though on that front it's his job so probably fair play too).

Edited June 1, 2016 by p.pete

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

Corbyn doesn't even need to actually compromise. Just say he will until he gets elected then do what he wants. Essentially the approach most politicians take.

Thing is, there's an art to pulling off the big church thing, even if you want to lie your way thru it. People have to believe you.

I don't think Corbyn's got in him to the sorts of things that are necessary to be liked or trusted enough outside of a close bubble.

Compare and contrast with with Sadiq Khan, who got on a platform with cameron the other day. It won't make left wingers love him any more (if any do), but it's not them he needs to convince for their votes. If you look open to other opinions, prepared to accept and work with those opinions, it goes a long way .. and for anyone thinking back to major election Khan looked the bigger man and it's cameron who looked the dick.

Appealing beyond your hardcore support is where victory comes from.

[Comfy Bean]

8 hours ago, waterfalls212434 said:

anyway but I disgress, the point is it is these twats like murphy causing labour issues not people like corbyn.....so if your worried for the future of the party why dont I ever, and I mean ever see you anti corbyn lot having a go at people turning on many of there own party(little hint jim without grassroots the party wouldnt be anywhere!) like Jim Murphy as an example? 

You can`t go slagging Murphy on here 

Neil won`t stand for it. The Smurph`s a hero in his eyes and anything said against his character is " mud slinging ".

 

[RichardWaller]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's one thing administering an existing business. It's something else entirely to successfully build one from the ground up.

And anyway, who wants parliament to be about business so much in that sense? I'd much rather have a diverse make-up in Parliament, of nurses, shelf-stackers, warehouse workers, engineers, plumbers, brickies, cab drivers, etc, etc.

Aye, I've never built a business from the ground but talking at government level, there are pretty good foundations there. Sometimes it'd be harder to fail than succeed, I think half the cabinet proves that.

I'd love a diverse make up of Parliament. I'd love to see someone who doesn't hate the NHS as Health Secretary, someone who doesn't hate teachers as Education Secretary etc etc. 

Quote

The country did it already. Given the losses, I think it's probably fair to say that the bet has been had and we lost. I wish it wasn't so and it doesn't necessarily mean it would be that way again, but it's difficult to scrub that from history. Plus of course if govt does business and failure (which it inevitably will) it loses money, that's taxpayers money its lost and taxpayers don't like their money wasted. There's unintended consequences back on govt from that.

I think, in the scheme of things, ownership is a bit of a red herring, and nationalisation as a solution is playing the trump card only because there's no other ideas. Whoever owns it, it's still capital and we're slaves to it, that part never changes.

Did it already? What, on every business format in every sector? You don't sound like you wish it wasn't so! No, whatever you're alluding to doesn't necessarily mean it would be that way again. Sometimes history repeats, sometimes things change. What's inevitable about govt business failure?

Some slaves are treated better than others. I don't know anyone, and I hope you've not decided I see nationalisation as the solution. I see it at a nudge in the right direction. Still, after I held my hands up and told you I was wrong a couple of pages back, after you told me how I was doing the high and mighty routine acting like everyone else is an idiot beneath me, and after you tried to tell me I was trying to hide the fact I was wrong, and after you've been telling me I've said and meant things I haven't... You seem a bit of a bully. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by RichardWaller

[waterfalls212434]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Conspiracy?

Or Jezza just that obvious?

 

I wouldnt call it a conspiracy, its happened before a member of the anti corbyn lot trying to do what he can to damage labour just to spite corbyn....remember this stunt pulled with the help of the bbc? http://evolvepolitics.com/bbc-admit-intentionally-damaging-corbyn-leadership-contrived-live-resignation/ it most definitely was contrived as since deleted correspondence between the bbcs laura kussenberg and andrew neil showed.

Dont get me even started on the bbcs current status, we have a potential political bomb weve not seen the like of for a long long time in that so many tory candidates are now under investigation for cheating election expense claims and espcially today with the help of c4 news legal team today a tory challenge to one of these investigations got thrown out of court with the words of the judge saying `this potentially could lead to an election result being declared void if evidence of malpractise is proven`

and what are good ol laura kussenberg etc leading with? more attacks on corbyn! anything to distract the public from tory corruption in fact! 

thank god for jon snow and c4 news! the only true investigative journalism left! 

For those interested in the fact that we may be coming to a point where a new general election is called have a look at http://www.channel4.com/news/election-expenses-allegations-on-an-unprecedented-scale because damn sure you wont see much coverage of it on the bbc or sky news!

The quote that will give so many so much hope ` "In this case the allegations are far reaching and the consequences of a conviction would be of a local and national significance with the potential for election results being declared void." `

Edited June 1, 2016 by waterfalls212434

[RichardWaller]

5 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

I wouldnt call it a conspiracy, its happened before a member of the anti corbyn lot trying to do what he can to damage labour just to spite corbyn....remember this stunt pulled with the help of the bbc? http://evolvepolitics.com/bbc-admit-intentionally-damaging-corbyn-leadership-contrived-live-resignation/ it most definitely was contrived as since deleted correspondence between the bbcs laura kussenberg and andrew neil showed.

Dont get me even started on the bbcs current status, we have a potential political bomb weve not seen the like of for a long long time in that so many tory candidates are now under investigation for cheating election expense claims and espcially today with the help of c4 news legal team today a tory challenge to one of these investigations got thrown out of court with the words of the judge saying `this potentially could lead to an election result being declared void if evidence of malpractise is proven`

and what are good ol laura kussenberg etc leading with? more attacks on corbyn! anything to distract the public from tory corruption in fact! 

thank god for jon snow and c4 news! the only true investigative journalism left! 

For those interested in the fact that we may be coming to a point where a new general election is called have a look at http://www.channel4.com/news/election-expenses-allegations-on-an-unprecedented-scale because damn sure you wont see much coverage of it on the bbc or sky news!

The quote that will give so many so much hope ` "In this case the allegations are far reaching and the consequences of a conviction would be of a local and national significance with the potential for election results being declared void." `

Yeah... We've not had a neutral BBC for a while have we? 

I'm not even sure the blatant cheating would change that much, would like to find out.

[waterfalls212434]

30 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Yeah... We've not had a neutral BBC for a while have we? 

I'm not even sure the blatant cheating would change that much, would like to find out.

Its shameful (another example of this was the bbcs desperate attempts to avoid even mentioning the tory expenses scandal on air until AFTER the recent local elections!) but not surprising, look at who runs the news division of the bbc. James Harding their chief of news is a vocal tory supporter and ex editor of The Times known to be a rag with many conservative sympathy's and then you have people like Nick robinson involved with the network in top positions.....the same nick robinson who in his younger years was a Tory party activist and has been criticized numerous times for his perceived bias towards the party when conducting interviews etc

Then you have Robbie gibb the daily politics show executive editor....brother of tory mp Nicolas gibb and former deputy chair of the federation of conservative students and chief of staff for a tory minister. and lets not forget Andrew Neil chairman of `the spectator` a fiery pro Tory publication, All of them highly biased towards the tory party all of them in top positions in bbc news!

When you see the above you start to see a pattern....and you wonder...how is this allowed? the bbc has a duty to remain unbiased especially in its political reporting  that is set out in their charter and for good reason being public funded....would they be allowed to get away with it if they were biased against the current government? highly doubtful! They are as trustworthy as fox news its sad to say!  I simply refuse to pay my license fee anymore and I have done for a while now because of this, Im not contributing to a channel which uses its funding in part to promote a conservative political viewpoint and breaks there own charter time and time again.

Edited June 1, 2016 by waterfalls212434

[clarkete]

16 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Its shameful (another example of this was the bbcs desperate attempts to avoid even mentioning the tory expenses scandal on air until AFTER the recent local elections!) but not surprising, look at who runs the news division of the bbc. James Harding their chief of news is a vocal tory supporter and ex editor of The Times known to be a rag with many conservative sympathy's and then you have people like Nick robinson involved with the network in top positions.....the same nick robinson who in his younger years was a Tory party activist and has been criticized numerous times for his perceived bias towards the party when conducting interviews etc

Then you have Robbie gibb the daily politics show executive editor....brother of tory mp Nicolas gibb and former deputy chair of the federation of conservative students and chief of staff for a tory minister. and lets not forget Andrew Neil chairman of `the spectator` a fiery pro Tory publication, All of them highly biased towards the tory party all of them in top positions in bbc news!

When you see the above you start to see a pattern....and you wonder...how is this allowed? the bbc has a duty to remain unbiased especially in its political reporting  that is set out in their charter and for good reason being public funded....would they be allowed to get away with it if they were biased against the current government? highly doubtful! They are as trustworthy as fox news its sad to say!  I simply refuse to pay my license fee anymore and I have done for a while now because of this, Im not contributing to a channel which uses its funding in part to promote a conservative political viewpoint and breaks there own charter time and time again.

Do you not understand anything about Whittingdale and the threat he represents to them? 

To be frank, from my perspective I feel that your helping his cause, where you should be having a pop at him instead.

[waterfalls212434]

46 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Do you not understand anything about Whittingdale and the threat he represents to them? 

To be frank, from my perspective I feel that your helping his cause, where you should be having a pop at him instead.

If you think im going to come out as a supporter of the bbc your badly mistaken the reasons above are what turns me away from that....never watch the crap anyway, sod em so much better content on other channels(bbc is nothing but `talent` shows like strictly, soaps and reruns of 80s sitcoms....quite frankly I cant believe they still ask people to pay for it!(another reason I `dont`) also whittingdale has had little to say about the way the bbc presents the news....wonder why that is? 

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, RichardWaller said:

Did it already? What, on every business format in every sector? You don't sound like you wish it wasn't so! No, whatever you're alluding to doesn't necessarily mean it would be that way again. Sometimes history repeats, sometimes things change. What's inevitable about govt business failure?

The point I was getting at is that whatever you and I might think, there's more than enough people still around from back then who lived thru it and don't regard nationalisation as particularly successful. And if we to go even further to what you're suggesting, there's all of the extra lost opportunity costs to factor in - for example, it'll be harder for people to start and succeed with their own businesses.

There can be an argument about whether the world of business might be better or not via nationalisation and whether the country would benefit, but there's no argument to be had around the idea that removing or reducing the freedoms of people to be able to do what they do now would be unacceptable to a significant proportion of the population.

I'm not sure you've really thought this thru, to consider the wider effects. It's just not the case that govt goes into business and everything else remains unchanged.

 

7 hours ago, RichardWaller said:

Some slaves are treated better than others. I don't know anyone, and I hope you've not decided I see nationalisation as the solution. I see it at a nudge in the right direction. Still, after I held my hands up and told you I was wrong a couple of pages back, after you told me how I was doing the high and mighty routine acting like everyone else is an idiot beneath me, and after you tried to tell me I was trying to hide the fact I was wrong, and after you've been telling me I've said and meant things I haven't... You seem a bit of a bully. 

No, I'm just someone who feels he knows what he's talking about, due to a strong interest in chasing facts and information, giving them strong consideration even when they might not suit my prejudices, and where I think about the effects on far more than just me. I'll always call someone out on something wrong they might post as I did with your "the deficit has grown" claim and how you chose to treat the different and correct info you were given. The best ideas come from the best considerations.

If I ruled the world (ha! ) I'd nationalise all land as the very first thing. From where I'm sat it's a no-brainer.... but nothing of that stops me from realising that the vast majority of the country would find that idea horrific as well as finding most else of what I might do the same. There's what I think is the solution, and then there's what the country would go along with.

Don't forget that we live in a democracy, how a large proportion chooses to vote within that democracy, and almost everyone chooses to act and think. These things can't be ignored unless a person thinks other people have less right to a say.

If bullying is correcting someone which causes them embarrassment then yes I'm a bully.... but I'm not going to sit back and let wrong rule the world when I have the easy opportunity to help nudge it back towards the truth.

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, waterfalls212434 said:

I wouldnt call it a conspiracy, its happened before a member of the anti corbyn lot trying to do what he can to damage labour just to spite corbyn

And Corbyn himself isn't able to damage Labour?

What about Corbyn's underhand attempts to hijack the Labour Party's democratic processes, in order to try to give himself Stalinist control of the party? The structures he's trying to undermine are there precisely to try and stop the sorts of actions he's attempting, for the good of the party above the wants of any particular leader.

Is the party about Corbyn, or is about trying to fulfil the aims of the party to the best extent possible within a democracy? *THIS* is what the conflict is *REALLY* about, and all of the conspiracy bollocks is just that, conspiracy bollocks. The only conspiracy I'm seeing is the one led by Corbyn, who's mistaken the leadership position for the controlling position of the party when it never has been.

 

7 hours ago, waterfalls212434 said:

For those interested in the fact that we may be coming to a point where a new general election is called have a look at http://www.channel4.com/news/election-expenses-allegations-on-an-unprecedented-scale because damn sure you wont see much coverage of it on the bbc or sky news!

I love a bit of hyperbole, me.

Yes, there's a bit of an argument over whether or not election expenses rules have been broken and it might turn out bad for the tories, but there's absolutely fuck all chance of anything more than a few bye-elections coming from it.

And if the tories go down over those particular seats, you have realised what comes next, haven't you...? Exactly the same for Labour, who've been doing all of the same things.

 

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Its shameful (another example of this was the bbcs desperate attempts to avoid even mentioning the tory expenses scandal on air until AFTER the recent local elections!) but not surprising, look at who runs the news division of the bbc. James Harding their chief of news is a vocal tory supporter and ex editor of The Times known to be a rag with many conservative sympathy's and then you have people like Nick robinson involved with the network in top positions.....the same nick robinson who in his younger years was a Tory party activist and has been criticized numerous times for his perceived bias towards the party when conducting interviews etc

Then you have Robbie gibb the daily politics show executive editor....brother of tory mp Nicolas gibb and former deputy chair of the federation of conservative students and chief of staff for a tory minister. and lets not forget Andrew Neil chairman of `the spectator` a fiery pro Tory publication, All of them highly biased towards the tory party all of them in top positions in bbc news!

When you see the above you start to see a pattern....and you wonder...how is this allowed? the bbc has a duty to remain unbiased especially in its political reporting  that is set out in their charter and for good reason being public funded....would they be allowed to get away with it if they were biased against the current government? highly doubtful! They are as trustworthy as fox news its sad to say!  I simply refuse to pay my license fee anymore and I have done for a while now because of this, Im not contributing to a channel which uses its funding in part to promote a conservative political viewpoint and breaks there own charter time and time again.

and if you read the version of the BBC according to Scotland, you'll hear all about how it's full of Labour appointees including John Smith's daughter.

Fancy that, eh, a tory controlled organisation putting Labour in charge of a major office.

Perhaps it's not quite how you're saying it? Just a thought.

I'm not trying to suggest the BBC is perfect - that would be as big a pile of shit as something I've just read. But perhaps, just perhaps, it's a truer reflection of the country's views and interests that you want to credit?

Edited June 2, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, waterfalls212434 said:

If you think im going to come out as a supporter of the bbc your badly mistaken the reasons above are what turns me away from that....never watch the crap anyway, sod em so much better content on other channels(bbc is nothing but `talent` shows like strictly, soaps and reruns of 80s sitcoms....quite frankly I cant believe they still ask people to pay for it!(another reason I `dont`) also whittingdale has had little to say about the way the bbc presents the news....wonder why that is? 

The BBC could be improved, sure.

But it's a mistake to go too hard on it, when undermining it would be no media at all that attempts balance.

I know the idea that things could be worse is well out of fashion, but be careful what you wish for.

[p.pete]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

And if the tories go down over those particular seats, you have realised what comes next, haven't you...? Exactly the same for Labour, who've been doing all of the same things.

 

I think the initial (journalistic) investigation included Labour - also there's very short deadlines for bringing a case against this stuff - I think the ball got rolling just in time on this so presumably too late for labour?