UK Politics

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

That sounds very similar to what supporters of Farage and Trump say whenever there is any scrutiny of the leader, however considering I view Farage and Polanski as different sides of the same coin that doesn’t surprise me.

 

My view is that it is absolutely correct our media scrutinise a leader who is in charge of a party over 10 percent in the polls , they could have a say in the next government, so it’s right that the electorate knows what they are voting for, at the same time that person has the right to reply. Are you saying the media shouldn’t report things like his past claims in relation to hypnosis and breast enlargement. To me that raises questions about intelligence and integrity. 

Polanski has same cult following as Corbyn, so any criticism is a smear or scam and part of some sort of conspiracy by some sort of elite. Same with Farage/Trump.

I am same with Starmer, this whole Mandelson thing is obviously a smear campaign to undermine and bring down poor Keir by the Establishment.

[steviewevie]

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

can you guess where the liberal metropolitan elite live?

Before 

 

[kaosmark2]

50 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

That sounds very similar to what supporters of Farage and Trump say whenever there is any scrutiny of the leader, however considering I view Farage and Polanski as different sides of the same coin that doesn’t surprise me.

 

My view is that it is absolutely correct our media scrutinise a leader who is in charge of a party over 10 percent in the polls , they could have a say in the next government, so it’s right that the electorate knows what they are voting for, at the same time that person has the right to reply. Are you saying the media shouldn’t report things like his past claims in relation to hypnosis and breast enlargement. To me that raises questions about intelligence and integrity. 

While I'm no fan of Polanski, and I think a lot of the scrutiny is fair, there are very clearly also unreasonable attacks on him, particularly the antisemitic caricatures in the cartoons lately. I think the unfair attacks are getting mixed in with the reasonable scrutiny and that's problematic. I think it's also leading to his supporters having some merit when they scream "media bias".

[steviewevie]

Polanski was getting a super easy ride for ages, now he's getting some scrutiny because that is what comes when you suddenly become a player, and people don't like it. If he'd just stop liking and reposting dodgy tweets all the time he might not get in so much trouble. I mean, the whole spokesman for Red Cross lie and then the crappy excuse of using the wrong word is kind of sh*t.

I actually think though there is too much made of the hypnotit thing, politicians are people who make mistakes and do sh*t things and I think should be allowed some level of redemption, I actually think same with Farage being a horrible racist c**t when he was at school, or Rayner not paying some stamp duty or whatever it was. We want humans to be our politicians, with all their flaws, not automata that haven't done anything slightly naughty ever. It's going to be more of an issue with new ones coming though and all their social media history.

[TheSheriff]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

That sounds very similar to what supporters of Farage and Trump say whenever there is any scrutiny of the leader, however considering I view Farage and Polanski as different sides of the same coin that doesn’t surprise me.

 

My view is that it is absolutely correct our media scrutinise a leader who is in charge of a party over 10 percent in the polls , they could have a say in the next government, so it’s right that the electorate knows what they are voting for, at the same time that person has the right to reply. Are you saying the media shouldn’t report things like his past claims in relation to hypnosis and breast enlargement. To me that raises questions about intelligence and integrity. 

I have said nothing of the sort that there should not be media scrutiny on leaders, the issue is the smears of antisemitism. I am no particular fan of Polanski, but as someone who see’s himself as progressive the similarities to how the media treated Corbyn to Polanski. 

[steviewevie]

I know. Let's have a debate about antisemitism on the left.

[lost]

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

pulling out the big guns

 

If you can't bring back Peter Mandleson again, bring back the man who brought back Peter Mandleson first.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, lost said:

 

If you can't bring back Peter Mandleson again, bring back the man who brought back Peter Mandleson first.

Not sure that is going to be a problem...but it's hardly showing that he's taking us in a fresh new direction.

I expect it's more aimed at Labour MPs than the public.

[pink_triangle]

36 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

While I'm no fan of Polanski, and I think a lot of the scrutiny is fair, there are very clearly also unreasonable attacks on him, particularly the antisemitic caricatures in the cartoons lately. I think the unfair attacks are getting mixed in with the reasonable scrutiny and that's problematic. I think it's also leading to his supporters having some merit when they scream "media bias"

Let’s be honest though if those cartoons hadn’t come out. It’s not like his supporters would not be defending him against any criticism, it’s how supporters of populist leaders act. I am sure that the media cross the line with all major politicians (populist or not) and I think it should be called out. My view is he is getting more scrutiny because of his increased profile and I don’t have a problem with that . When the scrutiny comes people should critique the evidence and not just base it on whether they like him or not.

 

An example being the tax issue with the boat. I don’t have a clue if it’s correct or not, so not passing any judgement. I think it’s right the questions are asked and he answers them

[lost]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Not sure that is going to be a problem...but it's hardly showing that he's taking us in a fresh new direction.

 

Yes harking back to the old guard (and all the bagage they have) appears to suggest none of the 400 odd MP's are up to the job. There is also the possibility of someone who appears more experienced/senior than Reeves making spending commitments that she then has to find the money for.

[pink_triangle]

20 minutes ago, TheSheriff said:

I have said nothing of the sort that there should not be media scrutiny on leaders, the issue is the smears of antisemitism. I am no particular fan of Polanski, but as someone who see’s himself as progressive the similarities to how the media treated Corbyn to Polanski. 

I think a lot of the debate gets a bit silly. Some of the accusations of anti semitism are a stretch. At the same time I think the argument of some Polanski supporters that being the only Jewish leader means he can’t be anti semetic are also silly. I think the incident with the police was the other day was Polanski getting into trouble by telling his fans what they want to hear as opposed to anti semitism.

[pink_triangle]

42 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

I actually think though there is too much made of the hypnotit thing, politicians are people who make mistakes and do sh*t things and I think should be allowed some level of redemption, I actually think same with Farage being a horrible racist c**t when he was at school, or Rayner not paying some stamp duty or whatever it was. We want humans to be our politicians, with all their flaws, not automata that haven't done anything slightly naughty ever. 

I think the issue is Polanski doesn’t have years of a political record for people to draw conclusions, so it’s natural people will focus more on what he did/said before politics. I agree people should be allowed to make mistakes in isolation, but it’s important the media make people aware of the mistakes as part of that weighing up. To me the hypnotist thing feeds in to a narrative of someone who is happy to tell people what they want to hear, whether the motive is adulation or financial or something completely different then who knows 

[pink_triangle]

43 minutes ago, lost said:

 

Yes harking back to the old guard (and all the bagage they have) appears to suggest none of the 400 odd MP's are up to the job. There is also the possibility of someone who appears more experienced/senior than Reeves making spending commitments that she then has to find the money for.

It also seems strange as Starmer has brought in loads of people from the new Labour era with limited success, think they need to be looking forward and not back.

[kaosmark2]

57 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Let’s be honest though if those cartoons hadn’t come out. It’s not like his supporters would not be defending him against any criticism, it’s how supporters of populist leaders act. I am sure that the media cross the line with all major politicians (populist or not) and I think it should be called out. My view is he is getting more scrutiny because of his increased profile and I don’t have a problem with that . When the scrutiny comes people should critique the evidence and not just base it on whether they like him or not.

 

An example being the tax issue with the boat. I don’t have a clue if it’s correct or not, so not passing any judgement. I think it’s right the questions are asked and he answers them

I do think his supporters have a point in comparing how Polanski and Farage get treated by the media. 

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

It also seems strange as Starmer has brought in loads of people from the new Labour era with limited success, think they need to be looking forward and not back.

Jonathan Powell has done ok. If it wasn't for Mandelson this conversation wouldn't be happening.

I actually think it's a good appointment. I like Brown, he is a clever bloke with a lot of experience and he thinks about stuff and says good stuff. I am hoping he manages to get them to reverse some of the international aid cuts, but maybe that's pie in the sky. But if this is to get Labour MPs and members on side not sure it will be close to being enough...he probably needs something more radical like binning Mahmood and rejoining the EU or some other silliness. 

[steviewevie]

Someone called Catherine West is making a move. All eyes on Streeting and Rayner.

[steviewevie]

If Streeting replaces Starmer I'll laugh my little willy off.

[pink_triangle]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Someone called Catherine West is making a move. All eyes on Streeting and Rayner.

It feels a mad move to me. Maybe one of them have offered her a cabinet post. If they are sensible Starmer and Burnham loyalists will block it.

[Crazyfool01]

Don’t get it ?! 

[Crazyfool01]

And mason is a snivelling little twerp not an impartial political correspondent 

[steviewevie]

I reckon it's a Team Streeting move.

[steviewevie]

Just now, Crazyfool01 said:

And mason is a snivelling little twerp not an impartial political correspondent 

Am I the only person on the planet who likes Chris Mason?

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

Am I the only person on the planet who likes Chris Mason?

Are you missing that he’s leading the charge to oust Starmer ? 

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Are you missing that he’s leading the charge to oust Starmer ? 

Mason for PM.

[steviewevie]