The Immigration Debate........

[Bats]

What's really weird is that we keep going back for more in spite of every right winger being lying scum...

Even if they left were right (as it were) they're utterly useless at convincing the people. If as you seem to think it was so obvious it begs the question why does (virtually) nobody vote for proper left parties?

Media is almost all done private and for profit, ie capitalist. So they don't tend to say much nice about anyone who says capitalism is shit, should they ever acknowledge they exist. Lacking the power of media (i.e, propaganda) no mass leftist movement can get traction. Simples.

Plus right wing economics since thatcher has been normalised. Nobody on telly questions the austerity narrative. However, try explaining that we need to increase public spending! The justification'd never fit between two advert breaks.

Where is the left's UKIP for example? And please don't say Occupy.

The majority of socialists and communists don't bother with parties, because if you look at say, CPGB or whoever, it's just a bunch of people draping Soviet art and hammer and sickles over everything. They don't seem to understand the image their projecting is of the Red Fash.

The BNP and now UKIP are full of mad nationalist racists, yet they at least twig you can't put a Hitler costume on and expect to win votes.

So probably the trick would be to create a new movement, one that doesn't call itself by any of the old names, but stands for the same things. But without money to buy newspaper inches, billboards etc and get the word out, it's pointless.

 

[technodup]

Media is almost all done private and for profit, ie capitalist.

The biggest media outlet in the UK (particularly for news) is not private, and not for profit in any normal sense. Plus as businesses papers like the Sun will put whatever is popular on their pages. The fact that green issues, or increased tax or spending aren't endorsed is that people wouldn't buy it. Check the sales of the Guardian or Indy for evidence.

Occupy was covered nightly for months on end. The fact they ultimately failed is that not enough people believed in their aims, or even understood them in the first place, not a lack of media exposure.

Plus right wing economics since thatcher has been normalised.

Nobody on telly questions the austerity narrative.

Eh? There's always a mad lefty for 'balance' on NN, QT, or This Week. Toynbee, Jones, Greer, et al. Jones in particular is never off the box, wee rent a gobshite that he is. He was funny on NN last week spewing his lid about perceived injustice and Fraser Nelson barely said anything but said it calmly, with confidence and some gravitas. Nelson isn't usually the best speaker but he made Jones look like a petulant child.

 

[Neil]

The suggestion that Capitalism is inherently bad is a lazy oversight, and as daft as saying the same of Socialism. Fact is there are good and bad in all 'systems', and the best way forward is to cherry pick the best from each and co operate to move forward.

Word.

 

[Bats]

The biggest media outlet in the UK (particularly for news) is not private, and not for profit in any normal sense.

If you're on about the BBC, they refuse to question authority full stop. Especially with the current government, who're half way to privatizing the moon.

It's especially interesting when they over reach and grab into someone who's opinions are basically the tories on warp speed. Then we end up with Farage fusing to his question time chair like Pilot from farscape.

Plus as businesses papers like the Sun will put whatever is popular on their pages. The fact that green issues, or increased tax or spending aren't endorsed is that people wouldn't buy it.

The job of a newspaper is to sell advert space and promote the opinions of it's owners. "Sod capitalism and all these sod who sell things" as a front page headline doesn't exactly scream "buy our column inches", nevermind the fact that "sod capitalism" obviously isn't the opinion of someone running a decades old international news company.

Check the sales of the Guardian or Indy for evidence.

Populist tabloids outsell milquetoast liberals shocker.

Occupy was covered nightly for months on end. The fact they ultimately failed is that not enough people believed in their aims, or even understood them in the first place, not a lack of media exposure.

None of that media exposure actually presented or explained Occupy's aims. At best, it was reported as mad lefties do a thing, next, the weather.

Eh? There's always a mad lefty for 'balance' on NN, QT, or This Week. Toynbee, Jones, Greer, et al. Jones in particular is never off the box, wee rent a gobshite that he is. He was funny on NN last week spewing his lid about perceived injustice and Fraser Nelson barely said anything but said it calmly, with confidence and some gravitas. Nelson isn't usually the best speaker but he made Jones look like a petulant child.

You yourself have highlighted a problem here:

You can calmly suggest burning an orphanage down on live tv.

But it's the guy who screams in rage against the idea which looks bad.

Power of media, everyone.

 

[Bats]

The media is hardly biased to the right wing, if you take all the various strands into consideration.

Sure, if you think labour = left, tories = right, libdem = middle. It's bollocks though.

The suggestion that Capitalism is inherently bad is a lazy oversight, and as daft as saying the same of Socialism. Fact is there are good and bad in all 'systems', and the best way forward is to cherry pick the best from each and co operate to move forward.

Capitalism is the system designed as such where you do a load of work, and then your boss hoovers up the "excess" wealth that work has created. It's got an unhealthy fixation on "growth", one where profits must always go UP UP UP. Sadly, once you hit market saturation, where do those profits come from?

The wages they've not bothered to raise along with inflation. Making you redundant and hiring zero hours and agency workers. Sacking the entire factory, and then paying those supposed "communists" in china to build stuff for pennies on the hour.

You let it run unhindered and you end up with industrial revolution levels of living quality. That's why we have (tragically undermined) worker's rights and regulation. Technodup probably mourns not being able to make 6 year olds work with machinery anymore.

It's an entirely shite system, one where all the money inevitably drains to the top. The fixation on growth does wonders for a bit, but then once the bottom is dry - Boom!

At which point the only way to get the thing going is to take the money out the top, and put it back in the bottom. Keynes figured that one out - Keynes! A capitalist, figured that out. It's how we built a modern democratic nation out of a bombed out post imperial hellhole.

Now why don't the current crop of gits figure it out? Any of them? Because Greed is Good.

 

[technodup]

The job of a newspaper is to sell advert space and promote the opinions of it's owners. "Sod capitalism and all these sod who sell things" as a front page headline doesn't exactly scream "buy our column inches"

We're almost in agreement here, papers are their primarily to make money through advertising. Businesses buy advertising on the basis of circulation. Circulation exists because people want to read whatever's in the paper i.e. they generally agree with the tone and direction. Fact is more people want to read about benefit cheats and celebrities than tax rises and climate change. Who'd have thought it.

Populist tabloids outsell milquetoast liberals shocker.

Compare them to the Times or Telegraph then ffs. Same story. I would have used the lefts tabloid as an example but there isn't one. You know why.

Occupy was covered nightly for months on end. The fact they ultimately failed is that not enough people believed in their aims, or even understood them in the first place, not a lack of media exposure.

None of that media exposure actually presented or explained Occupy's aims. At best, it was reported as mad lefties do a thing, next, the weather.

They got millions of pounds worth of nationwide coverage in papers and TV for months and fncked it up.

Eh? There's always a mad lefty for 'balance' on NN, QT, or This Week. Toynbee, Jones, Greer, et al. Jones in particular is never off the box, wee rent a gobshite that he is. He was funny on NN last week spewing his lid about perceived injustice and Fraser Nelson barely said anything but said it calmly, with confidence and some gravitas. Nelson isn't usually the best speaker but he made Jones look like a petulant child.

You yourself have highlighted a problem here:

You can calmly suggest burning an orphanage down on live tv.

But it's the guy who screams in rage against the idea which looks bad.

Power of media, everyone.

In this case Nelson was right but there is a point there. Maybe if Jones behaved like an adult, wore a suit and made his points calmly more people would pay attention. As it is he screams student union politics with his 'working class' checked shirts and right-on ranting.

It's especially interesting when they over reach and grab into someone who's opinions are basically the tories on warp speed. Then we end up with Farage fusing to his question time chair like Pilot from farscape.

You might not like Farage but he picks up a hell of a lot of votes for what is essentially a one man band. Fact is he's identified a concern and the media is reflecting that. Much the same as Jones, except of course nobody voted for that wee runt, so we've only got his and the BBC's word on it.

Bottom line is we've got what we've got. You can dream of revolution but as you do pragmatists are chipping away at the edges and shaping future policy as they see it. The only real answer is to make the best of what you have, its what everyone else is doing.

 

[Bats]

We're almost in agreement here, papers are their primarily to make money through advertising. Businesses buy advertising on the basis of circulation. Circulation exists because people want to read whatever's in the paper i.e. they generally agree with the tone and direction. Fact is more people want to read about benefit cheats and celebrities than tax rises and climate change. Who'd have thought it.

Chicken, egg. Nobody knows what they "like" to read unless they've already read it.

Compare them to the Times or Telegraph then ffs. Same story. I would have used the lefts tabloid as an example but there isn't one. You know why.

Because the ideologies of the left are opposed to owning big cash spinning companies in general.

And, anyone who could write from the perspective of (for example) being the wrong end of a benefits sanction is in no position to start a newspaper. 'Cause if they could afford to run a newspaper they wouldn't need to be on benefits in the first place.

They got millions of pounds worth of nationwide coverage in papers and TV for months and fncked it up.

Some pencil neck from fox news compiling a collection of easy targets to mock is hardly the same as getting the opportunity to explain your views clearly and concisely.

Maybe if Jones behaved like an adult, wore a suit and made his points calmly more people would pay attention. As it is he screams student union politics with his 'working class' checked shirts and right-on ranting.

Order a baby cut in half...

You might not like Farage but he picks up a hell of a lot of votes for what is essentially a one man band. Fact is he's identified a concern and the media is reflecting that. Much the same as Jones, except of course nobody voted for that wee runt, so we've only got his and the BBC's word on it.

He's not identified a concern, he's just pushing the same generic non-problem the right have been pushing since the dawn of time. Get the papers to wind everyone up about "them forrins" and you've got an instant voter base of ignorant scared people.

The only real answer is to make the best of what you have, its what everyone else is doing.

That's so vague as to mean anything.

Make the best of what you have... be happy with it and stop complaining?

Make the best of what you have... beat someone over the head with it, and nick theirs?

 

[technodup]

And, anyone who could write from the perspective of (for example) being the wrong end of a benefits sanction is in no position to start a newspaper. 'Cause if they could afford to run a newspaper they wouldn't need to be on benefits in the first place.

They can write a blog, start a FB page, YT channel etc etc. It's cheaper than ever to broadcast these days, trouble is your beliefs are just not that popular. Most read political blog? Guido.

They got millions of pounds worth of nationwide coverage in papers and TV for months and fncked it up.

Some pencil neck from fox news compiling a collection of easy targets to mock is hardly the same as getting the opportunity to explain your views clearly and concisely.

Fox News? I know its fashionable to bash Murdoch but how many people watch Fox in the UK? The reason they couldn't get their point across was the mental assembly system they used to articulate their thoughts. It was a rabble and consequently any message was lost in the infighting.

You might not like Farage but he picks up a hell of a lot of votes for what is essentially a one man band. Fact is he's identified a concern and the media is reflecting that. Much the same as Jones, except of course nobody voted for that wee runt, so we've only got his and the BBC's word on it.

He's not identified a concern, he's just pushing the same generic non-problem the right have been pushing since the dawn of time. Get the papers to wind everyone up about "them forrins" and you've got an instant voter base of ignorant scared people.

We've 3m unemployed. You are or were one, I was one a few years ago. Immigrants are doing many of the jobs which otherwise could be done by our own. A lot of people think that is a concern.

Make the best of what you have... be happy with it and stop complaining?
Make the best of what you have... beat someone over the head with it, and nick theirs?

It means be selfish, look after number one first and foremost because when all's said and done, nobody else gives a toss.

 

[Bats]

They can write a blog, start a FB page, YT channel etc etc.

People do. But you can't with any seriousness put a free blog site up against NEW! FREE DVD COPY OF WHATEVER WITH THIS WEEK'S SUNDAY RAG blasted on every ad break. You don't find people leaving printed copies of blogs on the bus.

It's an entirely different level of exposure.

It's cheaper than ever to broadcast these days, trouble is your beliefs are just not that popular. Most read political blog? Guido.

My beliefs are very popular. I think money grabbing sods should keep their hands off the NHS, the government are all waxwork crooks, and they should renationalize the railways.

Not that we should rely on mere beliefs. I like seeing people actually get the tape measure out and scribble down some sums, something severely lacking these days. Now all we've got is politicians who when proven wrong go "I believe it to be true!".

Fox News? I know its fashionable to bash Murdoch but how many people watch Fox in the UK? The reason they couldn't get their point across was the mental assembly system they used to articulate their thoughts. It was a rabble and consequently any message was lost in the infighting.

Fox are about the only news source I noticed covering Occupy in any real sense. HIGFY cracked some jokes, that's about it for UK coverage in news media.

We've 3m unemployed. You are or were one, I was one a few years ago. Immigrants are doing many of the jobs which otherwise could be done by our own. A lot of people think that is a concern.

Got precisely bugger all to do with why he's banging on about it, and you know it. They were banging on about immigration and the EU even back when the jobs market was great.

Besides, what exactly is the point? Nobody moving country for work goes to the one that's famous for having none. You can't even send existing immigrants back, that only works for a few months before another generation of school leavers want a job.

Personally I recon if UKIP want to leave the EU so much, we should just let them hold a conference on an old cruise ship and set the autopilot to South Pole.

It means be selfish, look after number one first and foremost because when all's said and done, nobody else gives a toss.

That thinking causes more problems than it solves.

 

[technodup]

They can write a blog, start a FB page, YT channel etc etc.

People do. But you can't with any seriousness put a free blog site up against NEW! FREE DVD COPY OF WHATEVER WITH THIS WEEK'S SUNDAY RAG blasted on every ad break.

Not initially, but if your blog is popular then who knows... Guido Fawkes started a blog and now has a column in the Sun. If you take the "I can't..." line every time then no, you won't achieve anything.

It's an entirely different level of exposure.

That is changing.

Fox News? I know its fashionable to bash Murdoch but how many people watch Fox in the UK? The reason they couldn't get their point across was the mental assembly system they used to articulate their thoughts. It was a rabble and consequently any message was lost in the infighting.

Fox are about the only news source I noticed covering Occupy in any real sense. HIGFY cracked some jokes, that's about it for UK coverage in news media.

Utter nonsense. The BBC covered Occupy nightly on the news, featured it on NN several times, the website etc. Paul Mason was loving it iirc.

Let's agree to disagree, this is taking up pages for nothing. I'll carry on working to secure my future and you can worry about trains and benefits and stuff.