Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Indeed. It seem the Big Three in the UK aren't above shady dealings.

Is it not time we as the electorate held them accountable for this? I mean seriously, when it becomes pretty obvious that private interests are playing such a major hand in Policy, it's up to us 'little people' to let them know it just isn't on. Look at the Expenses debacle. They were pretty much all on the rob, and that's just from the few years we know about, leading to suspicion from pretty much any sane person that the ones we did learn of are pretty standard fare for all expenses for the past however long! We got that changed when we caught them with their hand in the till, now it's time we did the same on such things.

Be it Cameron/Murdoch, Blair/Ecclestone, we need to let them know that 'It's secret' is simply NOT acceptable. You represent us in Parliament, we own you. NOT the other way around.

Albatross wrote:
Seriously, Murdoch is a high-profile supporter of the Conservative Party and friend of David Cameron.

Actually Murdoch's personal political convictions are supposed to be much more left wing than people think -- it's well known he loathes Bill Reilly and several/most of the Fox News guys -- but he always puts his business interests ahead of all other considerations. Hence why he'll come out in favour of Obama one year, and then donate $1 million dollars to the Republicans this year. Whilst kissing the ass of the Chinese govt. at the same time.


Most political commentators actually say that Cameron and Murdoch don't get on personally at all. Cameron dislikes pandering to the lower end spectrum of Murdoch's media empire and thinks he asserts too much influence already, whilst Murdoch, allegedly views Cameron as a bit of a lightweight. He was especially scathing at the pretty poor way they stumbled through the election campaign, despite the massive help given to him by Murdoch's empire.

Whats the difference between Politicians, and head lice?

I was reading the story about the fact that the IFS are saying that the emergency budget will hit the low income families the worst. Suprise, suprise the Treasury has refutted this.

It just makes me realise that we are our own worse enemies at letting them get away with this sort of thing. We let Labour do it to us and we now let the Tories do it.

They screw us over, the papers raise a storm, we moan, time passes and we forget about it. Expenses was a classic, they all managed to duck the core problem and it's faded away. I'm amazed that they can take the same facts & figures and come up with different answers to suit their point of view.

mattyrm wrote: Cant we have a good old fashioned "my party is better than yours" talk now?

the conservatives suck

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Goliath wrote:

Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?

No, any meeting by the Prime Minister with a foreign private citizen, who isn't a politician, who also happens to be a major supporter of the Conservatives, and who's wishlist of legislation comes through shortly after.

You are of course aware that de-regulation and tax-cuts are a major plank of Tory policy, aren't you? I support those things too - does that mean that I have some shady agreement with the PM? Wait - the Tory party conference was in Manchester! I was in Manchester at the time!

ITS ALL FALLING INTO PLACE!

Seriously, Murdoch is a high-profile supporter of the Conservative Party and friend of David Cameron. That they would meet up is hardly shocking. The policies mentioned have been discussed for several years and are broadly supported by the Tory party membership.

Again... all 170 odd newspapers owned by NewsCorp in Australia, the UK and the US each supported the war on Iraq. Every one of them apparently came to that decision based on the independent decision making of their editorial teams. Huge coincidence.

In the wake of the Iraq war the governments of Australia, the UK and the US all drafted and attempted to pass media ownership laws that would free up assets, laws that Murdoch was expressly in favour of. Which is something of another huge coincidence.

Trying to claim that Murdoch doesn't try to leverage favourable political coverage for favourable legislation is delusional. Simply ridiculously wrong.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's not a massive deal or part of some sinister conspiracy. It's politics. That powerful businessmen have influence over politicians is not shocking. It has happened in this country (and pretty much every other country) for years and years, and will continue to happen. Seeking to point out the sins of one end of the political spectrum whilst ignoring the sins of your own isn't incisive political commentary, it's myopic. This thread is just a partisan attack on the Conservative party, nothing more. Let's treat it as such.

Glad to see your status as an an arrogant tit is secure, though. Seriously, calling people delusional because they don't agree with some rabid left-wing conspiracy? Nice work.

Albatross wrote:

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Goliath wrote:

Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?

No, any meeting by the Prime Minister with a foreign private citizen, who isn't a politician, who also happens to be a major supporter of the Conservatives, and who's wishlist of legislation comes through shortly after.

You are of course aware that de-regulation and tax-cuts are a major plank of Tory policy, aren't you? I support those things too - does that mean that I have some shady agreement with the PM? Wait - the Tory party conference was in Manchester! I was in Manchester at the time!

ITS ALL FALLING INTO PLACE!

Seriously, Murdoch is a high-profile supporter of the Conservative Party and friend of David Cameron. That they would meet up is hardly shocking. The policies mentioned have been discussed for several years and are broadly supported by the Tory party membership.

Again... all 170 odd newspapers owned by NewsCorp in Australia, the UK and the US each supported the war on Iraq. Every one of them apparently came to that decision based on the independent decision making of their editorial teams. Huge coincidence.

In the wake of the Iraq war the governments of Australia, the UK and the US all drafted and attempted to pass media ownership laws that would free up assets, laws that Murdoch was expressly in favour of. Which is something of another huge coincidence.

Trying to claim that Murdoch doesn't try to leverage favourable political coverage for favourable legislation is delusional. Simply ridiculously wrong.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's not a massive deal or part of some sinister conspiracy. It's politics. That powerful businessmen have influence over politicians is not shocking. It has happened in this country (and pretty much every other country) for years and years, and will continue to happen. Seeking to point out the sins of one end of the political spectrum whilst ignoring the sins of your own isn't incisive political commentary, it's myopic. This thread is just a partisan attack on the Conservative party, nothing more. Let's treat it as such.

Glad to see your status as an an arrogant tit is secure, though. Seriously, calling people delusional because they don't agree with some rabid left-wing conspiracy? Nice work.

I like albatross...

Yeah so, i dont want to make this a "personal" attack. So ill just say that a fair number (6 spring to mind with no thought at all) of people on dakka are screaming class warriors. Im a son of a welder from Middlesbrough who joined the military, so i have no alligience to either party, i just decided i dislike the Labour party because i am more right wing than left wing, and the labour party are more left wing than the conservative party. Thats logical right?

But the screaming liberals with their utter foaming hatred for Cameron... where is the logic? They hate the Conservative party for no good reason. They hate them because they have been raised to think that anyone who went to a good school or is born into wealth is worthy of scorn and loathing. I can only assume this is jelousy?

Lets debate this seeing as the whole thread is a moot point in theat politicians scratch peoples backs and always will do (see above)

Name me some good reasons for this inbuilt hatred.

What do you personally dislike about Mr Cameron? What large differences do you think exist between the two parties, and most importantly, after the last 13 years of labour, where the gap between rich and poor increased, MPs fiddled their expenses as much as ever, the national debt tripled, Labour MPs got sneaky peerages and "Lord" souless dirtbag Mandelson was honoured, a generation of doleys and chavs boomed, two gak wars, criminals got looked after better than victims (and another few hundred things i cant be arsed to type) why do you still like them so much?

Would things REALLY have been any different under the much maligned conservatives?

Whats a Git? Whats a Tory? Gak don't you people over there speak English?

i just decided i dislike the Labour party because i am more right wing than left wing, and the labour party are more left wing than the conservative party. Thats logical right?

back in the 70's definitely.
and through the 80's.

Since the Thatcher regime and the makeover to New labour the distinctions are very much more blurred imho Matty.
There are policies on both sides that appear to contradict expectations. Sorry I can't think of any right now, but there have been staements by the Tories that sound more left of centre than Labour's take on the issue.

Don't forget the old industrial working class communities have broken down since the 1980's and the social structures and allegiences are no longer applicable.
The concept of a Working Class is probably no longer valid.

In any case popular support for right wing movements tends to come from what were the working classes.

Frazzled wrote:Whats a Git? Whats a Tory? Gak don't you people over there speak English?

Frazz, a git is basically an unpleasant person, and tory is an old term now applied to the Conservative party and it's members:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory

Anyway, why do you lot care? To (mis)quote Homer Simpson,

"What do I need to learn English for? I'm never going to England!"

filbert wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Whats a Git? Whats a Tory? Gak don't you people over there speak English?

Frazz, a git is basically an unpleasant person, and tory is an old term now applied to the Conservative party and it's members:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory

Anyway, why do you lot care? To (mis)quote Homer Simpson,

"What do I need to learn English for? I'm never going to England!"

True Dat Filbert old boy. Britain does retain the Frazzled's bane all about:
Haggis...

I think any nation that, without any hint of irony, can happily take a sheep's intestine, stuff it with crap and then ingest said offal, is just fundamentally wrong...

[see forum posting rules].


Automatically Appended Next Post:
lol
cigarette gots

lol this is silly

will try again:
fa g gots
a well known victual usually served with mushy peas.

Albatross wrote: Seriously, calling people delusional because they don't agree with some rabid left-wing conspiracy? Nice work.

It's not really a conspiracy if it's one person, who does control all of those media outlets, controlling it is it now ?

They hate the Conservative party for no good reason

That's a massive assumption and underscores the flaw in your logic.

Firstly you have no idea if these people, whomever they are, have any reason for what they feel, or perhaps even think, with regards to any political party.

If it is, apparently, fine and logical for you to dislike the Labour Party as they are more left wing than the tories, why is it less logical for people to dislike the tories as they are more right wing than the Labour party ?

That's blatant double standards... are you an MP ?!

Would things REALLY have been any different under the much maligned conservatives?

I can't see how they would have been any better : they wanted even more deregulation of the banking system -- well that would ahve worked well -- and tehy were just as for the war(s) as the actual govt. was.

I agree there are swathes of the country where people vote for party X, pretty much regardless of suitability, but that's not in any way purely a Labour Party exclusive situation. There's just as many areas of the country where people always vote Tory as well.

..We generally call it Kent. Alas.

What large differences do you think exist between the two parties

I don't really think there or have been for quite some time, thus why I find the somewhat triumphant cries of the Tory Right baffling : just as New labour only got into power by ditching some of their more leftist policies, the tories only managed to get where they've got -- in a coalition with a party to the left of New labour despite having out spent all the other political parties combined and once having ahd a poll lead that leaders in other countries would kill for -- by ditching many of their more rightwing policies.

And, for various reasons, they're dropping or altering their stance on them, more and more by the day. That's the realities of politics, yelling about "class warriors" contributes nothing to any attempted discussion, anymore so than people calling you a kiss ass sycophant would.

Which has also been deleted.

Uh Oh Redy's on a tear.

Nah, not really, it IS just the OT board on a wargaming forum, where the main gist of the thread is a yongster's apparent amazement that rich business men have an affect upon govt. policy.

It's just I expect better arguments from the British posters,


... I mean you septics just don't know any better, and, bless , you do your best... but...



..

Regardless of murdoch/cameron shenanigans the fact is the BBC IS a huge waste of money. They employ news correspondents in god knows how many countries just laying on the beach drinking pina coladas until something newsworthy happens. Yeh sure we can get up to the minute updates but for the sake of waiting a few hours for a news crew to fly there. It's pointless waste.

mattyrm wrote:Yes its probably a bit shady, but lots is when you get into politics, this stuff goes on, it always has done, people ask a few questions, and it continues. Seems a bit of a dull conversation to me, i mean, whats to debate here?

You can debate the legislation that's going to go before parliament. You can contact your local member and tell him that you're very worried about the legislation that is being discussed.

Cant we have a good old fashioned "my party is better than yours" talk now? )

Except the differences between the parties are pretty meaningless. They throw out the odd bone to the old faithful every so often but all that matters is good governance. Ignoring something because it's coming from your side is a really impractical way of going about politics.

reds8n wrote:Actually Murdoch's personal political convictions are supposed to be much more left wing than people think -- it's well known he loathes Bill Reilly and several/most of the Fox News guys -- but he always puts his business interests ahead of all other considerations. Hence why he'll come out in favour of Obama one year, and then donate $1 million dollars to the Republicans this year. Whilst kissing the ass of the Chinese govt. at the same time.

Yeah, like I said earlier Murdoch wields all this power and could do anything with it... and he uses it to make more money. The man has a really boring outlook on life.

Albatross wrote:I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's not a massive deal or part of some sinister conspiracy. It's politics. That powerful businessmen have influence over politicians is not shocking. It has happened in this country (and pretty much every other country) for years and years, and will continue to happen.

Yes, it does happen. It is bad when it happens. To have a better standard of government, it is good to recognise it when it happens and talk about ways to stop it happening. These are things that are not complicated.

Seeking to point out the sins of one end of the political spectrum whilst ignoring the sins of your own isn't incisive political commentary, it's myopic. This thread is just a partisan attack on the Conservative party, nothing more. Let's treat it as such.

You could look at it as an attack on your favourite, bestest political party. Or you could think about how this actually relates to the governance and politics of your country.

Glad to see your status as an an arrogant tit is secure, though.

Never doubted it. If it bothers you when I point out that you don't get an issue, put in more work to understand the issue.

Seriously, calling people delusional because they don't agree with some rabid left-wing conspiracy? Nice work.

That's a really weak claim and you know it. This isn't a rabid left-wing conspiracy, you said yourself that powerful people exert influence over politicians. People have said that's bad, and especially bad when it is a very powerful media company, and a couple of posters have spouted a lot of drivel to avoid accepting that basic fact.

Im torn between the BBC, i mean.. at first i think im not too fond of the BBC myself, they just.. dont seem to get it in so many ways.

And yet, i still think their news is probably one of the most trustworthy sources of it.

What do you lot think? I check BBC news daily, they strike me as a tad left of centre, but better than most. Oh and i check Fox for the lolz.

Is there a more reputable news site than the BBC? Id like to know about it if there is..

I honestly don't think there is any greater institution than the BBC.

Look at the original content it churns out year on year, and I don't just mean stuff like Dr Who. Panorama, Newsnight, Have I Got News For You, Nature Documentaries, all sorts of everything, all for a pretty damned nominal sum a year from each household in the country. Or we could be forced to line the pockets of the like of Murdoch, a man whose own shocking self interest is palpable. I really don't think he could care less how inaccuracy or blatant scaremongering escapes from his Media outlets, as long as the green keeps on rolling.

Is Auntie flawed? I suppose so, but I would rather have their flaws than Murdoch's idea of perfection. Some 'stars' are quite blatantly overpaid, but don't look at the bad, as it is very much the minority. Look at the positives of the Beeb.

Mr Mystery wrote:I honestly don't think there is any greater institution than the BBC.

Look at the original content it churns out year on year, and I don't just mean stuff like Dr Who. Panorama, Newsnight, Have I Got News For You, Nature Documentaries, all sorts of everything, all for a pretty damned nominal sum a year from each household in the country. Or we could be forced to line the pockets of the like of Murdoch, a man whose own shocking self interest is palpable. I really don't think he could care less how inaccuracy or blatant scaremongering escapes from his Media outlets, as long as the green keeps on rolling.

Is Auntie flawed? I suppose so, but I would rather have their flaws than Murdoch's idea of perfection. Some 'stars' are quite blatantly overpaid, but don't look at the bad, as it is very much the minority. Look at the positives of the Beeb.

Translation: I like it so everyone has to subsidize me liking it...

It's a condition of owning a Telly in the UK, you need to have a license. The money goes to funding the BBC, with it's charter of Educate, Entertain and Inform.

It's still very much doing this, able to make niche or fringe programming to a very high standard, whilst still chucking out mainstream stuff at a higher level than many commerical competitors.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's not a massive deal or part of some sinister conspiracy. It's politics. That powerful businessmen have influence over politicians is not shocking. It has happened in this country (and pretty much every other country) for years and years, and will continue to happen.

Yes, it does happen. It is bad when it happens. To have a better standard of government, it is good to recognise it when it happens and talk about ways to stop it happening. These are things that are not complicated.

I didn't say they were - I'm arguing the exact opposite: That they are crushingly mundane. Certainly not deserving of the seeming shock the OP displayed. Is that not obvious?

Seeking to point out the sins of one end of the political spectrum whilst ignoring the sins of your own isn't incisive political commentary, it's myopic. This thread is just a partisan attack on the Conservative party, nothing more. Let's treat it as such.

You could look at it as an attack on your favourite, bestest political party. Or you could think about how this actually relates to the governance and politics of your country.

What IS that? Seriously? Why do you constantly act like you are talking to a child? It's a really unattractive trait, one which makes you look self-congratulatory and smug. I'm not the first person to point this out, and whilst you can continue to tell yourself that people who take issue with you are just stupid, eventually it's going to hit home that there are people who consider you needlessly pompous. Know yourself.

Glad to see your status as an an arrogant tit is secure, though.

Never doubted it. If it bothers you when I point out that you don't get an issue, put in more work to understand the issue.

Exactly what is it that I'm not getting? That wealthy and powerful people are wealthy and powerful? Did you think that was some secret knowledge that only you had? Well, SURPRISE! Welcome to the party! The rest of us have been here for a while but I'm sure there's still some booze left... Somewhere. I'm not denying that some backscratching might well have gone on that may have benefitted both parties - it makes sense for Cameron to court a powerful media magnate, and vice versa. Maybe I'm just an irredeemable pragmatist. It's hardly a great scandal, in my opinion - even if this 'pact with the devil' has a shred of truth to it.

Albatross wrote:
What IS that? Seriously? Why do you constantly act like you are talking to a child? It's a really unattractive trait, one which makes you look self-congratulatory and smug. I'm not the first person to point this out, and whilst you can continue to tell yourself that people who take issue with you are just stupid, eventually it's going to hit home that there are people who consider you needlessly pompous. Know yourself.

Yeah, being as i come on here for a smile or a chuckle i havent read one of Sebs posts for months now, i like to read Shuma's posts because he is generally as well informed as Seb, but he is actually genuinelly amusing when he is being smug. Sebster is about as equally informed but is like one of those bad teachers that recites everything from the handbook but has the personality of a sack of cabbages.

Just skip his stuff mate, read Dogmas or Shumas, you get almost the same information but none of the souless grey "learn to read" yawn inducing stuff.

If you want to know my opinions on the issue, recite Sebsters posts and constantly punch yourself in the face.

It's basically what I would be doing to you. Sebster tries to teach you, I just want you to know that you're wrong.

I despise murdoch and I value the BBC as one of the last free and impartial non corporate news entities on the planet. I would rather see Murdoch have his skin torn off then see a single BBC employee fired so that he can feth up the ideals of journalism more. I don't care about Cameron, but I view him to be as big a pandering tool as your last few leaders.

lol. See, Shuma is funny.

Hey, i like the BBC me mate, as i said, best news in the world right? I dont know a better one..

Oh and if you punched me i would (regretfully) boot you all the way to the local hospital.

mattyrm wrote:lol. See, Shuma is funny.

Hey, i like the BBC me mate, as i said, best news in the world right? I dont know a better one..

Oh and if you punched me i would (regretfully) boot you all the way to the local hospital.

Don't let my caustic and agressive demeanor fool you. I fight like a demon.

Dunno what the big deal is.

The BBC has been a political target since Harold Wilson got his choice of Chairman voted in.

'Inefficiency in the BBC' is always cited as reason for meddling.

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:lol. See, Shuma is funny.

Hey, i like the BBC me mate, as i said, best news in the world right? I dont know a better one..

Oh and if you punched me i would (regretfully) boot you all the way to the local hospital.

Don't let my caustic and agressive demeanor fool you. I fight like a demon.

Mate im rock as feth me, if you fight like a demon then im a librarian with null zone!

ShumaGorath wrote:If you want to know my opinions on the issue, recite Sebsters posts and constantly punch yourself in the face.

It's basically what I would be doing to you. Sebster tries to teach you, I just want you to know that you're wrong.

And you're both odiously smug mouthpieces with massively overinflated opinions of yourselves. You just have different (but equally tiresome) approaches.

I despise murdoch and I value the BBC as one of the last free and impartial non corporate news entities on the planet.

I agree.

I would rather see Murdoch have his skin torn off then see a single BBC employee fired so that he can feth up the ideals of journalism more.

Again, I agree. However that's not the same as saying that I don't think that there are people who work for the BBC who should lose their jobs, only that the agenda for the BBC shouldn't be set by James Murdoch or his father. Not that that's happening, or is ever going to happen.

I don't care about Cameron, but I view him to be as big a pandering tool as your last few leaders.

...Because of your anti-British prejudice. Do you actually KNOW anything about him?