What's your Brexit end-goal?

[Zelandakh]

But Johnson doesn't care about Brexit - what he wants is to win reelection

I think that BJ and other senior Conservatives are much more fearful of the conservative vote being split than the Labour party just now and see going into a General Election without Brexit as the biggest single danger to reelection. Any Brexit, whether with or without a deal, will effectively cement the Conservative right flank. So my view is that BJ cares very much about Brexit, not for ideological reasons but because he thinks getting it done is his pass card to staying in power for as long as Corbyn commands Labour.

[Winstonm]

I think that BJ and other senior Conservatives are much more fearful of the conservative vote being split than the Labour party just now and see going into a General Election without Brexit as the biggest single danger to reelection. Any Brexit, whether with or without a deal, will effectively cement the Conservative right flank. So my view is that BJ cares very much about Brexit, not for ideological reasons but because he thinks getting it done is his pass card to staying in power for as long as Corbyn commands Labour.

 

If Boris is still having problems, I'll give him the yellow-stained copy of "Art of the Deal" I found in a trash can in Moscow.

[fromageGB]

Could someone on the Brexit side of things perhaps explain how this (essentially creating an economic border within the UK) is in any way better than the May deal that everyone seems to agree was catastrophic?

It is better in that May's plan was to keep Britain in the EU customs zone while the Boris Bodge takes Britain out of the customs zone. Better for Britain, worse for Northern Ireland.

(Note for novices : the UK at the moment is Britain plus Northern Ireland. I say at the moment, because if Boris's agreement succeeds, Northern Ireland will secede, in my view.)

Other ways it is better include no commitment to future EU law adoption, or shadowing of EU rules. No doubt such shadowing will be later agreed, though.

Many ways it is no better. May's was an appalling plan; this is merely a terrible plan.

 

I will agree with commentators who suggest Boris is more about selfish power than ideology. His plan (now speaking after the plan had been non-bindingly agreed by the non-functional parliament, but they refused to enact it and we are to have a parliamentary election) was the best that was probably achievable in the ludicrous circumstances where a nominal government was forced to continue without governing because the opposition realised they could make laws themselves without being elected, while they themselves had no chance of winning an election. Why allow an election at all? Only because one part of the opposition decided they could pounce on the weakness of another part of the opposition to gain relative power. Again, selfishness wins over ideology. Nevertheless, we are now in a different ball game and the rules are different. An ideological Boris could at this point combine forces with the Brexit party to come to power with a better plan - one that Boris originally supported - but the selfish Boris refuses to "power-share".

 

If it continues like this my expectation will be a hung parliament with a remain majority that will formally renounce leaving the EU.

 

I have just returned from a holiday in the USA where I did not find myself being poisoned by chlorinated chicken, nor could I detect a difference. Nevertheless, I suspect a trade agreement with the USA - should Boris win - will not be possible because of his agreement to keep agricultural and biological alignment with the EU. We may have launched ourselves a lifeboat, but it remains tethered to the Titanic.

[fromageGB]

PS : Zel, as you know, the guardian is one of the most pro-EU-biased newspapers there is. You must expect any analysis to pick the flaws and ignore the benefits.

[Cyberyeti]

PS : Zel, as you know, the guardian is one of the most pro-EU-biased newspapers there is. You must expect any analysis to pick the flaws and ignore the benefits.

 

The Guardian ceased to be a newspaper as we know it several years ago and became a pro-Labour pro-remain propaganda organ in the way the Sun and the Fail are for the right wing leavers.

[cherdano]

Which UK newspapers are less biased?

[hrothgar]

Which UK newspapers are less biased?

 

Not quite a newspaper and not really unbiased, but I have always felt that The Economist is quite reasonable about stuff.

 

(Most of the British newspapers are complete rubbish. When I first spent a summer living in the UK way too many years ago I was shocked that there didn't seem to be any equivalent to the NYT, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, or the the like)

[PeterAlan]

The Guardian ceased to be a newspaper as we know it several years ago and became a pro-Labour pro-remain propaganda organ in the way the Sun and the Fail are for the right wing leavers.

I think you have to be reading it with very blue-lensed glasses to come to this conclusion. Yes, The Guardian's centre-left-leaning and pro-remain, but to describe it as a "propaganda organ" is a massive overbid. Propaganda is the Mail's front page banner headline labelling pictured Supreme Court judges as "Enemies Of The People": the Guardian does not resort to this sort of trash journalism. The Guardian and the Mirror provide some counterweight to the generally right-to-very-right-wing, heavily pro-leave press (Telegraph, Express, Mail, Sun), but the overall result is nevertheless far from balanced.

[Cyberyeti]

I think you have to be reading it with very blue-lensed glasses to come to this conclusion. Yes, The Guardian's centre-left-leaning and pro-remain, but to describe it as a "propaganda organ" is a massive overbid. Propaganda is the Mail's front page banner headline labelling pictured Supreme Court judges as "Enemies Of The People": the Guardian does not resort to this sort of trash journalism. The Guardian and the Mirror provide some counterweight to the generally right-to-very-right-wing, heavily pro-leave press (Telegraph, Express, Mail, Sun), but the overall result is nevertheless far from balanced.

 

The Guardian runs enormous numbers of stories along the lines of "Brexit COULD do this", "Tories eat babies", "an unnamed source close to ..." when they've basically just made stuff up.

[PeterAlan]

The Guardian runs enormous numbers of stories along the lines of "Brexit COULD do this", "Tories eat babies", "an unnamed source close to ..." when they've basically just made stuff up.

Evidence, please, in particular of your "made stuff up" assertion.

[Cyberyeti]

Evidence, please, in particular of your "made stuff up" assertion.

 

Have you really read it much, there are loads of "a source close to the Brexit team say ...." or "a source in Tory HQ ..." which are UTTERLY implausible for them to get, as they would be VERY unlikely to have sources there, and those sources would be much more likely to go to a less left wing paper (the Times for example which has been pro remain).

 

Also the "There is a chance Brexit could do ..." stories where the chance is like 0.000001% but it will scare people, and they'll present it like it's a decent chance.

[fromageGB]

(Most of the British newspapers are complete rubbish. When I first spent a summer living in the UK way too many years ago I was shocked that there didn't seem to be any equivalent to the NYT, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, or the the like)

I could say the same about USA television news channels. CNN is 100% Trump bashing, Fox is 100% Trump praising, or so it seemed to me EVERY TIME I flicked through channels. At least in the UK I can watch BBC if I want a Guardian equivalent, or Sky or RT for a more balanced view, or Al Jazeera or RT when I want more world-wide news.

[fromageGB]

... Also the "There is a chance Brexit could do ..." stories where the chance is like 0.000001% but it will scare people, and they'll present it like it's a decent chance.

Or present at as a fact, or a certainty.

[Cyberyeti]

I think you have to be reading it with very blue-lensed glasses to come to this conclusion.

 

I'm a politically homeless centrist, my spectacles are not very blue if blue at all, I don't think you realise how far it has fallen. Years ago I used to read the Guardian whenever I was abroad because it published on the continent, the other papers didn't so it was MUCH cheaper. It was obvious then that the international edition (which I enjoyed) had a very different editorial line than the British edition and was much more centrist even then (c 1985-90 I think), but the Guardian now is pretty much worthless.

[Zelandakh]

At least in the UK I can watch BBC if I want a Guardian equivalent

The BBC as "a pro-Labour pro-remain propaganda organ". :lol: Now I have heard everything. :o

[hrothgar]

I could say the same about USA television news channels. CNN is 100% Trump bashing, Fox is 100% Trump praising, or so it seemed to me EVERY TIME I flicked through channels. At least in the UK I can watch BBC if I want a Guardian equivalent, or Sky or RT for a more balanced view, or Al Jazeera or RT when I want more world-wide news.

 

Question: When you say RT, do you mean Russia Today?

 

Comment 1: Television "news" is pretty piss poor in the US. The PBS Newshour is one of the few things worth watching.

 

Comment 2: If you want a decent news source, your best choice these days is probably still online versions of print.

 

I recent cancelled my subscription to the NYT over their editorial coverage, however, I find that a mixture of The New York Review of Books and The Atlantic is a reasonable substitute. There are also some good podcasts.

[Cyberyeti]

The BBC as "a pro-Labour pro-remain propaganda organ". :lol: Now I have heard everything. :o

 

Varies by network, I actually rarely watch TV, but on the radio, I believe radio 4 is centre right, but radio 5 which I listen to and tends to have presenters aged around 40 is very much centre left (but not necessarily pro Corbyn) pro remain.

[PeterAlan]

Have you really read it much, there are loads of "a source close to the Brexit team say ...." or "a source in Tory HQ ..." which are UTTERLY implausible for them to get, as they would be VERY unlikely to have sources there, and those sources would be much more likely to go to a less left wing paper (the Times for example which has been pro remain).

 

Also the "There is a chance Brexit could do ..." stories where the chance is like 0.000001% but it will scare people, and they'll present it like it's a decent chance.

This still reads to me as a bunch of assertions without any real evidence being adduced. I think that you need much firmer ground before accusing reputable journalists of making up stories.

 

I too am a homeless centrist (and much more Radio 4 than Radio 5), but the main difference between us, I suspect, is that I am firmly pro-remain whereas I have the strong impression that you are not. You suggest that I haven't "really read it [The Guardian] much"; in fact, I read the online edition most days, and buy the paper edition from time to time, as I do The Times. I thought that the The Times' relatively balanced pro-remain stance on Brexit was appropriate pre-referendum; since then, it seems to me to have trimmed somewhat and editorially to be insufficiently critical of the various positions that both the successive governments and the opposition have put forward.

[Winstonm]

Have you really read it much, there are loads of "a source close to the Brexit team say ...." or "a source in Tory HQ ..." which are UTTERLY implausible for them to get, as they would be VERY unlikely to have sources there, and those sources would be much more likely to go to a less left wing paper (the Times for example which has been pro remain).

 

Also the "There is a chance Brexit could do ..." stories where the chance is like 0.000001% but it will scare people, and they'll present it like it's a decent chance.

 

Although I share your displeasure with the state of news reporting in this era of infotainment vs news, I am more concerned with single source reporting (which is not journalistic) than with unnamed sources.

 

Perhaps that is because I am old enough to have lived through Watergate here in the U.S. but the emphasis should not be on what is reported but whether or not the editor and editorial decisions can be trusted. The journalistic decision about a story should be determined by whether or not it can be confirmed by a second source; if not, no story.

 

It is a matter of trust. I don't get to hear grand jury testimony. I have to trust the legal system. If a news story is run, I have to made a decision whether or not to trust the outlet that is reporting that news.

 

It is much more difficult today than it was 45 years ago. Once bias is allowed systemically into journalism, all journalism becomes opinion. That is a shame.

[Cyberyeti]

This still reads to me as a bunch of assertions without any real evidence being adduced. I think that you need much firmer ground before accusing reputable journalists of making up stories.

 

I too am a homeless centrist (and much more Radio 4 than Radio 5), but the main difference between us, I suspect, is that I am firmly pro-remain whereas I have the strong impression that you are not. You suggest that I haven't "really read it [The Guardian] much"; in fact, I read the online edition most days, and buy the paper edition from time to time, as I do The Times. I thought that the The Times' relatively balanced pro-remain stance on Brexit was appropriate pre-referendum; since then, it seems to me to have trimmed somewhat and editorially to be insufficiently critical of the various positions that both the successive governments and the opposition have put forward.

 

I should add, that I only see the Guardian when people link stories to FB and since the people who do it are rabidly pro remain and anti-Tory, those are the only stories I tend to see.

 

My degree is in essence in statistics, so bad use of stats also irks me and is common (plus asking the wrong questions in surveys and then thinking the results mean anything).

 

I thought Brexit was a 50:50 call (I did vote but haven't revealed how) so vowed to back whichever side won the referendum, so I am now a Brexiteer.

 

I rarely read newspapers, but when I do, tends to be the Times or if I can't get that the i. I have radio 5 on not quite all my waking hours, but pretty much whenever I'm not listening to music or playing bridge.

[Cyberyeti]

This still reads to me as a bunch of assertions without any real evidence being adduced. I think that you need much firmer ground before accusing reputable journalists of making up stories.

 

I too am a homeless centrist (and much more Radio 4 than Radio 5), but the main difference between us, I suspect, is that I am firmly pro-remain whereas I have the strong impression that you are not. You suggest that I haven't "really read it [The Guardian] much"; in fact, I read the online edition most days, and buy the paper edition from time to time, as I do The Times. I thought that the The Times' relatively balanced pro-remain stance on Brexit was appropriate pre-referendum; since then, it seems to me to have trimmed somewhat and editorially to be insufficiently critical of the various positions that both the successive governments and the opposition have put forward.

 

OK, concrete example. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/05/tories-prevented-from-using-civil-service-to-rubbish-labour-plans?fbclid=IwAR1e5xRixO1p-XdLAaQvavmD7UKBlwTSA5sxXhmwaWCeBBhEsVeTY96clzA

 

What they don't tell you (and the BBC did) is that this is a document that has been routinely produced for pretty much every election other than the last one, although usually earlier than this in the process.

[PeterAlan]

OK, concrete example. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/05/tories-prevented-from-using-civil-service-to-rubbish-labour-plans?fbclid=IwAR1e5xRixO1p-XdLAaQvavmD7UKBlwTSA5sxXhmwaWCeBBhEsVeTY96clzA

 

What they don't tell you (and the BBC did) is that this is a document that has been routinely produced for pretty much every election other than the last one, although usually earlier than this in the process.

Both articles make clear that this has been done in the past, but not in the period immediately before the election, which apparently was the basis for the objection. I don't think that a comparison of the articles supports your contention that the Guardian is trying to hide anything:

 

One government insider ... said it was an "established process" for a government to cost opposition policies in this way.

 

And previous Conservative and Labour Governments have indeed done this ahead of general elections and referendums, although there was not time to do this in 2017.

 

It has not in recent years been done days before the "purdah" period where civil servants are strictly restricted in their actions.

 

The opposition said it was a "scandal" and that the government had been caught "red handed" using civil servants in this way so close to an election, and at a time when the government has chosen not to do an economic assessment of its own landmark policy - the new Brexit deal.

 

McDonnell said he warned the civil service that the Conservatives’ exercise was an abuse of power, telling the Independent: “I said first of all… you do not know what is in the manifesto so that is pure speculation. Secondly, this being done within hours of the formal campaign being undertaken. Thirdly, I think it’s an abuse of power.”

 

He added: “I’m happy for anyone to examine our policies, but to do this hours before a general election campaign is I think an abuse of power. Unacceptable.”

 

Previous governments have used the Treasury machine to criticise opposition party spending plans. George Osborne used a dossier of civil service reports to attack Ed Miliband’s policies in 2015, although its publication was in the January of that year, significantly ahead of the May 2015 election.

[cherdano]

Have you really read it much, there are loads of "a source close to the Brexit team say ...." or "a source in Tory HQ ..." which are UTTERLY implausible for them to get, as they would be VERY unlikely to have sources there, and those sources would be much more likely to go to a less left wing paper (the Times for example which has been pro remain).

 

Also the "There is a chance Brexit could do ..." stories where the chance is like 0.000001% but it will scare people, and they'll present it like it's a decent chance.

I don't like the guardian because of its sensationalizing headlines and unbalanced selection of news stories, even though they are trying to appeal to someone with my approximate political views.

But their reporting always seemed good to me - can you give just one example of such an implausible story? It may seem implausible to you, but they do keep getting leaks of government documents that turn out to be genuine (e.g. Operation Yellowhammer).

[PeterAlan]

CY, I've always appreciated your contributions to the whole range of forums here, but for me this sub-thread has gone on long enough. My feeling is that it's becoming more and more about your own prejudices concerning The Guardian, which seem to me to be more evident than the paper's alleged issues, and I don't expect to contribute further to it.

[Cyberyeti]

CY, I've always appreciated your contributions to the whole range of forums here, but for me this sub-thread has gone on long enough. My feeling is that it's becoming more and more about your own prejudices concerning The Guardian, which seem to me to be more evident than the paper's alleged issues, and I don't expect to contribute further to it.

 

I was comparing the guardian article which makes a vague reference to alleged abuse of civil servants in 2015 but doesn't say that this document was produced for pretty much EVERY election before that including under labour, to the BBC radio 5 article (not the one on the website) where it was explained in full detail.

 

I have no prejudice against the Guardian, I just want them to go back to something close to unbiased reporting. Cherdano also comes up with another beef I have with them, sensationalist headlines not supported by the story.