[QUOTE=Whomobile;51305611]As an Australian I'm sorry we let Rupert Murdoch exist.
He tried pulling the same shit here around election time with his papers and their effect was pretty weak (party he back still won but only by one seat), do tabloids have that much of a sway in politics the UK?[/QUOTE]
Their front pages litter the underground and general area in boxes, news stands and shops. It's less that people buy them but more they get nearly free agenda pushing, almost propaganda-tier coverage across the country.
Nobody buys newspapers any more for the most part, that's why their front-pages are such filth; it's the only thing people see.
what is with the uk and propaganda lol
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51306054]what is with the uk and propaganda lol[/QUOTE]
To be fair no one under the age of 60 reads newspapers here. They mostly exist to get all the old people angry.
[QUOTE=Whomobile;51305611]As an Australian I'm sorry we let Rupert Murdoch exist.
He tried pulling the same shit here around election time with his papers and their effect was pretty weak (party he back still won but only by one seat), do tabloids have that much of a sway in politics the UK?[/QUOTE]
In the part of south east England where I come from everyone over the age of 40-50~ ish reads one of those tabloids on the last page except for maybe school teachers. My parents both read the Mail and the Express on a weekly basis during my entire childhood. These papers have been sinking their claws into a lot of people for a long time, its that not people are thick (okay maybe with the exception of The Sun) its more that people have been indoctrinated with their way of thinking and just look at you funny if you don't think immigration is the worst thing since Hitler.
And yeah, south east England basically always votes majority blue.
kippers: "we want the UK parliament to be this country's sovereign body, not the European Parliament"
[I]UK Parliament given sovereignty over vote to leave the EU[/I]
kippers: "oh fuck wait no not that sovereign"
[QUOTE=Whomobile;51305611]As an Australian I'm sorry we let Rupert Murdoch exist.
He tried pulling the same shit here around election time with his papers and their effect was pretty weak (party he back still won but only by one seat), do tabloids have that much of a sway in politics the UK?[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's that far off to say that our tabloids are directly responsible for the EU referendum going Brexit-ways. The media had a huge part to play overall, but nothing was as supportive for the leave campaign as the tabloids were.
Tabloids have enormous sway over the people in this country, although it's one of those things that nobody ever admits to, or considers themselves vulnerable to. You can point out that what they're reading is absolute trash and hot garbage and they'll agree, but then continue buying and reading it for the rest of their lives.
Tabloids have almost no influence when actually using proper studies which aren't based upon anecdotes or excuses for the defeat of the left, but alright then
[QUOTE=Yahnich;51306075]you know this entire thing reminded me, why exactly is 50% the threshold for you guys? For important decisions in Belgium a 2/3rds majority is needed and leaving the fuckin EU seems like a pretty important decision that shouldn't be decided on 2%[/QUOTE]
A 2/3 majority requirement pretty much deadlocks a direct democracy.
The dumbest part about the uproar over this decision is, parliament is almost definitely going to still vote leave with the British people to avoid massive backlash
This ruling just means Brexit is on parliaments terms, not the terms of the unelected Tory leadership, which is exactly how the British constitution is supposed to work - referenda are non-binding and always have to go through Parliament, even though parliament will almost always honor those referenda.
This way parliament gets a hand in the negotiations, so if the executive comes back from Brussels with a shit deal, parliament can tell them to do one and try again.
[QUOTE=smurfy;51304451]The pro-Leave papers have gone into meltdown
[t]http://i.imgur.com/VhxViX1.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/sgaz9wT.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/TJZrk8O.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/UrqDjbF.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
not my kind of people tho really
they were doing their job, keeping check on the executive branch of government.
[editline]4th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Yahnich;51306075]you know this entire thing reminded me, why exactly is 50% the threshold for you guys? For important decisions in Belgium a 2/3rds majority is needed and leaving the fuckin EU seems like a pretty important decision that shouldn't be decided on 2%[/QUOTE]
i've always questioned this, probably because we've only had like what 3 referendums in existence? plus our normal electoral system is fucked anyway (first past the post).
[QUOTE=Whomobile;51305611] do tabloids have that much of a sway in politics the UK?[/QUOTE]
Honestly?, yes.
Where I live the opinions of anyone over the age of 30 (and a quite a few people below that age) tend to more often than not [i]directly[/i] reflect what is printed on the cover of tabloids at any given time.
It's honestly kinda scary, being quite young myself, I get most of my news from the internet- and I like to check out multiple sources to see both sides and cut through the agendas being pushed in order to form my own opinion on exactly what's going on.
Then I walk down to the local corner shop and see this wall of papers just aggressively telling people what to think- and it's always hateful shit like [b] MUSLIMS WANT TO EAT BRITISH BABIES! [/B], [B] YOU SHOULD BLAME FOREIGNERS AND THE POOR FOR THIS!!![/B] and [B]BRITAIN HATES THIS LOONY LEFTY WIMP! [/B].
Coming up to the EU referendum the papers went [i] bat shit insane [/i] it was like they were trying to whip leave voters up into a frenzy.
[QUOTE=fulgrim;51306355]Honestly?, yes.
Where I live the opinions of anyone over the age of 30 (and a quite a few people below that age) tend to more often than not [i]directly[/i] reflect what is printed on the cover of tabloids at any given time.
It's honestly kinda scary, being quite young myself, I get most of my news from the internet- and I like to check out multiple sources to see both sides and cut through the agendas being pushed in order to form my own opinion on exactly what's going on.
Then I walk down to the local corner shop and see this wall of papers just aggressively telling people what to think- and it's always hateful shit like [b] MUSLIMS WANT TO EAT BRITISH BABIES! [/B], [B] YOU SHOULD BLAME FOREIGNERS AND THE POOR FOR THIS!!![/B] and [B]BRITAIN HATES THIS LOONY LEFY WIMP! [/B].
Coming up to the EU referendum the papers went [i] bat shit insane [/i] it was like they were trying to whip leave voters up into a frenzy.[/QUOTE]
Got any evidence that isn't just useless anecdotes?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51306359]Got any evidence that isn't just useless anecdotes?[/QUOTE]
Well someone already posted an example of the tabloids trying to stir up leave voters, and I'd say that it also supports what I said about the papers just telling people what to think.
[QUOTE=smurfy;51304451]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/sgaz9wT.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
As for the rest of my post- sharing my experience on the influence tabloids have on people around me was presented as a subjective personal anecdote?. shocker.
[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;51301199]Hmm.
I voted Remain and I think it's stupid how some politicians/pundits are questioning the validity of a DIRECT DEMOCRATIC vote. If you overthrow this result, what the fuck is our society even based on?[/QUOTE]
The validity of a DIRECT DEMOCRACY should be questioned more than a representative democracy.
Because most people are uninformed about international politics, and thus their opinion is uninformed and retarded.
Like it was on the leave/remain vote.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51306359]Got any evidence that isn't just useless anecdotes?[/QUOTE]
are you arguing against the notion that newspapers effect the political process in the UK or that specifically tabloids do, or are you arguing that their sway isn't that great or as great as it was
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51306621]are you arguing against the notion that newspapers effect the political process in the UK or that specifically tabloids do, or are you arguing that their sway isn't that great or as great as it was[/QUOTE]
I think that media in general has far less influence than people believe after I actually looked at studies on the issue, with people consuming media they already agree with to reinforce their opinions and with very little ability of media to shift political opinion.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;51306075]you know this entire thing reminded me, why exactly is 50% the threshold for you guys? For important decisions in Belgium a 2/3rds majority is needed and leaving the fuckin EU seems like a pretty important decision that shouldn't be decided on 2%[/QUOTE]
Belgium is built to be a bufferstate though, all our laws were made up to stop progress and change so no matter what we would stay a boring country wedging Germany and France apart.
Voting duty instead of right is also an example of that.
Getting 51 people to say 'yes' to something in itself is pretty fucking spectacular. I mean everyone who goes 'yes, but...' usually votes no, hence there have only been like 2 or 3 out of hundreds of government issued polls in Belgium that ended up with 50+% saying yes, and none of the binding 2/3ths ones have passed afaik.
like ever...
none.
same applies to the UK, 53.4% is really fucking impressive on leave, anyone saying 'its so close its meaningless' doesn't know how hard it is to get half of the people in your country to agree on something.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51306829]Belgium is built to be a bufferstate though, all our laws were made up to stop progress and change so no matter what we would stay a boring country wedging Germany and France apart.
Voting duty instead of right is also an example of that.
Getting 51 people to say 'yes' to something in itself is pretty fucking spectacular. I mean everyone who goes 'yes, but...' usually votes no, hence there have only been like 2 or 3 out of hundreds of government issued polls in Belgium that ended up with 50+% saying yes, and none of the binding 2/3ths ones have passed afaik.
like ever...
none.
same applies to the UK, 53.4% is really fucking impressive on leave, anyone saying 'its so close its meaningless' doesn't know how hard it is to get half of the people in your country to agree on something.[/QUOTE]
it's actually closer to 51%, and a few of them were protest votes rather than being necessarily in favour of brexit
if there had been a referendum to revoke free speech as a basic right and it passed by 51% I am sure people would be contesting it instead of rolling over
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51306829]Belgium is built to be a bufferstate though, all our laws were made up to stop progress and change so no matter what we would stay a boring country wedging Germany and France apart.
Voting duty instead of right is also an example of that.
Getting 51 people to say 'yes' to something in itself is pretty fucking spectacular. I mean everyone who goes 'yes, but...' usually votes no, hence there have only been like 2 or 3 out of hundreds of government issued polls in Belgium that ended up with 50+% saying yes, and none of the binding 2/3ths ones have passed afaik.
like ever...
none.
same applies to the UK, 53.4% is really fucking impressive on leave, anyone saying 'its so close its meaningless' doesn't know how hard it is to get half of the people in your country to agree on something.[/QUOTE]
Except that in reality it wasn't 51.4% of people voting leave, it was 51.4% of the 72% turnout of the electorate. So when you adjust the figures it's more like only a third of the voting population agreed on leaving.
[QUOTE=Wiggles;51306908]Except that in reality it wasn't 51.4% of people voting leave, it was 51.4% of the 72% turnout of the electorate. So when you adjust the figures it's more like only a third of the voting population agreed on leaving.[/QUOTE]
Stop counting non-voters as if they matter, it makes you look like a joke no matter the quality of the rest of your argument. Non-voters don't count. Simple as. It's just an argument used by sore losers in elections.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51306859]it's actually closer to 51%, and a few of them were protest votes rather than being necessarily in favour of brexit
if there had been a referendum to revoke free speech as a basic right and it passed by 51% I am sure people would be contesting it instead of rolling over[/QUOTE]
Thats political suicide for a party to organise that referendum, and highly unpopular for a reason...
Brexit is not unpopular, its popular, and while there are arguments to be made its a bad, emotionally fuelled call... its still the voters choice to leave the EU and pay any economic losses that may be had for that.
If people vote in a binding referendum 51% in favour of abolishing democracy for example, it effectively nullifies the democratic system in place... its the peoples will to be powerless...
By questioning the outcome and if a following should be given (besides questioning the validity of the results themselves) you are effectively opening the door for a dictatorship coup by setting a precedence of ignoring the democratic and electoree ratified 'will of the people'.
Democracy > Economy, Article 50 must be triggered, for the UK's sake its the fate of its democracy that is at stake.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51306915]Stop counting non-voters as if they matter, it makes you look like a joke no matter the quality of the rest of your argument. Non-voters don't count. Simple as. It's just an argument used by sore losers in elections.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I forgot we don't live in a democracy where voter participation is important.
[QUOTE=Wiggles;51306953]Sorry, I forgot we don't live in a democracy where voter participation is important.[/QUOTE]
Voter participation is important on an abstract level, but lower turnout because people couldn't be arsed doesn't reduce the legitimacy of a specific vote (unless its abnormally low - think Police Commissioner elections). This is especially the case in referendums where there are no excuses to be had about not liking the parties or candidates or so on.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51306928]If people vote in a binding referendum 51% in favour of abolishing democracy for example, it effectively nullifies the democratic system in place... its the peoples will to be powerless...[/QUOTE]
I just hate this kind of rhetoric. No, a slim majority is not "the people". One of the reasons our democracies are representative instead of direct is to allow discussions and compromises between minorities to form instead of binary choices like this which alienate half the population.
Also fuck no, you can't change the constitution because 51% of the population wants to, that's not how democracy works.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51306982]Voter participation is important on an abstract level, but lower turnout because people couldn't be arsed doesn't reduce the legitimacy of a specific vote (unless its abnormally low - think Police Commissioner elections).[/QUOTE]
I never called into question the legitimacy of the vote. Blizzerd suggested that 51% of people agreed on something, and I pointed out when you take into consideration the turnout or even how many people are actually able to vote that isn't really the case. ~17,000,000 people is not half of the people in this country.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51307016]I just hate this kind of rhetoric. No, a slim majority is not "the people". One of the reasons our democracies are representative instead of direct is to allow discussions and compromises between minorities to form instead of binary choices like this which alienate half the population.
Also fuck no, you can't change the constitution because 51% of the population wants to, that's not how democracy works.[/QUOTE]
We can change the constitution in the UK by a vote of 1 in Parliament though. That's how it works.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51307026]We can change the constitution in the UK by a vote of 1 in Parliament though. That's how it works.[/QUOTE]
Yet another reason why the UK's political system is poorly thought-out I guess.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51307043]Yet another reason why the UK's political system is poorly thought-out I guess.[/QUOTE]
I guess that's why France has had five republics, repeated constitutional crises and chaos whilst Britain has been the most stable country in the world before we undermined our own constitutional conventions by holding a referendum.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51307050]whilst Britain has been the most stable country in the world[/QUOTE]
hi
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51307050]I guess that's why France has had five republics, repeated constitutional crises and chaos whilst Britain has been the most stable country in the world before we undermined our own constitutional conventions by holding a referendum.[/QUOTE]
Right, you really are in a position to brag about your country's stability right now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
