UKGAF thread of Politics and Britishness.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The reading age of The Sun and other tabloids are designed so they could be read by 11 year olds such is the limit of syllables or even moderately complex use of language in these papers.
 
Meus Renaissance said:
The reading age of The Sun and other tabloids are designed so they could be read by 11 year olds such is the limit of syllables or even moderately complex use of language in these papers.
Click to expand...

In one of my classes at college we discussed the "tabloidisation" of the English language. The rise in the use of any explanation using "basically..." is the best example of it.

J Tourettes said:
I find it quite funny that not one of the major parties is anywhere near close to the general gaf consensus.

enParties.gif


EDIT: Unless you consider Green a major party, that is.
Click to expand...

You consider both the BNP and Greens to be major parties? One would think that a prerequisite for being considered a "major" party would be to... you know... have at least one seat in the House of Commons and all.
 
Well, interesting news today in terms of journalism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/26/times-website-paywall
Times and Sunday Times websites to start charging from June
Click to expand...
Murdoch has been talking about this for awhile now, so I'm not surprised he's finally introduced it. I also believe some newspapers do this in America.

I bet most newspapers are going to be watching this experiment, see if it pans out or not. If it fails then perhaps we'll see a rise in blogs, but if its successful then it'll be interesting to see which newspapers follow suit. Still, I think it should be free.
 
^Not surprised to see that, I've been expecting it since the New York Times (?) started charging. If it helps to keep these publications alive, I'm all in favour.
 
I care only (deeply) about the Times Literary Supplement, and I am both a paying print subscriber and a recipient of free online access (through the university subscription) to it. Murdoch can do what he likes with Times online. I've never seen the point of it.
 
I can't see charging for an online newspaper working, at least not in the present. I think in the future where everyone has iPads and super-Kindles and what have you, a subscription to newspaper content that you can take with you (like a newspaper!) could make sense. If you are just checking the sites on your lunch break or in the evenings you don't need the subscription IMO.

I think this is a move aimed at the older generation as well, a generation that isn't so used to all this content being free by default. I can see this being adopted by schools and universities as well.

Although, if they charge for the service I think this should mean that subscribers should have access to literally every story published in the paper, ever. It would take a lot of set-up to scan/transcribe all the issues, but if you're paying for a service it should go above and beyond where it is now, and I think a searchable library of every article ever published in the Times could be a worthwhile investment (especially for students).
 
industrian said:
In one of my classes at college we discussed the "tabloidisation" of the English language. The rise in the use of any explanation using "basically..." is the best example of it.



You consider both the BNP and Greens to be major parties? One would think that a prerequisite for being considered a "major" party would be to... you know... have at least one seat in the House of Commons and all.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to see where I said/suggested that but for clarification purposes, no I don't.
 
The Financial Times already charge for online access to their website (though you can see a few articles for free), but then i suppose there's more of a market for that considering the services they offer which the Times doesn't.

Its a shame for me since i used the Times website a lot, but then i wouldn't have a problem buying the paper anyway. I wouldn't want to pay for online access though.
 
industrian said:
You consider both the BNP and Greens to be major parties? One would think that a prerequisite for being considered a "major" party would be to... you know... have at least one seat in the House of Commons and all.
Click to expand...

I'm boggling more at the BNP being left-of-centre.
 
mclem said:
I'm boggling more at the BNP being left-of-centre.
Click to expand...

Considering that working class people would probably form the majority of their support, they would probably benefit from being economically left-wing. Kind of like how the Sun is a left wing paper with a lot of hardline right wing ideas on crime, etc.
 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/86/86.pdf

The report by The House of Lords and The House of Commons Joint Comittee on Human rights has just been made public. Probably the most interesting thing to come form it is that they have recommend an imediate review on all counter terrorism laws passed since 11/09/2001.

In our view, the question is not whether counter-terrorism legislation is needed at
all, but whether the counter-terrorism legislation that we have got is justified and
proportionate in the light of the most up to date information about the nature and
scale of the threat we face from terrorism. What is needed is not consolidation, but a
thoroughgoing, evidence-based review of the necessity for, and proportionality of, all
the counter-terrorism legislation passed since 11 September 2001. That review should
be carried out in the light of evidence of how it has worked in practice and the reasons
why it is said to remain necessary and proportionate in the circumstances in which we
find ourselves today.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher
Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s, as the country's leading experts on tax and spending warned that Britain faces "two parliaments of pain" to repair the black hole in the state's finances.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said hefty tax rises and Whitehall spending cuts of 25% were in prospect during the six-year squeeze lasting until 2017 that would follow the chancellor's "treading water" budget yesterday.
Click to expand...

Darling would have made a decent chancellor. Unfortunately for him (and the rest of the country), he was being leaned on by Brown to hide the truth, and even if Labour win the election, he'll be replaced by Ed Balls. A man as incompetent as he is scary.
 
Saw vince cable's budget blurb on tonight, first time seeing him and I tell you I wouldn't buy tarmac of him with the way he looks, and thats bad from someone who would vote liberal if he could
 
industrian said:
In one of my classes at college we discussed the "tabloidisation" of the English language. The rise in the use of any explanation using "basically..." is the best example of it.



You consider both the BNP and Greens to be major parties? One would think that a prerequisite for being considered a "major" party would be to... you know... have at least one seat in the House of Commons and all.
Click to expand...

That depends on if you consider the definition of a "major" party to be based upon support or power, because they aren't the same thing. The BNP got far and away enough votes at the last election for a number of seats (as shown by their receipt of 2 MEPs in the European elections). Whilst that doesn't translate into direct power, a party with so many supporters certainly has enough of an effect on the political landscape to be described as "major" in my books.
 
mclem said:
I'm boggling more at the BNP being left-of-centre.
Click to expand...

They're nationalists, and all nationalists are inherently socialist. It's pretty difficult to simultaneously champion the advancement of a large swathe of people whose only link is where they're born, and also to advance the idea of the individual in the economy. That's one thing the BNP have in common with the Nazis actually - economically left wing, socially right wing.
 
Chriswok said:
With a name like Ed Balls, he's always going to be one step away from Media Ridicule. All the cheap Sun Headlines write themselves really.
Click to expand...

Just imagine Prime Minister Balls. It'd be a Golden Age for pun writers.

Kaltagesta said:
That depends on if you consider the definition of a "major" party to be based upon support or power, because they aren't the same thing. The BNP got far and away enough votes at the last election for a number of seats (as shown by their receipt of 2 MEPs in the European elections). Whilst that doesn't translate into direct power, a party with so many supporters certainly has enough of an effect on the political landscape to be described as "major" in my books.
Click to expand...

The BNP, Greens (UK), and UKIP are minor parties. Simply because they have very little chance to affect the political landscape. With that said, I'm pretty sure most English people wouldn't consider the SNP or DUP to be major parties even though both are on equal importance as Labour and Conservative.
 
Saiyar said:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/86/86.pdf

The report by The House of Lords and The House of Commons Joint Comittee on Human rights has just been made public. Probably the most interesting thing to come form it is that they have recommend an imediate review on all counter terrorism laws passed since 11/09/2001.
Click to expand...

I'm stunned. A cognitive, rather than fear-based, approach to counter-terrorism legislation? What is the world coming to?
 
operon said:
Saw vince cable's budget blurb on tonight, first time seeing him and I tell you I wouldn't buy tarmac of him with the way he looks, and thats bad from someone who would vote liberal if he could
Click to expand...

With the way he looks? *sigh* That shows what Blair has done to British politics clearly I think.
 
Dark Machine said:
With the way he looks? *sigh* That shows what Blair has done to British politics clearly I think.
Click to expand...

Its more to do with the fact that the forced the fantastic Sir Menzies Campbell out for being to old and cable looks like a pikey selling you gates and tarmac
 
Dark Machine said:
With the way he looks? *sigh* That shows what Blair has done to British politics clearly I think.
Click to expand...
You have to look a bit further back to find the origins of the shift from policy wonk to political showman. The consensus seems to be Macmillan, but I think Wilson was probably who went beyond the point of no return. But even Churchill was conscious of his public persona and played up to it. Sure we've had grey and dour PMs since then, but they haven't really been successful or had much longevity in office. Look at Major - constantly ribbed for being the type of dull chap talked about policy like one might discuss the virtues of garden peas. As for Gordon Brown, 'dour scotsman' is a term bandied around a lot.

However, I don't think it's all that unreasonable in the politically globalised world we live in, to have a representative of our country who livens things up a bit, look photogenic and talks eloquently. What we need is our own Obama as opposed to a Berlusconi, not that I'm suggesting that Cameron is Britain's Berusconi but, and I say it as a Tory supporter, he does sometimes give off the appearance of shallowness.
 
got a letter from the houses of commons declaring me king ;smug;.

nah, aboot the robin hood tax. giving the bullshit response about how it would have to be implemented globally, despite the fact that it doesn't have to be, and most of europe has agreed with it.
 
looks like im gonna keep babbying up this thread until the userbase is able to sustain it without me posting stuff.

politics show is on, looks likes going to be 'questioned' by the 'undecided' audience.
 
Chinner said:
got a letter from the houses of commons declaring me king ;smug;.

nah, aboot the robin hood tax. giving the bullshit response about how it would have to be implemented globally, despite the fact that it doesn't have to be, and most of europe has agreed with it.
Click to expand...

No if the US, China and Japan do not implement it as well then it will not work since trades will be executed in those centres.
 
Chinner said:
get out you stupid free marketer
Click to expand...

I am for the Robin Hood Tax, Mr Death to America!

It is insulting to be grouped with the demented Free Market Taliban/tards.

The tax doesn't work without US/Asia.
 
I was listening to some podcast last week and there were discussing on the Prime Minister had more overall direct power then the POTUS. They made a good argument:

Prime Minister can pass legislations
President looks at ones proposed to him, than ones he likes he has to run through Senate.

But I just couldn't buy into it.
 
I don't understand the logical leap of faith that comes from believing a near totally free market makes everybody more free. Decreased social mobility alone is enough to dispell that myth.
 
Subliminal said:
http://voteforpolicies.org.uk

wow. This one seems different.

I'm Lib Dem and I got Green/Tory
Click to expand...
I like how obvious it is which ones are the BNP when they start banging on about "Anglo-Saxon people" and blaming environmental problems on immigration :lol

I got Lib Dems on most things. A couple of Greens and one each for Tories and UKIP.
 
mostly green/labour. which is funny cause i wont vote green and i also think theyre taking valuable votes away from lib dems.
 
I got Lib Dem/Tory. Guess i'm not that far from UKGAFs views afterall.

Edit: you can always tell which policies are labour and BNP. Labour policies always describe initiatives, programmes & pledges that will be implemented, while BNP is obviously banging on about 'British' rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Regarding politics and US elections
2
59
4K
Bitmap Frogs replied
  • Locked
Time to bring back Politics forum?
6
1K
EviLore replied
  • Locked
Time: Person of the Year! (not doing Politics: HARD MODE)
40
2K
SJRB replied
"Politics is bad for business" - Disney's Bob Iger
2
83
5K
Pejo replied
  • Locked
Are political threads allowed again?
26
1K
Mod of War replied
Top Bottom