But you seem to be making the assumption that how much people remember stories is directly related to how much media coverage they get / how long they're in the headlines for. I don't think that's right - there's plenty of examples of political stories which have been dominating the headlines for days or weeks but people have not cared about them, and on the other side plenty of stories that have got far less coverage but which have produced big impacts. To take a slightly random example, I remember a while ago the media was going crazy over some boring "scandal" about Theresa May, something about border checks and her firing some civil servant or something (that's another of my gripes about the political media; how they focus on trivial, managerial or personality elements of politics, and are obsessed with things like "competence" and "credibility", when people want to hear about the real issues). So at this time there was a poll asking people what they knew about certain government ministers - when asked about Theresa May, hardly anyone recalled the border checks "scandal" that had been dominating the news, but a lot more people recalled the story about "fatwa" posters being issued for her, even though that story got far less coverage and was in the news for far less time - people had found it so interesting that it stayed in their mind anyway despite its lack of coverage. So you can't draw a direct link between how much coverage a story gets, and how well its remembered.

This is something I can agree with (god knows how often we still get the 'BROWN SOLD THE GOLD' wank on the doorstep, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't even an especially big story at the time?), but at the same time although I can see that coverage =/= memory, you'd think for something that looks like it has had such a sharp impact on the polls as this that the story would be more well remembered on things like the Populus news poll.

 

I wouldn't really say one of the most senior government ministers making a personal glaring error and then being found to have had someone fired to cover for it is trivial in any case! Given it was linked to the immigration issue given the implications, I'd say it was just more a case that the complexities of the case just caused most people to tune out rather than that it was something that 'wasn't a real issue' (although the media is very guilty of that at times, granted). I think something like that links in to one of my favourite bits of political trivia - when focus groups are shown news stories from all the different news organisations in blind testing (i.e. all branding etc removed), the one which is the most overwhelmingly popular every time is Newsround - because it actually explains the issues of a story clearly without assuming knowledge. I think stories like the Theresa May border checks scandal are ones which tend to be reported by assuming a fair bit of knowledge on the issue (particularly with scandals that run for days and which assume even more knowledge the longer they run in assumption that people have been following it all), and which tend to lose people more easily - not because they're stupid, but more because they don't really have the time to follow the ins and outs of stories like that (which links in with another favourite bit of trivia, that the average time a person spends thinking about politics each day is two minutes).

 

All of which I suppose probably accounts for why something like the Cameron speech looks like it had such a sharp reaction on immigration for those who knew, given it was fairly unequivocal and easy to understand, although I'm still lost as to why someone anti-immigration wouldn't go Conservative in the short-term as a result rather than UKIP, which is something I'd have expected to happen more in the medium-term for those already anti if the issue stayed prominent.

The border checks story was a significant story. For many years opposition parties (all of them) have called for a minster's head when something has gone wrong even when it is likely that ministers themselves have had little to do with it. Sometimes the minister has ended up resigning. On this occasion Theresa May made a senior civil servant a scapegoat and sacked him.

 

 

I wouldn't really say one of the most senior government ministers making a personal glaring error and then being found to have had someone fired to cover for it is trivial in any case! Given it was linked to the immigration issue given the implications, I'd say it was just more a case that the complexities of the case just caused most people to tune out rather than that it was something that 'wasn't a real issue' (although the media is very guilty of that at times, granted). I think something like that links in to one of my favourite bits of political trivia - when focus groups are shown news stories from all the different news organisations in blind testing (i.e. all branding etc removed), the one which is the most overwhelmingly popular every time is Newsround - because it actually explains the issues of a story clearly without assuming knowledge. I think stories like the Theresa May border checks scandal are ones which tend to be reported by assuming a fair bit of knowledge on the issue (particularly with scandals that run for days and which assume even more knowledge the longer they run in assumption that people have been following it all), and which tend to lose people more easily - not because they're stupid, but more because they don't really have the time to follow the ins and outs of stories like that (which links in with another favourite bit of trivia, that the average time a person spends thinking about politics each day is two minutes).

 

I'm not necessarily saying that border checks thing wasn't serious, or that Theresa May was right or wrong to fire someone over it (tbh even I as a political geek found it so incredibly dull that I stopped following it after a couple of days, so I don't know). I just question whether it (and stories like it) should really have got so much coverage when public interest was so low.

 

In fairness, I do agree the opposition parties play a big part in driving those types of stories to the top of the agenda -- I can't tell you how many times I've cringed at Labour missing huge opportunities to capitalise on unpopular government policies by nitpicking about process or about a specific minister being incompetent or weak, or the worst of all when they shriek that the government has "U-turned" on something (which seems to stem from politicians' belief that, just because they believe any sign of weakness or vulnerability is a huge sin, that ordinary people think that way too), rather than focussing on the real issues and the real human consequences of what those policies will be. The problem is they all seem stuck in a mindset that to impress people, they need to try and humiliate their opponents on a personal level - but, to most people, that just makes the WHOLE of politics look unattractive, it just looks like some disconnected people from another universe treating it like some game rather than trying to actually act in normal people's interests. I think it's pretty much just a British thing too - even in the US, despite how bitterly polarised the parties there are on the issues, even there it doesn't seem to get so overly-personalised in the way it does here (apart from a few racists towards Obama), nor do you generally get the kind of awful tribal "infighting" in parties based purely on personalities rather than issues. Maybe related to the fact British politics is still so overwhelmingly dominated by men...

 

All of which I suppose probably accounts for why something like the Cameron speech looks like it had such a sharp reaction on immigration for those who knew, given it was fairly unequivocal and easy to understand, although I'm still lost as to why someone anti-immigration wouldn't go Conservative in the short-term as a result rather than UKIP, which is something I'd have expected to happen more in the medium-term for those already anti if the issue stayed prominent.

 

I still stand by that it just legitimises what UKIP say. The politicos think that when a mainstream politician sounds "tough" on immigration, people are automatically going to think "they agree with me now, that means I can vote for them again!" ..... when in reality, a lot of people who are relatively neutral about immigration (maybe mildly against it if asked, but don't really spend all that much time thinking about it) would've watched the news reports about all the politicians posturing about it and would've thought to themselves "oh God, maybe I really SHOULD be worried about all these Bulgarians and Romanians coming in if EVERYONE is worried about it! Maybe Nigel Farage is right after all..."

Edited December 1, 201311 yr by Danny

I realised about this time 3 years ago that the SNP manifesto was pretty much identical in every way to my political views. Quite infamously was a rather large U-Turn I performed for the 2011 election.

 

The LibDems have changed so much since 2010, and not for the better. They need to ditch Clegg before they end up with less seats than Plaid Cymru.

 

It is very depressing. I found out last night I was the only pro-EU/left-winger in my family. I can't take the Daily Mail/UKIP/BNP/Tory (They are all the same. The BNP is thugs saying it, UKIP dresses them up in nice suits and avoids council estates an the Tories get suits flown in from Italy and picks it's racists from Eton) lines about immigration and the EU. They are just wrong. I know an opinion technically can't be wrong but there's just is. It frustrates me no end that people can't see the benefit to immigration or won't look past a couple of daily mail examples. Immigrants fill skills gaps and contribute £bns to our economy every year. As for this shite about 'Poles taking our jobs' Last time I checked mate the reason they were cleaning, manning tills, working in fast food places etc is because you deem yourself 'too good' for those kind of jobs. Um no.

 

The East European's I worked with at Amazon last Christmas were far far far better than a fair chunk of the brits.

Can't speak for the Bulgarians but the French owned Romainian car manufacturer Dacia is the fastest growing brand in the world right now and they produce a massive amount of vehicles in Romania to a standard that has been universally praised with them doing exceedingly well in reliability surveys.

 

From what I've heard the Romanians are just like the rest of Europe. Some are lazy and some are incredibly hard working and determined to make life better for themselves. The later kind is always more likely to be the one that moves as they have enough drive and ambition to actually pack up and go.

 

The big big problem though is the Roma who are by all accounts a bunch of thugs, thieves and beggars, even socialist France is doing all they can to kick them out when they try get into France, the Italians and Germans dont want them either so it is not a left wing / right wing thing at all, we are not a dumping ground for human trash so Cameron had better send the roma packing when they start arriving

 

 

So you can't tell the difference between a brilliant athlete like Mo Farah and the vast majority of the population. That sums it up really. I suppose next you will be telling me that anyone can understand quantum physics.

 

Success is 10% inspiration (talent) and 90% perspiration (effort / hard work) as the saying goes

The big big problem though is the Roma who are by all accounts a bunch of thugs, thieves and beggars, even socialist France is doing all they can to kick them out when they try get into France, the Italians and Germans dont want them either so it is not a left wing / right wing thing at all, we are not a dumping ground for human trash so Cameron had better send the roma packing when they start arriving

Just because something is in the Daily Mail doesn't make it true. Why are you supporting the idea of treating Roma the way Jews have been treated in many countries over the centuries?

Success is 10% inspiration (talent) and 90% perspiration (effort / hard work) as the saying goes

Then I suggest you take the effort and either run a marathon in 2 1/2 hours or explain quantum physics to us by the end of next year. Otherwise we will continue to believe that your assertion is just as ridiculous as most of your statements.

I have never understood the Tory obsession with the very sensible Working Time Directive (WTD). Let's be clear what it says. It says that people cannot be forced to work more than 48 hours per week over a prolonged period. People can choose to work more than 48 hrs. People can be expected to work more than 48 hrs some weeks. I suspect many teachers work more than 48 hrs per week in term time but they are not covered because they will work less than 48 hrs in holiday periods (including half term).

 

I know you will go banging on about small businesses so I will respond to that in advance. I am sure that many people would be willing to work more than 48 hrs per week in a small start-up business if they feel there is a medium- to long-term advantage for them. The WTD allows them to do that. However, a large company has no such excuse. If there is enough work to keep people occupies for more than 48 hrs per week, it is time they took on more staff to cover the workload.

 

Regulations need tearing up still imho and measures bought in to encourage enterprise

 

Business owners should be out selling not government / EU form filling, bar the most important health and safety matters and the minimum wage all regulations in terms of business should be torn up

 

There should be 2 tax bands, 10p and 25p

 

The government should underwrite grants to start ups, give each start up that meets certain criteria (eligibility decided by a panel of successful business people) a grant of £5000, the government taking a 10% stake in each of these businesses that meet the criteria so that it makes some money if the business is a success.

Edited December 1, 201311 yr by Sandro Raniere

Just because something is in the Daily Mail doesn't make it true. Why are you supporting the idea of treating Roma the way Jews have been treated in many countries over the centuries?

 

There was an article in the Times recently, a paper that is about as respectable and middle class as you can get, which mentioned about France's determination to kick out the roma, and this is a left wing socialist country doing it, about as far ideologically and politically from the Daily Mail as you can get

 

I don't know enough about the roma to judge them but if most of Europe dont want them then it rings alarm bells

The big big problem though is the Roma who are by all accounts a bunch of thugs, thieves and beggars, even socialist France is doing all they can to kick them out when they try get into France, the Italians and Germans dont want them either so it is not a left wing / right wing thing at all, we are not a dumping ground for human trash so Cameron had better send the roma packing when they start arriving

:manson: :manson: :manson:

 

HUMAN TRASH?

There was an article in the Times recently, a paper that is about as respectable and middle class as you can get, which mentioned about France's determination to kick out the roma, and this is a left wing socialist country doing it, about as far ideologically and politically from the Daily Mail as you can get

 

I don't know enough about the roma to judge them but if most of Europe dont want them then it rings alarm bells

And France is by no means a left-wing socialist country. They elected Hollande off the back of a crisis and huge exasperation with Sarkozy, but have elected right-wing presidents and governments the vast majority of the time since the end of the war.

 

(not really sure why you think The Times reporting on it gives it credence? It's a newspaper. It doesn't have to agree with something to report it.)

Edited December 1, 201311 yr by Cassandra

Hey Craig, by all accounts those Jews are a bunch of money grubbers and greedy thieves. All I'm saying is there MUST be a reason why the USA, Australia and France don't want them now they're emigrating from Germany!

 

:manson:

There was an article in the Times recently, a paper that is about as respectable and middle class as you can get, which mentioned about France's determination to kick out the roma, and this is a left wing socialist country doing it, about as far ideologically and politically from the Daily Mail as you can get

 

I don't know enough about the roma to judge them but if most of Europe dont want them then it rings alarm bells

Are you really not bright enough to realise I was responding to your lazy stereotyping, not the actions of the French government?

Regulations need tearing up still imho and measures bought in to encourage enterprise

 

Business owners should be out selling not government / EU form filling, bar the most important health and safety matters and the minimum wage all regulations in terms of business should be torn up

 

There should be 2 tax bands, 10p and 25p

 

The government should underwrite grants to start ups, give each start up that meets certain criteria (eligibility decided by a panel of successful business people) a grant of £5000, the government taking a 10% stake in each of these businesses that meet the criteria so that it makes some money if the business is a success.

I notice you have given up on defending the Working Time Directive.

 

So you want the government to oversee a massive reduction in income by slashing taxes (the Laffer curve has been clearly shown to be nonsense) and increase spending? What could possibly go wrong?

I don't know enough about the roma to judge them but if most of Europe dont want them then it rings alarm bells

The big big problem though is the Roma who are by all accounts a bunch of thugs, thieves and beggars

Fucking idiotic.

Fucking idiotic.

 

If the Roma are such lovely good citizens why has your former home secretary and one of the most respected members of your party expressed concerns about their lifestyle? i doubt he reads the Daily Mail

 

Why are France, Italy and Germany kicking them out if they are such good people?

 

I have never met any, if i do and they are nice to me i will be nice to them but politicians both left and right are concerned about behaviour of Roma

Edited December 1, 201311 yr by Sandro Raniere

Hey Craig, by all accounts those Jews are a bunch of money grubbers and greedy thieves. All I'm saying is there MUST be a reason why the USA, Australia and France don't want them now they're emigrating from Germany!

 

:manson:

 

Congrats Tyron, introducing Godwin's Law into a debate is a sure sign of desperation

I notice you have given up on defending the Working Time Directive.

 

So you want the government to oversee a massive reduction in income by slashing taxes (the Laffer curve has been clearly shown to be nonsense) and increase spending? What could possibly go wrong?

 

Low tax encourages people to set up businesses, low tax encourages foreign talent and foreign companies to come here, low tax encourages people to work harder as they are keeping more of their hard earned money

If the Roma are such lovely good citizens why has your former home secretary and one of the most respected members of your party expressed concerns about their lifestyle? i doubt he reads the Daily Mail

 

Why are France, Italy and Germany kicking them out if they are such good people?

I was primarily commenting on the hilarious hypocrisy of the two posts I quoted.

 

Blunkett is expressing the concerns of his constituents. There's a difference between that and accusing an ethnic group of being inferior.

I was primarily commenting on the hilarious hypocrisy of the two posts I quoted.

 

Blunkett is expressing the concerns of his constituents. There's a difference between that and accusing an ethnic group of being inferior.

 

If they come here and work hard i will praise them, if i meet any and they are nice to me i will be nice back, but the fact so many countries don't want the roma when they dont feel the same way about other immigrants does suggest to me that there are genuine concerns at how they will behave if they come here

Low tax encourages people to set up businesses, low tax encourages foreign talent and foreign companies to come here, low tax encourages people to work harder as they are keeping more of their hard earned money

How difficult is it for you to understand that there are millions of people who have no desire to set up their own business? I assume you understand that there are people who have no ambition to climb Everest so why do you think setting up a business is any different? Businesses are important but so are many other things. If you are so keen to work in a country with low taxes, sod off to China.