ITS WAR!!!

[Cuellar]

I don't for a second believe even this current government would spend less money on regional development than we currently get back from our contributions to the EU.

Ha ha ha

:(

[Paul Calf]

Oh, this is how I know you're not reading the posts you're responding to:

...I know you won't bother reading this so I'm going to come out in favour of Brexit here to see if you notice...

Please could you tell us where you're getting these talking-points? I'd rather deal with the organ-grinder than the monkey.

[biggytitbo]

Do you understand how horrible this is when there are people on here who experience first or secondhand racism that the Brexit campaigns and their triumph have helped encourage? Why can't you at least acknowledge that, even if you think leaving is the right thing to do, that how it was sold is hateful?

Or do you not care, because they're in the wrong country?

What do you think of the actual growing electoral success of the far right in the rest of the EU, including even countries like Germany? That's worrying.


We don't have any viable far right parties in the UK outside of the absolute fringes, and UKIP was wiped out at the last election. A lot of remainers are in deep denial about the underlying reasons so many people voted to leave, and how they benefited whilst a deeply broken and unequal country developed in the shadows. Whilst undoubtedly some parts of the referendum debate were unpleasant and overstepped the mark, if you continue to undermine the leave vote and attribute it to racism then I think far worse is to come.

[buzby]

Spend it different regions. The Rhondda is not worth a Tory government spending money if it can do so elsewhere.

See also Merseyside ('managed decline', 'pushing water uphill', 'stony ground' etc. etc. - we received more than €2 billion in ESF Objective One funding over the last 25 years)

[biggytitbo]

Spend it different regions. The Rhondda is not worth a Tory government spending money if it can do so elsewhere.

But facts show that even tory governments do, and always have, spent more per head in less well off regions of the UK than they do in 'their territory' as it were, so I have no idea what you're basing that on.



There's certainly a London/rest of the UK disparity in spending, especially on stuff like transport, but I think thats a different phenomena to this (and occured under our membership of the EU anyway)

[jobotic]

Do you understand how horrible this is when there are people on here who experience first or secondhand racism that the Brexit campaigns and their triumph have helped encourage? Why can't you at least acknowledge that, even if you think leaving is the right thing to do, that how it was sold is hateful?

Or do you not care, because they're in the wrong country?

My predection...this gets ignored.

edit: My mistake. Not ignored, fudged.

[biggytitbo]

See also Merseyside ('managed decline', 'pushing water uphill', 'stony ground' etc. etc. - we received more than €200 million in ESF Objective One funding over the last 25 years)

Thats what, about £7m a year, which in UK government spending terms is 1000s of 1% of spending.

[buzby]

Thats what, about £7m a year, which in UK government spending terms is 1000s of 1% of spending.

Gone back and edited my post - misplaced decimal point. Merseyside's Objective One grants were:
1994-2000 - £700m
2000-2007 - £928m
2007-2014 - a share of the £700m allocated to the North West region
2014-2020 - £450m (though this will be cut short)

It might be a drop in the ocean to the UK Government's overall spending, but it made a massive difference to the area, and almost certainly would not have come from the Treasury (which was how the area ended up poor enough to qualfy for the funding in the first place).

[biggytitbo]

Gone back and edited my post - misplaced decimal point. Merseyside's Objective One grants were:
1994-2000 - £700m
2000-2007 - £928m
2007-2014 - a share of the £700m allocated to the North West region
2014-2020 - £450m (though this will be cut short)

It might be a drop in the ocean to the UK Government's overall spending, but it made a massive difference to the area, and almost certainly would not have come from the Treasury (which was how the area ended up poor enough to qualfy for the funding in the first place).

But that funding was spent in consultation with the UK government wasn't it, they didn't secretly deliver it in wheelbarrows to a lockup garage off the Mersey, bypassing Westminister altogether. There is no such thing as EU funding in that sense, more using the EU as a mechanism for distribution of our own money.

I'm also pretty sure both parties have pledged to at the very least maintain the level of 'EU funding' to the regions and labour plans would of course go much further. So vote for what party you think will spend UK taxpayers money the best, and stop pretending Brussels can do it better on our behalf.  I want politicians we vote for here to be accountable for how our money is spent, not to have it delivered by some beneficent magic egg from the sky.

[Zetetic]

The funding was subject to the Structural funds rules. Saying that the UK government (and indeed national governments within the UK) played a role in which it was subject to those rules doesn't change the relevance of those rules.

As far as I know there has been little to no detail on the scale or distribution of the 'Shared Prosperity Fund' and no meaningful guarabtees that national governments will have control over how it is used (rather than control being clawed back to a distant and disengaged Westminster). I'd be glad to know otherwise, rather than having to add another lie to the pile.

[Zetetic]

But facts show that even tory governments do, and always have, spent more per head in less well off regions of the UK than they do in 'their territory' as it were, so I have no idea what you're basing that on.

Don't be thick - the issue isn't about the Tories openly reversing the situation but reducing the extent of greater 'structural' etc. spend in less well-off places or using greater central control to direct it for selfish purposes within less well off places.

Yes, we might find a better arrangement in the long run, at least from perspective of those in the UK, but some of worry about the impact in the few years to the next decade.

[Zetetic]

What do you think of the actual growing electoral success of the far right in the rest of the EU, including even countries like Germany? That's worrying.

I don't think it's particularly relevant to this discussion, other than to highlight that it's a shame that the UK is now seeking to withdraw further from EU and European politics.

We don't have any viable far right parties in the UK outside of the absolute fringes,

Because FPTP encourages 'extreme' groups to nest within parties rather than setup new ones. UKIP collapsed because it had achieved its aims as a Tory pressure group.

[biggytitbo]

Don't be thick - the issue isn't about the Tories openly reversing the situation but reducing the extent of greater 'structural' etc. spend in less well-off places or using greater central control to direct it for selfish purposes within less well off places.

Yes, we might find a better arrangement in the long run, at least from perspective of those in the UK, but some of worry about the impact in the few years to the next decade.

Even if there was an impact, using short term impact as an excuse for not doing something would mean we never really did anything beyond shuffle the papers around the desk.

[Zetetic]

What?

[biggytitbo]

I don't think it's particularly relevant to this discussion, other than to highlight that it's a shame that the UK is now seeking to withdraw further from EU and European politics.

Why are we withdrawing from European politics? We aren't in a suffocating political, bureaucratic and economic union with the overwhelming majority of the worlds countries, yet we still manage to have fruitful political relations with many of them. The ones we arent bombing at least.

Because FPTP encourages 'extreme' groups to nest within parties rather than setup new ones. UKIP collapsed because it had achieved its aims as a Tory pressure group.

13% in France and Germany, 20-25% or more in Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Austria... You think at least 1 in 8 members of the UK parliament are far right? UKIP were a single issue party, who got what they wanted and then collapsed - wheres the evidence of a sustained popular general far right party over here? And do you think the political establishment curb stomping the country into reversing the brexit vote will make it more or less likely we'll get one?

[biggytitbo]

Mind-boggling from Jeremy Cunt here -




A man-made humanitarian crisis? Considering the UK with its arms sales, military assistance and logistical support are one of the key enablers of the Saudi war that caused it, you are one of the fucking men who made the crisis you prick.

[jobotic]

You're right about this Biggy. Mind you Hunt does wear a poppy so I don't think we can deny his commitment to end wars.

[biggytitbo]

Excellent on how Owen Jones' total destruction of the Telegraphs MI6 Saudi shill defence editor was met with total silence by the rest of the corporate media, even Jones' own article in the Guardian hardly mentions it - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2018/886-the-filter-bubble.html


Jones has strayed too far out of the bubble it seems.

[biggytitbo]

If this was Russia, rather than Israel, it'd be in the news every day for 2 years. Instead, silence https://www.middleeasteye.net/social-media-act.il-app-pro-israel-online-gaza-coverage-media

[pcsjwgm]

The "democracy promotion" crowd don't even try to hide their support for dictatorships which collaborate with Israel and do the bidding of Washington.
https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1063874961276837888

[biggytitbo]

Why do google news keep pushing 'fact checking' from polgraph.info, an anti Russian propaganda outlet run by CIA fronts Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America?



Every single thing from them is the worst kind of 'urrgg Russia did this, Russia did that, Russia is talking bollocks' tittle tattle yet google think these are a suitable body to 'fact check' our news?

[Colin the Crepe]

Oliver Kamm has written this on the Philip Cross barmy conspiracy theory

https://capx.co/how-credulous-cranks-made-me-the-subject-of-their-conspiracy-theory/

[Funcrusher]

Oliver Kamm has written this on the Philip Cross barmy conspiracy theory

https://capx.co/how-credulous-cranks-made-me-the-subject-of-their-conspiracy-theory/

A site created by the Centre For Policy Studies.

https://www.cps.org.uk/about/

I literally don't understand what's stopping you from joining the Conservative Party. You'd fit in just fine there.

[Colin the Crepe]

A site created by the Centre For Policy Studies.

https://www.cps.org.uk/about/

I literally don't understand what's stopping you from joining the Conservative Party. You'd fit in just fine there.

I suspected that Kamm's piece would immediately be suggested as part of the conspiracy! :)

[biggytitbo]

A few people suggested Kamm actually was Cross, or vice versa, but most of the conspiracy fact, not theory, was how Cross has been studiously for years and years protecting establishment politicians and journos and attacking their critics on wikipedia.

I do not know Mr Cross. I've never met him or spoken with him. I know nothing about him.

This is a complete lie. I have never had any interaction with Kamm in my life, I don't follow him on twitter and have never spoken to him or replied to anything he's written. I literally knew nothing of him when I discovered he'd blocked me on twitter - how do I know this? Because someone I followed retweeted one of his shitty replies to something and it said 'this tweet is not available' and when you click through it says 'Oliver Kamm has blocked you'.

This occurred shortly after I had had a fairly lengthy personal message exchange with guess who? Phillip Cross. We at first had a polite discussion about why I thought it would be better for him to not edit the bios of people he was openly critical of, which eventually ended with him getting annoyed and blocking me.

How the fuck would Oliver Kamm know about that unless he knew Phillip Cross?

My theory on this was always that Cross is just some sad dickhead who knows wikipedia's arcane protocols inside out, idolises neocon politicians and journalists and hates everyone on the left. I'm sure most of his extensive wikipedia vandalism is of his own overzealous volition, prompted by reading the latest Oliver Kamm or David Aaronovitch turd sandwich in their respective rags, but I'm also pretty sure a cadre of those same ournalists were directly using him as a pliable asset to do their dirty work on the worlds biggest encyclopaedia. Why would an absurd nobody like him have dozens of top msm journalists and political figures following him, before his name blew up like it did?

[BlodwynPig]

I await the BBC Drama Tinker, Tailor, Biggy, Spy.

[biggytitbo]

Back to Menschy, I missed this gem from her crackpot canon



Love dipshit Emma Kennedy's reaction too. These people are just centrist Alex joneses, but with the unquestioned indulgence of the msm.

[Nola Carveth]

pfft. Don't mention Jones in the same sentence as those guttersnipes

[Pepotamo1985]

I literally knew nothing of him when I discovered he'd blocked me on twitter

That's very interesting.

The Cross affair fascinated me and while I think Craig Murray significantly overplayed his hand on the issue with all his theorizing and finger pointing there was and is something very dodgy going on there. He's set up pages in order to smear Some of the edits are so petty, vindictive, propagandistic and indeed rapid 'he' is very obviously being directed in some way to do at least some of it, if not most (or even all) of it. I mean, on MediaLens' page Cross has deliberately distorted quotes to turn praise/neutral comments read like criticism and disparagement, and removed any and all content that could even vaguely be considered complimentary of ML - and done so utterly determinedly for some time.

Nonetheless, the Kamm connection was a reasonable one to make I think, because he has indeed pursued campaigns of online harassment against numerous individuals he doesn't like, including Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Neil Clark. He has posted negative reviews of every single publication by Chomsky and Finkelstein on Amazon (and GoodReads I think) for years - he obviously has a lot of time on his hands, and uses that time to pursue vendettas against anyone he doesn't like.

Funnily enough, your post made me check whether Kamm has blocked me, and lo and behold he has done - due to a tiny exchange I had with him some time back. I was having a back and forth with Aaronovitch over his pathetic hatchet job on Miles Goslett's David Kelly book, Kamm intervened in support of Aaronovitch and slammed employer, I responded asking him not to set Philip Cross on me.

That Capx article is, predictably, a complete tissue of lies and I don't think the issue has been resolved satisfactorily. 

[Pepotamo1985]

Why do google news keep pushing 'fact checking' from polgraph.info, an anti Russian propaganda outlet run by CIA fronts Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America?

You've answered your own question!

The New York Times recently published a series of videos that - ironically but predictably - amounted to a HUGE propaganda puff piece shilling for these incredibly dodgy fact checking resources. The Atlantic Council, which has partnered with Facebook to combat the spread of false information on the network, is basically a who's who of pestilential Neocons and funded by NATO and the Gulf states, among other cuddly backers. They've already succeeded in having hundreds of pages and accounts removed from Facebook without explanation or warning.

The first video, dubbed 'Meet The KGB Spies Who Invented Fake News' documented how the Soviets spread the notion AIDS had been created by the US to attack blacks etc. - apparently the first time in history 'fake news' spread around the world. An ironic claim given last year the NYT published an article called 'The CIA's Fake News Campaign' about the launch of Radio Free Europe - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/opinion/cia-fake-news-russia.html - and rendered even more ironic by the fact at the exact same time, the CIA was spreading black propaganda about Soviet weapons and troops being shipped to Nicaragua to justify Reagan's 'dirty -wars' in Latin America. It closed out with a discussion of how all KGB agents were trained in spreading disinformation and were expected to spend a quarter of their time every day concocting and disseminating it - ending with a nice big picture of famed ex-KGBer Putin filling the screen.

The next video suggested the only reason 'fake news' proliferates in the mainstream media today is because of Russian propaganda outlets spreading stories that are consequently picked up (ala the AIDS story), the next was about combatting it, looking at all the sterling work fact-checkers are doing in the Baltic states beating back the tide of Russian propaganda in their own neighbourhood. Problem-reaction-solution, problem-reaction-solution, blah blah.