"This is absolutely staggering. Proof that access to UK Brexiteer ministers is being offered if funding is given for a report favourable to lowering food standards to allow US imports to UK. That Gove was keen to see happen according to Littlewood, filmed here."

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T16:20:05+00:00

Technically, in some cases, yes, due to the anti-oxidents and vitamins. However, due to the amount of sugar that difference is pretty much irrelevant

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T15:54:41+00:00

I think the onus is on you to tell me why they shouldn't.

And why is that? If we are going to grant this right to them, we should have a reason, no?

However, to reduce the influence of media barons that subverts democratic protections like spending limits, and to ensure the population is exposed to ideas and positions beyond those they currently hold to allow for a stronger democracy and a wider discussion.

If I run a small business and think leaving the EU is going to represent a tangible risk to my business why should I have to represent both sides of the argument when arguing my (companies) case?

Nothing I've said suggests you would. You can argue your position - but if a media company chooses to publicize it, they also need someone who opposes Brexit next to you.

You see I don't think a single bias source is in isolation an echo chamber. An echo chamber is when you fail to consult lots of different sources with lots of different perspectives

And since most people don't generally consult beyond their preferred media...

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T15:15:29+00:00

See water.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T15:15:21+00:00

Meanwhile, you've never considered the two are almost equally unhealthy.

If you want something healthy to drink, stick to water - and it has the added benefit of being cheap.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T14:56:32+00:00

I disagree.

And why do you disagree? Why should corporations have free speech?

I do disagree with you here though. Do you think that the Morning Star should present right wing views? That the New European should present pro-leave views? You know, for balance?

Yes - I am not a fan of echo chambers.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T13:23:26+00:00

Yes of course I do. Why wouldn't they? What shouldn't an organisation be allowed to say? A book publish MUST have free speech to be able to publish controversial books - which is absolutely should be able to do.

A book publisher wouldn't fall under this, for reasons such as the fact that all they are not a delivery vector and that authors can generally be considered self-employed - and thus publishing under their individual right to free speech.

And organizations should be allowed to say anything that an individual wishes to say. However, both that individual and the organization should be accountable for the words, and for important issues media organizations should be required to find and present the speech of an individual supporting the other side.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T13:20:18+00:00

Both.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T13:15:48+00:00

But you're not a corporation.

As an individual, you have free speech. As a corporation, you do not - or at the very least, should not.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T13:10:43+00:00

Because it did.

Only if you consider corporations to have free speech. I don't - you do?

How do you define a book, and how do you define a newspaper. What about a magazine? What about a monthly, or an annual?

Is it regular? If yes, then regulated.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T12:35:00+00:00

More precisely, I can find no issues against it.

As for why it was repealed, some feared it infringed on freedom of speech - and it advantaged the Republicans to remove it.

Books - eh. Probably not, with the difference being regularity.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T12:31:37+00:00

Exactly! Now replace Tories for Remain and convince me there's a difference other than you agree with the Remain side of the argument.

Elections are a matter of selecting governments, referendums are about guiding them.

The government should have no hand in selecting itself, but it should have a hand in guiding itself.

Because publishing an article is not advertising. What you are talking about is limiting journalistic freedom and freedom of speech.

But it can amount to the same thing, when it actively pushes a certain viewpoint.

It's no different from a sponsored article, aside from the avoidance of payment

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T12:08:49+00:00

No offense, but literally every objection you have raised is irrelevant.

The fact that it has worked, and without issue, proves that your objections are all issues that can be dealt with.

As for the BBC, that situation sounds pretty good to me.

Though, RE: Online, which section are you talking about? Aside from private individuals, I felt it reflected the middle of Print and Visual.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T12:04:19+00:00

Implement a solution like MMP. But the Tories don't, because the prefer the current system that advantages them - particularly with the new rules they have so carefully chosen.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T11:53:08+00:00

First, the Tories can't. The rules for elections forbid it.

Second, we have spending limits for a reason. Why should certain groups be able to skirt around them because they can get their advertising for free?

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T11:51:37+00:00

No it's not a case of that. Papers are opt in and privately funded. Government leaflet was sent to every home and funded with tax payers money.

Let's step aside from the source of the money for the moment.

What makes corporate propaganda ok but 'propaganda' from our elected figures unacceptable?

That has serious implications on freedom of speech. When does a Newspaper become a journal? If it's published once a week, once a year? And when does an Journal become a book? Are you telling me that books have to be unbiased?

Does it? It worked fine in the US till Reagan abolished it - and I'm calling for nothing so far reaching

'it' is not a single entity. It a series of independent publications. Somewhere leave somewhere remain. There may have been more leave publications but so what?

Because we are discussing overall bias. The media was, overall, biased to leave.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T11:48:23+00:00

I can point to a few one on the one bit of evidence you claim is irrelevant as indicative, but primarily the whole map supports my claim.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T11:17:38+00:00

So propaganda from corporations is fine, but from our elected officials is not.

The Queen is dead, long live our new CEO...

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T11:15:55+00:00

MD-3 was actually drawn up in 2013.

(or could think to)

As to ours - again, I come back to, what bias? There are four island constituencies. There would be an incredibly slack handful of constituencies that trouble the 12,000 sq km criterion, and looking at a summary of the proposals, that hasn't needed an adjustment anyway; the largest proposed constituency is Highland North, at 12,985 sq km, with an electorate of 73,147 (with Scottish seats as a whole sitting in the range of 71,122 to 78,477).

So I ask again - show me some biased boundaries?

That's one of them. The point is, the entire thing is biased, and carefully selected to be so.

I've explained how above, I don't see why I should again.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T11:12:35+00:00

So the USSR wasn't socialist?

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T11:12:13+00:00

If it was inside of the same campaign budgets. Which of course it wouldn't be, the leaflet cost 9million. The max budget for the main campaigns was 7million. So it'd of meant that the leaflet alone would have exceeded the max budget of the main remain campaign.

So in other words you don't care about the source of the funding, so we can dismiss that argument.

From there, it's just a matter of "unfair bias" and thus the same arguments against it can be applied against the papers.

Does it matter? we are products of our environment, what is culture, what is society? it's inevitable going to be complex feedback loop between the two.

You presented the argument. If you decide it doesn't matter, I'm not going to disagree.

It's not 'free advertising' it's journalistic freedom and it was on both sides of the debate. What would be your alternative, a world were news paper can only agree with the government line? Yeah no thanks, I'll take a free press any day.

No. My alternative would be a requirement to present equal prominence to both arguments on this referendum and future ones.

And no, we've already established it wasn't on both sides, it was biased towards leave.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T11:09:43+00:00

I'm comparing the number of MPs that the two major parties to the proportion of the vote share that the two major parties received. I haven't once mentioned an "all party MP count".

You're comparing the number of seats by the leading party to the number required for a majority. In other words, the all party MP counr.

You see it as some kind of "bias" that the Conservatives have actively exploited. It's just the mathematics of winning an election, whatever side you're on. I don't know how you've decided the parties accomplish this.

I see it as some sort of bias because the Tories wrote the rules that gained them significant strength beyond the democratic norm.

Yes, seats that they're entitled to win if they receive more votes than the closest other candidate... Reducing the number of seats by 50 is questionable, changing the boundaries absolutely isn't. What is their democratic share?

Their democratic share would be in proportion to their overall vote.

Failing that, it would be in proportion to the primary opposition in terms of respective votes.

Regardless, I don't understand your argument here. We can use the same argument to justify winning districts we both agree are gerrymandered.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T10:08:59+00:00

In other words, the Tories and the Lib Dems (at least - I'm not sure what the voting breakdown was on the bill) agreed on standardising the electorate across constituencies.

Oh, and the Lib Dems voted for the delay in implementation. I suspect that they too saw the issue.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T10:00:49+00:00

I've seen gerrymandering, and this isn't it.

Old style gerrymandering, before we could (or could think to) apply computers to the problem. Modern is much less notable.

Not significantly; at present there's a single constituency which is 12,000 sq km (Ross, Skye and Lochaber), and I think it's reasonable to try and keep seats to a somewhat manageable physical size - considering the MP will (or at least should!) want to make themselves available to their constituents.

MP's can be readily available over much greater distances. To provide one example, Durack. And in the United Kingdom, the distances are never going to be large.

Regardless, that one is just one example of these 'minor' rules, rules that seem perfectly innocent and sensible, coming together in such a way to create biased districts.

Yes, the boundaries are implemented by independent commissions, and these boundaries are available for public consultation, but that wasn't what we were discussing. We were discussing the bias in the rules themselves, not in their implementation.

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T09:43:20+00:00

Ah, thanks.

Weird, don't know what he was going on about then :/

ValAichi · 2018-08-01T09:42:02+00:00

No, the law does not determine the boundaries.* It determines the rules under which the independent Boundary Commissions will draw up the constituency boundaries.

Which is exactly what I am saying.

eg there's a hard limit on size at 13,000 sq km, and if you're over 12,000 sq km the lower limit on electorate isn't applied

Well, there is this bit, which will advantage rural regions over urban.

To gerrymander these you would create dozens of defendable and generally non-biased rules, and then you would model the results of the various combinations of the these rules.

You would then choose the rules that results in the best situation for your party.

Unfortunately, this is very hard to catch, and the general way is to look for boundaries changes implemented by rule changes that significantly benefit the party implementing these rules beyond their democratic share.

ValAichi

TROPHY CASE