Originally Posted by Charlie Drake:
“Words like 'hubris', 'rhetoric', 'hyperbole' etc. are scattered like confetti these days, and don't have much relevance to where we are now and where we go from here.
...
On the question of how many of our laws have come from Brussels since 1993, take your pick of 77% (Farage) to 7% (Clegg). It's undoubtedly somewhere in between, and most commentators reckon at around 13 to 15%.
The irony is that many of our laws and directives emanate from elsewhere - over and above EU rulings, so Brexit would be irrelevant to those rules anyway.”
I completely agree, Charlie. As I understand it, the stats regarding all these 'laws' depends on what you count as a law, as the EU has different levels of rules and regulations, and even then most of them are apparently related to standardising the quality of goods and services across the region (so a good thing that ensures we get decent quality, safe, goods when we import). I was also interested in a programme on the telly showing that the UK did, in fact, have the ultimate say on some of those EU 'laws' anyway.
What I really, really regret, though, is that this not the kind of detail I think we ever had from LBC. When they are ultimately seeking to entertain rather than inform (because that's the nature of commercial media, who need advertising), then they avoid 'boring' us with little things like stats, details or too many facts.
I think too many people knew how the rhetoric (on both sides) made them feel, but had very little understanding of either side's actual policies or plans. See also the rise of Trump...!
I'm fast going off JOB as a presenter, but I'm still very pleased he exists and always asked people to try and look beyond their feelings into the actual facts. What always scared me is that too many people seemed to have a religious fervor about their positions, and simply were not prepared to examine their beliefs at all. I think that's dangerous, and I'm sad that LBC other media too often exploited that rather than examined it.
Originally Posted by gurney-slade:
“. Our politician's larcenous tendencies rarely go beyond a spot of personal nest-feathering; despite what the disaffected would have us believe,”
I don't think that's true. Not sure of the date of these figures, but just one example of how people's self-interests surely lead to affecting the whole country when making policy:
http://socialinvestigations.blogspot...nnections.html
This report is about is about the high number of MP's and Lords who have financial and vested interests in private healthcare. Hardly, then, the best people to be steering the NHS. This is just one example.
MP's who see their retirement plan as being on the board of some company are surely very likely not to rock the boat on too much regulation of such companies. So it goes well beyond personal nest-feather into affecting us all.