The Red House Podcast

Ask folk to MAKE CLEAR what they MEAN. Call out POTENTIAL inconsistencies. Challenge FIRMLY & FAIRLY. Occasional sarcasm.

Pls follow if you like our questions!

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

We often here "52%" or "17million people" voted to leave the EU.

But in my view, this is absolutely NOT the most important number in the referendum.

Here's a number much MORE worthy of discussing...

"64% of constituencies voted to leave". About 2/3rds.

Now flip that around for an even MORE thought-provoking number...

"After 30+ years of membership, the EU had won over barely 1/3rd of UK constituencies"

@TerraOrBust - love your page - do you have and opinion on why this number isn't talked about as much/ isn't more widely known?👍

https://t.co/FCud97ZLYP

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

@mothrasattorney @StuJ87 @thelefttake no, i mean literally the definition of the word is what it is. When racist folk such as yourself look at something through a racist lens, you can't help but see it as far right. OThers don't becaus they are not seeing everything in terms of race

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

Yes, obvious- but it's telling that you think that's mind blowing.

I don't want to blow your mind but a lot of centrists have left and right views. It's completely consistent for some of those people to endorse remigration and policies that help migrants become more easily naturalised.

See how it works?

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

So Obama is NOT far right in your opinion despite pursuing forcible removal of migrants to the USA?

I actually agree with you if that's what you're saying. I'm just trying to establish where your lines are. Is mass forcible deportation something that you do/don't consider far-right?

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

And separately..

"Collins English Dictionary defines remigration as “the act or process of returning or migrating back to the place of origin.”

Your interest in people's colour is purely yours. It's nothing to do with the actual definition of the word you're using.

But I am interested in your answer to my other question - are you therefore saying that mass deportations are NOT far right (which is why Obama is not far right in your opinion), but that remigration IS far right.

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

@mothrasattorney @StuJ87 @thelefttake Ok so to be clear before I answer that new point, you're saying that you're ok with mass deportations then? As Barrack Obama did.

In your book, mass deportations is not far right?

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

@whatthedeuce79 @WanjiruNjoya Doesn't respond to my reply.

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

Barrack Obama, "remigrated" millions of people. He was known as the "Deporter in Chief" as a joke.

Was Barrack Obama in your opinion:
a) far right
b) centrist
c) communist

(Those are the three points on the political spectrum that you gave in your post, so therefore I believe you need to answer using only the options you provided).

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

I think this is useful context that is already widely known.

One key question is that of who has actually claimed their property has been damaged? Doesn't there need to be an explicit victim of the alleged criminal damage, even if it is public property. For example if you saw an old fridge fly tipped ok the side of the road and kicked it, could the police arrest you for criminal damage without anyone making a complaint?

If a victim is not required, then it is equally troubling, since that would imply that the police are able to exercise discretion in whether to charge you or not even if "it's an abandoned fridge on the side of the road".

It's the perceived injustice of the punishment (the process of being remanded without bail for so long) that is at the core of what people are so frustrated by.

WHY is there any charge at all for this unless the police were literally waiting for any excuse to arrest the guy?

Is your mentioning that he was on bail already, without acknowledging the rest of the context above is you showing that maybe it's you that is finding it "easier to believe the bullshit rather than doing a modicum of research"?

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

Someone tell me this isn't true. Please!!

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

RAF base terror suspects released on bail. Danny Tommo remanded, behind bars, yet these men are free to walk.

I am absolutely astonished. It is a disgrace.

A Restore Britain Government will crush our two-tier justice system and legally pursue those responsible.

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

A question that need answers immediately.

The evidence that politically motivated prosecutions are becoming a part of our day to day lives is becoming overwhelming. And Burnham adds more fuel to that particular fire right here.

[Basil the Great @BasilTheGreat]

How is this not contempt of court?

The courts have said please do not comment as it might prejudice the case by influencing the jury

The Prime Minister has just said Danny Tommo is a racist live on national television

What is going on?

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

Hard not to see a major issue here...

[BRITAIN IS BROKEN 🇬🇧 @BROKENBRITAIN0]

One of these men popped an empty migrant boat in the channel and one of them violently beat a female police officer and broke her nose

Guess which one got bail.

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

Reasonable question.

[Sarah White @sarahwhitetruth]

HOLD ON A MINUTE… WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE BLOODY BOAT?

They want to pursue Danny Tommo over alleged criminal damage.

Fine.

So let’s start with the obvious question.

Who is going to come forward and say, “That’s my boat”?

Who bought it?

Who owns it?

Where’s the paperwork?

Who is claiming the damage?

And what exactly is the alleged loss?

Because surely you can’t have criminal damage without someone actually claiming that their property has been damaged.

So I’m asking the question:

WHO OWNS THE BOAT?

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

I really feel for you. And have first hand experience of what you're describing. But, no one owes you a job. No one has to pay you more than they can get it elsewhere. You can't just shout at them that they're the problem for not appreciati how great your creative skills are. Have you ever dismissed the far more skilled years of work that a plumber or carpenter or mechanic or landscaper does, by choosing a cheaper alternative? It's the same thing.

What is happening is that your job (and mine) can now be done by someone/ something else for cheaper. Much cheaper. Using AI. It doesn't matter that we think we're better. The brutal truth is that the customer determines where the value is by deciding who they're going to pay for the output...and it ain't us anymore.

I reflect on the tone deaf nature of us, the white collar classes, who for years sneered at the blue collar classes who said, for example, that migration from eastern Europe was doing the EXACT same thing to their jobs. They begged us to slow it down, told us that they couldn't compete and support their families at the same time, and finally voted to leave the EU in large part because of that dynamic... only to watch those same white collar classes do everything in their power over a decade to stop the autonomy our renewed sovereignty gave us being used to protect their work and communities from imported low cost competition for the jobs they rely on.

Now there's a reckoning... It turns out that it was OUR jobs were the easier ones to do cheaply after all. Their jobs, whilst pressured, are much harder to replicate with digital tools and robotics, for now. Ours are easy...because I less you're creating for yourself, it's the customer who decides how good your output is. But because we have university degrees and certificates in creative writing and Photoshop, we've grown arrogant enough to suggest that somehow we deserve to be kept in high paid employment when far cheaper, maybe better, alternatives now exist.

Do we expect those people, who for years were ignored, sneered at, called racist xenophobes for wanting to limit low cost competition for their jobs, to suddenly now turn around and support a ban/ boycott on low cost AI competition in order to protect OUR jobs??

Particularly when they can see all around them the cost of white collar outputs and creative work falling off a cliff edge... It will be ever cheaper for them, who actually DO the productive work in the economy, to get their accounts done, contracts drawn up, marketing campaigns created and executed, wedding photos edited, interior designs done etc so that they can save all that money they were previously paying us to do that work, and use it for something else they value more, like building and extension on their house or giving their kids better quality school lunches or paying more than ever before to heat their homes because of massive ego driven green energy projects that require devastatingingly high amounts of infrastructure investment to bring to life.

There will always be room for truly talented creatives to sell their wares - human produced art is infinitely more desirable than digital AI produced art...but now I think is a time for major reflection...those in the white collar classes are, to some extent, about to get the most brutal taste of their own medicine. Millions will be jobless...

Time to rethink your business or retrain to do work that isn't easy for a computer to do cheaper. Now's the time to understand what it really means to have to compete for work in the way blue collar classes always have had to, rather than being able to pretend that "years spend on creative writing skills" constitutes actual hard work and means that people have to pay us more.

It's terrifying, brutal, unkind and it's also just desserts for anyone that never gave a second thought to our lower paid countrymen and women who screamed for years about low cost competition for their jobs suppressing their wages.

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

Many reasonably minded people who actually follow the facts, rather than gobbling up Remainer propoganda, know this stuff.

We've been frustrated that so few in the media are doing their job by challenging these obviously bullshit anti Brexit narratives with basic facts.

What @afneil does here should be a shining example to the hoardes of mediocre jounos out there looking for a way to build up some actual credibility in their careers, rather than continue down the path to relevance oblivion.

He's doing nothing difficult and in a short few seconds demonstrates capability and competance way beyond most, if not all, MSN journalists.

Watch, learn, repeat MSN.

[Mike Gardner @mikegardner_wb]

Andrew Neil’s Brexit reality check on BBC Question Time.

In a nutshell:

Rejoiners are ignoring the huge political wind of change sweeping Europe and the UK v Germany/ France/ Italy growth rates make a nonsense of their Mickey Mouse economic arguments too.
#bbcqt

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

This is so so biting. When you see this type of interaction it's near impossible to not conclude that you're dealing with either idiots or people that have radicalised themselves.

@ZiaYusufUK 's question is perfectly and simply framed. There can be absolutely no doubt that it is the right question to ask or that there can be any confusion about what he's asking and why it is relevant.

What he doesn't say is that, far from there being examples of Russian seeded disinformation, there are actually solid examples of the exact opposite I.e. narratives that have been deliberately seeded into the public psyche by certain domestic players that falsely propogate the idea of collision between Putin and their political opposition.

[Concerned Citizen @BGatesIsaPyscho]

“What piece of Misinformation has been seeded in the Minds of British people by Vladimir Putin?”

“I’ll ask you again - What piece of Misinformation was seeded in the Minds of British people by Vladimir Putin?”

“I’ll ask you again - What piece of Misinformation was seeded in the Minds of British people by Vladimir Putin?”

MUST WATCH & SHARE

He can’t answer because the whole premise is just another LIE

But soon you won’t be able to read this - and you’re only source of information will be the BBC & CNN

[Toby Young @toadmeister]

You mean a 10th British counter disinformation unit is "long overdue" Emily -- there are already nine.

1.National Security Online Information Team
2.Government Communication Service
https://t.co/UnIOPbG4wx Monitoring Unit
4.Research, Information and Communications Unit
5.Defending Democracy Taskforce
6.Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit
7.FCDO Information Threats and Influence Directorate
8.NCSC and GCHQ (which investigate hostile cyber activity and information threats)
https://t.co/88uzbY0ogq Cohesion Taskforce

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

You're conflating separate issues.

1) businesses can only pay what they can afford to pay. Beyond that, they stop existing or the business owner effectively subsidises his workers by not taking a living wage himself until he gives up.

3) UC is not a subsidy on business. And I believe you know that. And you don't want to pay UC because you recognise that it impacts economic incentives.

Congratulations you've arrived at the conclusion all by yourself... Cut UC as YOU don't want to pay for it (I mean that is quite literally what you've said) AND drop minimum wages so that business are given breathing room, start to establish themselves and then have to compete for workers by paying better wages. If they pay low wages, they lose workers to other small businesses that pay better. The data that this works is 100% undeniable cast iron economic fact established over decades across the west and south east Asia in particular.

As an added bonus question since we're on the same page now...since the minimum wage is paid for low skilled jobs, and since low skilled imported labour allows business to NOT increase wages since they have a greater supply of potential low skilled labour available and since you don't want to pay UC to people that are working, should we allow a) more, b) less or C) the same, amount of LOW skilled migration into the country?

Answers on a postcard to 'Perhaps the government should just get out of the way, 10 downing street'

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

Mandating a living wage be paid will result in loss of jobs as many small businesses shut up shop rather than try to build and invest and train low skilled workers to a point they're actually worth the money.

Creating a strong business friendly environment and social conversation will result in more small businesses surviving competing for labour, which will drive up wages naturally.

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

@Paul1968T @GoodwinMJ How strange.

You can disagree vehemently with the man, but he is clearly not thick or a failure.

Sounds like projection.

[The Red House Podcast @_the_red_house]

I'm not sure the reason the government taxes marriage, wages and small business is because they judge that people want less of them.

I don't believe they tax alcohol and tobacco because they want less of them.

The government taxes them because they judge demand for them to be relatively inelastic, which means they can successfully raise taxes without a huge impact on demand to a certain point. I.e. they are easy ways to raise cash.

The government puts taxes on things to raise revenue. If they want less of something, they anti advertise or legislate generally.

They generally give money out because they want votes.

Tax = raise cash
Subsidise = buy votes

General rules of thumb of course.