- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 45,237
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
OK, so what happened here? Why are you getting all this flak over the '10000 lorries' comment?
You wanted to make a point (presumably) that because of Thatcher's actions we now import to much. Fair enough.
Now the way to do this, is by firstly deciding how you measure 'import too much'. One way would be to look at the trade balance figures for the trade we do with Continental Europe since the War, the show how the trade deficit developed during and after Thatcher's reign - suggesting that from a nation of net exporters we have become net importers, and that the time-line can be linked to Thatcher's actions.
That would not have 'proved' your point a such, but it would have constituted a well-connected argument.
It would also have been a good basis for discussion - for example other members could dispute the trade figures, or suggest an alternative explanation as to whey they are what they are, or suggest that a trade deficit is actually good for the economy, etc etc.
But you didn't do any of that. Instead, you ran a quick Google search, saw the number '10,000' next to 'lorries' and 'Dover Port', then posted that because of Thatcher we now have '10,000 lorries come through Dover a day'.
Firstly, this figure is wrong - it's 10,000 both ways, hence about 5,000 incoming.
And it's not daily - only on peak days. In this sense, the figure above actually relates simply to the workload distribution across the year at Dover Port, and possibly also to the Port's max capacity - but it tells us nothing of how many 'truckloads' we import as nation every year.
But, even if you quoted the actual figure - which is around 1m lorries incoming per year - it still has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you tried to put forward. This is because we don't know if the incoming lorries are empty or full, if they are brining goods in or returning from an export trip, or if they are coming-in empty to collect goods in the UK, etc etc.
So apart from being factually wrong, the '10,000 lorries' comment does not support or add to your argument in any shape or from. It only 'sounds' plausible, but in reality, it's nothing of the sort.
So why use it then? Here's the formula - find a large number that you can 'prove' on Google - mention it in relation to your argument - make an emotional impact - connect the large figure and the emotion with your argument - and you have 'created' a fact out of thin air, that people will repeat.
Why am I writing this? Because this mirror's Corbyn's political argumentation. This is exactly how he and his shadow cabinet work.
Take some facts and figures, bundle them to together with a totally unrelated argument, and make the whole thing look and sound like it's a sound political policy.
Then make a few more of these, bundle them together, and call it a manifesto. Remember, whenever mentioning the manifesto, to call it 'the fully-funded manifesto' - this expression will stick in people's mind and make them believe that it's a 'fact'.
And this is exactly the issue I have with your '10000 lorries' statement - that it is a mirror-image of how Corbyn's brewed his 'fully-funded manifesto'.
You wanted to make a point (presumably) that because of Thatcher's actions we now import to much. Fair enough.
Now the way to do this, is by firstly deciding how you measure 'import too much'. One way would be to look at the trade balance figures for the trade we do with Continental Europe since the War, the show how the trade deficit developed during and after Thatcher's reign - suggesting that from a nation of net exporters we have become net importers, and that the time-line can be linked to Thatcher's actions.
That would not have 'proved' your point a such, but it would have constituted a well-connected argument.
It would also have been a good basis for discussion - for example other members could dispute the trade figures, or suggest an alternative explanation as to whey they are what they are, or suggest that a trade deficit is actually good for the economy, etc etc.
But you didn't do any of that. Instead, you ran a quick Google search, saw the number '10,000' next to 'lorries' and 'Dover Port', then posted that because of Thatcher we now have '10,000 lorries come through Dover a day'.
Firstly, this figure is wrong - it's 10,000 both ways, hence about 5,000 incoming.
And it's not daily - only on peak days. In this sense, the figure above actually relates simply to the workload distribution across the year at Dover Port, and possibly also to the Port's max capacity - but it tells us nothing of how many 'truckloads' we import as nation every year.
But, even if you quoted the actual figure - which is around 1m lorries incoming per year - it still has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you tried to put forward. This is because we don't know if the incoming lorries are empty or full, if they are brining goods in or returning from an export trip, or if they are coming-in empty to collect goods in the UK, etc etc.
So apart from being factually wrong, the '10,000 lorries' comment does not support or add to your argument in any shape or from. It only 'sounds' plausible, but in reality, it's nothing of the sort.
So why use it then? Here's the formula - find a large number that you can 'prove' on Google - mention it in relation to your argument - make an emotional impact - connect the large figure and the emotion with your argument - and you have 'created' a fact out of thin air, that people will repeat.
Why am I writing this? Because this mirror's Corbyn's political argumentation. This is exactly how he and his shadow cabinet work.
Take some facts and figures, bundle them to together with a totally unrelated argument, and make the whole thing look and sound like it's a sound political policy.
Then make a few more of these, bundle them together, and call it a manifesto. Remember, whenever mentioning the manifesto, to call it 'the fully-funded manifesto' - this expression will stick in people's mind and make them believe that it's a 'fact'.
And this is exactly the issue I have with your '10000 lorries' statement - that it is a mirror-image of how Corbyn's brewed his 'fully-funded manifesto'.