UKC

This cafe I go into most mornings has a couple of newspapers, among them the Mail. I glance at it as I go by, and as you would expect every morning within living memory the front page has been devoted to a hateful rant about immigrants.

The other day I was startled to see that the main story was about the NHS treating old people badly. I thought the world had shifted on its axis.

So much so that I actually read the story. I'm relieved to report that the Hate's take on this issue is that it's all because the NHS has been forced to recruit nurses from places like the Phillipines and Nigeria, and of course they haven't been up to scratch.

So that's OK, then; everything is the fault of immigrants after all. The Hate hasn't lost its mind. Where would we be without it? (actually I shouldn't have said that, even in jest. Imagine, just for one moment, what a huge improvement to the world it would be if we really didn't have it. Suddenly I feel an entirely unnecessary sense of a lost Utopia.)

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It's a gift that keeps on giving... few things in life are more reliable than the Daily Hate.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Simon4 of this parish is fairly reliable, don't you find?

In reply to seankenny:

Postman Pat's pretty regular too!

In reply to Removed User:
PMP is the Torybot par excellence. Tho he's been quiet of late, perhaps the divisions in high command have left him unsure what to think.

Simon4 otoh has distinguished himself with some truly vile hate speech. I think he's closer to the Mail in style and ethos.

In reply to seankenny:

True - PMP is more tedious think-tank longtermer in style...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Yes, I completely agree its out outrageous everyone knows that foreign doctors are first class just ask Mr Gray who was wonderfully cared for by Dr Ubani.

Oh wait a minute Mr Gray is dead having been given 10 times the safe dose of diamorphine and Dr Ubani has a piss poor understanding of English so wouldn't understand you anyway.

Its also worth point out that 75% of Doctors who have been struck off the UK medical register were trained abroad.

In reply to Indy:

But why can't we get trained staff from the UK?

Why are we needing to recruit from overseas to meet the needs of the NHS?

That's not the fault of immigrants.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Rumpole...!

In reply to Removed User:


I find the prunes help with that.

Are you all enjoying you're little love in?

In reply to seankenny:

No, I've been in the great outdoors , but trying to get any introspective thought from the usual virtue signalling the "Speak my Grauniad" machines on does become a bit of an uphill struggle....

I'm disappointed that you think that questioning the groupthink makes one a "Torybot".

In reply to Removed User:

Kind of interesting that you regard long term think tanks as as tedious......

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't find a particular left wing group think here at all - after all Simon's recent paranoid xenophobic rant got a LOT of likes, but "I'm fighting the PC orthodoxy" is such a Tory trope that by indulging in it you've kind of proved my point.

Anyhow, better for you to be a Torybot than a Borytrot?

In reply to seankenny:


I think the centre of political gravity on UKC, at least as represented by posts, is well to the left of that in the nation as a whole (at least England and Wales). A bit like UKC, the PC left (for want of a better phrase) make much more noise and is more influential than maybe their numbers justify. And quite a lot of it (not yourself, or some others) is of a pretty mindless variety.
The fact that something becomes a trope may be because it is true, as the love in I interrupted reflects.


The funny thing is that some of my friends think I'm a bit of a leftie! Maybe I just like arguing

In reply to Postmanpat:


Oh, gosh, Nick, you do realise that April Fools are meant to end at mid-day?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


When you are that far into crazytown anyone appears a leftie. Its how to shift the overton window.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It's probably because when I'm with them I spend a lot of time criticising the Tories. On here there's enough knee jerk anti Toryism already.

It's actually kind of strange coming on here and finding that bog standard pro market economy views are considered extreme by so many.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think UKC is roughly in line with the educated electorate, somewhere between dead centre and very slightly left of centre. Of course, less well educated people tend to be right-wing and reactionary (which is just what Trump is playing on in America).

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

But that may just reflect you life and career in the media and arts. Sit in a private sector company all you life, usually full of well educated graduates and you would have got a very different view of what people think. And most people in the UK work in the private sector. It also, of course begs the key question of what is "dead centre".
The irony, of course, which is that because, as you say, the forces of social reaction are often amongst the less well educated so the Labour party, which is supposed to represent them, actually does the opposite.

There is a tendency for people of our generation to think in the political framework of our youth. In 1970 the economic overton window was way to the left of where it is now, but the "social" overton window was way to the right- so the goalposts have moved in opposite directions in the terminology of that period, so much so that my kids' generation wouldn't recognise the mental framework of politics that we grew up with.

In reply to Postmanpat:

We had real politics in those days, Nick ...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Well yes, but now we don't have any new ideas so we fight over the ashes of the old ones.
(well, we do have new ideas, but they are not coming from the world of politics)

The interesting thing about so called mavericks like Trump, Farage and Corbyn is that they are really just throwbacks, in the case of Trump and to an extent Farage, both socially and economically. In the case of Corbyn, economically.

In reply to seankenny:

The irony is overwhelming.

Amazing how ALL the hate posts in this thread are from people with left wing views, accusing others of being hate filled.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? "

In reply to Big Ger:



It's partly what I was referring to by "lack of introspective thought". I think cognitive dissonance is the appropriate term. Whatever happened to him ?!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


You may wish to Google the educational background of the Conservative MPs in the House of Commons to reassess the validity of that statement. Unless you were being ironic of course, rather than just talking out of your arse.

JW

In reply to John Ww, in reply to Gordon Stainforth



Gordon's comment was that less well educated people tend to be right wing. Your reply is to point out that some right wing people (Tory MPs) can be well educated. Both can be and probably are true. Neither of you, I suggest, is talking out of any orifice other than the one in your face.

It may well be true that well educated people with right of centre views tend to gravitate towards business whereas those with left of centre views tend to be in the professions, education or public service. Climbers are probably more frequently found in the latter categories hence a slightly left of centre bias on here. (By centre, I mean median in the population as a whole). I, for one, am entirely comfortable with that.

Martin

In reply to John Ww:

Right wing political views are statistically associated not only with lower average level of educational attainment, but also with lower overall intelligence, both in the US and Europe.

This does not mean that all Tories are stupid, but the point raised by GS is nevertheless correct.

See, e.g. Hodson G, Busseri MA. Psychol Sci. 2012 Feb;23(2):187-95 or any number of other peer reviewed (not that this means much, but it is unfortunately the best quality standard we have) publications.

CB

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Where then would you go to get your outrage and sense of moral superiority?

In reply to stroppygob:


Easy - simply read your posts on here.

In reply to Helen Bach:

It'll save you thinking I suppose.

In reply to cb294:


Have you read more detail on this? It's a feeble report based a false defintion of right wing".

In reply to Martin Hore:



Isn't it possibly a case of voting patterns reflecting the circumstances we find ourselves in, rather than political affiliations driving our career choices?

In reply to all:

No one should take themselves so seriously.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not that one in detail, but a few others which, unfortunately, I did not have time to look up again. Anyway, they were more pertinent to the US context (esp. re. fundamentalist religious belief).

CB

In reply to Helen Bach:


If I were you I wouldn't do that. It really isn't a good use of your time.

jcm

In reply to cb294:



The one I saw reported actually analysed the occurrence of "prejudice" which they seemed quite wrongly assume to assume is 1) A defining feature of the "right wing" and 2) exclusive to the "right wing".

One might want to question the researchers own prejudice and intelligence in making such assumptions, but I couldn't possibly comment....

In reply to BnB:


For those with strong political views, I think the most likely causal link is that both career choice and voting patterns reflect personality (two things that correlate are often driven by a third variable rather than one causing the other). Worth noting that many people don't have strong political views at all and these people can be swayed either by all kinds of things: simple self-interest, who they think their peers vote for, press support, leaders' media images, or perhaps an objective evaluation of impact of the policies on society (as if!).

In reply to BnB:


It'll be both - clearly circumstances can affect how people vote, and clearly political leanings affect the kind of career people go for. My guess is mostly the latter, though. I don't know many people that have a career that 'contrasts' with their political leanings from uni. The ones I do know, have maybe altered their views a bit but not enough to alter their vote, at least significantly. ie no ones gone Tory.

In reply to Postmanpat:


"Questioning the groupthink"? Sounds like you're putting yourself up on a bit of a pedestal there...

In reply to Postmanpat:


Says the man who never fails to trot out the standard telegraph line. There's groupthink on the left, which you moan about, and there's group think on the right, which you do. Being able to search the internet for stuff that supports the position doesn't change that.

You should change your username to "The Right Hand of Mr Groupy McGroupthink".

In reply to Donald82:

Personally, I think the term 'groupthink' in this context is bollocks. Groupthink is when people come to the wrong conclusion because they're trying to minimise conflict e.g. in a meeting or some kind of association where there's a fear of being ostracised. On an internet forum where people don't generally even know each other socially, there is no such phenomenon. The idea that broad political leanings are a product of groupthink is just wrong. Influenced by the media and the whole complex world of social interactions, yes, but 'groupthink'? No.

I appreciate that your reply to PMP wasn't intended to be taken too seriously, but the whole accusation of 'groupthink' needs to be dismissed as a total load of crap.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

No, just in a minority on UKC

Nor do i sit around like a group of fishwives gossiping about the neighbours like the groupthinkers I so rudely interrupted

In reply to Donald82:

Says the man who trots out a few neo-Keynesian economic orthodoxies from his favourite blog and accuses everybody else of being too foolish to understand them!

I think you'll find the Telegraph doesn't really have a "standard line" except that it is generally critical of the left. You obviously have an highly exaggerated image of the information and argument available in the Telegraph.It certainly doesn't have a "tedious long term thinktanky" line which was how I was described above.

If being consistently critical of kneejerk and often ill thought out anti-Toryism, Statism and the misplaced moral self righteousness of the left is what I'm accused of, I'm happy to plead guilty.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think UKC is quite diverse. As others have said, there's more left-leaners because it's a climbing forum, and people that fall into the Venn diagram bit 'climber' + 'political forum poster' are more likely to be teachers, academics and other public sector workers (so, probably lefties) rather than business people, finance types etc. But, what makes UKC great is that we have got a decent handful of Tories (perhaps you're even a handful of decent Tories?) who put forward rational right-wing arguments based on stuff that's actually true, to one degree or another. Of course, I'm never going to be convinced when the underlying philosophy is one based on self-serving fallacies about meritocracy and freedom, but all the same, it's fun and stimulating.

The thickie right and ranty left are also well-represented. A great mix, I think, providing opportunities for a venting a bit when someone posts something outrageously idiotic, or engaging in a good discussion with someone you disagree with but is reasonable.

In reply to Postmanpat:




Hmmm let's think this through a minute. Simon3.9 posts a nasty diatribe full of paranoid hate speech. If you don't believe that calling millions of harmless British citizens an "aggressive fifth column, ready to betray or attack... at any suitable opportunity" isn't hate speech, well try replacing Muslims - outsider hate figures de jour - with say, Jews, the outsider hate figures of an early generation.

It garners 43 likes vs 24 dislikes. As a measure that might be flawed, but it's the only one we've got. So to me that looks like an orthodoxy that's approving of a very nasty, intolerant position (not to mention one that's factually wrong). Generally, on threads like this, if you post some tedious Tory tripe you'll get a lot more likes than rationally trying to defend a more liberal/left position. Of course there are some vocal replies, but surely a man as intelligent as yourself - no mere bot here - can see the difference between an opinion being loudly espoused and one being solidly supported...

I can only conclude that your analysis - PMP outnumbered by a PC orthodoxy - is whack.



You shouldn't hang out with the pink shirt and brogues set quite so much my friend.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




What is wrong with the ranty right and the thickie left? Why not the thickie left or right?

In reply to L'Eeyore:


As opposed to ranting, the thickie right are more prone to posting outrageously stupid rubbish which is demonstrably, factually false (Simon4 has refined the art of combing the two); whereas the ranty left tend not to go some much for stuff that isn't true, more for stuff that is silly and unrealistic, pointlessly railing against the reality of planet earth.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yeah, you're right! I was just using it the way PMP was using it. I now rechristen him Botty McTorybot

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Oh come on Jon, you probably just skate over the leftie thickies because you know their, but they're on "your side".
"IDS is a nazi" for example:
ids may be a bit thick, quite incompetent, misguided,many other things,but really, you know as well as I do that he's not a nazi and that only a (leftie) dipstick could say let alone believe it.
(Cue another thicko to "quip" ," thats unfair on nazis")

In reply to Postmanpat:

'ids may be a bit thick, quite incompetent, misguided,many other things,but really'

Angst ridden, confused, baffled ... much like Prince Charles. Which is all fine, except it hasn't stopped him taking the initiative to implement huge changes to a system whose beneficiaries - whether deserving or not - he has absolutely no idea about.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Okay Botty, glad you're happy!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Who is simon4 btw? Never seen him, has got a new name?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I might be missing something because I haven't read the majority of the thread, but I doubt it.

IDS resigned because Osborne wanted to remove a subsidy for the disabled which he (IDS) had promoted throughout his entire career, based on sympathy for the most unfortunate in society.

In reply to John2:


I think "oceanic compassion" is the phrase you're looking for here.

In reply to seankenny:

I don't think you are displaying much awareness of what IDS attempted to achieve in the course of his career.

Am I to take it that you think Osborne was right to attempt to take benefits away from the disabled?

In reply to John2:

Could I suggest developing some awareness of sarcasm...?

In reply to Postmanpat:



It's probably been mentioned before but the underlying problem here is the inconsistency in the way the terms "left" and "right" are conventionally applied to politics.

Simplistically, to be economically "left wing" is to be in favour of state imposed regulation and the re-distribution of wealth. To be socially "left wing" is to be in favour of personal freedoms such as gay marriage and abortion, and even the freedom to live in a country of your choice. You won't I suggest find many prejudiced views amongst those who consider themselves social left wingers, but the same doesn't necessarily apply when you consider the economic dimension.

Martin

In reply to Donald82:


I was using it simply to describe a group of people who think much the same way.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yup Botty, I got that.

In reply to seankenny:


Firstly, since I wasn't one of those who "liked" Simon4's post, what makes you think I agree with those who do? I can only assume that you are unable to distinguish between"racists" and those who believe,like myself, that rapid and improperly monitored and controlled immigration has social and economic consequences that need to be understood, discussed and limited, and that multiculturalism in the sense it has been used, is not n unadulterated good.
Do you not understand that it is the enthusiasm to conflate two different positions or to empathise with those suffering the negative consequences of large scale immigration, that leads people to hold or sympathise with Simon4's similarly unsubtle and unempathetic view.


Lol

In reply to Donald82:


Well done, son.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I see that as more 'ranty' than 'thickie'. Obviously it's not factually correct, but it's just using ranty language to make a fair point: that IDS is a nasty piece of work who's introduced a whole load of policies that seriously shit on the most vulnerable in society and then all of a sudden cried crocodile tears about the plight of the disabled when in fact all he wants to do is piss all over George Osborne's chips. The 'thickie' stuff I'm on about is generalisations with no factual or statistical basis about people who claim benefits, muslims, immigrants, etc, which we get a constant stream of from certain posters who don't have a f*cking clue what is actually going on in the world (or to be slightly more fair, no understanding of the difference between an individual case or small number of cases, and the general reality that exists).

In reply to Martin Hore:


Really? Have the left's little antisemitism problem and "cultural appropriation" meme passed you by?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


The point is about as fair as Simon4's point. In the case of the pathetic "nazi" quip and your justification of the use of the language it simply reflects an anger about the perceived consequences but is actually at odds with any objective analysis of is motives , although obviously it's likely that he was more than happy to bring down Osborne with him.

Just starting from the premise that "these people are bad" and therefore whatever they do must because they are bad, is not likely to produce a "factually correct" understanding.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Well you must remember the argument we are having. You claim there is a "PC orthodoxy" on UKC which you are a beleagured fighter against. I claim there is no such thing as a PC orthodoxy on here and the figures I quoted support that, being as to me loving hate speech looks like a fairly good proxy measure of "I am against all things politically correct".

And why do I say this? Merely to argue that you are an unimaginative Conservative. Now you may not believe this, but I don't have a problem with that: I actually enjoy reading original or interesting Conservative thinkers (Parris or Finkelstein, for example, even when I disagree with them), and if you are unoriginal or unimaginative, well that's just fine too. We can't all be creative bright sparks and I'm not for a minute claiming to be one myself.

So go on: embrace your Torybot-ness! Your two paragraphs up above are classics of the "I've read the Spectator and can repeat it in my own words" genre. Once again proving my point. Black is white, white is black, better be careful crossing the road tomorrow.

In reply to Martin Hore:


Although the left wing do tend to be more big state, being left wing economically's about worrying about economic inequality. You can have left wing small statism.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Simon4 has a point?


I'm not justifying the use of the language, I think it was a stupid - and ranty - thing to say. I'd quite happily call IDS a 'wanker' etc, but I wouldn't call him a 'nazi' because it's silly and over-the-top.

>it simply reflects an anger about the perceived consequences but is actually at odds with any objective analysis of is motives , although obviously it's likely that he was more than happy to bring down Osborne with him.

I think looking at the evidence relating to the reforms to disability benefits under IDS, one can quite fairly and firmly assert that the guy is a liar and doesn't consider quality of life for disabled people to be of any importance. I don't need to start with an assumption that he is a bad man, I just need to see the effects of his policies on people's lives.

Is UKC becoming the most politically correct forum on the interweb?

What I object to is not the actual politics (much of which I agree with) but the assumption that any other view is somehow inhumane. Shout them down if they object !

In reply to Skyfall:

>Shout them down if they object !

But no one is shouting anyone down (well perhaps Simon18 is trying). Surely you're mistaking discussion for an attempt to stiffle debate?

In reply to seankenny:

Are you seriously basing your argument on the likes and dislikes for one post?


Can't disagree there , but most of your cronies on here show no sign of actually having read the above or any others so no harm in helping them out. To complicate matters further might confuse the poor sausages. Surprising though it may seem, I have no problem in arguing with a leftie who can articulate an informed position but they are in a minority compared to the "IDS is a nazi" crowd.


Ah, so you re confusing "being a Torybot" with agreeing with the some of the views reflected in market oriented non leftie media. I don't think you're actually silly enough to think that all those journals toe the party line, although no doubt some of your peers can't tell the difference.

I don't much like the Tories, but I think their positions deserve a better hearing than the lazy smearing typical of UKC. ! I don't like the main political parties and I don't like the political or the financial or economic system in general, as Ive said many times, but there isn't much debate about that except from simple lefties with simple leftie solutions.

I seriously wonder why apparently educated and not moronic people seemingly cannot distinguish between the differing positions I outlined above. Sure, when I read an article in the media that shares my wonderment and my explanations I'm attracted to it. That maybe because the conclusions are the reasonable ones of any sensible person.
But if you got others, I'm all ears.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Which is about as sensible as saying that the Aston Villa manager doesn't care about their results because the results are crap. It simply doesn't follow.

In reply to seankenny:

There is a general assumption that the left leaning view is acceptable and that anything materially to the right of that is not. I was rather taken aback by both JCM's recent posts and resultant threads. It has come across as almost a forum view (certain posters suggest climbers are inherently left leaning so this is fine). I'm not sure if that's because the forum is in fact so biased or due to some other dynamic. The likes/dislikes don't seem to be entirely reflected in the posts themselves.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You'll have to enlighten me as to what "cultural appropriation" is.

On your other point are you confusing criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism? A common fallacy. I'm not aware of any social left-wingers who express prejudiced views against Jews per se. I stand to be corrected of course, but you'll need to give examples.

Martin

In reply to Postmanpat:


Synec-f*cking-doche my friend. But seriously, post any old xenophobic blather on here and you'll get a bunch of likes. As I said, a poor measure but it's the only one we've got. How else can the silent majority speak?


I'm my own man, no cronies. Can't say I've seen much comparison of the IBS to the Nazis but Jon's take above seems fine to me, by his works blah blah blah.


You're just too good for this place. Anyhow, you may not like the Tories, but you do a very good job of coming out with all the standard arguments for a right-wing, conservative with any size of c you like 50+ male that one could read in the Sunday Times or Speccie. Time to funk it up a bit.


You really don't know why? It's because a lot (certainly not all) right wingers in this country have *form*. I'd actually say that this doesn't apply to Cameron and co, but then they're hated by a lot of Conservatives aren't they... Anyhow, it looks like a neat little elision, a little untrustworthy. You can't bring yourself to look at a Simon0.4 style rant and say it's disgusting and untruthful, so you end up looking... slippery.

Anyhow, this: "the conclusions are the reasonable ones of any sensible person" is a giveaway that you're either an unthinking ideologue or 15. There is no subject on earth on which sensible reasonable people can't come to wildly differing conclusions.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Interested to know what you think a "correct" definition of "right wing" is.

Martin

In reply to Skyfall:


John's point was that left or right, some kinds of views are horrible. You know, that demonising whole groups of people based on their religion, country of origin, etc. One can be right wing (bring me a free market and a yacht please Jeeves, but go easy on the red tape) which still feeling that certain things are not really within the norms of civilised debate.

Like him, I've been more shocked by the fairly sudden acceptance or indeed enthusiasm amongst swathes of the public for all sorts of vile speech. But then we both live in London, which is generally more liberal than the rest of the country.

In reply to BnB:


A bit of both I suspect. Certainly I had left of centre views before I decided to opt for public service (teaching). Difficult not to have left of centre views of course as a teenager in the 60's.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:


Cultural appropriation is the assumption of habits of activities of one culture or race by those of another culture or race. Objecting, for example, to white people wearing dreadlocks, on the (mistaken) grounds that dreadlocks are "black", or in a similar vein, that mixed race actors should not be allowed to play "black" parts, are all the rage recently, especially in the US. It[s simple racism really. No platforming people with whom one disagrees is another symptom of the problem.


No, read the news, there is a whole series of cases of left wingers, some of whom have now rejoined the Labour party, making abusive comments about Jews. The below is a taste of the issue.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/03/john-mcdonnell-labour-liste...

In reply to Martin Hore:


I think it's a pretty useless term nowadays.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Nice analogy, but it doesn't hold. Villa's results - or lack of them - are much down to luck. And of course the skills of the other teams. Whereas IDS is setting up the rules for a bureaucracy which essentially is then doing roughly what he wanted. And if DWP were doing something he was appalled by, then in six years he might have been able to change direction.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Who is this simon4?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not sure that 'your education system only tells you about Anne Frank and the six million Zionists that were killed by Hitler' is the most anti-semitic thing I've ever heard. In fact bar the use of the word 'Zionist', which I don't really understand, it seems like a perfectly fair observation to me. I'd imagine you could hear a lot worse in the Monday Club were any Jew unwise enough to apply for membership. You're going to have to do better than that.

jcm

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yet "leftie" isnt?

In reply to seankenny:


So your managers have no influence over their teams performance? Maybe.

But presumably everytime Wayne Rooney misses the goal it's because he doesn't give a shit?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Unlike 'left wing', presumably, which you seem to find fairly handy.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Yes unlike left wing, but I'm happy to agree that "left wing" can have different meanings, so is not always helpful.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I'm inclined to think that IDS has genuinely tried to give some serious consideration to a significant issue - how do we support those in genuine need without encouraging a dependency culture. Frank Field tried the same. I'm not sure I agree with IDS's conclusions, but I wouldn't criticise him for trying. The problem selling solutions to this issue politically is that there aren't many votes in it, because the people concerned largely don't vote.

I am inclined to believe that IDS's resignation has more to do with Europe than with welfare reform though.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:


I'm sure he does want to spend more time swivelling his eyes, but I reckon the main factor is simple dislike of Osborne.

jcm

In reply to seankenny:

It can work both ways.



Does that make Jon and you "slippery" on the same basis, that you ignore nasty leftie rants? Should we assume that Liz Kendall is a closet Trot on the same basis.
You really do yourself no favours by this knee jerk accusation a "racism". It just looks like wilful head burying or simple prejudice. It's certainly a very convenient way of avoiding the issues at stake and assuming the moral high ground.


You missed the "maybe". I await yours, and casual smearing doesn't count.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


The disaster that is Universal Credit cannot be discounted. Whilst it has been successfully booted into the long grass a few times it looks like the field is running out and instead of a hedge there is a trampoline.

I would go for a combination of factors. Dislike of Osborne and co, Europe and then UC.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Now I really don't get it!

Surely whatever you say about "right wing" applies equally to "left wing". I don't think you can be happy to use one and not happy to use the other. If you take any issue of contention, once you've labelled one end of the spectrum of views "left wing", the other is by definition "right wing". The question is whether either term is valid when applied to a person, as opposed to a spectrum of views on a single issue.

Martin

In reply to seankenny:

Some sage advice for you Sean, seeing as you have posted more "hate" and nastiness in this thread* than anyone else,


Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche




*mostly aimed, somewhat obsessively, against someone who is yet to post in this thread, which confirms the lack of necessity of your vitriol.

In reply to Postmanpat:





Thank you for your definition of cultural appropriation. I'm not sure how it's relevant to the debate as to whether people with left wing views are prejudiced, but I do now understand what it means.

As to the Guardian article on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, does this demonstrate that people with some left wing views can be racist or that people with some right wing views can be members of the Labour Party? The number of votes Labour lost to UKIP recently would suggest the latter.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:



I don't think there is a simple spectrum. UKIP can hold quite statist economic views. The Tories can promote gay marriage. "Lefties" can be racist.

The "left" self descibes itself as a "tribe", so I use the term, but it can include a variety of views which "the left" itself often fails to recognise are contradictory.

In reply to Martin Hore:


You don't think that trying to diallow cetain modes of dress or appearance solely on the bais of skin colour is somewhat prejudiced?


Well since it seems to be particularly prevalent amongst Momentum and left wing of the labour party, probably the former.
The later is also true, but it is not the element being referred to in the article. Of course you are once again simply conflating "racist" with right wing. If UKIP is quite statist economically is it left or right wing?

In reply to Postmanpat:



The issue at stake for me is a simple one: is PMP a Torybot? I've yet to see any suggestion that that isn't the case, merely saying "I'm not" isn't exactly proof, and you know it. Tell us where you depart from the Tory orthodoxy and I'm all ears.

As for the whole racism issue: I'm not accusing you of that, but remember you don't simply ignore Simon's posts, you follow up on them and describe his hate speech as "unsubtle and unsympathetic". That's a bit... gentle.

In reply to seankenny:


I'd completely agree if that were in fact JCM's point. However, it wasn't really. It was demonising those who think the country are worse off for having a largely immigrant NHS/care work force providing nursing care for the elderly. With recent experience of this with aged close relatives dealt with by the NHS (75% of care being provided by immigrant contractors) I'm sure there is some truth in this. I don't blame the people coming to the UK to do this work. By and large they actually seemed more engaged in the work than the local NHS staff (worrying in its own right) but their lack of communications skills alone meant it was impossible for them to properly care for the aged let along those with other issues. This seems to get lost in the whole political correctness thing. As I say, i found many of these carers kind and admirable people but did it work in that environment - not really.

In reply to seankenny:

Too childish to give any credence too. A "torybot", honestly.

Does your gang have a corner of the playground where you go to hide from "torybots" and girls?


It seems you have Donald82 in your gang.

In reply to Big Ger:

You're a bit botty too Big G. Just saying.

In reply to Donald82:

Thanks for the confirmation.

In reply to Skyfall:

I may have got confused between threads! Thanks for the reminder.

I guess the problem with this is that we don't know what the alternatives are. We live at a time when there are a lot of jobs in the UK. It may be that the other option - employing native British people to do the work - is worse because the only people available and willing to do the tasks lack other basic, vital skills. Someone who turns up on time regularly with basic English can give better care than someone who doesn't turn up for their shift on time.

In reply to Indy:


Somewhat off topic given that jcm's post was about the Daily Mail principally, and nurses secondarily. Still, one example of a (demonstrably very poor and unsafe) doctor is enough to confirm your concerns. As opposed to, say, my wife - another overseas trained doctor in the UK who gave her all to the NHS for a decade. Thanks goodness for all those British doctors who are all so good. None of them have ever given patients too many opiates. And indeed as you mention only 1 in 4 of those struck off the medical register trained in the UK.

The 'flying in' of locum staff (who can be of variable quality - some are outstanding, some appalling) is an issue for many complex reasons but immigration is absolutely not one of them.

Meanwhile, the OP was pointing out the malignant nature of the Mail - something I'm entirely in agreement with.

b

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Aah the daily mail. That fine paper that actually supported the German Nazi party before the second world war. No change there then.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I think we've got a bit hung up on the definitions of "right" and "left" here. Let me suggest the following.

In answer to questions that attempt to elicit a person's propensity to racism or prejudice (a good example would be "how comfortable would you be if your (white British) daughter were to marry a Jew/Afro-Caribbean/Pakistani etc") there is a spectrum of possible answers one end of which most people would label "right wing" and the other end of which most people would label "left wing".

The same applies to questions like "to what extent should better off people pay higher rates of tax to support/subsidise the less well off", "to what extent should governments regulate the market" and "which drugs - from a list including alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, heroin etc - should it be legal to consume".

Clearly not everyone who finds themselves on the "right" (of the median viewpoint) in relation to one of these questions will find themselves on the "right" in relation to all of them.

The interesting debate is whether and to what extent there are positive correlations between being "right wing" or "left wing" on these various questions. Also to what extent there is a positive correlation between views on these questions and membership of political parties, or readership of different newspapers. More controversially, as per earlier up this thread, whether there are positive correlations between holding "left wing" views on these various questions and a person's level of educational attainment.

I'm sure the research will have been done; I'm not aware of the findings. (Though there are those on this forum who will be, I expect). Intuitively (admittedly from a broadly "left of centre" perspective") I would expect "right wing" on questions relating to race and prejudice to correlate positively with lower levels of educational attainment and membership of UKIP and/or readership of the Mail, Express or Sun. I would expect "right wing" on issues of free market and state regulation to correlate positively with membership of the Conservatives and readership of the Telegraph, but not to correlate significantly, either negatively or positively, with levels of educational attainment.

So, in conclusion, I do think that "right wing" and "left wing" are quite valuable as descriptors of views, but much less valuable as descriptors of people.

Perhaps it's a little like "VS" being valuable as a descriptor of a climb, but less valuable as a descriptor of a climber?

Martin

In reply to Root1:


A bit like the Guardian supported eugenics then.....

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yep, similar although the Mail AFAIK doesn't tend to talk about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-ratt...

b

In reply to ben b:


Good on her.

Mick

In reply to Postmanpat:


What a useless analogy. I don't know a lot about football, but I assume that the manager's job is deliver good results, and is what they are measured by. A Tory Work and Pensions Secretary's job, on the other hand, is to get the welfare bill down (without touching pensions, of course). Giving a shit about the lives of the disabled is not what you're measured on - quite the opposite, it's a hindrance to success in the job.

I'm rather amused that you think it's unfair of me to judge a minister by the policies that they've spent 6 years pushing through!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>
Bollocks. I think you are capable of rising above the "Tory scum nazi bastard blah blah" nonsense.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You're going to have to help. I just can't reconcile all of this

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/centres/chrp/projects/spendi...

with giving shit about disabled people. Perhaps you should write to the authors of those reports and tell them to rise above the "Tory scum nazi bastard blah blah" nonsense?

In reply to Jon Stewart:



of those reports and tell them to rise above the "Tory scum nazi bastard blah blah" nonsense?

But they havent said that. They produced some facts to show the amount f spending. A bit like monitoring the dpending or success of a football team, which doesn't show that the manager wants to lose.
But if wont accept that, lets drop it. There's nothing to discuss

Ps. Their disability policy is actually one of my biggest criticisms of this government.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Disabled people have been chosen, quite cynically, to be on the receiving end of welfare cuts because not many of us know one and they're kind of an easy target. To me it seems that PMP, like many Tories, is struggling to deal with this brutality and would rather complain that you're being low and base than deal with this massive dissonance. In short, don't bother trying to persaude him, there's too much at stake for him.

In reply to Postmanpat:


So what does the government want to do? Is this just some kind of unforseen accident?

In reply to seankenny:


Im out tonight. My basic position is that if those reductions that represent a cut in spending on those who dont really need it are justified. The failure to use those savings or other funds to protect the genuinely disabled is not only disgraceful and a rejection of one nation Conservatism, but politically inept. Most people know someone who relies on disabilty payment.

In reply to Root1:

I think the DM's support of Nazis in the 30s - before they really got into the swing of things - could *almost* be tolerated - lots of people fell for the 'need for strong government - national morale - damned foreigners - immigrants - dodgy bankers etc etc etc ' - type arguments, then as now.

The defining issue for me is the Zinoviev letter - a blatant forgery, a lie, which the Mail published and bigged up all the while knowing it was an obvious forgery, but published anyway, simply to influence an election.

Do not be surprised if the day before the next election the DM publishes a story, 'Jeremy Corbyn sh*gged my 14 year old daughter' ... and then says 'whoops sorry, our mistake, different Jeremy' the day after.

Truly they are scum, and their behaviour is of a sort that would in fact make social life impossible if it was routinely copied by other institutions.

In reply to Skyfall:
My point wasn't at all to demonise people who think that foreign nurses with inadequate language skills put patients at risk. If that had been the Hate's point, expressed in a respectful way, that would have been fine (albeit astonishing). Their line was more that here were these people who'd fought for British freedom and in their declining years we were letting them be treated by dirty funny-coloured foreigners (not a phrase they used, but very much the tone of the thing).

I can't for the life of me understand how we can have one and a half million people unemployed and not be able to train enough nurses of our own, though I would venture to suggest that the crap wages we pay them and the lack of respect they've been shown by governments in general and the Tories in particular might have something to do with it. I was also rather surprised by the experience of an American friend of a friend who wanted to come here and nurse for a year while sampling UK climbing, and abandoned the idea when she learned that the government was going to charge her a couple of grand to do so. That didn't make much sense to me, but perhaps it's the internal market at work, or something.

The Hate has really been varying its game this week; today it was 'Education system letting down white children'. Apparently there are eleven ethnic groups in our schools doing better than "our" native white children, obviously because the education system must be letting down the latter. It's true that a casual glance showed that the report they were hanging their story on had failed to identify any way in which the system was letting them down and concluded that minority/immigrant children simply worked harder and were pushed more by their parents to do so, but that naturally doesn't trouble the headline writers of the Hate.

As far as I can tell they haven't yet mentioned the steel industry this week, but I imagine tomorrow they'll be covering Boris' lies (bare-faced even by his standards, but no doubt we'd all better get used to that) about how it's all because we're in the EU that we can't protect our steel industry.

jcm

In reply to Postmanpat:

>politically inept.

If only. Disability cuts are very popular in the polls, I believe.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I had the misfortune of being handed a complimentary Daily Mail (now there's an oxymoron) on a BA flight somewhere.

I have never had much time for it but by god there was not one ounce of joy or warmth in it, just endless stirring and goading about feckless scroungers, illegal immigrants, grasping doctors and how easy schoolchildren have it in their exams (apart from the ones who are selling drugs or being stabbed at school, presumably - both were also in the same edition).

I got off the plane with despair in my heart - and a desire never to endure it again. It was like a Dementor, sucking out any last vestige of humanity. It sucked me in with prose that wouldn't challenge a 7 year old in technicality, and an unfolding surely-this-can't-get-any-worse journey into a world where I am looking at my companions to see which one is carrying a bomb, or MRSA (the two being roughly equivalent).

I guess the sport was OK (but I couldn't give a damn about football and it did't have much else I would want to read) and I was at a loss to know anything about the showbiz stories so no great disappointment there.

I am however old enough to remember The Independent being of journalistic value and readable, and The Guardian moving to colour when it still wrote challenging pieces, rather than the current output of extended self-parody. With which I sound more like I should be reading the Mail, as it was all much better when those other people hadn't got their hands on it.

b

In reply to ben b:




Hmm... today's front (online) page would seem to contradict that Ben











Maybe you only saw what you wanted to see?

In reply to Big Ger: Hi stroppygob,

Maybe that's true.

I read the whole dismal thing that day (Barcelona to Heathrow after dark, so no chance of admiring the Pyrenees out of the window)... It was relentlessly depressing. Maybe I just struck unlucky, and normally it's all about Mrs Tiggywinkle and Tunnock's tea cakes, and balanced reporting of how tough life is as an Eritrean wanting to fly on EasyJet.

To be fair, I'm not sure that selection of headlines would make me want to buy the paper either but at least they aren't miserable in the same way.

In your honour I have now looked at the Mail online which leads with Rita Ora (who she?) without a bra (the shameless hussy!) and the Duchess of Cambridge (not showing her legs, the old frump). Number 3 is surely a Daily Mail parody inserted by a hacker collective: Could a cancer drug CURE paedophilia?

I note also on the same page:




Oddly, the only article there that I would wish to read is by Piers Morgan (and this is a pretty rare event for me).

I'm delighted to hear Jade Lynch is safe and well, although I doubt that calling her "extremely vulnerable" in a national newspaper will improve her self esteem greatly. It is a very long article that says everyone was terribly upset and then terribly relieved, but with lots of photos of people crying (the same person crying from different angles) and a photo of Manchester City Centre (where she wasn't found). In reality, the headline conveys all the known facts.

Confirmation bias is a very human trait...

b

In reply to ben b:



Very true.